Nanc Duffy McCarron, CBN 1 64780 8 Law ffice of Nancy Duffy McCarron 950 Roble Lane Santa Barbara, CA 93103 805-450-0450 fax 805-965-3492 nancyduffysb@yahoo.com

Real Estate Broker Lic. 853086

Attorney for Plaintiff Carole S. Alles

I I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I I CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I I EASTERN DIVISION

CAROLE S. ALLES I Case NO. I- No CAI 1 2- 0 ao?~~vd@ Plaintiff, 1

v. 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: I

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; /(I) VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISZWILITIES ACT

WELLS FARGO HOME 1 42 USC 512101 ET SEQ.; CA CIVIL CODE $51 ETSEQ.

MORTGAGE, INC; I )(2) PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE I CORPORATION; $3) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING DOES 1-10 '(4) VIOLATION OF CA ROSENTHAL FAIR DFAT COLLECTIO~~

Defendants. I PRACTICES ACT CIVIL CODE 2 1788 ET S E Q ! 1(5) VIOLATION OF CA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

1 BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 3 1'7200 ET SEQ

'(6) WRONGFUL, FR~UDULENT FORECLOSURE I ((7) ~VEGLIGENT FORECLOSURE I

VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transactioi

or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, nor has any such action

been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after assignment. Plaintiff alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101,

et seq. ("ADA"), $504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended a t 29 U.S.C. 9794

("Rehabilitation Act"), and Unruh Civil Rights Act , California Civil Code 551 et seq.

COMPLAINT

- 2 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the following statutes: 28 U.S.C. §1331,

which gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States; 28 U.S.C. §1343 (3) and (4), which

gives district courts jurisdiction over actions to secure civil rights extended by the United

States government; 28 U.S.C. §1367, which gives the district court supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims.

3. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(h) because

the events that gave rise to this Complaint occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff CAROLE S. ALLES is a citizen of the United States and resides in the

County of Riverside, at 43060 Illinois Avenue, Palm Desert, California, 92211 in this

judicial district. Plaintiff is a 71 year old disabled homeowner with an inoperable,

incurable lung disease who no longer works and receives $857 monthly Social Security.

Plaintiff supplements her income by renting out two rooms for a total of $1275 per month.

The complaint involves denial of a HAMP loan modification for which she was eligible.

5. Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, NA [WFB] is a national banking entity, form

unknown. WFB is not registered with the California Secretary of State to do business in

the State of California. WFB was the wholesale originator of the subject loan, but not the

investor who funded the loan. Plaintiff’s loan was sold to Freddie Mac on 9/13/2012.

6. Defendant CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION [CWRC] is a

corporation who is acting as the purported substituted trustee for WFB and is prosecuting

a wrongful foreclosure against plaintiff while her application for a loan modification under

the HAMP program is still pending and while WFB agents promised plaintiff in writing

that her home would not be sold until the process had concluded. CWRC advertised a

trustee’s sale for 12-19-12 and refuses to cancel the scheduled sale despite a warning.

7. Defendant WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC. [WFHM] is a corporation not

registered with the California Secretary of State to do business in the state of California.

WFHM is/was at all relevant times loan servicer on the loan closed by WFB wholesaler.

- 3 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DOES, AGENCY, AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLEGATIONS

8. DOES 1-10 inclusive: the use of the term “Defendants” in any of the allegations in

this Complaint, unless specifically otherwise set forth, is intended to include and charge

both jointly and severely, not only named Defendants, but all Defendants designated as

DOES 1 through 10 as well.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned

herein, Defendants were agents, servants, employees, alter egos, superiors, successors in

interest, joint venturers and/ or co-conspirators of each of their co-defendants and in doing

the things herein after mentioned, or acting within the course and scope of their authority

of such agents, servants, employees, alter egos, superiors, successors in interest, joint

venturers and/ or co-conspirators with the permission and consent of their co-defendants

and, consequently, each Defendant named herein, and those Defendants named herein as

DOES 1-10, inclusive, are jointly and severely liable to Plaintiff for the damages and harm

sustained as a result of their wrongful conduct.

10. Defendants, and each of them, aided & abetted, encouraged, & rendered substantial

assistance to the other Defendants in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff, as alleged.

In taking action, as alleged, to aid & abet & substantially assist the commissions of these

wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained of, each of the Defendants acted with an

awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized that its conduct would substantially

assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing.

11. Defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired, engaged in a

common enterprise, and engaged in a common course of conduct to accomplish the wrongs

complained of herein. The purpose and effect of the conspiracy, common enterprise, and

common course of conduct complained of was, inter alia, to financially benefit Defendants

at the expense of Plaintiff by engaging in fraudulent activities. Defendants accomplished

their conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct by misrepresenting

and concealing material information regarding the servicing of loans, and by taking steps

and making statements in furtherance of their wrongdoing as specified herein.

- 4 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. Each Defendant was a direct, necessary & substantial participant in the conspiracy,

common enterprise and common course of conduct complained of herein, and was aware of

its overall contribution to and furtherance thereof. Defendants’ wrongful acts include,

inter alia, all of the acts that each of them are alleged to have committed in furtherance of

the wrongful conduct of complained of herein.

13. Any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled by the Defendants’ continuing,

knowing, and active concealment of the facts alleged herein. Despite exercising

reasonable diligence, Plaintiff could not have discovered, did not discover, and was

prevented from discovering, the wrongdoing complained of herein.

14. Defendants should be estopped from relying on any statutes of limitations as they

have been under a continuing duty to disclose the true character, nature & quality of their

financial services and debt collection practices. Defendants owed Plaintiff an affirmative

duty of full and fair disclosure, but knowingly failed to honor and discharge such duty.

HISTORICAL ALLEGATIONS (verified with supporting evidence by way of exhibits)

15. On 7/28/2006 while still employed plaintiff bought a home at 43060 Illinois Avenue,

Palm Desert, CA 92111. WFB wholesaled the loan and was nominal lender on her note.

Exhibit A is a true copy of the 3-page $230,000 FIXED RATE NOTE plaintiff executed at

7% fixed interest for a 30 year term, at $1,491.78 monthly payments until August 1, 2036.

The note was secured by a trust deed recorded against the property at the county recorder.

16. Plaintiff’s loan was pre-sold during escrow and securitized into a large pool of loans.

On September 13, 2006 Freddie Mac became the owner of plaintiff’s loan. see Exhibit B

17. For nearly six years until mid 2012 plaintiff never missed a payment to the servicer.

Plaintiff paid nearly $100,000 [mostly interest] to WFB/WFHM during that six year period

18. During the past few years plaintiff’s inoperable, incurable lung disease progressed to

the point where she was unable to work even part-time due to her incessant coughing.

19. In 2008 the bubble burst and California was one of the hardest hit states, and the

Palm Desert area housing prices and rents rapidly dropped to half their market value.

- 5 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. Plaintiff has always shared the home with two roommates to help make payments.

After the downturn in the economy there was a glut of rental units in the local area.

Plaintiff had to lower rents to keep her rooms rented and used savings to make payments

when there was insufficient rental income to cover the $1,491.78 WFB mortgage payment.

Interest rates dropped from 7% to 6%, then to 5%, then to 4% eventually dropping to 3%.

Plaintiff called WFB many times and was told by WFB agents “so long as she continued to

make payments the bank would never agree to modify her loan.” Plaintiff was told that

the bank only modified loans in default or facing foreclosure. WFB agents suggested that

she stop making payments and let her loan go into default so she could apply to modify it.

21. In March 2012 plaintiff stopped making monthly payments because they exceeded

her income and her savings were nearly depleted. After a few months of missed payments

WFB recorded a Notice of Default. [see Exhibit C]. The notice was deficient for several

reasons. First, the beneficiary was listed as Wells Fargo Bank, NA which is not true.

Freddic Mac bought the loan on September 13, 2006 but assignment was never recorded.

Secondly, the attached Declaration of Compliance [California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)]

was also false because it listed WFB as “beneficiary” which was false because Freddie Mac

had purchased the loan on 9/13/12. WFB has not been the beneficiary since 9/13/2006.

Third, the declaration recited that “beneficiary tried with due diligence but was unable to

contact the borrower” to discuss alternatives to avoid foreclosure. This was not true at all.

WFB agents had only told plaintiff she “did not qualify” and “could not apply to modify”

unless she allowed her loan “go into default” to trigger consideration for a modification.

22. Counsel summoned NHSIE (Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire)

who is the local agency affiliated with the Home Affordable Modification Program [HAMP]

The Treasury Department created HAMP in 2009 to stabilize the nation’s housing market.

WFHM executed a Servicer Participation Agreement ("SPA") with Freddie Mac who was/is

acting as the government’s agent on July 31, 2009. WFHM agreed to apply the Treasury

Department's HAMP criteria to all serviced loans. Lenders received millions in taxpayer

funds as incentives to work with distressed borrowers to modify loans to keep their homes.

- 6 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23. Plaintiff’s attorney worked for several months, first with NHSIE as intermediary,

then directly with Carmen Saldana, WFHM Home Preservation Specialist, trying to

obtain approval for a loan modification under the HAMP program. Plaintiff qualifies

under HAMP guidelines as she is disabled, has a hardship and sufficient income to pay.

24. On 11/8/2008 Carman Saldana, WFHM agent sent plaintiff notification that she

“did not meet the requirements of the program” because: “Based on your documented income, we are unable to create an affordable payment that meets the requirements of the program.” The letter recited that plaintiff could appeal the decision and escalate a review.

Page 2 recited “Your home will not be sold in a foreclosure sale during the appeal period.”

A true copy of the letter from Carmen Saldana is included herein as [Exhibit D.]

25. Despite this written promise the following Saturday, on 11/17/12 an agent for CWRC

posted a Notice of Sale on plaintiff’s house, reciting a sale date set for 12/19/12. [Exhibit E]

Plaintiff’s attorney made an immediate written demand for CWRC to cancel the sale date,

and made the same demand to Carmen Saldana, WFHM Home Preservation Specialist.

The demand was ignored by Trustee CWRC and the sale has not been cancelled to date.

26. On 11/23/12 plaintiff’s attorney used the NPV calculation tool at HAMP program’s

website “Make Homes Affordable” (MHA) to calculate plaintiff’s loan with actual accuracy.

