Larace Et Al V Wells Fargo Et Al 18MISC000327 5-10-19

Page | 1
Volume I
Pages: 1-53
Exhibits: 0
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS. LAND COURT DEPARTMENT

OF THE TRIAL COURT
*******************************
MARK A. LARACE, ET AL *
Plaintiff *
v. * DOCKET NUMBER 18MISC000327
*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL *
Defendant *
*******************************
HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE HOWARD P. SPEICHER
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
Law office of Glenn F. Russell, Jr.
38 Rock Street
Fall River, Massachusetts 02720
By: Glenn F. Russell, Esq.
For the Defendant:

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
53 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
By: Hale Y. Lake, Esq.
Boston, Massachusetts
May 10, 2019
Recording produced by digital audio recording system. Transcript

produced by Approved Court Transcriber, Donna Holmes Dominguez
Page | 2
I N D E X
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
None - Hearing
Page | 3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (Court called to order.)
3 COURT OFFICER: Court, all rise.
4 Court is now in session.
5 Please be seated.
6 THE CLERK: Friday, May 10th, 2019, 18 Miscellaneous 327,
7 LaRace v. Wells Fargo Bank.
8 THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.
9 MS. LAKE: Good morning, Your Honor.
10 MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, Your Honor.
11 Glenn F. Russell Jr. on behalf of the plaintiffs, the --
12 THE COURT: Good morning.
13 MR. RUSSELL: -- LaRaces.
14 THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Russell and Ms. --
15 MS. LAKE: Yeah.
16 THE COURT: -- Lake.
17 MS. LAKE: Good morning, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: All right. So we’re -- we’re back on track
19 here. I saw your supplemental memorandum, Mr. Russell.
20 Ms. Lake, your record is now complete.
21 And I’ll hear you, Ms. Lake.
22 MS. LAKE: Sure.
23 Does -- does Your Honor want me to stand at the podium or
24 is -- or --
25 THE COURT: Actually, the podium is probably a better

Page | 4
1 idea because you’re a little closer to the microphone.
2 MS. LAKE: Okay.
3 Thank you, Your Honor.
4 The defendants in this case, Wells Fargo as Trustee, and
5 Auckland, are seeking summary judgment on the remaining counts
6 of the plaintiff’s complaint.
7 At the heart of this action is a mortgage that’s been in
8 default since 2007, and this is the fourth lawsuit between
9 the plaintiffs and the bank.
10 There are five remaining counts in this case. A count
11 one for declaratory judgment that the defendants cannot
12 utilize Chapter 244, Section 14 with respect to the July 2018
13 --
14 THE COURT: Your -- your argument on count one is number
15 one, that it’s -- it doesn't state a claim because it seeks
16 judicial authorization of a foreclosure in the abstract; and
17 number two, that it’s moot because it was --
18 MS. LAKE: Already occurred --
19 THE COURT: Well --
20 MS. LAKE: -- Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: -- that’s really a res judicata argument --
22 MS. LAKE: Yes.
23 THE COURT: -- right?
24 Where -- where -- is -- is the -- you refer to the First
25 Circuit decision. Now, I know I can take judicial notice of

Page | 5
1 it, but I didn't get a citation of it either. So what -- do
2 you have it?
3 MS. LAKE: I should.
4 Give me one second.
5 THE COURT: It’s not in the record; is it?
6 I -- I --
7 MS. LAKE: I thought we cited it, but --
8 THE COURT: Yeah. You -- you mentioned it in your brief,
9 but there’s no citation to the federal reports, and I don’t
10 think I saw a copy of it in the record.
11 MS. LAKE: Do you have it, Glenn?
12 THE COURT: Well, a citation will do.
13 MS. LAKE: I apologize, Your Honor. I thought it was in
14 our papers, but --
15 MR. RUSSELL: I thought I had captioned it --
16 THE COURT: All right. You know what, we -- we’ll leave
17 that for later. You can provide it afterwards?
18 MS. LAKE: I can get that for Your Honor, I can provide
19 it to you. I just -- I don’t have it in front of me at the
20 moment.
21 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
22 MS. LAKE: Yeah.
23 The argument is that that First Circuit decision, as Your
24 Honor knows, that’s a 2007 foreclosure sale that had been
25 invalidated, and there was a later title -- tri title action

Page | 6
1 that was filed by the plaintiffs in 2012.
2 THE COURT: And then it was removed to Federal Court.
3 MS. LAKE: Correct. And the First Circuit decided that
4 the SJC did not say that the assignments that were on record
5 were void, but that the 2007 foreclosure sale was voided
6 because Wells Fargo didn't --
7 THE COURT: Did -- did the Court --
8 MS. LAKE: -- have --
9 THE COURT: -- rule or have before it the issue of the
10 validity of the confirmatory mortgage or the 2 -- or the
11 assignment, or the 2008 assignment?
12 MS. LAKE: Yes. I believe that they did. They had both
13 in front of them, and they decide -- the argument of the
14 plaintiffs had been advancing even in that 2012 case was that
15 the 200 assignment was declared void so we can no longer rely
16 on it. And so the 2012 assignment couldn't confirm an
17 assignment that the SJC had already declared --
18 THE COURT: And the --
19 MS. LAKE: -- was void.
20 THE COURT: -- Court ruled that that was --
21 MS. LAKE: That that was not correct, that the SJC
22 decision in the Ibanez case decided that the foreclosure sale
23 was invalid, but did not decide that the specific assignments
24 were invalid.
25 THE COURT: Okay.

Page | 7
1 MS. LAKE: So the assignment stood. It’s just that as of
2 the date of the foreclosure sale, Wells Fargo did not have
3 sufficient documents to prove that as of the date of that
4 sale, it was the holder such that that foreclosure sale could
5 be valid under 244, 14.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. LAKE: So, our -- the record here today as it stands
8 with respect to the 2018 foreclosure sale is our position that
9 the record establishes conclusively that Wells Fargo has
10 standing as both the mortgagee and the note holder to proceed
11 with the foreclosure.
12 The -- there are -- there are two assignments of record,
13 the 2008 assignment and then the later 2012 confirmatory
14 assignment, both of which establish an unbroken chain of
15 assignments from the originating lender, Option One, to Wells
16 Fargo who was the foreclosing entity, excuse me.
17 THE COURT: All right. And can you point out to me where
18 this chain of assignments is in the record?
19 MS. LAKE: Sure.
20 So Exhibit B to our affidavit, the affidavit of Jordan
21 O’Donnell, is the 2008 assignment, and that was from Option
22 One to Wells Fargo Bank as trustee.
23 And then attached as Exhibit C to the O’Donnell affidavit
24 is the 2012 confirmatory assignment.
25 THE COURT: So that’s B as in boy and D as in dog?

Page | 8
1 MS. LAKE: B as in boy is the 2008 assignment.
2 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
3 MS. LAKE: And C as in Charlie is the 2012 --
4 THE COURT: Oh.
5 MS. LAKE: -- confirmatory assignment.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. LAKE: So it is your position that both of those
8 assignments comply with Chapter 183, Section 54B. They were
9 executed before a notary public by the then mortgagee holding
10 the corporate title. It was an assistant secretary. And was
11 then transferred to the --
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MS. LAKE: -- current foreclosing lender.
14 Even still, I mean it’s well settled at this point here
15 in 2019 about what borrowers can or cannot challenge by way of
16 assignments. Any of the challenges that they’re raising with
17 respect to signing authority is -- would be considered --
18 THE COURT: That’s a void versus voidable kind of --
19 MS. LAKE: Void versus voidable. Correct.
20 And signing authority, as everyone has already discussed,
21 is a voidable challenge that is not subject to a borrower
22 being able to raise that to challenge a banks ability to
23 foreclose.
24 We are --
25 THE COURT: I -- I'm sorry to interrupt --

Page | 9
1 MS. LAKE: No --
2 THE COURT: -- but on count one --
3 MS. LAKE: -- that’s fine.
4 THE COURT: -- you’re also making a mootness argument
5 that because the foreclosure has already gone forward and it’s
6 seeking a declaratory judgment, that they can't go forward
7 with foreclosure. That’s moot --
8 MS. LAKE: Yes.
9 THE COURT: -- as well?
10 MS. LAKE: That is --
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MS. LAKE: -- also our argument, Your Honor.
13 The sale occurred July 3rd, 2018 after the plaintiffs’
14 request for TRO was denied. That is another argument that
15 we’re making that that count one is -- well, really that the
16 entirety of the complaint is moot because when they filed suit
17 to enjoin a foreclosure sale, where that foreclosure sale has
18 already occurred, there is no longer live controversy before
19 this Court for Your Honor to rule on.
20 In the alternative, it’s our second position that
21 regardless of the mootness of the claims, the record does
22 establish sufficiently Wells Fargo’s standing to foreclose.
23 The ancillary argument -- at least what we think is an
24 ancillary argument is that the -- the plaintiffs are trying to
25 void the 2018 foreclosure based on the SJC decision in that

P a g e | 10
1 prior Ibanez case from 2008.
2 Now, if that prior case had not happened and we were
3 coming here on a straight foreclosure, the record would be
4 there are assignments of mortgage that are in the chain of
5 title, the note which we have provided as part of the record
6 is endorsed in blank, and those two things together would give
7 Wells Fargo standing to foreclose.
8 Their argument, though, is that now we need to look at
9 the PSA and we need to provide proof that all of these off
10 record assignments were there to give Wells Fargo standing.
11 We don’t believe that that’s what Your Honor has to look at,
12 that Your Honor can rely solely on the record documents in
13 order to confirm that Wells Fargo had standing, but even
14 still, we have provided a copy of the PSA and the mortgage
15 loan schedule that confirm that this mortgage did in fact go
16 from Option One as the originating lender to Wells Fargo as
17 trustee, as trustee of that securitized trust.
18 THE COURT: Wait. So give me the whole chain of title.
19 It started out with Option One --
20 MS. LAKE: Correct.
21 And then --
22 THE COURT: And in what year -- at some point, it went
23 into the PSA?
24 MS. LAKE: It did. So the -- the mortgage was executed
25 May 19th of 2005. The first foreclosure -- I'm sorry.

P a g e | 11
1 The first assignment was recorded May 12th of 2008, and
2 that was from Option One to Wells Fargo Bank as trustee.
3 THE COURT: Wait, wait.
4 So May 12, 2008, that’s Exhibit B.
6 And then --
7 THE COURT: But at that point, it was already in the PSA?
8 MS. LAKE: It was -- yes. The PSA is dated, I believe,
9 October 1st, 2005, and attached to that PSA is a copy of the
10 mortgage loan schedule which we have produced as Exhibit O as
11 part of the record.
12 And that MLS --
13 THE COURT: Well where in the PSA, because it’s real big,
14 where -- where is this loan referenced?
15 MS. LAKE: So the loan is not referenced in the PSA. The
16 loan -- the PSA makes reference to the mortgage loan schedule
17 that includes all of the mortgage loans that were pulled into
18 the trust.
19 Article 2 talks about a conveyance of the mortgage loans
20 in the PSA.
21 And -- getting that page.
22 Article 2 begins on the page that -- page 90 of the PSA,
23 but it’s our bates numbered page WF186.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Hold on.
25 I don’t know where I'm going here.

P a g e | 12
1 So this is attached to your --
2 MS. LAKE: To our -- it was an affidavit with the reply
3 that was submitted.
4 THE COURT: Your response to plaintiff’s concise
5 statement of facts?
6 This was something that was just submitted in April;
7 correct?
8 MS. LAKE: Yes. It was just submitted in April.
9 We submitted a full copy of the PSA. The plaintiffs
10 attached a partial copy to their opposition, so we attached
11 the full copy --
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MS. LAKE: -- so Your Honor --
14 THE COURT: So tell me --
15 MS. LAKE: -- had all of it.
16 THE COURT: -- tell me where in this -- this big document
17 here I can find a reference to -- that will tell me that this
18 loan is included in this PSA.
19 MS. LAKE: So if Your Honor first goes to the page bates
20 number WF136, that defines mortgage loan schedule.
21 THE COURT: 136.
22 Okay.
23 MS. LAKE: So that makes reference to a mortgage loan
24 schedule that’s being attached as an exhibit.
25 And then article --

P a g e | 13
1 THE COURT: So where -- where does it -- mortgage loan
2 schedule. Okay.
3 MS. LAKE: It’s about a third of the way --
4 THE COURT: All right.
5 MS. LAKE: Article 2, which I just lost, begins on page
6 90 or the page bates numbered WF186. That talks about how the
7 depositor is transferring, assigning, and sending over to the
8 trustee each mortgage loan identified in the mortgage loan
9 schedule.
10 So we’re talking about the same mortgage loan schedule.
11 And then an exhibit to the PSA is the full mortgage loan
12 schedule that includes thousands upon thousands of mortgages.
13 THE COURT: Right. And this one’s one of them?
14 MS. LAKE: This one is one of them, and we produced the
15 redacted copy as Exhibit O. it begins with the bates numbered
16 page WF515, and according to the definition of mortgage loan
17 schedule, it says that the mortgages had to be identified by
18 the mortgage loan number, the state and zip of the mortgage
19 property, the type of residential dwelling, etcetera, and if
20 you look at the redacted copy of the MLS, the first column has
21 the number beginning with --
22 THE COURT: Wait.
23 MS. LAKE: -- 231 --
24 THE COURT: Hold on because I have --
25 MS. LAKE: Sorry.

