Docstoc

Brian Dailey Justin Grove Dailey Law Firm

Document Sample
Brian Dailey Justin Grove Dailey Law Firm Powered By Docstoc
					     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1             Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 16


Brian T. Dailey (P39945)
Justin G. Grove (P71253)
Dailey Law Firm, P.C.
28000 Woodward, Suite 201
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
Phone: (248) 744-5005
Facsimile: (248) 744-4440
Email: brian@daileylawyers.com
        justin@daileylawyers.com

Thomas D. Pigott (Ohio 0062919)
Pigott, Ltd.
2620 N. Centennial Road, Unit H
Toledo, Ohio 43617
Phone: (419) 776-4567
Facsimile: (419) 776-4568
Email: tpigott@pigottlaw.com

      Attorneys for Plaintiffs
_______________________________/

                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                                    SOUTHERN DIVISION
                                        * * * * * * * *
MARLYA DEPAUW and SHARON &                              Case Number: 2:11-cv-12032
TERRANCE LAFRANCE, Individually and
as Representatives of a Class of Individuals            JUDGE:
Similarly Situated,
                                                        Magistrate Judge:
    Plaintiffs,

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
c/o The Corporation Trust Company,
as Statutory Agent
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange Street
New Castle, DE 19801,

   Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________

            CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY
                         TRIAL ENDORSED HEREON
______________________________________________________________________________
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                   Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 16



       Plaintiffs, Marlya Depauw along with Sharon and Terrance Lafrance, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated herby bring this action against Defendants and for their
complaint hereby allege as follows:

                                        INTRODUCTION

MERS and the April 21, 2011, Ruling of the State of Michigan Court of Appeals

   1. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of MERSCORP, Inc. with both providing services to financial institutions relative to residential
mortgages including their tracking, registering and at times acting as mortgagee of record in the
capacity of nominee or agent of their lender member clients.
   2. The shareholders and institutional members of MERS include federally regulated
depository, banking and lending institutions, their subsidiaries and affiliates that own and/or
service residential mortgages.
   3. Based upon their members’ status, MERS is also subject to the jurisdiction of the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Housing
Finance Agency, and other appropriate Federal banking agencies, as defined by subsection
1(b)(1) of the Bank Service Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1861(b)(1).
   4. MERSCORP, Inc. operates a national registry that tracks ownership and servicing rights
relative to residential mortgages. There are approximately 5,000 members of MERS, of which
3,000 are mortgage servicers.
   5. Under information and belief, MERS maintains a database of approximately 31 million
active residential mortgages.
   6. MERS was originally founded by mortgage lenders to establish a central database and
holder of promissory notes and mortgages to easily effectuate the aggregation of mortgages for
securitization and sale as a portfolio of mortgages to individual and institutional investors.
   7. An additional reasoning for the founding of MERS was, as the central holder of
mortgages for the industry, mortgages could be sold and transferred upon the books and records
of MERS without any attendant filing of the mortgage transferred in the land records of the
individual counties where the real property was located.



