1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

l0

11

12

13

14

15

t6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN TIIE SUPERIOR COURT OF TIIE STATE OF WASHINGTONIN AND FOR THE COT]NTY OF SNOHOMISH

JACOB D. BRADBURN,

vs.

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.4., et. al.

NO. 1l-2-08345-2

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TODEFENDANTS' MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT PLEADINGSAND EVIDENCE SUBMITTEDTHEREWITH

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

Jacob Bradburn (Plaintiff) objects to following evidentiary submissions:

Bradburn also objects to paragraph 4 of ReconTrust's declaration, which states:

4. On or about June 8, 2009, ReconTrust, as agent þr the beneficiøry under theDeed of Trust, issued a Notice of Default ("Notice of Default") to PlaintiffJacob D. Bradburn ("Borrower"). A true and accurate copy of the Notice ofDefault is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Objection: States a legal conclusion; i.e. "agent of the beneficiary". No foundation has been

laid which indicates the declarant has personal facts regarding these matters or the expertise to

opine with regard to these legal conclusions. One of the primary claims in this lawsuit is that

there is no entity, which meets the legal definition of beneficiary under RCW 61.24.002(5).

Bradburn also objects to paragraphs 7 and 9 of ReconTrust's declaration, which states:

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ST'MMARY

JUDGMENT pLEADINcs AND EvIDENCE SIJBMTTED TlrEn¡wrrg - I STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, WA 98223

TEL. 3ó0.403.8700 /FAX 360.386.4005

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7. Prior to and at the time of recording the Notice of Trustee's Sale,

ReconTrus| had proof that Federal Nøtìonal Mortgøge Assocíøtion ("FanníeMøet) was the owner of the promíssory note secured by the Deed of Trust Atrue and accurate copy of the Declaration of Beneficiary is attached hereto as

Exhibit C.

9. Prior to and at the time of recording the second Notice of Trustee's Sale,ReconTrusf hød proof thøt Fønníe Møe wus the owner of the promíssory notesecured by the Deed of Trust

OBJECTION: The statement that "ReconTrust had proof that Federal National Mortgage

Association owner of the promissory note" is legal conclusion to the extent it is asserted to

satisfu the statutory requirement set forth in RCW 6L24.030(7). Further declarant has not

provided an adequate foundation to support any personal knowledge of proof of ownership as

her testimony appears based on the declaration of Krystal Monroe, which is Exhibit C to

ReconTrust's declaration.

Monroe's declaration is objectionable because it contains no foundation, personal

knowledge, and states a legal conclusion to that Federal National Mortgage Association was

the "owner" of the promissory note secured by the deed of trust when the declarant Monroe

states only that Fannie Mae is the owner ar is entitled to enforce the note:

"I, Krystle Monroe, declare under penalty of perjury that: 1. FNMA is the currentowner beneficiary and owner of the promissory note or other obligation secured by thedeed of trust or høs requísíte authorìty under RCW 62A.3-301 to enforce saídoblígøtíon for the øbove referred to loøn.

Bradburn also objects to paragraph I of Lorber's declaration, which states:

8. On September 6,2073,I accessed Fannie Mae's website located athttps ://wwwfanniemae. com/singlefamilylaftomeys. I then clicked on the linktitled ..single- Family Guides via AllRegs." Attached hereto as Exhibit I aretrue and correct copies of excerpts from Fannie Mae's 2011 Single-Family

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SIJMMARY

ruDGÀáENT PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SIJBMIITED TIIENE\UIT}{ - 2 STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, W498223

TË1. 3ó0.,t03.8700 /FAx 360.386.4005

1

2

3

4

5

b

7

I

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Servicing Guide that I downloaded from the AllRegs website. These excerpts

include:

Section I.202.07.03: Physical possession of Note by the servicer; and

Section VIII., 105: Conduct of Foreclosure proceedings.

OBJECTIONS: The documents are hearsay and on their face indicate they do not apply to all

loans. Lorber does not adequately authenticate that these guidelines apply to Bradburn's loan

or that they have always applied to Bradburn's loan, especially during the period it was

serviced by Countrywide. Without being able to tie these guidelines specifically to

Bradbum's loan they are marginally relevant, and possibly prejudicial. Bradbum does not

object to the regulations to the extent they clarify servicers are not agents of Fannie Mae as is

erroneously stated by records custodians throughout their declarations.

Bradburn also objects to paragraph 4 of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

Paragraph 4 of Dispenza's declaration states:

4. On or about June 8, 2009, ReconTrust, as agent þr the beneficiary under theDeed of Trust, issued a Notice of Default ("Notice of Default") to PlaintiffJacob D. Bradbum ("Borrower"). A true and accurate copy of the Notice ofDefault is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Objection: Misleading. The statement states a legal conclusion with regard to an agency

relationship with and the existence of an entity which met complied with RCW 61.24.002(5).

These involve the ultimate issues of fact and law upon which this case must be resolved. Ms.

Dispenza has not demonstrated personal knowledge or expertise to support these legal

conclusions.

Bradburn also objects to paragraph 5 of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

5. The promissory note evidencing the Loan (the "Note") was secured to the

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY

IUDcMENT pLEADtNcs AND EVTDENcE sIBMTTED TrrEn¡wru - 3 STAFNE TRUl.IBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, WA 98223

TEL. 360.,103.8700 /F^x 360.386.4005

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Property by a Deed of Trust that was executed by Borrower and recorded inSnohomish County on December 21,2005 at no. 200512211151 .