P a g e | 14
1 THE COURT: You know --
2 I don’t --
3 MS. LAKE: I know.
4 THE COURT: -- have it, but my exhibit ends on page
5 WF513, and then there are Exhibit M, N, and O.
6 So you’re saying it’s part of Exhibit O?
7 MS. LAKE: Part of Exhibit O, correct, is the mortgage
8 loan schedule. O is actually a copy of our first supplemental
9 response to the request for production --
10 THE COURT: I need --
11 MS. LAKE: -- and it’s attached after that.
12 THE COURT: Exhibit O -- what I have here is a document
13 -- no. It’s just a copy of -- one of Mr. Russell’s filings.
14 No.
15 Dated 3/18 -- no, it’s not.
16 I -- I don’t even know what this is.
17 It’s a -- it’s a copy of a pleading.
18 MS. LAKE: Exhibit O itself should say first supplemental
19 response --
20 THE COURT: Right.
21 MS. LAKE: -- of defendant Wells Fargo.
22 THE COURT: Okay. So there’s no schedule with anything
23 in there.
24 MS. LAKE: It was attached to that, behind it.
25 It’s about 11 pages that should have started right after

P a g e | 15
1 the re -- written response.
2 THE COURT: All right. So let me show you what I’ve got.
3 Oh, it’s all redacted.
4 MS. LAKE: It is redacted. Correct.
5 It only includes this particular loan, since we cannot --
6 THE COURT: So the unredacted --
7 MS. LAKE: Line relates to this mortgage.
8 THE COURT: -- relates to this loan?
10 THE COURT: And -- and I know that because?
11 MS. LAKE: So if you look at the page that’s marked
12 WF514, which is the very first page, the top -- if you turn it
13 so that it’s landscape, not portrait, it says loan number at
14 the top. And if you turn to the next page, 515, that first
15 number 231066435 --
16 THE COURT: That’s this loan number?
17 MS. LAKE: That’s this loan number.
18 So if you look at the --
19 THE COURT: And where else does that show? Is it on the
20 mortgage?
21 MS. LAKE: It is on the mortgage which is attached as
22 Exhibit A.
23 THE COURT: Okay. I got it.
24 MS. LAKE: At the very front of Exhibit A should have
25 that mortgage number.

P a g e | 16
1 THE COURT: Exhibit A to what?
2 MS. LAKE: To the O’Donnell affidavit.
3 THE COURT: You don’t make it easy.
4 MS. LAKE: No. These documents are not the most --
5 THE COURT: Okay. I got the picture.
6 MS. LAKE: The mortgage loan schedule, Your Honor, in
7 addition to the loan number, also includes the original
8 principal balance which was the 103,200 dollars --
9 THE COURT: So that’s another identifying --
10 MS. LAKE: That’s another identifier. It also includes
11 the initial interest rate which is 7.25 percent. That’s in --
12 also in the note that we have provided for the record, and it
13 also includes the city and state which was Springfield,
14 Massachusetts.
15 So that is all of -- I believe the origination date is
16 also in there, but all of the identifying information for this
17 particular mortgage loan is included in the MLS.
18 If I'm understanding the plaintiff’s argument, they want
19 their names to appear, but that wasn’t a requirement, and I
20 certainly don’t --
21 THE COURT: No, I -- I get it. As long as it can be
22 identified --
23 MS. LAKE: Yes.
24 So that is the basis of our entirety of this argument
25 here, is that the documents in this record sufficiently

P a g e | 17
1 establish that this particular mortgage loan was securitized
2 --
4 MS. LAKE: -- under this --
5 THE COURT: So --
6 MS. LAKE: -- agreement.
7 THE COURT: So the loan was sent form Option One into
8 this PSA, and then in 2008, Option One executed an assignment
9 --
10 MS. LAKE: Yes. To clarify the chain of record, so chain
11 of title because --
12 THE COURT: And the assignment referred to the PSA? I'm
13 not really --
14 MS. LAKE: The assignment does not refer to the PSA. The
15 -- because, as the record at the registry stands that the
16 mortgage was in the name of Option One, Option One had to
17 execute an assignment in compliance with Massachusetts law to
18 confirm and memorialize that Wells Fargo was now the holder.
19 So it --
20 THE COURT: Yeah. But who’s the PSA?
21 Who -- who -- I mean --
22 MS. LAKE: Wells Fargo is identified in there as the
23 trustee of that --
24 THE COURT: They’re the trustee of the PSA?

P a g e | 18
1 And so the assignment --
2 THE COURT: And -- and the assignment was to Wells Fargo
3 Trustee?
4 MS. LAKE: As trustee, correct.
5 Of that --
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. LAKE: -- same securitized trust. All the language
8 matches up --
9 THE COURT: So you’re saying that putting it into the PSA
10 was essentially like an off record assignment --
12 THE COURT: -- and it was put on record with the 2008 --
13 MS. LAKE: First assignment.
14 THE COURT: -- assignment.
15 And the 2012 assignment did what?
16 MS. LAKE: They --
17 THE COURT: Why did you need a confirmatory assignment?
18 MS. LAKE: They executed one. They felt that it was
19 appropriate to do so to clarify the name of the assignor.
20 At some point, Option One changed its name to Sand
21 Canyon, so they re-executed it, Sand Canyon formerly known as
22 Option One to confirm -- to the extent that there was any
23 concern that Option One had changed its name, that they were
24 in fact still assigning the mortgage to --
25 THE COURT: Okay.

P a g e | 19
1 MS. LAKE: -- Wells Fargo as Trustee.
2 And the note which is also part of this record is
3 endorsed in blank.
4 Under the Massachusetts UCC, a note endorsed in a blank
5 is payable to the bearer and is negotiated by transfer of
6 possession until there is a specific endorsement.
7 There’s --
8 THE COURT: Where -- where’s the note in the record?
9 MS. LAKE: The note is attached as Exhibit 1 to the
10 affidavit by Ocwen Loan Serving.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MS. LAKE: There is then allonge at the end of that
13 Exhibit that is in blank from Option One.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MS. LAKE: So under Chapter 1063-205B, an endorsement in
16 blank goes to the holder. There was also affidavits recorded
17 in the chain of title confirming that Wells Fargo as Trustee
18 was the holder, to put everyone on record notice that it was
19 both the mortgagee and the record holder sufficiently
20 establishing the chain.
21 The remainder of the counts include a violation of the
22 209 CMR 1821 and or Chapter 244, Section 35C.
23 When we briefed this, that there is no private right of
24 action under the CMR.
25 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to --

P a g e | 20
1 MS. LAKE: But --
2 THE COURT: I'm going to be asking Mr. Russell about the
3 basis, but I -- I am not sure -- and Mr. Russell maybe -- why
4 don’t you confirm this right now?
5 What I understand your claim to be with respect to count
6 two is that the mortgagee did not document the chain of title
7 of the note.
8 MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. And -- and --
9 THE COURT: All right. And you know I’ve already ruled
10 on that in another one of your cases?
11 MR. RUSSELL: And -- and that’s why, in deference to
12 that, I said I wanted to preserve it on appeal. I didn't want
13 to --
14 THE COURT: All right. I just -- but I -- I wanted to
15 make sure that was what you were saying in count two?
16 MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
17 And -- but -- but I -- and one last thing --
18 THE COURT: And what was that case -- which case was
19 that?
20 Was that Dustin, Doris Dustin?
21 I'm trying to remember what case it was because I had a
22 couple of --
23 MR. RUSSELL: Germano.
24 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
25 MR. RUSSELL: Germano. Germano.

P a g e | 21
1 THE COURT: Germano. Okay.
2 MR. RUSSELL: But the -- the difference here is -- is
3 that it’s in context of 35C, so that’s why I wanted to --
4 THE COURT: The substantive part of the claim is the same
5 that -- that -- that the mistake that the lender made is that
6 your claim is that they have to not only under the relevant
7 case law show a clear chain of title for the mortgage, but
8 they have to do so for the note as well?
9 MR. RUSSELL: Under authority of 244, 35C, Subsection G,
10 yes.
11 THE COURT: Well, and that regulation.
12 MR. RUSSELL: Who authorized the Division of Banks to --
13 THE COURT: Yeah. All right. I -- you know I disagree
14 with you on that.
15 All right. So we can move on on that one.
16 Okay.
17 MS. LAKE: Sure.
18 The third count is that the mortgage was void under the
19 obsolete mortgage statute. It’s our understanding that this
20 is also well settled law in Massachusetts, and we cited those
21 cases in our brief at page 21, that the acceleration of a note
22 does not advance the maturity date --
23 THE COURT: Right. The face of -- correct me if I'm
24 wrong.
25 The face of the note -- I'm sorry -- of the mortgage

P a g e | 22
1 itself it -- what does it say?
2 About the --
3 MS. LAKE: It doesn't include a maturity date.
4 THE COURT: It has the 2040 maturity date or it does not?
5 MS. LAKE: June 1, 2035 is the maturity date on the face
6 of the mortgage. Under the obsolete mortgage statute, that
7 would be extended five years.
8 MR. RUSSELL: May I respond to that?
9 THE COURT: No, you -- you can -- I just want to confirm
10 what it says. It’s not the legal argument.
11 I just want to -- why, you -- you say it doesn't say that
12 on --
13 MR. RUSSELL: Right.
14 THE COURT: -- the face of the mortgage?
15 MR. RUSSELL: That’s what I wanted to put into the
16 record.
18 MR. RUSSELL: That’s what I wanted to state for the
19 record.
20 THE COURT: That what?
21 MR. RUSSELL: It refers to the note. It doesn't refer to
22 the --
24 MR. RUSSELL: The -- the date refers to the note, not the
25 mortgage.
P a g e | 23
1 THE COURT: Well, I -- there shouldn’t be any dispute
2 about what it says on the first page of the mortgage. Where
3 -- where is the mortgage?
4 MS. LAKE: Exhibit A to the O’Donnell affidavit says this
5 debt is evidenced by borrower’s note dated the same date as
6 the security agreement which provides for monthly payments
7 with the full debt, if not paid earlier, due and payable --
8 THE COURT: Hold on -- hold on.
9 MS. LAKE: -- June 1 --
10 THE COURT: Hold on.
11 MS. LAKE: -- 2035.
12 THE COURT: I want to look at it myself.
13 MS. LAKE: Sure.
14 THE COURT: So I’ve got a bunch of different affidavits
15 here.
16 I’ve got an affidavit of Ocwen Loan Serving.
17 That’s not the one you’re talking about?
18 MS. LAKE: No. The affidavit of Jordan O’Donnell.
19 It should have the letter exhibits, not the number
20 exhibits. We do this to be easier for Your Honor, but
21 evidently, I'm seeing that that doesn't work out.
22 THE COURT: Jordan O’Donnell. Okay.
23 So the mortgage is Exhibit --
24 MS. LAKE: A.
25 THE COURT: -- A.
P a g e | 24
1 MS. LAKE: And it says this --
2 THE COURT: We’re on page one of the mortgage?
4 THE COURT: Point me to the right spot because --
5 MS. LAKE: Right after, where it says 103,200 in bold.
6 This debt is evidenced by borrower’s note dated the same
7 date.
8 THE COURT: This debt is evidenced by -- okay.
9 Payable on June 1st, 2035.
11 THE COURT: All right. What -- go ahead, Mr. Russell. I
12 -- I don’t --
13 MR. RUSSELL: It -- it specifically refers to the note
14 having a date of 2 -- 2035, not the mortgage. It does -- the
15 mortgage itself does not have any --
16 THE COURT: No, there’s case law on this already. You
17 know, Judge Long ruled on this I think the day you guys were
18 here. It’s what it says on the face of the mortgage.
19 MR. RUSSELL: It’s -- but it doesn't say the mortgage
20 itself has a date. That’s the demarcation line between the 5
21 and 35 year statute.
22 THE COURT: So if it doesn't say, then it’s 35 years;
23 right?
24 Where would -- where does it say this mortgage --
25 MR. RUSSELL: No, if --

P a g e | 25
1 THE COURT: -- is due upon the acceleration and that’s
2 the date?
3 MR. RUSSELL: I -- I’ll -- I can get into my argument.
4 THE COURT: Yeah. All right.
5 Well, we’ll talk about that later, but I -- I think -- I
6 think this has been decided.
7 Okay.
8 MS. LAKE: That’s our position anyway, Your Honor, that
9 the counts (inaudible at 11:29:39, low audio) the mortgage on
10 the obsolete mortgage statutes, that we are entitled to
11 judgment in that as well, and as I said, we stated some cases
12 in our brief at page 21.
13 The next count that remains is count six --
14 THE COURT: All right. I want to be clear, so counts
15 four and five are dismissed already?
17 Count four, I -- one is for 93A. The other one was for
18 slander of title. Both of those have been --
19 THE COURT: Right.
20 MS. LAKE: -- dismissed.
21 THE COURT: And those are -- those are dismissed.
22 Now, there are two count sixes --
23 MS. LAKE: Yes. There was -- I believe --
24 THE COURT: There are two counts labeled count six. Do
25 we agree that the first one pertains to other defendants who

P a g e | 26
1 are not part of this?
2 MS. LAKE: Yes.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Russell?
4 MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
5 THE COURT: And you never served them, they’re not part
6 of the case; right?
7 MR. RUSSELL: Based on Your Honor’s ruling, I did not.
8 THE COURT: Okay. So count -- the first count six is out
9 of the case.
11 THE COURT: All right. So now we’re talking about this
12 second count six?
13 MS. LAKE: Correct. And that seeks a judgment that Wells
14 Fargo is not entitled to enforce the note. We’ve already gone
15 through that based upon my prior argument. We’ve briefed it.
16 I'm happy to answer any questions about that particular count,
17 but as we have produced a copy of the note, the note is
18 endorsed in blank under the UCC -- the noteholder obtains
19 authority to enforce it by possession. We’ve sufficiently
20 established that on the record.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 MS. LAKE: The last count is to quiet title.
23 Again, they’re trying to avoid the foreclosure, but we’ve
24 provided all of the documents that confirm authority and
25 standing to proceed as mortgagee.