                                                  2
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 16


    8. MERS, and its founding lenders, had determined that without the need to record
mortgages upon the land records of individual counties each time a transfer or sale occurred,
MERS members could save millions of dollars in transfer and recording fees.
    9. MERS’ decision to avoid the filing of mortgages upon transfer in the county where the
property is located, has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to county and state governments
and taxpayers, from the collection of required transfer and recording fees.
    10. Among other things, MERS normally acts on behalf of its members serving as mortgagee
of record, in a solely nominee capacity, for its members in local land recordings and foreclosure
lawsuits.
    11. Under information and belief, MERS does not normally own any legal right or interest in
the note associated with the attendant mortgage, and is therefore not a noteholder.
    12. MERS has acted in a mortgagee nominee capacity on behalf of its members and within
the State of Michigan for more than five (5) years.
    13. MERS, for itself and at the direction of, and on behalf of, its members, has filed
thousands of foreclosures by advertisement in the State of Michigan.
    14. During this period, MERS has illegally prosecuted numerous non-judicial foreclosures by
advertisement as permitted under MCL 600.3201, et seq., purchased the property at the
subsequent sheriff’s sales and then quit-claim deeded the properties to its associated note holding
member.
    15. Under information and belief MERS has adopted this illegal practice of circumventing
the required judicial foreclosure process in order to obtain title to mortgaged properties in less
time, at substantially less cost and to usurp the due process rights of mortgagor homeowners as
included within the Class.
    16. In many of the actions filed by MERS, mortgagor homeowners responded by filing
pleadings arguing that MERS did not have the capacity to foreclose by advertisement as they did
not own or have any interest in the underlying indebtedness.
    17. In response to these challenges, MERS would normally answer by providing confusing
loan documents and claiming an interest in the underlying debt, even though they knew this was
not true and that they were not complying with the requirements of MCL 600.3201, et seq.
    18. Even in the face of these challenges, MERS did, and continued for a period of years, to
knowingly, fraudulently and illegally foreclose using a State law upon which they had no
authority or right to utilize.

                                                 3
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                 Filed 05/09/11 Page 4 of 16


   19. In these cases, MERS lacked the authority to foreclose by advertisement pursuant to
MCL 600.3201, et seq., as MERS was never either the owner of the underlying indebtedness or
loan and was not the servicing agent of the mortgage.
   20. On April 21, 2011, the State of Michigan, Court of Appeals in the consolidated case of
Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Gerald Saurman, (Residential Funding Co, LLC v. Saurman,
290248, 291443 (MICA)), issued a ruling stating in pertinent part that in cases where MERS did
not own the underlying indebtedness, did not own an interest in the indebtedness secured by the
mortgage, or did not service the mortgage, MERS was therefore unable to comply with the
statutory requirements of MCL 600.3201(1)(d), and subsequently had no right to foreclose by
advertisement.
   21. The Court of Appeals continued, and ruled that in those such cases where MERS did
foreclose by advertisement upon the foregoing conditions rendered those foreclosure proceedings
void ab initio.
   22. The Class of Plaintiffs in this action consists of all owners of residential real
property located within the State of Michigan, whose property was illegally foreclosed
upon by MERS, through the use of the non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement
procedures as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.


                                            PARTIES

   23. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   24. Plaintiff Marlya Depauw is of legal age and was at all times relevant hereto, a resident of
the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, the legal title holder and owner of certain residential
real property located within the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, and upon which MERS
illegally foreclosed through the use of non-judicial foreclosures by advertisement as otherwise
permitted under MCL 600.3201, et seq.
   25. Plaintiffs Sharon Lafrance and Terrance Lafrance are a married couple and are of legal
age and were at all times relevant hereto, residents of the County of Saint Clair, State of
Michigan, were the legal title holders and owners of certain residential real property located
within the County of Saint Clair, State of Michigan, and upon which MERS illegally foreclosed
through the use of non-judicial foreclosures by advertisement as otherwise permitted under MCL
600.3201, et seq.


                                                 4
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                   Filed 05/09/11 Page 5 of 16


   26. Under information and belief, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is a
Delaware Corporation with its statutory agent on record with the Delaware Division of
Corporations as set forth in the caption hereto.
   27. At all times relevant hereto MERS conducted substantial business within the State of
Michigan, frequently utilized the laws and Courts of the State of Michigan and thereby did
subject itself to the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Michigan.


                                   JURISDICTION AND VENUE

   28. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   29. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount
in controversy between the Class, as defined herein, and the Defendant exceeds One
Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. The Class of
Plaintiffs in this action consists of all owners of residential real property located within the
State of Michigan, whose property was illegally foreclosed upon by MERS, through the use
of the non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL
600.3201, et seq. Defendant is a foreign corporation conducting a considerable amount of
business within the State of Michigan.
   30. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that Plaintiffs are
residents of this district, a vast majority of the acts and transactions giving rise to this action
occurred in this district, and because MERS:
           a. is authorized to conduct business in this district and has availed itself of the
               laws and markets within this district by routinely corresponding with residents
               of the district and through the utilization of the courts, both state and federal,
               of this district;
           b. does substantial business in this district; and
           c. is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.


