Filing # 8956262 Electronically Filed 01/08/2014 06:21:10 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 Plaintiff, vs. TERESA M. MARRA, et al. Defendants, ___________________________________________/ CASE NO.: 2008 CA 000630 NC

DEFENDANT TERESA M. MARRAS MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION AND/OR FOR OTHER SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF DUE TO PLAINTIFFS MATERIAL FRAUD ON THE COURT
Defendant Teresa M. Marra, through undersigned counsel, moves the Court to dismiss this lawsuit because the plaintiff and its attorneys have purposefully committed material and culpable fraud on the Court by engaging in purposeful and directed actions that include making false representations and filing false documents in an effort and attempt to establish its standing to foreclose a mortgage and to prevail in this foreclosure case.

1.

The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward; as set

forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998): The requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial systems ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing partys claim or defense. Aoude v. 1

Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). The trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). See also Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Constr. Inc., 904 so. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), for the same proposition. 2. Well established Florida law gives this Court the inherent authority to dismiss this action

due to the intentional material and culpable fraud on the committed by plaintiff and its attorneys.

I. Case History Relevant To This Motion 3. This foreclosure lawsuit was filed on January 11, 2008 by GreenPoint Mortgage

Funding, Inc. (GreenPoint).

4.

In the Complaint, GreenPoint claimed that it owned and held the Note and Mortgage,

but no copy of the note was attached to the Complaint; only a copy of the mortgage was attached and the foreclosure complaint contained a lost note count.

5.

On February 20, 2009, GreenPoint filed a notice of filing claiming that the original note

and mortgage was attached to the notice filed with the court.

6.

On the back side of the last page of the "original" Note there is an undated endorsement

in blank from GreenPoint.

7.

On July 14, 2009, Greenpoint filed a document entitled Assignment of Mortgage,

executed 36 days after the commencement of this action; said assignment purports to assign both

the mortgage and the note from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to GreenPoint.

8.

In a July 6, 2010, ex parte Motion to Substitute Plaintiff (that the court granted the next

day) Greenpoint requested that HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 be substituted in as the Plaintiff in this foreclosure.

9.

In the referenced motion to substitute, Greenpoint and its attorneys advised this court,

without any supporting documentation, that : Subsequent to filing its complaint, Plaintiff became known as HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 which is now the real party in interest. (Emphasis added.)

10.

Counsel for the substituted plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel on

May 11, 2011, which did not attach any supporting documentation as required by the rule, but an Order allowing the substitution was docketed on May 19, 2011.

11.

Defendant Marra formally raised the issue of plaintiff's fraud on the court in her

February 8, 2012, pro se Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, wherein she advised the court that Plaintiff committed a fraud on the court when it filed the MERS Assignment of Mortgage on July 14, 2009.

12.

Attached to a July 11, 2012, Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Verify the

Complaint, the now substituted Plaintiff HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 3

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1, attached a proposed amended complaint wherein plaintiff advised the court that: GreenPoint, pursuant to an assignment executed on August 10, 2011, (and attached to the proposed Amended Complaint), assigned the note and mortgage from itself to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

13.

However, the original note endorsed in blank by GreenPoint was already filed with

this court in this action on February 20, 2009, so that it is an admission against interest by the plaintiff and its lawyers that on August 10, 2011, the date of the above referenced assignment of the mortgage and note, that GreenPoint had no interest in the note to transfer and no authority to execute the August 10, 2011 assignment that the plaintiff filed with this court as an attachment to the proposed amended complaint.

14.

The proposed Amended Complaint was verified by Bank of America N.A. as

servicing agent for HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

15.

The now substituted plaintiff requested leave to file the Amended Complaint to include

the naming of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 as the new plaintiff. 4

16.

The substituted plaintiff's motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to Verify

the Complaint was heard by Magistrate Bailey on October 8, 2012, but no recommended Order was submitted by the magistrate on the motion.

17.

Thereafter, plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Renewed Motion to Amend the

Complaint, and in this motion misadvised the court that in July 2010, GreenPoint had filed an Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Plaintiff due to an assignment of the subject mortgage to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

18. The plaintiff did not file any assignment of mortgage to support this assertion and the Court thereafter adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate to deny the plaintiff's renewed motion to amend the complaint by order filed on September 3, 2013.

