Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF COLORADO
Court Address: 100 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Court Telephone: 303-271-6145
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Pro Se and with his Complaint for Quiet Title under Rule 105
CHASE) alleges that it is the Owner of Plaintiff Lance Cassinos (hereinafter CASSINO)
Promissory Note (Note) by virtue of Assignment of the Note to Washington Mutual Bank,
1
N.A. and that Banks subsequent acquisition by Defendant pursuant to a Purchase Agreement
executed with the FDIC. However, CHASE also has stated the exact opposite in their November
2013 settlement with the FDIC v. Chase for $13 billion, that stated clearly that CHASE was not
Lawrence Nardi see Exhibit A - JPMorgan Chase ADMITS not the successor in interest to
WaMu loans where Mr. Nardi testified CHASE was not successor-in-interest to Washington
Currently, the Deed of Trust securing this Note secures a 5.1 acre parcel of unimproved
asserted that no other party had any ownership interest in MR. CASSINOs property.
Plaintiff also timely raised the issue of standing of Defendant in Paragraph number 21 of
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Cassino has owned since 1999 two parcels of ground in Jefferson County,
Colorado on which sits his primary residence at 13883 South Wamblee Valley Road, Conifer CO
(the Property). Said land consists of two distinct parcels identified by one tax parcel number
with the Jefferson County Assessors office. The larger Parcel (Parcel 1) consists of 40 acres
together with Defendants home on 40 acres. The 2nd parcel (Parcel 2) consists of 5.1 acres of
2
subdivided platted ground which abuts to Parcel 1. It is Parcel 2 which is currently encumbered
land, and to form a legal description which would encompass Parcel 2 together with 5 acres
within Parcel 1, and which would include Defendants home and outbuildings. This survey was
done in anticipation that upon any refinance, this new legal description could be used to
encumber only 10 acres of ground, including Defendants home, and which would provide
In September 2005, Defendant sought and received a new $200,000 loan from
Community Mortgage Group, Inc. (hereinafter CMG). This Promissory Note was subsequently
assigned, but the Note reflects two different Assignments, based on the Note and the Allonge
attached to the Note. One Assignment purported to transfer ownership of the Note to
Washington Mutual Bank. The other Assignment, shown on the Allonge to the Note, purported
At all times, up to and during the closing, Plaintiff believed that the new 10 acre legal
description for home and property would be used instead of 45 acre legal descriptions for home
and property to provide the collateral for said loan and would be reflected on the Deed of Trust.
In fact, the Deed of Trust securing the Promissory Note only encumbers the vacant 5.1
acre parcel for some nefarious and fully unknown reason. It is Plaintiffs belief and
understanding and that instead of delaying closing to do required contingency of loan secured by
10 acres not 45 acres as previous lender deed of trust those involved mortgage broker, title
3
company, bank, evidently did whatever they had to do, in order to close with Cassino as CMG
went declared bankruptcy or went out of business 2-3 months or so after closing 9/26/2005.
proceedings through the Public Trustee against Plaintiff for alleged nonpayment on the
Promissory Note (the truth is due to CHASE refusing CASSINOs regular monthly payment on
1/15/2011 by phone purely in retaliation after CASSINO retained attorney Mitchell J. Stein &
Associates for either a real loan modification only if CHASE was note holder in due course -
Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS) to convey the Deed of Trust into Defendants name and to
record such Assignment of Deed of Trust, as it is a necessary requirement of the Public Trustee
that the Deed of Trust being foreclosed upon be shown in the foreclosing partys name. It was at
that time that Defendant CHASE learned that the Deed of Trust only had the legal description for
the vacant 5.1 acre parcel and brought their now very complicated wrongful foreclosure by
Defendant CHASE again also alleged that it is the true holder of the Promissory Note
because the Note was assigned to Washington Mutual Bank. However, Defendant has neglected
to explain the Allonge attached to said Promissory Note assigning the Note to Union Federal
Bank of Indianapolis. Further, despite requests by the Plaintiff to produce the original Note, or
evidence of the chain of Assignment showing that Chase is in fact the holder of the Promissory
Note, Chase has been unable to produce neither in previous case number 2011CV4858 and will
not be able to in this instant case. To explain this very serious problem, Defendant CHASE
4
relies on 2 very different Affidavits (8 months or so apart that they somehow lost a note they
never had per FDIC v. CHASE $13 billion settlement in 2013) provided by its Document
Custody Department which states that Chase was the servicer of the Note and had custody of the
loan file.
