Bank of New York Mellon v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 20

NOTICE by Bank of New York Mellon re 18 Order on Stipulation for Filing Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B Part 1 of 3, # 3 Exhibit B Part 2 of 3, # 4 Exhibit B Part 3 of 3)(Pollock, Bronwyn) (Filed on 8/26/2013)

EXHIBIT B, Part 1of 3

EXHIBIT B

5

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filed)9l22lt3 Pagel'I ot 47

1

MAYERBROWNLLP
DONALD M. FALK (SBN 150256)

2

d fa I k@,m av e r b r ow n. c o m

3

4

Two Falo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

5

6

MAYERBROWN LLP
BRONWYN F. POLLOCK (SBN 210912)
b p o I I o c k(ò.m

'7

I
9
10

av e r br own. c om
¡SO S. Cãna Áve., 25th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attomeys for Plaintiffs
THE BANK OFNEW YORK MELLON and THE
BANK OFNEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.4., as Trustees

11

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
T2
13
T4
15

It)
17
18
19

20
21

22

UNITED STÀTES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (f7kla
The Bank of New Yorþ and THE BANK OF
NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY,
N.A. (f/k/a The Bank of New York Trust
Company, N.A.), as Trustees, on behalf of the
Trusts listed in Exhibit A; U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, on
behalf ofthe T¡usts iisted in Exhibit B; and
WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY and
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustees, on behaif of the
Trusts listed in Exhibit C

Case

No.

3 : 1 3-cv-3664-JCS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY ANI)

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs,

23

24
25

)6
27

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, A
municipality; RICHMOND CITY COIINCIL;
MORTGAGE RESOLUTION PARTNERS
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company;
and GORDIAN SWORD LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company;
Defendants.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPI-AINT FOR DECI,ARATORY AND INJUNCTIVI] RELIEF

c^sE No. l3-cv-3664-JCS

6

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filed08l22l13 Pagel-z ot 47

1

Plaintiffs allege as follows based on information and belief:

INTRODUCTION

2
3

4

1.
2.

This is a case about the misuse ofpublic power for private benefit.

Following a scheme devised by a mortgage investment firm that stands to profit

5

handsomely from the deal, the City of Richmond (the "City") has made clear that it imminently

6

plans to seize residential mortgages-mortgages that are cuaent on their

'7

discounts and then refinance the properties at reduced loan values. The borrowers would retain

I

their homes with a lower debt load. The City and the investment firm each would receive certain

9

fees generated by the refinancing tralsactions, a¡d then the

fim

payments-at

and its investors would

deep

profit

10

from reselling federally guaranteed loans. And the trusts and their investors, including pension

11

funds and other institutional investors, who held cunent, performing loans that had financed the

12

purchase of homes in the City would be left holding the bag, losing tens of millions of dollars

13

loan principal.

I4

3.

in

The contemplated use of the eminent domain power in this seizure and refinance

15

scheme violates the constitutions of both the United States and California, along

16

Califomia statutes.

17

4.

with several

Plaintiffs The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust

18

Company, N.4., U.S. Bank National Association, Wilmington Trust Company, and Wilmington

19

Trust, National Association are the Trustees of certain trusts that were created to hold residentiai

20

mortgage loans (collectively, the "Trusts"). The Trusts subject to this action for which The Bank

21

of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.4., U S. Bank National

22

Association, Wilmington Trust Company, and Wilmington Trust, National Association are

23

Trustee are listed respectiveiy in Exhibits A, B and C hereto. The Trusts' beneficiaries include

24

both municipal and private pension plans, 401(k) plans, mutual funds, and other investors.

25

5.

Defendants City and Modgage Resolution Partners L.L C. ("MRP') have entered

26

into an agreement, pursuant to which they will use the City's eminent domain power to seize

27

performing debt instruments-which are not located ìn Rìchmond and are held by out-of-state

28

trusts-at deeply discounted prices. Defendants would then profit by refinancing

and

2
SECOND AMENDED COMPI,AINT FOR DECLARATORY ANI) INJUI\CTIVE RELIE}CASE NO. I3-CV-3664-JCS

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 FiledO9l22l13 Page13 of 47

1

resecuritizing those loans, while paying fees to MRP and to the City. MRP's investors-whose

2

funds will be used to acquire the

3

seizure program is referred to herein as the "Seizure Program."

4

6.

loans-will reap substantial profits. Defendants' mortgage loan

Defendants attempt to

justiÍ! the Seizure Program

as one that

will help

5

homeowners and communities in Richmond that are struggling with foreclosures, but the Seizure

6

Program actually targets performing loans and does nothing to help homeowners in foreclosure.

'7

These loans, which have survived the recession and housing crisis intact, are the ones for which

8

seizue will be most valuable to MRP's investors but least likely to generate any public benefit.

9

Even if the City did intend to take high-risk loans, the Seizure Program still could not create any

10

public benefit, because the Trusts' servicers already can and do forgive principal where doing so

i1

would make the loan more valuable, by reducing the risk of default enough to justifr the loss of

12

principal.

13

7.

The Seizure Program is unlawfui and unconstitutional and violates numerous

14

federal, state and local laws, including the City's own Charter. Nevertheless, in connection with

15

its agreement with MRP, the Cify intends to employ the Seizure Program and has taken

16

substantial steps in its furtherance.

17

8.

Defendants have already selected over 230 mortgage loans that they wish to seize

18

from the Trusts. The City has nominally offered to "purchase" the loans on behalf of MRP. The

19

offers, however, are not in good faith: Defenda¡ts' valuation method is designed to produce

20

values that are far below any reasonable level because they give no value to homeowners' steady

21

payment record. And MRP has stated publiciy that federal law precludes the Trusts from selling

22

the loans through the voluntary purchase proposal offered by Defendants.

/.t

9.

The low offers are no accident, nor are they the beginning ofa constructive

24

negotiation. Defendants cannot simply purchase the loans consensually from their owners

25

the Trusts), because the Seizure Program does not work if the City actually pays fair value.

l6

MRP and its investors do not plan to hold the loans for the long-term and collect principal and

27

interest from borrowers. The Seizure Program is pure financial engineering. MRP and its

28

investors, with the critical assistance of City's purported power of eminent domain, intend to
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPI.AINT FOR DECLARAI'ORY ,A.ND INJUNCTIVE REI,IÈF
cASU NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

(1.

e.,

ð

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledO\l22lt3 Pagel- oÍ 47

I

take the loans for a fraction

2

oftheir value

and then

flip them, reselling them in a new

securitization.

J

10.

Defendants do not plan to do anything to enhance the value ofthe mortgaged

4

properties, to bear market risk, or to work with borrowers to improve their ability to pay. In fact,

5

the only modification that they plan is to write off mrsch of each loan's balance before acquiring

6

the loans.

7

11.

The Seizure Program purportedly is intended to assist homeowners at risk

of

I

defaulting on their mortgage loans and thereby somehow avoid urban blight. But the design and

9

implementation of the Seizure Program show that the rationale is a pretext. The Seizure Program

10

actually is intended to generate significant sums for MRP and its investors, with payments to the

11

City in exchange for the use of its eminent domain powers. The Seizure Program also generates

t2

private benefits for the homeowners who are selected for

13

12.

it'

Many of the Tlusts' existing guidelines and practices, implemented by the

74

servicers, of modiS'ing loans is fufher proof that undercompensation, not modification, is the

15

source of the Seizure Program's

16

ability to enhance their value through modification. There is no indication that MRP, which

T7

describes itself as a "community advisory

18

Indeed, the blanket modifications that Defendants plan are unlikely to increase the price ofthe

19

loans in a resale. For example, while it is sometimes possible to increase a loan's value with a

20

carefully considered modification, it rarely makes sense to reduce the loan balance when the

21

boüower is making the existing, agreed payments. Nor is it often the case that a loan will be

22

more valuabie if its principal is reduced below the value of the house. That MRP expects to

23

profit nonetheless demonstrates that undercompensation of the Trusts is an essential element of

24

the Seizure Program.

25

13.

profit.

The true value

ofthe loans already reflects the Trusts'

firm," will be

as

qualified as experienced servicers.

There are numerous reasons that this scheme is unconstitutional. As outlined

if

the Trusts receive fair

26

above, the Seizure Program cannot be successful on its own terms

27

market value. Thus, this case is more than a dispute about valuation of individual loans. The

28

takings also are manifestly not for public use-indeed, the Seizure Program specifically carves
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECL,ARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

v

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filedogl22l13 PageL5 of 47

1

out loans whose modification might avoid foreclosure, in apparent recognition that many Trusts

2

already can conduct such modifications. Further, the Seizure Program involves the taking

J

loans that are located outside

4

power.

5

14.

ofthe City's limits and therefore

of

are beyond its eminent domain

The Seizure Program violates other provisions ofthe U.S. and Califomia

6

Constitutions as well. By coercing transactions across state lines and threatening massive

7

disruption to the national mortgage lending and securitization markets, it conflicts with federal

8

power under the Commerce Clause. It also runs afoul ofthe Contracts Clause, which bars States

9

and their political subdivisions like the City from

modiffing private contracts. In fact, the

10

Seizure Program is a paradigmatic example ofthe types ofmisconduct that each Clause was

11

intended to prevent. The City seeks to abrogate debts that its citizens owe to out-oÊtown entities

t2

and permit a local speculator to reap the proflts.

13

15.

Already, the federal govemment has expressed its concems about the

t4

unconstitutional nature ofthe Seizure Program and the federal interest in avoiding havoc to

15

mortgage lending nationwide. In a public statement dated August 9,2012, the Federal Housing

tô

Finance Administration ("FHFA"), the conservato¡ of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two

17

Govemment-Sponsored Entetprises ("GSEs") that are among the largest investors in residential-

18

mortgage backed securitization ('RMBS') trusts), stated that "FHFA has significant concems

19

about the use of eminent domain to revise existing financial contracts" and that "resulting losses

20

from such a program would represent a cost ultimately borne by taxpayers" and would have "a

21

chilling effect on the extension of credit to borrowers seeking to become homeowners and on

22

investors that support the housing market." 77 Fed. Reg. 47,652 (AttgusT 9, 2012). FHFA noted

23

that "[a]mong questions raised regarding the proposed use of eminent domain are the

1À

constitutionality of such use," "the effects on holders of existing securities," "the impact on

25

millions of negotiated and performing mortgage contracts," and "critical issues surrounding the

26

valuation by local govemments of complex contractual arrangements tÏat are traded in national

27

and intemational markets." 1d

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

IU

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filedogl22lL3 PageL6 of 47

1

16.

As stated, the targeted loans are out-oÈRichmond interests, held by ouGoÊ

2

Richmond entities. Neveftheless, as an altemative, and to the extent that loans targeted by the

.)

Seizure Program may be considered local interests (they are not), the Seizure Program also

4

violates the Califomia Constitution, which, as amended by voter proposition in 2008, expressly

5

prohibits local govemments from using eminent domain to seize owner-occupied residences for

6

the purpose of conveying

7

alternative basis, the Seizure Program is unlawful if the targeted mortgage loans constitute

8

interests in real property that are secured exclusively by owner-occupied residences and are

9

conveyed to private persons.

10

17.

itto

a private

person. Cal. Const. art. I, $ 19(b). Specifically,

as an

Injunctive and declaratory reliefis necessary to avoid imminent and irreversible

11

harm, not only to the Trusts but to the national economy. The City intends to use Califomia's

t2

"quick take" procedure, which allows it to condemn proþerty first and ask the courts to

13

determine fair compensation second. Once each loan is taken, MRP will destroy it through

t4

refinancing; a new loan would then be imposed on each borrower, and those new loans would be

15

hastily sold to other investors. Ifthe Seizure Program is found urconstitutional afterwards, that

t6

egg may prove impossible to unscramble, and certainly not without harming innocent

t'7

homeorvners and investors. Moreover, because of the design of the Seizure Program, the

18

compensable losses to the Trusts

t9

ability to pay. MRP is indemnifuing the City for these costs, but its financial resources are

20

unknown.

21

18.

will

be far greater than the City realizes and may exceed its

Moreover, several other municipalities-including NoÍh Las Vegas, Nevada; El

22

Monte, Califomia; La Puente, California; Orange Cove, Califomia; Pomona, Califomia; and San

23

Joaquin, Califomia-have entered into agreements with MRP. Litigating each taking

a/l

individually in state court while waiting for definitive guidance on federal constitutional issues

25

would be wasteful and protracted and lead to years ofuncefaìnty.

26

2l

19.

The Seizure Program is a scheme that should be nipped in the bud. That is why

Plaintiffs seek immediate relief from this Court.

28
6
SECOND AMENDED COMPI,AINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REI-IEF
CASI1 NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

ll

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filed)Bl22lt3 PageIT oI 47

THE PARTIES

1

2
3

A.
20.

Plaintiffs
Plaintiff The Bank of New York Mellon

(f,4</a The Bank of

New Yorþ is a bank

4

organized under the laws of the State ofNew York and having its principal place ofbusiness at

5

one wall street, New York, New York 10286. The Bank of New York Mellon serves as Trustee

6

for Trusts listed on Exhibit A hereto that hold morlgage loans targeted by the seizure Program.

7

21.

Plaintiff The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (f,/k/a The Bank of

8

New York Trust Company, N.A.) is a national banking association formed under the laws of the

9

United States of America and having its principle place ofbusiness at 400 South Hope St , Ste

10

400, Los Angeles, Califomia 90071 (together with The Bank of New York Mellon, "BNY

11

Mellon Trustees"). The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company serves as Trustee for Trusts

12

listed on Exhibit A hereto that hold mortgage loans targeted by the Seizure Program.

13

22.

Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association is a national bank with its principal place

t4

of business at 800 Nicollet Ma1l, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. U.S. Bank National

15

Association sefves as Trustee for Trusts listed on Exhibit B hereto that hold mortgage loans

16

targeted by the Seizure Program.

17

23.

Plaintiff Wilmington Trust Company is a Delaware trust company with its

18

principal place of business at 1100 NoÍh Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890. Plaintiff

t9

Wilmington Trust, National Association is a national banking association with its principal place

20

of business at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890' Wilmington Trust

21

Company and Wilmington Trust, National Association (collectively, "Wilmington Trust") serve

22

as Trustee

23

Program.

24
25
26

for Trusts listed on Exhibit C hereto that hold mortgage loans targeted by the Seizure

24.

The beneficial owners ofthe Trusts include municìpal and private pension p1ans,

401(k) plans, mutual funds, and other investors.

25.

As the first phase ofthe Seizure Program, the City sent out letters to

27

approximately 32 trustees and serwicers of RMBS trusts offering to purchase approximately 624

28

loans. The Mayor of fuchmond publicly indicated that this was only the "fìrst batch" of loans
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLAR,ATORY AND INJI]NCTIVE REI.IEF

cAsll No. 13-cv-3664-JCS

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filed08l22l13 Page18 of 47

1

and that she hopes to expand the Program. Plaintiffs each received a letter from the City dated

2

July 31,2013 demanding to purchase a total of more than 230 loans from the Trusts. Attached

3

hereto as Exhibits D, E and F are true and correct copies ofthe City's letters addressed

4

respectively to the BNY Mellon Trustees, U.S. Bank National Association and "Wells

5

Fargo/lVilmington Trust."l

6

26.

None of the Trusts is incorporated in Califomia or otherwise organized under the

7

laws of Califomia. All, or nearly all, of the Trusts are organized under New Yo¡k common law

8

or Delaware law.

9

27.

The physicai notes and other documents evidencing the mortgage loans that

10

Defendants intend to seize all are valid and binding, and located outside ofthe territorial

11

boundaries of the City.

12
13

14
15
16

28.
B.
29.

The beneficiaries ofthe Trusts are located across the country and the world.

Defeidants
Defendant MRP is a limited liability company organized and existing under the

laws of Deiaware, and it is headquartered in San Francisco, Califomia.

30.

MRP is a privately-owned, for-profit company that will manage and facilìtate the

t7

loan restructuring process of the Seizure Program, including (a) raising frmds to finance the

18

seizures; (b) identifring mortgage loans to be acquired by eminent domain; and (c) arranging for

19

the loan ¡efinancing. MRP will receive a $4,500 fee for each loan seized and refinanced. In

20

addition, MRP's investors would receive the profit between the seizure price and price at which

21

the new loan to the homeowner is sold, net of MRP's fee, the City's fee, and any expenses

22

incurred by MRP. MRP has no other business operations.

23

3

1

.

Defendant Gordian Sword LLC is a limited liability company organized and

a¡

existing under the laws of Delaware, and it is headquartered in San Francisco, Califomia. It was

25

established to create the Seizure Program and is the managing member that controls and directs

26

The City' s letter addressed to Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association mistakenly omitted
"Attachment 8," which was described in the letter as setting forth the amount offered for each of
the relevant mortgage loans. After repeated requests, U.S. Bank National Association received a
copy of "Attachment B" on August 15,2013, and has incorporated that "Attachment B" into the
version of the City's letter appended hereto as Exhibit E.

27
28

8

SECoND ,{MENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY -/\ND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
cAsE NO. l3-CV-36ó4-JCS

IJ

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledOgl22lL3 Page19 of 47

1

MRP. The name Gordian Sword is an apparent reference to the Gordian Knot,

2

metaphor for an intractable problem that is solved easily by cheating (1.e,, cutting the knot).

32.

3

a legend and

On or about 4pri12,201.3, the City, through its City Council and upon the

4

recommendation of its City Manager, voted to enter into an "Advisory Services Agreement" with

5

MRP, rurder which MRP would provide contractual services to the City regarding, among ôther

6

things, mortgage relief for

7

through eminent domain. It is not clear whether this is the only written agreement between the

8

City and MRP or if there are other undisclosed oral or written agreements between them.

33.

9
10

Cþ

homeowners and the acquisition of existing morlgage loans

Defendant City, a municipality, is located in Contra Costa County in the State

of

Califomia, with the territorial boundaries descrìbed in A¡ticle I, section 2 of the City's Chafier.

34.

11

Defendant Richmond City Council (the "City Council") is the City's goveming

T2

body. Defendant City Council is the goveming body with legal responsibility for making

13

decisions with respect to the City's exercise of its eminent domain powers.

JUR]SDICTION AND VENUE

14

35.

15

The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 133I (federal

of

16

question jurisdiction) and 1343(a)(3) and (4) (urisdiction over actions for violations

17

constitutional and federal rights secured by 42 U.S.C. $ 1983), and over Plaintiffs' declaratory

18

relief causes of action under 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201 and 2202. Plaintiffs' stateJaw claims form pafi

19

ofthe

20

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367(a).

21

same case or controversy as the federal

36.

claims. Accordingly, this Court has supplemental

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants City and City Council,

as

22

municipalities or agents and officers of municipalities located in this judicial district. The Court

23

also has personal jurisdiction over those Defendants because Plaintiffs' claims arise out

24

actions taken by those Defendants in this judicial district.

25

31

.

of

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants MRP and Gordian Sword

26

bêcause they are headquartered in San Francisco, Califomia, and Plaintiffs' claims arise out

27

MRP's and Gordian Sword's transaction of business in this judicial district.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPL^INT FOR DECI-ARATORY AND INJUNCTIVÈ RIll-lEF
cASE NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

of

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledO\l22ll"3 Page20 of 47

38.

1

Venue is proper in this judicial district based on28 U.S.C. $ 1391(b). Defendants

2

City and City Council reside in this judicial district, Defendants MRP and Gordian Sword

J

conduct business in this district, and a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to

4

the claims asserted herein occurred in this district.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

5

39.

6

Pursuant to

Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and 3-2(d), this action is properly assigned to

,7

either the Sa¡ Francisco or Oakland Division ofthis Court, because a substantial part ofthe

I

events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in Contra Costa County.

F'ACTUAL BACKGROUNI)

9
10
11

I.

DEFENDANTS'SEIZUREPROGRAM

40.

Defendants seek to enrich themselves through an elaborate program under which

T2

the City would use ìts eminent domain powers and litigation to seize residential mortgage loans,

13

secured by owner-occupied residences in the City, held by outsiders, at steeply and unjustifiably

T4

discounted prices. MRP would then refinance those loans with new federally insured ìoans and

15

sell the new loans at a substantial markup.

16

41.

Defendants would prof,rt by sharing in the spread between the price paid by the

17

City (by MRP's investors) to seize the loans and the proceeds received by the City (through

18

MRP) for selling the new loan to the homeowner to a third party. The outside-of-Richmond

19

Trusts whose mortgage loans would be seized under the Seizure Program would lose significant

20

value-potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars on some individual loans. Thus, the Seizure

2I

Program amounts to a seizure and transfer of wealth from private parties outside ofthe City, on

22

the one hand, to other private parties, on the other hand, with the City receiving a payment as its

23

fee for renting out its eminent domain powers.

24
25

A.
42.

The Seizure Program's Targeting of Performing Loans
The Seizure Program primarily targets for eminent domain seizure mortgage loans

26

that meet a specific profrle: (a) performing loans (meaning where the borrower is current on

27

payment); (b) underwater (meaning that the principal loan balance is greater than the underlying

28

home value); and (c) held by "privateJabel" securitization trusts (meaning that the trusts are
10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAiNT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

IJ

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filed08l22l13 Page2L

o'f

47

1

sponsored by a private entity, rather than by a Govemment-Sponsored Enterprise (GSEs), such a

2

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).2

43.

3

The Seizure Program seeks to cherry-pick loans that are "relatively current (not in

4

default)," and only from"boruowers who appear likely to repay their loans."