19. The substituted plaintiff in this action remains HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1, as no other substitution has been ordered by this Court.

/ / 5

FRAUD ON THE COURT

I. PLAINTIFF IS FULLY AWARE THAT ITS OWN Pooling and Servicing Agreement DEMONSTRATES A PRIMA FACIE LACK OF PLAINTIFF'S legal capacity to take an assignment of a non-performing/non-conforming loan in default.
20. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) for HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 is incorporated into this Motion and can be linked to at the SEC website at: http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.v2jq.htm.

21. However, this Court DENIED HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 to be substituted as the plaintiff in this case.

22. Plaintiff and its lawyers told this Court that Greenpoint became HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 so that the later declaration to the court that Greenpoint had assigned the note and mortgage to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 in August, 2011 was not possible given that according to the plaintiff's prior admissions to this court, Greenpoint had already become HSBC BANK 6

USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 a year before the claimed August 2011 assignment.

23. Greenpoint was not a party or otherwise involved in this foreclosure action in August 2011 and Greenpoint clearly had no authority, competency or capacity to execute the Assignment of Mortgage in 2011, and the plaintiff's and plaintiff's lawyers statements to the court to the contrary at a time the plaintiff and counsel were fully aware of this impossibility constitute clear and convincing prima facie admissible evidence of fraud on this court and this defendant in this foreclosure action.

24. The plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyers were fully aware that the closing date in the referenced pooling and servicing agreement was January 31, 2006; that only performing loans could be transferred into this trust and that on the date of the purported August 10, 2011 assignment from GreenPoint, the subject loan was clearly in default and not performing.

25. It is clear, and the plaintiff and its lawyers were fully aware at the time of the filing of its motion to substitute plaintiff that its own trust agreement - the referenced pooling and servicing agreement - prohibits the transfer that this August 10, 2011 assignment purports to represent. There is no way that the subject loan could have been transferred to the Plaintiff trust pursuant to this assignment.

26. Further, the subject loan did not qualify as a replacement loan that could be substituted into the trust pursuant to the plaintiff's own pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) which requires that any substituted loan must be substituted by January 31, 2008 and must also be performing.

27. And, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) Exhibit J to the PSA (and referenced by and relied upon by Magistrate Bailey in her order DENYING plaintiff's motion to substitute, clearly requires that when the loan enters the trust as of the closing date, the original mortgage note with a complete chain of endorsements, an original assignment of mortgage executed in blank, the original mortgage, and the originals of any intervening assignments of mortgage be transferred to the trust.

28. The PSA is the trust agreement that establishes the only legal or effective process by which this New York Corporate Trust can acquire any loan including the loan that is the subject of this action. The pooling and servicing agreement is filed of record with the Securities and Exchange Commission; is a matter of public record and is filed of record by plaintiff in this action.

29. In fact, Section 10.02 of the PSA titled Prohibited Transactions and Activities specifically prohibits the Trust from acquiring the subject mortgage in this action because Section 10.02 states: None of the Depositor, the Securities Administrator, the Master Servicer or the Trustee shall sell, dispose of or substitute for any of the Loans (except in connection with (i) the foreclosure of a Loan, including but not limited to, the acquisition or sale of a Mortgaged Property acquired by deed in lieu of foreclosure, (ii) the bankruptcy of REMIC I, (iii) the termination of REMIC I pursuant to Article IX of this Agreement, (iv) a substitution pursuant to Article II of this Agreement or (v) a purchase of Loans pursuant to Article II of this Agreement), nor acquire any assets for 8

any REMIC (other than REO Property acquired in respect of a defaulted Mortgage Loan), nor sell or dispose of any investments in the Distribution Account for gain, nor accept any contributions to any REMIC after the Closing Date (other than a Substitute Loan delivered in accordance with Section 2.3), unless it has received an Opinion of Counsel, addressed to the Trustee (at the expense of the party seeking to cause such sale, disposition, substitution, acquisition or contribution but in no event at the expense of the Trustee) that such sale, disposition, substitution, acquisition or contribution will not (a) affect adversely the status of any REMIC as a REMIC or (b) cause any REMIC to be subject to a tax on prohibited transactions or contributions pursuant to the REMIC Provisions.