The tool’s calculation result shows plaintiff is eligible for HAMP program relief [Exhibit F]

27. Notwithstanding that plaintiff was eligible for HAMP program relief, and met all of

its requirements, plaintiff’s loan servicer WFHM failed to accommodate plaintiff as

required by ADA and/or to modify its policies and procedures to ensure plaintiff received

equal treatment and a loan modification to permit her to stay in her long-term residence.

28. Once plaintiff realized that her attorney’s results using the MHA online tool showed

she qualified for a HAMP loan modification, and that WFHM failed to include as Exhibit A

the results of its own NPV calculations to support such denial, as required by MHA rules,

she knew that defendant WFHM had conspired to deceive her from when they first told

her to stop making monthly payments to “trigger a compelled modification” with specific

intent not to modify her loan but rather to steal her home on 21 days notice of trustee sale.

- 7 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

(all defendants)

29. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

30. The American with Disabilities Act [“ADA”] is codified at 42 USC §12101 et seq.

Congress recited its findings in the first section of the statutory protection scheme:

“such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem; (3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services;… (5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion … failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities; individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society;… the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; and (9) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, It is the purpose of this chapter - (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and (4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

To this end our federal judicial officers have a duty to compel federal and state agencies to

alter policies when necessary to ensure disabled persons’ equal participation in programs.

- 8 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31. The definition of “disability” is codified at 42 USC §12202:

“ (2) Disability The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual - (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”

It can not be disputed that ALLES is a disabled person because her inoperable,

incurable, lung disease (causing persistent coughing which is likely to lead to

emphysema) is a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major

life activities. At age 71 plaintiff receives $857 per month in earned Social Security

Benefits. Plaintiff is unable to supplement her income with part-time work because

coughing is disturbing to other employees and customers, and impairs her ability to

communicate effectively.

A record of this disability is included at Exhibit G (pulmonary specialist narrative report).

32. In 2009, the U.S. Department of the Treasury implemented the Home Affordable

Modification Program (HAMP) in reaction to national housing market nosedive in 2008.

The primary purpose of HAMP, authorized by Sections 101 and 109 of the Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and amended by Section 7002 of the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

33. Plaintiff’s attorney ran the same eligibility tool (NPV) used by Home Preservation

Specialists at HAMP’s “Make Homes Affordable” website; i.e. “checkmyNPV@MHA.com”

and printed the report generated after data input specifically from a Freddie Mac loan.

Exhibit F. Plaintiff confirmed the accuracy of the data entered. This evidence tends to

support plaintiff’s theory that WFHM’s decision not to approve her loan modification was

arbitrary and motivated by a desire to foreclose rather than to help her stay in the home.

34. Defendant WFHM has no defense because its decision not to approve plaintiff’s loan

modification was arbitrary and not reasonably related to a valid business objective.

35. In March 2012, the 7th Circuit held that a mortgage borrower may pursue action

against her loan servicer for failing to offer a permanent loan modification under HAMP.

Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 11-1423 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012).

- 9 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36. Title II of ADA, at 42 U.S.C. §§12131-12134, extends to state and local governmental

agencies the non-discrimination provisions. It requires that services, programs and

activities of state and local governmental agencies be administered in the most integrated

setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. The HAMP

program is a federal program carried out by state and local agencies to keep homeowners

in their homes by modifying the terms of their loans to avoid foreclosure. Freddie Mac,

who owns plaintiff’s loan is a federal agency and must comply with the anti-discrimination

provisions of the ADA.

37. Plaintiff meets the essential eligibility requirements for a loan modification and there

was no valid reason to deny a modification. ALLES has a 6 year history of making timely

monthly payments. Plaintiff only stopped paying because an WFHM agent advised her to

stop making payments to trigger a compelled modification. Plaintiff followed that advice.

38. Defendant deprived plaintiff of her federal constitutional and/or statutory rights,

under 42 USC §1983 by failing and refusing to modify plaintiff’s loan to avoid foreclosure.

Defendant acted under the color of state law in depriving plaintiff of her federal rights,

property interests and otherwise discriminated against her based upon her disability.

39. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of her civil rights under

42 U.S.C. §1983 and her rights under the ADA [42 USC §12101 et seq. plaintiff has

sustained injuries and damages in that her credit is ruined because of the foreclosure;

she will lose over $100,000 invested in the property (her life’s savings); and the benefit

of having paid $100,000 in interest to the loan servicer on all payments made since 9/1/06.

Plaintiff will be homeless the weekend before Christmas if her home is sold on 12/19/12.

43. The NPV results [Exhibit F] show that if WFHM had modified plaintiff’s loan per

HAMP’s guidelines, which was to refinance the loan at 40 years, 2% interest, and reduce

principal, her payment would drop from $1491.78 per month down to $439.92 per month.

Plaintiff’s current loan is for 30 years at 7% interest. Plaintiff is entitled to statutory

damages, attorney fees and costs, as well as an injunction against future attempts to

foreclose and a compelled modification to the terms shown in the NPV [Exhibit F].

- 10 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Promissory Estoppel – Defendant WFHM)

44. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

45. The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (1) a promise clear and unambiguous

in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must

be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be

injured by his reliance.’” US Ecology, Inc.v.State of California (2005)129 CA.4th 887, 901

46. WFHM made a clear promise [Exhibit D – page 2] in an 11/8/12 letter transmitted to

ALLES in denying her application for a loan modification, that she could appeal the denial

and that during the appeal process her home would not be sold. The promise recited:

“4. Your home will not be sold in a foreclosure sale during the appeal period.”

This was a clear and unambiguous written promise in its terms. Plaintiff relied on the

promise because she believed WFHM was acting in good faith, as she was, in trying to

help her stay in the home and continue to make monthly payments at a lower interest rate

Plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable because as soon as she received notice of denial her

attorney filed an appeal and resubmitted a new package directly to the escalation wing of

the Make Homes Affordable program managers. It was foreseeable that plaintiff would

rely upon the promise because she had to appeal in order to obtain the loan modification.

Plaintiff, as the party asserting estoppel was injured by her reliance in that defendant

trustee CWRC intends to sell her home at a trustee’s sale set for 12/19/12 which will make

her homeless the weekend before Christmas and will result in the loss of her residence.

Defendants breached its written promise not to foreclose during her appeal process.

As a proximate result of this breach plaintiff was injured by a pending sale of her home.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing -WFHM)

47. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

48. At common law, in every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith & fair

dealing, which applies to each party. Plaintiff & defendants are parties to a loan contract.

(Exhibit A). Defendants breached the covenant of good faith &fair dealing by encouraging

agents to suggest stopping payments to compel modification, then denying a modification.

- 11 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. Defendants breached the covenant of good faith & fair dealing by encouraging its

agents to accept an application for loan modification under the pretext that it will work

with the borrower to modify her loan to avoid foreclosure, then to arbitrarily deny such

modification without any justification when plaintiff clearly was eligible under HAMP.

(see HAMP guidelines at Exhibit H) Defendants breached the covenant of fair dealing by

promising in writing not to foreclose her home during an appeal process, after arbitrarily

denying a loan modification, then behind her back, and without any prior notice, sending a

trustee’s agent over to her home, the Saturday before Thanksgiving, to post a notice on her

door that her home will be sold at a public auction in a trustee’s sale on 12/19/12 making

her homeless the weekend before Christmas. This notice was inappropriate considering

the promise not to sell, and was done in a most callous and inhumane way, right before

Thanksgiving and Christmas, with complete disregard for plaintiff’s documented and

known disability. Plaintiff had cited her disability and included her doctor’s report in

describing her “hardship” which is a factor that must be considered in making a decision

under the federal HAMP guidelines.

50. As a proximate result of defendants’ breach of the common law covenant of good faith

and fair dealing plaintiff was damaged in that the trustee will sell her home on 12/19/12

and she will be homeless, in addition to losing $100,000 invested in buying the home in

2006 and another $100,000 in interest payments made from 9/1/2006 through 12/1/2012.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION [Violation of CA Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]

[Civil Code §1788 et seq. all defendants] 51. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

52. Plaintiff is a consumer and the obligation between the parties is a debt owed

pursuant to the subject note and trust deed, nd is a consumer debt pursuant to the

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”).

53. WFB and WFHM defendants are a lender and mortgage servicing company who are

in the business of collecting and processing mortgage payments and collecting debts.

54. CWRC is a WFB/WFHM agent assisting the two defendants in the collection of debts.

- 12 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55. The representatives of WFB and WFHM made false misrepresentations in connection

with plaintiff’s debt secured by the deed of trust on plaintiff’s house. Specifically, agents

represented that if ALLES stopped making payments on her loan, and let the home go

into foreclosure it would compel a loan modification. In reliance, ALLES stopped making

monthly mortgage payments to defendants. During the modification process WFB and

WFHM agents promised ALLES that her home would not be foreclosed during the entire

application window, and an appeal window if her application for a modification to a lower

interest rate and principal reduction were denied. These false misrepresentations were

intentional because agents knew that ALLES’ loan would not be modified, her application

would be denied, and her home would be sold. Defendants knew ALLES would rely on

their expert opinion and advice because she is a lay person and has no experience in loan

modifications or lending practices. ALLES reliance was justified as she had no lending

practices experience and her trust in WFB/WFHM agents was justified and reasonable.

56. As a proximate result of defendants’ violations of the Rosenthal Act, plaintiff is

entitled to actual and statutory damages, attorney fees and costs, and such other relief as

the court determines is due.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violations of Business & Professions Code §17200 – all defendants)

57. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

58. California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., prohibits acts of unfair

competition, which includes any “fraudulent business act or practice . . .” and conduct

which is “likely to deceive” and is “fraudulent” within the meaning of Section 17200.

59. As more fully described above, defendants’ acts and practices are likely to deceive,

constituting a fraudulent business act or practice. This conduct is ongoing and continues

to this date.

60. Specifically, defendants have engaged, and continue to engage in deceptive business

practices with respect to mortgage loan servicing, foreclosure of residential properties and

related matters, and as to plaintiff deceived her as exactly as alleged above, by:

- 13 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(a) Instituting improper foreclosure proceedings to generate unwarranted fees;

(b) Executing and recording false and misleading documents;

(c) Acting as beneficiaries and trustees without the legal authority to do so.

(d) Failing to follow HAMP guidelines (improperly denying modifications); and

(e) Misrepresenting the foreclosure status of their properties to borrowers;

61. Plaintiff alleges that by engaging in the above described acts and/or practices as

alleged herein, defendants have violated several California laws and regulations and said

predicate acts are therefore per se violations of California Business and Professions Code

Section 17200, et seq.

62. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ misconduct, as alleged herein, gave, and have given,

defendants an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors. Schemes and devices

implemented by defendants were/are designed to defraud California consumers and enrich

the defendants at the expense of innocent consumers.

63. The foregoing acts & practices have caused substantial harm to California consumers.

As evidence of these widespread practices plaintiff has included [Exhibit I] a printout

showing that just in the last five years, no less than 74 lawsuits have been filed against

defendants, except CWRC, alleging lender misconduct, fraud, and other financial abuses.

These cases were filed by federal & state administrative and law enforcement agencies, as

well as class actions and private party litigations, demonstrating a pattern of violations of

Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq, warranting injunctive and punitive relief.

64. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts,

defendants have prospered and benefited from plaintiff, and others similarly situated,

by collecting mortgage payments, and have been unjustly enriched from their act of

foreclosing on plaintiff’s home, and other homes, when they had agreed not to do so.

65. By reason of the foregoing, defendants have been unjustly enriched and should be

required to disgorge their illicit profits and/or make restitution to plaintiffs and other

California consumers who have been harmed, and/or be enjoined from continuing in such

practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204.

- 14 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

66. Additionally, plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees as

available under California Business and Professions Code §17200 and related sections.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Wrongful, Fraudulent Foreclosure –all defendants]

67. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

68. Plaintiff alleges that none of the defendants in this action have any beneficial interest

in plaintiff’s note (right to collect upon her promise to pay) and therefore have no standing

to prosecute the pending foreclosure and sale. Exhibit B shows that Freddie Mac is the

owner of plaintiff’s loan and the only entity with standing to prosecute a foreclosure.

69. Plaintiff further alleges that the loan was sold or transferred without notifying

plaintiff in writing as to the change in beneficiary on her note. No assignment of any

beneficial interest was recorded to provide notice of same. Until such ambiguity in which

entity has a right to collect on plaintiff’s note (promise to pay) no foreclosure is valid.

70. WFHM breached its obligation to plaintiff to modify the loan by proceeding with a

foreclosure of her home when WFHM had promised not to do so in writing. [Exhibit D].

Moreover, defendants failed to follow the statutory provisions of Civil Code §2924g(c)(1)

which requires postponement of a foreclosure sale on a “mutual agreement, whether oral

or in writing, of any trustor and any beneficiary.” WFHM breached its promise not to sell.

71. WFHM breached its SPA agreement with the Treasury to participate in HAMP by

failing to review plaintiff’s financial information and determine a fair loan modification.

Plaintiff believes WFHM received several million dollars of taxpayer TARP funds on the

condition that it would comply with SPA terms; i.e. to use the funds to avoid foreclosures.

72. As defendants breached their obligation not to foreclose during the review/appeal

period, the setting of a 12/19/12 sale date violated its SPA. Plaintiff is a third-party

beneficiary of defendants’ SPA agreement. Defendants were unjustly enriched by taking

TARP funds and then not using funds for the intended purpose; i.e. to help distressed

homeowners avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes to stabilize the economy.

- 15 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

73. Defendants violated California Civil Code §2923.5(a), which requires a “mortgagee,

beneficiary or authorized agent” to “contact the borrower or person by telephone in order

to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid

foreclosure. “Section 2923.5(b) requires a default notice to include a declaration “from the

mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent” of compliance with section 2923.5, including

attempt “with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section.” None of

defendants’ agents assessed plaintiff’s financial situation correctly or tried to help her

avoid foreclosure as required. Accordingly, Defendants did not fulfill their legal obligation

rendering the foreclosure premature. Unless and until defendants’ agents correctly

assess plaintiff’s financial condition they have no legal authority to sell plaintiff’s home.

The declaration recorded with the Notice of Default is fraudulent, signed by a robo-signer

with no personal knowledge of the true facts.

74. As a proximate result of the above-described breaches and wrongful conduct, the sale

of plaintiff’s home is wrongful and illegal. The sale must be stayed or cancelled.

Accordingly, the court should remedy this legal error by issuing an order canceling the

trustee’s advertised sale and ordering it revoked.

75. As a proximate result of the above alleged wrongs, plaintiff has suffered general and

special damages in an amount according to proof at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Foreclosure – all defendants)

76. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

77. In the event it is determined that defendants scheduling of a sale date was accidental,

and not fraudulent, and defendants’ agents statements encouraging plaintiff to stop

making payments to compel a loan modification were not fraudulent, then those acts, as

alleged above were negligent. Defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to manage her loan

with due care, a duty breached when defendants set a sale despite a promise not to do so.

As a proximate result of said breaches plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according

to proof at trial.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this honorable Court enter judgment against

Defendants providing the following relief:

1.) Compensatory damages in whatever amount in excess of $25,0000 exclusive of

costs and interest, that plaintiff is found to be entitled to collect;

2.) Punitivelexemplary damages against defendants in whatever amount, exclusive of

costs and interest, that plaintiff is found to be entitled to collect;

3.) An order placing plaintiff in the position that she would have been in if there had

not been any violations of her rights;

4.) An order that plaintiffs loan be modified to the terms as recited in the NPV set

forth as Exhibit F; i.e. as set forth under HAMP guidelines that plaintiffs principa

on the note be reduced to an unpaid balance of $145,271.72 and a new loan a t 2%

interest for 40 years be executed a t monthly payments no more than $439.92 as se

forth in the NPV based on plaintiffs entitlement under the HAMP guidelines.

5.) An order enjoininglrestraining defendants from further acts of discrimination or

retaliation under ADA, Uhruh Civil Rights Act, or any other law which applies

6.) An order enjoininglrestraining defendants from further acts in violation of

California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act.

7.) An order enjoininglrestraining defendants from further acts in violation of

California's Business & Professions Act, 9 17200 et seq.

8.) An award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees as entitled under law;

9.) Any and all other remedies provided pursuant to the ADA, California's Unruh Act,

Rosenthal Act, and Business & Professions Code, and any other appropriate

nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the above described discrimination;

and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

A JURY IS DEMANDED ON ALL ISSUES FOR WHICH A RIGHT TO JURY EXISTS.

~ a n c ~ D @ ~ McCarron, Attorney for Plaintiff

- 16 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMPLAINT

VERIFICATION

I, CAROLE S. ALLES, am plaintiff in this proceeding. I have read the foregoing

COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge,

except as to those matters which are alleged on information and belief, and as to those

matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury, under California

law, and under Federal law, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

declaration was executed in Santa Barbara, California on November 20,2012.

w CAROLE S. ALLES

EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT A Fixed Rate Note, 43060 Illinois Avenue, Palm Desert $230,000 7% 30 years

EXHIBIT B Freddie Mac Settlement Date – September 13, 2012 purchased the loan

EXHIBIT C Notice of Default & Declaration of Compliance recorded August 2,2012

EXHIBIT D Wells Fargo Letter to plaintiff promising not to sell her home during appeal

EXHIBIT E Notice of Sale posted Saturday, November 17, 2012 sale set for 12/19/12

EXHIBIT F NPV Report showing plaintiff was eligible for HAMP loan modification

EXHIBIT G Narrative Letter (Pulmonary Specialist) describing plaintiff’s lung disease

EXHIBIT H HAMP guidelines show plaintiff was eligible for a loan modification

EXHIBIT I 74 Lawsuits filed against Wells Fargo last five years (11/07–11/12) by federal and local administrative and law enforcement agencies as well as class actions and private claims for lender misconduct

EXHIBIT A

FIXED RATE NOTE

JULY 28, 2006 Date

RANCHO MIRAGE city

CALIFORNIA Sfate

43060 ILLINOIS AVENUE, PALM DESERT, CA 92211 (Propem Address)

1. BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $ 230,000.00 (this amount is called "Principal"), plus interest, to the order of the Lender. The Lender is

N .A. I will make all payments under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order.

I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the "Note Holder."

2. INTEREST Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of Principal has been pa-id. I will pay interest at a yearly rate of 6.750 %.

The interest rate required by this Section 2 is the rate I will pay both before and after any default described in Section 6(B) of this Note.

3. PAYMENTS (A) Time and Place of Payments I will pay principal and interest by making a payment every month.

I will make my monthly payment on the first day of each month beginning on SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 I will make these payments every month until I have paid all of the principal and interest and any other charges described below that I may owe under this Note. Each monthly payment will be applied as of its scheduled due date and will be applied to interest before Principal.

If, on AUGUST 1, 2036 , I still owe amounts under this Note, I will pay those amounts in full on that date, which is called the "Maturity Date.".

I will make my monthly payments at VVELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. P.O. BOX 17339, BALTIMORE, MD 21297-1339 o r at a different place if required by the Note Holder.

(6) Amount of Monthly Payments My monthly payment will be in the amount of U.S. $ 1,491.78 .

4. BORROWER'S RIGHT TO PREPAY

I have the right to make payments of Principal at any time before they are due. A payment of Principal only is known as a "Prepayment." When I make a Prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so. I may not designate a payment as a Prepayment if I have not made all the monthly payments due under the Note.

I may make a full Prepayment or partial Prepayments without paying a Prepayment charge. The Note Holder will use all of my Prepayments to reduce the amount of Principal that I owe under this Note. However, the Note Holder may apply my Prepayment to the accrued and unpaid interest on the Prepayment amount, before applying my Prepayment to reduce the Principal amount of the Note. If I make a partial Prepayment, there will be no changes in the due date or in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes.

MULTISTATE FIXED NOTE - Single Family - FNMAIFHLMC UNIFORM INSTRUMENT 1 o f 3

FORM 3200 1/01 ECOllL REV. 04/19/02

5. LOAN CHARGES If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest o r other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then: (a) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (b) any sums already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by reducing the Principal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me. If a refund reduces Principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial Prepayment.

6. BORROWER'S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED (A) Late Charge for Overdue Payments If the Note Holder has not received the full amount of any monthly pa ment by the end of 15 calendar days after the date if is due, 1 will pay a late charge to the dote Holder. The amount of the.charge will be the <eater of $ 5.00 or 5.000% of my overdue pa ment of

payment. 7 pr~nc~pal and interest. I will pay 1%. late charge promptly but only once on each ate

(6) Default If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due, I will be in default.