5

(emphasis added).3 Thus, the Seizure Program does not target loans where there is a serious risk

6

of default (much less a serious risk of forecloswe). Indeed, of the approximateiy 624 loans that

7

the City has offered to purchase, approximately 85%o are not in any stage of the foreclosure

8

process and approximately 81% of the loans have never had a notice of default filed or are now

9

current. Of the 105 loans held by Plaintiffs BNY Mellon Trustees, for example, over

10

S¿¿

Exhibit G at 9

90o/o are

not in any stage of*re foreclosure process.

44.

11

The stated justifications for the Seizure Program-to prevent "blight" or some

12

other "public" harm caused by foreclosures-are mere pretexts for this profit-driven scheme.

13

Indeed, the fact that the Seizure Program primarily targets performing loans-loans that will be

14

the most profitable to restructure and seli but are the least likely to default-shows that the

15

Seizure Program is designed to create profits for MRP and its investors.

45.

16

MRP has included a small percentage ofloans in default or foreclosure for optics

1'.1

only, in a thinly-veiled attempt to justifr its scheme under the guise of public good. The Seizure

18

Program is not structured to help borrowers actually facing foreclosure because such borrowers

T9

are a bad credit risk, unlikely to

20

steps to the MRP process" is that "[h]omeowners who opt into the program, but do not

21

for

22

is purchased."

a refinance or a lease
.See

will

qualifr for refinancing. In MRP's own words, one of the "key
qualifr

be dropped from the eminent domain motion before their mortgage

Exhibit H at 13 (emphasis added).4

23

24
25

26
27
28

2

Th" S"i"ure Program

has been described in several public sources, attached hereto as Exhibits

G and H.

3

Available al http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documentsÆMlNBNT-powerpoint.pdf (last
visited Ausust 7. 2013).

a

Availablí ot
13

3). This presentation
if fully implemented.
11
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAIN1' FOR DECLARATORY AND ]NJTJNCTIVE RELIEI'
CASE NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

l0

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filedjgl22l13 Page22 oI 47

46.

1

Defendants attempt to justifr the Seizure Program as correcting what they claim

2

to be a contractual bar on forgivírg principal in securifization trusts S¿¿, e.g, Exhibit H at 5. As

J

to the Trusts administered by Plaintiffs, that is simply false. But loan servicers can and do

4

forgive principal when doing so would maximize the value of the loan.

47.

5

6

Another seemingly arbitrary provision is that the Seizure Program is limited to

loans held by private RMBS trusts, a1l located outside of the City of Richmond.

48.

7

The Seizure Program excludes loans held by tmsts sponsored and guaranteed by

8

Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. It also excludes loans held directly by banks. These exceptions

9

demonstrate that the stated justifications are a pretext and appear intended to minimize

10

opposition from local banks and federal agencies.

B.
49.

11

T2

The Seizure and ReÍinancing of the Targeted Loans
Having now selected loans held by the Trusts for seizure, the City will attempt to

13

seize the loan through eminent domain for a fraction of its value.s The example frequently given

t4

by MRP of its proposed valuation methodology is that for a loan with a principal balance of

15

$300,000 secured by a home worth $200,000, Defendants would seize the loan at $160,000. S¿¿

t6

Exhibit H at'7,16-18.

t1

50.

Once Defendants expropriate each loan for less than fair market value, they then

18

intend to replace it with a new loan to be sold into a FHA securitized pool in an amount equal to

t9

approximately 95% of the underlying home value. Defendants and MRP's investors would

20

profit by sharing the spread betlveen the discounted seizure price and the 95% refinancing price.

2l

See id.

51.

22

Because the loans are underwater (i.e., the home value is less than the outstanding

23

principal balance), Defendants have calculated a discounted valuation that is far lower than the

a/l

unpaid principal balance ofthe loan.

25

s

26
21
28

In one instance, the City's July 31,2013 letter addressed to Plaintifß BNY Mellon Trustees
offered a mere 11% ofthe principal balance of the loan. S¿¿ Exhibìt D at Trustee Exhibit B
therein. The letter received by Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association included an offer priced
ar just 7o/o of the balance of the subj ect loan. S¿¿ Exhibit E at Tmstee Exhibit B therein.
Moreover, while the City's letter addressed to Plaintiff Wilmington Trust referred to an
"Attachment B" as setting forth the amount and basis for the City's offer to acquire the relevant
mortgage loans. the attachment included no clear basis for the City's offer. Se¿ ExhibitF
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARAI'ORY AND ]NJUNCTIVE RËI-IEI,CASE NO, I3-CV-3664JCS

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledOgl22l13 Page23 oI 47

52.

1

The offers also are totally disconnected from, and far iess than, any measure of

2

fair value. Defendants have primarily selected loans that are current and not in foreclosure. The

3

fair value ofsuch loa¡s includes the anticipated principal and interest payments over the life of

4

the

5

designed to hold loans to maturity, not to trade them in the market.

loan. That is especially

C.

6

Defendants H¿ve Taken Substantial Steps Towards Implementing the
Seizure Program.

7

53.

8

9

so for long-term holders of the loans like the Trusts, which were

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards implementing the Seizure

Program. In April 2013, the City entered into an "Advisory Services Agreement" with MRP,

10

which is an operative agreement between the City and MRP with respect to the Seizure Program,

11

attached hereto as Exhibits I (agreement) and J (City Council minutes indicating approval).

12

Recently, MRP began sending letters to Plaintiffs and other trustees and servicers for RMBS

13

trusts stating that unidentified California cities were interested in acquiring mortgage loans and

14

would soon be making purchase

15

eminent domain law before a local govemment can seize property.

54.

16

o

lfers on the loans, one ofthe prerequisites under Calilomia

On multiple occasions over the past months, the Mayor of fuchmond or other City

t7

officials have publicly discussed the City's implementation of the Seizure Program, including

18

confirming that the City Council entered into a partnership with MRP to implement the Seizure

19

Program and discussing MRP and the City's readiness to begin implementing the Seizure

20

Program.

55.

21

On or about July 31,2013, Richmond sent letters to Plaintiffs (attached hereto as

22

Exhibits D, E, and F) and other trustees and selicers for RMBS trusts making offers to purchase

23

loans from the Trusts. The offer letters attached a list of approximaiely 624 morlgage loans

24

purpofedly held by RMBS trusts (including more than 230 puryorledly held by the Trusts) that

25

the City is offering to acquire, "at the present time."6 The letters state that the offers are not

26

binding on the City but provide a deadline ofAugust 13,2013 for Plaintiffs to respond, after

27
28

u

Notubly, a maj ority of the loans identified in the letter sent to Wilmington Trust are not owned
by a trust for which Wilmington acts as trustee.
13
SECOND ÄMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RI]I-IEF
CASE NO. r3-CV-3664-JCS

IÓ

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filed08l22l13 Page24 oI 47

1

which the City may "decide[] to proceed with the acquisition ofthe loans through eminent

2

domain." After sending the letters, the Mayor of Richmond reportedly declared: "If financial

3

institutions do not cooperate, the city will seize the loans using eminent domain."

4

hereto.T The City's offer letters constitute a first wave of offers, and ifDefendants are successful

5

in acquiring or seizing these loans, it is expected that they will attempt to acquire or seize many

6

other loans.

56.

7

Ifthe offers are not accepted, the City will

,S¿e

Exhibit K

attempt to quickly seize possession

of

8

the loans. The City Council must first hold a condemnation hearing, and immediately thereafter

9

could file an eminent domain lawsuit in Califomia and use an expedited procedure k¡own as a

giving the City possession of the loan. MRP has

10

"quick take" to quickly obtain

11

indicated that the "quick take" procedure is a critical component of the Seizure Program. See

12

Exhibit L hereto at 3.8 Once the City receives possession of the loans, it could then extinguish,

13

restructure, and refinance them, causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Trusts that

14

be exceedingly

57.

15

a court order

will

difficult, ifnot impossible, to unwind.
Thus, there is a high likelihood that Defendants

will very

soon exercise the City's

16

eminent domain powers to seize possession of mortgage loans under the Seizure Program.

t7

il.

IMPLEMENTÀTION OF'THE SEIZUR.E, PROGRAM \ryOULD RESULT IN

18

SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE TRUSTS AND \ryILL AF'FECT INTERSTATE

19

COMMERCE

20
21

22

A.
58.
59.

Harm to the Trusts

If implemented, the

Seizure Program would cause significant harm to the Trusts.

First, the targeting of performing loans within the Trusts' portfolios would, by

23

itself, completely upend the purpose of the securitization process. The structure and value of a

24

particular securitization trust ìs based upon diversification ofloans, in both the terms ofthe loans

25

and the geographic location ofthe propefty secured by the loans, and the associated risks.

26

RMBS trusts are dependent on the stable and non-saleable nature of performing loans within the

27
28

Available at http://www.latimes.com/business/moneyila-fi-mo-richmond-eminent-domain201307 30.0.7 1.96420.story.
I

Available at http ://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documentsÆMINENT-faqs.pdf.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJI]NCTIVE RELIEF
cAsE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filed08l22l13 Page25 oI 47

1

pool. Cherry-picking performing

2

the Trusts were structured.

3

60.

loans from the Trusts disrupts the risk diversifìcation on which

Second, the number ofloans targeted in the City alone-hundreds of mortgage
losses to the Trusts and other RMBS

tusts.

4

loans-would cause significant direct

5

first wave of the approxim ately 624loans targeted by Defendants could potentially cause losses

6

to the RMBS trusts holding those loans of over $90 million or more.

7

61.

Indeed, the

Third, there is a risk that the takings could jeopardize the Trusts' tax status. The

8

Trusts are organized as Real Estate Mortgage Investrnent Conduits (REMICs), a status that

9

Congress created to apply uniformly on a national basis to encourage securitization of static

10

pools of residential mortgage loans. The REMIC regulations do not permit the transfer of non-

11

defaulted loans out of the trusts without the imposition ofpotentially sìgnificant and adverse tax

12

consequences, nor do they contemplate the City's unprecedented seizure of mortgage loans from

13

securitized trusts. Particularly ifthe Seizure Program is copied by other municipalities, the IRS

14

may find that the Trusts are not REMlC-eligible. If as a result of the seizure of such loans, the

15

IRS concluded that the Trusts are no longer REMlC-eligible, the results of that finding would be

16

catastrophic: the Trusts, which currently pay no tax at the trust level, would be subj ect to a 35%

T7

tax on all of their income. That tax liability could result in a sharp loss of income for pension

18

funds, retirees, and others who rely on regular payments iÌom these securities.

I9

62.

Fourth, many other municipalities across the U.S. are watching to see whether

20

Defendants are able to carry out the Seizure Program. If even a few other municipalities of

2l

City's size implement the Seizure Program, losses could range in the billions of do11ars. Ifmore

22

than a few implement the Seizure Program, far greater losses could mount. This widespread

23

transfer of substantiai frurds from the Trusts' beneficiaries, including municipal pension frurds

24

and private retirement plans, on the one hand, to Defendants, on the other hand, could destabilize

25

the national housing market and the larger economy.

26
27
28

B.
63.

The Effect on Interstate Commerce and the National Housing Market
The Seizure Program also would cause significant harm to interstate commerce

and the national housing market. As a preliminary matter, because the Trusts and the loans are
15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVIì RËI,IEF

cASE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

ZU

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT triledOgl2zl13 Page26 of 47

1

located out of Califomia, the Seizure Program would coerce interstate transactions.

2

Additionally, the Seianre Program is expressly designed to favor local interests-MRP and

3

underwater homeowners-at the expense of out-of-state creditors. Furthermore, in addition to

4

the losses suffered by the Trusts from the seizure of performing residential mortgage loans at

5

below fair market values, the Seizure Program would have a chilling effect on the extension of

6

credit to homeowners. The Seizure Program also will disrupt the national nature of the mortgage

7

market by subjecting investors to qualitatively different types ofrisk in different jurisdictions.

8

Mortgage rates would rise, and some prospective homeowners may be unable to obtain loans at

9

all, lowering housing prices across the country.

10

64.

Further, the Seizure Program \rould undermine investor confidence in the

1i

residential mortgage-backed securities market, and by extension, the national housing market

t2

and national economy. The securitization market would be upended, as investors in residential

13

mortgage-backed securities would be unable to adequately evaluate underlying mortgage pools

T4

that collateralize their investment, and prices for affected securities would decrease. A broad

15

range of investors hold interests in residential mortgage-backed securitizations as part

16

common diversification strategies. Thus, the detrimental effects of a valuation crisis as to the

17

securities evidencing such interests would flow through the national housing market, and

18

likewise, the larger economy.

t9
20
21

65.

of

Likewise, industries dependent on a vibrant housing market and an active home

lending environment would suffer, such as the home building, construction, and realty industries.

66.

In comments published in the Federal Register, TT Fed.Reg 47,652 (August 9,

22

2012) discussing the "Use of Eminent Domain To Restructure Performing Loans," the FHFA

23

recognized the harm that programs like the Seizure Program wouÌd cause. Among other things,

'\ /l

FHFA has explained that the GSEs, as well as the multiple Federal Home Loan Banks for which

25

FHFA acts as a regulator, because they are substantial holders of RMBS husts, would be

26

harmed, as well as the communities themselves that attempt to use eminent domain. According

21

to FHFA:

28

FHFA has significant concems about the use of eminent domain to revise
16
SECOND ÂMENDED COMPLAINT I.'OR DECL,AR,\TORY AND ININ{CTIVE RELIEF

c1\sE No. l3-cv-3664-JCS

¿t

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 FiledO9l22lt3 Page27 oÍ 47

exìstiig financial contracts and the alteration ofthe value of Enterprise or Bank
securities holdings. In the case ofthe Enterprises, resulting losses from such a
program would represent a cost ultimately borne by taxpayers. At the same time,
FHFA has significant concems with programs that could undetmine and have a
chilling effect on the extension of credit to bonowers seeking to become

1

2
3

homeowners and on investors that support the housing market.

4

FHFA has determined that action may be necessary on its parl as conservator for
the Enterprises ald as regulator for the Banks to avoid a risk to safe and sound
operations and to avoid taxpayer expense.

5

6

Among questions raised regarding the proposed use of erninent domain are the
constitutionality of such use; the application of federal and state consumel
protection laws; the effects on holders of existing securities; the impact on
millions ofnegotiated and performing mortgage contracts; the role of courts in
administering or overseeing such a program, including available judicial
resources; fees and costs attendant to such programs; and, in particular, critical
issues surrounding the valuation by local govemments of complex contractual
aÍangements that are traded in national and intemational markets.

7
8

9
10

67

.

Likewise, the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee,

11

which has oversight ofFannie Mae and Freddie Mac, recently issued a draft reform bill, a stated
12

purpose of which is to implement the following reform: "To combat constitutionally-suspect
13

'eminent domain' schemes by local municipalities to seize moftgages out of legally binding
14

securities for pu4roses of rewriting their terms, prohibit the GSEs from purchasing or
15

guaranteeing loans originated in municipalities where such practices have been employed during
16

the last ten years." Executive Summary of the Protecting American Homeowners (PATH) Act,
17

Iuly 11,2013, at2.e
18

68.

The concems expressed by the FHFA ard the House Financial Services

19

Committee are well-founded. The Seizure Program will have a devastating effect on interstate
20

commerce, including on the morlgage-backed securities market and the national housing market,
2T

and would detrìmentally affect both bonowers and lenders.

22

C.
69.

23

The Adverse Effects on the City and Its Homeowners
The City, and its residents, would not be spared from the harm caused by the

24
Seizure Program. The Seizure Program

will

have negative consequences for bor¡owers and

25

prospective homeowners with respect to lending products in commuúties that seize moftgage
26

loans at unfairly reduced values through eminent domain. The risks associated with lending in
27
28

9

Avaiktble at
htç://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentlD:342165.
17
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAIN'I' FOI{ DECL,ARÁTORY AND INJUNCI'IVE RELIEF
cAsE No. 13-CV-3664-JCS

z¿

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledO9l22lI3 Pagez9 of 47

will force

lenders to place more stringent conditions on borrowers seeking a

1

such communities

2

mortgage. With less people qualif,ing for mortgages, homeownership rates would drop and

J

property values would plummet.

70.

4

The relatively small number of select City homeowners who could potentially

5

receive a windfall under the Program by having their underwater mortgages refinanced will not

6

offset the devastation to the local housing market and economy due to the Seizure Program's

7

chilling effect on credit.

I

71.

9

damaged by

City homeowners whose loans are in the Seizure Program actually may be

it.

Debt forgiveness generaliy is treated as taxable income for both state and federal

of

10

income tax purposes. The Seizure Program intends to seize ioans at a price that is hundreds

11

thousands of dollars lower than the principal balance on the loan. This principal balance

t2

reduction may be treated as debt forgiveness and subj ect to income tax. Thus, these select City

13

homeowne¡s could owe upwards of six figures in income tax liability. Even more, unlike

14

mortgage debt, income tax debt is not necessarily dischargeable in bankruptcy. Instead of

i5

creating more stable neighborhoods, having more money in our local economy to stimulate

16

community wealth, and saving homeowners money on tåeir mortgage payments, as MRP and the

17

City claim will happen, the Seizure Program in fact may undermine the growing economy and

18

push the City back into recession. Although certain federal and state programs temporarily allow

t9

for mortgage debt forgiveness to be excluded from taxable income, it is far from clear whether

20

the Seizure Program would qualify for any such exclusion or whether the Seizure Program would

21

complete the seizure process before the expiration ofthe tax holiday at the end of 2013.

22

UI.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF'IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMEDIÀTE AND

23

IRREPARABLE HARM.

24

72.

Defendants should be enjoined from implementing the Seizure Program. The

will

25

Seizure Program would cause signifrcant and widespread harm, and the transactions that

26

occur under the Seizure Program will be exceedingly difficult, ifnot impossible, to unwind.

27
28

73.

Under the Seizure Program, once new loans are issued to refinance the original

loans, they would be securitized. Thus, to unwind these unlawful seizures would require
18
SECOND AMENDËD COMPLAINI'

F'OR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REI-IEF

CÂSII NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

¿J

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filedo9lzzlt3 Page29 oI 47

1

extinguishing the new loan-thereby harming the new trust that holds that loan, and its

2

beneficiaries-and then reinstating the homeowner's old loan. It is doubtful that either step of

3

this process could occur-that is, that MRP could "claw back" the new loa¡, and any payments

4

that have been made, from the new trust and its investors, or that the Trusts could reinstate the

5

old loans.

6

7

4.

Nor could money damages adequately compensate the Trusts. First, widespread

ofthe loans may

cause significant damage to the Trusts and

their

7

seizure and extinguishment

8

beneficiaries, including, among other things, causing the Trusts to lose their REMIC status a¡d

9

affecting the credit rating of the Trusts' certificates and the market value of trust securities

10

which could cause systemic problems for other RMBS securitizations and their

11

Certificateholders-including the Trusts-that cannot be compensated by money damages.

75.

t2

Second, even

if money

damages could somehow be adequate, there is serìous

13

doubt that Defendants would have the financial means necessary to compensate the Trusts (at the

14

same time that they also must compensate a1l similarly-situated RMBS trusts) for the potentially

15

hundreds of millions of dollars in losses caused by the Seizure Program, in which case the Trusts

16

will

be left without recourse for their loss.

JUSTIÒIABLE DISPUTE

17
18
19

20

16.

By reason ofthe foregoing, there now exists ajustifiable dispute and controversy

fo¡ which immediate relief is necessary.

77.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory reliefas set forth herein.

21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECI-ARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO. I3-CV-3664-JCS

Filedj\l22l13

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT

Paqe30 of 47

1

CLAIMS F'OR RTLIEF'

2

FIRST CLAIM

3

(DECLARATORY RELIEF R.EGARDING VIOLATION OF'THE "PUBLIC USE"

4

REQUIREMENT OF'THE TAKINGS CLÀUSES OF THE U.S. AND CALIFORNIA

5

CONSTITUTIONS, THE RICHMOND CITY CHARTER, AND CLAIM UNDER 42

u.s.c.

6

$ 1983)

(AGAINST ALL DEX'ENDANTS)

7
8

78.

9

paragraph as

10

79.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in each preceding

if fully

set forth herein.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that 'þrivate property"

11

shall not be "taken for public use, without just compensation" (the "Takings Clause"). This

12

requirement is incorporated and made applicable to the states and thek political subdivisions and

13

actors by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

14

80.

42 U.S.C. $ 1983 provides that any person, acting under the color of state law,

15

that subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen ofthe United States or other person within its

16

jurisdiction to the deprivation ofany rights, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution,

I7

shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

18

for redress.

19

20

81.

23

24

19 provides that private property may be

taken only for a "public use."

82.

21

22

Califomia Constitution Article I, section

The Richmond City Chafier Article II, section 19 provides that a private property

may be taken only for a "public use."

83.

The Seizure Program is carried out by Defendants, who are inextricably

intertwined, under the color of state law.

84.

25

The Seizure Program violates the "public use" requirement ofthe Takings Clause

26

of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Califomia Constitution, and the Richmond City

27

Charter.

28
20
DECLARAI'ORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

SECOND AMENDED COMPL,TINT
CASE NO, I3-CV-3664JCS
F'OR

¿)

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filedl9l22l13 Page3l- of 47

85.