Plaintiff in that case number 2011CV4858 filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
stating that CHASE did not have standing to bring the action, and that the Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction. That Motion was pending before the Court when CHASE begged to
settle before trial that was set for 12/28/2012 and finally partially did so on March 15, 2013 see
Exhibit B - Settlement Agreement March 15, 2013 - paying $10,000 of Cassinos attorneys fees
I. Did or will Defendant adequately establish that it is the true Owner of the
Promissory Note secured by the Deed of Trust?.
At the outset of the previous case, Defendant alleged that it was the holder of the Note, and
as such, claimed to have established standing to bring the action. It is the burden of the
Defendant to establish standing. Standing [is] treated as a question of subject matter jurisdiction
under subsection (b)(1). Grand Valley Citizens' Alliance v. Colo. Oil & Gas Conservation
Comm'n, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 2012 CO 52, 279 P.3d 646. It is
the Defendants burden to establish that they in fact have standing to bring this action. A
Defendant has the burden of proving that the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Pfenninger v. Exempla, Inc., 12 P.3d 830 (Colo. App. 2000). Reynolds v. State Bd. for Cmty.
Colls., 937 P.2d 774 (Colo. App. 1996). Defendant acknowledges that it cannot produce the
5
original Note, and that it cannot produce a chain of evidence establishing that it is the Owner of
the Note. Plaintiff Cassinos belief whether or not CHASE was/is the Owner of the Note does
not help nor hinder Defendants burden to in fact show that it was the rightful Owner, and is
standing.
Lost Note Affidavit and a Lost Instrument Affidavit 8 months or so apart in 2012 to support
its claim that, because it has custody of the loan file, that ergo, it must be Owner of the Note. In
fact, Chases own employees, in those affidavits, have indicated that she can only attest to the
fact that she believed CHASE to be the Servicer of the loan. No statement of Ownership of the
Note can be found in the Lost Note Affidavit or the Lost Instrument Affidavit.
Defendant also pointed to the Assignment of the Deed of Trust by MERS recorded in
September 28, 2011 as evidence that it owns the Note. In Colorado, the Courts have held that
the Deed of Trust follows the Note. If Chase cannot establish that it is the true owner of the
Note, then any assignment of the Deed of Trust to Chase is void ab initio, and could in fact,
violate Colorado statutes for recording of false or misleading documents in the County recording
system under CRS 38-35-102. Further, the signing of the DOT Assignment by a Chase
Chase employee is fraudulent on its face and violative of the MERS Consent to Cease and Desist
Order entered into by MERS in April 2011 with the Office of the US Currency Comptoller.
6
Plaintiff Cassino believes that Defendant CHASE failed in the past case and will fail
again in this instant case to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence present
in this complaint and exhibits, that CHASE is in fact the true owner of the Promissory Note.
II. Is the failure of Defendant to name indispensable parties to the previous action
should have been grounds, in and of itself, for dismissal with prejudice of the
previous action?.
Defendant acknowledges in the previous case number 2011CV4858 by its own Exhibit
for the Promissory Note, that certain parties may have an equitable interest in the quiet title
action that it sought. In particular, that party is Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis (Union
Federal), who was purportedly assigned the Ownership of the Note by virtue of the Allonge
Union Federal no longer exists, as it was acquired by Sky Bank in 2008. Sky Bank no longer
exists, as it was acquired by merger with First National Bank of Tennessee. It should be
noted that none of these banks failed, and each was acquired in an arms length purchase
transaction.
Defendant CHASE knew, or should have known, that each of the above-named banks
had or could have an equitable claim of interest in the Promissory Note, and hence the Deed
of Trust. Defendants failure to name such parties precluded the Court from its ability to
render a verdict in that case number 2011CV4858 - affecting the title and all parties in the
case, and hence should have been dismissed with prejudice on those grounds alone instead
of Plaintiff being conned and sandbagged by agreeing to CHASEs begging for a partial
Settlement Agreement before trial by jury that was set for 12/28/2012.
7
III. Does Chases request for an Assignment of the Deed of Trust, knowing that it was
not in possession of the Promissory Note, and the signing of such Assignment by its own
employee, notarization of such document by its own employee and recording of such
document in the public records constitute grounds to invoke the unclean hands
doctrine
premised on the theory that one who requests equity must do so with clean hands. Wilson v.
