Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF GEORGIA
ALEXANDER HARVIN,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHTRUST MORTGAGE CORP.,
MORRIS & SCHNEIDER, P.C.
REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE,
J.P. MORGAN CHASE,
Defendants
__________________________________/
COMPLAINT
against the above named Defendants. This is a civil tort action seeking a jury
trial and damages against these Defendants for (1) Civil Theft of personal
1
PARTIES
Code (UCC), the Georgia Commercial Code (GCC), and the Georgia Fair
referred to as “SMC”.
SMC is registered with the Georgia Secretary of State and is subject to the
Morris & Schneider, P.C. is a Georgia based law firm, their corporate office
2
The Law firm is registered with the Georgia Secretary of State and is subject
majority owned by the Law firm. Republic is registered with the Georgia
Secretary of State and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State
of Georgia.
3
Jurisdiction and Venue
Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in the Superior Court of Rockdale County,
Georgia.
Facts
Republic participated in the closing due to their business affiliation with the
Law firm. At no time did Harvin retain the services of Republic or execute a
4
10
The Law firm engaged in a witness only real estate closing. At no time did
the Law firm make any disclosures regarding the “loan documents”.
11
The Note and Security Deed were drafted and prepared by the Law firm.
Harvin did not retain the Law firm for legal representation or enter into a
12
The Georgia Legislature and the Georgia Supreme Court have expressly
declared that the preparation of deeds constitutes the practice of law, and is
Georgia attorney.
5
13
(GCC) and Georgia law recognize Harvin as the “maker” or “Creator” of the
Note and Security Deed. In fact the law holds Harvin accountable for the
14
Harvin did not hire or retain the Law firm to draft and prepare the Note and
Security Deed on his behalf. Harvin did not authorize the preparation of
these important legal documents by the Law firm—whose client was SMC.
15
The Law firm did not disclose that (1) the law recognizes Harvin as the
Creator of the Note and Security Deed, (2) that Harvin is accountable for the
language within these documents, (3) that the Law firm would prepare these
documents on his behalf, or (4) that the Security Deed would transfer title to
the property to their client SMC, and its successors, and assigns.
6
16
The Law firm did not disclose that the Note would be deposited into SMC’s
bank account, and SMC’s asset balance would not decrease by the amount of
17
The Law firm did not disclose that the Note would be pooled with other
18
The Law firm never disclosed that the Note and Security Deed are Harvin’s
authorization to sell his personal property, the Note and Security Deed.
19
7
20
as: “Generally all property other than real estate; as goods, chattels, money,
property”.
21
Harvin has received no compensation for the sale of his personal property,
22
The Note was sold to Investors, who in turn entered into what is known as a
Pool Servicing Agreement (PSA) with Chase. Under the PSA the trustees of
Harvin’s mortgage, just as another entity, MERS also claims legal title to the
mortgage.1
1
For example the PSA will typically include language where a depositor warrants that “the
Mortgage Loan, including the Note and Mortgage…are not subject to an assignment or pledge, and
the Depositor has good and marketable title to and …is the sole owner thereof”. CHASE
MORTGAGE FINANCE CORP., DEPOSITOR, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., SERVICER
AND WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., TRUSTEE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT; Date
11/01/2005, $1,900,007,729,12, Multi-Class Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-A1, at §
3.01(l)
8
23
The Defendants gained financially from their failure to disclose all aspects
24
a shell company created by mortgage bankers who decided they did not want
formed a plan to create one shell company that would pretend to own all the
mortgages in the country—that way, the mortgage bankers would never have
to record assignments or pay fees since the same company would always
“own” all the mortgages. They incorporated the shell company in Delaware
9
25
repayment of a loan.
26
27
MERS as the trustee, holding title to real property for the lender, their
28
10
29
system. When the original lender sells a note, the sale of the note is allegedly
tracked on the MERS system. The input of data on the MERS system by its
members is voluntary. A note can be sold and that information not recorded
30
when the beneficiary ownership interests in the note or servicing rights are
sold by one MERS member to another, and the sale is tracked electronically
that note, even though (1) MERS never held and does not hold an ownership
interest in the note or servicing rights at the time of the original loan
11
transaction and after such note or servicing rights were sold (and re-sold) in
31
MERS claims that so long as the subsequent sale of the note or servicing
on the deed of trust or the “grantee” on the security deed and continues to act
32
dwelling place at the time the Note and Security Deed were entered in to.
12
33
At the closing Harvin executed the Note that recognized the debt incurred
Conyers, Georgia, as security for the debt in the event of loan default.
34
There is also an insurance policy that benefits the lender in the event of loan
35
The Note was executed in favor of SMC and identified SMC as the note
holder. MERS was not identified as the lender or owner of the Note.
36
The Security Deed identifies Harvin as the “Grantor” aka Creator and named
13
37
Pursuant to the Security Deed Harvin authorized SMC, its successors, and
38
Harvin has since revoked the power of attorney with power to sale
previously granted.
39
because MERS was named as the initial nominee, that it still retains that
relationship with the actual holder of the note. If the current holder of the
note is not a MERS member then the chain is broken. If a former note holder
was not a MERS member, then sold the note to a MERS member the chain
history.
14
40
MERS holds the security in a nominee capacity but without rights to the
debt. MERS does not service the debt or receive payments for remission to
41
42
Banking and Finance. MERS has successfully argued in another forum that
it is not a lender.