(C ) Notice of Default If 1 am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount. That date must be at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed to me o r delivered by other means.

(D) No Waiver By Note Holder Even if, at a time when I am in default, the Note Holder does not require me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will still have the right to do so if I am in default at a later time.

(E) Payment of Note Holder's Costs and Expenses If the Note Holder has required me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will have the right to be aid back by me for all of its costs and expenses in enforcing this Note to the extent not prohi ited by applicable law. Those expenses include, for example, reasonable attorney's fees.

!

7. GIVING OF NOTICES Unless applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given to me under this Note will be given by delivering it o r by mailing it by first class mail to me at the Property Address above or at a different address if I give the Note Holder a notice of my different address. Any notice that must be given to the Note Holder under this Note will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first ctass mail to the Note Holder at the address stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different address i f I am given a notice of that different address.

8. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.

9. WAIVERS

I and any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of Presentment and Notice of Dishonor. "Presentment" means the right to re uire the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due. "Notice of Dishorior" means the rig 1 t to require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been paid.

MUCTISTATE FIXED NOTE - Slngle Family - FNMAlFHLMC UNIFORM INSTRUMENT FORM 3200 1101 2 0 1 3 ECOl l L REV. 04119102

0154270391 10. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Security Deed (the "Security Instrument"), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts that I owe under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows:

If all or any part of the Pro erty o r any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if Borrower is not a naturaPperson and a beneficial interest in Borroiyerjs sold.or transferred) without Lenderls.prtor written consent, Lender ma [equire ~mmed~ate ayment in full of all sums secured by thls Secur~ty Instrument. However, !his option shall not k exercised by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by Applicable Law.

If Lender exercises this option, Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice shall rovide a period of not less than 30 days from the date the notice is iven in accordance with Jection 1.5 within which Borrower must ay all.sums secured by this Becurity Ins~rurnant. If Borrower fails to a thes su s rlor to tRe ex lration o f t h ~ er~od, Lender may invoke any remedies perm?t8d by t t i s !&ec~r~fy lnrtrumerl without fur&& not~ce or demand on Borrower.

WITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S) OF THE UNDERSIGNED.

(Sign Original Only)

MULTISTATE FIXED NOTE - Single Famlly - FNMAIFHLMC UNIFORM INSTRUMENT FORM 3200 1101 3 0 f 3 ECOl1L REV. 04124102

. . .

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Real property in the City of Palm Desert, County.of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

LOT 338 OF TRACT NO. 2283, I N THE COLINTY OF RIVERSIDE, =ATE OF CAUFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE I N BOOK 42 PAGES 82,83, 84, 85,86, 87,88 AND 89 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CAUFORNIA.

EXHIBIT B

'25112 Yes! Our records show that Freddie Mac is the owner of your mortgage. - Freddie Mac

Go straieht to content.

Home 1 Terms and Conditions 1 Privacy Policv

Freddie Mac How to Get Help with Your Mortgage

Yes. Our records show that Freddie Mac is the owner of your mortgage and it was acquired on September 13,2006. This date is also referred to as the Freddie Mac settlement date.

What to Do Next

1 . For help with your mortgage, contact your lender and Alternatives to Foreclosure let them know you would like to pursue assistance Working vvlth Your Lender through the federal Making Home Affordable (NIHA) Who to Contact for Help program.

Avoidm~ Fraud

a. Your lender, the company to which you make your mortgage payments (also referred to as a mortgage sewicer), can help you determine ifyou are e@le "-t&j:*. "(B i r f r l ; l ~ $ i ~ a r 6i1h i ' " 8 h l

for the options under MHA. 1. See ifFreddie Mac Owns

If you are current on your mortgage payments, but have been unable to refinance because you have little or no equity m the home, the Home Affordable Refinance Program may help you obtain a lower mterest rate or more stable mortgage.

If you are behmd m making your mortgage payments or believe you may soon hll behind, a Home Affordable Modification may help you obtain more affordable mortgage payments.

Your Loan 2. Learn More About HARP 3. Check Your EEgilhty for HARP

4. Get Prepared and Call Your Lender

5. Consider Another HARP- Participatincr Lender

25/12 Yes! 0 ur records show that Freddie Mac is the owner of your mortgage. - Freddie Mac

If it is not realistic for you to keep your home, a short sale or "deed-in-lieu of foreclosure " may help you transition to more affordable housing.

Freddie Mac is working with its lenders to offer these solutions to ehgible borrowers vvlth Freddie Mac- owned mortgages. Because Freddie Mac does not work directly with consumers, you will need to work with your lender to determine your best foreclosure prevention option.

b. If you are not eligible for MHA, don't give up! Ask your lender about other o~tions to make your payments more affordable or to avoid foreclosure. There are other options available for homeowners vvlth Freddie Mac-owned mortgages that are available through your lender.

2. If you are unable to reach your lender, call a U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development @IUD)-ce ytif~ed housing counselor at 1-800-569-4287 or visit the web site to find a housing counselor in your are a.

Housing counselors can help you contact and work with your lender to get help with your mortgage - fi-ee of charge

Support Information

Be informed. Visit our Avoiding Foreclosure Resource Center for information and guidance on alternatives to foreclosure, working with your lender, avoiding eaud and more. Be patient and diligent. Lenders are working hard to get to every call and sometimes it takes longer than you expect. Get prepared. Before you call your lender, here's what you'll need for your conversation

Learn more about the options available to you under MHA.

Thank you for contacting Freddie Mac. One of ow top priorities is rnakmg sure homeowners wrth Freddie Mac-owned mortgages are able to get proper help and understand all options available to them during this d8icult time.

EXHIBIT C

DOC # 2012-0364987 08/02/2012 01 :09 PM Fees: $24.00

Recording Requested By When Recorded Mail To

CaI-Western Reconveyance Corp. P.O. Box 22004 525 East Main Street El Cajon CA 92022-9004

Page 1 of 3 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Larry W. Ward Assessor, County Clerk & Recorder

"This document was electronically submitted to the County of Riverside for recording* Receipted by: MRUlZ .

Trustee Sale No. 1367335-10 APN: 637-211-004-0 /ZQZ-&%t7 Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use Ref: ALLES, CAROLE Property Address: 43060 ILLINOIS AVENUE, PALM DESERT CA 9221 1

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

IMPORTANT NOTICE IF YOUR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEHIND I N YOUR PAYMENTS, IT MAY BE SOLD WITHOUT ANY COURT ACTION, and you may have legat right to bring your account in good standing by pa ing all of your past due payments plus r permitted costs and expenses within the time permitted by law or reinstatement of your account, which is normally five business days prior to the date set for the sale of your property. No sale date may be set until approximately 90 days from the date this notice of default may be recorded (which date of recordation appears on this notice). This amount is $7,891.85 as of July 31,2012, and will increase until your account becomes current. While our property is in foreclosure, you still must pa other obligations B P such as insurance and taxes) require by our note and deed of trust or mortgage. f you fail to make iuture payments on the loan, pay taxes on &e property, provide insurance on the property, or pay other obligations as required in the note and deed of trust or mortgage, the beneficiary or mortgagee may insist that you do so in order to reinstate your account in good standing. In addition, the beneficiary or mortgagee may re uire as a condition to reinstatement that you provide reliable written evidence that e you paid all senior 'ens, property taxes, and hazard insurance premiums.

Upon your written request, the beneficiary or mortgagee will give you a written itemization of the entire amount you must pay. You ma not have to pay the entire unpaid portion of your account, even though full payment was demanded, i; ut you must pay all amounts in default at the time payment is made. However, you and your beneficiary or mortgagee may mutually agree in writing prior to the time the notice of sale is posted (which may not be earlier than three months after this notice of default is recorded) to, among other things, (1) provide additional time in which to cure the default by transfer of the property or otherwise; or (2) establish a schedule of payments in order to cure your default; or both (1 1 and (2). * ,

J?oll;wing the expiration of the time period referred to in the first paragraph of this notice, unless the obligation beh foreclosed upon or a separate written agreement between you arrd your creditor permits a longer perio$ you have only the legal right to stop the sale of your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your creditor.

To Bnd out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason, contact: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

C/O CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION 525 EAST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 22004 EL CAJON 9004 CA 92022-9004 (619)590-9200

If you have any questions, you should contact a lawyer or the governmental agency which may have insured your loan.

U NODCA

Notwithstanding the fact that your property is in foreclosure, you may offer your property for sale, provided the sale is concluded prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure. Remember, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST

NOTICE IS KEREBY GIVEN:

CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION is either the original trustee, the duly appointe substituted trustee, or acting as agent for the trustee or beneficiary under a deed of trust dated July 28, 2006 executed by

CAROLE ALLES, AN UNMAREUED WOMAN AND NANCY DUPFY, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN : trustor, to secure certain obligations in favor of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as beneficiary, recorded as document 2006-0566295 on August 02,2006 in book XX page XX official records in the omce of County Recorder of RIVERSIDE County, California, describing land therein as:

COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED OF TRUST,

said obligations including a promissory note for the principal sum of $230,000.00. -

That a breach of, and default in, the obligations for which such Deed of Trust is security has occurred ir that payment has not been made of:

Failure to pay the monthly payment due March 1,2012 of principal and interest and subsequent installments due thereafter; plus late charges; together with all subsequent sums advanced by beneficial pursuant to the terms and conditions of said deed of trust.

That by reason thereof the present beneficiary under such Deed of Trust has deposited with said trustee such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby and has declared and doe; hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfj. the obligations secured thereby.

See attached SB1137 Declaration.

T.S. 1367335-1 0 Dated: July 31,2012 CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION

Signature BY S Monica Chavez

DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE (Cnl~ornin Civil &de ,Sectlot, 292.?,5&})

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 3476 Sla(cvicw Rlvd. Fnrt Mill, YC 29715

Borrowcr : CA R O I ,E ALLES Co Rorru~vcr: Yropety Address: 43060 ILLINOIS AV3IFK.E

PALM DESERT CA 9221 1 - - -

- $

The urtlcrsigncd rnal-ipgee, ba~=ficiary or authorized agent jcolIcctively. the 'FBc~~cfi~hry'') lvpmerrts and r

declares that !indicate "X" it1 tile applicable box]:

l l ~ c J3ent:licIat.y 11es contacted tile bnn.ower to discuss the borrower's financial sitt~ation and lu explosc o~~t ions for the borrower to avoid hreclostuo in corr~plionce with Cnfifolnin Civil Code Sec t io~~ 2923.5, Thirty days ~ 1 '

Inure have clapscd ssir~cc the i~it'ral contnct with the borrower.