Prentiss, 140 P.3d 288 (Colo.App.2006). Thus, a court will not consider a request for equitable
relief under circumstances where the acts of the party requesting equitable relief offend the sense
Defendant recorded the fraudulent Notice of Election and Demand For Sale on 3/17/2011
knowing that the public, the court and the Public Trustee would rely on the truth of the matters
contained therein. Defendant knew, or should have known, that in fact it had no evidence that it
Defendant also recorded the fraudulent Corporate Deed of Trust Assignment knowing
that the public, the court and the Public Trustee would rely on the truth of the matters contained
therein. Defendant knew, or should have known, that in fact it had no evidence that it was the
Owner of the Note, and hence the Deed of Trust being assigned.
Defendant then further served fraud upon the court and trustee with 2 false and fraudulent
affidavits of lost instrument or note knowing that the public, the court and the Public Trustee
IV. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Jefferson County, Colorado with legal title to the property
at 13883 S. Wamblee Valley Road, Conifer, Colorado 80433 containing 2 parcels since 1999
8
see Exhibit C - Personal Representative's Deed recorded 7/19/1999 conveying title to 40 acre
parcel with home to Lance R. Cassino and Exhibit D - Personal Representative's Deed recorded
is a Delaware corporation doing business in Colorado and is a debt collector violating FDCPA
1692f(6)(A) see Exhibit E - Chase Mortgage Loan Statement dated June 16, 2017.
representing CHASE employed by Bryan Cave LLC. Cynthia is named as a Defendant because it
is Plaintiffs belief and understanding that despite her knowing Plaintiffs allegations about the 4
fraudulent foreclosing documents in previous Case number 2011CV4858 and, in this instant
case, may still ignore those claims that have merit and serve again upon the court and trustee
those very same documents in another attempt to prove injury or standing - that are known to be
fraudulent or that are now void by operation of law due to effective TILA rescission dated
January 30, 2015. Those documents are: Notice of Election and Demand for Sale - filed
3/17/2011; Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust dated 9/21/2011 - 6 months plus after
claiming "standing" as PETE (person entitled to enforce); Affidavit of Lost Note dated
4/24/2012 by Ashley Jordan; Affidavit of Lost Instrument dated 12/1/2012 by Serina Lee,
Promissory Note and Deed of Trust. Regarding the effective TILA rescission dated January 30,
2015 see Exhibit F Rescission Letter dated January 30, 2015 recorded in the Jefferson County
land records. Cynthia became full aware of most of the white collar criminal allegations made in
this complaint when she was tasked by Chase and Bryan Cave LLC to reply to a letter by
Cassino sent May 33, 2016 to Mr. Jamie Dimon offering to settle this stalemate for $10,000 see
9
Exhibit G - Letter to Mr. Jamie Dimon dated May 3, 2016 (includes Cynthia Lowery-
Graber letter reply for Chase/Mr. Dimon dated July 7, 2016) offering an out of court
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this
Complaint.
5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98, as this matter concerns title
received a Complaint (filed November 16, 2011) from CHASE, giving notice of a foreclosure
action (Case No.: 2011CV4858) on MR. CASSINOs property at 13883 S. Wamblee Valley
7. The property is and was subject to a deed of trust to the public trustee allegedly
for the benefit of Community Mortgage Group, Inc., to secure a promissory note to Community
Mortgage Group, Inc., dated September 26, 2005, in the original principal amount of $200,000.
9. The original promissory note has never been indorsed from the original payee to
CHASE.
10
10. CHASE was not the owner of the subject promissory note.
11. On November 16, 2011 CHASE filed a complaint to reform the deed of trust and
then foreclose with Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 2011CV4858.
12. On March 15, 2013 CHASE executed a Settlement Agreement with Cassino
paying Cassino $10,000 for his attorney fees to avoid trial by jury December 28, 2012 due their 4
fraudulent foreclosing documents - especially their false and fraudulent Corporate Assignment
of Deed of Trust (a MERS/CHASE self-assignment) recorded in the land records September 28,
2011 a felony per Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18 Criminal Code 18-5-114 Offering a
false instrument for recording. Cassinos counter claim was quiet title.
13. CHASE deliberately misled this Court in previous case 2011CV4858 by fraudulently
asserting that they were the real party in interest, the sole owner and beneficiary of the loan MR.