                              INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS FACTS

   31. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   32. Absent title to her real property being illegally misappropriated, Plaintiff Marlya
Depauw, was and remains the legal title holder and owner of certain residential real property
located within the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, and upon which MERS on or about

                                                   5
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 6 of 16


May 27, 2008, illegally foreclosed through the use of non-judicial foreclosures by advertisement
as otherwise permitted under MCL 600.3201, et seq., her property was sold at sheriff’s sale and
transferred to Defendant MERS, and she is in the process of being evicted from her property.
   33. Absent title to their real property being illegally misappropriated, Plaintiffs Sharon
Lafrance and Terrance Lafrance were and remain the legal title holders and owners of certain
residential real property located within the County of Saint Clair, State of Michigan, and upon
which MERS illegally foreclosed through the use of non-judicial foreclosures by advertisement
as otherwise permitted under MCL 600.3201, et seq., and their property was sold at sheriff’s sale
and transferred in 2010 to MERS.


                 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS AND CLASS STATUS

   34. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   35. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and proposed plaintiff Class
members under Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
   36. The proposed Class consists of:
           All owners of residential real property located within the State of
           Michigan, whose property was illegally foreclosed upon by MERS,
           through the use of the non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement
           procedures as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.
   37. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time,
there are hundreds if not thousands of members of the proposed Class, as can be estimated
from the current foreclosure crisis within the nation as well as the State of Michigan and the
fact that MERS members consist of the vast majority of financial institutions filing mortgage
foreclosure actions.
   38. Though there are several thousand members of the Class, the identity of these
individuals is easily ascertainable from the records of Defendant MERS.
   39. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable.
   40. This action involves questions of law and fact common to all Class members because
all Class members were owners of residential real property located within the State of Michigan,
whose property was illegally foreclosed upon by MERS, through the use of the non-judicial
foreclosure by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.             These
questions predominate over any question affecting any individual member of the Class.

                                                 6
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                 Filed 05/09/11 Page 7 of 16


    41. This action involves question of law common to all Class members because:
                 The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on April 21, 2011, that the
                 use of the non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement procedures
                 as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq. by MERS was illegal and
                 that such foreclosure cases were void ab initio.
    42. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of other members of the Class as there are no
material differences in the facts and law underlying the claims of Plaintiffs and the Class and
by prosecuting their claims Plaintiffs will advance, assert and protect the claims and interests
of Class members.
    43. Plaintiffs’ claims are consistent with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other
members of the Class.
    44. The common questions of law and fact among all Class members predominate over
any issues affecting individual members of the Class, including but not limited to:
              a. whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted herein;
              b. whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to declaratory and
                 injunctive relief;
              c. whether Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained monetary loss and the
                 proper measure of that loss;
              d. whether Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained consequential loss, and
                 to what measure; and
              e. whether MERS’ acts and omissions warrant punitive damages.
    45. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the proposed Class, and Plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the proposed Class. Plaintiffs
have retained counsel that is competent and experienced in the prosecution of this type of
litigation.
    46. The questions of law and fact common to the Class members, some of which are set
out above, predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members.
    47. Class treatment of the claims set forth herein is superior to other available methods
for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of
individual litigation would make it impracticable or impossible for proposed Class members
to prosecute their claims individually. Absent a class action, a multiplicity of individual



