Maryland Robo Signer Jones V HSBC

Case 8:09-cv-02904-RWT Document 38-2 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DITRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICY OF MARYLAND
(Greenbelt Division)
REGINALD JONES, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. * Civil No. 09-2904 RWT
*
*
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al *
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT TO

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Reginald Jones (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through
his attorneys Jon D. Pels, Esq., Lawrence J. Anderson, Esq., Justin M. Reiner, Esq. and
Jennifer Schiffer, Esq., and Pels Anderson, LLC, and all others similarly situated, and
makes the following Complaint against Defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee,
(hereinafter “HSBC”), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter “WELLS FARGO”) and
Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C. (hereinafter “BH&L”) 1 and for his Complaint states
as set forth below.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff and each putative member of the class herein had their due
process violated by the submission of fraudulent Affidavits related to foreclosure
proceedings which do not comport with Maryland procedural rules or fundamental
fairness. These Affidavits were and are materially false and at best create a significant
cloud on title and, more than likely, render the transactions legally defective.
1
Plaintiff is thus dismissing without prejudice all other Defendants previously identified by prior counsel,
1
2. Defendants, its agents and attorneys submitted numerous affidavits in
support of the right to foreclose pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code, Real Property
Article, § 7-105.1, et seq. Under Maryland Rules an “Affidavit” means a written
statement the contents of which are affirmed under the penalties of perjury are true.
Maryland Rule 1-201(b). Defendants submitted Affidavits Pursuant to Maryland
Annotated Code, Real Property Article Section 7-105.1(D)(1)(II) Concerning Default and
Notice of Intent to Foreclose executed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA
as Vice President of Loan Documentation. 2 Xee Moua has admitted in deposition when
questioned about the specific factual allegations in her affidavits, she unequivocally and
repeatedly admits that she did not have any knowledge of the facts contained in her
affidavit because all she did was look at her name and title. (“Q.: So asking you here
today, that would not be your testimony, because you’re not aware if that’s accurate,
correct? A.: Yes, that’s correct.”)
3. Specific to the lead Plaintiff Reginald Jones, Xee Moua without any
knowledge executed documents under oath and the penalty of perjury that she knew the
Wells Fargo or its agents had performed certain statutorily required acts in order to
foreclose:
(1) That Wells Fargo was the holder or owner of the debt instrument; and
(2) That there was a default under the note and the nature of the default;
and
(3) That a notice of intent to foreclose had been mailed to the homeowner.
2
Perhaps ironically, Defendants this day filed a Motion to Dismiss relying on an “Exhibit F – Deed of
Substitute Trustee” signed by “Xee Moua” at the very time Counsel for Plaintiff was preparing this
Amended Complaint citing to Xee Moua’s admitted misrepresentations.
2
Ms. Moua has admitted that she was executing 300 – 500 similar documents a day
during the July 2009 time period, and all she was doing to certify the truth of these
affidavits was to check her name and her title.
4. In addition to the Xee Moua’s “Affidavit” in his case, Ms. Linda Hoover
endorsed an “Affidavit of Right to Foreclose” in the case which is patently false. Her
“Affidavit” states that there were two (2) mortgagors (Reginald D. Jones and Yasmeen H.
Jones), yet the copy of the deed of trust sworn to be accurate by counsel Joseph V.
Buonassissi, II shows that solely the Plaintiff Reginald D. Jones executed the promissory
note and deed of trust. Such an error demonstrates that the Affiant, Ms. Linda Hoover,
either did not look at the documents, did not read the documents, or did not care.
5. It is believed that Defendants may attempt to end-run the rule of law,
given recent statements in the media: “...one part of a global solution could be extending
legal protection, providing a "safe harbor," to foreclosure proceedings if the property is
vacant or if the servicer offered a meaningful payment reduction, such as 25 percent, and
the borrowers could still not perform on the loan. http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/39834155.
The proposition that some should be afforded due process while others should not on the
“word” of a bureaucrat invites cynicism as such a person is usually "a man of his most
recent word" (original quote by William F. Buckley). This matter should be resolved in
the Court following the rule of law not in a closed-door session with a wink and a nod by
those that believe they are above the law. As one Federal Judge famously stated in 1973:
“…either we are committed to make reasonable efforts to provide a forum for the
adjudication of disputes involving all our citizens… or we are not. There are those who
will not ignore the irony of courts ready to imprison a man who steals some
3
goods…while unwilling to grant a civil remedy against a corporation which has benefited
to the extent of millions of dollars….”
6. This Class Action seeks redress on behalf of a class of Maryland residents
for the malfeasance identified herein and asks, inter alia, that this Court order that: 1)
Defendants cease and desist utilizing false Affidavits; 2) any such borrower is released
from his or her obligation under the Note as a result thereof and/or at a minimum that the
Borrower be placed to the status quo at which they were when the false Affidavits were
submitted; and/or 3) Defendants shall be sanctioned for each respective false Affidavit
submitted.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the lawful titleholder
of 10214 Silver Bell Terrace in Rockville, Maryland (hereinafter, the “Property”).
8. Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee, (hereinafter “HSBC”),
upon information and belief is a federally chartered bank, whose principal place of
business is located in New York, NY. Defendant HSBC regularly transacts business in
the state of Maryland including buying, selling and/or securitizing mortgages on property
located in the state, specifically including the Property.
9. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter “WELLS FARGO”) is a
federally chartered bank under the laws of the State of South Dakota. Defendant WELLS
FARGO’s principal place of business is located in Scottsdale, AZ. Defendant WELLS
FARGO is licensed to and regularly does transact business in the state of Maryland
including buying, selling, securitizing and/or servicing mortgages on property located in
the state, specifically including the Property.
4
10. Defendant Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C. (hereinafter “BH&L”),
based on information and belief, is a professional corporation existing and organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant BH&L’s principal place of
business is located in Reston, VA. BH&L is licensed to and regularly does transact
business in the State of Maryland.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland. Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to a “federal
question” and 28 USC section 1441, 1446 and 1451.
12. Additionally, under the “Class Action Fairness Act,” the aggregate amount
of the class’ damages will exceed $5,000,000.00. 3
13. Venue is proper in this District because, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a
substantial part of the events giving rise to claims herein occurred within this District.
3
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) states that a district court may, in the interests of justice and
looking at the totality of circumstances, decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph
(2) over a class action in which greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the
members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed based on consideration of --
(A) whether the claims asserted involve matters of national or interstate interest; (B)
whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws of the State in which the action was
originally filed or by the laws of other States; (C) whether the class action has been
pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal Jurisdiction; (D) Whether the number of
citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other
State, and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among
a substantial number of States. (E) Whether 1 or more class actions asserting the same or
similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been or may be filed. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)(emphasis supplied).
5
FACTS REGARDING SPECIFIC PLAINTIFF REGINALD JONES
14. On or about May 6, 2005, Plaintiff entered into a consumer credit
transaction with FREMONT to refinance the purchase money deed of trust on the
Property located at 10214 Silver Bell Terrace, Rockville, MD 20850.
