IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CITMORTGAGE, INC., CASE NO. 09 000 655-GCS

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. MOTIL, JR., et al.

Defendants. _____________________________/

DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

Comes now the Defendant, James A. Motil, Jr., pursuant to this Court's order, to

AMEND his Answer to Plaintiff’s unverified “Complaint” as follows:

AS TO COUNT ONE:

1. Defendant denies Paragraph 1 of Count One. This is not an "equity" action. Plaintiff

seeks a money judgment and that fact indicates a "legal" action. See Pernell, 416 U.S. at 370, 94

S.Ct. at 1727 (" 'where an action is simply for the recovery ... of a money judgment, the action is

one at law' ") (quoting Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U.S. 146, 151, 11 S.Ct. 276, 277, 34 L.Ed.

873 (1891)); Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 476, 82 S.Ct. 894, 899, 8 L.Ed.2d 44

(1962) (Insofar as complaint requests a money judgment "it presents a claim which is

unquestionably legal").

2. Defendant denies Paragraph 2 of Count One. Paragraph 2 fails to identify the person to

whom the note and mortgage were allegedly "delivered." The alleged "Plaintiff's Assignor" is not

identified. Plaintiff fails to allege a "chain of title" sufficient enough to establish its ownership

interest in the note and mortgage. Thus, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction of this case.

3. Defendant denies Paragraph 3 of Count One. Plaintiff alleges an “Assignment,” but no

copy is attached to the Complaint. Defendant received no notice, prior to this action, that the

alleged note and mortgage were “assigned” to Plaintiff.1

4. Defendant denies Paragraph 4 of Count One, except that he admits only that he is the

owner of the property commonly known as 113 South Delaney Avenue, Avon Park, Florida.1 See F.S. § 559.715 (2009).

5. Defendant denies Paragraph 5 of Count One for lack of knowledge, and points out that

exhibits attached to the Complaint contradict the allegations of Paragraph 5. Plaintiff fails to

show an unbroken chain of title to support its claims of interest in the alleged note and mortgage.

6. Defendant denies Paragraph 6 of Count One. The alleged date of “October 6, 2008” is

not the “maturity date” stated in the exhibits attached to the Complaint. The "loan" was NOT

"due" on October 6, 2008.

7. Defendant denies Paragraph 7 of Count One. Defendant owes nothing to Plaintiff.

8. Defendant denies Paragraph 8 of Count One. Plaintiff failed to give notice of

acceleration to Defendant prior to filing its Complaint. Plaintiff’s exhibits only allow

“acceleration” in the case of a “transfer” of ownership rights by the mortgagor.

9. Defendant admits Paragraph 9 of Count One, except that he denies that he has “incurred

an obligation” to pay any fees to Plaintiff’s attorneys. This Paragraph alleges that the "Note and

Mortgage" have been delivered to "Plaintiff's attorney." Thus, the unidentified "attorney" appears

to be the "Note Holder" which contradicts the Complaint's allegation that Plaintiff holds the note.

10. Defendant denies Paragraph 10 of Count One. The Complaint is inconsistent and

contradictory as to what “security” Plaintiff has, if any. If Plaintiff is “required” to pay out

money, that is Plaintiff's obligation, not Defendant’s. Defendant pays property taxes on his

home. Who determines what costs are “necessary”? Paragraph 10 is vague: it does not,

explicitly, allege who will be “owing” Plaintiff.

11. As to Paragraph 11of Count One, Defendant admits only that Plaintiff is obligated to

pay all those costs which it incurred by its own decision. Defendant denies that said obligations

were “necessary” and he denies that he is obligated to reimburse Plaintiff.