P a g e | 27
1 We’ve even produced a copy of the foreclosure deed from
2 the July 3rd, 2018 sale.
3 All of the requirements with respect to that sale have
4 been complied with, including publication.
5 And the Chapter 244, Section 15 required affidavit was
6 recorded with the deed. That is Exhibit H to the O’Donnell
7 affidavit.
8 THE COURT: Hold on.
9 I -- I’ll get into this with you, Mr. Russell, but count
10 six, your count six, looks a lot to me like count one. I mean
11 I'm trying to figure out what’s different about it.
12 MR. RUSSELL: Well, it was just to make a deter --
13 determination on the note where the --
14 THE COURT: It looks like the same claim just relabeled.
15 I mean --
16 MR. RUSSELL: Specifically re -- relabeled to the note.
17 Because if they decided to sue on the note, that was to cover
18 that claim.
19 THE COURT: You want a declaratory judgment on the note,
20 on the enforceability of the note as opposed to the mortgage?
21 MR. RUSSELL: Both because they can provide -- they can
22 --
23 THE COURT: Well, I mean I mean that’s what you asked for
24 in -- in count one with respect to the mortgage.
25 MR. RUSSELL: Count one is specifically 244-14. That

P a g e | 28
1 doesn't preclude them from bringing an action on the note --
2 THE COURT: Well, to the extent you’re asking me to rule
3 on the enforceability of the note as a matter of contract,
4 that’s not really relating to something that this Court does,
5 but we’ll -- we’ll get to that.
6 Okay. All right.
7 And -- and count seven --
8 MS. LAKE: Is to quiet title, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Yeah. But substantive claim is a little
10 obtuse to me, so --
11 MS. LAKE: I mean we’re standing behind all of our prior
12 arguments in the record to establish that we were --
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MS. LAKE: -- appropriately the foreclosing entity, and
15 that this count should be dismissed.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 All right.
18 Let me hear from you, Mr. Russell.
19 MR. RUSSELL: May I hand up cases just in case I have to
20 discuss them?
21 THE COURT: These are cases that are referred to in your
22 brief?
23 MR. RUSSELL: Correct.
24 THE COURT: Sure.
25 MR. RUSSELL: And opposition, --

P a g e | 29
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. RUSSELL: -- both of ours.
3 THE COURT: But nobody gave me the --
4 MS. LAKE: I'm looking for it, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: -- the federal cert -- First Circuit case
6 that -- that involves this particular property.
7 MR. RUSSELL: Okay.
8 THE COURT: So what is it, you gave me a copy of Ibanez?
10 THE COURT: Well, thank you, but --
11 MR. RUSSELL: Because at page 644, I believe, it talks
12 about the history of the -- Your Honor was -- questions to my
13 sister was pretty straight forward in the -- in the opinion
14 where the SJC found that the first assignment was made in
15 blank.
16 THE COURT: You -- you’re going to have to speak up, Mr.
17 Russell.
18 MR. RUSSELL: Where the SJC found that the first
19 assignment was made in blank, no assignee --
20 So the --
21 THE COURT: That’s not one of the assignments that Ms.
22 Lake is re -- is relying on here today.
23 MR. RUSSELL: They are, direct discovery questions
24 propounded upon the defendant asked specifically what’s the
25 original date of the mortgage, May 8th, 2008, denied.

P a g e | 30
1 What’s the --
2 THE COURT: May 2008?
3 MR. RUSSELL: 2008. That’s the date of the recorded
4 assignment.
5 What’s --
6 THE COURT: The assignment. Okay.
7 MR. RUSSELL: Assignment of mortgage.
9 MR. RUSSELL: Was the date March or May -- it’s May of
10 2012, the confirmatory assignment, was that the date of the
11 original assignment? Denied.
12 Was it April 2007, the effective date that was placed on
13 the mortgage in -- back in --
14 THE COURT: Show -- show me where in the Ibanez decision
15 they ruled on the validity of the assignments that the bank is
16 relying on in this case?
18 THE COURT: Because that’s what you’re telling me; right?
19 MR. RUSSELL: Yeah. Uh-huh.
20 I have -- actually it was in plaintiff -- another thing
21 too, Your Honor, the plaintiffs continue to object to the
22 proffer of the purported loan schedule. That was placed in
23 our supplemental --
24 THE COURT: On what basis?
25 MR. RUSSELL: -- memorandum.

P a g e | 31
1 And the -- the basis for that is there’s no evidentiary
2 foundation for that document. We don’t know where it is, what
3 part of the document it came from.
4 It also was produced two months after the discovery
5 deadline of January 14th.
6 THE COURT: We -- we want over this at the last hearing.
7 I mean procedural issues, I allowed it in late, and I gave you
8 extra time to respond to it.
9 MR. RUSSELL: And -- and --
10 THE COURT: As a result.
11 MR. RUSSELL: -- this was -- this -- this was part of the
12 response.
14 MR. RUSSELL: So the response is those things where that
15 -- those documents, they did not ask for an extension of the
16 discovery deadline on January 14th --
17 THE COURT: Mr. Russell, I don't want to hear more
18 procedural arguments about I shouldn't let it in, I let it in
19 already, and I gave you more time to respond to it. That
20 bridge is crossed.
21 MR. RUSSELL: I was under the understanding that Your
22 Honor let in the concise statement of facts. The second part
23 of it is the proffer of the document, the loan schedule. That
24 -- that’s a different --
25 THE COURT: No, it was submitted. Whatever they gave me

P a g e | 32
1 and asked to put in late I allowed it in and I gave you extra
2 time to respond to it. It included the loan schedule. That
3 was submitted to the Court, and to you, I presume, on
4 something like April 19th. So then you were both here a
5 couple of weeks ago after April 19th.
6 MR. RUSSELL: So the -- the -- that’s part of the record,
7 the --
8 THE COURT: Yes.
10 THE COURT: That’s part of the record.
11 MR. RUSSELL: All right.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. RUSSELL: So there’s so many things here.
14 So let -- let’s -- the first count is not to enjoin the
15 --
16 THE COURT: Well --
17 MR. RUSSELL: -- foreclosure.
18 THE COURT: -- tell me where in Ibanez --
19 MR. RUSSELL: Oh, okay.
20 THE COURT: -- it says that these --
21 MR. RUSSELL: Yeah.
22 THE COURT: -- this -- the assignments that the bank is
23 telling me they’re relying on here today have already been
24 ruled to not be good enough?
25 And -- and what I understood from Ibanez is what whatever

P a g e | 33
1 was not good enough, it was because the foreclosure happened
2 before the assignment was made.
3 MR. RUSSELL: That -- that's --
4 THE COURT: That --
5 MR. RUSSELL: I --
6 THE COURT: -- that’s -- that has been cured presumably
7 now because this foreclosure was well after these assignments
8 --
9 MR. RUSSELL: Right. And --
10 THE COURT: -- and --
11 MR. RUSSELL: -- I respectfully disagree with that --
12 THE COURT: Well, just show me where.
13 MR. RUSSELL: So --
14 Well, first of all, at page 643, they talk about what
15 happened. They talk about the origination specifically, and
16 it states that after the origination, Option One executed an
17 assignment of this mortgage in blank.
18 They also talked about the subsequent purported sales and
19 transfers of the title to real property.
20 That’s -- so then they go on to discuss -- they talk
21 about the parties.
22 So let me fast forward till where they talked about that
23 blank assignment of mortgage, and the same one they rely on
24 currently, by the way.
25 Okay.
P a g e | 34
1 The term briefly to the other arguments raised by
2 plaintiffs on appeal.
3 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
4 MR. RUSSELL: First, the plaintiffs --
5 THE COURT: Wait. Where --
6 MR. RUSSELL: -- initially --
7 THE COURT: Where are you?
8 MR. RUSSELL: I apologize.
9 651 -- 652.
10 It would be the second full paragraph.
11 Begins with, “We now.”
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. RUSSELL: “We now briefly turn to the other arguments
14 raised by plaintiffs on appeal.
15 “First, plaintiffs initially contended that the
16 assignments n blank executed by Option One identifying the
17 assignor but not the assignee not only evidenced and confirmed
18 the assignments that occurred by virtue of the securitization,
19 i.e. PSA, but are effective assignments in their own right.
20 “But in their reply brief, they conceded that the
21 assignments in blank did not constitute a lawful assignment of
22 mortgage. Their concession is appropriate.
23 “We have long held that a conveyance of real property
24 such as a mortgage that does not name the assignee conveys
25 nothing and it’s void,” not voidable, void. The plaintiffs

P a g e | 35
1 also --
2 THE COURT: This mortgage -- and these assignments here
3 are the same ones?
4 MR. RUSSELL: I've attached the blank assignment.
5 THE COURT: I'm not asking about the blank assignments.
6 I'm talking about the ones they're relying on that Ms. Lake
7 referred me to, the one that’s at Exhibit B to the O’Donnell
8 affidavit, and the one that’s Exhibit C to the O’Donnell
9 affidavit.
10 MR. RUSSELL: No, they are not blank; however, I direct
11 -- I will direct you --
12 THE COURT: Well, then they're then.
13 MR. RUSSELL: They're not blank. They're confirmed --
14 they're claimed to be confirmatory.
15 THE COURT: Well, one does. One does not.
16 MR. RUSSELL: The second one I asked direct questions as
17 to, did that assignment happen on that date, the answer was
18 no. The -- the statement in the memorandum of summary
19 judgment states specifically that the assignment occurred on
20 March 26th 2005. That was the effective date of the
21 assignment out of the pooling and servicing agreement. And
22 guess what date that the -- the date of the blank assignment
23 is? March 26th 2005.
24 THE COURT: They're not relying on the black assignments
25 though.
P a g e | 36
1 MR. RUSSELL: They are. It’s what the -- their
2 statement, there’s an admission in their memorandum that says
3 that the assignment was effectively transferred to the trustee
4 on March 26th 2005. The SJC in Bevilacqua stated that merely
5 because documents are recorded are not -- do not create a
6 valid document.
7 THE COURT: Okay. I get your argument.
8 MR. RUSSELL: So, and -- but I want to reference the fact
9 that that blank assignment can be found in my affidavit,
10 Exhibit E, Bates 11RCE0117.
11 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Russell, on count one, you are --
12 first of all, explain to my why if the validity of these
13 assignments was -- these specific assignments was litigated in
14 the Federal Court litigation, the tri title action that as
15 removed to Federal Court, why that is not foreclosed under the
16 doctrine of res judicata.
17 MR. RUSSELL: Because it wasn’t litigated.
19 MR. RUSSELL: It was not litigated. And I have -- and I
20 can discuss that, Your Honor, it’s --
21 THE COURT: Why wasn’t it?
22 MR. RUSSELL: Because Allonge talks about the fact that
23 you need -- there’s three --
24 THE COURT: The what?
25 MR. RUSSELL: Abate v. Freemont.

P a g e | 37
1 THE COURT: I'm not asking about Abate, I'm asking about
2 what was litigated in this case.
3 MR. RUSSELL: Because we have to determine whether it was
4 litigation. It wasn’t litigation, it was a tri title action.
5 It was a petition. It was a --
6 THE COURT: That’s not litigation, (inaudible at
7 11:42:31, low audio) 1975 rules --
8 MR. RUSSELL: It’s not litigation according to the --
9 according to SJC --
10 THE COURT: They say everything is a complaint now,
11 whether it’s called a petition or not. What do you mean it’s
12 not litigation, you're suggesting that a tri title action is
13 not subject to the doctrine of res judicata because we call it
14 a petition?
15 MR. RUSSELL: The title in possession prong are. Not the
16 -- not the adverse claimant. There’s three prongs, and I can
17 discuss that.
18 THE COURT: Just -- just explain to me, was the validity
19 of the assignments an issue in the Federal Court litigation?
20 MR. RUSSELL: No, because there was no case. There’s no
21 subject matter jurisdiction according to Abate. Abate states
22 --
23 THE COURT: Wait a second. There was a decision in the
24 case; right?
25 MR. RUSSELL: I'm sorry, what’s that again?

P a g e | 38
1 THE COURT: There was a decision in the case.
2 MR. RUSSELL: There was, but it was dismissed on the
3 basis of Abate, and Abate holds -- it says, it quotes Abate.
4 THE COURT: It’s a decision on the merits of the case.
5 MR. RUSSELL: It was not a -- no, it is not.
6 THE COURT: And the reason -- and you're saying because
7 they dismissed your case, you're not stuck with what they did?
8 MR. RUSSELL: I'm going with what they actually said in
9 Abate.
10 THE COURT: All right. Well, I’ll read the Federal Court
11 decision when somebody gives it to me.
12 MR. RUSSELL: And -- and I -- and I would just -- Your
13 Honor knows better than me that a Federal Court decision is
14 not precedent.
16 MR. RUSSELL: A Federal Court decision I would say would
17 be subordinate to the finding of the SJC.
18 THE COURT: I'm not talking about whether it’s precedent
19 -- got precedential value, I'm talking about whether it’s
20 covered by the doctrine of res judicata. If it involved the
21 parties to this case, or parties in privy with the parties to
22 this case, anything that was or could have been or should have
23 been raised in that case may have a preclusive effect on what
24 can be done in this case. That’s the doctrine of res judicata
25 as I understand it.
P a g e | 39
1 MR. RUSSELL: And in addition to that, the tri title
2 cases, a fallback also, was filed prior to the holding of
3 Eaton. So the statute that was involved at the time of the
4 filing of that tri title action was a different interpretation
5 of the statute. You didn't need to look at the note. If you
6 want to go there, that’s the -- that’s another distinction,
7 and they talk about that in the opposition. But the stronger
8 argument is the SJC specifically carved out the adverse
9 claimant prong of title possession adverse claimant. Adverse
10 claimant wasn’t involved in Abate. They said, however, this
11 is subject to repetition. So we’re going to opine on that
12 because we have the Varian case, and we have the Abate case.
13 Judge Piper took a different view. He said that you could
14 challenge it.
15 So what they said, they, the SJC, was that if there’s no
16 foreclosure taking place, a mortgagor does not have -- cannot
17 invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. It’s moot. They don’t
18 have standing. It’s not ripe.
20 MR. RUSSELL: So that prong applies to this case. It’s
21 different than Abate. So here it’s unquestioned at the time
22 of the filing of the 2012 tri title action, there was no
23 completed foreclosure. Places it firmly in the adverse
24 claimant prong, which means that there was never any -- it was
25 -- it never happened. It’s not -- there was no litigation.