15. To effectuate the refinance, Plaintiff executed a promissory note as
security interest on the Property.
16. At closing, Plaintiff signed a “Deed of Trust” and Promissory Note, which
named FREMONT as Lender, F&M as Trustee, and MERS as Beneficiary.
17. The Promissory Note was for the amount of $750,000.00.
18. The Second Promissory Note was for the amount of $75,200.00
19. After executing the loan document, Plaintiff began paying his loan
payments to FREMONT.
20. Plaintiff is the owner and sole title-holder of the Property.
21. In 2008, Plaintiff began receiving demands for payment and threats of
foreclosure from Defendants BH&L, substitute trustees, and Defendant WELLS FARGO.
22. Upon information and belief, servicing of the subject trust loan was
transferred to Defendant WELLS FARGO shortly after closing of the Property.
23. Upon information and belief these demands were sent on behalf of
Defendant BH&L, as substitute trustee, jointly and severally, Defendant WELLS
FARGO, as servicer, and/or Defendant HSBC, as Trustee, under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated August 23, 2005, Home Equity Loan Trust, Series ACE
2005-HE-5.
6
24. To create the appearance of authority to conduct the scheduled foreclosure
Defendants HSBC, HOME EQ TRUST, WELLS FARGO, and BH&L, executed,
notarized, and filed with the land records a “Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee”
dated June 16, 2009.
25. Defendant BH&L has filed hundreds and perhaps thousands of Deeds of
Appointment of Substitute Trustee with this County’s Land Records substituting
themselves as “Trustee” or “Substitute Trustee,” citing this same fallacious language that
is completely unsupported by the Deed of Trust or Maryland Code, permitting them to
proceed to foreclosure on property in this County.
26. In the Deed of Substitute Trustee, Xee Moua, alleged attorney in fact of
Defendant WELLS FARGO, asserts under oath that he/she is executing the Deed of
Appointment of Substitute Trustee on behalf of WELLS FARGO, appointing Defendant
BH&L as substitute trustee; and further asserts that WELLS FARGO is the authorized
agent of HSBC; that HSBC is trustee to Defendant HOME EQ LOAN TRUST, which is
itself perhaps purportedly acting on behalf of unknown, undetermined, and undisclosed
certificate holders. In light of the notarization procedures at Wells Fargo during June
2009, Defendant avers that the Notary Amanda Elizabeth Hosenfeld ever actually
witnessed Xee Moua execute the Deed of Substitute Trustee, and whether she actually
had Xee Moua acknowledge that the document was executed for the purposes contained
as her act. See Document 37-7.
27. Plaintiff, its agents and attorneys submitted numerous affidavits in support
of their right to foreclose pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code, Real Property Article, §
7-105.1, et seq. Under Maryland Rules an “Affidavit” means a written statement the
7
contents of which are affirmed under the penalties of perjury are true. Unless the
applicable rule expressly requires the affidavit to be made on personal knowledge, the
statement may be made to the best of the affiant’s knowledge, information and belief.
Maryland Rule 1-201(b).
28. Among the affidavits were sworn statements stating the date on which the
default occurred and the nature of the default, and that a notice of intent to foreclose was
sent to the mortgagor or grantor in accordance with law, and affidavits that the lender has
the right to foreclose. Maryland Annotated Code, Real Property Article, § 7-
105.1(d)(1)(ii) and (2).
29. Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit Pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code,
Real Property Article Section 7-105.1(D)(1)(II) Concerning Default and Notice of Intent
to Foreclose executed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA as Vice
President of Loan Documentation. See Exhibit 1 incorporated by reference hereinafter
referred to as the "Moua Affidavit". In the Moua Affidavit, it was asserted that she
personally appeared before a notary public, Mary Tramble, and stated “under oath” that
the matters and things contained in the foregoing affidavit are true to the best of his/her
knowledge, information and belief. The factual allegations that Xee Moua said were true
based on her information, knowledge and belief were (1) That the undersigned [Xee
Moua] is either the holder or the agent for the holder of the Promissory Note secured by
the Deed of Trust, a copy of which accompanies the Order to Docket filed in this case,
executed by Reginald D. Jones (hereinafter referred to as Mortgagor(s)”); (2) That default
occurred on November 2, 2007[…] The nature of the default is the non-payment of
mortgage payments due and owing under the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust; and (3)
8
That on May 1, 2009 a Notice of Intent to Foreclosure was sent to the Mortgagor(s) in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7-105.1(C), Real Property Article, Annotated
Code of Maryland, as amended.
30. One affidavit is facially defective and patently false in stating that there
were two (2) mortgagors (Reginald D. Jones and Yasmeen H. Jones), yet the copy of the
deed of trust sworn to be accurate by counsel Joseph V. Buonassissi, II shows that
Reginald D. Jones executed the promissory note and deed of trust. Such an egregious
error demonstrates that the affiant, Ms. Linda Hoover, either did not look at the
documents, did not read the documents, or did not care.
31. Another Affidavit provided by Wells Fargo was from China Brown and
titled Affidavit Pursuant to Section 7-105.1(D)(2)(III) Certifying Ownership of the Debt
Instrument and allegedly executed on April 29, 2009 before a notary public Carmen
Picket. The affiant, China Brown, swore that she as the agent was the owner of the debt
instrument and that a copy of the debt instrument accompanied the affidavit. Based upon
the sworn deposition testimony of Ms. Moua regarding Wells Fargo’s execution
procedures it is highly unlikely that Ms. Brown did anything more than Ms. Moua when
executing her affidavit. That would mean that she only checked her name and title, and
was completely incompetent to testify that Wells Fargo, or any other entity, was the
proper party to foreclose, or that she checked to make sure that the proper copy of the
promissory note accompanied the affidavit. For the same reasons that Ms. Moua’s
affidavit is defective, the Affidavit of Ms. Brown is defective pursuant to Maryland Rule
14-207.1. Ms. Brown lacks the requisite inquiry to form best information, knowledge
and belief that the contents of her affidavit were true, and it is also very likely that the
9
notary, Carmen Pickett, did not actually witness Ms. Brown execute the affidavit as she
has certified. When the China Brown affidavit is stricken, Wells Fargo lacked the
requisite authority to conduct its foreclosure sale.
32. There is still yet a fourth affidavit submitted in these proceedings that is
improper and prejudicial to Reginald Jones. Plaintiff Wells Fargo’s attorneys, by a
Darren J. Robertson submitted an affidavit apparently executed on March 30, 2010. In
Mr. Robertson’s affidavit, he alleges facts in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Possession and Eviction of the Defendant. The problem with this Affidavit is that the
Notary Public, Crystal Dawn Elkins, certified that on March 30, 2010, Brian S. McNair
appeared before her and testified to these statements under oath, not Darren J. Robertson.
If true, Ms. Elkins witnessed the statements of Brian S. McNair and not the statements of
the affiant, Darren J. Robertson relied upon by the circuit court.
33. The circuit court was misled by these statements that are blatantly not
made with the best information, knowledge and belief of the affiants, and the allegations
contained herein provide this court sufficient reasons to believe that these affiants, Xee
Moua, China Brown, Linda Hoover, Joseph V. Buonassissi, II and Darren J. Robertson
may be invalid because these affiants did not have sufficient basis to attest to the
accuracy of the facts stated in the affidavits, or because the affiants did not appear before
the notary as stated.
FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
34. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth.
10
35. It has become widely reported that Xee Moua admitted in deposition in
March 2010 that she signed between 300 and 500 foreclosure documents a day, verifying
only her name and title. See, SC Wells Fargo Employee Said She Signed 300 – 500
Foreclosure Docs A Day, by Stephanie Armour and Thomas Frank, USA Today, October
15, 2010.
36. Counsel has obtained a copy of the Xee Moua deposition. See Exhibit 2,
an extract of the Xee Moua Deposition. Reviewing the Xee Moua Deposition dated
March 9, 2010 (“Moua Deposition”) in the matter of Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Stipek,
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, FL, Case
No. 50 2009 CA 012434XXXXMB AW, Ms. Moua admits that China Brown is her
supervisor and part of her document execution team with authority to sign for Wells
Fargo, that she did not personally appear before the notary, and that she only looked at
her name and title before executing the sworn statements.
Q.: You mentioned the document execution department before,

