1

2 3

4
5

6
7

I I
l0
11

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

JACOB D. BRADBURN,

Plaintiff,
vs.

NO. 1l-2-08345-2

12 13 14 15

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

Defendants.

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

THEREWITH

AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLEADINGS

Jacob Bradburn (Plaintiff) objects to following evidentiary submissions:

t6
17 18 19

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

4. On or about June 8, 2009, ReconTrust, as agent r the beneficiry under the Deed of Trust, issued a Notice of Default ("Notice of Default") to Plaintiff Jacob D. Bradburn ("Borrower"). A true and accurate copy of the Notice of Default is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

20
21

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).

22 23 24

25
26

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 TlrEnwrrg I

STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TEL. 30.403.8700 /FAX 360.386.4005

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

1

Sale,

2 3

ReconTrus| had proof that Federal Ntonal Mortgge Assoction ("Fanne Met) was the owner of the promssory note secured by the Deed of Trust A true 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 hd proof tht Fnne Me wus the owner of the promssory note secured by the Deed of Trust

4
5 6
7 8

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

I
10
11

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

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

as

12

13

ReconTrust's declaration.
14 15
16

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

17
18

ar is entitled to enforce the note:

19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26

"I, Krystle Monroe, declare under penalty of perjury that: 1. FNMA is the current owner beneficiary and owner of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust or hs requste authorty under RCW 62A.3-301 to enforce sad oblgton for the bove referred to lon. Bradburn also objects to paragraph

of Lorber's declaration, which states:

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

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SIJMMARY ruDGENT PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SIJBMIITED TIIENE\UIT}{

-2

STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, W498223 T1. 30.,t03.8700 /FAx 360.386.4005

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

2 3 4

VIII., 105: Conduct of Foreclosure proceedings.

OBJECTIONS: The documents are hearsay and on their face indicate they do not apply to all
5 b
7

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

I I
10
11

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.

12 13 14

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

Paragraph 4 of Dispenza's declaration states:

15 16 17
18

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

19

Objection: Misleading. The statement states

a legal conclusion

with regard to an agency

20
21

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.

22

Dispenza has not demonstrated personal knowledge or expertise to support these legal
23

conclusions.
24 25 26

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

TrrEnwru - 3

STAFNE TRUl.IBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TEL. 360.,103.8700 /F^x 360.386.4005

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

Objection. Lack of personal knowledge. This sentence also states alegal conclusion that
3 4 5 6
7

"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.

I I

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

10
11

12 13 14

7. On or about January 3,2006, Fannie Mae became the owner of the Loan. However, Countrywide Home Loan Servicing LP retained servicing rights with respect 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

15 16
17 18

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.

19

Bradburn also objects to paragraphs

8.

I and 9 of Dispenza's

declaration, which states:

20
21

22 23 24 25 26

A true and accurate copy of the Note containing an endorsement from HomeStar Lending to Countrywide Bank, N.A, an endorsernent from Countrywide 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 DEFNDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT pLEADINcs AND EvTDENcE suBMITTFD

TltrnwrH - 4

STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TEL. 30.,i03.8700 /FAX 30.386.4005

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

1

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

3 4
5

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
7

I
o 10
11

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

12 13 14

originals.

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

15 16 17 18 19

11. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP continued to service the Loan on behalf of Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). This arrangement was designed to allow Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP to take all actions necessary for the collection and enforcement of the loan, including receiving and processing loan payments, communicating with regarding 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 Loans Servicing LP was responsible for, among other tasks, receiving and processing Loan payments, communicating with borrowers regarding the Loan, and protecting the collateral (the Property) consistent with the Note, Deed of Trust, and servicing guidelines.

20
21

22 23

OBJECTION: Dispenza's testimony does not provide an adequate foundation with regard to
24 25 26

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 SUMMRY

TDcMENT pLEADrNcs AND EVTDENcE suBMrrrED Tr{Enwrn

-5

STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TEL, 360.,103.8700 /FAX 360.386.4005

relationships between Countrywide and Fannie Mae would be the contracts between them.
1

2 3

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

4
5 6
7 8

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.

o
10
11

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.

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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

aye 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 its predecessor, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, held the original Note and possessed the authority to enforce the Note and Deed of Trust on behalf of Fannie Mae pursuant to Fannie Mae's

servicing guidelines.
20

OBJECTION: This states a legal conclusion which this Court must resolve by
21

22 23 24 25 26

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

THEnwrrH - 6

STAFNE TRUMBULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TEL. 30.,103.8700 /FAx 30.386.4005

DATED this day 2lst of October, 2013 inArlington, Washington.

1

2 3 4 5 6
7 8

Respectfully submitted by:

STAFNE TRUMBULL,LLC

5 a d--

Scott E. Stafe, WSBA #6964 Attorney for Plaintiff 239 N. Olympic Ave Arlington, WA98223 scott@staf elawfi rm. com

o
10
11

12
13

14
15

16 17
18

19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26

BRADBURN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ST'MMARY JIJDGMENT PLEADINGS AND EVIDENcE sTJBMITTED THEREwTTu

-7

STAFNE TRUHAULL, LLC

239 NORTH OLYMPIC AVENUE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TEL. 30.403.8700 /FAx 360.386.4005