P a g e | 40
1 Because unless you established the subject matter jurisdiction
2 of the Court, the Court doesn’t reach the second prong where
3 they have to sue us. That’s why there’s no complaint. The
4 reason why there was a motion to dismiss in Abate was because
5 of possession. In that particular case, the SJC said due to
6 that issue, they could entertain a motion to dismiss because
7 the question was whether or not they were in possession. We
8 don’t have that here. It’s undisputed they were in possession
9 and record title. So that -- that would -- is the plaintiff’s
10 response to the claim that there’s res judicata based on the
11 tri title action.
12 THE COURT: All right. Also in count one, you're asking
13 the Court to require that before a foreclosure could go
14 forward, there must be a judicial determination of the
15 mortgagee’s right to foreclosure. That’s what you asked the
16 Court to do; right?
17 MR. RUSSELL: Well, where we’re challenging the statutory
18 process --
19 THE COURT: Answer yes or a no.
20 MR. RUSSELL: Statutory process wise, yes.
21 THE COURT: Yeah, and there’s no -- this is not a
22 judicial foreclosure state, you know that.
23 MR. RUSSELL: Right. But that --
24 THE COURT: So you're trying to invent it?
25 MR. RUSSELL: No, that implies that there’s no challenge.

P a g e | 41
1 THE COURT: I’m sorry?
2 MR. RUSSELL: If there’s no challenge, it’s non-judicial.
3 The only way that a borrower can challenge the process is to
4 file litigation.
5 THE COURT: You essentially in count one, as I read it,
6 are trying to set up the idea that the foreclosure -- the way
7 I read it, pretty much any foreclosure can't proceed until the
8 lender comes to Court and proves that they have the right to
9 go forward with the foreclosure. That’s what you're asking me
10 to do with respect to this lender.
11 MR. RUSSELL: No, we’re asking for a declaratory judgment
12 that they can't use the statute, that’s what -- that’s what
13 they’re --
14 THE COURT: That they can't use the statute as a basis to
15 go forward with the foreclosure, they have to come to Court
16 first?
17 MR. RUSSELL: We’re challenged, we’re saying that their
18 purported use of the statutory remedy is improper.
19 THE COURT: Yeah, Mr. Russell --
20 MR. RUSSELL: That’s not --
21 THE COURT: -- I can't -- you need to be going to the
22 legislature with some of these claims, not to me.
23 MR. RUSSELL: But that’s -- that’s -- that -- how would
24 one challenge the foreclosure?
25 THE COURT: Well, you can -- I'm just telling you where
P a g e | 42
1 -- where I see that part of your claim.
2 MR. RUSSELL: That -- okay.
3 THE COURT: And maybe the Appeals Court will tell me that
4 I'm wrong, but -- okay.
5 MR. RUSSELL: So that addressed the claim of res
6 judicata. Additionally, the -- again, we’re still objecting
7 to the loan schedule. I repeatedly see that no one talks
8 about the paragraph on page 651 where it says, even if you
9 produced the loan schedule, even if -- even if that was valid,
10 even if it was, the SJC has a caveat, very clear. It says,
11 “However, it must be shown that the entity assigning the
12 mortgage under the PSA actually owned the loan that was being
13 assigned.” That’s what it says. I'm not making that up.
14 That’s what it says. And it never, ever is litigated, or
15 addressed. That’s at page 651. And on that basis, the
16 plaintiffs propounded discovery to determine whether or not
17 the entity assigning that mortgage and loan purportedly under
18 the PSA actually owned anything. I got nothing. I got
19 nothing. And the partial responses I did get were one week
20 prior to them filing a summary judgment motion, so I'm left
21 conveniently with no documents, but they're stuck with the
22 record that they have.
23 THE COURT: You know, Mr. Russell, you're one to talk
24 about filing things at the last minute. You’ve been before me
25 twice --
P a g e | 43
2 THE COURT: -- coming in the day of a foreclosure when
3 you had six weeks’ notice of a foreclosure and telling me
4 there -- telling me it was an emergency.
5 MR. RUSSELL: However, that’s a motion. This is the
6 outcome of the case. This is the ultimate decision on the
7 merits.
9 MR. RUSSELL: So all I'm trying to say, Your Honor, is
10 the SJC put that paragraph in there for a reason. However, it
11 must be shown that the entity assigning the mortgage under the
12 PSA actually owned the loan. Why would they put that in
13 there? That’s -- and they don’t want to give it to me. They
14 -- they refused to do that.
15 And in page -- between 11 and 16 in their memorandum,
16 they specifically said that they rely on the PSA and that the
17 mortgage was effectively assigned on March 26th 2005. The
18 only document in the record with that date is the blank
19 assignment which --
20 THE COURT: All right. So you're telling me that the
21 Ibanez Court has already ruled on that issue?
22 MR. RUSSELL: I -- I -- what’s that again?
23 THE COURT: You're telling me that the Ibanez Court has
24 already ruled on the validity of the blank assignment, is that
25 what you're telling me?

P a g e | 44
1 MR. RUSSELL: It says it’s --
2 THE COURT: Okay. All right. All right. So I get that.
3 So let’s move on to the next issue.
4 MR. RUSSELL: So if we directly propounded an inquiry,
5 which I put in the latest memorandum, I put a snippet of their
6 responses. If they deny that the assignment happened on the
7 date of the recorded assignments, and they affirmatively state
8 that it happened on that date, we’re left with the fact that
9 they're relying on a blank assignment.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. RUSSELL: So that -- that’s the plaintiff’s position
12 under count one.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. RUSSELL: Count two we went over. I don’t want to
15 belabor that point. I know Your Honor’s position on that.
16 260, 33. Another case. Another statute. I frequently
17 hear, Attorney Russell, it doesn’t say anything about
18 acceleration in the statute. I frequently hear that from
19 opposing counsel. And my response is, well, in Abate when
20 they -- I mean in Deutsch Bank Fitchburg, when they announced
21 the case, there’s nothing in the statute that talks about
22 maturity date meaning the -- that refers to the note. There’s
23 nothing in the statute that refers to that. It doesn’t say
24 that. Because what the SJC did was they undertook statutory
25 construction, and they stated, specifically they referred to

P a g e | 45
1 Eaton. They said that a mortgage does not mature
2 independently from a note that it secures.
3 THE COURT: So?
4 MR. RUSSELL: I've got a case that I handed to Your
5 Honor, Yared v. Ferreira, 1992, Appeal Court case, there’d
6 been a prepayment penalty.
7 THE COURT: I just want to understand your argument,
8 because I'm not sure I do. The first page of the mortgage
9 says that the mortgage is due when the note is due which is
10 sometime in 2035; right?
12 THE COURT: And the obsolete mortgage statute says that
13 if the mortgage states on its face the maturity date of the
14 mortgage, that’s -- that’s when it’s due, and you get five
15 years after that to enforce it.
16 MR. RUSSELL: The maturity date of the note.
17 THE COURT: As shown on the face of the mortgage, and
18 that’s what the Deutsch Bank case says.
19 MR. RUSSELL: It refers to the note on the face of the
20 mortgage.
21 THE COURT: Well, it does.
22 MR. RUSSELL: Right. So we’re in the five year window.
23 THE COURT: After 2035.
24 MR. RUSSELL: Right. So the question becomes, if the SJC
25 said that the term maturity date refers to a note, the

P a g e | 46
1 question becomes can a note be accelerated? Unlike a
2 mortgage, can a note be accelerated?
3 THE COURT: All right. I think I understands your
4 argument. So your argument is that, if they happen to
5 accelerate the note, then the date on the face of the mortgage
6 becomes instead of 2035, it becomes the date they actually
7 accelerate it.
9 THE COURT: That’s your argument.
10 MR. RUSSELL: And authority in Yared v. Ferreira, that I
11 handed up to Your Honor, states --
12 THE COURT: The purpose, you know, when the SJC went
13 through that statutory analysis in Deutsch Bank, what they
14 wanted to make clear is that people looking at the record in
15 the registry need to be able to figure it out without having
16 to go to something that’s not on record, that’s why they made
17 it very clear that it’s what’s shown on the face of the
18 mortgage that counts.
20 THE COURT: And I -- I'm just telling you, I don’t agree
21 with you that you have to go look at the note itself for
22 something different.
23 MR. RUSSELL: But what -- what my response is, that may
24 be poorly worded, but that’s what the statute states. And I
25 want to read into the record what it says in Yared v.

P a g e | 47
1 Ferreira, so I'm not -- I want to make sure that I'm not the
2 only one saying this. This is at age 330. “By accelerating
3 the note, the Yareds as payees lost the right to collect a
4 prepayment penalty. The act of acceleration advances the
5 maturity of the debt, and the debt becomes immediately due and
6 payable.”
7 So if the maturity date becomes immediately due and
8 payable, you can't change that unless you have a writing, it’s
9 a contract as Your Honor stated previously. So if --
10 THE COURT: The note and the mortgage may -- there are
11 different remedies for notes and mortgages. There’s --
12 there’s a lot of case law about that too. You could have a
13 note that’s not enforceable anymore. You can still
14 foreclosure on a mortgage.
15 MR. RUSSELL: I disagree with that.
16 THE COURT: Well, that’s -- well, all right. Well, look
17 at -- look at the case of Stone v Stone which I wrote --
18 MR. RUSSELL: Yet --
19 THE COURT: -- and it says exactly that.
20 MR. RUSSELL: In that particular case, Your Honor, that
21 mortgage you found did not have any maturity date on it at
22 all.
23 THE COURT: But I also specifically found -- nobody
24 appealed it, so I don't know what the Appeals Court would say,
25 but nobody -- in that case, the note was no longer

P a g e | 48
1 enforceable, it was more than twenty years old, but the
2 mortgage was still enforceable. And there’s case law right on
3 point that I cite in that case, I don't remember what it is.
4 MR. RUSSELL: But I guess I would respond with, how can a
5 mortgage be enforceable if there’s no debt that it secures?
6 That doesn’t make -- that --
7 THE COURT: Just read the case. Read the cases I cited.
8 There’s SJC cases on point. They're old.
9 MR. RUSSELL: I --
10 THE COURT: And they're still good law.
11 All right. I get that argument. I’ll look at the case.
12 I’ll at Herrera [sic].
13 MR. RUSSELL: And so we discussed the note issue, so
14 just for the record I wanted to have -- protect my clients’
15 rights on them seeking to come after them on the note.
16 THE COURT: On the chain of title of the note. Right.
17 Okay.
18 MR. RUSSELL: So now we’re to quiet title. Now the
19 tables are reversed here from 2008 or 2007.
20 THE COURT: You're talking about count seven now?
21 MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, the -- correct, the last --
22 THE COURT: So tell me what you're -- what you're looking
23 to do with count seven.
24 MR. RUSSELL: Again, they're relying on an assignment
25 that they state did not happen on the date of those

P a g e | 49
1 recordations. They're say -- they're relying on that March
2 26, 2005 date. The SJC unequivocally said that that was void.
3 The -- the defendants agreed that a blank assignment is void.
4 The mortgage on the registry of deeds does not claim to be the
5 date of the assignment, and they admit to that, so they’re
6 still relying on the 2005 document. So in a quiet title
7 action, they have to prove, or they have to show that they
8 have superior title. If they're -- they're relying on a blank
9 assignment, everybody is in agreement that’s not going to
10 trump the plaintiff’s record title.
11 THE COURT: Okay. They -- they tell me they're not
12 relying on a blank assignment though.
13 MR. RUSSELL: They don’t -- they stated they don’t rely
14 on --
15 THE COURT: All right. I get your argument, so this
16 really is the same -- it’s really going back to count one, the
17 merits of count one.
18 MR. RUSSELL: But I would respectfully state that I
19 pretty well covered it in the latest memorandum, I covered it
20 very, very closely, so.
21 I appreciate your indulgence, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
23 Any last words, Ms. Lake?
24 MS. LAKE: Yes, just two quick points, Your Honor. With
25 respect to which assignments we’re relying on, especially in

P a g e | 50
1 that last quiet title count, the notice of sale attached to
2 the foreclosure deed which is Exhibit H, references only two
3 assignments in the notice of sale.
4 THE COURT: Wait, hold on. Hold on. Exhibit H to the
5 O’Donnell --
6 MS. LAKE: Correct. And there’s a copy of the notice of
7 sale.
8 THE COURT: Wait, hold on. Exhibit H is the foreclosure
9 deed.
10 MS. LAKE: Correct. And then Exhibit A includes a copy
11 of the notice that was published, and that had been served on
12 all interested parties. I know that the font is a little hard
13 to read, but it talks about the mortgage granted --
14 THE COURT: It’s -- no, it’s impossible to read. Okay.
15 Seriously it’s too -- it’s blurred. It’s so small that the
16 words blur together. You're talking about the add; right?
17 MS. LAKE: I am, yes. I will note for Your Honor that it
18 references only the two assignments that we’ve attached as
19 part of this record. It says, the assignment recorded at Book
20 17291, page 84, subsequently assigned to Wells Fargo and that
21 second assignment is 19162, page 129. And both of those are
22 the two assignments that we’ve included in this record. So
23 there’s nothing in the foreclosure notice that even references
24 --
25 THE COURT: So you don’t -- you don’t rely on the 2005