that’s China Brown would be the head of the department?
A.: Yes.
Moua Deposition p. 14, lines 9-12.
Q.: How many of the 12 processors have the authority to
execute?
A: We have about, let’s see, four others. Including China we
have four on our team that is able to sign.
Moua Deposition, p. 15, line 22 – 16, line 1.
A: When I say execute, that means we receive these
documents in from the attorney’s office, we fill the document with the
necessary name, title, so forth, send it off to be notarized and mail it out to
the attorney’s office.
Q: When you say send it off to be notarized, you send it to –
A: We have a notary on our team.
Moua Deposition, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 5.
Q.: How many documents would you say you sign a day?
A.: In a day’s workload, hundreds.
Q.: Hundreds?
11
A.: Yes.
Q.: And when you say hundreds – when you’re referencing
documents, you mean the previous documents that you listed; whether it
be an affidavit, an affidavit for judgment, substitution of trustee, those
documents?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: I guess to help me fully understand, when you say
hundreds, it could be 500 documents in a day?
A.: It can. … In a given day, anywhere between 300 to 500.
Q.: Okay. Now, so one of the processors will bring you these
documents; is that correct?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: So you may have a stack of 300 on your desk?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: Now, you’ll go through one by one and sign each of these
documents?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: When you sign these documents, what do you do, what do
you look at on the documents?
A.: Make sure my information is there and correct, and I sign.
Q.: When you say your information?
A.: My name, my title.
Q.: Anything else?
A.: That is it.
Q.: Now, do you verify any of the numbers that may be on
some of these documents?
A.: I do not. That’s not part of my job description.
Moua Deposition, p. 28, line 14 – 30, line 5
37. Ms. Moua testified that she understood that she was executing these
documents under oath and what that oath meant.
Q.: And you executed this under oath, correct?