                                                 7
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                 Filed 05/09/11 Page 8 of 16


lawsuits would be required to address the claims between Class members and MERS, and
inconsistent treatment and adjudication of the claims would likely result.
   48. The litigation and trial of Plaintiffs' claims is manageable. The consistent provisions
of the relevant law and the readily ascertainable identities of many Class members
demonstrate that there would be no significant manageability problems with prosecuting this
lawsuit as a class action.
   49. MERS has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class so that
final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief are appropriate.
   50. MERS has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class,
making appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
   51. MERS’ acts and omissions are the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and Class
Members damage as described in the following Counts.
   52. As the Michigan Court of Appeals released its ruling relevant to these matters on
April, 21 2011, there has been little, if any, litigation concerning this exact controversy.
   53. There is a desirability of concentrating this litigation within this Court and this
District as:
           a. Plaintiffs reside within the District;
           b. Many of the affected Class members claims arise within this District;
           c. This District has the ability to effectively and efficiently manage the litigation;
           d. No party is inconvenienced by appearing in this District; and
           e. This District has the requisite experience relative to these matters as it has
               managed many similarly sized proceedings in the past.

                                     COUNT I
                    INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY ORDER
   54. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   55. Plaintiffs and several Class Members are currently involved in pending cases in the
Courts of Michigan whereby MERS has illegally foreclosed upon their real property, through
the use of the non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL
600.3201, et seq.
   56. These cases are at varying stages within the foreclosure process including to the point
where MERS, or persons acting on their direct behalf or that of MERS members, have requested


                                                 8
      Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 9 of 16


writs of eviction relative to persons living within the affected real properties, whether they be the
property owner, renter or resident of such property.
   57. Plaintiffs and Class Members request that this Court issue an injunctive order staying
any further proceedings by MERS relative to these cases as the Court of Appeals of
Michigan has ruled that such foreclosure actions are void ab initio.
   58. Without such injunctive relief, Plaintiffs, Class Members and residents of the affected
properties will suffer damages and irreparable harm.
   59. Due to the acts and omissions of MERS, and the harm that would be caused by such
continued acts and omissions, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter appropriate injunctive
relief requiring MERS, and all others working on their behalf or on the behalf of MERS
members, to cease and desist from any further activities, actions or sales pursuant to any
case, proceedings or litigation filed by MERS as a non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement
procedures as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.
   60. Plaintiffs and Class Members request an appropriate order of this Court declaring the
foreclosure actions of Defendant MERS as described herein void ab initio.


                                      COUNT II
                            FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
   61. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   62. As set forth herein, Defendant MERS did misrepresent facts, or purposely fail to
disclose material facts, in prosecution of non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement procedures as
prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.
   63. The facts misrepresented were material to the transactions at issue.
   64. Defendant MERS misrepresentations were made with knowledge of their falsity or with
such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether such representations were true or false that
knowledge may be inferred.
   65. Defendant MERS misrepresentations were made with the intent of misleading the
Plaintiffs and Class Members into relying upon them.
   66. Plaintiffs and Class Members justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations made by the
Defendant MERS to their detriment.
   67. Defendant MERS misrepresentations and omissions were wanton and reckless.




                                                 9
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                    Filed 05/09/11 Page 10 of 16


   68. Due to Defendant MERS fraud, misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class
Members have been damaged in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
($100,000,000.00).


                                             COUNT II
                                          CONVERSION
   69. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   70. Based upon information and belief, Defendant MERS and others engaged in a continual
course of conduct, pursuant to which they wrongfully dispossessed and/or disposed of the real
property of the Plaintiffs and Class Members.
   71. Defendant MERS and others converted these properties into cash which they received
through the sale of the subject real properties or by their acquiring title thereto.
   72. As a direct and proximate result of the conversions by Defendant MERS, Plaintiffs and
Class Members have suffered substantial losses, and have been damaged.
   73. Defendant MERS’ acts of conversion demonstrated and constituted actual malice against
the Plaintiffs and Class Members, in that such acts were fraudulent, willful, and/or illegal.
   74. Due to Defendant MERS acts of conversion, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been
damaged in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00).
   75. Due to Defendant MERS acts of conversion, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to
punitive damages in an amount in excess of Three Hundred Million Dollars ($300,000,000.00).


