1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Donnie R. DunnPlaintiff in Pro perP.O. Box 231Free Union, VA 22940(434) 973-4257

SUPERIOR COURT OF VIRGINIA

COUNTY OF ABLEMARLE

Donnie R. DUNN ) CASE NO. ) Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESCISSION )vs. ) 1. Negligence Misrepresentation ) 2. Enterprise Liability MERIDIAN MORTGAGE ) 3. Anticipatory RepudiationDOES 1 TO 50 ) (Breach) Defendants )________________________)

COMPLAINT

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

and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff Donnie R. Dunn at all times herein is or was

The owner of real property commonly known as:

34.73 Acres situated on State Route 601 Known as Free

Union Road, Free Union, VA. ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND WITH IMPROVEMENTS

THEREON AND OPPURTENANCE THEREUNTO BELONGING, SITUATED IN THE

WHITE HALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ON

THE WEST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 601, CONTAINING 34.73 ACRES, MORE OR

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

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BY BERNICE AND ORLANDO DUNN CONTAINING 34.73 ACRES, WHITE HALL

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

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

114,PAGES 315 AND 316.

2. Defendant MERIDIAN MORTGAGE, hereinafter referred to as

“MERIDIAN,” is a company who on information and belief

is conducting business in the State of Virginia.

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

through

50, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,

are presently unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues said

defendants by such fictitious names; Plaintiff is informed

and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants

so designated herein proximately caused and contributed to

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

court to amend the Complaint to insert the true names and

capacity of DOES 1 through 50 when the same have been

ascertained and to join such Defendants

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges

that at all times herein mentioned each of the Defendants

sued herein in relation to the property they claim an

interest in was the agent of each of the remaining

Defendants and at all times was acting within the purpose

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and scope of such agency employment.

5. On or about September 22nd, 2006, Plaintiff executed an “

adjustable Rate Note” promising to pay Meridian Mortgage

the sum of #380,000.00 by monthly payments.

6. The Adjustable Rate Note was base upon a six-month

“LIBOR” adjustable rate.

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

Explain the working of the interest rate, how it is

Computed or its inherent volatility or interest only note.

8. Further, on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants charged and obtained improper fees for the

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

qualified for a prime rate mortgage which would have

generated less in fees and interest.

9. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the

service of the purported note was, without Plaintiffs

knowledge, by some means had transferred from or by

Defendants either completely or by association or other

means to another Defendant unknown to Plaintiff provided

services in various forms to others which were of such

nature to render them a “servicer”.

10.The Deed of trust was recorded with the Charlottesville

County Recorder.

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence Misrepresentation

11. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

as though fully set forth herein.

12. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants Meridian Mortgage and each of them are agents or

employees or persons actively involved in the extension of

credit.

13. In September 2006, Plaintiff gave a note for $380,000 to

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

Meridian Mortgage Investors Fund VII,LLC. The Note was

secured by a Deed of Trust on a 34.73 acre property in

Albemarle County owned by Plaintiff, Donnie Dunn. The

property is unoccupied and has remained in Plaintiffs family

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

do some improvements. The mentioned property is not in any

way commercial property and was going to be used as

residential property.

14. Defendants failed to provide information to Plaintiff on

his adjustable-rate 6-month Libor loan.

15. The Defendants, and each of them did not explain the

difference between the Libor rate and Treasury rate.

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

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plaintiff as to the difference in the rates.

16. Defendant’s failed explained to Plaintiff the difference

between the interest rates between the two, Libor and

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

are based have diverged sharply, and borrowers with Libor-

based adjustable-rate mortgages are paying more than they

would have had their mortgages been tied to treasuries.

Moreover , the proportion of libor-based ARMs has increased

significantly, especially for subprime loans. Libor has

risen to unprecedented levels.

17. Plaintiff further alleges that doctrines of mutual and

unilateral mistake sometimes condition liability itself on

the information that was (or was not) communicated prior to

the contract. In a similar way, the rules of contract

formation (including the doctrine of unconscionability)

sometimes block the enforcement of entire terms that were

not adequately communicated in advance. In addition,

misrepresentation and nondisclosure can themselves be

grounds for rescinding an otherwise valid contract, as well

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

Vol. 92, June 2006,No.4)

18. Plaintiff further alleges that these violations are such

as to require rescission or cancellation of the loan herein

and return of all funds received by Defendants from

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff.

19. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

compensatory damages in the amount to be determined at

trial.

20. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

attorney fees according to statute in the event that they

retain counsel.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONENTERPRISE LIABILTY FRAUD

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

as fully set forth herein.

Based upon information and belief, and on that bases

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and each of them fall

within the Enterprise Liability Doctrine.

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

Of the loan. Defendants giving Plaintiff a 6 month

adjustable rate Libor loan, then using it as a one year

balloon payment with the monies received constitutes

fraud with in the meaning of the statute of fraud within

Virginias statute.

22. Defendants in their loan documents never mention of a

balloon payment, only a 6 month Libor adjustable loan with

plaintiff. Defendants after using the 1 year balloon payment

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

started foreclosure proceedings on plaintiffs property.

23. Defendants failed to disclose any information to

plaintiff as to any exact information or performance or any

other material fact has been misrepresented or not disclosed

by defendant constitutes Enterprise Liability and Fraud

towards Plaintiff.

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

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and each of them, placed

loans for the purpose of unlawfully increasing or otherwise

obtaining yield spread fees and sums in excess of what would

have been lawfully earned.

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

plaintiff alleges that Defendant Meridian Mortgage

violations require rescission of the loan and return of all

funds received by defendants from plaintiff.

26. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

27. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

attorney fees according to proof in the event that they retain counsel.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION

(BREACH)

28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

as though fully set forth herein.

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

of Defendants Breach. Defendant and each of them Breached

the loan contract by not fully disclosing all necessary

terms and rates and specific common law duties within the

meaning, as to their intentions within the loan documents as

to the loan on the real property.

30. Plaintiff was given a 6 month adjustable Libor loan by

Defendants. Defendants failed to disclose the true nature of

the loan to Plaintiff and disclose the balloon payment which

was never written into the note.

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

Defendants statement that the loan was a commercial loan,

however the loan was a property loan not for commercial

purposes but to use as residential.

32. The Defendants conduct within the loan, and using the

funds on a balloon payment that does not exist in the loan

documents them selves and was unaware to Plaintiff shows a

Breach and Unfair Business Practices in Plaintiffs loan.

33. Plaintiff alleges that the commencement of foreclosure

proceedings upon the property lawfully belonging to

Plaintiff without the production of documents demonstrating

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

34.As a consequence and proximate result, plaintiff has

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

been damaged in the sum to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages as follows:

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

Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

2. For punitive damages in the amount in excess of Twenty

Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)

3. For any statory or compensatory damages according to

proof;

4. For rescission of the contract and loan;

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

retained;

6. For other and further relief as the court deems proper

and just,

Dated this 28th day of May, 2009

___________________________ DONNIE R. DUNN Plaintiff In Pro per

9