12. Defendant denies Paragraph 12 of Count One. Plaintiff violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)

when it failed to cease collection of the debt after receiving Defendant’s “REQUEST FOR

VALIDATION OF DEBT” on April 16, 2009. Further, Defendant received no notice, prior to

this action, that the alleged note and mortgage were “assigned” to Plaintiff.2

13. Defendant admits Paragraph 13 of Count One, but denies that this “Notice” is either

valid or sufficient to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Some of the things wrong with this

“Notice” include, but are not limited to: 1) neither the Defendant, nor any debtor are named on

it; 2) the first sentence says “you” have “30 days” to dispute the validity of the debt, but the

attorney filed Plaintiff’s lawsuit before the 30 days expired; 3) the “Notice” fails to mention that

2 See footnote 1, above.

2

Plaintiff mailed a dunning letter to Defendant dated March 18, 2009; 4) the “Notice” fails to

mention that Plaintiff received a “Request for Validation of Disputed Debt” from Defendant on

April 16, 2009. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney have, both, violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

14. Defendant denies Paragraph 14 of Count One for lack of knowledge.

WHEREFORE, Count One fails to state a cause of action. Defendant moves the Court

to dismiss Count One, for Defendant’s costs to defend this action, for findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

AS TO COUNT TWO

15. Defendant denies Paragraph 1 of Count Two for lack of knowledge. Count Two does not

appear to be a valid or sufficient “action.”

16. Defendant denies Paragraph 2 of Count Two. Plaintiff does not identify to whom the

alleged note and mortgage were delivered, nor to whom payment was secured, nor the identity of

“Plaintiff’s Assignor.” Defendant did not deliver a "Mortgage/Security Agreement" to "Plaintiff's

Assignor" (CitiFinancial...?!?). There is NO Note or Mortgage "in favor of the Plaintiff"!!! These

are fraudulent statements made by the Plaintiff and its attorneys. The exhibits attached to the

Complaint contradict the allegations of the Complaint.

17. Defendant denies Paragraph 3 of Count Two for lack of knowledge. If the alleged Note

was "destroyed," it may have been destroyed by a Holder-of-the-Note.

18. Defendant denies Paragraph 4 of Count Two for lack of knowledge.

19. Defendant denies Paragraph 5 of Count Two for vagueness. Plaintiff alleges that one of

three (3) persons was "in possession of the Note and entitled to enforce the Note when loss of

possession occurred." Plaintiff, thereby, admits it does not know two necessary elements: 1) who

was in possession of the alleged Note at the time of loss; and 2) when it was lost. Plaintiff has

offered "no evidence as to who possessed the note when it was lost."3 Thus, the Complaint fails

to state a cause of action to re-establish a lost note and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear

Count Two.

20. Defendant denies Paragraph 6 for lack of knowledge and the Complaint’s exhibits show

it was possible that the “loss of possession” could have been the result of a “transfer.”

21. Defendant denies Paragraph 7 for lack of knowledge.

3 State Street Bank v. Hartley Lord, 851 So. 2d 790, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 1694, 2003, 4th DCA

3

22. Defendant denies Paragraph 8. Plaintiff fails to allege that the "lost or destroyed" Note is

a “negotiable instrument.” The alleged Note does not appear to be a promise to pay a "fixed

amount of money."4 Said Note refers to a "Mortgage" dated "the same date as this Note."5 Said

Mortgage purports to make the mortgagor pay "Funds" into an escrow account for the payment

of "taxes and assessments and other items."6 This means the amount of money is NOT "fixed."

Said Note fails, further, to meet the requirements of a negotiable instrument in that it refers to

said Mortgage (another "undertaking or instruction") which requires the mortgagor to do certain

acts (such as "occupy" the property7) "in addition to the payment of money." Further, the alleged

Mortgage is a legal nullity.

WHEREFORE, Count Two fails to state a cause of action. Defendant moves the Court

to dismiss Count Two, for Defendant’s costs to defend this action, for findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

23. Defense 1 (a) - No capacity-to-sue is alleged in the Complaint. The Florida Department

of State, Division of Corporations' web site lists two (2) foreign profit corporations named

"Citimortgage, Inc." Each corporation has a different FEI/EIN Number: one is "active" and the

other is "inactive." Which one is the Plaintiff? Or, perhaps the Plaintiff is not registered with the

State of Florida. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.120 (a) says, in pertinent part:

It is ... necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, ... to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court....