CASSINO originally took out with Community Mortgage Group, Inc., on or about September
26, 2005. Starting with claiming standing as PETE with a false and fraudulent Notice of Election
and Demand for Sale - recorded 3/17/2011 see Exhibit H - Notice of Election and Demand for
Sale. Which was proven false and fraudulent by Chase themselves by recording over 6 months
later see Exhibit I - Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust dated 9/21/2011 another false
and fraudulent document served upon the court in that case. And to make white collar crime
matters worse, their 2 other false and fraudulent foreclosing documents: Affidavit of Lost Note
dated 4/24/2012 by Ashley Jordan and Affidavit of Lost Instrument dated 12/1/2012 by Serina
Lee (see Exhibit J - Forensic Examination Report dated June 15, 2017 on Corporate Assignment
of Deed of Trust dated 9/21/2011 - 19 pages and Exhibit K - Forensic Examination Report dated
March 30, 2017 on Affidavit of Lost Note dated 4/24/2012 and Affidavit of Lost Instrument
11
dated 12/13/2012 - 26 pages). The assignment and the 2 affidavits are counterfeit not genuine per
expert witness and document examiner Mr. Gary Michaels photoshopped forgeries. Applicable
authority allowing challenges to Void, Voidable and Fraudulently recorded mortgage documents
affecting chain of title: 1. Colo.Rev.Stat. 38-35-204. Order to show cause (Spurious Lien); 2.
Colo.Rev.Stat. 38-35-201, a spurious lien is a lien that [i]s not created, suffered, assumed or
(1)(c) Forgery, Written Instrument; 4. A common law right to cancellation of written instruments
exists. See Hampton v. Tri-State Finance Corp., 30 Colo.App. 420, 425 (Colo 1972). Statute
Description and Actionability: 1. Colo.Rev.Stat. 38-35-201 and 204 allow for any deed of trust,
actionable civilly. Prevailing party can recover attorneys fees and cost; 2. The criminal forgery
statute should be actionable civilly pursuant to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
Colo.Rev.Stat. 6-1-105(1)(c) and 201. any person has been construed to allow for a private
right of action. See Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 230-232 (Colo 1998). Common Law or Civil
Fraud Statute: 1. Common Law Fraud: To establish fraud, the plaintiff must show the defendant
made a false representation of a material fact, knowing that representation to be false; that the
person to whom the representation was made was ignorant of the falsity; that the representation
was made with the intention that it be acted upon; and, that the reliance resulted in damage to the
plaintiff. Coors v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 112, P3d 59, 66 (Colo 2005)
12
15. CHASE knew or should have known prior to filing complaint to reform the deed
of trust and then foreclose with Case No. 2011CV4858 that they were not a real party in interest
because, as a snip of a Chain of Title Assessment Report provided by planned expert witness
Dave Krieger shows there is a broken chain of title caused by the false and fraudulent Corporate
Assignment Of Deed Of Trust dated 9/21/2011, a snip of the report is attached hereto as
16. MR. CASSINO properly raised the issue of whether CHASE was the real party in
17. Additional confirmation that CHASE was only operating in the capacity of a
Servicing Agent with respect to MR. CASSINOs loan is shown in CHASES mailed monthly
statement see Exhibit E - Chase Mortgage Loan Statement dated June 16, 2017.
18. CHASE had no valid ownership interest in MR. CASSINOs property therefore
they could not have suffered any injury in fact. The party bringing the action must be an actual
aggrieved party entitled to pursue a remedy. As a result, this Court lacked jurisdiction over the
parties in Case No. 2011CV4858 because there was never any injured party, a real party in
interest before the Court, and it certainly was not CHASE then or now.
19. In addition, the evidence shows that the Notice of Election and Demand For Sale
that CHASE filed with the Jefferson County Public Trustee is false and fraudulent, (said Notice
is attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit H - Notice of Election and Demand For Sale.
20. CHASE certified in the Notice of Election and Demand For Sale to the Jefferson
County Public Trustee that these two statements were true and correct:
13
b. That they were the current beneficiary of the Deed of Trust.