P a g e | 51
1 blank assignment.
2 MS. LAKE: Correct. And the other point with respect to
3 the First Circuit decision in the 2012 tri title action, it’s
4 my understanding that the First Circuit opinion is
5 unpublished, it merely just affirmed the U.S. District Court
6 decision without opinion. The District Court opinion is cited
7 in the official reporter, and that’s 972 F. Sub 2nd at page
8 147, and --
9 THE COURT: At page what? 147?
10 MS. LAKE: 147, and at page 153, the District Court
11 specifically says, “To begin with, plaintiff’s claim that
12 Option One’s assignment of the mortgage to Wells Fargo was
13 declared invalid in Ibanez misconstrues the SJC’s holding.
14 Ibanez invalided the foreclosure sale only. The SJC declared
15 that defendants failed to ‘abide by the principals and
16 requirements,’ necessary to affect a valid assignment of
17 mortgage and thus can stay the statutory power of sale.”
18 THE COURT: What’s -- what’s the name on the case?
19 MS. LAKE: This is LaRace v. Wells Fargo. This is
20 straight out of that opinion that was affirmed by the First
21 Circuit. It says, “Defendant, the SJC said, simply could not
22 establish they were holders of plaintiff’s mortgage at the
23 time they foreclosed, that SJC did not rule on the question of
24 whether the assignment after the foreclosure sale was
25 invalid.” And that’s the 2000 assignment that he’s claiming

P a g e | 52
1 the SJC did rule is invalid.
2 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I’ll -- I’ll read
3 all of that, and -- and the citation, it’s not published, the
4 appeal?
5 MS. LAKE: The appeal is not published, but it affirms
6 the Lower Court decision which is published, and again that’s
7 972 F. Sub 2nd, page 147, and that specific language that I
8 quoted from appears on page 153.
9 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything else, Mr.
10 Russell?
11 MR. RUSSELL: In that opinion though, I would ask Your
12 Honor to look at the very last footnote.
13 THE COURT: I will read the whole opinion.
14 MR. RUSSELL: Judge Ponser says that the plaintiffs may
15 not be left without --
16 THE COURT: They may what?
17 MR. RUSSELL: It says, Judge Ponser states that the
18 plaintiffs may not be left without a remedy.” Citing Varian.
19 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ll read all of this,
20 I’ll take the matter under advisement. Thank you.
21 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you for your indulgence, Your Honor.
22 MS. LAKE: Thank you, Your Honor.
23
24
25 (Adjourned)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
OFFICE OF COURT MANAGEMENT, Transcription Services
AUDIO ASSESSMENT FORM
For court transcribers: Complete this assessment form for each volume of transcript
produced, and include it at the back of every original and copy transcript with the certificate
page, word index, and CD PDF transcript.
TODAY’S DATE:_August 28 2019 TRANSCRIBER NAME:_Donna H Dominguez
CASE NAME: LaRace v Wells Fargo et al CASE NUMBER: 18MISC000327
RECORDING DATE May 10 2019 TRANSCRIPT VOLUME:_ 1_ OF__1__
(circle one) TYPE: CD TAPE QUALITY: EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
(circle all that apply) ISSUES (include time stamp):
background noise time stamp:___________________________
low audio See comment
low audio at sidebar
simultaneous speech __________
speaking away of microphone __________________
other:_______________ time stamp:____________________________
____________________ _____________________________________
____________________ _____________________________________
____________________ _____________________________________
COMMENTS:_ There are 2 inaudibles in this transcript.

P a g e | 53
Certificate of Accuracy
I, Donna Holmes Dominguez, an Approved Court
Transcriber, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate transcript of the audio recording provided to me
by the Suffolk County Land Court regarding proceedings in the
above-entitled matter.
I, Donna Holmes Dominguez, further certify that the
foregoing is in compliance with the Administrative Office of
the Trial Court Directive on Transcript Format.
I, Donna Holmes Dominguez, further certify that I
neither am counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the
parties to the action in which this hearing was taken, and
further that I am not financially nor otherwise interested in
the outcome of the action.