The Betieficiary tried with due diligence bul ~ r a s unahk to corltact the bon~wer~ to discuss t4ie b01'1+0'~~8t"s fit~n~~cinl situation RUd to e;splom optious for the b \ v t : r to avoid iiorcr;lc~stsure ns required by California Civjl Code Section 2923.5. Thiw days or inore Ilclvc dapsod sirlcc these dtre diligence effuts \sere completed*

The mortgagee, beneficinry or aud~orized ageut was not required to co~npiy tvilh CHlirorilia Civil Code Section 2923.5 because:

n The real propetty is not "owner-uccupkd" rcsiclcr~li~l real pnpa-ty as defined by the statute.

The deed af trust was I~OI. rccordcd bcnhrcen Jn~ilrnry 1,2003 and Uece~nber 3 t, 2907,

The burrvwcr has snrrcndc~d the pnlxrty ns evidenced by eitlier a letter confirming [)le suecndc~. or delivery of the keys to the pl'opc~qy lo tllc mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary or &tttlmorized agent.

-

*I.l~e bosro~mr has contracted with someone wlvhose primary bu~irrcus ig advising people ~vbo have decided ro Lsvc thcir hcrnte.? on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid kheila loan obligalionn

D The borrow~s ha: TdeJ ror baak~iptcy under C:hnlrter 7, 1 I , 12 or 13 of Title 1 I of the United S u t s Code, and the b~tlkruptcy court has not elliered an orrlcr closing or dhnissing the bankuptcy case or granting relief from stay.

Deitcice HemphiU VP of Loan Doc~imentation

EXHIBIT D

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE RETURN MAIL OPERATIONS PO BOX 10368 DES MOINES IA 50306-0368

CAROLE ALLES 43060 ILLINOIS AVENUE PALM DESERT, CA 9221 1-7551

Account Information Online: weIlsfargo.com Fax: (866) 278-1 179 Telephone: (800) 416-1472 Correspondence: PO Box 10335

Des Moines, IA 50306 Hours of Operation: Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 11 PM

Sat, 9 AM - 3 PM CT

Loan Number: 01 54270391 Property Address: 43060 Illinois Avenue

Palm Desert CA 9221 1

Subject: Your request for mortgage payment assistance Note: We service your mortgage on behalf of your investor, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp - Freddie Mac.

Dear Carole Alles:

We're responding to your request for mortgage assistance and the options that may be available to help you. We realize that the process can take some time, and we appreciate your patience while we review your options.

Here's what we found We carefully reviewed the information you sent us and explored a number of mortgage assistance options. At this time, you do not meet the requirements of the program because:

Based on your documented monthly income, we are unable to create an affordable payment that meets the requirements of the program.

Please note: the information above is the primary reason that you are not eligible for mortgage assistance, however there may be other reasons related to the decision. If you have any questions about our decision, please call your Home Preservation Specialist at the number listed at the bottom of this letter.

What you need to do if you want to appeal this decision You have the right to request an appeal of the above-noted decision. If you want to appeal the decision, please follow these important steps:

1. Carefully review this letter and the reason you do not meet the requirement of the program. 2. If you have a reason to believe our determination was incorrect and want to appeal the decision,

call your home preservation specialist right away at the number listed at the bottom of this letter. We will discuss what documents you are required to submit to support your appeal. You must ensure that we receive all the information requested before 30 calendar days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive all required documentation from you by the deadline, we cannot move forward with your appeal.

Mail all required documents (and include your loan number) to:

Account Information Loan Number: 01 54270391

Property Address: 43060 Illinois Avenue 1 Palm Desert CA 9221 1

1000 Blue Gentian Road Suite 304 MAC X9999-01 N Eagan, MN 55121 Or fax all required documents to your home preservation specialist at the fax number listed at the bottom of this letter (and include your loan number).

3. After we receive your documentation, you will receive an acknowledgement letter outlining next steps in the appeals process.

4. Your home will not be sold in a foreclosure sale during the appeal period.

Your important next steps There may be other mortgage assistance options available to help you avoid a foreclosure sale. Please contact us to learn about the options listed below:

If you're interested in staying in your home, you may be eligible for help through a different mortgage assistance program. If you cannot or prefer not to stay in your home:

o If the present value of your home is higher than your mortgage balance, you can try to sell your home before the foreclosure sale takes place.

o If your mortgage balance is higher than the present value of your home, you may want to consider what is known as a "short sale". This allows you to sell your home privately for an agreed-upon amount that is less than what you owe on your mortgage. To start the short sale process, it's important for you to work with us in advance to set the selling price.

o The remaining option is a deed in lieu of foreclosure. You can voluntarily deed your property to Wells Fargo, transferring ownership of your home to us.

What you need to know about foreclosure We will continue to work with you to help you avoid a foreclosure sale. Please note the following:

If your mortgage has been or will be referred to foreclosure, that process moves forward at the same time.

e During the appeal period (within 30 days of the date of this letter), a foreclosure sale of your heme wl!! naf be heid. As part of the foreclosure process, you may see steps being taken in proceedings or receive notices from a third-party attorney delivered by mail.

Call us now We must hear from you. In order for us to help you, it's critical that you contact us immediately to discuss your options. Please call the phone number listed below.

Sincerely,

GAWM. S A ~ ~ A W I Carmen Saldana Home Preservation Specialist Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

11 llIlllil11111111 Ill 708015J270391HP601 111 ll1llllllllll11 1111 11 I 111 I 111 --. ran n o i 7 n AT.PSTUSZ-ET-M~-COO~

Page 3 of 3

Account Information Loan Number: 0154270391 r---1 Property Address: 43060 Illinois Avenue

Palm Desert CA 9221 1

- Ph: 1-877-242-5052 ext. 29489 - Fax: 1-866-590-891 0

[ ~ t r u ~ g j l i n ~ with other expenses? Help is available. , 1 Sometimes customers have trouble keeping up with their monthly expenses, other than their mortgage payments. If this is happening to you, help is available at no cost from a HUD-approved, non-profit credit counseling agency. Simply call a counselor who will work closely with you to rower your other monthly payments, take your frnancral circumstances into consideration, and create a budget plan to work for you. To find an agency in your neighborhood, call 1-800-569-4287 or call the HOPE Hotline at 1-888-995-HOPE.

Be sure you avoid anyone who asks for a fee for counseling or a loan modification, or asks you to sign over the deed to your home, or to make your mortgage payments to anyone other

--- A This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. However, if you have received a discharge of this debt in bankruptcy or are currently in a bankruptcy case, this notice is not intended as an attempt to collect a debt, and we have a security interest in the property and will only exercise our rights as against the property.

With respect to those loans located in the State of California, the state Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act require that, except under unusual circumstances, collectors may not contact you before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. They may not harass you by using threats of violence or arrest or by using obscene language. Collectors may not use false or misleading statements or call you at work if they know or have reason to know that you may not receive personal calls at work. For the most part, collectors may not tell another person, other than your attorney or spouse, about your debt. Collectors may contact another person to confirm your location or enforce a judgment. For more information about debt collection activities, you may contact the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-FTC-HELP or wvvw.ftc.gov.

The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract); because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program; or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The federal agency that administers compliance with th~s law concerning this creditor is Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Group, 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3450, Houston, TX 77010-9050.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is a division of Wells Fargo Bank. N. A. O 2012 Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. All rights resewed. Equal Housing Lender. NMLSR ID 399801

EXHIBIT E

RECORDING REQUESTED BY And When Recorded Mail To:

CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION 525 EAST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 22004 EL CAJON CA 92022-9004

Am: 637-21 1-004-0 Trustee Sale No. 1367335-10 Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE TRA:18244

REF: ALLES, CAROLE UNVER Property Address: 43060 ILLINOIS AVENUE, PALM DESERT CA 9221 1

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST, DATED July 28,2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER

On December 19,2012, at 9:00am, CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, as duly appointed trustee under and pursuant to Deed of Trust recorded August 02,2006, as Inst. No. 2006-0566295, in book XX, page XX, of OGcial Records in the office of the County Recorder of RIVERSIDE County, State of CALIFORNIA executed by:

CAROLE ALLES, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN AND NANCY DUFFY, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN

WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO HIGHEST BIDDER FOR CASH, CASHIER'S CHECK DRAWN ON A STATE OR NATIONAL BANK, A CHECK DRAWN BY A STATE OR FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, OR A CHECK DRAWN BY A STATE OR FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, OR SAVINGS BANK SPECIFlIED IN SECTION 5 102 OF THE FINANCIAL CODE AND AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE:

IN THE AREA IN THE FRONT OF 847 W SIXTH STREET

CORONA CALIFORNIA all right, title and interest conveyed to and now held by it under said Deed of Trust in the property situated in said County and State described as: COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED OF TRUST

Page 1 of 2

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE Trustee Sales No. 1367335-1 0

The street address and other common designation, if any, of the real property described above is purported to be: 43060 ILLINOIS AVENUE PALM DESERT CA 92211

The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown herein.

Said sale wili be held, but without covenant or warranty, express or implied, regarding title, possession, condition, or encumbrances, including fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee and of the trusts created by said Deed of Trust, to pay the remaining principal sums of the note@) secured by said Deed of Trust. The total amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation secured by the property to be sold and reasonable estimated costs, expenses and advances at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale is: $233,780.41.

If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder's sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse.

The beneficiary under said Deed of Trust heretofore executed and delivered to the undersigned a written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale, and a written Notice of Default and Election to Sell. The undersigned caused said Notice of Default and Election to Sell to be recorded in the county where the real property is located.

NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder's office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the Property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to section 29248 of the California Civil Code. The law requires that idonnation about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a murky to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sate of this property, you may call (619)590-1221 or visit the Internet Web Si&e WWW.RPPSALES.COM using the file number assigned to this case 1367335-10. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web Site. The best way to verirjr postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale.

FOR SALES INFORMATION: (619)590-1221 CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION 525 EAST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 22004 EL CAJON CA 92022-9004 Dated. November 12,2012 CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION

By: Authorized Signature

Page 2 of2

EXHIBIT F

NPV Evaluation Results

Based on the information you provided your mortgage may pass a HAMP NPV evaluation and you may be eligible for a HAMP modification. Be sure to save a copy of the information below and share it with your mortgage servicer to discuss options available to you.

