SG Mortgage/U.S. Bank National Associates, Et Al

March 3, 2008

To Respondents: Christine Murphy, Harmon Law Offices, SG Mortgage/U.S. Bank National Associates, et al. Re: Muckle/Wood v. Fremont, et al

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE ADDITIONAL LAWSUIT

Dear Madam/Sir,

This letter is to serve as a “Notice of Intent to File Additional Lawsuits” against the above named

Respondents, including attorney Christine Murphy and Harmon Law Offices, for violation of the

Federal Trade Commission Act and its state counter-part MGLc 93A, in the event that any action is taken to foreclose on and/or sell the plaintiff’s family home. As reasons herein, the homeowner states the following:

1. The Respondents have no legal rights to either foreclose on, or sell the property because

of a “legal and binding” contract agreement between the Respondent SG Mortgage and

Fremont Investment & Loan regarding the sale/transfer of the plaintiff’s home mortgage

2. On July 13, 2006, the Respondent SG Mortgage, “The Purchaser”, and Fremont Invest-

ment & Loan, “The Responsible Party”, entered into a legal and binding “Loan Purchase

1 Agreement” contract regarding the sale/transfer of a pool of residential mortgages called,

2006-Fre2

3. The Residence of Irene Wood and Paul L. Muckle are included in that 2006-Fre2 series.

4. The Respondents are attempting to foreclose on, or sell the plaintiff’s residence due to a

default in the mortgage payments.

5. Due to the gross and intentional violation of several federal and state lending laws, in-

cluding TILA, the FDIC, RESPA, the FTCA, MGLc, 93A, and the state Predatory Lend-

ing Law, MGLc 183C, perpetrated by the Responsible Party, Fremont, during the origina-

tion and consummation of the plaintiff’s loan, the Respondents cannot legally foreclose

on or sell the plaintiff’s property.

6. Put more specifically, the terms of the contract agreement between Fremont, “The Re-

sponsible Party” and SG Mortgage, “The Purchaser”, states; Section 6 . Representa-

tions and Warrantees of the Responsible Party. “The Responsible Party hereby repre-

sents and warrants to the seller and the purchaser that, as to each Mortgage Loan, as of

the cut-off-date or such other date specified below:

i) Any and all requirement of any federal, state or local law including, without limitation, usury, truth in lending, real estate settlement procedures, consumer credit protection, equal credit opportunity, fair housing or disclosure laws and all predatory and abusive lending laws applicable to the origination and servicing of the Mortgage Loans have been complied with and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not involve the violation of any such laws, and the Responsible Party shall maintain in its possession, available for the inspection of the purchaser or its designee, and shall deliver to the Purchaser or its designee, as soon as practicable, but no more than five days after, evidence of compliance with such requirements;

2 7. From the initial filing of the lawsuit in the federal court to the filing of the Final Amend-

ed Complaint, the plaintiffs have submitted several pieces of evidence, the mortgage files,

which clearly shows that the Responsible Party, Fremont, has consistently, at all times,

grossly and intentionally violated the federal and state lending laws outlined in Section 6

(i) of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, between it and SG Mortgage.

8. Despite the irrefutable evidence that Fremont, the Responsible Party has BREACHED

the terms of the agreement between itself and SG Mortgage, and that the breach has been

brought to attention of the Respondents, the Respondents, including attorney Christine

Murphy and Harmon Law Offices, are still determine to ignore the Responsible Party’s

breach and foreclose on the plaintiff’s family home.

9. In Section 6 (kk) of Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, Fremont the Responsible Par-

ty represents and warrants;

Section 6 (kk ) There was no fraud or misrepresentation involved in the originate of the Mortgage Loan by the Responsible Party, the Mortgagor or any appraiser involved in the origination of the Mortgage Loan. The documents, instruments and agree- ments submitted for loan underwriting were not falsified. The Responsible Party has re- viewed all the documents constituting the Servicing File and has made such inquiries as it deems necessary to make and confirm the accuracy of the representations set forth herein and neither the Responsible Party nor any Affiliate has made any representation to a Mortgagor that are inconsistent with the mortgage instruments used;

10.Throughout the proceedings of the lawsuit and in the plaintiff’s “Final Amended Com-

plaint”, the plaintiff pointed out and submitted irrefutable evidence that the Responsible

Party, Fremont, has BREACHED the terms in Section 6 (kk) of the Mortgage Loan

Purchase Agreement. For instance, the plaintiff has submitted the original loan applica-

3 tion that had clearly been falsified by the Responsible Party and/or its affiliates. The

original loan application shows that the borrower, Irene Wood, a 60 year old sin-

gle woman, worked for a painting and carpentry company and had a monthly income of

$8,643, huh!. Clearly, there can be no doubt that the loan application had been falsified.