Donna H. Digitally signed by
Donna H. Dominguez
Dominguez Date: 2019.08.28

________________________________________
10:46:46 -04'00'
Donna Holmes Dominguez, ACT, CET

Notary Public, Commission Expires 5-17-24
August 28, 2019 _______________

Date
(781) 575-8000___________________
donna@dhreporting.com
DH Reporting Services, Inc. (781) 575-8000
209 [1] 19:22 “first [1] 34:15 agree [2] 25:25 46:20
1 21 [2] 21:21 25:12 “however [1] 42:11 agreed [1] 49:3
1 [3] 19:9 22:5 23:9 231 [1] 13:23 “to [1] 51:11 agreement [4] 17:6 23:6
103,200 [2] 16:8 24:5 231066435 [1] 15:15 “we [3] 34:11,13,23 35:21 49:9
1063-205b [1] 19:15 244 [5] 4:12 7:5 19:22 21:9 ahead [1] 24:11
10th [1] 3:6 27:5
A allonge [2] 19:12 36:22
11 [2] 14:25 43:15 244-14 [1] 27:25 abate [13] 36:25 37:1,21, allowed [2] 31:7 32:1
11:29:39 [1] 25:9 26 [1] 49:2 21 38:3,3,3,9 39:10,12,21 already [14] 4:18 6:17 8:
11:42:31 [1] 37:7 260 [1] 44:16 40:4 44:19 20 9:5,18 11:7 20:9 24:16
11rce0117 [1] 36:10 26th [4] 35:20,23 36:4 43: ability [1] 8:22 25:15 26:14 31:19 32:23
12 [1] 11:4 17 able [2] 8:22 46:15 43:21,24
129 [1] 50:21 2nd [2] 51:7 52:7 abstract [1] 4:16 alternative [1] 9:20
12th [1] 11:1 accelerate [2] 46:5,7 analysis [1] 46:13
136 [1] 12:21 3 accelerated [2] 46:1,2 ancillary [2] 9:23,24
14 [2] 4:12 7:5 3/18 [1] 14:15 accelerating [1] 47:2 announced [1] 44:20
147 [4] 51:8,9,10 52:7 327 [1] 3:6 acceleration [4] 21:21 25: another [8] 9:14 16:9,10
14th [2] 31:5,16 33 [1] 44:16 1 44:18 47:4 20:10 30:20 39:6 44:16,16
15 [1] 27:5 330 [1] 47:2 according [4] 13:16 37:8, answer [3] 26:16 35:17 40:
153 [2] 51:10 52:8 35 [2] 24:21,22 9,21 19
16 [1] 43:15 35c [3] 19:22 21:3,9 act [1] 47:4 anyway [1] 25:8
17291 [1] 50:20 3rd [2] 9:13 27:2 action [12] 4:7 5:25 19:24 apologize [2] 5:13 34:8
18 [1] 3:6 28:1 36:14 37:4,12 39:4,22
1821 [1] 19:22
5 40:11 49:7 51:3
appeal [6] 20:12 34:2,14
45:5 52:4,5
183 [1] 8:8 5 [1] 24:20 actually [8] 3:25 14:8 30: appealed [1] 47:24
19162 [1] 50:21 515 [1] 15:14 20 38:8 42:12,18 43:12 46: appeals [2] 42:3 47:24
1975 [1] 37:7 54b [1] 8:8 6 appear [1] 16:19
1992 [1] 45:5 6 add [1] 50:16 appears [1] 52:8
19th [3] 10:25 32:4,5 addition [2] 16:7 39:1 applies [1] 39:20
643 [1] 33:14
1st [2] 11:9 24:9 additionally [1] 42:6 appreciate [1] 49:21
644 [1] 29:11
addressed [2] 42:5,15
2 651 [3] 34:9 42:8,15
adjourned [1] 52:25
appropriate [2] 18:19 34:
22
2 [5] 6:10 11:19,22 13:5 24: 652 [1] 34:9 admission [1] 36:2 appropriately [1] 28:14
14 7 admit [1] 49:5 april [5] 12:6,8 30:12 32:4,
200 [1] 6:15 advance [1] 21:22
7.25 [1] 16:11 5
2000 [1] 51:25 advances [1] 47:4
8 argument [23] 4:14,21 5:
2005 [9] 10:25 11:9 35:20, advancing [1] 6:14 23 6:13 9:4,12,14,23,24 10:
23 36:4 43:17 49:2,6 50:25 84 [1] 50:20 adverse [5] 37:16 39:8,9,9, 8 16:18,24 22:10 25:3 26:
2007 [5] 4:8 5:24 6:5 30:12 8th [1] 29:25 23 15 36:7 39:8 45:7 46:4,4,9
48:19 advisement [1] 52:20
2008 [13] 6:11 7:13,21 8:1 9 affect [1] 51:16
48:11 49:15
arguments [4] 28:12 31:
10:1 11:1,4 17:8 18:12 29: 90 [2] 11:22 13:6 affidavit [14] 7:20,20,23 18 34:1,13
25 30:2,3 48:19 93a [1] 25:17 12:2 16:2 19:10 23:4,16,18 article [4] 11:19,22 12:25
2012 [10] 6:1,14,16 7:13,24 972 [2] 51:7 52:7 27:5,7 35:8,9 36:9 13:5
8:3 18:15 30:10 39:22 51:3
2018 [5] 4:12 7:8 9:13,25
‘ affidavits [2] 19:16 23:14 assigned [2] 43:17 50:20
affirmatively [1] 44:7 assigned.” [1] 42:13
27:2 ‘abide [1] 51:15
affirmed [2] 51:5,20 assignee [3] 29:19 34:17,
2019 [2] 3:6 8:15 “ affirms [1] 52:5 24
2035 [7] 22:5 23:11 24:9, afterwards [1] 5:17
“but [1] 34:20 assigning [5] 13:7 18:24
14 45:10,23 46:6 age [1] 47:2
“by [1] 47:2 42:11,17 43:11
2040 [1] 22:4 ago [1] 32:5
“defendant [1] 51:21 assignment [58] 6:11,11,
Sheet 1 1 - assignment
15,16,17 7:1,13,14,21,24 8: belabor [1] 44:15 11 28:19,21 39:2 48:7,8 compliance [1] 17:17
1,5 11:1 17:8,12,14,17 18: believe [6] 6:12 10:11 11: caveat [1] 42:10 complied [1] 27:4
1,2,10,13,14,15,17 29:14, 8 16:15 25:23 29:11 cert [1] 29:5 comply [1] 8:8
19 30:4,6,7,10,11 33:2,17, better [2] 3:25 38:13 certainly [1] 16:20 conceded [1] 34:20
23 34:21 35:4,17,19,21,22 between [3] 4:8 24:20 43: chain [11] 7:14,18 10:4,18 concern [1] 18:23
36:3,9 43:19,24 44:6,9 48: 15 17:10,10 19:17,20 20:6 21: concession [1] 34:22
24 49:3,5,9,12 50:19,21 51: bevilacqua [1] 36:4 7 48:16 concise [2] 12:4 31:22
1,12,16,24,25 big [2] 11:13 12:16 challenge [8] 8:15,21,22 conclusively [1] 7:9
assignments [28] 6:4,23 black [1] 35:24 39:14 40:25 41:2,3,24 confirm [8] 6:16 10:13,15
7:12,15,18 8:8,16 10:4,10 blank [25] 10:6 19:3,4,13, challenged [1] 41:17 17:18 18:22 20:4 22:9 26:
29:21 30:15 32:22 33:7 34: 16 26:18 29:15,19 33:17, challenges [1] 8:16 24
16,18,19,21 35:2,5,24 36: 23 34:16,21 35:4,5,10,13, challenging [1] 40:17 confirmatory [7] 6:10 7:
13,13 37:19 44:7 49:25 50: 22 36:9 43:18,24 44:9 49:3, change [1] 47:8 13,24 8:5 18:17 30:10 35:
3,18,22 8,12 51:1 changed [2] 18:20,23 14
assignor [2] 18:19 34:17 blur [1] 50:16 chapter [5] 4:12 8:8 19:15, confirmed [2] 34:17 35:
assistant [1] 8:10 blurred [1] 50:15 22 27:5 13
attached [13] 7:23 11:9 12: bold [1] 24:5 charlie [1] 8:3 confirming [1] 19:17
1,10,10,24 14:11,24 15:21 book [1] 50:19 circuit [7] 4:25 5:23 6:3 29: considered [1] 8:17
19:9 35:4 50:1,18 borrower [2] 8:21 41:3 5 51:3,4,21 constitute [1] 34:21
attorney [1] 44:17 borrower’s [2] 23:5 24:6 citation [4] 5:1,9,12 52:3 construction [1] 44:25
auckland [1] 4:5 borrowers [1] 8:15 cite [1] 48:3 contended [1] 34:15
audio [2] 25:9 37:7 both [10] 6:12 7:10,14 8:7 cited [4] 5:7 21:20 48:7 51: context [1] 21:3
authority [6] 8:17,20 21:9 19:19 25:18 27:21 29:2 32: 6 continue [1] 30:21
26:19,24 46:10 4 50:21 citing [1] 52:18 contract [2] 28:3 47:9
authorization [1] 4:16 boy [2] 7:25 8:1 city [1] 16:13 controversy [1] 9:18
authorized [1] 21:12 bridge [1] 31:20 claim [12] 4:15 20:5 21:4,6 conveniently [1] 42:21
avoid [1] 26:23 brief [5] 5:8 21:21 25:12 27:14,18 28:9 40:10 42:1,5 conveyance [2] 11:19 34:
28:22 34:20 49:4 51:11 23
B briefed [2] 19:23 26:15 claimant [5] 37:16 39:9,9, conveys [1] 34:24
back [3] 3:18 30:13 49:16 briefly [2] 34:1,13 10,24 copy [16] 5:10 10:14 11:9
balance [1] 16:8 bringing [1] 28:1 claimed [1] 35:14 12:9,10,11 13:15,20 14:8,
bank [9] 3:7 4:9 7:22 11:2 bunch [1] 23:14 claiming [1] 51:25 13,17 26:17 27:1 29:8 50:6,
30:15 32:22 44:20 45:18 claims [2] 9:21 41:22 10
46:13 C clarify [2] 17:10 18:19 corporate [1] 8:10
banks [2] 8:22 21:12 call [1] 37:13 clear [5] 21:7 25:14 42:10 correct [28] 6:3,21 8:19 10:
based [4] 9:25 26:7,15 40: called [2] 3:2 37:11 46:14,17 20 11:5 12:7 14:7 15:4,9
10 came [1] 31:3 clerk [1] 3:6 17:25 18:4,11 20:8,16 21:
basis [7] 16:24 20:3 30:24 cannot [4] 4:11 8:15 15:5 clients’ [1] 48:14 23 24:3,10 25:16 26:10,13
31:1 38:3 41:14 42:15 39:16 closely [1] 49:20 28:23 29:9 43:1 46:19 48:
bates [5] 11:23 12:19 13:6, canyon [2] 18:21,21 closer [1] 4:1 21 50:6,10 51:2
15 36:10 captioned [1] 5:15 cmr [2] 19:22,24 couldn't [1] 6:16
bearer [1] 19:5 carved [1] 39:8 collect [1] 47:3 counsel [2] 3:8 44:19
becomes [6] 45:24 46:1,6, case [45] 4:4,10 6:14,22 10: column [1] 13:20 count [35] 4:10,14 9:2,15
6 47:5,7 1,2 20:18,18,21 21:7 24:16 come [2] 41:15 48:15 20:5,15 21:18 25:13,13,17,
begin [1] 51:11 26:6,9 28:19 29:5 30:16 37: comes [1] 41:8 22,24 26:8,8,12,16,22 27:9,
beginning [1] 13:21 2,20,24 38:1,4,7,21,22,23, coming [2] 10:3 43:2 10,10,24,25 28:7,15 32:14
begins [4] 11:22 13:5,15 24 39:12,12,20 40:5 43:6 complaint [4] 4:6 9:16 37: 36:11 40:12 41:5 44:12,14
34:11 44:16,21 45:4,5,18 47:12, 10 40:3 48:20,23 49:16,17 50:1
behalf [1] 3:11 17,20,25 48:2,3,7,11 51:18 complete [1] 3:20 counts [7] 4:5,10 19:21 25:
behind [2] 14:24 28:11 cases [8] 20:10 21:21 25: completed [1] 39:23 9,14,24 46:18
Sheet 2 assignment - counts
couple [2] 20:22 32:5 determine [2] 37:3 42:16 earlier [1] 23:7 8 18:18 33:16 34:16
cover [1] 27:17 deutsch [3] 44:20 45:18 easier [1] 23:20 exhibit [28] 7:20,23 11:4,
covered [3] 38:20 49:19, 46:13 easy [1] 16:3 10 12:24 13:11,15 14:4,5,6,
19 difference [1] 21:2 eaton [2] 39:3 45:1 7,12,18 15:22,24 16:1 19:9,
create [1] 36:5 different 23:14 27:11 effect [1] 38:23
[8] 13 23:4,23 27:6 35:7,8 36:
crossed [1] 31:20 31:24 39:4,13,21 46:22 47: effective [3] 30:12 34:19 10 50:2,4,8,10
cured [1] 33:6 11 35:20 exhibits [2] 23:19,20
current [1] 8:13 direct [4] 29:23 35:10,11, effectively [2] 36:3 43:17 explain [2] 36:12 37:18
currently [1] 33:24 16 either [1] 5:1 extended [1] 22:7
directly [1] 44:4 emergency [1] 43:4 extension [1] 31:15
D disagree [3] 21:13 33:11 end [1] 19:12 extent [2] 18:22 28:2
date [36] 7:2,3 16:15 21:22 47:15 endorsed [4] 10:6 19:3,4 extra [2] 31:8 32:1
22:3,4,5,24 23:5 24:7,14, discovery [4] 29:23 31:4, 26:18
20 25:2 29:25 30:3,9,10,12 16 42:16 endorsement [2] 19:6,15
F
35:17,20,22,22 43:18 44:7, discuss [4] 28:20 33:20 ends [1] 14:4 face [10] 21:23,25 22:5,14
8,22 45:13,16,25 46:5,6 47: 36:20 37:17 enforce [3] 26:14,19 45:15 24:18 45:13,17,19 46:5,17
7,21 48:25 49:2,5 discussed [2] 8:20 48:13 enforceability [2] 27:20 fact [5] 10:15 18:24 36:8,
dated [4] 11:8 14:15 23:5 dismiss [2] 40:4,6 28:3 22 44:8
24:6 dismissed [6] 25:15,20, enforceable [4] 47:13 48: facts [2] 12:5 31:22
day [2] 24:17 43:2 21 28:15 38:2,7 1,2,5 failed [1] 51:15
deadline [2] 31:5,16 dispute [1] 23:1 enjoin [2] 9:17 32:14 fallback [1] 39:2
debt [7] 23:5,7 24:6,8 47:5, distinction [1] 39:6 enough [2] 32:24 33:1 fargo [22] 3:7 4:4 6:6 7:2,9,
5 48:5 district [3] 51:5,6,10 entertain [1] 40:6 16,22 10:7,10,13,16 11:2
decide [2] 6:13,23 division [1] 21:12 entirety [2] 9:16 16:24 14:21 17:18,22 18:2 19:1,
decided [4] 6:3,22 25:6 27: doctrine [4] 36:16 37:13 entitled [2] 25:10 26:14 17 26:14 50:20 51:12,19
17 38:20,24 entity [5] 7:16 28:14 42:11, fargo’s [1] 9:22
decision [15] 4:25 5:23 6: document [9] 12:16 14:12 17 43:11 fast [1] 33:22
22 9:25 30:14 37:23 38:1,4, 20:6 31:2,3,23 36:6 43:18 especially [1] 49:25 federal [9] 5:9 6:2 29:5 36:
11,13,16 43:6 51:3,6 52:6 49:6 essentially [2] 18:10 41:5 14,15 37:19 38:10,13,16
declaratory [4] 4:11 9:6 documents [8] 7:3 10:12 establish [5] 7:14 9:22 17: felt [1] 18:18
27:19 41:11 16:4,25 26:24 31:15 36:5 1 28:12 51:22 ferreira [3] 45:5 46:10 47:
declared [4] 6:15,17 51:13, 42:21 established [2] 26:20 40: 1
14 doesn’t [4] 40:2 44:17,23 1 figure [2] 27:11 46:15
deed [4] 27:1,6 50:2,9 48:6 establishes [1] 7:9 file [1] 41:4
deeds [1] 49:4 dog [1] 7:25 establishing [1] 19:20 filed [3] 6:1 9:16 39:2
default [1] 4:8 dollars [1] 16:8 etcetera [1] 13:19 filing [4] 39:4,22 42:20,24
defendant [2] 14:21 29:24 don’t [20] 5:9,19 10:11 11: even [10] 6:14 8:14 10:13 filings [1] 14:13
defendants [5] 4:4,11 25: 25 14:2,16 16:3,20 20:4 24: 14:16 27:1 42:8,9,9,10 50: find 12:17
[1]
25 49:3 51:15 12 31:2 39:17 40:8 43:13 23 finding [1] 38:17
deference [1] 20:11 44:14 46:20 49:13,13 50: everybody [1] 49:9 fine [2] 5:21 9:3
defines [1] 12:20 25,25 everyone [2] 8:20 19:18 firmly [1] 39:23
definition [1] 13:16 done [1] 38:24 everything [1] 37:10 first [27] 4:24 5:23 6:3 10:
demarcation [1] 24:20 doris [1] 20:20 evidenced [4] 23:5 24:6,8 25 11:1 12:19 13:20 14:8,
denied [3] 9:14 29:25 30: due [8] 23:7 25:1 40:5 45:9, 34:17 18 15:12,14 18:13 23:2 25:
11 9,14 47:5,7 evidentiary [1] 31:1 25 26:8 29:5,14,18 32:14
deny [1] 44:6 dustin [2] 20:20,20 evidently [1] 23:21 33:14 34:4 36:12 41:16 45:
depositor [1] 13:7 dwelling [1] 13:19 exactly [1] 47:19 8 51:3,4,20
deter [1] 27:12 excuse 7:16
[1] fitchburg [1] 44:20
determination [2] 27:13 E execute [1] 17:17 five [5] 4:10 22:7 25:15 45:
40:14 each 13:8
[1]
executed [6] 8:9 10:24 17: 14,22
Sheet 3 couple - five
font [1] 50:12 happen [3] 35:17 46:4 48: improper [1] 41:18 judgment [9] 4:5,11 9:6
footnote 52:12
[1] 25 inaudible [2] 25:9 37:6 25:11 26:13 27:19 35:19
foreclose [3] 8:23 9:22 10: happened [6] 10:2 33:1, include [2] 19:21 22:3 41:11 42:20
7 15 39:25 44:6,8 included [4] 12:18 16:17 judicata [7] 4:21 36:16 37:
foreclosed 36:15 51: happy 26:16
[2] [1] 32:2 50:22 13 38:20,24 40:10 42:6
23 hard [1] 50:12 includes [7] 11:17 13:12 judicial [4] 4:16,25 40:14,
foreclosing [3] 7:16 8:13 he’s [1] 51:25 15:5 16:7,10,13 50:10 22
28:14 hear [5] 3:21 28:18 31:17 including [1] 27:4 july [3] 4:12 9:13 27:2
foreclosure [38] 4:16 5: 44:17,18 independently [1] 45:2 june [3] 22:5 23:9 24:9
24 6:5,22 7:2,4,8,11 9:5,7, hearing 31:6 [1] indulgence [2] 49:21 52: jurisdiction [3] 37:21 39:
17,17,25 10:3,25 26:23 27: heart [1] 4:7 21 17 40:1
1 32:17 33:1,7 39:16,23 40: held 34:23
[1] information [1] 16:16
13,15,22 41:6,7,9,15,24 43: herrera [1] 48:12 initial [1] 16:11
K
2,3 47:14 50:2,8,23 51:14, history 29:12 [1] initially [2] 34:6,15 kind [1] 8:18
24 hold [9] 11:24 13:24 23:8,8, inquiry [1] 44:4 known [1] 18:21
form [1] 17:7 10 27:8 50:4,4,8 instead [1] 46:6 knows [2] 5:24 38:13
formerly 18:21
[1] holder 7:4,10 17:18 19: interest [1] 16:11
[6]
L
forward [7] 9:5,6 29:13 33: 16,18,19 interested [1] 50:12
labeled [1] 25:24
22 40:14 41:9,15 holders 51:22 [1] interpretation [1] 39:4
landscape [1] 15:13
found [5] 29:14,18 36:9 47: holding [3] 8:9 39:2 51:13 interrupt [1] 8:25
language [2] 18:7 52:7
21,23 holds [1] 38:3 invalid [4] 6:23,24 51:13
larace [2] 3:7 51:19
foundation 31:2 [1] honor [36] 3:9,10,17,23 4: 52:1
laraces [1] 3:13
four [2] 25:15,17 3,20 5:13,18,24 9:12,19 10: invalid.” [1] 51:25
last [8] 20:17 26:22 31:6
fourth [1] 4:8 11,12 12:13,19 16:6 23:20 invalidated [1] 5:25
42:24 48:21 49:23 50:1 52:
freemont [1] 36:25 25:8 28:8 29:4,12 30:21 31: invalided [1] 51:14
12
frequently 44:16,18
[2] 22 36:20 38:13 43:9 45:5 invent [1] 40:24
late [2] 31:7 32:1
friday [1] 3:6 46:11 47:9,20 49:21,24 50: invoke [1] 39:17
later [4] 5:17,25 7:13 25:5
front [3] 5:19 6:13 15:24 17 52:12,21,22 involved [3] 38:20 39:3,10
latest [2] 44:5 49:19
full 12:9,11 13:11 23:7 honor’s 26:7 44:15
[5] [2] involves [1] 29:6
law [7] 17:17 21:7,20 24:16
34:10 however [4] 35:10 39:10 issue [6] 6:9 37:19 40:6 43:
47:12 48:2,10
43:5,10 21 44:3 48:13
G issues [1] 31:7
lawful [1] 34:21
gave [6] 29:3,8 31:7,19,25 I it’s [54] 4:15,17 5:5 7:1 8:
lawsuit [1] 4:8
32:1 i.e [1] 34:19 least [1] 9:23
14 9:5,20 11:13,23 13:3 14:
germano [4] 20:23,25,25 i’ll [10] 3:21 25:3 27:9 38: leave [1] 5:16
6,11,13,15,17,17,25 15:3,
21:1 10 48:11,12 52:2,2,19,20 left [4] 42:20 44:8 52:15,18
13 21:3,19 22:10 24:18,19,
getting [1] 11:21 i’m [1] 41:1 legal [1] 22:10
22 30:9 34:25 36:1,20 37:8,
give [5] 5:4 10:6,10,18 43: i’ve [4] 15:2 20:9 23:14,16 legislature [1] 41:22
11,11 38:4,18,19 39:17,18,
13 ibanez [10] 6:22 10:1 29:8 lender [6] 7:15 8:13 10:16
20,21,25 40:8 41:2 44:1 45:
gives [1] 38:11 30:14 32:18,25 43:21,23 21:5 41:8,10
14 46:17 47:8 49:16 50:14,
glenn [2] 3:11 5:11 51:13,14 let’s [2] 32:14 44:3
14,15,15,15 51:3 52:3
got [9] 15:2,23 16:5 23:14, idea [2] 4:1 41:6 letter [1] 23:19
itself [5] 14:18 22:1 24:15,
16 38:19 42:18,18 45:4 identified [4] 13:8,17 16: line [2] 15:7 24:20
20 46:21
granted [1] 50:13 22 17:22 litigated [5] 36:13,17,19
guess [2] 35:22 48:4 identifier [1] 16:10 J 37:2 42:14
guys [1] 24:17 identifying [3] 16:9,16 34: january [2] 31:5,16 litigation [9] 36:14 37:4,4,
16 jordan [3] 7:20 23:18,22 6,8,12,19 39:25 41:4
H immediately [2] 47:5,7 jr [1] 3:11 little [3] 4:1 28:9 50:12
hand [1] 28:19 implies [1] 40:25 judge [4] 24:17 39:13 52: live [1] 9:18
handed [2] 45:4 46:11 impossible [1] 50:14 14,17 loan [37] 10:15 11:10,14,15,
Sheet 4 font - loan
16,16 12:18,20,23 13:1,8,8, misconstrues [1] 51:13 notary [1] 8:9 13:13,14,14 14:13 17:7,8,
10,11,16,18 14:8 15:5,8,13, mistake [1] 21:5 note [45] 7:10 10:5 16:12 16,16 18:18,20,22,23 19:
16,17 16:6,7,17 17:1,7 19: mls [3] 11:12 13:20 16:17 19:2,4,8,9 20:7 21:8,21,25 13 20:10,17 21:15 23:17
10 23:16 30:22 31:23 32:2 moment [1] 5:20 22:21,24 23:5 24:6,13 26: 24:2 25:17,17,25 27:10,24,
42:7,9,12,17 43:12 monthly [1] 23:6 14,17,17 27:13,16,17,19,20 25 29:21 33:16,23 34:16
loans [2] 11:17,19 months [1] 31:4 28:1,3 39:5 44:22 45:2,9, 35:7,8,15,15,16 36:11 40:
long [3] 16:21 24:17 34:23 moot 4:17 9:7,16 39:17 16,19,25 46:1,2,5,21 47:3,
[4] 12 41:5,24 42:7,19,23 44:
longer [3] 6:15 9:18 47:25 mootness [2] 9:4,21 10,13,25 48:13,15,16 50: 12 47:2 49:16,17
look [12] 10:8,11 13:20 15: morning [6] 3:8,9,10,12, 17 one’s [2] 13:13 51:12
11,18 23:12 39:5 46:21 47: 14,17 noteholder [1] 26:18 ones [2] 35:3,6
16,17 48:11 52:12 mortgage [84] 4:7 6:10 10: notes [1] 47:11 only [9] 15:5 21:6 34:17 41:
looking [3] 29:4 46:14 48: 4,14,15,24 11:10,16,17,19 nothing [6] 34:25 42:18, 3 43:18 47:2 50:2,18 51:14
22 12:20,23 13:1,8,8,10,11,16, 19 44:21,23 50:23 opine [1] 39:11
looks [2] 27:10,14 18,18 14:7 15:7,20,21,25 notice [8] 4:25 19:18 43:3 opinion [7] 29:13 51:4,6,6,
lost [2] 13:5 47:3 16:6,17 17:1,16 18:24 21:7, 50:1,3,6,11,23 20 52:11,13
lot [2] 27:10 47:12 18,19,25 22:6,6,14,25 23:2, now.” [1] 34:11 opposed [1] 27:20
low [2] 25:9 37:7 3,23 24:2,14,15,18,19,24 number [12] 4:14,17 12:20 opposing [1] 44:19
lower [1] 52:6 25:9,10 27:20,24 29:25 30: 13:18,21 15:13,15,16,17, opposition [3] 12:10 28:
7,13 33:17,23 34:22,24 35: 25 16:7 23:19 25 39:7
M 2 42:12,17 43:11,17 45:1,8, numbered [3] 11:23 13:6, option [16] 7:15,21 10:16,
made [5] 21:5 29:14,19 33: 9,12,13,14,17,20 46:2,5,18 15 19 11:2 17:7,8,16,16 18:20,
2 46:16 47:10,14,21 48:2,5 49:4 50: 22,23 19:13 33:16 34:16
many [1] 32:13 13 51:12,17,22
O 51:12
march [6] 30:9 35:20,23 mortgagee [5] 7:10 8:9 o’donnell [10] 7:21,23 16: order [2] 3:2 10:13
36:4 43:17 49:1 19:19 20:6 26:25 2 23:4,18,22 27:6 35:7,8 original [3] 16:7 29:25 30:
marked [1] 15:11 mortgagee’s [1] 40:15 50:5 11
massachusetts [4] 16: mortgages [3] 13:12,17 object [1] 30:21 originating [2] 7:15 10:16
14 17:17 19:4 21:20 47:11 objecting [1] 42:6 origination [3] 16:15 33:
matches [1] 18:8 mortgagor [1] 39:16 obsolete [4] 21:19 22:6 15,16
matter [4] 28:3 37:21 40:1 most [1] 16:4 25:10 45:12 other [5] 25:17,25 34:1,13
52:20 motion [4] 40:4,6 42:20 43: obtains [1] 26:18 51:2
mature [1] 45:1 5 obtuse [1] 28:10 out [9] 7:17 10:19 23:21 26:
maturity [11] 21:22 22:3,4, move [2] 21:15 44:3 occurred [5] 4:18 9:13,18 8 27:11 35:21 39:8 46:15
5 44:22 45:13,16,25 47:5,7, much [1] 41:7 34:18 35:19 51:20
21 must [3] 40:14 42:11 43:11 october [1] 11:9 outcome [1] 43:6
mean [10] 8:14 17:21 27: myself [1] 23:12 ocwen [2] 19:10 23:16 over [3] 13:7 31:6 44:14
10,15,23,23 28:11 31:7 37: officer [1] 3:3 own [1] 34:19
11 44:20 N official [1] 51:7 owned [3] 42:12,18 43:12
meaning [1] 44:22 name [6] 17:16 18:19,20, okay [50] 4:2 5:21 6:25 7:6
means 39:24
[1] 23 34:24 51:18 8:6,12 9:11 11:24 12:12,22 P
memorandum [7] 3:19 names [1] 16:19 13:2 14:22 15:23 16:5 18:6, page [29] 11:21,22,22,23
30:25 35:18 36:2 43:15 44: necessary [1] 51:16 25 19:11,14 21:1,16 23:22 12:19 13:5,6,16 14:4 15:11,
5 49:19 need [8] 10:8,9 14:10 18: 24:8 25:7 26:8,21 28:6,13, 12,14 21:21 23:2 24:2 25:
memorialize [1] 17:18 17 36:23 39:5 41:21 46:15 16 29:1,7 30:6,17 32:9,12, 12 29:11 33:14 42:8,15 43:
mentioned 5:8 [1] negotiated [1] 19:5 19 33:25 34:12 36:7,11 42: 15 45:8 50:20,21 51:7,9,10
merely [2] 36:4 51:5 never [4] 26:5 39:24,25 42: 2,4 44:2,10,13 48:17 49:11 52:7,8
merits 38:4 43:7 49:17 14
[3] 50:14 52:2,9,19 pages [1] 14:25
microphone [1] 4:1 next [3] 15:14 25:13 44:3 old [2] 48:1,8 paid [1] 23:7
minute [1] 42:24 nobody [3] 29:3 47:23,25 one [55] 4:11,14,15 5:4 7: papers [1] 5:14
miscellaneous 3:6 [1] non-judicial [1] 41:2 15,22 9:2,15 10:16,19 11:2 paragraph [3] 34:10 42:8
Sheet 5 loan - paragraph

