1 Donnie R.

Dunn
2
Plaintiff in Pro per
P.O. Box 231
3 Free Union, VA 22940
(434) 973-4257
4

5 SUPERIOR COURT OF VIRGINIA

6
COUNTY OF ABLEMARLE
7

8
Donnie R. DUNN ) CASE NO.
9 )
Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
10
)
11 vs. ) 1. Negligence Misrepresentation
) 2. Enterprise Liability
12
MERIDIAN MORTGAGE ) 3. Anticipatory Repudiation
13 DOES 1 TO 50 ) (Breach)
Defendants )
14 ________________________)
15

16 COMPLAINT
17

18 COMES NOW, Plaintiff Donnie R. Dunn, In Pro per who complains

19
and alleges as follows:
20
1. Plaintiff Donnie R. Dunn at all times herein is or was
21

22 The owner of real property commonly known as:

23
34.73 Acres situated on State Route 601 Known as Free
24
Union Road, Free Union, VA.
25

26 ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND WITH IMPROVEMENTS

27 THEREON AND OPPURTENANCE THEREUNTO BELONGING, SITUATED IN THE

28

1
 1
WHITE HALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
2
THE WEST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 601, CONTAINING 34.73 ACRES, MORE
3

4 LESS, BEING DESCRIBED AS LOT 1 PLAT G.V. KIRK HUGHES. LAND OWNED

5 BY BERNICE AND ORLANDO DUNN CONTAINING 34.73 ACRES, WHITE HALL

6
DISTRICT, ABLEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,”OF RECORD IN THE CLERK’S
7

8
OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT OF ABLEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN DEED

9 114,PAGES 315 AND 316.

10
2. Defendant MERIDIAN MORTGAGE, hereinafter referred to as
11
“MERIDIAN,” is a company who on information and belief
12

13 is conducting business in the State of Virginia.

14 3. The true name of defendants named herein as DOES 1

15
through
16
50, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
17

18 are presently unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues said

19
defendants by such fictitious names; Plaintiff is informed
20
and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants
21

22 so designated herein proximately caused and contributed to

23 the facts herein alleged, and Plaintiff will ask to leave of

24
court to amend the Complaint to insert the true names and
25
capacity of DOES 1 through 50 when the same have been
26

27 ascertained and to join such Defendants

28 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges

2
 1

2 that at all times herein mentioned each of the Defendants

3
sued herein in relation to the property they claim an
4
interest in was the agent of each of the remaining
5

6 Defendants and at all times was acting within the purpose

7 and scope of such agency employment.

8 nd
5. On or about September 22 , 2006, Plaintiff executed an “
9
adjustable Rate Note” promising to pay Meridian Mortgage
10

11 the sum of #380,000.00 by monthly payments.

12
6. The Adjustable Rate Note was base upon a six-month
13
“LIBOR” adjustable rate.
14

15
7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants an each of them did not

16 Explain the working of the interest rate, how it is

17
Computed or its inherent volatility or interest only note.
18
8. Further, on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges
19

20 that Defendants charged and obtained improper fees for the

21 placement of their loan as “sub-prime” when Plaintiff

22
qualified for a prime rate mortgage which would have
23
generated less in fees and interest.
24

25 9. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the

26
service of the purported note was, without Plaintiffs
27
knowledge, by some means had transferred from or by
28

3
 1
Defendants either completely or by association or other
2
means to another Defendant unknown to Plaintiff provided
3

4 services in various forms to others which were of such

5 nature to render them a “servicer”.

6
10.The Deed of trust was recorded with the Charlottesville
7

8
County Recorder.

9
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10

11 Negligence Misrepresentation
12

13 11. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

14 as though fully set forth herein.

15
12. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that
16

17
Defendants Meridian Mortgage and each of them are agents or

18 employees or persons actively involved in the extension of

19
credit.
20
13. In September 2006, Plaintiff gave a note for $380,000 to
21

22 PR Investor Services, Inc. as an agent for Defendant,

23 Meridian Mortgage Investors Fund VII,LLC. The Note was

24
secured by a Deed of Trust on a 34.73 acre property in
25
Albemarle County owned by Plaintiff, Donnie Dunn. The
26

27 property is unoccupied and has remained in Plaintiffs family

28
for several decades, Plaintiff took out a $380,000 loan to

4
 1

2 do some improvements. The mentioned property is not in any

3
way commercial property and was going to be used as
4
residential property.
5

6 14. Defendants failed to provide information to Plaintiff on

7 his adjustable-rate 6-month Libor loan.

8
15. The Defendants, and each of them did not explain the
9
difference between the Libor rate and Treasury rate.
10

11 Defendants did not work the loan in the best interest of the

12
plaintiff as to the difference in the rates.
13
16. Defendant’s failed explained to Plaintiff the difference
14

15
between the interest rates between the two, Libor and

16 Treasury rates. Since 2007, the rates on which the indexes

17
are based have diverged sharply, and borrowers with Libor-
18
based adjustable-rate mortgages are paying more than they
19

20 would have had their mortgages been tied to treasuries.