21. CHASE was not a Qualified Holder by any definition found in Colorado statutes,
22. The original Deed of Trust presented by CHASE showed Community Mortgage
Group, Inc., as the beneficiary not CHASE - see Exhibit M - Cassino Deed of Trust 9-26-2005
23. Chase had 6 years to sue Cassino to collect. Chase forced Cassino to default by
not excepting regular monthly payments on 1/15/2011 period making last payment by Cassino
12/15/2010 6 days before Mitch J. Stein & Associates notified CHASE they were now
representing Cassino for either a real loan modification after 4 qualified attempts by Cassino
2009-2010 were denied only if CHASE was note holder in due course to do so or otherwise a
Quiet Title demanded and sought legally. That is why Chase on 3/17/2011 - 3 months after
Cassino last accepted (v. denied) 12/15/2010 payment - filed a fraudulent Notice of Election and
Demand For Sale. In total retaliation for retaining attorney Mitch J. Stein for either a honest loan
modification or a quiet title. Chase is time barred per as contract actions, including personal
contracts and actions under the UCC: 3 years (C.R.S. 13-80-101), except as otherwise provided
in 13-80-103.5; All claims under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, except sections 5-5-
201(5); All actions to recover, detain or convert goods or chattels, except as otherwise provided
in section 13 -80-103.5. Liquidated debt and unliquidated determinable amount of money due;
recover the possession of secured personal property; Arrears of rent: 6 years, (C.R.S. 13-80-
14
103.5) The 6-year statute of limitations started March 17, 2011 when CHASE filed their Notice
of Election and Demand For Sale and ended March 18, 2017. It was not tolled by the illegal
contract CHASE entered into with no capacity, interest or standing the Settlement
Agreement made March 15, 2013 was only good for one year besides the fact that CHASE
defaulted on it anyway when the 2 law firms representing CHASE - that made and signed the
(a) The person who is the obligee of and who is in possession of an original evidence
of debt;
(b) The person in possession of an original evidence of debt together with the
proper indorsement or assignment thereof to such person in accordance with section 38-38-
101(6);
(c) The person in possession of a negotiable instrument evidencing a debt, which has
(d) The person in possession of an evidence of debt with authority, which may be
granted by the original evidence of debt or deed of trust, to enforce the evidence of debt as agent,
nominee, or trustee or in a similar capacity for the obligee of the evidence of debt.
servicing agent that had been granted the authority to enforce the note on behalf of another. They
15
27. To date its not clear who, if anybody, owns MR. CASSINOs Note or who holds
good title.
29. Because CHASE was not the owner of the Note in question, they were not
entitled to payment of the Note and did not have standing to initiate a foreclosure action against
MR. CASSINO. Therefore, the wrongful foreclosure attempt by CHASE in Case No.
2011CV4858 on November 16, 2011 in this court, is moot and void, as CHASE could not have
acquired good title to the subject property through a hoped for foreclosure sale.
30. Because CHASE could not have good title to the subject property in any shape or
form, CHASE could not and still not convey good title to anybody.
31. Mr. CASSINO remains the owner of the property as the wrongful foreclosure
attempt in Case No. 2011CV4858 that purported to divest him of title is moot and void.
32. Mr. CASSINO reserves the right to amend this complaint as needed and planned.
a. That in equity this Court enter an order quieting title to the subject property in
Plaintiffs name, a result that would be just and fair to Plaintiff Cassino based on CHASEs own
b. For costs, attorneys fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
16
GENERAL NOTICE- almost judicial: Plaintiff Cassino is also filing within 2-3 weeks or
sooner, a separate lawsuit - with a personal injury attorney of record leading a legal team - for $6
million in financial damages suffered from CHASE acts over the last 6 plus years to family
members. The 5 Plaintiffs are: himself, his 92-year-old mother, his 66-year-old brother (now
one month into rehab/nursing home care that Cynthia was made aware of in email
communications seeking release of CHASE alleged lien to close/sell neighbor .4 acres for
7/15/2017 proceeds to help brother and mother with in home nursing care), his son and his
daughter for Personal Injury from an intentional Wrongful Foreclosure attempt with causes of
FDCPA violations, TILA, Consummation, Statute of Limitations and more. Bottom line,
CHASE could end or mitigate the 2nd law suit by simply providing releases on their fraudulent
lien so the 2 closings above can proceed without delay and without causing more financial
By:
______________________________
17
Complaint for Quiet Title Under Rule 105 - Exhibits Summary
Exhibit A - JPMorgan Chase ADMITS not the successor in interest to WaMu loans.
Exhibit E - Chase Mortgage Loan Statement dated June 16, 2017 stating an inaccurate
Exhibit F - Rescission Letter dated January 30, 2015 recorded in the Jefferson County land
records.
Exhibit G - Letter to Mr. Jamie Dimon dated May 3, 2016 offering out of court settlement.
Exhibit J - Forensic Examination Report dated June 15, 2017 on Corporate Assignment of
Exhibit K - Forensic Examination Report dated March 30, 2017 on Affidavit of Lost Note
Exhibit M - Cassino Deed of Trust 9-26-2005 with Community Mortgage Group, Inc. page
1 of 10.
18