The plaintiff submitted evidence that Irene Wood is, and was a retired woman at the time

of the origination of the loan and that she had a “verifiable” monthly income of only

$435 in social security benefits. The borrower’s income had been fraudulently inflated by

$8, 208. Furthermore, the plaintiff pointed out that the signatures on the loan applications

are NOT the signature of Irene Wood and that they had been forged. But it did not end

there, the plaintiff also pointed out that even though the loan applications had been faxed

from the broker to Fremont on April 24, 2006, those applications were signed and dated

two days later on April 26, 2006; irrefutable proof that “underwriting” was in on the

fraud and falsifications.

11.However, despite the fact that the Purchaser, SG Mortgage and its attorneys, Christine

Murphy and Harmon Law Offices, are fully aware of the Fraud, and the BREACH of

contract by the Responsible Party, the Respondents are still focused on foreclosing on

and selling the plaintiff’s family home.

12.There is more. Section 6 (vv) of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, Fremont, the

Responsible Party represents;

Section 6 (vv). No predatory, abusive, or deceptive lending practices, including

but not limited to, extension of credit to a mortgagor without regard for the mortgagor’s

ability to repay the Mortgage Loan, and extension of credit to a mortgagor which has no

4 apparent benefit to the mortgagor, were employed in connection with the origination of the Mortgage Loan.

13. Throughout the proceedings of the lawsuit and the plaintiff’s Final Amended Com-

plaint, the plaintiff submitted evidence and pointed out that, (a), the APR of the loan

had been drastically understated, (b) finance charge of the loan had been grossly and

intentionally understated by $176,372.70, and (c) that the Responsible Party, Fre-

mont, falsely disclosed to the borrower that the fully indexed payment of the loan is

330 payments of $2,669.37, when in fact, when the payments are calculated in accor-

dance with the Promissory Note, the actual payments are 330 payments of

$3,232.36, an understatement of $562.99 a month after the interest rate is adjusted.

14. Despite that irrefutable evidence of mortgage fraud and predatory lending by the Re-

sponsible Party, the respondent SG Mortgage and its attorneys, Christine Murphy and

Harmon Law Offices are still insistent on foreclosing on the plaintiff’s family home

and selling it.

15. Section 6 ( lll) of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, states, “The methodol-

ogy used in underwriting and extension of credit for each Mortgage Loan employs

objective mathematical principles which relate to the Mortgagor’s income, assets and

liabilities to the proposed payment and such underwriting methodology does not rely

on the extent of the Mortgagor’s equity in the collateral as the principal determining

factor in approving such credit extension. Such underwriting methodology con-

firmed that at the time of origination (application/approval) the mortgagor had a rea-

sonable ability to make timely payments on the Mortgage Loan.

5 16. As stated previously, the Plaintiff has pointed out that the borrower’s verified income

was only $435, in Social Security Benefits. And even though the Respondents are

aware of that fact of the falsification of the borrower’s income, the Respondents are

still requiring that the plaintiff pay a monthly mortgage payment of over $2,064.96

per month. The Respondents cannot rely on plaintiff’s Muckle’s income because the

Responsible Party also removed Muckle’s name from the loan applications.

17. Section 6 (aaaa) of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement states, “ No Mortgage

Loan is a “High Cost Mortgage Loan” as defined in the Massachusetts Predatory

Home Loan Act, effective November 7, 2004 ( Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183C),

18. In the plaintiff’s Final Amended Complaint, the plaintiff has submitted proof that the

loan is a “High Cost Home Mortgage Loan” within the meaning of MGLc 183C and

that the Responsible Party has grossly violated every provision of MGLc 183C in the

origination of the loan.

19. The violations of the federal and state lending laws will have an adverse impact on

the mortgage loan in question and will have an effect on the Purchaser’s ability to col-

lect on the loan as the terms of the note states.

20. Section 7 Repurchase Obligation for “Defective Documentation” and for Breach of

Representations and Warranty of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, states “…

Upon discovery by the Seller, the Purchaser, or any assignee, transferee, or designee

of the Purchaser of a BREACH of any of the representations and warranties in Sec-

tion 5 (c) or 6 that materially and adversely affects the value of any Mortgage Loan or

the interest therein of Purchaser or the Purchaser’s assignee, transferee or designee,

6 the party discovering such breach shall give prompt written notice to the Responsible

Party, (Fremont) and the Seller.