30. The subject mortgage was not original or qualified for transfer to Trustee because the res of the subject trust cannot consist of loans that do not meet the strict limitations contained in the PSA that recite and incorporate the REMIC regulations that exist to specify the investments that qualify for favorable tax treatment. See Section 10.1 Remic Administration, and section 1.1 Definitions, of the PSA and 26 USC 860A-860G.

31. Pursuant to the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement the plaintiff Trust lacks legal capacity or competency and therefore cannot ever be the owner of Defendants loan despite all claims of plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyers to the contrary.

32. The subject loan cannot be a qualified replacement mortgage which is defined in the REMIC code (26 U.S.C 860G) and which definition is incorporated into the PSA. Substitute Loan: A mortgage loan substituted for a Deleted Mortgage Loan pursuant to the terms of this Agreement which must, on the date of such substitution, (i) have an outstanding principal balance, after application of all scheduled payments of principal and interest due during or prior to the month of substitution, not in excess of the Scheduled Principal Balance of the Deleted Mortgage Loan as of the Due Date in the calendar month during which the substitution occurs, (ii) have a Mortgage Rate not less than (and not more than one percentage point in excess of) the Mortgage Rate of the Deleted Mortgage 9

Loan, (iii) have a remaining term to maturity not greater than (and not more than one year less than) that of the Deleted Mortgage Loan, (iv) have the same Due Date as the Due Date on the Deleted Mortgage Loan, (v) have a Loan

33. The plaintiff affirmatively claims that the subject mortgage was in default at the time of the assignment of mortgage and transfer of the subject loan and note to the plaintiff trust.

34. These facts are prima facie admissible evidence in this case that plaintiff and counsel were fully aware of at the time the plaintiff made its material and culpable claims of loan ownership and holder status to this court.

35. Plaintiff and counsel knew or should have known that such claims of holder/owner status were material and false as it is clear and without debate that the subject mortgage loan did not meet the credit grade requirement, and was not and could never be a qualified mortgage. and could never become an asset of the plaintiff trust.

36. REMIC regulations issued by the IRS state: Defective obligations--(1) Defective obligation defined. For purposes of sections 860G(a)(4)(B)(ii) and 860F(a)(2) [26 USCS 860G(a)(4)(B)(ii) and 860F(a)(2)], a defective obligation is a mortgage subject to any of the following defects: (i) The mortgage is in default, or a default with respect to the mortgage is reasonably foreseeable. (2) Effect of discovery of defect. If a REMIC discovers that an obligation is a defective obligation, and if the defect is one that, had it been discovered before the startup day, would have prevented the obligation from being a qualified mortgage, then, unless the REMIC either causes the defect to be cured or disposes of the defective obligation within 90 days of discovering the defect, the obligation ceases to be a qualified mortgage at the end of that 90 day period. 26 CFR 1.860G-2(f)

10

37.

The subject mortgage in default was a defective obligation, not a qualified

mortgage and clearly could not have been a qualified substitute mortgage when allegedly assigned to Plaintiff.

38. The subject mortgage is not (Real Estate Owned) REO property. This fact is important with respect to the presentation of prima facie admissible evidence of fraud on this court by plaintiff and counsel because REO property is defined in and limited by the PSA in the Definitions section: A Mortgaged Property, title to which has been acquired by a Servicer on behalf of the Trust Fund through foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. REO property is Trust property acquired upon the default of a mortgage loan that is already a part of the mortgage pool.