Please note, CheckMyNPV.com provides only an estimate of a servicer's NPV evaluation. While the NPV formula used is required to be the same as your mortgage servicer's, differences in input data and other industry-related data may result in different outputs.

Your session has ended and you will not be able to run an NPV evaluation without completing this process again.

lnformation Calculated For You

For more information about the proposed modification, visit the Fre_qgntIy Asked .Qu.estjons

NPV Date

Unpaid Principal Balance of the Proposed Modification

Principal Forbearance Proposed Modification

Interest Rate of the Proposed Modification

Principal and Interest Payment of the Proposed Modification

Amortization Term of the Proposed Modification 480 months

lnformation That You Provided Which Best Describes You? Homeowner

Servicer & Investor Information

Your Inv eddie Mac

Homeowner & Property lnformation

Data Collection Date 1 1-23-20 12

Borrower Credit Score 775

Co-Borrower Credit Score

Monthly Gross Income

Property State

Property ZIP Code

Property Value

Property Valuation Type

Mortgage lnformation

not provided

$2,132.00

C A

9221 1

$1 13,000.00

EstimatedIAVM

Original Loan Amount

First Payment Date

Total First Mortgage Debt

Months Remaining) on Your Mortgage

Modification Fees Paid by Investor

Monthly Payment lnformation

Principal and Interest

Months Past Due

Imminent Default

Yes

$214,000.00

$214,000.00

7%

286

0%

$0.00

$1,491.78

$1 39.00

$55.00

$27.00

10

Yes

Important information regarding NPV Evaluation results obtained from this site. The net present value ("NPV") of your mortgage is one of many factors that need to be considered in determining whether you are eligible for participation in the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). For this reason:

The NPV evaluation results generated through use of this Site ("NPV Results") are not evidence of, nor are they determinative of, your or any other person's or entity's eligibility for

participation in any federal, state, local, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other mortgage foreclosure prevention or assistance type plan.

This calculator uses the same underlying formula for calculating NPV as that used by each participating mortgage servicer, these results may vary from that of this calculator due to differences in data inputs.

The NPV Results for a mortgage that are the same as or similar to NPV evaluation results obtained or reported by any other person or entity ("Other hlPV Evaluation Results") in connection with that mortgage do not constitute in any way any endorsement, statement, confirmation, verification or certification of accuracy or reasonableness by Treasury, its financial agents or any person or entity of such Other NPV Evaluation Results.

The NPV Results for a mortgage that differ from Other NPV Evaluation Results in connection with that mortgage do not constitute in any way any suggestion, inference, statement, confirmation, verification or certification by Treasury, its financial agents or any person or entity of any error, omission or illegal activity by any person or entity.

Helpful Resources

This information is provided subject to, and may only be used in compliance with, the Terms of Use and other requirements, policies and disclaimers contained on CheckMyNPV.com.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H

I Eligibility

1. I HA MP Eligibility Criteria

1. I. 1 Basic HA MP Eligibility Criteria

Chapter II: HAMP MHA Handbook v4.0 57

First lien

Not condemned

Financial hardship

Escrow account established

Unpaid principal balance limits

I

Single family property

Program cut-off date

The mortgage loan is a first lien mortgage loan originated on or before January 1,2009. This includes mortgages secured by:

Cooperative shares,

Condominium units, and

Manufactured housing (the first lien mortgage loan must be secured by the manufactured home and the land, both of which must be classified as real property under applicable state law).

The reference to "originated on or before" refers to the date on which the loan was first originated (i.e., not the date a loan may have been modified previously).

The property securing the mortgage loan has not been condemned or is not in such poor physical condition that it is not habitable even if not condemned. Servicers must retain in the mortgage file andlor servicing system all evidence related to the basis for the determination of an uninhabitable condition.

A borrower has documented a financial hardship and represented that he or she does not have sufficient liquid assets to make the monthly mortgage payments.

The borrower agrees to set up an escrow account for taxes and hazard and flood insurance prior to the beginning of the trial period if one does not currently exist.

The current unpaid principal balance (UPB) of the mortgage loan prior to capitalization is not greater than:

1 Unit $729,750

2 Units $934,200

3 Units $1,129,250

4 Units $1,403,400

The mortgage loan is secured by a one- to four-unit property.

The borrower has submitted an Initial Package (as defined in Section 4) on or before December 31, 2013 and the Modification Effective Date is on or before September 30, 2014.

1.1.2 HAMP Tier 1 Eligibility Criteria

A loan is eligible for Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Tier 1' if the servicer verifies that, in addition to satisfaction of the basic eligibility criteria for HAMP described in Section 1 .I .I, all of the following criteria are met:

1.1.3 HAMP Tier 2 Eligibility

Not previously HAMP modified

Delinquent or in imminent default

Owner-occupied

Minimum monthly mortgage payment ratio

A mortgage loan may be eligible for HAMP Tier 2 if (i) the borrower satisfies the basic eligibility criteria for HAMP set forth in Section I .I .I; (ii) the loan did not satisfy the criteria in Section I .I .2 for HAMP Tier 1 or, upon evaluation for a HAMP Tier 1 modification, failed to receive a modification under HAMP Tier 1 ; and (iii) the following criteria are met, if applicable:

The mortgage loan has not been previously modified under HAMP. For more information, refer to the Continued Eligibility due to Change in Circumstances guidance in Section 1.2.

The mortgage loan is delinquent or default is reasonably foreseeable. Loans currently in foreclosure are eligible.

The mortgage loan is secured by a single family property that is occupied by the borrower as his or her principal residence. Additionally, a loan may be considered for HAMP Tier 1 if:

The property was originally non-owner occupied, but the servicer can verify that it is currently the borrower's principal residence.

The borrower is displaced (e.g., military deployment, permanent change of station orders, out of area job transfer or foreign service assignment) but was occupying the property as his or her principal residence immediately prior to his or her displacement, intends to occupy the property as his or her principal residence in the future and the borrower does not own any other single family real estate (evidence may include but is not limited to: a credit report, property title search, military change of station orders or employer letter).

The borrower's monthly mortgage payment (including principal, interest, , taxes, insurance, and when applicable, association fees, existing escrow shortages) prior to the modification is greater than 31 percent of the borrower's verified monthly gross income.

' For clarity, a HAMP modification in existence prior to June 1, 2012, is referred to as "HAMP Tier 1" and references to "HAMP Tier 1" refers both to HAMP modifications completed under guidance in effect prior to June 1,2012 and HAMP Tier 1 modifications completed after June 1,2012.

Owner occupied or rental property

Chapter II: HAMP MHA Handbook v4.0 58

The mortgage loan is secured by a single family property that is either

Owner-occupied as set forth in 1 .I .2; or A rental property (defined below).

A "rental property" is a property that is used by the borrower for rental purposes only and not occupied by the borrower, whether as a principal residence, second home, vacation home or otherwise.

A mortgage loan secured by a rental property may be considered for a HAMP Tier 2 modification if the rental property is

1.2 Additional Factors Impacting HAMP Eligibility Certain factors impacting HAMP eligibility are described below:

(i) occupied by a tenant as their principal residence;

(ii) occupied by the borrower's legal dependent, parent or grandparent as his or her principal residence without rent being charged or collected; or

(iii) vacant and available for rent.

A property that is or will be offered for rent on a seasonal basis and is available for use by the borrower when it is not rented is not eligible for a HAMP modification. If the mortgage loan is secured by a rental property, the borrower must make the certifications described in Section 4.1 .I .2.

Previous HAMP Tier 2 ~ p p or permanent modification

Previous HAMP Tier 1 permanent modification

Previous HAMP Tier 1 TPP

Previous consideration for HAMP

Delinquent or imminent default

Chapter II: HAMP MHA Handbook v4.0 59

A mortgage loan has not received a permanent modification or TPP under HAMP Tier 2.

A mortgage loan on which the borrower lost good standing under a HAMP Tier 1 permanent modification, and, at the time of evaluation for HAMP Tier 2, at least 12 months have passed since the HAMP Tier 1 Modification Effective Date or the borrower has experienced a change in circumstances.

A mortgage loan that received a HAMP Tier 1 TPP but on which the borrower defaulted.

A mortgage loan was evaluated for HAMP prior to June 1,2012 and was not offered a HAMP Tier 1 TPP as long as the non-approval was not due to borrower fraud or non-compliance with section 1481 of Dodd-Frank Act (as defined in Section 1.7 of Chapter I).

A mortgage loan is delinquent (which, in the case of a mortgage loan secured by a rental property, means two or more payments are due and unpaid) or default is reasonably foreseeable; provided, however, that a mortgage loan secured by a rental property that is not in default even if default is reasonably foreseeable is not eligible for HAMP Tier 2. Loans currently in foreclosure are eligible.

No waiver of legal rights

No up-front contribution

Active litigation

The servicer may not require a borrower to waive legal rights as a condition of HAMP.

The servicer may not require a borrower to make any "good faith" payment or , up-front cash contribution to be considered for HAMP.

A borrower in active litigation regarding the mortgage loan is eligible for HAMP.

EXHIBIT I

74 LAWSUITS v. WELLS FARGO LENDER MISCONDUCT (11/1/07-11/1/12) US Dept. Justice, SEC, NFHA, Atty Generals, Class Action, Private, e t c _^_ ---. _ - ~ s w - p p " I--- p"-*.I. -".---*",--<<--

I State Date Filed i Plaintiff e

I 1 Oct. 8, 1 NY 3

2012 I ; U.S. Dept. of Justice j VS.

A decade of misconduct, under the Federal False Claims Act - false certifications, mortgage lies Assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman Manhattan Federal District Court

Filed Seeking 100's of millions

Aug. 17, 2012

Best Medical Inter. vs. Wells Fargo

Discrimination - "The suit alleges that Wells Fargo discriminated against TeamBest(R) companies when it called commercial mortgage loans. The loans were fully performing with timely payments of principal and interest.

Filed

",A-"j+."',u,- + -,-,," . . - . , . - . . . , ~ . . - l - w - e ~ , . , , . . . . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , , ~ * , ~ ~ ",,* , , v ~ , , . . ~ ~ . " ' . , - . - .I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I"".I.I.I" " lll-.l,,,,,,,,,,,,w,..... "-

Aug. 14, ! MN 1 S.E.C. Order INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND- Wells Fargo fined $6.5 million 2012 1 I DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANTTO SECTION 8A OF THE 1

Z I #33-9349.pdf SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, i

Aug. 2, 2012

. . . . . . . . . ... .. .