                                             COUNT III
                                             TRESPASS
   76. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   77. Through their acts and omissions Defendant MERS did trespass upon and unlawfully
interfere with Plaintiffs and Class Members rights and property.
   78. Defendant MERS trespass and invasion of Plaintiffs and Class Members rights and
property was unauthorized and illegal.
   79. Defendant MERS trespass and invasion of Plaintiffs and Class Members rights and
property was willful, wanton, reckless and malicious.
   80. Due to Defendant MERS acts of trespass, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been
damaged in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00).

                                                  10
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 11 of 16




                                           COUNT IV
                                             THEFT
   81. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   82. Defendant MERS through their acts and omissions did commit theft upon the
Plaintiffs and Class Members, whereby they fraudulently took the property of Plaintiffs and
Class Members, without their consent, intending to deprive them of the value of their
property, and to appropriate said property to their own use or that of a MERS member.
   83. Due to Defendant MERS acts of theft, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged
in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00).


                                           COUNT V
                                  WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
   84. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   85. Defendant MERS through their acts and omissions did wrongfully and illegally
foreclose upon Plaintiffs and Class Members through the means of a non-judicial foreclosure
by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.
   86. Due to Defendant MERS acts of wrongful foreclosure, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have been damaged in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00).


                                           COUNT VI
             VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
   87. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   88. Through their acts and omissions in the commission of their illegal foreclosures,
Defendant MERS did violate the Michigan Consumers Protection Act MCL 445.901 et seq.
   89. Due to Defendant MERS acts and omissions in violation of the Michigan Consumers
Protection Act MCL 445.901 et seq., Plaintiffs and Class Members seek the injunctive relief
thereunder as set forth herein.
   90. Due to Defendant MERS acts and omissions in violation of the Michigan Consumers
Protection Act MCL 445.901 et seq., Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged in an
amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00).



                                                11
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 12 of 16


   91. Due to Defendant MERS acts and omissions in violation of the Michigan Consumers
Protection Act MCL 445.901 et seq., Plaintiffs and Class Members seek all costs of this action,
including actual and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages as prescribed per statute.


                                           COUNT VII
          VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT
   92. Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   93. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “consumers” as that term is defined in the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p., as amended, (“FDCPA”).
   94. The acts and omissions of Defendant MERS involved transactions which were
primarily for personal, family or household purposes.
   95. Defendant MERS is a “debt collector” as that term is defined in the FDCPA.
   96. In the collection of a debt Defendant MERS did utilize means, methods and conduct
which served to harass, oppress and abuse Plaintiffs and Class Members.
   97. In the collection of a debt Defendant MERS did utilize means, methods and conduct
which were false, deceptive and/or misleading.
   98. In the collection of a debt Defendant MERS did threaten and utilize unlawful and
prohibited actions.
   99. In the collection of a debt Defendant MERS did utilize unfair and/or unconscionable
collections means.
   100.        In the collection of a debt Defendant MERS did fail to provide required
written notices to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
   101.        Due to Defendant MERS acts and omissions in violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p., as amended, Plaintiffs and Class Members
seek all costs of this action, including actual and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and punitive
damages as prescribed per statute.


                                          COUNT VIII
            ACTION TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURES AND QUIET TITLE
   102.        Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.




                                                12
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                   Filed 05/09/11 Page 13 of 16


    103.        Defendant MERS’ taking pursuant to foreclosures by advertisement against
Plaintiffs and Class Members was unauthorized, without right, illegal and in violation of MCL
600.3201, et seq.
    104.        Such taking by MERS, or any other party, places a cloud upon the title ownership
to the affected real property.
    105.        Due to Defendant MERS’ illegal acts and omissions which caused damage to
Plaintiffs and Class Members, this Court should enter an order voiding ab initio the foreclosures
of MERS, all attendant foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent sales of the affected real
property, and further order directing the return of the affected real property to the mortgagor
Plaintiffs and Class Members.