39. There is No Opinion of Counsel. Another showing of prima facie fraud on the court by plaintiff and counsel is revealed by the contents of the PSA and the REMIC regulations incorporated therein that the plaintiff and counsel are held accountable for being fully aware of, to wit: A REMIC shall not generally be subject to taxation and pursuant to the PSA, an Opinion of Counsel is required before the trustee could legally acquire the subject loan by assignment. 26 USCS 860A. Section 2.3(b) states:

the Seller shall obtain at its own expense and deliver to the Trustee an Opinion of Counsel to the effect that such substitution will not cause (a) any federal tax to be imposed on any REMIC, including without limitation, any federal tax imposed on prohibited transactions under Section 860F(a)(1) of the Code or on contributions after the startup date under Section 860G(d)(1 ) of the Code, or (b) any REMIC to fail to qualify as a REMIC at any time that any Certificate is outstanding. 11

The PSA defines Opinion of Counsel as follows: Opinion of Counsel: A written opinion of counsel, who may, without limitation, be salaried counsel for the Depositor, the Servicer, the Securities Administrator or the Master Servicer, acceptable to the Trustee, except that any opinion of counsel relating to (a) the qualification of any REMIC as a REMIC or (b) compliance with the REMIC Provisions must be an opinion of Independent counsel.

40. In this case there can not be an opinion of independent counsel because the subject mortgage never qualified as foreclosure property or a qualified substitute mortgage and was a defective obligation under the REMIC tax provisions. 41. Marras mortgage was not a foreclosure property because it was never bank owned property. 42. Marras loan was not a qualified substitute mortgage because at the time of substitution it would have been a defective obligation under the REMIC tax provisions because it was in nonperforming/in default. 43. Foreclosure property is a permitted investment but the property must have first been included in the Trust as a qualified mortgage so this is not applicable to the subject loan. 26 U.S.C. 860F. 44. The REMIC Code defines Foreclosure property, as follows: Foreclosure property means property (A) which would be foreclosure property under section 856(e) [26 USCS 856(e)] (without regard to paragraph (5) thereof) if acquired by a real estate investment trust, and (B) Which is acquired in connection with the default or imminent default of a qualified mortgage held by the REMIC. 26 USCS 860G The term foreclosure property does not include property acquired by the real estate investment trust as a result of indebtedness arising from the sale or other disposition of property of the trust

12

described in section 1221(a)(1) [26 USCS 1221(a)(1)] which was not originally acquired as foreclosure property. 26 USCS 856(e). Property is not eligible for the election to be treated as foreclosure property if the loan or lease with respect to which the default occurs (or is imminent) was made or entered into (or the lease or indebtedness was acquired) by the trust with an intent to evict or foreclose, or when the trust knew or had reason to know that default would occur ("improper knowledge"). 26 CFR 1.856-6.

45. The Plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that the Plaintiff had no power to acquire or take assignment of the subject mortgage at the time the plaintiff and counsel advised the court of the opposite.

46. The reason that the plaintiff cannot ever acquire or take assignment of the subject mortgage is because such acquisition or assignment is a prohibited transaction under the plaintiff's own trust agreement: Section 10.1(b) of the PSA states: The Closing Date is hereby designated as the Startup Day of each REMIC created hereunder within the meaning of Section 860G(a)(9) of the Code. Section 10.1(i) of the PSA states: Following the Startup Day, the Trustee shall not accept any contributions of assets to any REMIC other than in connection with any Substitute Mortgage Loan delivered in accordance with Section 2.3 unless it shall have received an Opinion of Counsel addressed to it to the effect that the inclusion of such assets in the Trust Fund will not cause the related REMIC to fail to qualify as a REMIC at any time that any Certificates are outstanding or subject such REMIC to any tax under the REMIC Provisions or other applicable provisions of federal, state and local law or ordinances.

13

47. The purported assignment presented to this court by plaintiff and its counsel is void.

48. Plaintiff and counsel were fully aware of the above at the time they told this court that the assignment created or transferred legal rights and status to the plaintiff to sue on the underlying note or foreclose the subject mortgage.

49. Section 11.4 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement states:

Governing Law. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICTS OF LAWS PRINCIPLES OTHER THAN SECTION 5-1401 OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW), AND THE OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH LAWS.

50. Applicable New York common law, made applicable to the Plaintiff pursuant to the specific terms of its own trust agreement, precludes the trustee from ratifying any ultra vires act of the trust performed by the agents of the trust in contravention of the PSA. Such an act would be void.

51. The plaintiff trust and plaintiff's counsel told this court that the plaintiff had legal status and capacity and competency to foreclose the subject mortgage and to sue on the underlying note while the plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that plaintiff was precluded from claiming such status on account of the fact that any effort to do so is clearly ultra vires, in contravention of the PSA and rendered void.