Jul. 23, 2012

Yovany Gonzalez vs. Wells Fargo Case# 50 2012 CAOl4220

Duran vs. Wells Fargo Case No. 12-20362-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF

Wells Fargo allegedly fired plaintiff three days before his ed -seeking the $15,000 min. daughter's cancer surgery, on a pretext, because the treatment was too expensive.

Act Plaintiff to submit additional information

Jul. 16, 2012

Ira Fladell vs. Wells Fargo Case # 12-cv-61368

Charging inflated force placed insurance premiums to : Filed homeowners - The premiums were inflated to cover kickbacks in the form of unearned commissions

Jul. 12, 2012

Justice Dept. vs, Wells Fargo

Racial discrimination - African-American and Hispanic borrowers were allegedly steered into high-cost, subprime mortgages

AG Lisa Madigan announces judgment: $: to be paid to 34,000 Wells customers as 1 judgment, with millions more to be addel

Jun. 15, 2012

---- Jun. 11,

2012

Bill Kuhl vs. Wells Fargo Bank Case #S-11-0221

,,,A,"". .--".- Schwarz vs. Wells Fargo Bank Cause # 04-0150-2-8 Hampton and Associates, P.C. Haney and Associates, P.C.

Unlawful termination Breach of express contract of employment

Filed

- - - ------- ""-

Breach of fiduciary duty and mismanagement

, , , - ** --" ---- "--

Filed 5th amended orig. petition Probate Court, Tarrant County, TX Seeking $50,000 relief Trial scheduled for Oct. 1. 2012

Vicki and Richard Sutcliffe vs Wells Fargo Case 3:ll-cv-06595-JCS

1 Denial of permanent loan modification - 1 San Francisco federal judge rules - Phony loan modification Unfair competition, breach of contract and bad faith ! Wells Fargo Loses Bid to DismissHomeow

Apr. 10, 2012

NFHA vs. Wells Fargo

I Foreclosed properties in White areas are much better i Filed - based upon undercover investigati j maintained and marketed by Wells Fargo than such

Apr. 9, 2012

Michael Jones vs. Wells Fargo

1 Mortgage servicing misconduct $3.1 million awarded to plaintiff Federal Judge Elizabeth Magner chided VI severely for "highly reprehensible" c o n d ~

Mar. 21, 2012

MDI Holdings vs. 1 Wells Fargo & ~ ~ - - ~ e , - , - , ~ % " " "--

Wells Fargo bank overstepped its boundaries and tried to run Filed - asking for $15 million MDl's business

1 Lori Winod vs. 1 Wells Fargo Mar. 9,

2012 1 Fraud and Breach of Contract Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals says Chi,

homeowner Lori Wigod does have the rig Wells Fargo for fraud and breach of contr

Feb. 14, I CA I Pirelli Armstrong Tire 2012 I ; Retiree Medical trust vs.

John G. Stumpf

1 Case - C 11-236941

I

Northern California District Court Judgment from Judge Susan lllston - "robo-signing of mortgage documents, criminal-enforcement i Directors of Wells Fargo & Co., must face actions and fair-lending violations." I claims the bank failed to properly disclos~

1 its foreclosure practices to government investigators.

Feb.10, 1 CA 1 Baron and Budd vs. Abusive mortgage default fees 1 Filed

2012 1 Wells Fargo and JPM Chase i .............-. - . . . - l . - . e ...- " " - .... .. .... ... .............. i ........ ................. r--" --,, ..-......-*........ ,,,-" ......P~....-.- .., "^ . " .,~..%+'"".."-~,,,&..' ......'........."d.....-. .,,.--

Feb. 3, 1 NY I NY Attornev General vs. 2012

I 1 Wells Fargo

i Jan. 17, 1 CA , Rousseau and Rousseau vs.

2012 i 1 Wells Fargo j I Case No. 56-2011-00398799-CU-OR-VTA

"repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and ' Filed misleading informationthat made it appear that the

I foreclosing party had the authority to bring a case when in : 1 fact it may not have." ,- X- - '". -_"". ---*"$"."- - ------ - --- -

~ ~ z M T N D E D COMPMINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: Filed I BREACH OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEAL1NG;WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

Dec. 1, 1 MA AG Martha Coakley 2011 j 1 State of Massachusetts vs.

i I I Wells Fargo

1 Unlawful foreclosures, false documentation , robo-signing, I Filed and deceptive practices related to loan modifications. I 1

Nov. 28, 1 KS ! National Credit Union Ad. I Wachov~a misrepresented mortgage-backed securities and Filed - approx. $160M 2011 1 : (NCUA)vs. violated state and federal laws.

! Wells Fargo Securities I Case # 11-cv-2649

. . . . . . . . .-- Nov. 2, I NY I Loreley Financing vs.

2011 1 I Wells Fargo Securities I Case # 653037f2011

Consp~ring to defraud Lorelev In the sales of $163.3 million of Filed j collateralized debt obilgations

i I

Oct. 27, i TX Richard Davis vs. AHMSl / Loan servicers and their henchmen [attornevs and real Filed and Wells Fargo Bank estate brokers) continue to ignore the requirements of the Case # 1:ll-cv-219 Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.

--- . . . --- -* - Oct. 19, 1 DC i Justin Genese vs. 1 Banks colluded with Visa and Mastercard to set artificially Filed

2011 1 I Visa, Mastercard et al. hiah rates on ATM fees.

I Case # 11-cv-01838 -... ........4...-"---** ...... " " " - . . . .................." " . . . " " , , , ~-........ . . .....................*...................-.. ..-.....-....... .--

! MN Securian Financial et al Oct. 7,

2011 I / vs. Wells Fargo

i , Case # 0:ll-cv-02957

J

Riskv Wells Fargo investments cost plaintiff $40 million 5 Filed

i I i

Oct. 4, / FL I Duran vs. Wells Fargo 2011 i / Case #09-03703-CA

Mortgage appraisal and origination fraud Filed

Oct. 3, CA 1 Barry Fagan vs. 2011 / 1 Wells Fargo

I : Case # SC112044

Bank and Appraisal Fraud Ongoing

Sept. 30, 1 CA 2011 [

i 1

i Sound Appraisal vs. I Wells Fargo I Case Number 10-16502 / Ninth Court of Appeals

........................................................................................... '........'....."'..........A*.

! LaBovick Law vs.

i Wells Fargo

I Case#502011CA013862

I I Conspiracy to violate the California common law dutv of fair Filed I procedure I

I Emplovee was terminated for bringing to light multiple ! Filed - NOBODY will provide the date in SI branch violations of the Patriot Act. i Announced on November 10,2011

i

I

Fraud, nenligent misrepresentation. conversion, breach of f Filed 2011 Wells Fargo contract. breach of aood faith and fair dealina i

Case No. 5:ll-w-743 unconscionable acts, uniust enrichment, and for violations of 1 the Texas I

I -n-

Sept. I, ' MN 2011

i

i i

Mike Ciresi for 9 charitable organizations vs. Wells Fargo

Fraud and Breech of Fiduciarv Duty by ClearLend Securities

I Filed i

Sept. 1, CA 1 United Foreclosure Attornev Network Hinhlv Predatorv Loans 2011 I I Case # 34-2011-00110146 i

1 Filed

I

Aug. 5, : NY 2011 ,

I

Aug. 3, 1 CA

2011 /

Filed by Jack Pankow for Brian and Holly Barnhart and American Home Mortgage Sew. ................................................................................................

Class Action vs. Wachovia Preferred Securities Case 1:09-cv-06351-RJS

Wachovia failed to disclose the true qualitv of its bonds and Wells Fargo agrees to pay $590 million the bank's financial health

Chandler, AARP vs. Wells Fargo 11-cv-03831 U.S. District Court

Illegal Reverse Mortnape Foreclosures Heirs shut out

; Filed i

Jul. 26, 1 / Discriminatory Lending i "Lawsuit in Preparation"

2011 I Department of Justice

1 I -"" d , n " " * * " " ~ m ~ , ~ ~ - ~ - - - - "+"-"-"--- ---"-- ,,, ....------>--""",*--- . *-* . i

1 Jun. 23, / GA Bibby and Donnellyvs.

i

Veterans were Charned Hidden, Illegal Fees i Amended complaint filed 2011 1 Wells Fargo I Suit originally filed in 2006

I i Case #1:06-CV-0547-MHS 1 - . " " . i l . ~ , m ~ " ....... ..--**--..., . ....,, ---...*,..,,-..- .---,--., ....... "."-

$ 2

Jun. 15, 1 GA 1 Thomas G. Bloomer vs. Wells f a r ~ o foreclosed on plaintiff's house, when plaintiff Filed 2011 1 ! Wells Fargo Bank never even had a loan with them.

1 Case # 2:ll-cv-00072-LGW-JEG i May 13, 1

2011 I ..... ".." ........... ..*....

May 4, 1 2011 i i --"."'"-*--

i Apr. 29, (

2011 j

I TX / Homeowners vs. Wells Fargo

.. ! ............. TN City of Memphis, TN 1 Memphis and Shelby counties --- i . . -.I. +-.. ... <- "-

NV I Signature Developers j Elko, NV

Wells Fargo did not own the Note and thus had no standing i Texas Court of Appeals affirms Summary to foreclose.

..................................... "" .... ............-..--pee.. .......... " ........ .....................

1 Predatory Mortgage Lending

i j Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss denied 1 "Plaintiffs have adequately pled"

Illegal Foreclosure - Riverside Condominiums

I WF must pay $9.5 Million $5.5 M for Fraud $2.5 M for Negligent Represent.