21 Moreover , the proportion of libor-based ARMs has increased

22
significantly, especially for subprime loans. Libor has
23
risen to unprecedented levels.
24

25 17. Plaintiff further alleges that doctrines of mutual and

26
unilateral mistake sometimes condition liability itself on
27
the information that was (or was not) communicated prior to
28

5
 1
the contract. In a similar way, the rules of contract
2
formation (including the doctrine of unconscionability)
3

4 sometimes block the enforcement of entire terms that were

5 not adequately communicated in advance. In addition,

6
misrepresentation and nondisclosure can themselves be
7

8
grounds for rescinding an otherwise valid contract, as well

9 as the basis for damages in a tort. (Virginia Law Review

10 Vol. 92, June 2006,No.4)
11
18. Plaintiff further alleges that these violations are such
12

13 as to require rescission or cancellation of the loan herein

14 and return of all funds received by Defendants from

15
Plaintiff.
16
19. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to
17

18 compensatory damages in the amount to be determined at

19 trial.
20
20. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to
21

22
attorney fees according to statute in the event that they

23 retain counsel.
24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
25 ENTERPRISE LIABILTY FRAUD
26

27 Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

28
as fully set forth herein.

6
 1

2 Based upon information and belief, and on that bases

3
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and each of them fall
4
within the Enterprise Liability Doctrine.
5

6 21. Defendants, and each of them failed to disclose the term

7 Of the loan. Defendants giving Plaintiff a 6 month

8
adjustable rate Libor loan, then using it as a one year
9
balloon payment with the monies received constitutes
10

11 fraud with in the meaning of the statute of fraud within

12
Virginias statute.
13
22. Defendants in their loan documents never mention of a
14

15
balloon payment, only a 6 month Libor adjustable loan with

16 plaintiff. Defendants after using the 1 year balloon payment

17
started foreclosure proceedings on plaintiffs property.
18
23. Defendants failed to disclose any information to
19

20 plaintiff as to any exact information or performance or any

21 other material fact has been misrepresented or not disclosed

22
by defendant constitutes Enterprise Liability and Fraud
23
towards Plaintiff.
24

25 24. Plaintiff on information and belief, and on that bases

26
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and each of them, placed
27
loans for the purpose of unlawfully increasing or otherwise
28

7
 1
obtaining yield spread fees and sums in excess of what would
2
have been lawfully earned.
3

4 25. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis

5 plaintiff alleges that Defendant Meridian Mortgage

6
violations require rescission of the loan and return of all
7

8
funds received by defendants from plaintiff.

9 26. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

10
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
11
27. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to
12

13 attorney fees according to proof in the event that they

retain counsel.
14
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15
ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION
16 (BREACH)
17
28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10
18
as though fully set forth herein.
19

20 29. Defendants loan to plaintiff should be “void” because

21
of Defendants Breach. Defendant and each of them Breached
22
the loan contract by not fully disclosing all necessary
23

24 terms and rates and specific common law duties within the

25 meaning, as to their intentions within the loan documents as

26
to the loan on the real property.
27
30. Plaintiff was given a 6 month adjustable Libor loan by
28

8
 1
Defendants. Defendants failed to disclose the true nature of
2
the loan to Plaintiff and disclose the balloon payment which
3

4 was never written into the note.

5 31. Plaintiff use of his property is also an issue as to

6
Defendants statement that the loan was a commercial loan,
7

8
however the loan was a property loan not for commercial

9 purposes but to use as residential.

10
32. The Defendants conduct within the loan, and using the
11
funds on a balloon payment that does not exist in the loan
12

13 documents them selves and was unaware to Plaintiff shows a

14 Breach and Unfair Business Practices in Plaintiffs loan.

15
33. Plaintiff alleges that the commencement of foreclosure
16
proceedings upon the property lawfully belonging to
17

18 Plaintiff without the production of documents demonstrating

19
the lawful rights for the foreclosure constitutes a breach
20 and Anticipatory Repudiation.

21 34.As a consequence and proximate result, plaintiff has

22
been damaged in the sum to be proven at trial.
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages as follows:
24

25 1. For compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Twenty

26
Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);
27
2. For punitive damages in the amount in excess of Twenty
28

9
 1
Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)
2
3. For any statory or compensatory damages according to
3

4 proof;

5 4. For rescission of the contract and loan;

6

7 5. For attorney’s fees in the event that counsel is

8
retained;
9
6. For other and further relief as the court deems proper
10

11 and just,
th
12
Dated this 28 day of May, 2009
13

14

15
___________________________
DONNIE R. DUNN
16 Plaintiff In Pro per
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28