A.: Yes.
Q.: Do you know what the means?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: To the best of your knowledge, what does that mean?
A.: Acknowledged that the document is true and accurate.
Q.: And you’re swearing that everything in it is accurate, correct?
A.: Yes, sir.
Moua Deposition, p. 38, line 10 – 21.
12
38. Later in the deposition when questioned about the specific factual
allegations in her affidavit, she unequivocally and repeatedly admits that she did not have
any knowledge of the facts contained in her affidavit because all she did was looked at
her name and title.
Q.: Now, you’re aware that – I’ll take you to paragraph 1. In that
paragraph you state that there’s no genuine issue of material fact in this case,
correct?
A.: Like I had stated before, we don’t go into details with these
affidavits; all we do is we get them in, they’re verified, we execute them and we
send them out.
Q.: So asking you here today, that would not be your testimony,
because you’re not aware if that’s accurate, correct?
A.: Yes, that’s correct.
…
Q.: Further in that sentence it says that: The Plaintiff is entitled to
enforce the note and mortgage. And your answer may be repetitive on this
because you said it, but I have to go through this process. Do you know if that is,
in fact, the case, that the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage?
A.: No, sir, not to my knowledge.
Q.: And on this day it was not done – going back to May 6, 2009, that
was not within your knowledge at that time either, correct?
A.: Correct.
Moua Deposition, p. 41, line 2 – p. 42, line 3. See also p. 45, line
18 – p. 46, line 5 (factual allegation that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is
responsible for the collection of this loan – “No personal knowledge
whatsoever.”); p. 46, line 5 – 47, line 12 (factual allegation that she was
familiar with the books, records and documents kept by Wells Fargo
concerning the transaction – “But you personally did not review them?
No, Sir” and “So it would be fair to say that you haven’t reviewed any
transactions that have been alleged in the Complaint, correct? No, Sir”);
p. 47, line 5; See generally p. 48, line 12 – 52, line 24.
39. When Ms. Moua was questioned specifically about the notary process it is
clear that the notary, Mary Tramble, did not witness Ms. Moua actually execute the
affidavit.
Q. Okay. Now turning your attention to the bottom of the page, Mary
Tamble.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does she work in your office?
13
A. She does.
Q. Is she one of the processors?
A. She’s a notary.
…
Q. Is her sole responsibility a Notary Public?
A. That’s not all she does, but she does notarize our documents for us
as well.
Q. Is she the only notary that you’ll utilize in signing these
documents?
A. No, sir.
…
Q. Where does Mary work in relation to your cubicle that you work
in?
A. She’s on the other side.
Q. The other side of the floor?
A. No, she’s in the same area as I am.
Q. So when you have these, you know, sometimes three to 500
documents that you may be signing, you sign them and then walk them over to
her cubicle?
A. Either that or she’ll usually – we’re close together, so I’ll sign
them and hand them to her.
Moua Deposition, p. 53, line 9 – p. 56, line 11.
40. In light of these admissions that Ms. Moua and many other Wells Fargo
personnel, this Court could not rely on the truthfulness of her affidavit dated July 7, 2009
wherein Ms. Moua represented that Wells Fargo was the holder because she admitted that
she took no action to find out whether Wells Fargo was the holder - she only looked at
her name and title; she testified that a copy of the Promissory Note and the Deed of Trust
was attached to the Order to Docket – she could not make this statement because she
never saw or checked the Order to Docket to see which copy of the Promissory Note and
the Deed of Trust were attached and she never looked at the Promissory Note and the
Deed of Trust to ensure they were signed by the Plaintiff because she only checked her
name and her title. Ms. Moua admitted that she never checked anything to form
knowledge, information and belief that the default on the Mortgager’s promissory note
occurred in November 2007 or that the default was caused by the non-payment of
14
payments due and owing, or that she ever did anything to make sure that the Notice of
Intent to Foreclose was actually sent to the Plaintiff because she only checked her name
and title. In summary, Ms. Moua was completely incompetent to assert the truth of the
facts contained in the Moua Affidavit. The Moua Affidavit was presented to the court
with the express intention that the court would rely on its contents as true, and deny the
homeowner’s attempt to stop a pending foreclosure. The blatant fraud perpetrated by
Wells Fargo and possibly others denied Defendant Jones due process and a fair
opportunity to an adversarial hearing on the evidence. If the Moua Affidavit is stricken
from the record, then the Plaintiff lacked the factual proof required by law to foreclose
and repossess the Defendant's home.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
42. Each putative member of the class herein had their due process violated by
the submission of fraudulent Affidavits that do not comport with Maryland procedural
rules or fundamental fairness.
43. Defendants, its agents and attorneys submitted numerous affidavits in
support of their right to foreclose pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code, Real Property
Article, § 7-105.1, et seq. Under Maryland Rules an “Affidavit” means a written
statement the contents of which are affirmed under the penalties of perjury are true.
Maryland Rule 1-201(b).
44. Said Affidavits were and are false and at best create a significant cloud on
title and more than likely the transactions are legally defective.
15
45. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
46. Class Definition: 4 Any Maryland resident who was an owner-occupant or
record owners of residential real property in the State of Maryland who was subject to a
foreclosure action docketed by one or more of the Defendants which had an Affidavit
executed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA. 5
47. Sub Class Definition: Any Maryland resident who was an owner-occupant
or record owners of residential real property in the State of Maryland who was subject to
a foreclosure action docketed by one or more of the Defendants which had an Affidavit
executed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA and the foreclosure sale was
ratified by a Maryland Circuit Court.
48. Excluded from the class are the following: (i) Defendant, any person, firm
trust, corporation or other entity affiliated with Defendant; (ii) any person who previously
signed a document that operates to release Defendant from any and all liability for
damages stemming from the allegations contained herein; and (iii) class members who
timely opt-out of any stipulation.
49. Upon information and belief, members of the class number in the
hundreds. Members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all of them is
impracticable.
4
Claimants reserve the right to refine the class definition at the conclusion of discovery. Weisman v. MCA,
Inc., 45 F.R.D. 258 (D. Del. 1968); See also Lawler v. Alexander, 698 F.2d 439 (11th Cir. 1983); Newberg
on Class Actions Standing and Mootness § 2:3 (“Some cases, while giving lip service to a supposed rule
that in order to have a class action there must first be a class, are concerned primarily with ambiguities in
pleading the class definition. When these occur, the court has full power under Rule 23 to resolve the
ambiguity by redefining the class or affording the representative plaintiff an opportunity to do so.”)
5
The Class definition is intended in the Complaint to identify from Defendants own admission and
documents those within the class while the respective causes of action below identify which Defendant(s) is
liable for the respective Count.
16
50. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class. Such
common questions include, but are not limited to:
A. whether the members of the class herein have been denied due
process by the submission of admittedly false Affidavit;
B. whether and is so when Defendants knew of the false
Affidavits and whether such procedures were timely corrected
or permitted to occur;
C. the applicability of Maryland’s version of the Consumer
Protection Act to this action and Section 7-105.1 of Maryland’s
Real Property Article; and
D. whether Defendant in fact complied with Maryland law by
utilizing Affidavits endorsed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells
Fargo Bank, NA.
51. The named Plaintiff herein is a member of the class, and his claims are
typical of other class members' claims in that, like all class members, Plaintiff’s property
was foreclosed on by utilizing Affidavits endorsed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells
Fargo Bank, NA Defendant.
52. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class's interests in that he will
and has vigorously pursued this action on behalf of the entire class, has no conflicts with
the class, has interests completely coincident with the class's interests, and has retained
experienced class counsel to represent the class.
53. Questions of law and fact common to the class, including the legal and
factual issues relating to the knowledge Defendant had of the Affidavits endorsed by Xee
Moua on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members.
54. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy: the class is definable, and the number plaintiffs
can be easily identified by examination of Defendant's records and past statements;
17
prosecution of this case as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious
litigation and will provide redress for claims which otherwise may be too small to support
the expense of individual, complex litigation against the Defendant; there are no
problems that would make this case difficult to manage as a class action.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