1

The Seizure Program is not implemented for a public purpose, but rather for the

2

purpose of seizing property from one set of private entities (the Trusts) to enrich MRP, a private

3

investment firm, and its investors. Even if individual homeowners do benefrt, and those benefits

4

are not wiped out by, for example, federal tax liability, those homeowners are private parties as

5

well.

86.

6

The stated justifications for the Seizure Program-to prevent "blight" or some

7

other "public" harm caused by foreclosures-are mere pretexts for this profiGdriven scheme.

I

Indeed, the fact that the Seizure Program primarily targets performing

9

the most profitable to restructure and sell but are the least likely to default-shows that the

10

Seizure Program is designed to create profits for MRP and its investors. Furthermore, even

11

purported justification ofpreventing future foreclosures were true, prevention of futue blight or

12

harm is not a valid public use.

87.

13

loans-ioans that will be

if

the

In addition, the Seizure Program would not benefit the City's citizens on a whole,

14

but would instead lead to windfalls for the select group ofhomeowners who meet a loan profile

15

profitable to MRP and its investors, to the detriment of all others. Even this small group of

t6

intended beneficiaries may receive a severe tax burden that would offset any windfall and may

T7

worsen the homeowners' financial situations. Further, the Seizure Program expressly excludes

18

many borrowers and primarily targets performing mortgage loans that are not in default or

T9

foreclosure. If the Seizure Program is fu1ly implemented and performing ioans are seized for

20

well-below their unpaid principal balance, and thus at significant losses to the Trusts holding

21

those loans, lenders

22

a

23

consequences for

24

will

be unwilling to extend credit in the City at the current level, creating, at

minimum, a chilling effect on the local home lending environment. This will have severe

88.

curent

and prospective City homeowners.

For all ofthe reasons asseded herein, there is an actual controversy between

25

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for

26

judgment pursuant to 28 U. S.C. $ $ 2201

and2202.

a declaratory

27
28

2I
SECOND AMENDED COMPLA]NT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
c^sE No. 13-CV-3664-JCS

'26

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filed]Bl22113 Page32of 47

1

89.

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans under the Seizure

2

Program, and such seizures are imminent. If those seizures occur, the Trusts will be irreparably

3

harmed.

4

90.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue ajudgment for

5

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

6

Seizure Program would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,

7

Article I, section 19 0f the califomia constitulion, and Article II, section 19 0f the Richmond

8

Charter, and pemanently enjoining Defendants from implementing any aspect of the Seizure

9

Program.

10

SECOND CLAIM

11

(DECLARATORY RELIEF RT,GARDING VIOLATION OF' THE PROHIBITIONS

T2

AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIAL SEIZURES UNDER THE TAKINGS CLAUSES OF

T3

THE U.S. AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS AND THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF'

CI\TL PROCEDURE, AND CLAIM LINDER

T4

42 U.S.C. $ 1983)

(AGAINST ALL DEF'ENDANTS)

15
16

91.

t'/

paragraph as

18

92.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in each preceding

il lully

set lorrh herein.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a local govemment from

T9

extraterritorially seizing property pursua¡t to eminent domain powers. This requirement is

20

incorporated and made applicable to the states and their political subdivisions and actors by the

2T

Foufieenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

22

93.

42 U.S.C. $ 1 983 provides that any person, acting under the color of state law,

23

that subjects or causes to be subj ected any citizen of the United States or other person within its

24

jurisdiction to the deprivation ofany rights, privileges, or immunities under the constitution,

25

shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

26

for redress.

21
28

94.

The Califomia Constitution prohibits local govemments from extrateritorially

seizing property pursuant to eminent domain powers.
SECOND AMËNDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLAR,{TORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
cAsll No. 13-cv-3664-JCS

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 FiledOgl22lL3 Page33 of 47

1

95.

Under section 1240.050 ofthe Califomia Code

ofCivil Procedure, alocal public

2

entity may acquire by eminent domain only property located within its territorial limits. Under

3

section 1250.020 of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure, an eminent domain proceeding must

4

be commenced in the county in which the property sought to be taken is located.

5

6
7

96.

The Seizure Program is carried out by Defendants, who are inextricably

interhvined, under the color of state law.

97.

Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates prohibitions against

8

extraterritorial properly seizures under the Fifth a¡d Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.

9

Constitution, the California Constitution, a¡d the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure. The debt

10

instruments that Defendants target under the Seizure Program are not located within the

11

tepitorial boundaries ofthe City and are held by Trusts located outside of Richmond. Because

12

the situs of a debt instrument for eminent domain purposes is the location of the physical

t3

instrument, and the situs ofan intangible debt is the location ofthe creditor, Defendants have no

I4

power to seize these outside-of-Richmond debts.

15

98.

In addition, the notes evidencing the mortgage loans are held outside ofthe

16

territorial boundaries of the City. Defendants have no power to effect extrateffitorial seizures of

11

those tangible instruments.

99.

18

For all ofthe reasons asserted herein, there is an actual controversy between

19

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ $ 2201

20

and 2202.

100.

2l

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans under the Seizure

22

Program, and such seizures are imminent. Ifthose seizures occur, the Tlusts will be irreparably

23

hamed.

a/l

101.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Courl issue a judgment for

25

declaratory and injunctive relìefagainst Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

lr\

Seizure Program would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,

27

the Califomia Constitution, and the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure, and permanently

28

enjoining Defendants from implementing any aspect ofthe Seizure Program.
23
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DËCI,ARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

¿ó

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledO9l22lI3 Page34 of 47

1

THIRD CLAIM

2

(DECLARATORY RELIEF'REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE

3

CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND CLAIM UNDER42 U.S.C.
(AGAINST ALL DEF'ENDANTS)

4
5

6
7

$ 1983)

102.
paragraph as

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the aliegations contained in each preceding

if fully

103.

set forth herein.

Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (the "Commerce Clause")

8

gives Congress the power to regulate coÍtmerce among the several states. The Commerce

9

Clause bars states and their political subdivisions from taking action designed to benefit in-state

10

economic interests by burdening out-of-state interests. Direct regulation of interstate commerce

11

by the states and their political subdivisions is prohibited, and incidental regulation is permissible

12

only where the burden imposed on such commerce is not excessive in comparison with the

13

putative local benefits.

T4

104.

42U.5.C. $ 1983 provides that any person, acting under the color of state law,

15

that subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen ofthe United States or other person \À¿ithin its

16

jurisdiction to the deprivation ofany dghts, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution,

17

shall be liable to the injured pafy in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

18

for redress.

19

20
21

105.

The Seizure Program is carried out by Defendants, who are inextricably

interlwined, under the color of state law.

106.

Defendants violate the Commerce CÌause of the U.S. Constitution by

22

implementing the Seizure Program, which is designed to benefit local Defendants' own

23

economic interests at the expense of out-of-Richmond and out-of-state interests, including the

24

Trusts that hold the mortgage loans targeted for seizure.

25

107

.

In addition, the Seizure Program is

a direct

regulation of interstate commerce by

26

the City. The Seizure Program expressly targets for seizure private-label mortgage loans held by

27

out-of-Richmond and out-of-state Trusts. The Seizure Program thus seeks to impermissibly

28

coerce interstate transactions. In addition, the Trusts are investment vehicles designed to
24
SECOND AMENDEI] COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND ]NJTINCTIVE RELIEI.'
c^sE No. 1 3-CV-3664-JCS

lv

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentLT Filedjgl22lt3 Page35 of 47

1

distribute economic and financial risk by holding a diversified collateral base of mortgage 1oans,

2

including loans that are diverse based on, among other factors, their geographic and risk profiles.

)

Thus, by design, the Trusts hoid not only loans secured by property in the City or even

4

Califomia, but from

5

108.

a

variety of states and localities.

Also, the privateJabel mortgage loans targeted by MRP at issue here were

6

acquired by a private sponsor, who securitized them in private RMBS Trusts, in which the loans

7

are serviced, and morlgage payments flow through the Trusts to be ultimately distributed to the

8

Trusts' beneficiaries. Therefore, the Seizure Program would directly regulate an investment

9

structure that by its very nature depends on a pool of collateral located in different states, and on

10

the interstate flows ofproceeds from homeowners, to loan servicers, to the Tlusts, and then

11

ultimately to the Trusts' investors.

t2

109.

Furthermore, the residential mortgage-backed securities market is a national

13

industry that crosses state lines, with investors and other market parlicipants located throughout

14

the country. The Seizure Program would significantly and directly regulate, ifnot destroy, this

15

market by seizing assets from nationwide trusts.

16

110.

Moreover, the burden imposed on interstate commerce by the Seizure Program

T7

would be excessive, and would greatly outweigh any purporled benefits to the City and its

18

residents. Among other things, the Seizure Program could cause tens of millions of dollars in

t9

losses to the trusts that hold the approximately 624 Targeted mortgage loans, which is just the

20

first wave ofthe Seizure Program. It also would upend the heavily negotiated invesûnent

21

structures used across the national residential mortgage backed securitization industry, diminish

22

investor confidence in such sttuctures, and have a chiliing effect on credit and insurance

23

mortgaged properties and loans throughout the U.S. Moreover, it could severely disrupt the

atl

uniform application of the REMIC rules, which Congress enacted to encourage private

25

securitization. In addition, the purported benefits to the City-preventing foreclosures and their

26

local consequences-are non-existent. The Seizure Program does not aim to seize loans in

27

default or at serious risk of default or foreclosure, but performing loans at low risk of default,

28

which would not address the harms that the Seizure Program purports to prevent. The potential

of

25
SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY A.ND INJUNCTIVE RI]I-IEF

cAsE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

JU

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filed)\l22l1-3 Page36 of 47

1

benefits to the relatively small number of private City homeo\¡r'ners receiving a windfall under

2

the Seizure Program (should that windfall not be blown away by the tax liability) would not

3

outweigh the ha¡m that the Seizure Program would cause to the Trusts and the national economy.

4

11

1.

For all ofthe reasons asserted herein, there is an actual controversy between

5

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201

6

and2202.

112.

7

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans under the Seizure

8

Program, and such seizures are imminent. If those seizures occur, the Trusts will be irreparably

9

harmed.

10

1

13.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a judgment for

11

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

12

Seizure Program would violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and permanently

13

enjoining Defendants from implementing any aspect of the Seizure Program.

14

F'OURTH CLAIM

15

(DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACTS

16

CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. $ 1983)

t'7

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

114.

18
19

paragraph as

20

1

Plaintiffs repeat and realiege the allegations contained in each preceding

if lully

15.

set forth herein.

A-rlicle I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution-the "Contracts ç1uu5s"-prohibits

from "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The Contracts Clause prevents states and

21

states

22

their political subdivisions from passing any law that would abrogate debts of theìr citizens,

23

where that law would impair commercial intercourse and threaten the existence of credit.
1

16.

42 U .5.C. $ 1 983 provides that any person, acting under the color of state law,

25

that subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within its

26

jurisdiction to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution,

27

shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

28

for redress.
26
SI]COND AMENDED COMPLAINI' !-OR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCI'IVE RI]I-ÌEF'
CASE NO, 13-CV-3664-JCS

-Jt

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentLT Filed08l22lI3 Page37 of 47

1

2
3

117.

The Seizure Program is carried out by Defendants, who are inextricably

intertwined, under the color of state law.

118.

Defendants violate the Contracts Clause by implementing a scheme that would

4

severely impair the Trusts' contractual rights to receive full payments ofunpaid principal from

5

borrowers. In exchange, the Seizure Program provides cash payments worth significantly less

6

than the rights abrogated by Defendants. The purpose of this significant impairment

7

contractual rights is improper and without a legitimate public purpose or necessity: to abrogate

8

debts owed by a selected group of that jurisdiction's residents while enriching a private

9

investment firm and its backers.

119.

10

of

For ali ofthe reasons asserted herein, there is a¡ actual controversy between

11

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C $$ 2201

12

and 2202.

120.

t3

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans under the Seizu¡e

14

Program, and such seizures are imminent. If those seizures occur, the Trusts will be irreparably

15

harmed.

16

I21 .

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a judgment for

17

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation of the

18

Seizure Program would violate the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and permanently

19

enjoining Defendants from implementing any aspect of the Seizure Program.

20

F'IFTH CLAIM

2l

(DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE "JUST

22

COMPENSATION'' REQUIREMENTS OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE U.S. AND

CALIFORNIA CONSTTTUTIONS AND CLAIM 42 U.S.C.

23

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

4,1

25

26
27
28

$ 1983)

122.
paragraph as

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in each preceding

if fully

123.

set fotth herein.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "private property"

shall not be "taken for public use, without just compensation." This requirement is incorporated
27
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DBCLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVD RELIEF
CASE NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

J/,

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledO\l22lL3 Page38 of 47

1

and made applicable to the states and their political subdivisions and actors by the Foulteenth

2

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

3

124.

42 U.S.C. $ 1983 provides that any person, acting under the color of state law,

4

that subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen ofthe United States or other person within its

5

jurisdiction to the deprivation ofany rights, privileges, or immunitìes under the Constitution,

6

shall be liable to the injured party in an action at 1aw, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

7

for redress.

8

9

I25.

A property o*.ner is entitled to just compensation for any taking under Article I,

section 19 of the Califomia Constitution. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure $ 1263.320

10

provides that the test for assessing "fair market value" for purposes of the 'Just compensation"

11

requirement is the highest price that a hypothetical buyer and seller would agree to in the

12

markeþlace, assuming both were willing and able to complete the transaction but had no

13

particular or urgent necessity to do so.

14
15
16

126.

The Seizure Program is carried out by Defendants, who are inextricably

interlwined, under the color of state law.
127

.

Defendants violate the just compensation requirements ofthe Takings Clause of

17

the U.S. Constitution and Califomia Constitution. The Seizure Program proposes seizing

18

performing mortgage loans at fractions oftheir unpaid principal balance, prices that are below

19

the fair market value even

20

Seizure Program must compensate the Trusts inadequately by seizing loans at prices far less than

21

their actual or fair market values. This unconstih¡tional feature of the Seizure Program is not

22

merely a question ofthe valuation ofa single property, but is central to the Seizure Program's

23

financing and viability.

128.

if the loans would be in default. To achieve its profìt goals, the

For a1l ofthe reasons asserled herein, there is an actual controversy berween

25

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201

26

a¡d2202.

21
28
28
SECON'D

AMENDED COMPI,AINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJTINCTIVE REI-IEF

cASlì NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

JJ

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 FiledO9l22l13 Page39 of 47

1

l2g.

Defendants have taken substantial steps to\tvards seizing loans under the Seizure

2

Program, and such seizures are imminent. Ifthose seizures occur, the Trusts will be ireparably

3

harmed.

4

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue ajudgment for

130.

5

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

6

Seizure Program would violate the Takings clause of the

7

Constitution, and permanently enjoining Defendants from implementing any aspect of the

8

Seizure Program.

u.s. constitution

and

califomia

9

SIXTH CLAIM

10

(DECLARATORY RELIEF' REGARDING TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH

11

CONTRACT)

12

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

13

t4
15

13 I

.

paragraph as

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in each preceding

if frrlly

132.

set

forlh herein.

Under Califomìa law, a defendant commits the toft of intentional interference
third party; (2) defendant

Itt

with contract where: (1) there is a valid contract between plaintiff and

17

has knowledge

18

disruption ofthe contractual relationship; (4) the contractual reiationship is disrupted; and (5) the

T9

disruption results in damages.

20

133.

a

ofthe contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts are designed to induce

a

The implementation ofthe Seizure Program would constitute tortious interference

21

with contracts. The loan agreements are valid contracts. Defendants have knowledge ofthose

22

contracts, especially as Defendants select which loans to target for seizure based on certain terms

l3

ofthose contracts, such as the principal balance of the loans. The Seizure Program is designed to
induce a disruption ofthe contractual relationship for Defendants' own profit, by extinguishing

25

those contracts through the City's eminent domain powers so that the loans can be refinanced by

26

the Defendants for a substantial

27

States and California constitutions, and violates

28

eminent domaìn, and therefore l)efendants are causing the disruption ofthe borrowers' contracts

profit. The

Seizure Program is unconstitutional under the United

Califomia's statutory restriction on the use of

SECOND ,AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DÈCI-ARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

cAsE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentLT FiledO9l22l13 Page4D oI 47

1

with the Trusts through wrongful means-/.e., the illegal Seizure Program. Moreover, the

2

disruption ofthe Trusts' contracts is not merely an incidental effect ofthe seizures; the contracts

3

are the very object of the seizure, and their abrogation is the purpose

4

The disruption to the contractual relationship that would be caused by the Seizure Program will

5

result in significant damages to the Trusts that

6

and declared unlar'çful.

7

134.

a"re

ofthe Seizure Program.

parties to the contracts, and should be enjoined

For all ofthe reasons asserted herein, there is an actual controversy between

8

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201

9

and2202.

135.

10

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans under the Seizure

11

Program, and such seizr.ues are imminent. If those seizures occur, the Trusts wiil be irreparably

12

harmed.

13

136.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Courl issue a judgment for

t4

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

15

Seizure Program would constitute tortious interference with contract, and permanently enjoining

16

Defendants from implementing any aspect ofthe Seizure Program.

17

SEVENTH CLAIM

18

(DECLARATORY RELIEF R.EGARDING VIOLATION OF CAL. CODE CIV. PROC.

19

$ 1240.030)

20

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

21

22
23

137.
paragraph as
13

8.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in each preceding

if fully

set forth herein.

Section 1240.03 0 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that the

24

power of eminent domain may exercised to acquire property "only if all of the following are

25

established: (a) The public interest and necessity require the project. (b) The project is plamed

26

or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least

27

public injury. (c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project."

28
30
SECOND AMENDIID COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJLINCTIVE RELIEF.
CASE NO. I3-CV-3664JCS

J)

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filed08l22l13 Page4L of 47

1

139.

The Seizure Program violates section 1240 '030 because public interest and

ofthe Trusts' loans under the Seizure Program, and it is not

2

necessity do not require the seizure

3

planned in the manner that is the most compatibie with the greatest public good and the least

4

private injury. Far from being required or from being implemented for the public good, the

5

Seizure Program has been devised for the purpose ofseizing property from one set of private

6

entities (the Trusts) to enrich MRP, a private investment firm, and its investors. The fact that the

7

Seizure Program principally targets performing loans shows that

I

foreclosures or their economic consequences, but rather to confer private benefits on a select set

9

of individuals.

10

140.

it is not designed to prevent

In addition, the Seizure Program would not benefit the City's residents

as a

11

whole, but would instead lead to windfalls for the select group ofhomeowners that meet a loan

12

profile pro{itable to Defendants and MRP's investors, to the detriment of all others. Even this

13

small group of intended beneficiaries may receive a severe tax buden that would offset any

14

windfatl and may worsen their financial situations. Further, the Seizure Program expressly

15

excludes many bo1ïowers and principaliy targets perfotming mor1gage loans that are not

t6

default or foreclosure. If the seizure Program is fully implemented and performing loans are

T7

seized for well-below their unpaid principal balance, and thus at significant losses to the Trusts

18

holding those loans, future lenders will be unwilling to extend credit in Richmond at the current

19

level, creating, at a minimum, a chilling eflect on the local home lending environment. This will

20

have severe consequences for current and prospective City homeowners.

141.

2l
22

As described above, the private injury that this Seizure Program would inflict will

vastly outweigh its minimal or nonexistent benefits.

142.

23

For all ofthe reasons assefed herein, there is an actual controversy between

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for
25

in

a declaratory

judgment pursuant to 28 U.S C. $$ 2201

a¡d2202.

143.

26

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans under the Seizure

27

Program, and such seizures are imminent. Ifthose seizures occur, the Trusts will be ireparably

28

harmed.
31
SECOND AMENDED COMPI,AINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASF. NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

JO

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7 Filedjgl22l13 Page42 oÍ 47

1

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a judgment for

144.

2

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

J

Seizure Program would violate section 1240.030

4

permanently enjoining Defendants from implementing any aspect of the Seizure Program.

ofthe Califomia Code of Civil Procedure, and

5

EIGHTH CLAIM

6

(ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF R.EGARDING VIOLATION

7

OF TIIE PROHIBITION AGAINST TAKING OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCES FOR

8

THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING IT TO A PRIVATE PERSON UNDER THE

9

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION)

10

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

11

t2
13

145.
paragraph as

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in each preceding

if fully

146.

set forth herein.

Plaintiffs plead this claim

as an altemative

to other alleged claims and only to the

74

extent that the moÉgage loans constitute an owner-occupied residence in the City, and thus,

15

Article I, section 19(b) of the California Constitution applies and renders the Seizure Program

t6

unconstitutional

l7

147.

.

Article I, section 19(b) of the Calìfomia Constitution provides that "local

18

govemments are prohibited flom acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for

t9

the purpose of conveying it to a private person."

20

i48.

As an alternative to the claims pleaded above, if the Couft determines that the

2l

mortgage loans at issue in the Seizure Program constitute owner-occupied residences in the City,

22

the Seizure Program would thus violate the Califomia Constitution's prohibition against taking

23

owner-occupied residences for the purpose of conveying them to a prìvate person. The Seizure

1,1

Program is implemented expressly for the purpose of seizing an interest in an owner-occupied

25

residence to convey to (and enrich) private entities including MRP, a private investment firm,

26

and its investors, which are funding the seizures. Indeed, the Seizure Program hinges on the City

27

exercising eminent domain solely to convey the interest seized to private entities and those

28
32
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT !'OR DECLARATORY AND INJLTNCTIVE RELIEF

c^sE No.