                                            COUNT IX
                        ACTION FOR POSSESSION/REPOSSESSION
    106.        Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
    107.        Defendant MERS’ foreclosures by advertisement against Plaintiffs and Class
Members was unauthorized, without right, illegal and in violation of MCL 600.3201, et seq.
    108.        Any title relative to the affected real property to the mortgagor Plaintiffs and
Class Members obtained by MERS, or any other party, pursuant to attendant sheriff sale is void
ab initio per the ruling of the Michigan Court of Appeals dated April 21, 2011.
    109.        Such taking by MERS, or any other party, was done by trespass and without color
of title or other possessory interest.
    110.        Due to Defendant MERS’ illegal acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class
Members are entitled to possession/repossession of the affected real property.


                                             COUNT X
                     INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSORY INTEREST
    111.        Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
    112.        Plaintiffs and Class Members had, among other rights and interests, a possessory
interest in their affected real property.
    113.        Defendant MERS did illegally and without authorization, substantially interfere
and negatively affect Plaintiffs and Class Members rights and interest in the affected real
property.

                                                 13
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 14 of 16


   114.        Pursuant to common law and MCL 600.2918, and due to Defendant MERS’
illegal acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to damages in an amount in
excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00) and possession/repossession of their
affected real property.


                                           COUNT XI
                                   UNJUST ENRICHMENT
   115.        Plaintiffs restate their foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
   116.        Defendant MERS through their acts and omissions did wrongfully and
illegally foreclose upon Plaintiffs and Class Members through the means of non-judicial
foreclosure by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL 600.3201, et seq.
   117.        Due to Defendant MERS acts of wrongful foreclosure, Defendant MERS has been
unjustly enriched through wrongful possession and the receipt of the proceeds of sale of
Plaintiffs and Class Members affected real property.
   118.        Due to Defendant MERS acts of wrongful foreclosure, Defendant MERS has been
unjustly enriched by their willful circumvention of the requisite judicial foreclosure process.
   119.        Due to Defendant MERS acts of wrongful foreclosure and their unjust
enrichment, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to restitution in an
amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00).




                                                14
     Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                Filed 05/09/11 Page 15 of 16


   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all represented Class Members,
demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration System,
Inc. as follows:

   A. For an order certifying the Class defined herein, appointing undersigned counsel as Class
       Counsel, approving Plaintiffs as Class representatives, and requiring that notice be
       provided to the Class at MERS’ expense, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
   B. As to Count I, appropriate injunctive relief requiring MERS, and all others working on
       their behalf or on the behalf of MERS members, to cease and desist from any further
       activities, actions or sales pursuant to any case, proceedings or litigation filed by
       MERS as a non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL
       600.3201, et seq.;
   C. As to Count II, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
       ($100,000,000.00) as compensatory damages along with an award in an amount in excess
       of Three Hundred Million Dollars ($300,000,000.00) as punitive damages;
   D. As to Count III, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
       ($100,000,000.00) as compensatory damages;
   E. As to Count IV, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
       ($100,000,000.00) as compensatory damages;
   F. As to Count V, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
       ($100,000,000.00) as compensatory damages;
   G. As to Count VI, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
       ($100,000,000.00) as compensatory damages along with all costs of this action, including
       actual and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages as prescribed per statute;
   H. As to Count VII, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
       ($100,000,000.00) as compensatory damages along with all costs of this action, including
       actual and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages as prescribed per statute;
   I. As to Count VIII, the entry of an order of this Court voiding ab initio the foreclosures of
       MERS, all attendant foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent sales of the affected real
       property, and further enter an additional order directing the return of the affected real
       property to the mortgagor Plaintiffs and Class Members;
   J. As to Count IX, the entry of an order of this Court directing that possession of the
       affected real property be immediately returned to Plaintiffs and Class Members;
                                               15
 Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1                  Filed 05/09/11 Page 16 of 16


K. As to Count X, the entry of an order of this Court directing that possession of the affected
   real property be immediately returned to Plaintiffs and Class Members along with an
   entry of damages in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
   ($100,000,000.00) and possession/repossession of their affected real property;
L. As to Count XI, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars
   ($100,000,000.00).
M. All costs of this action including actual and reasonable attorneys’ fees;
N. For exemplary, treble or punitive damages; and
O. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court at law or in equity.