24. Defense 1 (b) - Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.110 (b) requires that a

complaint include a “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends....” By failing to plead in what capacity the Plaintiff brings suit and by failing to define

or identify in any way the nature of its legal entity, the Plaintiff has not plead that it has the

capacity to maintain suit before this Court. Thus, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to

hear Plaintiff's case.

4 See F.S. 673.1041 (1)5 Complaint's Exhibit A, page 2, paragraph number 10.6 Complaint's Exhibit B, page 3, paragraph number 3.7 A person can "maintain" and "protect" his property (the collateral) without occupying it.

4

25. Defense 2 - The Exhibits of the Complaint show that the alleged Note and the alleged

Mortgage were separated on the very date they were executed. The "Lender" on the alleged Note

is "Household Finance Corporation III" (hereafter "HFC III").8 The alleged Mortgage explicitly

states that someone, other than HFC III, is the "mortgagee": "MERS is the mortgagee under

this Security Instrument."9 This bifurcation of the alleged documents renders the alleged Note

unsecured. As a matter of law, the alleged Mortgage is a nullity, and the Court can not legally

order a foreclosure on Defendant's property based upon the alleged Mortgage.10

26. Defense 3 - Plaintiff has not shown that it (or anyone else in the chain-of-title) has paid

for and obtained the necessary certificate from the Florida Department of State pertaining to the

sale of notes, bonds and mortgages. A violation of the Florida Statute regarding said certificate is

a felony. See F.S. §§ 609.02 and 609.06 (2009).

27. Defense 4 - The alleged "Original Note" filed in this case appears to be a high-

resolution, computer-generated, color copy. Defendant has examined said Note and it appears to

be a counterfeit copy. A copy of a promissory note is just as worthless as a copy of a dollar bill.

See F.S. §§ 90.952 and 90.953. According to "Comments of the Florida Bankers Association"11

filed with the Supreme Court of Florida, it is common practice to destroy notes after they have

been scanned and their images have been stored, electronically, in a computer's memory banks.

28. Defense 5 - Violation of Federal Law. The alleged "Original Note" and "Original

Mortgage" filed in this case appear to be a counterfeit securities which, if so, violate United

States Code Title 18 USC §§ 472 - 474.

29. Defense 6 - By filing this Complaint with its alleged Note and Mortgage, the Plaintiff

and its attorneys have committed a fraud upon the court. The Plaintiff and its attorneys knew,

should have known, or recklessly did not know, that Plaintiff is NOT, legally, entitled to enforce

the alleged Note and Mortgage.

/ / /

/ / /

8 Emphasis added. See the Complaint's Exhibit A, on page 1 at Paragraph Number 1.

9 See the Complaint's Exhibit B, on page 1 at Paragraph (C).

10 See 83 US 271, Carpenter v. Longan.11 Case No. 09-1460, In Re: Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure and Forms..., pp. 3-4.

5

30. Defense 7 - The Plaintiff has not shown that it is the real party in interest, nor has it

shown that it represents a real party in interest. Thus, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the

Complaint. See Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.210 (a).

31. Defense 8 - The Complaint fails to attach an affidavit of a competent eye-witness

testifying as to the authenticity and the proper application of the alleged Note and the alleged

Mortgage. Thus, it fails to state a cause of action.

32. Defense 9 - Although the alleged "Assignment of Mortgage" is not attached to the

Complaint, an un-authenticated copy is on file with the Highlands County Clerk of Courts. The

gist of said Assignment is that "MERS" (the alleged assignor), for "Valuable Consideration,"

assigned a certain "mortgage, together with certain note(s)" to "CITIMORTGAGE, INC." (the

alleged assignee) on "July 15, 2009." From a review of the Complaint's exhibits and the face of

the Assignment, it appears the Assignment is bogus for several reasons, including, but not

limited to: 1) it has no corporate seal; 2) the "Vice President" signing the Assignment is an

employee or officer of "Orion Financial Group, Inc.," not MERS; 3) there is no allegation that

MERS ever owned or possessed the alleged Note; 4) there is no allegation that MERS was

authorized by HFC III to make the Assignment; 5) the Assignment fails to mention Decision

One or CitiFinancial; 6) the recorded Assignment bears contrary witness to the allegations of the

Complaint in that neither Decision One nor CitiFinancial ever possessed the alleged Mortgage.