I 1 $1.5 M for Breach of Contract

f Apr. 25, 1 MD

2011 1 ---",.+ II

Apr. 15, 1 NY 2011 1

I

City of Baltimore Predatory Lending 1 Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss denied. Cz : proceed I '"-- . " - * ~ ~ " " " - ~ ~ ~ " " " " - ~ - - - -"""" z---- -.mw. -<-

Wells Fargo vs. U.S. Wells denied $115M ~n tax deductions fo

Flood Insurance Class Action 3 classes

I Filed

Predatory Mort~age Lending F must pay $3.5 Million

Mar. 7, 1 CA j Thomas M. Coleman 1 Motion to force arbitration i Order affirmed - Respondent Coleman to 2011 1 Breach of fiduciary duties I costs

... -,*,- "& --,.----.-..-..-. ..--" -.. %,,,,m,,- --.. .--,.."'.'"-,_---<-.. --" _,--.., - ............ .*--M,,M",-. dm..- i Feb. 22, / FL I Florida retiree

2011 j IRA malfeasance, excessive trading 1 Pending

I i

e b 21, 1 GA 1 Veteran's Class Action I

Veterans were overcharged on mortgages ells Fargo must pay $10 M ~ l l ~ o n

2011 1 I - "-- "" Y--. .+-em". -.- --- - " - "-

Feb. 15, I PA Patrick Rodger~ vs. 2011 / 1 Wells Fargo

Homeowner Forecloses on Wells Fargo Wells failed to answer mortgage questions

i Wells Fargo had to pay $1,000

Feb. 2, 1 CA : Shellie Gordon vs 2011 1 1 Wells Rrgo

1 Overtime Class Action 1 Misclassified employees

: Filed

1

Jan. 7, j MA i Massachusetts Supreme Court I

Illegal Foreclosures t No more phony foreclosure assignments 2011 1 I Improper/ incomplete paperwork

j i

. i "+ . " . - m " m ~ - ~ - ~ ~ - - ~

; State I Date : Filed Plaintiff Result

Dec. 30, 1 CA 1 Nelson vs. Wells Fargo Fraud

i ."" - - ,

? 2010 1 Case # BC 452 264

i j--"-d-"---"&-----p- -.-

Dec. 20, 1 CA ; California Attorney General Predaton Loans Settlement : Wells Fargo has agreed in a settlement tc 2010 1 4 Wachovia wrongdoing, primarily bring~ng about its collapse - j home-loan modifications worth $2 billior

i Bill~ons are owed to Californians 1 also pay $32 million in restrtut~on to born

i i lost their homes through foreclosures. *- X/ -- N O ~ . 23, / A / Harwood Feffer Class Action

1 Forster vs. Wells Fargo et al.

r i

on their mortgages bv informina borrowers that loan mpany, which is Wells Fargo's loan ser

Oct. 27, NV Alkimya Group Fraud - Breach of Contract I Filed 2010 1 Negligent Misrepresentation I - - "+-.----,""--m-"-"w +." ,, , , , , , , *-?--" " --- - -* - * *-* - " "*- -

Oct. 14, 1 NY I New York Supreme Cou. 2010 1 / Wells Fargo us. A.D. Paneth

Fatal Defect - Mortgage was NEVER assigned to Wells Fargo I

i Foreclosure denied

Aug. 11, CA , Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo 2010 ,

1 Gouging and profiteering - 1 phony overdraft fees

Wells Fargo must pav $203 Million

I Jul. 19, j MA Homeowner Group

2010 1 j 1 Loan Modifications Denied Pending 1 Breech of Contract a

1 Jun. 30, FL / Sarasota County Improper Investment Advice it seeks $40 Million 2010 1

-" .... .- i " - " " - . , - I - - " . """.-,"".",a*# ,.... "..>" -,," "- Jun. 3, 1 MN I 4 Non-profits vs.

2010 ; Wells Fargo Breach of Fiduciarv Duty i Wells Fargo must pay $30 million Violations of the Minnesota consumer fraud act

Apr. 29, 1 CA ; Ronald Ward et. al. vs. Breach of Contract - Wrongful foreclosure ! Filed 2012 1 1 Wells Fargo Filed in Santa Cruz, CA i 2011 Follow up

- : i 1

"Y"-" ------ Apr. 15, j IL 1 Class Action

2010 d 1 Lori Wigod vs. Wells Fargo 1 i Case l:10-CV-02348

1

I 1. Breach of Contract r ? 2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing i 3. Promissory Estoppel 1

i A . 14, TN i City of Memphis, TN

2010 ! Predatow lend in^

i

Pending

I Mar. 10, : NY , Wells Fargo vs.

2010 1 i Stephen Tyson / Trespass (Foreclosure) Wells Fargo must pay $155,000

i Jan. 12, I D.C. Wells Fargo vs. U.S. Improper Tax Deductions - SILO I Wells denied $115M ~n tax deductions

2010 1 Improper deals with tax-exempt entities I i

"--p--","vm-- -""" """-------,, -"-- e"v """ --- - -- " "" -"

4

Jan. 7, 1 MD 2010 1

City of Baltimore, MD I Predatorv Lendina - Ghetto Loans Dismissed - recession blamed j Judge caves in to Wells

Oct. 23, 1 NY I Wells Fargo vs. 2009 I 1 Marchione et al.

Wells Fargo Loses Appeal - Assignments disallowed

Aug. 19, 2009

Michael Hickman vs. Wells Fargo

lllegallv Cut Home Equity Lines of Credit- Did not provide ; Filed

software undervalued homes

Jul. 31, 1 IL 2009 1 Illinois Attorney General

Case # 09CH26434 Discriminatorv illegal lendin

/ Blacks steered to sub-primeyoans Filed

$

Oct. 30, / CA ! Unreimbursed Business Expenses 2008 \ 1 6,600 Home Loan Consultants - Class Action

deductions 1 i Wells Fargo agrees to pay up to $10 Millic

3

oct. 3, i WA 2008 1

Hagens Berman $ ( Excessive overdraft fees 1 Transaction resequencing

Customer transactions were illegally reor as to maximize late and overdraft fees.

Nov. 1, 2007

DOLORES MANDRIGUES, et al. VS.

World Savings, Wachovia Mortgage Case 5:07-cv-04497-JF

DC 1 Yvonne Gipson et al. / vs. Wells Fargo ! 3rd amended complaint filed June 7, 2010 in j Minnesota

I Case # 08-CV-4546

The "Pick-A-Payment" case ; Filed

(1) Violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 51601, et seq; 1 (2) Fraudulent Omissions; (3) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code 517200, et i

seq. &endash; "Unfair" and "Fraudulent" Business Practices; ! (4) Breach of Contract; and (5) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings. P" - --- +- Breach of Fiduciary Dutv 1. Engaging in prohibited transactions - - - .

2. Breach of duty of loyalty 3. Breach of Co-Fiduciary Duty 4. Wells Fargo violated ERISA

I Filed

1

* I I , . ....--------..."'...---""".....-.......... IpX....I ... ..IIIXXX..-.. ....... " . . - - : " . . . - " .... ...-",,,, ,-.- . ....<........-...... I

Duces Tecum An investigative subpoena which compels a bank to produce documents, typically used to prove property I ownership. Often, banks are unable to prove ownwrship, due to the fact that many mortgages have been I socalled "derivatives", and tracability is lost. This results in Wells Fargo (and others) trying to foreclose on of mortgages that they DO NOT OWN.

Government sues Wells Fargo for reckless lending practices

By Danielle Douglas and Brady Dennis, Published: October 9,2012 The Washington Post

Wells Fargo engaged in a long-standing practice of reckless and fraudulent mortgage lending that cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims when those loans went bad, federal prosecutors alleged Tuesday.

In a civil lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, government lawyers accused the San Francisco-based bank of concealing the true nature of at least 6,320 shoddy mortgages that were insured by the Federal Housing Administration. The government is seeking unspecified civil penalties that could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

For nearly a decade, the nation's largest home mortgage lender routinely ignored warnings fiom its own employees of loans rife with serious violations or fraud, prosecutors said. Instead, Wells Fargo gave a poorly trained staff incentives to keep churning out bad loans. When struggling homeowners stopped making monthly payments, the loans defaulted in mass, leaving the government on the hook for massive insurance payouts to the bank.

"As the complaint alleges, yet another major bank has engaged in a long-standing and reckless trifecta of deficient training, deficient underwriting and deficient disclosure, all while relying on the convenient backstop of government insurance," the U.S. attorney for the Southern District ofNew York, Preet Bharara, said in a statement.

Wells Fargo adamantly denied the allegations, saying in a statement that "it acted in good faith and in compliance" with FHA and Department of Housing and Urban Development rules. Company officials stressed that many of the issues in the lawsuit had been

previously addressed with HUD. "Wells Fargo.. . has acted as a prudent and responsible lender with FHA delinquency rates that have been as low as half the industry average," the company said. "The bank will present facts to vigorously defend itself against this action."

For Wells Fargo, the accusations were yet another blow to its reputation. Despite upholding itself as a model of propriety in the mortgage industry, the bank has been hit with a series of civil actions .In one of the largest fair-lending payouts in history, Wells Fargo reached a $1 75 million settlement with the Justice Department in July to resolve accusations that it steered black and Latino borrowers into hgh-priced subprime loans.

Justice officials said at the time that investigators had discovered that mortgage brokers working on behalf of Wells Fargo had charged minority borrowers lugher interest rates and fees than those offered to whte borrowers with similar credit scores between 2004 and 2009. Wells Fargo denied the claims but announced that it would cease funding loans through independent mortgage brokers.

A month before that settlement, the bank agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it sold troubled mortgage securities without disclosing the risks to customers.

And in February, Wells Fargo was one of five large banks to agree to a $25 billion settlement with state and federal officials over widespread foreclosure abuses, which included filing flawed and falsified court documents to move struggling borrowers out of their homes quickly.

As part of that deal, the bank agreed to pay more than $1 billion in penalties and provide more than $4 billion in relief to homeowners in the form of refinancings, lower loan balances and other aid. It also agreed to overhaul its loan-servicing practices.

The latest charges against Wells Fargo centers on mortgages made between 2001 and 2010. Prosecutors said the bank claimed that over 100,000 home loans met federal guidelines for FHA insurance, even though it knew many of the mortgages did not. In the 193-page complaint, Wells Fargo is accused of aggravating the widespread underwriting violations by paying bonuses to staff to ramp up loan production and pressuring loan officers to fast-track loans with little quality control.

"There was a time when Wells Fargo placed profits over people, corporate results over corporate integrity, and did not consider the effect its actions would have on the FHA program as well as the overall economy," HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky said in a statement.

To date, the Justice's civil frauds unit, working with President Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, has brought five similar lawsuits. Three of the five cases have settled, including one that resulted in CitiMortgage agreeing to pay $158.3 million in February. A lawsuit against Allied Home Mortgage Corp. and two of its officers is still pending.