                                          Respectfully submitted:

                                          /s/ Brain Dailey, Esq.
                                          _____________________________
                                          Brian T. Dailey (P39945)
                                          Justin G. Grove (P71253)
                                          Dailey Law Firm, P.C.
                                          28000 Woodward, Suite 201
                                          Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
                                          Phone: (248) 744-5005
                                          Facsimile: (248) 744-4440
                                          Email: brian@daileylawyers.com
                                                 justin@daileylawyers.com

                                          Thomas D. Pigott (Ohio 0062919)
                                          Pigott, Ltd.
                                          2620 N. Centennial Road, Unit H
                                          Toledo, Ohio 43617
                                          Phone: (419) 776-4567
                                          Facsimile: (419) 776-4568
                                          Email: tpigott@pigottlaw.com

                                                 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Class Members


                                        JURY DEMAND

   Plaintiffs and Class Members respectfully request a trial by jury of all claims herein.

                                          /s/ Brain Dailey, Esq.
                                          _____________________________
                                          Brain Dailey, Esq.

                                            16
                         Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1-1
  JS 44 (Rev. 12/07)
                                                                                         Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 _______________________
                                                                        CIVIL COVER SHEET County in which action arose of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS                                                                                       DEFENDANTS
        MARLYA DEPAUW and SHARON & TERRANCE LAFRANCE                                                     MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.


                                                                 OAKLAND                                                                                                  NEW CASTLE
   (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff                                                    County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
                             (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)                                                                           (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
                                                                                                                NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
                                                                                                                       LAND INVOLVED.

   (c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)                                             Attorneys (If Known)
      Dailey Law Firm 28000 Woodward, Suite 201                                                                  UNKNOWN
      Royal Oak, MI 48067 248-177-5005
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION                        (Place an “X” in One Box Only)              III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
                                                                                                     (For Diversity Cases Only)                                        and One Box for Defendant)
  1    U.S. Government                3 Federal Question                                                                      PTF         DEF                                         PTF      DEF
         Plaintiff                        (U.S. Government Not a Party)                         Citizen of This State         XX 1           1    Incorporated or Principal Place          4      4
                                                                                                                                                  of Business In This State