13-CV-3664-JCS

JI

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT Filedjgl22lL3 Page43 of 47

1

entities' supplying the City with the funds to conduct the seizure. Without these features, the

2

Seizure Program collapses.

149.

3

As an altemative to the claims pleaded above, the Seizure Program does not

4

quali$ for the exceptions to this prohibition because the stated justifications for the Seizure

5

Program-to prevent foreclosures

6

this profit-driven scheme. Furlhermore, the Seizure Program will inflict significant harm, both

7

locally and nationally, with no likely benefrt to the City or its residents.

I
9
10

150.

and their attendant economic

affects-are mere pretexts for

For all ofthe reasons asserted herein, there is an actual controversy between

Plaintiffs and Defendants sufficient for

a declaratory

judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C $$ 2201

and 2202151

11

.

Defendants have taken substantial steps towards seizing loans unde¡ the Seizure

72

Program, and such seizures are imminent. If those seizures occur, the Trusts will be irreparably

13

harmed.

t4

152.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a judgment for

15

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, declaring that the implementation ofthe

T6

Seizure Program would violate

17

permanently enjoining Defendants ftom implementing any aspect of the Seizure Program.

20
21

and

B]lAYERFeBry

18
19

Afiicle I, section 19(b) of the California Constitution,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their
favor on all claims asserted in the Complaint and that the Court:

A.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates the

22

Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,

23

and enjoin Defendants from implementing the Seizure Ptogram on that basis;

24

B.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates the

25

Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States, and enjoin Defendants from

26

implementing the Seizure Program on that basis;

27
28
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND ]NJLTNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO, I3-CV-3664-JCS

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT FiledOgl22ll-3 Page44 oI 47

1

C.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates the

2

Contracts Clause ofthe Constitution ofthe United States, and enj oin Defendants from

J

implementing the Seizure Program on that basis;

4

D.

Declare that Defendants' implementation of the Seizure Program violates

AÍicle

5

I, section 19(a) ofthe Constitution of the State of Califomia, and enjoin Defendants from

6

implementing the Seizure Program on that basis;

7

E.

Altematively, declare that Defendants' implementation of the Seianre Program

8

violates Article I, section 19(b) of the Califomia Constitution, and enjoin Defendants from

9

implementing the Seizure Program on that basis;

10

F.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates Article

11

II, section

12

City Charter, and enjoin Defendants from implementing the

Seizure Program on that basis:

i3

19 of the Richmond

G.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates section

14

1263.320 of the California Code of

15

Civil Procedure, and enjoin Defendants ftom implementing

fhe Seizure Program on that basis;

T6

H.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates section

I7

1240.050

18

the Seizure Program on that basis:

ofthe California Code of Civil Procedure, and enjoin Defendants from implementing

19

I.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program violates section

20

1240.030

ofthe California Code of Civil Procedure, and enjoin Defendants from implementing

21

the Seizure Program on that basis;

22

J.

Declare that Defendants' implementation ofthe Seizure Program constitutes

23

tortious ìnterference with contract and, enjoin Defendants from implementing the Seizure

24

Program on that basis;

25

K.

Declare that Defendants' Implementation ofthe Seizure Program constitutes a

26

violation of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and, enjoin Defendants from implementing the Seizure Program on

27

that basis;

28
34
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
cAsE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

3v

Case3:l-3-cv-O3664-JCS Documentl-7 Filed)gl22lL3 Page45 of 47

L.

1

Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions

2

restraining Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns from

J

implementing the Seizure Program;

4

M.

5

U.S.C. S 1988; and

6

N.

7

D

Award to Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and

proper.

8

Award to Plaintiffs the costs and expenses of suit and counsel fees pwsuant to 42

9

ated: Attgttsf 22, 20 13

MAYERBROWN LLP
DONAID M. FALK
BRONWYNF. POLLOCK

10
11

12
13

t4

By: /s/ Bronwvn F. Pollock
Bronwyn F. Pollock
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
THE BANK OF NEW YORKMELLON
(f/k/a The Bank of New Yorþ and THE BANK
OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY,
N.A. (f,4</a The Bank ofNew York Trust
Company, N.A.), as Trustees

15

t6
T7

18
19

20

2l
22
23

24

JONES DAY
BRIAN D, HERSHMAN (SBN 168175)
bhe r shm an@i on e sday. c om
555 South Flower Street. 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071:2300
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
JONES DAY

MATTHEWA. MARTEL
Qtro hac vice)
mmar t e l@j one s day. c otn

JOSEPH B. SCONYERS
Qto hac vice)

j s c ony e r s @j one s day. c o m

100 High Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile : 6l'7 -449 -6999

25
26
27
28

By: /s/ Brian D. Hershman
Brian D. Hershman
Attomeys for Plaintiff
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.
as Trustee

35
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REI,IE!CASE NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

+v

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT

1

2
3

4
5

Filedj\l22lt3

Page46

o1

47

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
KURT OSENBAUGH (SBN 106132)
augh@al s t o n. c otn
WHITNEY CHELGREN (SBN 285362)
w hitney. c he I gr en@al s t o n. c om
333 South Hope Street, Sixteenth Floor
Los Anseles. Calilomia 90071
Telepho"ne: 213-576-1000
Facsimile: 213-576-1t00
kur

t. o s e

nb

6
7
8

9

By: /s/ Kuvt O.scnhoucrh
Kurt Osenbaugh
Attomeys for Plaintiff
WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY and
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustees

10
11

T2
13
14
15
T6

t7
18
T9

20
21

22
23

t5
26
27
28
36
SECOND AMENDED COMPI,AINT FOR DËCLARATORY AND INJL]NCTIVE RELIEF

cAsE NO. l3-CV-3664-JCS

4l

Case3:13-cv-O3664-JCS DocumentlT Filed)Bl22l13 Page47 ol 47

1

2
3

SIGNATURE ATTESTÄTION
I, Bronwyn F. Pollock, attest that the concurrence in the filing of this Second Amended
Complaint has been obtained from Brian D. Hershman and Kurt Osenbaugh.

4
5
6

7
8

MELLON
(flUaThe Bank of New York) and THE BANK
OFNEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. (fikla The Bank of New York
Trust Company, N.A.), as Trustees

9
10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18

t9
20

2l
22
23
aÀ

25
26

27
28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARTTTORY ANI) INiUNCTIVÈ RßLIEFcAsE NO. 13-CV-3664-JCS

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7-L Fileci)9l22lt3 PageL of 2

Exhibit A
43

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-l- Filed08l22l13 Pagez ot 2

Trusts For Which

The

:

CHASE 2006-52

29

cwALT 2004-14T2
cwALT 2004-20T1

30

CWALT 2OO5-11C8
5 C'ù/ALT 2005-16
6 CWALT 2OO5-2OCB
7 cwALT 200s-27
8 CWALT 2OO5-3CB

32

1

2
3

4

9
10
11

12

cwALT
cwALT
cwALT
cwALT
cWALT
cwALT
cwALT
cwALT

31

JJ
34
35

36

cwl- 2004-BC4
cwl- 2004-Ecc1
cwl- 2005-17

cwALT
cwALT
cwALT
cwALT
cwALT

2006-0A21
2006-OC10
2006-OC8
2007-11T1
2007-16C8

s'7

61

cwI- 2005-3
cwl- 2005-4

CWALT
CWALT
CWALT
CWALT

2OO7.17CB

62

CV/I,20O5-AB4

2OO'7-4CB

63

2OO7-8CB

64

2OO7.HY4

65

66

cwl- 2005-AB5
cwl- 2006-13
cwl- 2006-14
cwI, 2006-16
cwI, 2006-18
cwl, 2006-19

58

59
60

2005-43

37

2005-51

38

2005-56

39

cwALT 2007-OH2
cwALT 2007-OH3

2005-58

40

C\J,|HL2004-7

68

2005-62

4l

2005-31

69

2005-63

42

2005-9

70

cwL2006-20
cwL2006-22

2005-71

41

2006-16

7l

c\ tL2006-24

2005-76

44

2006-19

72

cwL2006-26

2006-20

73

2006-9

74

67

45

18

CWALT 2006-33C8
CWALT 2006-39C8

46

cwHL
cwHL
cwHL
cwHL
cwHL
cwHL

19

cwALT 2006-42

47

CWHL 2OO6-HYB1

75

cwl,
cwl,
cwl-

2006-43C8

48

cwHL

2007-11

76

cwL2007-3

2OO6-6CB

49

cwHL2007-1.2

17

cwl.

2OO6-HY1O

50

78

cwL2007-7

2OO6-HY13

51

79

2006-0Al

52

cwHL 2007-15
cwHL2007-2
cwHL2007-7

cwl,
cwl-

2006-0410
2006-OAt2
2006-0417
2006-0A2

53

81

54

CWHL 2OO7-HY6
CWHL 2OO7-FIYBl

55

cw]-

83

56

cwL2004-14

13

14
15
16

17

CWALT
CWALT
2T
22 CWALT
23 CWALT
20

24
25
2t\
27
28

cwALT
cwALT
cwALT
cwALT
cwALT

2003-5

80
82

2006-3
2006-BC4
2007-13
2007-5
2007-8

2007-Bc3

FHAMS 2OO5-FA9
FHAMS 2006-AA4
FHAMS 2OO6-FA4

Trusts For which the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Com¡ranv, N.4.. f/k/a The Bank of
:

1

2

CHASE 2OO7.A1
CHASE 2OO7-54

44

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-2 Filed)1l22l13 Pagel of 2

Exhibit ts
45

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentLT-2 FiledOgl2zl13 Pagez of

2

I'rusts For Which U.S. Ban\ National AssociatiQn !s Tru{99:
ABSC 2()O4-I.IE5

4l

csMc 2007-4

8t

42

}.FMLT 2OO6-FF2
FFMLT 2OO6-FFI4

83

4

,\BSC 2004-HEl0
ABSC 2O()6-HE5 OOMC
ACE () 1-HEI

5

AHMI:f 2005-4

45

6

46

I

Aineriqúest 2001-2
2006-2
BAFC 2006-A

9

2
3

43

MASTR ABS Trust 2004-WMCI
MASTR ABS 20O5-HEI
MASTR ABS 2OO5-HE2
MASTR 2OO6-NC2
MLMI 2005-49

GPMF 2006-AR6
cPMF 2006-ÀR7
GPMF 2OO7-ARI

84

47

GSAA 2O06-3

8't

48

GSÄ.A 2006-12

88

BAFC 2OO6'D

49

csAA 2007-l

11

BAFC 2006-G
BAFC 20O6-J

50

5l

GSAA 2007-3
G.qR 2005-9F

t2

BAFC 2O07-C

52

GSR

BART

53

GSR 2005-AR7

93

54

94

55

GSR 2006 2F..
GSR 20O7-1F

95

RFMSI 2005-S5
RFMSI 2006-5AI
RFMSI 2007-58
sAco I 2005-wM1

56

GSR 20O7-4F

96

SAIL

9't

sA

'1

l0

l3
t4
l5
16

2OO5-5

BAYVIEW

2OO6.C

BNC 2007-l
BNC 2007-2

44

85
86

RAMP 2OO5-EFC5
90

2005-ARl

..

.

92

BSABS 2OO4-FRI
BSABS 20O4-HEI

57

l8

58

Ha¡borView 2005-1

98

19

BSABS 2O04-HE5

59

20

BSABS 2006-IMI
Che\"y Chase 2005-C
Chevy Chase 2006-2
CMALT 2OO7-A I

60

HarborView 2005-2
llarbo¡View 2005-16

100

2l
22
23

24
25
26
2'1

6l
62
63

CMALT 2007-43
CMALT 2OO7 -46

64

cMLTt 2005-8
CMLTI 20O6-ARI

66

65

67

CMLTI 20O6-HE3
29
30
31

32
33
34
35

36
37
38
39

40

Harbo¡View 2006-l
HarborView 2006-4
JPMAC 2OO5-OPTI
JPMAC 2OO5-OPT2
JPMÂC 2006-CH2
Luminent 2005-l
LXS 2005-5N
LXS 2005,?N

2005-KSl

r

2OO5-7

.2006-3
sAIL 2006-BNC3

l0t

SARM 2OO5-9
SARM 2OO5-I9XS
SARM 2005-22

102

sARM 2005-23

.103

104

SARM 2OO7-8
sASCO 2006-BC2

105

SASCO 2006-NCl

106

sASCO 2006-Vr'F2
sAsco 2006-w¡-3
sASCO 200?-BC3

99

107
108

SASCO 2O07.BC4

116

wFMUS 2006-2

'77

LXS
LXS
LXS
LXS
LXS
LXS
LXS
LXS
LXS

2OO?-4N

) 1'7

'78

r.xs 200?-7N

118

WFMBS 2006-AR1
WFMBS 2006-AR2

'19

MARM
MARM

cMLTt 2006:WF1
cMLTI 200ó-wF2
cl¿L lt 200'7 -t0
CMLTI 2OO7-AIì8
csFB 200s-4

69
'10

CS}'B HEAT 20O5-8
CSFB MBS 2002-26

't4

CS¡B MBS
CSFB MDS 2OO4-AR7
CSFB MBS 2OO5-2
CSFBMSC HEAT 2007.2
csMc 2006-l

RASC 2006-KS5
FT.ASC

csR 200?-5F

t'7

MLM] 2OO6-SLI
RALI 2006-OO2
RALI 2OO6-OS2

'75

76

80

2OO5-9N
2OO6-4N

I

t0

SASCO 2OO7.BNC1

2006-16N
2006-GP3

1ll
n2

sASCO 2007-WF2
TMST 2OO6-4

2007-l5N

113

TMST

2007-16N

114

2007-l8N

t 15

Tervvin Mortcase Trust 2004-I6SL
TerwiD Mortsase Trust 2004- 18SL

2007-2N

2OO?-

2OO6-5

1

2OO7-3

46

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7-3 FiledOgl22lL3 Paqel of

2

EXHIBIT C
41

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentLT-3 Filedjql22lL3 Pagez of 2

Trusts tr'or Which Wilminston Trust Company is Trusfee:
1

2

sASCO 2005-4XS
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-154R

Trirsts For Which Wilminston Trust. National Àssociation is Trustee:
1

2
J

4
5

6
7

SASCO 2005-10
Lehman XS 2005-08
Lehman XS 2006-l'7
SAMI II 2OO7-AR5
BSALTA 2006-7

BSARM
BSARM

2OO7-2
2OO7-4

48

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed08l22l13 Pagel- of 35

Exhibit Ð
49

a..

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4

Filed)BlZzll3 Page2 of 35

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE

July 31, 2013

Ms. Loretta Lundbêrg
Bank of New York Mellon
101 Barclay Street
New Ybrk, NY 10286
Dear Ms. Lundberg:
This letter ís being forwarded to you as the Servicer ofthe mortgage loans in the private securitization
trust(s) tisted ¡n Attachment A. The City of R¡chmond ("City''), has been investigating the ãcquis¡lion of
mortgage loans from the trust(s) as pãrt of â publ¡c progrâm to modify underwater mortSâge loa ns to
reduce principal and avoid foreclosures. The City is experienc¡ng an historic home mortgage cris¡s thât is
harming the community in many ways, including: unprecedented rates of default and foreclosure; the
loss of jobs, homeowner equity, family wealth and shelter; reductions in income, consumer demand,
inveslment, property values, and tax revenues; and an increase in vandalism, abandoned homes and
other decay thàt harm the economy and the quality of l¡fe for residents.
gy way ofthis letter, the City hereby offers to acqu¡re all rights to the mortgage loans listed in
Attachment A (lhe "Loans"). lf you do not believe that yoù are the correct party to cons¡der this offer,
please notifu me immediately of the party that you believe is the correct pârty to cons¡der this offer.
The C¡ly had the Loans appraised on June 30,2013 to determine their fair market value. Mortgage
lndustry Adv¡sory Corporât¡on conducted the appraisal.
Based on the appraisal, the c¡ly hereby offers to purchase the Loans (free and clear of any
encumbrarices to tiilê or other ínterests that the Cìty, in iis discretio n, dêems unacceptabfe) for ihe faii
market vâlue determined by the appraisal, which is set out in Attachment B {the "Purchase Price"). The
Purchase Pr¡cê is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the Loans and is not
less than the appraisal ofthe fair marketvalue ofthe Loans.
The basis for this offer is set forth ín Attachment B, which sum marizes the basis for the appraísal and is
mâde a part of this offer by reference. The Purchase Pr¡ce amount ¡s for all owners of any interest in the
Loa ns, and division of this amount among parties that have an ¡nterest in the Loans w¡ll be you r

responsibility.
Th¡s offer is subject to the ãpproval ofthe City's City Council, including finâlcondìtions that the City
Council requires as part of ¡ts program.
lf you cert¡fy that you are the owner ofthe Loans w¡th the authority to convey them lo the City, and
wish to obtâìn your own ¡ndependent appra¡sal ofthe Loans, the City may be willing to provide
reasonable reimbursement. Please contâct me if you are interested in díscussing this issue.

lf the offer price ìs acceptable to you, please so indicate to the undersigned, in writing. This matter will
then be presented to the City Council, which has fÍnal ratif¡cat¡on author¡ty. Upon city council approval,
the Cìly will prepare and forward to you a proposed agreement to âcqu¡re the Loans.
lf for any reason you are not satisf¡ed with this offer ofjust compensat¡on, and have relevant
informatìon you would lìke the City to consider, please contact the undersìgned. ln addition, you

450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804-1630
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] www.c¡.richmond.ca.us

50

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed08l22l13 Page3 of 35

should be aware that, in the event that negotiations fa¡l to result in agreement, and the Cìty decides to
proceed with the acquisition ofthe Loans through eminent domain, the owner will have the f¡ght to
have the amount of just compensat¡on to be pa ¡d by the c¡ty fol the Loans fìxed by a court of law.
Please be advised that, in such event, the terms ofthis offer and the contents ofth¡s letter may be
excluded from consideration as an offer of settlement, under California Evidence Code sections 1152,
1154, or other applícable provisions of law.
lncluded with this letter is a pamphlet describing the eminent domain process in Californiâ' Th¡s
pamphlet is provided for informâtional purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.
some parts of the pamphlet are addressed to the acquis¡tion of real property and may not be applicable
to the present situation,

that th¡s offer meets with ygur approval and that it can serve as the basis for a quick and m utually
beneficial transaction- I look forwãrd to hearìng from you aftêr you have had the opportunity to rev¡ew
it, Again, ¡f you are not the correct pärty w¡th wh¡ch to neggtiate for the acquisition of the Loans,
please let me know immedlately. ln any event, please provide a response no later thân August 13, 2013.
I hope

The mortgage loans listed in Attachment A are a subset ofthe mortgage loans the C¡ty ¡s interested
in acqu¡r¡ng. The full list of mortgage loans the C¡ty is interested ¡n acqu¡ring at the present time ¡s
provided in Attachmènt c. The city is mak¡ng offers to acqu¡re groups of loans based on the
Trustee/Servicer informat¡on available to the C¡ty. lf you are the party with authority to consìder an
offer to purchase any of the other mortgage loans listed in Attachment C and have not received a letter
from the City offering to purchase the loans, please let me know immediately'
Thank Vou for your cooperation.
Sincerely,

city of R¡chmond
hy

HtrrLindsay
city Manager

Attachments and Enclosure

51

Case3:i-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed)Blzzl13 Page4 of 35

llMINENl, DoMAm¡

I.

- Informatiori

Paml]hlet

trntroduction

Emi¡ent domai¡ is the power of the govemment to purchase privàþ pfopefiy for a
"pubüc lse" so long as the properúy owner is paid 'Just com¡rnsation." Whenever
possible, the City of Richrnond tries to avoid use of the emilent domain power,
ãxercising it only when ìt is recessary for a pubtic project. The decision to acquire
private property for a public project is made by the City of Richmond only after a
thorough review of the project, which often ilcludes public hearings.
This pamptrlet provldes general information about the eminent rlomain process and tlre
I
rights of ùe prôperty owner in that process .

.

\{hat is a "public use"J

A npublic use" is a use that confers pubiic beneñts, Iike the provision of public
sewices or the promotioû ofpubtic health, safety, and welfare. Pùblic uses include a
wide vari€ty of projects such as sheet improvements, consEuction of water pipelines
or slorage facilities, construction of civic buildings, redovelopment of blighted areas,
and levee improvements to increase floodprotection- Some public uses are for
private entities , such

as univ¿rsities

,

hospitals and public utílities , which serve the

public.

.

\ryhqt ¡s

'lju¡t com.pep$ation" ?

Just compersation is the fair mårket value of thc property being acquiÌed by the
govefiment. The state 1aw definition of fair market vâlue is "the highest price on the
ãaæ of valuation that would be agre€d to by a seiler, being willing to sell but under no
particular or wgent necassity for so doing, nor obliged to se1l, and a buyer, being
ieady, willfug, and able to buy but under no particular nercssity for so doing, each
dealir:g with the other .rith fult knowledge of all the u.ses and purposes for which the

property is reasonably adaptable and available."

tr.