- Solely Against Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C -
Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
(15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.)
Plaintiffs and the Class sue Defendants Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C and
state:
55. The Plaintiffs and Class members adopt by reference the allegations
contained in all previous paragraphs of this Complaint with the same effect as if herein
fully set forth.
56. Each member of the class is a “consumer” as that term is defined by
FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
57. Each mortgage on real property, that is owner-occupied by a natural
person, is a “debt” as that term is defined by FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
58. Defendants Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C are each a “debt collector”
as that term is defined by FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Wilson v. Draper
Goldberg, P.L.L.C., 443 F.3d 373 (4th Cir (2006)).
59. Defendants Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C violated FDCPA (15
U.S.C. § 1692e(5)) by threat[en]ing to take and actually taking action that they could not
take in that they docketed foreclosures with the knowledge that they would improperly
support the docketing with false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavits, support the sales of
18
consumer homes with false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavits, and obtain ratification of
sales with false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavits.
60. Every false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavit filed by Defendants in
support of the docketing of a foreclosure, the sale of consumers’ homes, and the
ratification of a foreclosure sale was a false representation or a deceptive means to collect
or attempt to collect a consumer debt in violation of FDCPA. 15 U.S.C.§ 1692e(10) and §
1692f.
61. The violations of the FDCPA by Defendants Buonassissi, Henning &
Lash, P.C were frequent, persistent, consistent, and intentional.
62. During all dates relevant to this civil action, Defendants had the resources
to have properly and legally prosecuted every foreclosure; however, they choose to
prosecute every foreclosure illegally in order to maximize their profits regardless of the
risk to their clients and regardless of the devastating financial and emotional
consequences to the thousands of mortgagors and their families.
63. Each member of the Class has suffered damages as the direct result of the
violation of the FDCPA by Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Each Plaintiff and each member of the FDCPA Sub-Class