  2    U.S. Government
                                   XX 4    Diversity                                            Citizen of Another State            2      XX 2   Incorporated and Principal Place         5
                                                                                                                                                                                                XX5
         Defendant                                                                                                                                   of Business In Another State
                                             (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
                                                                                                Citizen or Subject of a             3         3   Foreign Nation                           6       6
                                                                                                  Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT                 (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
         CONTRACT                                         TORTS                                   FORFEITURE/PENALTY                        BANKRUPTCY                      OTHER STATUTES
  110 Insurance                    PERSONAL INJURY                   PERSONAL INJURY               610 Agriculture                      422 Appeal 28 USC 158            400 State Reapportionment
  120 Marine                        310 Airplane                      362 Personal Injury -        620 Other Food & Drug                423 Withdrawal                   410 Antitrust
  130 Miller Act                    315 Airplane Product                  Med. Malpractice         625 Drug Related Seizure                 28 USC 157                   430 Banks and Banking
  140 Negotiable Instrument             Liability                    365 Personal Injury -             of Property 21 USC 881                                            450 Commerce
  150 Recovery of Overpayment       320 Assault, Libel &                  Product Liability        630 Liquor Laws                      PROPERTY RIGHTS                  460 Deportation
     & Enforcement of Judgment          Slander                      368 Asbestos Personal         640 R.R. & Truck                     820 Copyrights                   470 Racketeer Influenced and
  151 Medicare Act                  330 Federal Employers’                Injury Product           650 Airline Regs.                    830 Patent                           Corrupt Organizations
  152 Recovery of Defaulted             Liability                         Liability                660 Occupational                     840 Trademark                    480 Consumer Credit
      Student Loans                 340 Marine                     PERSONAL PROPERTY                   Safety/Health                                                     490 Cable/Sat TV
      (Excl. Veterans)              345 Marine Product            XX 370 Other Fraud               690 Other                                                             810 Selective Service
  153 Recovery of Overpayment           Liability                    371 Truth in Lending                    LABOR                      SOCIAL SECURITY                  850 Securities/Commodities/
      of Veteran’s Benefits         350 Motor Vehicle                380 Other Personal            710 Fair Labor Standards             861 HIA (1395ff)                     Exchange
  160 Stockholders’ Suits           355 Motor Vehicle                    Property Damage               Act                              862 Black Lung (923)             875 Customer Challenge
  190 Other Contract                    Product Liability            385 Property Damage           720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations            863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))               12 USC 3410
  195 Contract Product Liability    360 Other Personal                   Product Liability         730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting             864 SSID Title XVI               890 Other Statutory Actions
  196 Franchise                         Injury                                                        & Disclosure Act                  865 RSI (405(g))                 891 Agricultural Acts
     REAL PROPERTY                    CIVIL RIGHTS                 PRISONER PETITIONS              740 Railway Labor Act                FEDERAL TAX SUITS                892 Economic Stabilization Act
  210 Land Condemnation             441 Voting                       510 Motions to Vacate         790 Other Labor Litigation           870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff        893 Environmental Matters
  220 Foreclosure                   442 Employment                       Sentence                  791 Empl. Ret. Inc.                       or Defendant)               894 Energy Allocation Act
  230 Rent Lease & Ejectment        443 Housing/                     Habeas Corpus:                    Security Act                     871 IRS—Third Party              895 Freedom of Information
  240 Torts to Land                    Accommodations                530 General                                                            26 USC 7609                      Act
  245 Tort Product Liability        444 Welfare                      535 Death Penalty                 IMMIGRATION                                                       900Appeal of Fee Determination
  290 All Other Real Property       445 Amer. w/Disabilities -       540 Mandamus & Other          462 Naturalization Application                                            Under Equal Access
                                       Employment                    550 Civil Rights              463 Habeas Corpus -                                                       to Justice
                                    446 Amer. w/Disabilities -       555 Prison Condition             Alien Detainee                                                     950 Constitutionality of
                                       Other                                                       465 Other Immigration                                                     State Statutes
                                    440 Other Civil Rights                                            Actions




V. ORIGIN                (Place an “X” in One Box Only)                                                                                                                              Appeal to District
XX Original
 1                        2 Removed from                    3 Remanded from                   4 Reinstated or             5 Transferred from         6 Multidistrict           7 Judge from
       Proceeding            State Court                     Appellate Court              Reopened                          another district
                                                                                                                                           Litigation                            Magistrate
                                                                                                                (specify)                                                            Judgment
                                      Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
                                       28 U.S.C. SEction 1332 and 1391
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
                      Action for Injunctive relief, fraud, trespass and conversion (among other claims)
VII. REQUESTED IN     XXCHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION                                            DEMAND $ 100,000,000.00 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
     COMPLAINT:          UNDER F.R.C.P. 23                                                                                 JURY DEMAND:         XXYes       No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
                       (See instructions):
      IF ANY                               JUDGE                                                                                        DOCKET NUMBER

DATE                                                                  SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
  5/9/2011                                                           /s/ Brain T. Dailey (P39945)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

 RECEIPT #                    AMOUNT                                     APPLYING IFP                                     JUDGE                          MAG. JUDGE
                 Case 2:11-cv-12032-RHC-RSW Document 1-1              Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 2
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11
1.               Is this a case that has been previously dismissed?                           Yes
                                                                                         XX
                                                                                              No
     If yes, give the following information:

     Court:

     Case No.:

     Judge:



2.               Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously
                 discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other               Yes
                 court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which     XX   No
                 it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same
                 or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same
                 transaction or occurrence.)

     If yes, give the following information:

     Court:

     Case No.:

     Judge:


Notes :

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:7/21/2013
language:Unknown
pages:18
jny jhtw jny jhtw
About