43:10 preclude [1] 28:1 purportedly [1] 42:17 referred [4] 17:12 28:21
part [15] 10:5 11:11 14:6,7 preclusive [1] 38:23 purpose [1] 46:12 35:7 44:25
19:2 21:4 26:1,5 31:3,11, prepayment [2] 45:6 47:4 put [8] 18:12 19:18 22:15 refers [7] 22:21,24 24:13
22 32:6,10 42:1 50:19 preserve [1] 20:12 32:1 43:10,12 44:5,5 44:22,23 45:19,25
partial 12:10 42:19
[2] presumably [1] 33:6 putting [1] 18:9 refused [1] 43:14
particular [7] 15:5 16:17 presume [1] 32:3 regardless [1] 9:21
17:1 26:16 29:6 40:5 47:20 pretty [3] 29:13 41:7 49:19
Q registry [3] 17:15 46:15
parties [5] 33:21 38:21,21, previously [1] 47:9 question [4] 40:7 45:24 49:4
21 50:12 principal [1] 16:8 46:1 51:23 regulation [1] 21:11
payable 19:5 23:7 24:9 principals [1] 51:15
[4] questions [4] 26:16 29:12, relabeled [2] 27:14,16
47:8 prior [6] 10:1,2 26:15 28: 23 35:16 relates [2] 15:7,8
payable.” 47:6 [1] 11 39:2 42:20 quick [1] 49:24 relating [1] 28:4
payees [1] 47:3 private [1] 19:23 quiet [5] 26:22 28:8 48:18 relevant [1] 21:6
payments [1] 23:6 privy [1] 38:21 49:6 50:1 rely [6] 6:15 10:12 33:23
penalty [2] 45:6 47:4 probably [1] 3:25 quoted [1] 52:8 43:16 49:13 50:25
people [1] 46:14 procedural [2] 31:7,18 quotes [1] 38:3 relying [12] 29:22 30:16
percent 16:11
[1] proceed [3] 7:10 26:25 41: R 32:23 35:6,24 44:9 48:24
pertains [1] 25:25 7 49:1,6,8,12,25
raise [1] 8:22
petition 37:5,11,14
[3] process [3] 40:18,20 41:3 remainder [1] 19:21
raised [3] 34:1,14 38:23
picture [1] 16:5 produced [6] 11:10 13:14 remaining [2] 4:5,10
raising [1] 8:16
piper 39:13
[1] 26:17 27:1 31:4 42:9 remains [1] 25:13
rate [1] 16:11
place [1] 39:16 production [1] 14:9 remedies [1] 47:11
re [3] 15:1 27:16 29:22
placed [2] 30:12,22 proffer [2] 30:22 31:23 remedy [1] 41:18
reach [1] 40:2
places 39:23
[1] prong [5] 37:15 39:9,20,24 remedy.” [1] 52:18
read [11] 38:10 41:5,7 46:
plaintiff [1] 30:20 40:2 remember [2] 20:21 48:3
25 48:7,7 50:13,14 52:2,13,
plaintiff’s 4:6 12:4 16: prongs [1] 37:16
[8] removed [2] 6:2 36:15
19
18 40:9 44:11 49:10 51:11, proof [1] 10:9 repeatedly [1] 42:7
real [3] 11:13 33:19 34:23
22 property [4] 13:19 29:6 33: repetition [1] 39:11
really [6] 4:21 9:15 17:13
plaintiffs [15] 3:11 4:9 6:1, 19 34:23 reply [2] 12:2 34:20
28:4 49:16,16
14 9:24 12:9 30:21 34:2,4, propounded [3] 29:24 42: reporter [1] 51:7
reason [3] 38:6 40:4 43:10
14,15,25 42:16 52:14,18 16 44:4 reports [1] 5:9
record [40] 3:20 5:5,10 6:4
plaintiffs’ [1] 9:13 protect [1] 48:14 request [2] 9:14 14:9
7:7,9,12,18 9:21 10:3,5,10,
pleading [1] 14:17 prove [2] 7:3 49:7 require [1] 40:13
12 11:11 16:12,25 17:10,
please [1] 3:5 proves [1] 41:8 required [1] 27:5
15 18:10,12 19:2,8,18,19
podium [2] 3:23,25 provide [4] 5:17,18 10:9 requirement [1] 16:19
22:16,19 26:20 28:12 32:6,
point [10] 7:17 8:14 10:22 27:21 requirements [1] 27:3
10 40:9 42:22 43:18 46:14,
11:7 18:20 24:4 44:15 48:3, provided [4] 10:5,14 16: requirements,’ [1] 51:16
16,25 48:14 49:10 50:19,
8 51:2 12 26:24 res [7] 4:21 36:16 37:13 38:
22
points [1] 49:24 provides [1] 23:6 20,24 40:10 42:5
recordations [1] 49:1
ponser 52:14,17
[2] psa [25] 10:9,14,23 11:7,8, residential [1] 13:19
recorded [7] 11:1 19:16
pooling [1] 35:21 9,13,15,16,20,22 12:9,18 respect [9] 4:12 7:8 8:17
27:6 30:3 36:5 44:7 50:19
poorly [1] 46:24 13:11 17:8,12,14,20,24 18: 20:5 27:3,24 41:10 49:25
redacted [4] 13:15,20 15:
portrait [1] 15:13 9 34:19 42:12,18 43:12,16 51:2
3,4
position [6] 7:8 8:7 9:20 public [1] 8:9 respectfully [2] 33:11 49:
re-executed [1] 18:21
25:8 44:11,15 publication [1] 27:4 18
refer [3] 4:24 17:14 22:21
possession [7] 19:6 26: published [4] 50:11 52:3, respond [5] 22:8 31:8,19
reference [4] 11:16 12:17,
19 37:15 39:9 40:5,7,8 5,6 32:2 48:4
23 36:8
power [1] 51:17 pulled [1] 11:17 response [9] 12:4 14:9,19
referenced [2] 11:14,15
precedent [2] 38:14,18 purported [3] 30:22 33:18 15:1 31:12,14 40:10 44:19
references [3] 50:2,18,23
precedential [1] 38:19 41:18 46:23
Sheet 6 paragraph - response
responses [2] 42:19 44:6 seeing [1] 23:21 stand [1] 3:23 14:8,18 30:23
result [1] 31:10 seeking [3] 4:5 9:6 48:15 standing [8] 7:10 9:22 10:
reversed [1] 48:19 seeks [2] 4:15 26:13 7,10,13 26:25 28:11 39:18
T
rights [1] 48:15 sending [1] 13:7 stands [2] 7:7 17:15 tables [1] 48:19
ripe [1] 39:18 sent [1] 17:7 started [2] 10:19 14:25 talked [2] 33:18,22
rise [1] 3:3 seriously [1] 50:15 state [9] 1:53 4:15 13:18 talks [7] 11:19 13:6 29:11
rock [1] 1:38 served [2] 26:5 50:11 16:13 22:18 40:22 44:7 48: 36:22 42:7 44:21 50:13
rule [5] 6:9 9:19 28:2 51:23 servicing [1] 35:21 25 49:18 term [2] 34:1 45:25
52:1 serving [2] 19:10 23:16 stated [5] 25:11 36:4 44: that’s [67] 4:7,21 5:24 7:25
ruled [7] 6:20 20:9 24:17 session [1] 3:4 25 47:9 49:13 8:18 9:3,7 10:11 11:4 12:
30:15 32:24 43:21,24 set [1] 41:6 statement [4] 12:5 31:22 24 15:11,16,17 16:9,10,11
rules [1] 37:7 settled [2] 8:14 21:20 35:18 36:2 20:11 21:3 22:15,18 23:17
ruling [1] 26:7 seven [3] 28:7 48:20,23 states [7] 33:16 35:19 37: 24:20 25:1,8 27:23 28:4 29:
russell’s [1] 14:13 shouldn’t [1] 23:1 21 45:13 46:11,24 52:17 21 30:3,18 31:24 32:6,10
shouldn't [1] 31:18 statute [13] 21:19 22:6 24: 33:6,20 35:7,8 37:6 38:24
S show [7] 15:2,19 21:7 30: 21 39:3,5 41:12,14 44:16, 39:6,6 40:3,15 41:9,12,12,
sale [17] 5:24 6:5,22 7:2,4, 14,14 33:12 49:7 18,21,23 45:12 46:24 20,23,23 42:13,14,15 43:5,
4,8 9:13,17,17 27:2,3 50:1, shown [4] 42:11 43:11 45: statutes [1] 25:10 13 44:11 45:14,14,18 46:9,
3,7 51:14,24 17 46:17 statutory [6] 40:17,20 41: 16,16,24 47:13,16 49:9 51:
sale.” [1] 51:17 sic [1] 48:12 18 44:24 46:13 51:17 7,25 52:6
sales [1] 33:18 signing [2] 8:17,20 stay [1] 51:17 there’d [1] 45:5
same [9] 13:10 18:7 21:4 simply [1] 51:21 still [8] 8:14 10:14 18:24 there’s [25] 5:9 14:22 19:7
23:5 24:6 27:14 33:23 35:3 since [2] 4:8 15:5 42:6 47:13 48:2,10 49:6 24:16 31:1 32:13 36:2,23
49:16 sister [1] 29:13 stone [2] 47:17,17 37:16,20 39:15 40:3,10,21,
sand [2] 18:20,21 six [7] 25:13,24 26:8,12 27: stood [1] 7:1 25 41:2 44:21,22 47:11,12
saw [2] 3:19 5:10 10,10 43:3 straight [3] 10:3 29:13 51: 48:2,5,8 50:6,23
saying [6] 14:6 18:9 20:15 sixes [1] 25:22 20 they’re [7] 8:16 17:24 26:5,
38:6 41:17 47:2 sjc [23] 6:4,17,21 9:25 29: street [2] 1:38,53 23 32:23 41:13 49:5
says [26] 13:17 15:13 22: 14,18 36:4 37:9 38:17 39:8, stronger [1] 39:7 third [2] 13:3 21:18
10 23:2,4 24:1,5,18 32:20 15 40:5 42:10 43:10 44:24 stuck [2] 38:7 42:21 though [4] 10:8 35:25 49:
36:2 38:3 42:8,10,13,14 44: 45:24 46:12 48:8 49:2 51: sub [2] 51:7 52:7 12 52:11
1 45:9,12,18 46:25 47:19 14,21,23 52:1 subject [5] 8:21 37:13,21 thousands [2] 13:12,12
50:19 51:11,21 52:14,17 sjc’s [1] 51:13 39:11 40:1 three [2] 36:23 37:16
schedule [18] 10:15 11:10, slander [1] 25:18 submitted [6] 12:3,6,8,9 till [1] 33:22
16 12:20,24 13:2,9,10,12, small [1] 50:15 31:25 32:3 title [30] 5:25,25 8:10 10:5,
17 14:8,22 16:6 30:22 31: snippet [1] 44:5 subordinate [1] 38:17 18 17:11 19:17 20:6 21:7
23 32:2 42:7,9 solely [1] 10:12 subsection [1] 21:9 25:18 26:22 28:8 33:19 36:
seated [1] 3:5 somebody [1] 38:11 subsequent [1] 33:18 14 37:4,12,15 39:1,4,9,22
second [9] 5:4 9:20 26:12 sometime [1] 45:10 subsequently [1] 50:20 40:9,11 48:16,18 49:6,8,10
31:22 34:10 35:16 37:23 sorry [12] 8:25 10:25 13:25 substantive [2] 21:4 28:9 50:1 51:3
40:2 50:21 20:24 21:25 22:17,23 31: sue [2] 27:17 40:3 today [3] 7:7 29:22 32:23
secretary [1] 8:10 13 36:18 37:25 38:15 41:1 sufficient [1] 7:3 together [2] 10:6 50:16
section [4] 4:12 8:8 19:22 specific [4] 6:23 19:6 36: sufficiently [4] 9:22 16:25 took [1] 39:13
27:5 13 52:7 19:19 26:19 top [2] 15:12,14
secures [2] 45:2 48:5 specifically [11] 24:13 27: suggesting [1] 37:12 track [1] 3:18
securitization [1] 34:18 16,25 29:24 33:15 35:19 suit [1] 9:16 transfer [1] 19:5
securitized [3] 10:17 17:1 39:8 43:16 44:25 47:23 51: summary [3] 4:5 35:18 42: transferred [2] 8:11 36:3
18:7 11 20 transferring [1] 13:7
security [1] 23:6 spot [1] 24:4 superior [1] 49:8 transfers [1] 33:19
see [2] 42:1,7 springfield [1] 16:13 supplemental [4] 3:19 tri [9] 5:25 36:14 37:4,12 39:
Sheet 7 responses - tri
1,4,22 40:11 51:3 value [1] 38:19 whole [2] 10:18 52:13
tro [1] 9:14 varian [2] 39:12 52:18 will [6] 5:12 12:17 35:11 42:
trump [1] 49:10 versus [2] 8:18,19 3 50:17 52:13
trust [3] 10:17 11:18 18:7 view [1] 39:13 window [1] 45:22
trustee [13] 4:4 7:22 10:17, violation [1] 19:21 wise [1] 40:20
17 11:2 13:8 17:23,24 18:3, virtue [1] 34:18 without [4] 46:15 51:6 52:
4 19:1,17 36:3 void [10] 6:5,15,19 8:18,19 15,18
trying [7] 9:24 20:21 26:23 9:25 21:18 34:25 49:2,3 worded [1] 46:24
27:11 40:24 41:6 43:9 void,” [1] 34:25 words [2] 49:23 50:16
turn [3] 15:12,14 34:13 voidable [4] 8:18,19,21 34: work [1] 23:21
twenty [1] 48:1 25 writing [1] 47:8
twice [1] 42:25 voided [1] 6:5 written [1] 15:1
two [13] 4:17 7:12 10:6 20: wrote [1] 47:17
6,15 25:22,24 31:4 44:14
W
49:24 50:2,18,22 wait [8] 10:18 11:3,3 13:22 Y
type [1] 13:19 34:5 37:23 50:4,8 yared [3] 45:5 46:10,25
wanted [7] 20:12,14 21:3 yareds [1] 47:3
U 22:15,18 46:14 48:14 year [3] 10:22 24:21 45:22
u.s 51:5
[1] wasn’t [5] 16:19 36:17,21 years [4] 22:7 24:22 45:15
ucc [2] 19:4 26:18 37:4 39:10 48:1
ultimate 43:6
[1] way [5] 8:15 13:3 33:24 41: you’re [8] 4:1 9:4 14:6 18:
unbroken [1] 7:14 3,6 9 23:17 28:2 29:16 30:18
under [17] 7:5 17:4 19:4,15, we’ll [4] 5:16 25:5 28:5,5 you’ve [1] 42:24
24 21:6,9,18 22:6 26:18 31: we’re [17] 3:18,18 9:15 13:
21 36:15 42:12,17 43:11 10 24:2 26:11 28:11 39:11
Z
44:12 52:20 40:17 41:11,17,17 42:6 44: zip [1] 13:18
understand [3] 20:5 38: 8 45:22 48:18 49:25
25 45:7 we’ve [7] 26:14,15,19,23
understanding [4] 16:18 27:1 50:18,22
21:19 31:21 51:4 week [1] 42:19
understands 46:3 [1] weeks [1] 32:5
understood [1] 32:25 weeks’ [1] 43:3
undertook 44:24 [1] wells [23] 3:7 4:4 6:6 7:2,9,
undisputed [1] 40:8 15,22 9:22 10:7,10,13,16
unequivocally 49:2 [1] 11:2 14:21 17:18,22 18:2
unless [2] 40:1 47:8 19:1,17 26:13 50:20 51:12,
unlike [1] 46:1 19
unpublished 51:5 [1] wf136 [1] 12:20
unquestioned [1] 39:21 wf186 [2] 11:23 13:6
unredacted [1] 15:6 wf513 [1] 14:5
until [2] 19:6 41:7 wf514 [1] 15:12
up [6] 18:8 28:19 29:16 41: wf515 [1] 13:16
6 42:13 46:11 what’s [9] 27:11 29:24 30:
utilize [1] 4:12 1,5 37:25 43:22 46:17 51:
18,18
V whatever [2] 31:25 32:25
valid [4] 7:5 36:6 42:9 51: where’s [1] 19:8
16 whether [7] 37:3,11 38:18,
validity [5] 6:10 30:15 36: 19 40:7 42:16 51:24
12 37:18 43:24 who’s [1] 17:20
Sheet 8 tri - zip