Objection. Lack of personal knowledge. This sentence also states alegal conclusion that

"loan (the note) was secured to the property by a deed of trust". The evidence shows the deed

of trust was unlawfully assigned to MERS via the deed of trust. Shortly after the loan

transaction obligations, i.e. partial interests in the note, were severed from one another and

sold to Countrywide and Fannie Mae, which subsequently further severed the note into partial

interests which were then sold to investors in violation of the policies of the DTA.

Bradburn also objects to paragraphT of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

7. On or about January 3,2006, Fannie Mae became the owner of the Loan.

However, Countrywide Home Loan Servicing LP retained servicing rights withrespect to the Loan.

OBJECTION: This statement is misleading because it does not identiff the meaning of the

wotd "loan". Ownership of the loan, without the debt obligation, would suggest the absence

of any holder of the instrument or document secured by the deed of trust. Rather, there would

be a separate holder of an obligation, which would be excluded by RCW 61.24.005(2) from

being a beneficiary within the meaning of the DTA.

Bradburn also objects to paragraphs I and 9 of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

8. A true and accurate copy of the Note containing an endorsement fromHomeStar Lending to Countrywide Bank, N.A, an endorsernent fromCountrywide Bank, N,A. to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and an

endorsement in blank from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is attached as

Exhibit A.

9. A true and accurate copy of an allonge to the Note is attached as Exhibit B.

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFËNDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT pLEADINcs AND EvTDENcE suBMITTFD Tltrn¡wrH - 4 STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, WA 98223

TEL. 3ó0.,i03.8700 /FAX 3ó0.386.4005

1

2

3

4

5

b

7

Io

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

OBJECTION: Dispenza's testimony does not provide an adequate foundation with

regard to her personal knowledge of Countrywide's servicing practices for her to make these

statements set forth above. Especially this is so because the exhibits she offers are facially not

credible with her testimony. The endorsements of Countrywide entities between themselves

appear before the endorsement of Homestar to Countrywide. Homestar's endorsement is not

on the note itself, but at the bottom of a separate sheet of paper. While there is an allonge

endorsed in blank from Homestar dated the same day as the loan, it has holes at the top of it,

evidencing that the original has been physically attached to a file. If the allonge was attached

to the file reasonable business practices would require that the note would also be attached.

This suggests the allonge and note and separate endorsement were not kept together, which

casts doubt on the assertion that all these documents are true and correct copies of the same

originals.

Bradburn also objects to paragraphs 11 and12 of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

11. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP continued to service the Loan onbehalf of Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). Thisarrangement was designed to allow Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP totake all actions necessary for the collection and enforcement of the loan,including receiving and processing loan payments, communicating withregarding the loan, and, should such action be necessary, initiating foreclosure,consistent with the Note, deed of trust and Fannie Mae servicing guidelines.

12. Pursuant to its role as servicer of the Loan, Countrywide Home LoansServicing LP was responsible for, among other tasks, receiving and processingLoan payments, communicating with borrowers regarding the Loan, andprotecting the collateral (the Property) consistent with the Note, Deed of Trust,and servicing guidelines.

OBJECTION: Dispenza's testimony does not provide an adequate foundation with regard to

her personal knowledge of Countrywide's servicing practices for her to make these statements

set forth above. Additionally, the best evidence of the agreements, obligations, and

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMÄRY

TDcMENT pLEADrNcs AND EVTDENcE suBMrrrED Tr{En¡wrn - 5 STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, WA 98223

TEL, 360.,103.8700 /FAX 360.386.4005

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

o

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

relationships between Countrywide and Fannie Mae would be the contracts between them.

There has been no showing that Dispenza has any personal knowledge or other foundational

basis regarding the agreements between Countrywide and any of the other parties to this law

suit which govem their action pursuant to such contractual agreements.

Bradburn also objects to paragraph 20 of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

20. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP klnla BANA is a member of the MERS@System. At all relevant times Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.("MERS") acted as nominee (agent) on behalf of BAC Home Loans Servicing,LP relative to the Deed of Trust.

OBJECTION. Dispenza's testimony does not provide an adequate foundation with regard to

her personal knowledge assertion that MERS as nominee is the equivalent of an agent under

Washington law. Dispenza's testimony is directly contradictedby Bain v. Metro. Mortg.

Grp., Inc. 175Wn.2d83,95-97,285 P.3d 34 (2012). Because her declaration is dated almost

ayeæ after after Bain made the issue clear Bradbum's contends she is not a credible witness

regarding any issues relating to V/ashington law and likely in general.

Bradburn also objects to paragraph26 of Dispenza's declaration, which states:

26. AI all relevant times, at least since of June 8,2009, BANA or itspredecessor, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home LoansServicing LP, held the original Note and possessed the authority to enforce theNote and Deed of Trust on behalf of Fannie Mae pursuant to Fannie Mae'sservicing guidelines.

OBJECTION: This states a legal conclusion which this Court must resolve by

construing the DTA in a manner consistent with the Washington Constitution, if that is

possible to do given the legislature's delegation of this Court's original jurisdiction

over all cases involving the title and possession of land to unregulated trustees.

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTiON FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT pLEADrNcs AND EvtDENcE suBMTTED THEn¡wrrH - 6 STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, WA 98223

TEL. 3ó0.,103.8700 /FAx 3ó0.386.4005

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

o

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DATED this day 2lst of October,

Respectfully submitted by:

2013 inArlington, Washington.

STAFNE TRUMBULL,LLC

5 a Çd--Scott E. Stafüe, WSBA #6964Attorney for Plaintiff239 N. Olympic AveArlington, WA98223scott@stafü elawfi rm. com

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ST'MMARY

JIJDGMENT PLEADINGS AND EVIDENcE sTJBMITTED THEREwTTu - 7 STAFNE TRUHAULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUEARLINGTON, WA 98223

TEL. 3ó0.403.8700 /FAx 360.386.4005