15
MERS Is Illegal In Georgia
43
In the State of Georgia MERS does not have the legal capacity to act as a
which names MERS acting solely as “nominee” for SMC, its successors,
44
45
Georgia law does not recognize the term “nominee” in a real estate
transaction wherein the grantee holds legal title for the benefit of another.
16
46
usually in a very limited way” and as “ a party who holds bare legal title for
the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of
others”.
47
48
17
49
3. A Trust Company
State and authorized to act as a fiduciary under the laws of the United
subject to the provisions of Title 53, relating to Wills, Trusts, and the
18
administration of estates
Acting as a fiduciary for purposes of this Code Section includes but is not
limited to:
oversee;
19
50
MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and has an
address and telephone number of P.O.Box 2026, Flint, MI, 48501-2026, tel.
51
Harvin’s Security Deed is to hold legal title to Harvin’s property for the
benefit of another.
manifest intention that another person shall have the benefit of the property
Carmichael Tile Co. vs. Yaarab Temple Bldg.Co, 182 Ga. 348 (Ga.1936)
52
trustee “must” have the power to act as trustee in the State of Georgia. See
20
53
54
55
MERS has never sought nor has it been granted authority by the Georgia
tasked with holding legal title to Harvin’s property for the benefit of another
21
56
Harvin’s Security Deed meets all the requirements and contains all the
57
Harvin conveyed legal title to the “trust property” to MERS as “trustee” for
58
(7): “Settlor” means the person who creates the trust. The terms
59
Georgia law recognizes Harvin as the Creator of the Trust aka Security
Deed. As the Creator of the Trust aka Security Deed this document is also
22
60
61
The Security Deed violates Georgia Public policy because MERS is not a
obtaining title to real property in the State of Georgia as a trust or trustee for
62
nor Congress has authorized or made legal the MERS concept. County
departments, etc.
63
MERS has no legal authority to hold legal title to any real property or notes
23
64
MERS is acting as a trust or trustee without approval from the Georgia Dept.
65
66
The creation of MERS by Chase, SMC, and others in the mortgage banking
industry requires the deeds and mortgages to be separated from the note.
24
67
Ernst & Young to determine how much money they could defraud county
68
Since America’s beginning each county has maintained public record of who
69
grantees.
25
70
seller or mortgagor actually owns the land they offer for sale or mortgage.
71
assignment to protect him from the possibility that the original mortgagee
would assign the same mortgage to a different investor. All of this changed
when the banks decided they did not want to pay land recording fees
anymore.
72
pretends to own all the mortgages in America—thru MERS the banks never
record assignments since the same company [MERS] always “own” all the
mortgages. MERS is a tax haven within the U.S. for the rich to avoid paying
26
73
United States, the mortgage bankers created MERS even though not a single
74
germane today as they were centuries ago when the first American colonies
75
County real property records that hold only a reference to MERS now have a
27
76
At all times prior to, during, and after the closing, the Defendants knew or
should have known that MERS is an illegal corporate entity doing business
disclosure. They failed to disclose the truth about their lending practices.
77
78
Exercising his rights and authority as the Trustor aka Creator of the trust
28
1. Revocation of Power of Attorney—this document effectively
revokes the Lender, its successors, and assigns, power to sale and to
within thirty days, with an affidavit of their own, if they failed to act
unencumbered. (Exhibit E)
2
More than ninety days have past and Harvin’s Reconveyance of Title remains uncontested. It is now a
permanent action. The time to challenge has been waived by the Defendants.
29
79
The letter was not signed; a copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit G.
80
forwarded by Harvin.
81
If the Defendants truly believe that they have done nothing illegal, unethical,
30
82
Harvin exercised his rights and authority as Trustor, Settlor, Grantor, aka
83
WHEREFORE, Alexander Harvin prays that the Court grant the following
relief:
84
That the Court grant declaratory judgment which states that the Defendants
have no legal standing, proper, legal or equitable interest in either the Note
85
That the Court grant declaratory judgment that the Note and Security Deed
31
86
That the Court grants declaratory judgment that the sale of the Note and
87
That the Court grants declaratory judgment that the Defendants act of selling
Code of Georgia.
88
That the Court declares that the Defendants failure to disclose that the Note
and Security Deed are the personal property of Alexander Harvin constitutes
89
That the Court declares that the drafting and preparation of the Note and
90
32
91
That the Court declares that MERS is illegal under Georgia law and has no
92
That the Court declares that MERS is not a nominee, grantee, trustee, or
93
That the Court declare that Alexander Harvin by proper exercise of his rights
94
That the Court declares that Alexander Harvin as the Creator of the Security
unencumbered.
95
That the Court declares that the Defendants intentional separation of the
Note and Security Deed has rendered the Security Deed null and void,
33
96
That the Court order the Defendants to document the lawful chain of title to
the Note so as to determine each lawful transfer and who is the current
97
agreement with any loan servicer hired by the alleged note holder.
98
That each Defendant be required to prove up the chain of title to the Note
and that they properly perfected their lien interests as required by Georgia
law.
99
That the Defendants pay just compensation to Alexander Harvin for each
100
That the original Note and Security Deed be returned to Alexander Harvin.
34
101
That the Court declares the property free and clear from all claims and
encumbrances.
102
That the Court declare that the Defendants engaged in conspiracy to commit
103
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________
ALEXANDER HARVIN
Authorized Representative
In Pro Se
P.O.Box 82665
Conyers, Ga. 30013
(770) 841-0784
35
36