(If either of them had possessed the Mortgage, then MERS could not have had it to assign to

anyone.); and the address listed as "G4318 Miller Road, Flint, MI 48507" is MERS' address, not

HFC III's. This appears to be a major fraud upon the Court.

33. Defense 10 - The alleged Note has been paid in full and then some. Every time a

promissory note changes hands, there must be "valuable consideration" or there is no legal

transfer. Although the alleged Note is not a "negotiable instrument," it appears to have been

treated like one. Evidently, the alleged Note was sold to Decision One (without the alleged

Mortgage) on the day it was created without disclosing this fact to Defendant, and without

recording the transfer with the Highlands County Clerk of Courts. Further, it was sold (at an

unknown date) to CitiFinancial (without the alleged Mortgage), again, without notice to either

Defendant or the Clerk of Courts. Then, it was sold to Plaintiff (allegedly on July 21, 2008)12,

again, without notice to either Defendant or the Clerk of Courts until over a year later on August

12 See Answer No. 11 to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories.

6

5, 2009 when the purported "Assignment of Mortgage" was filed--AFTER Plaintiff filed its

Complaint. If, as Defendant believes, the alleged Note and/or Mortgage were "securitized," then

the alleged Note was broken, because Defendant's payments were applied to paying on a new

security and not to paying off the alleged Note.

34. Defense 11 - The alleged Mortgage is a legal nullity and it is unenforceable under

applicable federal laws and regulations. Among other things, Plaintiff failed to provide

necessary notices and disclosures to Defendant as required by the Truth in Lending Act, 15

U.S.C. §1601 et seq. (“TILA”), as amended by the Home Ownership & Equity Protection Act of

1994, 15 U.S.C. §§1602 and 1639 (“HOEPA”), and Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12

C.F.R. part 226.

35. Defense 12 - The Plaintiff appears to be merely a "servicing agent" for the real party in

interest, but fails to disclose this fact in its Complaint. (See Exhibit A attached hereto, paragraph

one, last sentence.) On the bottom lines of both pages of said Exhibit A, it gives written notice

that: "CitiMortgage is a debt collector...." Only persons who are attempting to collect a debt for

someone else are considered to be debt collectors. The real-party-in-interest would be a

"creditor" and would not be required to give such a written notice pursuant to federal law, Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED by:

________________________________

JAMES A. MOTIL, JR., Defendant, Self-Represented113 S DELANEY AVEAVON PARK FL 33825-3930(863) 443-1061

7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CITMORTGAGE, INC., CASE NO. 09 000 655-GCS

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES A. MOTIL, JR., et al.

Defendants. _______________________________/

JAMES A. MOTIL, JR.,

Cross-Claimant,

vs.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.;DECISION ONE MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC;LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA, LLC;DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA, FL BAR # 371300;KLARIKA J. CAPLANO, FL BAR # 43496; andJOHN DOES 1 – 10,

Cross-Defendants. _______________________________/

DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Comes now Defendant, James A. Motil, Jr., pursuant to this Court's order and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

36. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

37. This action arises out of Cross-Defendants’ violations of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the invasions of Defendant’s personal

privacy by these Cross-Defendants in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt.

38. Venue is proper in Highlands County because the acts and transactions occurred here,

Defendant resides here, and Cross-Defendants transact business here.

8

PARTIES

39. Defendant is a natural person who resides in the City of Avon Park, Highlands County,

Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

40. Plaintiff, CitiMortgage, Inc. (hereafter, “CitiMortgage”), is a foreign profit corporation

registered with the Florida Division of Corporations whose principal address is 1000 Technology

Drive, O’Fallon, MO 63368, and is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §

1692a(6).

41. Cross-Defendant, Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC (“Decision One”), is a

foreign limited liability company that stopped transacting business in Florida on March 11, 2009,

but may have acquired an interest in the subject property prior to that time and may still have an

interest in it pursuant to Plaintiff’s “Exhibit A” attached to its Complaint.