Larace Et Al V Wells Fargo Et Al 18MISC000327 5-10-19

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Larace Et Al V Wells Fargo Et Al 18MISC000327 5-10-19

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Page | 1

SUFFOLK, SS. LAND COURT DEPARTMENT

For the Defendant:

Recording produced by digital audio recording system. Transcript

WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

2 (Court called to order.)

3 COURT OFFICER: Court, all rise.

4 Court is now in session.

6 THE CLERK: Friday, May 10th, 2019, 18 Miscellaneous 327,

7 LaRace v. Wells Fargo Bank.

8 THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.

9 MS. LAKE: Good morning, Your Honor.

10 MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, Your Honor.

11 Glenn F. Russell Jr. on behalf of the plaintiffs, the --

12 THE COURT: Good morning.

13 MR. RUSSELL: -- LaRaces.

14 THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Russell and Ms. --

15 MS. LAKE: Yeah.

16 THE COURT: -- Lake.

17 MS. LAKE: Good morning, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: All right. So we’re -- we’re back on track

19 here. I saw your supplemental memorandum, Mr. Russell.

20 Ms. Lake, your record is now complete.

21 And I’ll hear you, Ms. Lake.

22 MS. LAKE: Sure.

23 Does -- does Your Honor want me to stand at the podium or

25 THE COURT: Actually, the podium is probably a better

1 idea because you’re a little closer to the microphone.

2 MS. LAKE: Okay.

3 Thank you, Your Honor.

4 The defendants in this case, Wells Fargo as Trustee, and

5 Auckland, are seeking summary judgment on the remaining counts

6 of the plaintiff’s complaint.

7 At the heart of this action is a mortgage that’s been in

8 default since 2007, and this is the fourth lawsuit between

9 the plaintiffs and the bank.

10 There are five remaining counts in this case. A count

11 one for declaratory judgment that the defendants cannot

12 utilize Chapter 244, Section 14 with respect to the July 2018

14 THE COURT: Your -- your argument on count one is number

15 one, that it’s -- it doesn't state a claim because it seeks

16 judicial authorization of a foreclosure in the abstract; and

17 number two, that it’s moot because it was --

18 MS. LAKE: Already occurred --

19 THE COURT: Well --

20 MS. LAKE: -- Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: -- that’s really a res judicata argument --

22 MS. LAKE: Yes.

23 THE COURT: -- right?

24 Where -- where -- is -- is the -- you refer to the First

25 Circuit decision. Now, I know I can take judicial notice of

1 it, but I didn't get a citation of it either. So what -- do

2 you have it?

3 MS. LAKE: I should.

4 Give me one second.

5 THE COURT: It’s not in the record; is it?

7 MS. LAKE: I thought we cited it, but --

8 THE COURT: Yeah. You -- you mentioned it in your brief,

9 but there’s no citation to the federal reports, and I don’t

10 think I saw a copy of it in the record.

11 MS. LAKE: Do you have it, Glenn?

12 THE COURT: Well, a citation will do.

13 MS. LAKE: I apologize, Your Honor. I thought it was in