The Eminent Domain Proccss and the Property Ownei's PJghts
The eminent domain process begìns with a public use pmject. \Ûhen selecting a
project location, the goal is to render the greatcst public good and the least pdvate

This pâmpblet reflccts the current law as of January L1 2008. However, the information in
this påmphlet is not, or should it be corlstrucd as,legaì advice. Ailditiorallv' some
s¿¡l¡ns of ttr¡r n¡rnnìllef :r¡c ¡nlr
be anlriicabte in otber situat¡ons. You should consult with qual¡fied lcgâl coùnsel regaÌding
your specific sitùatiou râther thân relying on this panphlet as legal advicc. The stafements
in this pamphlet are a general summary of the eminent dom¿in Proc€ss and are not bindhg
on tlre Ciþ of Richruontl.
1

52

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filedogl22l13 PageS of 35

ínjury or inconvenience. If it is deiermi¡ed that a1l or a pordon of your property may
be necessary for a public use p.roject, the City ofRichmond will begin the appraisal
process to detemrine the property's fair market value.

.

How is fhe fair market value of my pÌoperty determined?

The City of Richmond lr¡ill retain an appraiser to appraise your property. Ln the case
of real property, ihe appraiser will invite you to accompany hitn or her during an
inspection of your property, You may give the app,raiser any information about
improveffents ând aly speciai featuros thät you b€lieve may affect the value of your
property, It is in your best interest to provide the appraiser wìth all the usefr¡l
irformation you can in order to enSurc that nothing of value will be ovc¡looked. If
you are unable to neet with úe aÞFâiser, you may wish to have a person'¡/ho is
familiar with yorr proporfy meet with the appraiser instread.

After the inçection, the appraiser wiìl complete an appraisal that wìll include the
appraiser's determilation of your property's fair mæket value and tlrc i¡formation
upon which the faìr market value is based. Tho appraiser will provide the City of
Richmond with the appraisal. The City of Richmond will then make â wdtten offer to
purchase the pmporty, The offe¡ will also irclude a summary of the appraisal' the
offer will be for no less than the amount of the appraísal.

r

What f¿ctors tloes the appraiser consitler in iletermining fa¡r market value?

Each parcel o{ roal propely is different ard, therefore,.no shglo formuia can be used
to appraise ali properties. Among the factors an appraiser typically considers
estimating fair market value are;
The location of the propertY;
The age and condition of improvements on tl¡e Property;
How the property has been tsed;
Whethe¡ there are aly lease agreements lelating to the property;
Vy'hether thele art any ônvironmentaL issues, such as conlaminated soil;
Applicable current ald potential future zoning and lzrrd use rqluiremelìts;
How the property compares with similar properties i¡ the a¡ea that havo
been soid recently;
How much it woìrld cost to teprodrrce the buildings and olher struchües,
less any depreciation; and
How much ¡ental income the property produces, or could produce if put to
its highest and best use.
lf the propeúy to be appraised is not reâl ploperty, the appraiser would consider
factors commonly considered in deterrnining thc markst valuc of úat tlpe of
propeÌty.

i¡

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

o \{ill I reccive a copy ofthe appraisal?
2

53

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed1\l22l13 Page6 of 35

provìde you with its ptuchase offer, a summary of the
appraisó1s opinion, ancl the basis for the Cify of Richmond's offe¡. Arnong other
things, tbe offer letter wiil include:
A gcneral statement ofthe Cìty of Richmond's proposed use for the
propelfy;
An accu¡ate descrþtion of the property to be acquired;
A list of the improvements covere-d by the offer;

The City of Richmond

will

o

o
o
o
o

The arnount of the offer; and
The amount colsidered to be just compensâtion for each improvernent
which is owned by a tena¡t and ihe basis for deteunining that amoùnt'

Howorrer, the City of Richmond is only required to show you a copy of the ñr1l
appraisal ìf your proper.ty is an own€f,-occupied residential prcpetty with four or
fÑer ¡esidéntialìnits. Otherwìse, the City of Richmond may, but is not required, to
disclose its ft¡ll appraisal during negotiations (thorrgh diffelont disclosure
fequirements apply dur,ing the litigation process if the issue of fair ma¡ket value goes

to court).

.

Can

I have my own appraisal ilone?

Yes. You may decide to ob+nin yoltr own appraisal ofthe propeûy in negotiating ths
fair market value with the City of Riohmond' For real properiy, at the dme of making
its hitial offer bo you, the City of Richmond will offer to reimburse you the
reasonable costs, not to exceed $5',000, of an independent appraisal of your property'
To be eligible for reimbursement, the independeni appraisal must be conducæd by an
appraiser lícensed by the Søte Offrce ofReal Ëstate Appraisers,

.
t

\{hat advant¡ges are there in selling rny properþ

fo the City of Richmond?

A real estatê transactron with tf)e City of Rìchmond is typically handled in the same
way as the sale of private property. However, there may be a financial advântage to

selling to the City of Richmond-

o.
'

o

.

You will not be lequired to pay for real estate conrmissions, title costs,
pteparation of documents, title policy or recording fe'es required in closing
the sale. The City of Richrnond will pay all these costs-

Although the City of Richmond cannot give you tax advice or direction,
you might also be eligible for certaiD propoffy ând income tax advantâges'
You should check with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for tletails or
consult Your personal tåx advìsor.

of my property is taken, will I bc paid for the loss to my
proPerty?
remaining

If only a portion

J

54

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 triled1\l22l13 PageT of 35

In general, when only a part of your property is needed, every reasonable effolt is
made to ensurc you do not suffer a fi¡ancial loss to the "remainder" property. The
City of Richmond lvill pay you ihe fair market value of the property being taken as
well as com¡rensation for any loss ìn vaìûe ¡o your Ì€maining property ihat is not
offset by the benefits conferred by the project. The compensation for the loss in va.lue
to your remaining property is often tefcrted to as "severance darnages."
part is of such a size, shape, or condition as to be of little
market value, the City of Richmond will offer to acquíre that lemaining part (or
rcmnant) ftom you, if you so desìre.'
A1so,

o

if aly rernaiìrilg

Will I be compensâted for loss of goodwill to my business?

the property being acquired,
you may have a right to compensation for lost busìnoss goodwill if the loss is caused
by the acquisition of the property. "Goodrvill" consists of the benefits that ãccrue to a
busi¡ess as a rêsult of its location, reputation for dependabiTty, skill or quality, and

If you are the ownot of a business that is conducted o¡

any other cìrcurnstances resulting in probable retenlion of old or acquisition of ¡ew
pâtronage.

o

What wilì happen to the loan on my property?

Where tho City of Richmond is acquiring the entire.property, generally the
compensation payable to the or'çner is first used to satisfy outstanding loans or liens as
in a typical real estate kansaction. Whero less than the entìre property is being
acquírèd, whether outstardiûg losns or liens are paid from the compensation wiìl
depend on the particular facts and circùmstânces.

.

Do I have to sell at the price offered?

and the City of Richmond are unable to reach âtr agre,ement on a mutually
sâiisfactory price, you are not obligated to sigD an offer to sell or enter intÒ a purchaso

No. If you

agÌeement.

.

trf

I

agrce to accept thc City of Ricl¡montl's offer, how soon will I be paid?

you reach a volunkìry agrcement to sell your propeÉy or an interest in the ploperty
to the City of Richmond, payment will be made at a mutually acceptable tine.
Generally, this should be possìble within 30 to 60 days after a purchase/sale contract

If

is signed by all parties.

What happens if lve âre unâble to reach an agreement on the propertyrs fair
market value?

4

55

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filedj\l22lL3 PageS of 35

The City of Richmond, to the geatest extent practicâble, wìl1 make every reasonablo
effort to acquire your property by negotiated purchase. If, however, the negotiations
are unsucceisful, the Cìty of Richmond may either fi.le an emi¡ent domain action i¡ a
court located within the same count¡r wherê your property is located or it may decide
to ábandon its intention ro acqute the propefty. If the city of Richmond abanclons its
intention ¿o acquire, it will promPtly notify you-

If the City of Richmond proceeds with eminent domair, the first step is for City of
staff to request authority from the City Council to filo a condemnation

'Richmond

action. The âpproval from the City Council is cal1ed a "Resolution of Necessíty'" In
considering whether condomlation is necessary, tÏe City Ccuncil must dete¡mine
whether *re public int€rest aÍd ¡ecessity require the project, wheth€r the project ìs
planned or lðcated in the mamer thât $¡ill be most compatible with the greatest p*blìc
good and the least private injury, and whether your propeÏty is necessary for ihe
project. You witl be given nolice and al opportunity to appealåeforc the City
bouncil when it considers whether to adopt the Resolution ofNecessity' You may
w.ant to call an atbomey or coDtact an attomey referral service right away' You or
your repr'sentåtives cãn raise any odections to thè Resoluti6n of Necessity and the
condei¡ation either omlly befor' the City Counciì or in writing to the City Council.
I.f the

city council adopts the Resolution of Necessity, the.city of Richmond

can

file

a complaint in court to acquire title to the property upon payment of the property's
fair market value. The city of Richmond is the plaintiff, Aryone with a legal interest
in tho property, generally deÙermi.ned from a title repori on- the Prop€rty (includítrg
tenants oimortgãge holden), a¡e named as defendauts. Often, the City of Richmond
will also deposit tlre amount the city of Richmond believes is the "probable amount
of compensitìôn'i with the State Treasruer: v/Éerc the complaint is fíled. '4' deposït
must be made if ihe City of Ricllnond is seeking to åcquire possession of the
property before agreement is reached on the fail ma¡ket value.

.

Can the City of Richmond acquire possession of my property before the
property's fair market value is determincd in thc eminent don¡in lawsuit?

In some cases, the City of Richmorrd may <ìecide it needs possession of the property
before ihe propcrty's f¿iir market value is finally determinel. In such a case, the City
of Richmoncl must apply ø the court fol' an "order for possession" to aLlow it to tâke
possessíon and corltrãl of the property prior to ïesolttion ofthe property's fail market
vaìue. The City of Rìchmond is required to schedule a hearing with the coùrt on the
proposccl order f'or possossion ând to givc you notice of the hearing. Notrce tnust
property íq occupied
lenerally be sent atleast 90 days before the hoâring datc ìf the
60 days before the lìeadng dato if the property is unoccupie'd Ajudge will
ãnd
decide whcther the order for possession should be granted' As noted above, the City
just
of Richmord must deposit with the Stâte Treâsuler the probâble amount of
property'
compensation il order to obtain posscssion of the

5

56

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed)Bl22l13 Page9 of 35

"

Can

I

oppose the motion

for an order for

possession?

Yes. You may oppose the motion in writing by scwing the City of Richmond and the
court v{ith your wdtten opposition withìr the period of time set forth irr the notice
from the City of Rìchmond.

.

Cân

I rent the prollerty from the City of Richmond?

the City of Richmond agrees to allow you or your tenants to remain on the propedy
after the Cíty of Richmond acquires possession, you or the tenants will be reqttired to
pay a fair rent to the City of Richmond. Generally, such rcnt will not be more than

lf

that chargetl

.

as

rÞnt for the use of a property similar to yours in a similar a¡ea.

w,ith the Stal¡ Treasurer before the
. cminent tlomain action is completed, even if I don't'agree that the amount

Can

I withdraw the amount deposited

reflects the fair market value of my property?
Subject to tho rights of aly other persons having a property ilterest (such as â
lender, tenånt, or co-owner), you may withdraw the amount deposited with the State
Treasurer before the eminent domai¡ action is compleÛed. If you withdraw the
amount on deposit, you may still seek a higher {air malket value during the eminelt
domain proceedìngs, but you may not contest the dght of the City of Richmond to
acquire the proper.iy, meaning you cannot co¡tgst tlat the acquisition of your property
is for a public pttpose or is otherwise improper'
Yes

.

You also have the right to ask the court to requìre the City of Richmond to í¡crease
the amount deposited with the State Treasuret íf you believe ihe amount the City of
Richmond has cleposited less tfran the "probable âmount of compensation'n

o

Can

I contest the condemning

agencyrs acquisÍtion

ofthe property?

. Provìded you have not withdrawn dre amount deposited , you can challonge in
court the City of Richmond's rìght to acquirc or condernn the property'
Yes

o

What happens in an erninent domain trial?

The mai.n purpose of an eminsnt domain trial is to detcrmine the fair Íralket vâlue Ôf
yo.o propãtty, io"ludilg compensable interescs such as lost business goodwill caused
ty thã taking or scverance darnages. The trial is usually conducted before a judge ærd
jtuy. You (and any other s rvittr intercsts in the propelty) and fhe Ciry of Iìichmond
will have rhe oppo¡tmity to Present cvj.dence of value, a¡rd the jury will detcrmine the
propcrty's fair malket valtte. In case's where the parlies choose not to hâve a jury, the

6

51

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed}Bl22l13 Page10 of 35

jud.ge

will decide the property's fail market value. Generally,

eaoh party to the

litigation must disclose its respective appraisals to the other parties prior to tría1.

If you challenge the City of Richmond's right to acquìre the propeúy, ttre emincnt
domain t¡ial will also detormi¡e whother or not the City of Richmond has the lega1
right to acquire the properiy. In such cases, the judge (not the jury) rvìll make this
determination befo¡e any evidence is presented concemí¡g the property's fafu ßârket

value.

At the end of the trial, tho judgc will enter ajudgment rêquiring the City of Richmond
to pay fâir market value. Once the City of Richmond pays tåe amount listed in ihe
judgrnent, the judge will enter a filal order of condonnation' The City of Richmond
will record the fr¡al orde¡ with the County Recorder, and title to the property will
then pass to úo City of Richmond

r

Arn I entitled to interest?

Anyone receivilg cornpensation in an eminent domain action is generally entitlod to
int€rest on that corryrcnsatioo from the date the condemning agency takes possession
of the propefy untíI the person receivirg the compensation has beer ftlly paid- The
rate and calculation of the interest ís detemlined under fomulâs in Ståte law.

.

Wiìl the City of Itichmond pay my attorneysr

feeS and costs.

In an emi¡ent domain action, you are entitled to be reimbursed by the condem.ning
agcncy for your- court costs such as court fiLing fe9s. ln some circumstances! y9l may
alio bè entiìled to be reimbursed by the condemning agency for your attorneys' fees
in the lawsuit. Whether you wìIl be entitled to receive reimbursement lor your
attorneys'fees will depend on the particular facts and ci¡cumst¿tnces of the case a¡d
the offers and demand for compensation made in the action.

.

Will I receíve assiståtrce with relocation?

Any porson, business, or t'arm operation displaced as a result of the property
acquisition is typically entitled to rclocatiou advisory and financial assistånce for
eligible relocation expenses, such as moving exponses. The amotut of relocation
compensation is determined on a case-by-case basis in accordalce with prescribed
law. Relocation benefits a¡e handled scparate alìd âpa1t ftom ths deæ¡mination of the
propefly's faü lnarket value an¿l are not patt of the eminent domain plocess.

ilL
'We

Contåct lnformâtion

to ânswer your quostions and to assist you in ulderstanding the
acquisition program ¿uld the eminent dolnain procoss Should you <l,gsir e furthc¡
¿uo avaìlable

'l

58

Case3:l-3-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7-4 FiledOgl22lt3 Page11 of 35

information, pleaso contact the City of Richmond using the contact information contained
in the accompanying offer lettor.

I
59

Trusteê

784456rL26

]J65493317

Loânld

cHAsE 2007-54

CHASE

cHASE 2007-A1

CHASE 2006-52

cHASE 2005-52

Bloombeß Dea lName

Trustse ExhibitA

Benk of NevJ York

a730035940

cwALÎ2004-14T2

Countrywide ALI 2005-L1cB

Chase

CDu

Countryr4id e ALT 2004-14T2

Ch¿se Modgege Filance Trust 2O0G52

Chase Mortgãge Financ€ Trust 2005-52

þwtãnDe¿lName

9aììk of New York

7A46634720

1190465323

ciwALT 200+20T1

Countrywide ALT 2005-11c8

LO

cÐ
Bank of New Vork

58451350
cwALT 2005-11c8

a)
Û)
(ú

ocÐ

FI

N
N

Fi

Tnlst2007-54
nance 'fru 5t 2007-54

Chase tvlortgaBe lir¡ânce
Chase Mortgage

E
f

c

¡-*

$

Bank of New York

8ânk of New York

Eank of New York

Bãnk of NewYork

Bânk ol New York

8ênk of New Yòrk

Bânk of New York

Bank of.New York

Bank of New York

Eank of NewYork

Bank of New York

Bank olNew York

130265480

106726342

12756427L

a72776914

105230579

aM540177

114450053

105106728

a11665575

114830560

110257421

79621544

9267572a

91780832

cwalT 200Ê42

cwALT 2006-39C8

cwALr'2006-33C8

cwALT2005.76

cwArT 200s-76

cwALT 200ç71

cwALT200t63

cwALT200ç62

cwALT 2005-62

cv\lALT 2005-56

cwALT 2005-51

cwALT 200F43

c\¡1ArT2005-3CB

clvALT 2oO5-27

cwALT 200s-20c3

Coun¿rywìde ALT 2006-43c8

Countrywide ALT 200643C8

Coqntrywìde ALT 200642

Countrywide ALT 2006-39C8

Co0ntryw¡de ALT2006-33c8

countrywide ALI 200S-76

Counlry{íde ALT 2005-76

countrywìde ALT 2005-71

countrywìde ALT2005.63

Coqntryl,¿ide ALT 2005-62

aLT 2005-51

Countrwide A$ 2005-43

Countrywide ALT 2005-03c8

Countrvwide ALf 2005-27

Countrywìdê ALT 200920C8

nlryw¡de ALT 2OO4-20T1

o

Bànk ol New York

r.31941882

cvvALT 2006-43C8

Countrvwide ÀLT 20O6-06C8

of

o

Bank of NewYork

1.45009832

cwALT 2006-43C8

countrvwìde ALT 2006-HY10

Båñk

Morttage F¡nance Trust 2007-41

o

62501425
cwALT 2005-11C8

N
Bank of New York

90406550

Countryw¡dê ALT 2005-16

Countr!"¡v¡de ALT 2@5-11C8

.

Bank of NewYa.k

91.586615

cwalT 200'16

cwALT 200s-11c8

u')

Bank of New York

a4Ê421406

cwALT 2006-6CB

2007-54

Bank of New York

8ânk of New Yo|.k

a9734502

9205aA35

Bank of New York

Bank of New York

Ba¡k of Né!vYork

æ
o

E

s
Bank ol NeW Yo.k

153855284

cwaLT 2û05-HY10

q)

(o

Bânk of New York

124990972

cf)

ö

J

(.)

c¡)

O

(J

0)

ir

O

Bank ol New York

120461533

"cwalT2005-58

CJ

Bênk of New York

Bank of New York

Countrywide ALl2005-62

coqnb't}w¡de ALT 2005-58

õ

O

City of Richmond, Callfomia

O
\o

LO

cf)

o

ct
a.)

cl)

õ
0_

c/)

d
N
N

@

Eank of New York

Benk of NewYork

Bank of NewYork
gank of NewYork

York

12A7L2070

7397t2763

L397Lr739

13555934Ð

103169871

115284608

152t46994

cwaLT 200rcAz

cwALT 2005:0417

cwAll
2006-0A12

cwALT 200Êo412

cwALT 200Ë0412

CWALT 2OOGOAlO

iwALT 2006{41

cwArT2006{41

C14/ALT 2006-HY13

Bloombe.g Dea lNâmÊ

CouÕtryv,/ide ALT 2005-oA2

côuit¡ywide ALI 2006-0À17

CountrywÍde ALI 2006-O412

Coun$ywìde ALT 2006-o412

Countrywide ALT 2006-0412

Countrywìde ALT 2006-0410

Countcyw¡de ALT2006Ð41

Countrywide ALT 2006-0A1

Countrvwìde ALT 2OO6.HY13

Le\danDealNãme

Trustee Exhibit A

Bank of New Yoik

739998777

Loanld

Bank of New York

a17576AAO

Countrywìde ALT 2006"0A21

Ttustee

Bãnk of New York

cwAtT 2006-0421

c)
Bank of New Vork

Bânk

New York

Bânk ol New York

15620ß17

141198489

143390s05

M3a69373

14L766506

2007-4cB

cvla.LT 2007-16C8

cwALT 2007-11T1

CWALT 2OOGOCS

C1¡/ALT 2006-OC3

Õ/V4112006-OC8

Countrywlde ALT 2007-8CB

Countryw¡de ALT 2007-4Cg

Côuntrywide ALT 2oo7-17c8

CÞ¡rnlrywide ÁLT 2007-16c8

countrywide ALT 2007-11T1

countrywide ALT 2006-0C8

Countrywide ALI 20064c8

counÈrywide AIT

Count ywide ALT 2006-Oc8

Countrywide ALT 2006-0C10

.