Fraud on the Court WHEN GreenPoint Was the Plaintiff

52. GreenPoint Mortgage was the plaintiff from January 11, 2008, until July 7, 2010, when the Court, in reliance on the documents filed by GreenPoint, granted GreenPoints ex parte motion to 14

substitute party plaintiff to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006AB1.

53. The March 28, 2008, Assignment of Mortgage and Note from MERS to Greenpoint that Greenpoint filed with this court (on July 14, 2009) is clear and convincing prima facie admissible evidence of fraud on the Court committed by Greenpoint and Greenpoint's counsel because at the time of the filing of said assignment, in July 2009, Greenpoint and its counsel were fully aware that the March 28, 2008, Assignment of Mortgage and note from MERS, as mortgagee, to Greenpoint, on it face, established that Greenpoint did not own or hold the note or the subject mortgage until the March 28, 2008 date of assignment which assignment to Greenpoint occurred AFTER the filing of this foreclosure action on January 11, 2008.

54. Additionally, at the time that Greenpoint and counsel filed the referenced Assignment of mortgage AND NOTE from MERS, Greenpoint and counsel were fully aware that MERS does not ever hold or own promissory notes so that the representation to this court to the contrary is clear and convincing prima facie admissible evidence of material and culpable fraud on this court.

55. MERS declared in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Nebraska Department of Banking, 704 N.W.2d 784,787 (Neb. 2005), that it does not acquire mortgage loansbecause it only holds legal title to members mortgages in a nominee capacity and that it does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and has no right to payments

15

made on the notes. MERS clearly states that it merely immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur. Ibid.

56. Clearly Greenpoint and counsel were fully aware that MERS had no authority to assign the subject promissory note.

Fraud on the Court By HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1
57. At the time that Greenpoint (and the substituted plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1) filed the July 6, 2010 Motion to Substitute Plaintiff, Greenpoint and HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and counsel were fully aware that Greenpoint never became known as HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

58.

Greenpoint, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and counsel were fully aware at the time of the filing of the July 6, 2010 motion that Greenpoint was in fact acquired by Capital One, NA in mid-2007 as part of a conversion and merger with North Fork, a state bank that closed immediately thereafter in August of 2007.

16

59. Additionally Greenpoint, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006AB1 and counsel were fully aware at the time of the filing of the July 6, 2010 motion that HSBC Bank USA, N.A. was established in July 2004 as a National Bank.

60. Plaintiff and plaintiffs attorneys' statement to this court, set out in the July 6, 2010 motion, that Greenpoint became known as HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 is prima facie admissible evidence of material and culpable fraud on this court because plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that Capital One Financial Corporation filed a Report with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, dated January 2, 2007, wherein Capital One declares that it had acquired Greenpoint by the date of that Report.

61. Clearly Greenpoint, was an acquisition of Capital One and never become known as HSBC Bank USA an entirely different banking institution as stated to this court by Greenpoint and HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and counsel.

62. As of July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff in This Case is HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and Remains so at the present time.

63. However, at the time that the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Verify the Complaint was filed with this court on July 11, 2012 by the substituted plaintiff and counsel for 17

substituted plaintiff, which motion incorporated the purported August 10, 2011 assignment of mortgage (and note) from Greenpoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1, the substituted Plaintiff and its lawyers were fully aware that it had already told the court that Greenpoint became HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

64. As Magistrate Bailey stated in her Recommended Order which was adopted by order of this court: GreenPoint had no ability to execute another Assignment of Mortgage in 2011. (emphasis added)

65. The purported August 10, 2011, assignment of mortgage (and note) from Greenpoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 filed by plaintiff and counsel is prima facie clear and convincing admissible evidence of deliberate material and culpable fraud on the Court.

66. Another reason that the substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that the purported August 10, 2011 assignment of mortgage and note (prepared by Kahane and Associates) was an impossibility and/or void at the time of the filing of said assignment with this court is because such a transfer of the subject note and mortgage could not legally happen after the January 31, 18

2006 closing date of the PSA that controls HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 and that said PSA only allows new loans to be transferred into the trust that are performing loans at the time of the transfer. 67. Substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware pursuant to the complaint allegations that at the time that the August 10, 2011 was purportedly executed, the subject mortgage was not performing (in default) and that the applicable PSA prohibits the transfer this assignment purports to represent.