demand judgment against Defendants Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C, jointly and
severally, for
[1] Certify this civil action as a class action with Reginald Jones as the Class
representatives and their attorneys; with Jon D. Pels, Lawrence J Anderson and Pels
Anderson, LLC as counsel on behalf of the Class;
[2] Statutory damages of $1,000.00 for each Plaintiff as allowed by 15 U.S.C.

§ 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i);
[3] Statutory damages for each member of the FDCPA Sub-Class, other than
named Plaintiffs, not to exceed lesser of $500,000.00 or 1% of the total net worth of
Defendants as allowed by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B)(ii);
19
[4] Actual damages for each Plaintiff and each member of the FDCPA Sub
Class (estimated to be not less than $40,000,000.00);
[5] Attorneys’ fee;
[6] The costs of this civil action; an award of equitable relief to Plaintiff and
all class members, including an order requiring Defendant to render to class members: (i)
all damages resulting from the Defendant’s malfeasance, together with actual damages to
the respective consumers, and (ii) other equitable relief to which Plaintiff and the class
members may be shown to be entitled; an award to Plaintiff and the class members for all
other remedies that equitably and reasonably flow from Defendant’s breaches of
statutory, common law and contractual obligations including an Order enjoining
Defendant from utilizing false Affidavits and declaring that that any such borrower is
released from his or her obligation as a result thereof.
[7] Other relief as the Court may find necessary and appropriate.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

- All Defendants -
Wrongful Foreclosure: Failure to Comply with Maryland Real Property Article, §§
7-105.1 or 7-105.2
Plaintiffs and § 7-105.1 Sub-Class sue Defendants and state:
64. The Plaintiffs and Class members adopt by reference the allegations
contained in all previous paragraphs of this Complaint with the same effect as if herein
fully set forth.
65. Md. Code Ann., Real Prop., § 7-105.2(i)² states: “An action for failure to
comply with the provisions of this section shall be brought within 3 years after the date of
the order ratifying the sale.”
66. Md. Code Ann., Real Prop., § 7-105.2(e) states: “The right of a record
owner to file an action for the failure of the person authorized to make a sale in an action
to foreclosure a mortgage or deed of trust shall expire 3 years after the date of the order
ratifying the foreclosure sale.”
20
67. Real Prop., §§ 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 mandate that certain notices,
documents, statements, and affidavits be provided to mortgagors, homeowners, and third
parties during the foreclosure process. Additionally, Real Prop., §§ 7-105.1 and 7-105.2
mandate that certain of these notices, documents, statements, and affidavits be filed with
the court in which the foreclosure is to be filed or has been filed.
68. Each requirement of §§ 7-105.1 and 7-105.2 is a statutory condition
precedent to docketing a foreclosure, conducting a foreclosure sale, or ratifying a
foreclosure sale.
69. Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of Real Prop., §§ 7-105.1
and 7-105.2 in that they knowingly and willfully filed false, fabricated, and counterfeit
documents in support of the Order to Docket in every, or virtually every, foreclosure
docketed as defined herein.
70. Each such false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavit was filed in lieu of an
affidavit or statement required as a condition precedent.
71. Each such false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavit or statement is, at best,
a nullity and, as a condition precedent, render any foreclosure sale void.
72. In each foreclosure case, Defendants obtained a ratification of the sale by
false, fabricated, or counterfeit affidavits in addition to the false, fabricated, or counterfeit
affidavits filed with the Order to Docket.
73. As a direct result of the acts of Defendants Maryland courts ratified the
foreclosure sale of Stewart’s Property and ratified the foreclosure sales of the homes of
each member of the § 7-105.1 Sub-Class.
21
74. Each member of the § 7-105.1 Sub-Class suffered damages as a direct
result of the failure of Defendants to comply with the provisions of Real Prop., §§ 7-
105.1 and 7-105.2 and their implementing Rules.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and each member of the § 7-105.1 Sub-Class demand

judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
[a] Certify this civil action as a class action with Reginald Jones as the Class
[b] Actual damages for each Plaintiff and each member of the Class
(estimated to be not less than $100,000,000.00);
[c] The costs of this civil action; an award of equitable relief to Plaintiff and
other remedies that equitably and reasonably flow from Defendants’ breaches of
Defendant from utilizing false Affidavits and declaring that any such borrower is released
from his or her obligation as a result thereof.
[d] Other relief as the Court may find necessary and appropriate.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