Bank of Ne\^r Yo.k

LSA1IB747

152798299

L!
Bank of New York

161820588

cwalÍ

cwalT 2007.17C8

Coúntrvwide

Ban k oF New

Bank of Ner¡,/ York

Bank of Nêw York

$
Bank of New York

16883606s

cwarT 2007-8cB

countrywlde A['f 2007-0H2

(J
=
o

ô
U)

O

nk ot New York

Bânk of New York

Bâok of Nèw York

Bãnk of NewYork

131s73004

751t24242

130r,31104

80981155

121022869

36474I4r

7"t0243820

cwHt 2006-19

c1^/HL2006-19

cwHL 2006-16

cwHL 2005-9

cwHL2005-31

cwHr2004-7

c1vAtT2007-0H3

Countrvwide MBS 2006-20

Countrvwide MBS 2006-19

Countn:lvtde MBS 2006-L9

Countrvwide MBS 2006-16

Countl\u/ide MBS 2005-9

Countrvwide MBS 2005-31

countrwide MBs 2004-7

c-ountrvwide ALT 2007-0H3

2007-0H3

Bank of New York

cwHL 2006-20

ALT

ALT 2007-HY4

2005{Ca

f.r
Bank of New York

14642877t

cwALT 2007-HY4

Codntrvwide

O
-o
cwALT ?006-oc10
cwAL'f 2006-oc8

c
8ânk of New York
149976803

cwaLT 2007-oH2

oF

CJ

Bãok'of New York

14982190¿1

cwALT 2007-OH3

E
of New York
150503011

Bàn k

Bank of New York

168526300

N

ew York

nk ôf

Bank of Néw York

8¡nk of NelvYork
gãnk of New York

Ba

O

I
(o
(o

F)

CJ

\s6067321

U)

ö

cr)

(-)

c/)

(ú

Bank oí New York

Ba

O

City of Rìchmond, Catilornia

\o

o)

o
$

ct

Éãni( of New Yoi,(

Eahk of New York

Eank of New York

Bank of New York

Bãnk of New York

Bank of New Yôrk

Bãnk of New York

Eank of NewYork

Bank of New York

8añk of New York

Senk of NÊw York

Bañk of New Yor:k

Bank of New York

Bank of New York

Eenk of New York

la!stee

121468862

64886931

82011128

68002999

35500861

1ss3s7087

131848431

rn6703s3

16517358s

158641490

7412345n

171003371

169083967

168828443

125196960

127603895

Loanld

cwL2005-3

ct¡/L

cwL2004-Eccl

cwL 2004-Bc4

cwl200{"14

cwt- 2003-5

cwHL2007-HYBl

c,r^/HL 2007-HYB1

.cwHL 2007.HY6

cwHL 2007-7

cwHL2007-7

cwHL2007-2

cwHL2007-12
cwHL2007-15

cwHL 2007-11

cwftL200Gt-lY81

cwHL2006-9

Bloombêß Deâ ìName

Countrvwide 485 2005-A84

countrvwìde Ags 2005-03

coqntrywide A85 2004-Ecc1

countrwide

Countrywide ABS 2004-14

cor¡,ltrywide

countrywide MBs2007-HYB1

counlryw¡de Mqs 2q07-HY6

Countrywìde MBS 2007-7

Countrywìdè

Countrywide

f\4

BS

lr4Bs

2007-7

2007-2

Countryw¡de MBS 2007-15

Countrywìde MBs 2007-11

Countrywide MBS 2006-HYS1

countrywide MBs 2006-9

Trustee Exhibit A

e
LL
Bank of New York

87038919

Countrvwide ASS 2005-AB4

LN

<.

Bank of New Yprk

91660817

cwi2oos4
cwt 2005-a84

Countrywide 485 2005-AB5

(ú
o_
cr)

ll
N
N

O
!

E
f,
()

200345

Bs 2007-HYB1
ABS

ABS

2005-17

ABS 2004-BC4

N4

Countrywide

countrvv/¡de

ô
Bank of New York

Bank of New York

140640-123

128639261

740?76168

cr\Nt

o¡vL 200G16

cwl

200ê18

Country,,,rìde ABS 2006-18

Country ride

count.ywjde

ABS

ABS

2006-16

2006-14

Countrywide AgS 2005{4

Ø
O
Bâñk of Nêw York

138118947

o

Countrvwide MBs 2007-12

f.r

Bank of NewYork
111821486

200s-AB5

cwL 200rAB4

0)

c
gank of Nelv York
112077955

cwl

Countrywide ABS 2C06:13

Bank of Nêw York

200t17

CJ

Bank of NewYork
115877156

cvvL 2006-13

s
Bank of New York

countrywide A8s 2005-19

.

@

cwL 200ô.19
'cwL 200G20
131907566

!5!77644'l

cwL 20Òs26

cwl

cwL 200G24

'cwt 200G22

Cou.ltrvwide

Counlry\¡r'ide ABS 2006-26

Countrywìde

Countryvi/ide 485 2006-22

2006-14

ct
o

1387333s1

138733007

Bank of New York

15IA97254

ABS 20O6-26

2006-24

Benk of New York

a4\422667

ABS

Bank of New York

200G26

Bank of Nevr York

Countrywlde ABS 2006-20

Bank of New York

B¿nk ôf New YÕrk

o
rl
U)

CJ

õ
O

City of Rlchmond, Califomia

c.l
\o

Tru!lee
123046953

Loanld

cwL 2007-13

cwl

cwL 200G.3

Bloomberg Dea IName

Countrywíde 485 ?OO7-5

Coqntryùide ABs 2007-3

.i<iú¡iiìtriid

çeufi Vùiritide

Countrvwide AB5 2006-03

Lewtan0eãlName

Trustee F:hibitA

Bank ol NÊw York

135467!70

cwr2007-3

Countryù;de ABS 2OO7-5

LO

L7A563746

2007-5

0)

cwL 2007-Bc3

cwL 2007-8

cwL 2007-7

CoL¡rlirf'\i¡l

CountrywideABS 2007-7

¡as zooz-rE

ABS 200GBC4

Bânk of New York

156187391

cwl

cwL2007-5

158291840

FHAI\4S

Ff

tjrstHorízon Alternatiie MorLgàgeSecurÍtìesTrust 2006-AA4

2006-Bc4

cf)
Bãnk of New York

749372419

Bañk of New Yo.k

149483677

FHAMS 2006-AA4

rst.Horj?on Alternative t\4ortgage Securjtiei Trust 2006-FA4

First Hoalzon Mo¡lg¡ge Pass-Throuch Trust 20O5^FA9

countryw¡dê ABs 2o07-Bca

2007-8

Bank of New York

55490239

16s717756

FHAMS 2OO6-FA4

e ABs

Bank of New York

57807083

57440753

d

Bank of New York
gank of Neìr'York

200tFAg

B¿nk of New Yotk

"

o
Benk of New York

7s6274324

LO

Bank of New York

Bank of New York

o)

(ú
o_

--{

N
N
co

O
õ
0)

ir
{'
l-t

c
o
E
f

o

o
U')

O

$
(o
(o

o
O

J

cr)

ö
q)
a
(ú
O

c¡ty of Richmond, California

\o

Pal.cei

Number:

House

2ip

za17

1947

PlLrs

4

94805

2449

City

94803

2648

Unit

ìICHMOND

94805

4045

UnÌt

(ICHlVOND

94803

o

Benk of New York

Bank of New York

Sank of New York

Bank of NewYork

Bank of NewYôrk

Bãnk of New York

Bânk of New York

8ânk

iôak

9205883s

91586615

90406550

6250]425

58451350

184663r''720

1190465323

1730035940

744456!726

4311X10108

5i71300014

5440420073

5150600046

5130350118

5230L20247

5181120022

5561520023

43343!0035

5192400058

4321920110

515

2911

261A

463

228

637

30L4

1076

677

68

2ô8

s2l'

5q17

:INDY

LINCOTN

35TH

HU ¡,l PHREY

HAYES

;HELDON

44TH

:ENTER

VICLAUCHLIN

ITIH

CÁBRILIO NORTE

AVT

Þfi

cr

AVE

sT

AVE

ST

ST

RICHMOND

ìICHMOND

RICHMOND

RICHMOND

I¡CHMOND

RICHMOND

RICHMONO

RICHIMOND

94804

94801

94805

e4806

94803

9480r.

94805

43't S

2603

1722

5269

3230

2327

1l53

a)
cd

o_
cr)

-l
N
N
æ
o
õ
c)

el
A)

E
()
=
o

o

ôF NeÌù

CJ

Yoù

s270320046

1333

NORTHRIDGE

ST

(o

o)

nk of New

91780832

89714502

5262400210

2972

CLINTON

AVE

s19æL0109

5134030468

47.3

4508

SUMMER

CHANSLOR

MOU NT

BELL

3o'nl

tN

AVE

sÎ

CT

ST

RICHMO ND

IICHMOND

IICHMOND

{ICHMOND

IICHMOND

94806

94801

94805

94804

94804

2088

3S46

240s

4310

1405

rO

3063

1444

Bâ

nk of New Yo.k

9267572A

s182800119

zJ10

2ND

U)
727s6427!

1050

1102

BICH

Ba

79627s4A

5302800163

3423

FRAY

ST

Suffìx

RICHMONÐ

94801

117 6

Staeet

RICHIMOND

94805

15C5

Street Nâme

Trustee Exhibit A.

Dir,

RICH IVIO NÐ

94805
q4ao4

27

Bank of New YDrk

110351421

517

VìCLAUGHL]N

Loanld

AVE

RìCH IVIOND

94804

2329

Bank of New Yolk

114fì90560

40ss200242

4311000295

5020

544

Trustêê

LI

fVOND

RICHMOND

94804

2317

Eankot New York

11165ss7s

5242700093

5192100179

NuñbÊr

5T

RICHMOND

94805

Bánk of New York

Benk of New Yôrk

106106728

53427?0033

371

ST

RICHMOND

94803

Bank of NewYork

51339600E7

Bank ôf New York

PIONEFR

sl

oN0

Bank of New York

114€500s3

77654

ú

DAHO

5f

R'Cll fv

ir

cr)

\Tfll

RICHNlOND

r1!7

4809

$

Bank of New York

105230s79

7Q4540r7V'

.

TOTH

5ï

94806

f-*

Bank of New York

s282900116

s

DR

RICHMOND

-a4804

c

Eank of New York

1127769:'4

F)

106t26342

s4031ó0b18

O
Bank of New York

Bank of Nee¿ York

Bank ofNew York

1302654aO

$
(o
(o
Bànk of New York

r316

cl)
o

94804

2910

7332

RICHMOND

94801

94805

4056901178

RICH I\4OND

5080900243

ST

RICHMOND

1613

ST

94804

ST

5T

94806

ISTH

:IVIC CÊNTER

RìCH MO ND

IND
560

RICIlMOND

]ARK RIDGE

DR

957

131941É82

5240400100

145009832

5380410109

Bank of New York

74Ê4272c6

Bank of New York

1538s52E4

o
Bank ot New York

MARIPOSA

Eank oi NevJ York

4os60ooi87

s75740þ772
120461533

7249909J2

Bank of New York

Bank of New York

cf)

çl
CJ

ö
v)
(ú

O

City of Richmond, câlifornia

+
\o

lrustee
Loanld

PãrcelNumber

House

Number

Trustee Exhlbit A

7ip

Plus 4

7

citY

32L9

UñiI

94844

Un;t

94803

Street Name

RICHMOND

DiÊ

RICHMOND

4147

2626

l.*
F.t
0.)

7397r2763

s20L?200La

tSTH
3RICRYARD

467
CT

94804

7754

Street
5uffix

DR

94801

1567

Bank of New York

)EEP WATER

RICHMOND

94805

G
o_
FI

o)

O

g
LL

>YRAIVIID

RICH I\4O ND

94405

20

RICHMOND

1538

3208

2!91

ST

RICHMOND

94804

94801

4352220224

ST

RICHMOND

L863

5605900223

sT

RICHMONO

4342

Neì¡/ YÐrk

'UBA

3sTH

5T

94806

3304

752246994

oi

672

VIARINA

SAN PABLO

948C4

1729

116284608

Benk

676

]3RD

RICHMOND

94401

242)

Benk of Nev! York

628

325.

GRV

RICIJMOND

9480L

94804

2394

o

5404800970

tEtt\41

sT

RICHMOND

94801

Lr)
cÐ

5182700236
3915

NUNN

st

RICHMOND

9480r.

2868

3154

218

L287L2070

40ss400404
5008

¿1sT

RICHMOND

94801

5

a39994777
5132370023
418

5T

RICHMOND

9480L

226

Bank of New YoÍk

11.7526880

5141100213

;ARVIN

ITIH

AVE

RICHMON O

a201

Bènk of New Yôrk

a8279A299

5752200742

'{ELLINGS

ST

RICH I\4O ND

\4lO920A4A

Baok of New York

t3a1aa7 47

5291400165

6TH

ST

DR

5605200368

Ba nìt of New York

L47766506

1405

úì,/ESTERN

103169871

Bank of New York

743a69373

866

¿0fH

r.35559340

N
N
Eank of New York

5301700141

367

Bank of New Yo?k

co

Bank a¡ New York
143390505

5340220044

653

Bãñk of New York

E
Bank of New York
1411984E9

5142600104

5581850038

Sank

+PT

$
Baok of New York
156204/-17

5î82900190

f-*

161820s88

x397tL739

çl
olNew York

Bank of New York

BaDk of New York

c

CJ

s223

!.LEETWOO D

¡,OOSEVELT

:ENTRAI

Dh

AVE

AVE

BLVD

RICHJ\4OND

RICHMOND

R]CHMOND

RlCHMOND

94803

94801

94804

94804

2045

3348

5805

4643

o

50825L0016

5170600216

66

1t46

4220

MULBERRY

tEA tst-E

ìÀNTA CLARA

IOOSEVELT

DR

CT

DR

ST

AVE

RICH MO

N9

RICHIVOND

RICH MO N D

RICH I\,1OND

94806

94804

949O4

94805

6114

7

5037

1857

:ARtSON

168835065

5100810547

3465

20L'7

160503011

5605900470

862

886

Eank of New York

14642877L

r¡¡Ì13020267

5142500130

168526300

4056400494

5093900123

Bånk of New Yolk

r49827904

L49976407

E
f
Bank of New York

c-)

o
Eank of New York

(n
Yo*
fi0243420

40s6000229

O
Benk of Ne!,u Yoak

36474747

(o
cf)

Bãok of Nêw

Bank of NewYork

727022869

<Eank of New York

Benk ofNew Yôrk

809811s5

4055600334

t2a2

470

Eank of New York

Bank of New York

3609

RIDGEWOOD

r-ASCTNAnON

.EGENDS

clR

PL

RICH I\4O ND

RICHMOND

RICHMOND

0

94806

94803

94806

948Õ6

1943

265r.

1899

58 17

PAFK,RIDGE

(J

O

RlcH tvt oN

c,

433432017s

RICH I\¡ON D

RICHMOND

94804

948Õ4

'7465

4053410256

CT

AVE

75I7242a2

R

130131104

2979
15

5247to0rr3
560s900090

'ARVIN
}AY HARB-O

8ãnk ol New York
Eenk of NêwYô/k

8ånk of New York

15606732r

ö
c)
U)
c6

O

City of Richmond, California

\o

AP

4518

Plus 4

Trustee Exhibit A

94804

7499

1418

Ciry

94805

Unit

RICHMOND

94804

tinit

RICH IV]OND

94804

Street

RICHMOND

Streèt Name
;ANDPOINT
AVÊ

RICHI\IOND

Dir.

:LINTON

DR

DR

House
68

HAREORVIÊW

PãrcelNumber

4920
NORTHSHOÂE

Lôànìd

5606200490
74

Eenk of New York

Bank of NewYotk

Bank of Nevr' York

Bãnk of Nerr Yotk

L77670283

1651735E5

1s864i490

147234517

r.7Í0033'17

40s6900162

A?2't12o2a6

5070400212

405s500385

4321220730

s07Ò400253

1744

2444

4949

1806

?95r

5311

17!B

IOTH

PÄR(sIDE

Hr

WA6ON.WH¡EL

BUTTE

SELMI

COUI'ITRY VIEW

BLTTÍE

ST

DR

ST

GRV

DR

ST

ELSOBRANTE

RICHI\¡ OND

RICHMOND

¡.ICHMOND

ìICHMON

D

ìICHMOND

ìICHMOND

RICHMOND

RICHIMOND

RJCH M OND

RICHMOND

94803

94804

94806

94801

94802

94803

94806

94804

94806

94803

94804

27 48

3493

1894

z28L

1239

2141

2L00

5218

1A61

3893

5216

sufflx

727603895
5190100015
2065

Nurnber

Eank of NewYork

725796960
5607000733

5606200268

Trustee

Eank of New York

169083967

168828443

LO

o
Bãnk ôf New York

8¡nk of New York

Yo*
13184A434
4143600031
999

tocK RosE
DR

AVE

RICHMO ND

ç-l

qJ

O

(ú
o_

Eank of New

1s5éS7087

42630042J7

I^AFf

DR

74\A

VIAVERDI

94804

3820

Bank of New York

5340320190

MOZART

2523

ìICHMOND

N
N
Bãnk of New York

35500861

4055600037
4611

COMMODORE

c)
O)

@

cr)

--l

:
.

co
Yoft
68002999
5133840057

31.4

407t.

94804
319

RICHI\4OND

5131640079

ST

916æ817

t51'H

nk of New Yòik

2270

Ba

94803

4038

4204

94801

94801

RICHMOND

94804

RICH IV] ON D

RICHMOND

94804

DR

ìICHI\4 OND

4390

çW EET\¡,/OOD

RD

E
Bank of New Yor't(

a20t7\28
47432L0L53

trToP'MA[]-

ir
Bank of ilew Yo,tk

64886931
560ss003s3

.

$
8ånk of New York
87038919

121468862

Benk of New

FT

nk of NewYork

4

Benk of Neì¡/ York

s

\PT

RICHMOND

94804

5602

3422

sï

5r

AVE

RICHMOND

94804

ITH

111821486

MAR-NNLUfHER KING JR

RICHMOND

94801

94804

701

112017955

29TH

CT

RICHMOND

49ZA

Ba.ìk of New Vork

609

ESCU ELA

ST

RICHMOND

5340820223

Bank of New York

1158771s6

5151000089

4610

tTfu

AVE

AVE

4312110085

Banbof New York
i40376L68

51329300?3

;ACîAMEÑTT

O

(,

u)

E
:
O
o
o
Bank of New Yo.k

1406AO722

128639261

¿50

SAYNOR.

IELLINGS

Bãnk of New York

s133a20059

2107

5434

79L4

Bank of New Yofk

138118947

5290100227

5101530011

Bâñk of New York

Bank of New York

Bank of New Vork

145423661

151897254

131907566

75L1L6447

52479cß757

474Õ374022

4056500ss6

5290á00060

5491600069

530¡00073

(o
(o
Bank of New York

138733351

13A71300'l

Bank of New York

94801

5896

2S31

4200

1738

2643

94806

94805

94806

RICHIMOND

ìICHMOND

RICHMOND

RICHI\,ìO N D
DR

ET

AVE

AVE

GROOM

ESMOND

6ARVIN

HASKEL

3701

1828

.s

o

Ba

C
c)

.

.

Benk of'New Yoak

Bãnk of New Yô¡'k

(l

O
co
CJ

ö
(d

O

C¡ty of Richmdnd, Cal¡fornia

\o
\o

Plus 4

Trustee Exhibit A

lp

\7 42

City

r 853

Unit

94806

Unìt

94aO6

Streêt

RLCHMOND

Street Name

RICHMOND

2753

House
,ENK¡NS'

94406

2103

7

PetcelNumber

ROCK ROSE

RICHMOND

94803

94804

Loan ld

608

4400

lICHMOND

Trustee
4080120068

I.ICH MON D

94804

2649

OJ

o)

(õ
o_
POTRERO

Velue

4055500518
WISWALL

CT

RICHMOND

94406

94804

cr)
765J77756

sufüx

ß5467770

123045953
3015
LAKESHORE

RICHMOND

5059

34Ll

New York

5083400183

oÉ

554W239

Bank
Bânk of New York

2324

Number

Bâ¡k ol New Yolk
4L422rO77?
203

AVE

RICHMOND

94804

4161

,

Bank of Nêû York

178563736
s607800140

ST

94804

LÐ

co
Bank of NewYork.
156187391

4901

DR

RICHMOND

94801

L207

5606500469

4444

424

o
Bank of New York

5133960483

&113¡102a7

]ARKLEY

41Sf

RICHMOND

94804

O)
149372479
336

5T

POINT RICHMON

5281610021

WAIËR

1562:14328

3006

AVE

RICHMOND

57807083

57UO? 53

CLEAR

Bank ol New York

4a42530064

.5131330325

r6TH

DR

.

Benk of New Yofk

158291840

VENK

AVE

s

Bânk of New York

a49443677
264

ìEAVIEW

8ânk of New York

Bank of New York

aenk of New York
5133220300
6010

rlNcorN

C)

N
N
co
O
E
Lt
<.
t'-*

o

c
E
f

o
o

o
(l)

O

s
(o
(o
cv)

O
(J
F{

cr)

U)

ö
c)
rJ

O

Cily of Richmond, California

c-

Case3:13'cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 FiledO\lz2l13 Page20 of 35
Trustee Exhibit B

Trustee

Loan¡d

Bank of New York

l-t6s4933a7

313,167.49

Benk of New York

1844561126

Pîice as

Balance

o/o

of

Prìce

5I%.

161,093.36

564,63.7.17

47%

269340.77

449,588.74

a0%

361,244.54

Bank of New York

4s9,s12.09

929{

Bank of Nq!¡¡ York

1a46634720

464,644.66

8s%

Bãnk of New York

58451350

293,907,23

62507425

345.553.05

1730035940

Bank of NewYork

Sank o Nêw York

.,420;6i4.i¡l

'

394,0È7.66

220,Lsl,27
23%

78,!7r,01

90406550

Bânk of New York

235,132.87

67%

91586615.

Bank ofNew Vork

15A,575,96

3t2.32t-.15

76%

236.065,21

55%

704,37Ê,29

BBnkofNewYork

92058835

190,1s1.92

Ba¡kof New York

a9714502

423.541.59

Bankot Nã,¡i York

91780832

262,63.0.74

w%

Bank of NewYork

92615128

32,9q1,02

&%

239,13s"8Ê

79627544

247,L20.43

97%

219.554,9a

,lew vork

1103514?1

x20,507.97

66%.

