Foreclosure Fraud – N. Ann Piwinski, Plaintiff v Wells Fargo Bank NA. and China Brown Defendants

N. ANN PIWINSKI,

Plaintiff

v

WELLS FARGO BANK NA. AND CHINA BROWN

Defendants

This civil complaint concerns Defendant Wells Fargo Bank NA and China Brown’s Defendants attempts to deceive this Court and Plaintiff N Ann Piwinski Plaintiff into entering a default judgment granting foreclosure in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in Fairfield County Case No 2007 CV 00952.

On or about January 19 2004 Plaintiff executed a mortgage loan with respect to the residential real estate located at 1928 Wind River Drive Lancaster Ohio 43130 the Property evidenced by a promissory note and a mortgage in favor of Dominion Homes Financial Services Ltd.  On August 6 2007 Defendant filed a complaint for foreclosure in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas seeking judgment against Plaintiff and foreclosure of the Property the Foreclosure Action The Foreclosure Action bore case no 2007 CV 00952 A copy of the complaint in the Foreclosure Action with the note and mortgage is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

In the complaint in the Foreclosure Action Wells Fargo claimed it was the holder and owner of the note Upon information and belief this statement was blatantly false and was known by Wells Fargo to be false at the time the complaint was drafted in that Wells Fargo was not the owner of the note.

Plaintiff did not file an answer to the foreclosure complaint.

On November 15 2007 Wells Fargo filed a motion for default judgment against Plaintiff.

The motion for default judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

On November 20 2007 Defendants caused to be filed an Affidavit of Status of Account and Military Affidavit the Affidavit A copy of the Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

In the Affidavit Defendants stated Affiant is a Vice President of Loan Documentation with Wells Fargo Bank N A In this job position affiant has the custody of and has personal knowledge of the accounts of said company and specifically with the account of PLAINTIFF defendant herein Affiant states that this said account is in default and that plaintiff has elected to call the entire balance of said account due and payable in accordance with the terms of the note and mortgage attached to the Complaint.

Affiant states that there is due on said account a principal balance of $194,903 together with interest thereon.

On November 20 2007 based upon Defendants fraudulent complaint and the Affidavit the Court granted Wells Fargo’s default judgment and issued a Finding and Decree in Foreclosure

It is well documented that for years Wells Fargo has used so  called robosigners in its mortgage servicing division to expedite foreclosures Robosigners are individuals whose sole job responsibility is to sign affidavits assignments of mortgage and other legal documents used in foreclosures en masse so that homeowners can be removed from their homes by banks as quickly and cheaply as possible As a result of Wells Fargo s use of robosigners the Ohio Attorney General has launched an investigation into its practices See article from Bloomberg News attached hereto as Exhibit D.

Because they are required to sign so many documents in order to effectuate cost savings for the banks robosigners do not even read the documents containing critical statements necessary to grease the wheels of their foreclosure mills The typical robosigner simply attests under oath that he or she has personal knowledge of the statements made and swears that those statements are true and accurate without even having read the document In addition in the rush to generate these documents the robosigner will generally sign the document outside the presence of a notary public who later notarizes them.

The above practices fail to comport with legal requirements thereby rendering the documents fraudulent and invalid

China Brown is and was at all relevant times employed and controlled by Wells Fargo. China Brown is and was a robosigner

Based upon the foregoing Plaintiff has reason to believe and does believe that the Affidavit contained material false and fraudulent statements in that a China Brown did not have custody of the documents she referred to in the Affidavit

The records and accounts referred to were not compiled by Wells Fargo at or near the time of occurrence of the events referenced

The records were not kept by Wells Fargo in the course of its regularly conducted business

It is not the regular practice of Wells Fargo to keep such records
China Brown had no personal knowledge of any of the facts she attested to
Wells Fargo was not the holder of the note and mortgage as it claimed and
Wells Fargo was not entitled to foreclose on the Property

By giving China Brown the title of Vice President of Loan Documentation Wells Fargo meant to mislead the Court in the above noted foreclosure action and Plaintiff into believing she was a person with the knowledge and authority to make the statements she did in the Affidavit and thus not question the validity of it

Defendants statements that they were the holder of the note and mortgage were false and were meant to mislead the Court and the Plaintiff into believing Wells Fargo had the right to foreclose

Based upon the Affidavit and the false allegations in the complaint in the Foreclosure Action the Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for default judgment

The entire Foreclosure Action noted was contaminated by the fraud of Wells Fargo and China Brown As a result of that fraud Wells Fargo was permitted under color of law to take the Property away from Plaintiff

Count I Declaratory Judgment

Count II Violation of The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

Count III Common Law Fraud

Count IV Abuse of Process

Count V Civil Conspiracy

Count VI Violation of Ohio Baby RICO Statute

Full complaint below…

~

4closureFraud.org


I sure could use some…

~

N. ANN PIWINSKI, Plaintiff v WELLS FARGO BANK NA. AND CHINA BROWN Defendants

Comments
4 Responses to “Foreclosure Fraud – N. Ann Piwinski, Plaintiff v Wells Fargo Bank NA. and China Brown Defendants”
  1. Mimirayo says:

    Ms. China Brown was extremely busy here in MD too. She is on just about every Wells Fargo in my County. I wish more people would read these and challenge their foreclosures, or at least give it to their lawyers or use it for their own ammo.

    • usjustice4all says:

      The attorneys on the west coast here are either clueless (which I can believe) or there has been some kind of meeting of the Bar Asso. to threaten anyone who even thinks of it. There is no one here who gets it. We are dying here I fear, especially with how the elections went.

  2. usjustice4all says:

    I’m not buying the judges don’t get it. The proper chain is there or it isn’t. It is part of their job to know what is going on, not to rely on the attorneys, but with all the counties taking applications for temp judges, good luck getting one that takes societies problems seriously. They are deciding on the roof over someones house, not just extra vacation money. Point blank…..the judges are playing stupid and it makes our judicial system look like our financial institutions.

  3. DaveV says:

    I don’t see where they are getting that Well’s Fargo didn’t own/hold the note & mortgage. The plaintiff at this point needs to have some factual basis, not allegations. Same with the Affidavit – saying so isn’t gone to cut it.

Leave a Reply