21. Section 7, of the agreement goes on to state that the Responsible Party “MUST cure

the breach in ALL MATERIAL RESPECT. If the breach cannot be cured, within 90

days after the discovery, the Responsible Party is obligated to either repurchase the

Mortgage Loan or substitute the affected loan with another one. The affected loan

must then be deleted from the Agreement and given back to the Responsible Par-

22. Even though the Respondent SG Mortgage and the Responsible Party have an Agree-

ment in writing, and that the Agreement is legal and binding, the Respondent and it

attorneys, Christine Murphy and Harmon Law Offices are still engaging in an effort

to foreclose on and sell the Plaintiff’s family home.

23. In light of the notifications to the Respondents that the Responsible Party, Fremont,

has grossly misrepresented the representations and warranty of the Mortgage Loan

Purchase Agreement, and that the misrepresentations constitute a BREACH of the

Agreement, the actions by the Respondents and its named attorneys are still to en-

gaged in the unfair and deceptive practices of attempting to foreclose on the loan and

deprive the plaintiff of their property, even though they are fully aware that the Re-

sponsible Party has Breached the terms of the Agreement between them.

24. Instead of enforcing the Agreement with the Responsible Party, that the Responsible

Party cure the BREACH by Repurchasing or substituting the affected mortgage, the

7 Respondents and its named attorneys have instead chosen to engage in the unfair and

deceptive practices of depriving the plaintiff of their family home.

25. Even though the Respondents stand to gain more financially by enforcing the Agree-

ment with the Responsible Party for Breach of contract, the Respondents have instead

chosen to engage in the unfair and deceptive practice of wrongfully depriving the

plaintiffs of their family home.

26. The unfair and deceptive practices of the named Respondents and their attorneys lend

credence to my claim that the Respondents were more deeply involved in the origina-

tion and consummation of the plaintiff’s home mortgage loan than meets the eyes; the

Responsible Party, The Seller, The Purchaser, and The Servicer are working for the

very same entity.

27. The action of the Respondents in the unfair and deceptive practices of attempting to

wrongfully deprive the plaintiffs of their family home instead of enforcing the terms

of the Agreement with the Responsible Party, Fremont, is proof that the Respondents

“hands are not clean” in the origination and consummation of the plaintiffs’ home

mortgage loan, therefore the Purchaser cannot claim innocence to the crime.

28. Though the attorneys Christine Murphy and Harmon Law Offices would be carrying

out the wishes of their client by foreclosing on and selling the plaintiff’s property, the

attorneys have a DUTY to not carry out the unfair and deceptive practices of their

client.

29. The attorneys are aware that the actions of their client to foreclose on the plaintiffs’

property violates federal and state lending and/or consumer protection laws and the

8 terms of the Agreement between the Responsible Party and its client, therefore, the

attorneys have a DUTY to set its face against taking any collective actions against the

homeowner.

30. If the attorneys for the Respondent/Purchaser, knowing that the Responsible Party has

Breached the representations and warranty of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agree-

ment, yet still carries out the unfair and deceptive practices of the Purchaser to fore-

close on and sell the property affected, the attorneys themselves are in violation of the

federal and state lending and consumer protection laws and are also liable for treble

damages and disciplinary actions.

31. If the attorneys, Christine Murphy and Harmon Law Offices take any further action to

foreclose on or to take any type of collective action against the plaintiff’s mortgage

loan, the plaintiffs will file damage claims against the named attorneys for unfair and

deceptive practices and for violation other federal and state ethics laws.

32. The plaintiff intends to seek punitive damages.

33. The Plaintiff is aware that Judge Woodlock have given the okay to foreclose on the

property if the plaintiff does not pay a security bond, however, in light of the terms of

the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, the judge does not have the discretion nor

the authority to override the terms of the Agreement.

34. The terms of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement overrides any ORDER by the

court to foreclose on the loan unless the court has determined that there are no

BREACH of the representations and warranty by the Responsible party, and the court

9 has not made any such determination, therefore the court has no discretion nor author-

ity in allowing the Defendants to foreclose on the loan.

35. The Respondents are better served to not take any comfort in the court’s clearly erro-

neous and reversible ORDER, it will not shield them from liability.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul L. Muckle