210,582,61

Ba¡kof New York

114890560

19¿570.21-

13%

744,?44.O3

48%

224,197.14

.Bank

ol

8ânk

of

248,513.03

.

Bãnkof New York

111665575

465502.90

York

106106728

352,669.48

so%

114As0053

434550,Q4

25P/6

108,168.20:

\oAs407'17

309,835.61

29.%

88,343.43

105230579

386,039,51

26%

99,a22.10

Bankof

Bank of New York
Eenk oÊNew York

Bankof New York

.

.

..

.

L77,442.r2

)rk

367.777,49

28ye

Bank ofNew York

..

7727'6974

702,227.43

721564271

2s5,753.6+

6s%.

765,723.24

Pi¡.k.oj New Y,arh
Eank of t -'w York

106726342

465.O45,2A

w6

280.240.94

130265480

136,532,03

&s%

116,576.51

Benk of New York

a3ß41442

gar.377.72

39%

I4-7,731,.44

Banl

14sOO9832

300,961.67

47%

t24,4o4.72

746421206

329,907,7L

t9%

63.517,02

153855284

141516.04

7a%

25,460,15

7249909-12

2L4,940.56

6t%

L44,43'1.91

33%

257,542.70

Bãnk of New York

BankofNewYork
Bênk of NewYork

120461s33

7A\996.43

Bankof New York

152246994

488.000.00

6DO/L

294.937,44

Benk of New York

1162811608

484132.38

47y.

229,895,10

Bank of Neùr York

10316987r

239,32L.69

A6%

111.138,60

BênkofNewYork

135559340

542,273.14

30%

L63,16L,0A

BânkofNewYork

139711739

3At,275.72

24%

78.119.48

Bànk of New York

L39712763

515,548,74

47%

268,631.34

106.036,17

l5%

80,0r2.77

Benk of New York

124712070

Eank of New York

139998'177

183,120.32

619,

1t2,Ê17.17

Bank of New York

117s26880

610.035.64

33%

201,635.08

BankofNew York

15219A299

372;OOO.75

63%

232,652.61

City of Richmond, California

68

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS Documentl-7-4 Filedlll2zl13 Page21 of 35
Trustee Exh¡bil B

Trustee

Lo¡n ld

Bãlânce

Bãnk of New York

\38114747

288,889.34

Pricê âs %

of

Balânce

Price

27%

74,473.90

Baßk of New York

147'166s06

384,438-92

33%

72t.,030.rs

Bônk of NewYork

143169373

288,40q.00

3t%

88,446,51

Bankof New Ygrk

143390505

396,110,31

Bankof New York

14r.198439

335,973,20

32%

roa,o54,27

BankofNewYork

rs6ioa4'tj

L,722,1A939

6r%

679,833.55

aankof New York

161820588

201809.33

77%

23,784,42

Eank of New Yo.k

158836065

27A,A26,70

59%

L63,526.28

84,605,20

BãnkofNewYo¡k

146428111

294,649.86

7A96

Bank ofNêw York

149976803

LAs,082.54

a9%

Bank of New York

149821904.

44ô800.79...

BartkofNew York

160503011

442,r79.76

93%

BankofNewYork

16852630p

43&929.s0

5794.

Bank of NewYork

r7024EA20

594.689.4ó

Benk of New Yolk

36814t47

491,007J03

3l

t44,A91.26

60%

379,716.77

Bink af New York

721022R69

628,9s1.30

gânk of New York

80981155

8ônk of New York

130131104

Bank o NewYork

!s7724282

409.596.11

v"

347,449,24

131573004

274.667.41

410,638.86
449,642.4O

Bânk

of

Bankof NewYork

156067321
1276Q3¡95

431,759.0¿

BankolNeurYork

125196960

793,523.42

436,454.4!
217.!75.37

52il

217,326.43,
403.122.30

356,978.84

59%

286,290.13
r22.9A2.78

4o7592.71

548.189.56

York

2.321683.¡3

279,497.Lr
89%

479,616.31.

ofNewYork

Bánk

128,9:t3.44

491316.00

is%

372.a67,46

Eank ofNew York

169083967

8ãnkofNew York

171003371

429.O9A.26

43%

184949.93

Bank of

York

L4 t234577

510,176.26

a4%

429,435.77

Bank ofNew York

158641490

493.350.88

z%

106,857.03

ofNewYork

165173s8s

431,709.13

a2%.

354,98r.47

63%

310,972.82

Eaok

Neì,¡r

Ðank of New York

1-116703A3

49L,361,42

Bank

13184a431

455;511,00

Bânkof New York

266.592.37

1553s7087

20

t.923.3L

449¿

9a,785.61

Êânk of New York

3s500861

216,540.57

a4%

182.859,85

Bank ofNew York

58002999

235,990.23

64%

151,099,82

aâ11kofNewYork

82011724

38O,r34.24

1r%

27r,s56.50

BânkofNew York

6ÆS6931

195,328.20

63%

L22,728.61

Bañk of New York

121-468862

541-,954.26

s2%

283,826.87

Bank of New York

87038919

43A,423,32

29%

725,r02.56

Eank of New York

916608L7

334,A13.O2

50%

166,l41.32

Bank of New York

111821486

413,130.36

8r%

334,693.43

Bank of New York

112017955

312,037.13

64%

198,546.11

City of Richmond, Câlifornia

69

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filed)Bl22lL3 Page22

o1

35

Trustee Exhibit B

P(iceas of

Price

lrusteê

Loanld

Ba[ance

Eank of New York

1L5477756

149,581.83

7s%

112,306.28

BankofNew York

140376168

?41,519.85

6a%

755,567.7.7

99,580.54
782,42L.46

Balance

Bank of New York

128639261

436,087.33

23%

Sank of NelvYork

140640723

2sF,862.A9

7r:Á

tzFLTas4i

314,255,87

genk of New York

138733007

239,6Ã0,16

5t%

3.35,957.56

Bank of New York

138733351

239,L94,82

700/"

7Ê7,A78,A8

Bânkof New York

157\16447

263,125.22

5734

734,24r.22

Benk of Ne\4 York

L37907566

476,863.45

26/¡

r22,O57.97

757A97254

z\l,zot.7o

1r%

242,569.68

145423667

263,105,M

s496

74r.474.27

123046953

2L3,746..24

97,6.94.89

genkof New York

Bank of Ne,iv York
Bank of New York

..

23ó,752.46

Beñkof New York

L354$7770

512,295.s9.

54%

27A,442.90.

8ânkofNew York

77A563736

366,090.63

64%

233,XXL:52.

Bânk of New York

rs6187391

276.550-00

3r%

85,290.79

BankofNew York

r4i)377479

415,7s?.44

54%

2AO,217.97

3a%

137.838.89
107-604.18

Bânk of New York

15627432A

Bank of New Yerk

158291840

35t657.s0

30%

7494a3677

s26,058.30

s4%

282,577.48

Bânk of Ne\r Yôrk
Bank ofNew Yor.k

76577n56

183,069.13

65%

.118,33Q,39.

Benk of NewYork

ss490239

359.118.37

6E%

245.873.77

32%

246,t47.48

Bânk of NÊwYork

57840753

782,690.40

8ãñkofNewYork

57807083

181.339,3S..

t23.g:^h.27

City of Richmond, California

70

LO
cY)

o
(Ð

N
qJ
C))

(õ

o_

c,
N
N
co

O
CJ

ir
$
t--

c
c)

E
(J
=
o

i576
tBAgs 2co7-cB2

',tLMl?006+E¡
xs2007.6H

ÂLgI2007-0À1

5535

2æÈc

Seôvr¡¡¡åÈoñ LLC ¡vo¡rsase

Mênirr Lv¡ch iôo¡toâaè lñvèstors lnq 2@ÈHE4

;n¡

?@7-OA1

Sprv¡ct¡¡

sùriliG c.Þ.

:.Ë¡res¡c ¡¡¡at
àn.å

FjnÍcj3l
Àcqùisiticn Trust

¡v\ iéw

L¡i Âsê-'A¡cþd

E¡hlbilC

iot23i016à

526!400278

n'trus¡

æ07¡

Lca

MÕrtoàoè L.ân frusl ?O06.i 0

40q0tæ146

200¡-'i

2005-8

+053810091

t32103@35

426-3510ßA

14158157.

,N/4.

t14281V27

l1¿192Ã20d

t274920118

5100410€3

2m5.3

Mddôr.à Lèn Trust zOC¡-1O

:nóñ cÞ¿ii Ê.cÉì;ãI;l€sf¡ùd

la¡lor\rêw ùlodr¿4¿

Hrhú,rsr

;MLÏ|2û0710
Àneîæn Honìe Mo*qafle l,ìveslfient TruS 200]3
Àñéddn i¡¡n\¡ M.i:.ádô Lv6di6ntff !:læ!Y

Nj.¡tr¿oe A.sÈls
T¡uE!

Voiqån Sta¡le!, lvlq4oa.å loãn frusr 2007'13

ParÈnÞrshiÞ

;SR lvlo¡iFåce Ldn T¡lsl2m5-s:

ìESl Fi¡ahÈe ll.nit€d

.

?Oôù-1

\Ht\/ 2a0$3
lHM2!Qs:4
\hl\4 2C!5.4

lr"¡o¡'lqhtfrur

¡--;"

Hò'na M.¿,rådê Àsrêls T¡ùsl2ÐCê5

¡.* r¡"**

AHù12006-1

JÀ.\",vi; M"i;r". r m¡rLsr¡órÀl¿

Àhê'i-r

qHt¡ 1006¡
MVLT 2003',l4

AirivÀ 2rloÞ-5

e Adiuslãble Râle Modaáo

rO0T-5ÁX

ùrÀsiÈ',rlrGl'A;'â.þ Moit.âdê5'|ru¡!ttgl7-1-

I
Hoft

eâ ltusì 209ã
ll!6t 2007¡

.¡.â¡ s:¿tav Mor.åôê L¡ø. .lrrsl
Aræd€n
Amerieß Ho e J$c¡haae ,qssss
aturiån Èôñè [,!cltóúe Þ€séls

¿21Ù¿SE

1¡331r-

1043393

Àñeriian Homê ü.¡¡å¿d ,q6sets Tru61 2C07-2
AnÈdøn HonE M¡;taÉoê Äs*h Trús12c07.1

?¡ùd 2007-l

o
521444

NCHEI2CO5.D

U)

O
$
(o
(.o
cÐ
o

()
cÐ

rì

ö
c)
a
(ú

O

l55e

f€
æ5t

t4ffi

t641

219

23

piô

s

146

D¿

IËAVËNLY RIOGE

ìONZAGA

IOHNæÑ

:H,4NsLOR
FLORIDA

SHANE
RAN CLOUO
INNAPCLIS
,3RD

ÏSI
-IVINGSTON

¡EAOOW CRES'I
]ÒARDWALK
ÙAêON Vl,f ÉEL

'loYERS

l?ND

]SCAR

5I

AVE

ve
qVE

DR

ST

ID

ST

ST

cûl

iìcti¡¡oNÐ

ziÞ

)4803

14304

Rlcllt¡oN9

94805

?4e04

14803

RicHiüo¡ìÞ

?624

1114

)48C3

lg8¡1

:619

1245

524e

l4ô0

?7t',

149!0

¿222

)4øa4

)4¡05

:LSOBRAN'I ;19û3
l4ô03

{c!ivoNo

14806

ìICFìMONO

ìICHMQNO

t48t1

],121

RICHÍ\4OND

ilcHl\doNE

I

ì

CHI,ICNO

cHr,,40ND

lCHÀ40NO

rcHt"l0Nlc
ÌrctrMaNÐ

)4e04

R CHi\rlONO

)4€!¡

)4a85

94¡04

!r6c4

14803

)¡ê04

152A

l95C

n19

3565

Rlct-lMcNo

¡-

to
co

cÐ

0)

çl
N
N
O
!

(d
o_

$
N
q)
o)

o

\o1422!

'rbôùèw

ùlo,t¡âaé LoaÌ

SAMF Tf,rd 2oo7-NC1

f¡!st
2000-i 0

lñ.luvâ. lñôX Môrìdãde loàn T,ùst æ0È4R14
3

dd Èæc¡

lnc. 2005.EFc5

MÞnûàoê Lca,ì Tr!s1200ô3

ôM F;lrb Ä¿.i'ãæ LÈñ Tr!.* ?CÛæ

tu&¡ À4ïþssô R.du.l6,

2006-OOù
.

?005.HF¡

lrus:2004VVÀ4C1

2ûoÀOO4

!rc 2006-os3

ì¡c

f/!+

l.c ,@7.ôOl

Exhibìt

c

¡40150û318

13?21@472

u81
4tu2

ì25

,752
)1

Dir.

)9Tlì

¡tcoPA

< PL¡NG
,l/HtT ECLTFF

CDDLEBACK

lSTH

VOYERS

¡tNUEt

ìANJOSE

{OMEREY

IUCKBOARO

cAi(lioNT

IH

:AflLsON

12

3U

4?36

4æ

¡ãÂNe¡Är!ìf,oq

RåsilÊidàl Àérèdlt l-€ns ¡nc 2CO5-QAl0

2!0ùRs1

1

1C!0976€

¡nê.

ìFsidenli.l Âsèl SecurtÞ6 Colp- zcos KSI

ìßjd¿nöãlAEsi luotu¿ee Prcduds;
QS2

ìiìè
2OO9-

lÊad;dfÈl Âd¿d¡. Læ

Léans

Sóarìälìôns

l6ns lñe

Lôåns

!ê¡rill Lvnch Moi¡aâáJriv.slor6 ìíc-- 2907# Ê1

r

À<lê.tiÞl Àtr¡Â¡n

i;i¡";ìi! a4d't

Þ

Àdhdil

asrÞ_ÀÀs.l ÊÂ.l¿d
lpiicÁhrìál
Lôãñs

lea¡ Stearn€ Àas6l Backed s€cu¡¡liés

?âird:;H'lÁ¿,:;r¿l

2C07-AO4

t05670c20ß

nu

II|ATER

2007€42

t08cr¡00130

RFsl Fn'zsè Liditêd PârtnèrshD :005.0

VÍt

IIGHGAfE

5282E002æ

9955s22

¡1061s7

æ5684¡

r€56€05

æ39318

.

Residentlal

ì7ô3379

rALr icoô-Qs2

ir
t'--

3SR

tALt ?c07-oA3

lALt æ06.QS3

ìaLt 200ô402.

r+

t0{50365

11359313

11199555

11163€93

11180841

i0a51559

t0è51151

t0846452

Lû59è913

057S91e

c

0)

E
f
(_)

o

o
Cf)

O

$
(o
(o
ct
O

(J
c9

ö
0)
U)
(õ

O
1,427443

PaA 2aÍ14

sT

Qf
CT

)R

civ

ztp

)4604

14e06

)4801

l4¿03

)480ô

9¿80ô

:LSOtsRAN'1 9¡ê!3

ICHMONO

RICHI',1ONO

ìlCHlvlC\Ð

)4806

3480€

1330

2A16

2432

).4805

9¡80¡

34e0É

Rlc¡itloND

IICHMOND

¿4,11

l¿€8

tô31

2738

ìlCì.1f\4ONO

R]CH/!1OND

ìl
qvE

14ÊC3

N80€

ìrctvoNù

t46C4

1204

3.16Cl

t¡8c3

ìcttMoNo

RtcuivaNo

94eM

i€54

3402

{VE
qVE

]R

BLVD

¿3a€

l<8c4

C\

¡r.

LO

m

o
ro

N
qJ
o)
(õ

o_

N
N

o
õ
OJ

ir
s
t-

FI

q

CJ

E
:f

o
o

o
C)

O
F)

s
(o
(o
C'

O
(J

r-l

1151¡8?4

i!.,:dn s!.¡lÈeÂEs
Hôinå

s4ñÊ

S1*ns

Asi

*trbl
I

Tiwl2e$&lMlce

-r tusl20o7:WMc1

Ldñ T¡ùç 2)0?.y,/Àloi

À¿!Èl¡il¿ F!¡d¡ÉT¡Lrsl 2(E€-AFì3

l
rr
200€ AR5

çóD

.

2005-CÞT1

li{Òitê¡ôri:F ríiUrê Truslzlo?rìlLqa-

Àccr.ris¡tiÒò

f'ud

2oO5.OFT{

SÞcurtþàtiê¡ CorÞbÞbbn Trulst 200lOFrf1

Loân -' ru$2Êqi"iqRg'

Hômê Moftga!ê ¡nvesÞneìl Tfusl 2007.1

3itçlq¡tt lçr!¡r<è

3ìulct¡rred Asset Moicaqê lwes!¡nents ll Trust 20C7-AR5

soøidviEñ. Hornê Eidi¡t Loan

!Sl

J.P {oraa. Monoæ;

leâ¡

I P }J5tu 1Ìld{@*ÄEtrÍ!l!tjir TrLst 20074113
i.¿+¡hlh:ÀdênÀs sÊcun[eri Trù*.]æt6.5

à9¿¡ü{Hcmõ Ea!ily Trus! 20003

Bear st¡åms i!4.ÌrçlserFùndF¡

stu.brie¿ Adiùç!ibia Rå!e lVô'tôzdè Lò5n f¡lsl2004.3ÀC

Bærste2ms AssÉt Eæked Sêcu¡llie!1¡u*.20!7:H52

?ea¡$earns Modaåa¿ Fq¡diÒn T¡uqtæ0&ÀR1

3êù

stÌri'¡.6d ¿ésè[S€ãrìi6ê q.ar!:è005${S..

toìrrdvibw Htr¡o L@¡

'

ìâDñdviê

iAsc 200+7xs

-BtvLT 2095-WU

iAûl|2C,!7.4R5

ìvHEzbO5-OPl4

TMST 20065

11724471

i175364

t57A3g€A
10838154

15e905:5

166s9531
171544ê3

7307364
74347A2

i8e€95!3

21049241

)1063290

¿4322927

30517ô58

fàa¡9117

31756125

ö
(ú

c)
tn

O

Bnlbrç

4143500180

t1427A41t3

{14350!rú0.

1640132

t12

r802

]1å1.

I
4E

19

lûgâ

o2t

1523

l.t/A

l1l2l

Þir,

lSTH

]LACKF=ATHER

Srset sìrñx

)R

AVE

t4304

9¿8C3

1316

2626

3500

948C4

)4¿05

za23

3,r803

Rrct-ilvoND

t4a!1

RICH[¡OND

tlcHilroNo

ìrcHMcl)

94804

9{ð0¡

2n1

,3?E

7496

t5r6

2624

l,{804

11e03

)4896

ìICHìJCNO

!c8i\toND

14803

)4A03

RICIIMOND

OR

DR

rlcHr,loNo
IAREOR VIEW

5TgÞHEN

t48t1

413C

RlçlìlvloNC

94301

t26i

5r

;4æ4

¡16

rfH

ì4E03

za2Õ

94¡03

lICHMOND

)48C3

RiCHMOND

?tcut¡oNo

ctR
NUEI

:T

T{

HIDÐEN SPR NGS

\vE

lo

CIIANSiOR

c-

LO

c'?

5)

a)

N

(o

o

r0299216

16a7,{T¿1

LXS2007-7N

awdr 2404-7

Rate l"ìor'.9¡gé

aòunt¡si¿ê LlÈs 2CO¡-7

iÌ-cG€dAdjLsrbe
¡velÈ Fá¡dô Mdàad3 Ba¡ked Securirês

Asei
B6cked

Se{ri!ìs TrÉt

¡ê¿. stêãhs
tutàd"ãô¡ t mn Ìrusr 2cô7.3

Jsù

2007'ð

2ÒC'SO4

v¡.h M¿¿¡bõé l;ìv¿gors lnc.2C{tA9

Fãr@ Mdt.âos B?cksd Seclr¡¡?s 200ô-ÂRl
P¡ieThþLgh rrust 2005 FAg

ch'v.chãe

Eacked Sæu,iìiês

æo+^Fz

Aró.ill ssdräiês l.è 2aO4Wg
:Ìrsr HorÞon ÄteñìaËvê Lþdoaeè se.iìÊå -i ruÊt ærleFÀ4
altèmârivó Mc,toaàó Sea¡Ð6 T¡us! 2O0ÈAÀ4

M.rtoa€

ãhtbitc

a7

Dí,
ULBERñY
ìONZAGA
JARKRIDGE
ÊND

vtEw

SEAPOINT

sÊA

I SSÊLL

øÀR NA L,ÀXÊS

3IJSH

'7T11

dãckeô Sedrilìes CorÞ.¡âÈon Holnå Eruitv Lcan TrL€t 20û4-llEl0

r Flr.o M."nô¡é Fâ¿kdi Sæùrniß ?0t!4¡.q2

rer

,4Àl

ikuclured Àasel [¡oCnace ìnveslmenls lnc:20C4-^R5

/v6lls Påroo

rÊt H.tzôh

Chæ

86

trH

\8sltE 2004-HE10

Clìèvv

rcc) Flndina 20C5.C
(CO ñrhdi¡e20oe?