- All Defendants -
VIOLATION OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
76. The foreclosing procedure utilized by Defendant(s) as described herein
were consumer transactions as defined in the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
(“VCPA”)
77. Defendant(s) negligently or intentionally engaged in deceptive and
misleading practices under the MCPA by, inter alia:
22
A. negligently and/or intentionally omitting to sufficiently verify

and/or falsely certifying under “penalty of perjury” that
information required under Maryland law was true;
B. negligently and/or intentionally failing to give its residents of
Maryland due process required by Maryland law; and
C. Plaintiff, alternatively, had a reasonable expectation created by
Defendant(s) that Defendant(s) would provide truthful
Affidavits and comply with Maryland law.
78. These negligent and/or intentional representations or failures to disclose
were relevant to an ordinary person and/or unsophisticated consumer.
79. This wrongful behavior has caused damages to each respective class
member as alleged herein.
80. The information negligently or intentionally concealed by the
Defendant(s) was material to the transaction
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and each member of the Class demand judgment

against Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
[b] A declaration that the actions of Defendant constituted a deceptive act or

practice (either negligently or intentionally) and actual damages for each Plaintiff and
each member of the Class (estimated to be not less than $100,000,000.00);
23
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

- All Defendants -
BREACH OF CONTRACT –
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
82. Defendant(s) in respective Deeds of Trust; Notes and related documents to
the securing of a mortgage lien on residential real property agreed to comply with
Maryland law in accelerating or foreclosing on residential properties. Defendant had an
obligation to perform in good faith pursuant to the loan agreement. By failing to do so
Defendant acted in bad faith and its conduct was not commercially reasonable under the
circumstances because Defendants did not believe in good faith that submitting false
Affidavits was proper.
83. Defendants breached said agreement by submitting fraudulent Affidavits.
84. Defendant(s) have caused damage to the residents herein by failing to
afford due process required by Maryland law from the submission of false Affidavits.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and each member of the Class demand judgment

against Defendants, jointly and severally, for:

each member of the MCPA Sub-Class (estimated to be not less than $100,000,000.00);
24

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

- All Defendants -
UNJUST ENRICHMENT/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
86. Defendant(s), by its acts and omissions described herein, has wrongfully
appropriated, retained or otherwise possessed funds that rightfully in justice and equity
belong to Plaintiff and the class. Defendant(s) has earned enormous profits from this
deceptive act.
87. Defendant(s) should be required to disgorge all sums (e.g. the money
earned from this practice) received from Plaintiff and the class members as a result of the
illegal and improper manner in which they foreclosed. Plaintiff and the class are also
entitled to pre-judgment interest. Lastly, Plaintiff and the class are thus entitled to the
imposition of a constructive trust on Defendant’s net assets and revenues in an amount
sufficient to provide to the Plaintiff and the class the damages that have accrued.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and each member of the Class demand judgment against
Defendants, jointly and severally, for:

each member of the MCPA Sub-Class (estimated to be not less than $100,000,000.00);
25
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

- All Defendants -
INJUNCTIVE / DECLARATORY RELIEF
89. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to a declaration that Defendant
breached their contractual, statutory and common law obligations to Plaintiffs and the
class members through its deceptive practices of using improper affidavits and that they
are lawfully released from any deficiency on the Note(s) they had entered into with
Defendants.
90. Plaintiff(s) request that this court enter a preliminary and/or permanent
injunction ordering Defendant to cease and desist: utilizing false Affidavits and declaring
that that any such borrower is released from his or her obligation as a result thereof
and/or at a minimum be placed to the status quo at which they were when the false
Affidavits were submitted. As a direct and proximate result of this Plaintiffs and the
members of the class have been damaged.
26
Defendants, jointly and severally, for:

each member of the Sub-Class (estimated to be not less than $100,000,000.00); an Order
declaring that that any such borrower is released from his or her obligation as a result
thereof and/or at at a minimum be placed to the status quo at which they were when the
false Affidavits were submitted
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

- All Defendants -
COMMON LAW FRAUD
92. Defendant(s) actions and conduct was characterized by evil motive, intent
to injure, ill will, or actual malice.
93. Defendant(s) made material misrepresentation as stated herein and the
facts that Defendants concealed and the misrepresentations that were made were material
to the transaction at hand. These omissions and misrepresentations were made with the
27
knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard with the intent of defrauding
Plaintiffs.
94. The facts omitted and undisclosed by Defendant would have been
important to a reasonable person, including Plaintiff(s) and the members of the class.
Plaintiffs in fact relied upon said misrepresentations.
95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant(s) misconduct, Plaintiff(s)
and the members of the class have suffered damages.
96. Defendants’ misrepresentations were intentional and made with knowing
or reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the class.
Defendants, jointly and severally, and request that this Court:
[b] A declaration that the actions of Defendant constituted a deceptive act or practice
(either negligently or intentionally) and actual damages for each Plaintiff and each
member of the Sub-Class (estimated to be not less than $100,000,000.00); an Order
declaring that that any such borrower is released from his or her obligation as a result
thereof and/or at a minimum be placed to the status quo at which they were when the
false Affidavits were submitted; sanctions for each respective false Affidavit submitted.
[c] The costs of this civil action; an award of equitable relief to Plaintiff and all class
members, including an order requiring Defendant to render to class members: (i) all
damages resulting from the Defendant’s malfeasance, together with actual damages to the
respective consumers, and (ii) other equitable relief to which Plaintiff and the class
28
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests that all claims be tried before a jury.
Respectfully Submitted
Pels Anderson, L.L.C.
Dated: October 26, 2010 /s/ Jon D. Pels_______________________