42. Cross-Defendant, Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, LLC (“Law Offices”), is a

Florida limited liability company attempting to collect a debt for Plaintiff and is a “debt

collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).13

43. Cross-Defendant, Daniel C. Consuegra, Florida Bar # 371300 (“Consuegra”), is a

natural person who is a Florida attorney attempting to collect a debt for Plaintiff and is a “debt

collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).14

44. Cross-Defendant, Klarika J. Caplano, Florida Bar # 34396 (“Caplano”), is a natural

person who is a Florida attorney attempting to collect a debt for Plaintiff and is a “debt collector”

as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).15

45. Cross-Defendants (Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano) will be collectively referred

to as “the Attorneys” or as “Plaintiff’s attorneys.”

13 See the Complaint's Exhibit X.14 See footnote 13, above.15 See the the signature page of the Complaint.

9

46. Cross-Defendants, John Does 1 – 10, are unknown to Defendant at this time, but their

roles in this matter and their identities may be discovered through discovery, or otherwise, after

the filing of this Cross-Complaint and will be named accordingly.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

47. On or around 6 September 2006, Defendant incurred a financial obligation that was

primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a “debt” as that term is

defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), namely, a promissory note (that is, probably, not a “negotiable

instrument”) in the approximate amount of $66,000.00. This amount is "approximate," because

said Note is subject to an alleged Mortgage of the same date and said Mortgage purports to

obligate the mortgagor to pay "Funds" into an escrow account for the payment of "taxes and

assessments and other items."16

48. The "Lender," HFC III, on the alleged Note, led Defendant to believe that HFC III was

loaning him money from HFC III's account. It now appears that HFC III and Defendant merely

exchanged of one kind of money for another.

49. On or around September 6, 2006, the alleged Note was purportedly consigned, placed

or otherwise transferred to Decision One, by an "allonge" attached to said Note.

50. On or around September 6, 2006, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

(hereafter, "MERS") became the "mortgagee" of the alleged Note pursuant to the terms of the

alleged Mortgage. It appears from public records, that MERS remained the mortgagee-of-record

until a purported "Assignment of Mortgage" was filed on 5 August 2009.

51. The alleged debt was consigned, placed or otherwise transferred an unknown number of

times until it was allegedly, consigned, placed or otherwise transferred to CitiMortgage for

collection from Defendant.

16 Complaint's Exhibit B, page 3, paragraph number 3.

10

52. On or around March 18, 2009, CitiMortgage mailed a dunning letter (copy attached

hereto as “Exhibit A”) to Defendant in an attempt to collect this debt from Defendant, which

was a communication in an attempt to collect a debt as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §

1692a(2).

53. On or about April 12, 2009, Defendant mailed a “Request for Validation of Disputed

Debt” to CitiMortgage regarding this debt (copy attached hereto as “Exhibit B”), which was a

notice in “writing” as that term is described in 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

54. On or about 16 April 2009, CitiMortgage received Defendant’s “Request for Validation

of Disputed Debt” (copy of signed receipt attached hereto as “Exhibit C”).

55. Defendant did not receive any communication from CitiMortgage in response to his

“Request .....” Plaintiff should have ceased collection of the debt until it had obtained validation

of the debt and mailed it to Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). To date, Plaintiff has

not validated the debt.

56. On or about 6 May 2009, Plaintiff’s attorney filed the instant Complaint, prior to

Plaintiff providing any “validation” or “verification” of the alleged debt. This was a violation of

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).17

57. The conduct of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys in harassing Defendant in an effort to

collect this un-validated debt is a violation of multiple provisions of the FDCPA as stated above.

58. Defendant has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection

communications from harm to his credit, his ability to sell or encumber his Property, costs of

defending this action, and damages in the form of humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional distress,

fear, frustration, embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from

unjustified and abusive invasions of Defendant’s personal privacy.17 See Opinion – For Publication, March 26, 2001, Case No. 49A02-0003-CV-169, In the Court of Appeals of

Indiana, Greg A. Spears v. Timothy L. Brennan, Cause No. 49D02-9802-CP-236, The Honorable Kenneth Johnson, Judge, at pages 11-12 (http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html).