68. The Substituted Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof filed with this court on May 16, 2013 recounts a selfserving and clearly erroneous procedural history (as Magistrate Bailey noted).

69. In paragraph 3 of the above referenced renewed motion, substituted plaintiff and counsel erroneously claimed, and advised this court that back in July 2012, the first filed ex parte motion to substitute named HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 as the substituted plaintiff.

70. Clearly this is not the case, and substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware that the first motion to substitute dealt with the substitution of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL

19

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1.

71. The substituted plaintiff and counsel were fully aware at the time of the filing of the renewed motion to substitute, that the statement in this Motion -- [t]hat on or about July 2, 2010, prior counsel for the Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Plaintiff due to an assignment of mortgage which transferred the interest on this loan to the current plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1. -- was a material false statement of fact on account of the fact that pursuant to the filings in the court record there was no assignment dated on or before July 2010 to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1.

72.

Substituted Plaintiff directed this Court in the court record to the PSA for HSBC BANK

USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 which is filed with the SEC and linked at http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.v2Jq.htm.

73. The provisions of this PSA conflict with the substituted plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers claims that the August 10, 2011 Assignment of mortgage (and note) that was created by 20

Plaintiffs attorneys and filed with this Court on July 11, 2012 purporting to assign the subject Mortgage together with the note from GreenPoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 is Fraud on this Court. 74. As Magistrate Bailey noted in her Recommended Order, After taking into consideration the above-cited information from the PSA, it appears that the transfers that have been variously asserted by the Plaintiff in several Motions and/or documents attached to those Motions as conferring standing upon it could not have possibly occurred as the Plaintiff represents. Further, the Magistrate cannot conceive of any manner in which the Plaintiff could possibly create additional documentation in an effort to manufacture standing in this action.

75. The determined obfuscation continues in the Renewed Motion to substitute which names the Plaintiff as GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc..

76. The Renewed motion ignores the fact, and substituted plaintiff and counsel expect this court to ignore the fact, that HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AB1 is the substituted Plaintiff in this case.

77. Substituted Plaintiff and counsel also obfuscate by referring to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1,

21

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 in the renewed motion as the current Plaintiff, which it is not.

78. It is clear that the July 11, 2012 Motion and Purported August 10, 2011 Assignment of Mortgage together with the note Prepared by Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kahane and Associates, are fraudulent documents created and filed by Plaintiffs attorneys for the purpose of this litigation in an effort to manufacture standing, and constitute Fraud on the Court.

79. In July 2010, Plaintiff and plaintiffs lawyers had already told this Court that Greenpoint became HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AB1.

80. Based on the above described July 2010 statements made to this court, it is clear that there could be no assignment from Greenpoint to HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-AB1 in August of 2011 since, according to the plaintiff, Greenpoint had already become HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AB1, a year earlier.

81. Greenpoint was out of this case by August 2011, and as Magistrate Bailey stated in her Recommended Order, GreenPoint had no ability to execute another Assignment of Mortgage in 2011. 22

WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment providing no relief to Plaintiff, and that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and for judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff, and for an award of attorneys fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as is deemed equitable and to which defendant proves herself entitled to penalize Greenpoint, substituted plaintiff and counsel for the above described material and culpable fraud on the court and on this defendant.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ April C. Charney, Esq. April Charney, Esq. FBN 310425, pro bono attorney Robin L. Stover, Esq. FBN 0064494 Mary Catherine Rooney, Esq. FBN 0089219 GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 1750 17th Street, Unit I Sarasota FL 34234 941-366-1746 Fax: 941-366-2314 With Notice of Email Address for Service of Court Documents pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(b)(1)(A) designated as: Primary email: Secondary Email: robins@gulfcoastlegal.org maryr@gulfcoastlegal.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Answer to counsel for plaintiff, at designated email for service: notice@kahaneandassociates.com Kahane & Associates, P.A. 8201 Peters Road, Ste. 3000 Plantation, FL 33324 This 8th day of January 2014. /s/ Robin L. Stover, Esq. 23