Jon D. Pels, Esq. Bar No. 11883
Lawrence J. Anderson, Esq. Bar No. 11390
Justin Reiner, Esquire Bar NO. 16403
Jennifer O. Schiffer, Esquire
4833 Rugby Avenue, 4th Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 986-5570 (T)
(301) 986-5571 (F)
e-mail: jpels@pallaw.com
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Complaint has been delivered
via certified first-class mail this 26th day of October, 2010, to the following:
Russell J. Pope
Treanor Pope & Hughes
29 W. Susquehanna Avenue
Suite 110
Towson, MD 21204
Jose M. Blanco
1950 Old Gallows Road, #220
Vienna, Virginia 22182
/s/ Jon D. Pels_______________________

Jon D. Pels, Esq. Bar No. 11883
Lawrence J. Anderson, Esq. Bar No. 11390
Justin Reiner, Esquire Bar No. 16403
Jennifer O. Schiffer, Esquire
4833 Rugby Avenue, 4th Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 986-5570 (T)
(301) 986-5571 (F)
e-mail: jpels@pallaw.com
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
29

Maryland Robo Signer Jones V HSBC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maryland Robo Signer Jones V HSBC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:09-cv-02904-RWT Document 38-2 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DITRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT TO

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Reginald Jones (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through

as set forth below.

process violated by the submission of fraudulent Affidavits related to foreclosure

proceedings which do not comport with Maryland procedural rules or fundamental

2. Defendants, its agents and attorneys submitted numerous affidavits in

Article, § 7-105.1, et seq. Under Maryland Rules an “Affidavit” means a written

Maryland Rule 1-201(b). Defendants submitted Affidavits Pursuant to Maryland

correct? A.: Yes, that’s correct.”)

affidavits was to check her name and her title.

5. It is believed that Defendants may attempt to end-run the rule of law,

legal protection, providing a "safe harbor," to foreclosure proceedings if the property is

the borrowers could still not perform on the loan. http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/39834155.

to the extent of millions of dollars….”

6. This Class Action seeks redress on behalf of a class of Maryland residents

7. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the lawful titleholder

of 10214 Silver Bell Terrace in Rockville, Maryland (hereinafter, the “Property”).

8. Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee, (hereinafter “HSBC”),

located in the state, specifically including the Property.

9. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter “WELLS FARGO”) is a

FARGO’s principal place of business is located in Scottsdale, AZ. Defendant WELLS

including buying, selling, securitizing and/or servicing mortgages on property located in

the state, specifically including the Property.

10. Defendant Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C. (hereinafter “BH&L”),

based on information and belief, is a professional corporation existing and organized

business in the State of Maryland.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

County, Maryland. Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to a “federal

question” and 28 USC section 1441, 1446 and 1451.

of the class’ damages will exceed $5,000,000.00. 3

13. Venue is proper in this District because, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a

FACTS REGARDING SPECIFIC PLAINTIFF REGINALD JONES

14. On or about May 6, 2005, Plaintiff entered into a consumer credit

Property located at 10214 Silver Bell Terrace, Rockville, MD 20850.

15. To effectuate the refinance, Plaintiff executed a promissory note as

security interest on the Property.

named FREMONT as Lender, F&M as Trustee, and MERS as Beneficiary.

17. The Promissory Note was for the amount of $750,000.00.

20. Plaintiff is the owner and sole title-holder of the Property.

transferred to Defendant WELLS FARGO shortly after closing of the Property.

Defendant BH&L, as substitute trustee, jointly and severally, Defendant WELLS

24. To create the appearance of authority to conduct the scheduled foreclosure

Defendants HSBC, HOME EQ TRUST, WELLS FARGO, and BH&L, executed,

dated June 16, 2009.

Appointment of Substitute Trustee with this County’s Land Records substituting

is completely unsupported by the Deed of Trust or Maryland Code, permitting them to

proceed to foreclosure on property in this County.

Appointment of Substitute Trustee on behalf of WELLS FARGO, appointing Defendant

itself perhaps purportedly acting on behalf of unknown, undetermined, and undisclosed

as her act. See Document 37-7.

Maryland Rule 1-201(b).

the right to foreclose. Maryland Annotated Code, Real Property Article, § 7-

105.1(d)(1)(ii) and (2).

29. Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit Pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code,

to Foreclose executed by Xee Moua on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA as Vice

President of Loan Documentation. See Exhibit 1 incorporated by reference hereinafter

executed by Reginald D. Jones (hereinafter referred to as Mortgagor(s)”); (2) That default

occurred on November 2, 2007[…] The nature of the default is the non-payment of

Code of Maryland, as amended.

deed of trust sworn to be accurate by counsel Joseph V. Buonassissi, II shows that