11

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE:VIOLATIONS OF FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

59. Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 36-58 of this Cross-Claim as though

fully stated herein.

60. The foregoing acts and omissions of Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices,

Consuegra and Caplano) constitute multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited

to each and every one of the above-cited provisions of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

61. As a result of each and every one of these violations of the FDCPA, Defendant is

therefore entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(1); statutory damages in an

amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2)(A); and reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(3) from Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law

Offices, Consuegra and Caplano).

COUNT TWO:QUIET TITLE (SLANDER OF TITLE)

62. Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 36-58 of this Cross-Claim as though

fully stated herein.

63. Defendant is the owner of record of his home,18 the real estate property described as:

THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 198.7 FEET OF LOTS 1, 2, 19, AND 20, BLOCK B, CRESCENT VIEW, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 54, PUBLIC RECORDS OF HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA, and

more commonly known as: 113 South Delaney AvenueAvon Park, Florida 33825-3930.

Hereafter referred to as the "Property."

18 Plaintiff admits this fact in its Complaint at page 2, paragraph 2 of Count One.

12

64. Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano) intentionally

published false statements regarding Defendant and his Property, including but not limited to:

Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Lis Pendens filed in this case. The purpose of these false

statements was to FORECLOSE "a mortgage held by Plaintiff against" the Property (hereafter,

the "Mortgage") which Plaintiff could not do without these falsehoods.

65. Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano) knew, should

have known, or recklessly did not know that the Mortgage is a legal nullity and that Plaintiff,

therefore, did not have the legal right to foreclose on the Property.

66. Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano) published and

communicated these false statements to third parties.

67. Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano) knew, should

have known, or recklessly did not know that the publication and communications of these

falsehoods would likely result in inducing others not to deal with Defendant. Defendant can not

sell his home (or use his home as collateral for a loan) as a direct result of Cross-Defendants'

actions.

68. The actions of Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano)

have played a material and substantial part in inducing others not to deal with Defendant.

69. Cross-Defendants (CitiMortgage, Law Offices, Consuegra and Caplano) had a duty not

to publish falsehoods regarding the Defendant and the Property.

70. Defendant has suffered (and continues to suffer) actual, general and special damages

caused as a result of these published falsehoods.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that judgment be entered for him and against each and

every Cross-Defendant with findings of fact and conclusions of law and:

13

COUNT ONE

VIOLATIONS OF FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

• for an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) for the Defendant,

against the Cross-Defendants: CitiMortgage; Law Offices; Consuegra; and Caplano;

• for an award of statutory damages of $1,000 per Cross-Defendant for the Defendant,

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2)(A) against the Cross-Defendants: CitiMortgage; Law

Offices; Consuegra; and Caplano;

• for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1692k(a)(3) for the Defendant, against the Cross-Defendants: CitiMortgage; Law

Offices; Consuegra; and Caplano; and

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT TWO

QUIET TITLE (SLANDER OF TITLE)

• for judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice;

• for judgment striking the Lis Pendens and the Assignment of Mortgage filed in this case;

• for an award of actual, general and special damages;

• for any appropriate injunctive relief; and

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED by:

________________________________

JAMES A. MOTIL, JR., Defendant (Cross-Claimant), Self-Represented113 S DELANEY AVEAVON PARK FL 33825-3930(863) 443-1061

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James A. Motil, Jr., certify that a copy of the foregoing document was (√ one only):

[ ] mailed [ ] faxed and mailed [ ] hand-delivered to the person(s) listed below on the

________ day of June 2010.

STEVEN ELLISONBROAD AND CASSEL1 NORTH CLEMATIS ST STE 500 Telephone: (561) 832-3300WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401-5552 FAX: (561) 655-1109

Certified by: JAMES A. MOTIL, JR.

___________________________________

113 S DELANEY AVEAVON PARK FL 33825-3930(863) 443-1061

15