Filst Ho¡::ôn ì/Æ¿.¡aÉc

\¿ells

llrÞz,ll l

WellE ÊÊrco Mo.tqaÈe Bãcked

srY.ñ Àéêt sóóritiès Trusi 2æ6€
Seurillès 20OSÀR14

.r'¡,ùÀ-

æ04Y

L¡¡r T

!lÈ65ÉÉ3

ruÉltBS !r)06-AÊ2

47374905

55119304

(õ

0s5513872

CJ

t60€804333

¡þllÊ FãrõÂ Mii¡åd6 BáckéC S$utiÙn 2!CAÀR2

s6cudù6

hc

2Cai'WHO2

seârriües 2007.ÀR9

)R

]R
\VE

ST

ryE

!¡it

t

clty

CHMONO

IlcHtvto¡ro

Rlclrl¡c¡*D

ìtcHtvoNÞ

ztq

243

]4801

9,i806

1i 2€

â1801

14801

¡,iÉ06

;480ô

)aaÊ4

ì480¡

2211

744È

t452

?tcHt¡oNc

9¿æ1

ì4e41

itci.iMoNÐ

746C

ìlCHlvloriD

,48û5

1493

1328

33?

34ôC6

943C6

2713

2€13

ts94

2315

2113

)4805

14303

1

)18C?

l¡604

148C1

9¡ô04

34004

RICHMONÐ

RlcPlvoJ\

RICHMONO

'l

ìicHl\¡oND

tlCl'li\¡o NO

)R

RrcHr\1ct\o

R CHt,tONO

ìrcHrúoNo

?lCirvioND
ìlcilr\,iO N O

CR

OR

]R

OOLETTE

\¡c¡<ÊfrztE

:SMOND

EGENDS

ìHÊLOON

'lCLAUGHLIÑ

SMONÞ

¿9S æ06-AB2

Pre¿e

Backi

2¡0í2

M¿lls :-arcc Modoêne

íorqan sl¡ñ¡êy AEs caÞi.Âl I-Iru61200eHF¡

:our¡widEAtsS 2004;Eccl
:i',inÈ¡¡tiiè,iBs 2û0414

'¿rF

Þárk Piscè Secudlìós lnc, 2004-\¡\ 461

2006.4R2

^Fiv8s

)wÀLT 209+?qï1
av\¡- 200+E€c1

cwalT 2005.3c8
'lâr¡ór\4êw Mô¿dãdà ¡¡a^_rtud
tulBS 2C05-9

rrHa4

:Òùit.,Ìid6

200
%rk Pface Sècurìlies lnc,

:ouDtyY¡Cè AsS æ04.8C4

t076

"li!h Êâ'ôÕ MÒd.øè Bâek¿d SæurilÈs?OoôA-R2
'rsl Aset sê.urileation CcrÞorãl¡êiTrud 2007.HE1
€¡c ci A .êr¡ca FurhJjnû,CoÞoIltion 2006-G

a10iæ10
i2009ô59

J254ft25

3415ê714
34829803

¡0556ôC3ê4

æ4&!244

5944?391

cÐ

N
(\

o

E

ir
$
r-*

c
0)

E
:
O
o
o
U)

O
F.)

s
(o
cÐ

O
cÐ

cl

ö
c)
a
õ

O

<tì-

r.r)

o

cf)

Ct)

CJ

Þ(\
o_

ct

(\
N

o

tI

E
g

t
Fr

c
CJ

E
f
(J

o

o
U)

O

rvièrJlLtÀch lvlo¡t áca ¡nvestolslnc. 2005"48

iôun'eiceAÈS ?00543

Ao!.b,)!idd
ÀLT

ALT

,ÕOt ll CB

?0¡s.lô

crænF.i¡t MIÀTius?0CèAR3
Lsó-Eê:¿h Mô ôãd¿ &âl-' osl:!05.Wl2

!.rùr.lè

C.,
Àl

r rdr<-ì

i.R

ÀÈS 2005.Õ4

Ài

tO0e M2

2aC5.?7

-l r0¡ç1 1cB

Ali

sed¡i¡6:rrust

hrcwid.
ÀL

r

AcceÞtañç. Cqp.

2CV-16-OA1

2co5.56

L@n ltu6t lSAiLl 2@¿-3

slêa¡os Alt-A Tiùst 2005.7

ALT

Tl¡r 2coùARa

lBotsch€ A[-A SeclJritie* Hc'trâ¡e Loan Trùs ?m7-gARl

)èui¡c¡e AÌ^A sÀcu¡ilÌec Mêrr.aere Lo¡D

e-ìilrÀ{Ca,qBS 20O5.4e4

Cos¡hei¿È

ltûôturñ ÀÁ*l ¡nvesLrè¡t

36Êr

cau^r@idè ALT 2oc5.6-2

C^i

RenâisnÞ Mcrdâ¡e

BaaÌ Sìæræ ÂlrA-IruEt 2005€

Àrdènl

:ô!¡lñan¿o

:ôt'.r@i¡è

ìn!ñr^!,ì¡å

.,-id¡-

4eiillr Lvnch l\4oÈo¡re lãvesþrs lDc- æCêAR1

200S.W4

t!¿10359

\RS

2cçtAB4

ACE.æ0&NC3

acË204,+Nc3

)B,ALT 2OO8.AR6

r!!t

IWALT 2Ct5.5S

HVMLT 200!.1ô

:Ì/VALT 2C05-03

ìA¡vìc 20cô-3

11536515

;1560e17

a6si323o

361C07:3

tc739S13A

l10r ei79s
1103!0507
1i046ri012

niG656siirû37708

1lc521A',7

.i"
(o
(o

()

t1??3ç96

1i82148ô

cÐ
o

cÐ

ö
CJ

tn
(ú

O
1131C.r9,59

ErhlbilC

'¡4ú2AD48

1?21530',190

tq40€10066

Cìry

zip

14401

Olr

94804

CT

ìlcHill0¡nÐ

14804

94434

)4S03

348C1

1222

æ1

94804

ì620

139i

Ð4a01

e430¿

iiCHfilCND

ì1CH¡rlc\r

9qec5

ì48C4

¡4803

9480ê

?7ei

1753

2213

3807

J48a4

TLCHIJìCND

94804

¡191¡

RlCili\¡ONÐ

)AêA4

i4801

)4806

)48C3

itcH¡lc\Ð

RlciiticND

tICH¡¡OND

RicHMOtiD

ìlcilr,ror.iJ

licN¡rot\c

ì lCHl\,1o r\_!

ì

llCrìivloNO

3Fl1
g7

;clìt[10ÐoÊÉ

lftl

tl

ST

14803

t321.

ì1e

sl

¡48C5

rïH
:;NTÊR

5TH
LDCN

IÀYÊS

IATÊ
Z\D

il

sl

tiouNT

9t

¿STH

:I\]EE¡¡¡CCD

ifH

rgtH

iÎ

lsfH

¡51H

ìEAVIEW

:f

CHlr'iCllO

Iæ

,97

;005

n20

z5m

2@

117

12

Ì18

vaÈ2ç23 m1

tn

)1Sl

(rr

LO

cÐ

o
co

N
CJ
(l)
Cõ

Ê_

ct
F'J

N
N
co

O
õ
AJ

ir
<'
t'-*

C
0)

E
f,

o

o
C)

O

s
(o
(o
cY)

O
(J

n
cl.)

o

tn
(ú

O

t14060154
i14238313
1144s5€83

15905904

l')721õ721

''1752€8€0

l1s0s4595

fie2¡5i09
11A269867

2045174e

t'Nè24212

t21022859

t2'186e76
12131292
t214046æ

t2144eÌ95

DBALT 2OO7-ARI

'râ'

,h.hÃ

.lÑiÿ

À

n-Â

i¡,".trn"or r.¡d
L¡"n r,¡.;'t

aco¡'¡¡z

T'Llçt (sAlL) 2oos-2

sácuriúa M¿n:3Ò6 LÒãi T¡ust 2!07-AR1

¡!ã

a

f,eutschè Alì,À s¡ôu ûlis Nl.È€ãoe Loån T¡ust 2007-oA3
A!T ?OOSÛ2

¡rtusi

aô,

lcùrred 455ól Séd¡Ììes C¡rP. 20O'V/F1
åùkè¡á aù^À sàc!¡iLlês lilo.icaqê Læn T¡usr 2007.4R3

r-ãiËããìEÃGõãGÌó¿o¡ie

:wALl2c0+62
Déutsci€ AlÈA Solurihes ¡¡ô¡lsåsê Loa¡ Trus

Sdcútnìés

"C07.4R3
¡i¿áõ¿ LMh T.ùÉl 2ò45-9
Lôãn Tõrst 29C6 2F

M¿rlbá¿è LoãnTrus¡200ô-4

200f455

TirsL 20019N

/i<êl
CoÈ

sl lsÀILì æ0ô<

zCC€,NC1

T

úyMsc ìNDX Morroâle L¡an.Trust 200AAR1

Cðunlr,\.¡de.ALT ?Û¡GHY1 0

sirucrur€i À3st ln!:¿slrnst Loân

slrucùi¡êd

slrùcl!réd Ass€t Se.u¡ñÞs C¿rD, 2cc€-Nc1

:ehrui xs

ìãÌbbrvÈt

C¡ un:ryleii e ÀBS

csR Mô¡.øé

lÀAtI2007,ARA

æ0ô-2¡-

SARM 20C5 9

lsR

NOX2005.AR1

lNoX

rdoùô!ë:Lqánl.Lst:tdtÁñ8l

\lda6lÊ. MolõåÒi, ãuñdihc Trlst ?007-1

*!ll{¡!
Assl

ñ<liMa.'INDX Mortrece L.aD Tru6! 20!5-ARi 2
ln'úéslñret lÞÀD TúEl (SA¡L) 2008'BN_c3

¡lnictqred

Tr ust

2e0ê-10N'

¡dvMÈc INDX !,lodraaê Loåh TrusL2005êR19

-eh¡ìan xS

Erhibit C

409i0205
51714@1079:

405ê5001S4

t47

59¡6.

t914

1071

fi24

tø
t14272æ57' 214i

12

Dir..

r8l]:1.
JSTH

MLSON
ROOSEVELT

,INCCLN
CAKMOI.iT

cAKtlloNl

AçK ÊÊAÎHÉ1.
úAR]NALAXES

!e!^CASTLE
JtsÁLlÁ

SSCALON

lRr0GE\ ¡OOD
PARK R]DGE

\N BENì-IO

ST

ryE

AVE

]R
)R

)R

]R

AVE

st
llR
NE

JT

]R

)AROIFF
RIDGE

:l

if

HAREOF

>ARK

)R0
3AY

IEAVATLY RIDGE

]ELL

UnJt

Cit./

ìlcÈ[4cì,ic

RlcHt¡oNo

ìICHMCNÐ

ì cllitoNo

ìcHrvloND

ziP

94eC4

318C3

.8C5

)4801

,480ô

2625

)555

¡4801

,4903

t430ô

34m

2550

eæ2

493ô

4204

ì¡CHMOND

27¡8

l<e06

ltcHMoND

94e0,1

i242

ì,1N PAELC

Rtcl.1í,oìic

e¡ô05

1153

RlCIlVê¡¡C

i4a4t

)4804

;4806

]48!5

262e

745¡

;ar7

r€57

).4CCô

9¿A0ô

ìAN PABLO

RICHi\]iOND

ìtclrMoND

tda03

)4¿04

¿055

,1310

?¿¿¡t- ff

s,l3t3

¡-

\o

LO

1229ê2574

123279143

cf)

o

ñcx 200t4R25
SPMF 2OOô-ARE

NOX 2@ËAR€

?007-2N

-xs?o07{N
xs
3PttlF 2C07-AR1

!?a.¡lîE5',l

BNClVl2æ7-1

tæ656060

iæ€ð1¿80
r23e8Bæ2

124132914
121274217
12€9A811
124428478
1248O6447
1246e74ô8

?4735957

124722A29

r2¡83!043

I?5ì969ô0

NDX2007:ÀR21

NDA 2OO7,AR8

xs 2007-15N

NOX209€.AR29

sasc2007.BC3

ìMÎæ07.2

røGôsEl-

1233S0791

i?3'¿42fi2
1233A7a77

Or

N
c)
o)

õ

o_

cq
C.l

co

N

O
õ
AJ

.ir

s
f--

c
CJ

E
f
(J

o

o
Ø
O
(o
(o
CÐ

o
o
cY)

d
CJ

ö
(n
(6

O

L€h¡¡an XSTr!5Ì

2cú6¡6N

2006 4R6

iundlñr'Irusi

lviôrloeèâ

crñ.Pô¡ll
Fùðì4hr Tru6t ?406-ARz

20N3

ìht¿iÞôt*.!lón¡þ6s
Co!¡l¡yhCó AðS

L'ìldt9C41

lå¿i¡,rf, ! lNôx M¿¡lr?st_ta\ãñ f ruslrooAlR6
ltÈlaråd Assót rs€4Jìì'Jo3 Còþ 2007-EC1
_r
L.iraìr.Xs ri,B 2007-4N'
Lêhfi¿n XSLst?0O7¿N
irust:cù7-2N
-ei¡ùran XS

r¡,Þorl4eyJ.ñro¡h,âéá L..rn
INC I oÊ,aaqeLoan frust2001¡
¡Jv]l!!à. lJlOÂ ¡td'ÀiÂnê Loân Irusi 2006-AR2

-ehmn xs Tru6t 2007-4N

TrL¡si 2ÐO6-AR3

2@7-v\82

CoÞ 2C!7.5C3;

Lô

Ásset Sec|,rdeE

BNc Mo¡loáoê L.â¡ Trus!2007-2

S'r!.t!.ed

n.lvM24.ìNDA Mô¡tòèdé

-ehmn XS T,ust 2C07.16N

o7.l'\fiE

.4tác R*idêhtiål Ass€l S€c!rif6s añl3r Í€t{S¡r'2007-43

ú¡$çljÊAL-[ì:æô¡àcå
¡C

rãi#ãclù'g.qtlàftãeÀLêâi'IrusÌ

Erh¡þitC

1230540048

)120;ro1g2

;29r9?00ô?

5æ052008i

22es

oç

249

t22
t0'31

íÊt

tz12

re
t91

1Z

5æE

s

Olr

IENKNS

7TH

¡ETH

/IRGINIA

SlFi
ìHÊã91

2ârD
/ENTURA

SLVO

tE

AVE

5-r

ryE

OR

Þ_Ï

IlTH

]TH

:ASSEN

ltstA

)4305

1144

1A15

7e

ilclMoND

¡48C,1

3412

cit

ì QllòroND

)1e04

14604

43.,4

ì4804

IICHÌi1OND

ìtc¡t¡oNo

145'

}ec5

!55

q4sc5

iICHMOND

34505

ì48Ce

?tcHiltoNo

94€C4

lE69

1853

t14e

¿â58

152S

RtcHtloNo

ì4903

94ô01

;460å

SlcHv,oND
ìlcHMoNO

llClll,,lONO

14405

1859

4244

!3æ

itcuiqoNÞ

1i

t8¿1

418

34€03

e45C3

94804

148C6

ì

trcHtioNo

TCt¡¡ONC

45T8

(-¡-.

r.o
(t

o

o
cÐ
AJ

c')

õ

o_

co

N
N
co

O

OJ

130t06t63
1Aq2ô5480

30$e533

i355-¡9340
r375S3084

200t1ô

-"v1141120064À12
:1¡rHL

rwHL 2007-t-NBl
:waLT 2û0ê36C4

:\1]ALI 2006€Ai 0

!\FHEÌ 2004-2

cwlro0ô1ð

E
lwÀLT 200so412

lvyL 200ÈJ0

1397127æ

1399987n
40640723

411S8<e9

r41æ73e4

2000-098

cw
LT

t4l7ôd506

BSARM 2005-5

:1,1¡. 200ô-1 3

ir
$
f.r
F.{

c

a)

E
J
(J

o

o

a
O

(o

<.
r45423657

14Þ0098¡2

144068611

GSR 2!O5-AR7

cwl æ0&26

¡439050:

CN

i?6õæe36-

@

o
14Èìr€911 14€174735

14ô27?263

2005-4

()
cÐ

çl
l
2COTjCA

JTARM 2007-4

r'vALT

14642€111

^/FHEÌ
lffiãõ?æÃ-

14êr4?86i- ñ'Frves;õcô.!i,

1¿644ô772

U)

(d

CJ

ö
O

..,,"!i.Ai¿lÀ,11.1'¡û4lì41,
MFiqr.ô6.r 6

'

Fißt sos¡o¡ lvlÞrta&e Se¿!¡ili6 Co¡o. .¿@$AR?8

runlNJdé^Lî 20!€33C8

i;,'^ri*;¡à
:s

2¡Ô7r{V3l

À1T 2ooô39c8

A3S 2@6.2.1

..ô,i¡+ddtlá MEs

)ountt/idø

aolntßiri.

Efhlbir

c

156901r78

ì

t1âÐfnl42

t1329ø7

t20122001e

ag1@227

Dir

soNo¡úA
:HANSLOR
SUCXBOARO

ìlASfEL
]AMERENÀ

iULARE

2lsT
.i7f È

SAYNOR

)5lH
13RD

VARIIN LUlHEfi KII

)OW.iER
5TH

!CS,RYÐE
JAN LUIS

:3\lTRAL

ERK

27fN

24

1841

ß0

2ø14

'Þ6

)74

2101

250

01

t27111æ40

,0e
Secuiìties 2cO+,ARg

t

æoeÊø

:oLn:@ibe APS

3â.k!i

zqJlARl

c¡r'rtr$¡de ALf ?00ê-0410
¡/iri'É Farao Monoâ¡e

Îùsl 2@42

ÂÈLS

,!êi'< Fârdô Hötu Eduilv
:ÁL'¡t4!d¿ê
ÀB-s 10!¡:1S

?Ô¡6,16

:oLiltui¡¿
Secu,itiô6

P"ÍÍe¡shiÞ 2C.35.4

válls Fàr.. r¿on.â.e Backød
:ou¡úlvrds ÀLT 2oo5-oÀ12

te<i

S1eâñ. ARM Tru6t æ07-2

Bear Slsams,qRi\,Ì ;ru 5t

leú

ISAAHome Eq!ìlr Tru.
STÀRM tlodosô-^ Lôan

5IARNl l,lorl9agè Lorr

ìo

-N

AVÊ
ST

s;

s1

S1

lvE

lFl'

218

City

RICHMONO

Rrcät¡oNÐ

ìtcii¡loNú

ïcHMOND

ìtcHfvci¡o

Rlcf MC¡'O

RrcHt"loND

Z.

e¿ac3

¿0¿€

)4804

14e05

4111

i

)4806

l¿¡c6

r50?

1422

e53

t4801

14Ba€

J48C¿

9490q

9<801

44904

),1804

13S0

9¿C0¡

185]

i280

),10¡3

¡4Ê0:3

9480¡

t4ôa¡

RICHMOND

:LSOBRANI

2391

1t2ç

173A

9¿ð04

14805

94e0,1

¡456

131ô

94SC5

)aaa1

ììCHMOND

IICHNlOND

ìtctvoNc

RICHIì,1ONÐ

RlcHrnci\D

l4sc4

ú
f-

Lf)

ct

o
o)

c)

cv)

(õ

È
co

I-l
N
N
co
o

!(.)

ir
$
Fi-l

Í.

0)

Ë
f

o

174243420

i775?0383

P0€s3!23

12¿5801s7

¿59915937

240441251

suRF 200,4.8C3

llYILTl 2@€-HE3

l?5111201

SAST

&Aìvtu 2c05+Re

/VAMÙ ?O!44R6

tôML-r2ûC7-6

ooMLT 20061

2C05.4

9EÀ12007,2,

ì--Àt 2007-2

:sFB ,OO4-ÀR7
:sFê 2005-2

2007-?

40974V272

{c!5959æ

ao2478615

csôe194

405176049

r

;00342983

11t7a513¡

o
(1)

5C1430612

i81014434

aa1ac497

O
Fl

$
(o
(o
cY)
O
O

ct

ö
q)
a
(õ
O
154252?

591582659

MÈs 2C07-HY6

âô Ll;¿;âl'Â Ê:;kad s¿uriùês 2o07.4R7

Fã¡do MÒnðâÂê B¡cl,€d s6.driÚes æ071 3

rounrsidèaIr 20ø-oH3

^,3rrs

hriMidà
+!wiæl cênìhrerc¡.| Asel l¡usi 2ql4-3

ñ:ÞÃ

Cô,ô ,nfÉlo

A6sêt.Se6ù¡¡li¿o!ô¡ Coßþraìion T¡lslæ06-OPI?

Àc<Â' cc.-.¡
" - -",1

-!m1n5¡i lúârtq¡ré Lêañ T¡ust 2C0È2

,

lsi

loticn On€ l¡,ôrioaq6 L.un Tr{rst 20!è1

olion OoÈMorlq¿o¿ L@n Trus¡ æo7.1

Eihibìl C

5070400253

1055/001æ

50!0110933

5f419!0083

t361S00r08

'æ04Cs125

5S2100309

f3030193

745

t425

SEAGULL

.'IERITÁGE

)HANSI-OR

rtEsrA

]T

qvE

DR

2NO

3IRJ9INGHAM

ll

]R

t0

7

AV=

ST

]OTH

9ARINA

lHio

)YÊRS

ISMONO

>ARKRIDGE

clv

3(803

)4a03

:LSOSRAN'I l4€03

94803

]820

tatl

191-o

t-ô

7'13\

27

125-l

r95ð

145¡

?4801

?4404

CHr',,lONO

ì

94803

ì1SU

,4804

ig89

133?'

3443

?113

iB15

94S!1

R(CH[,IOND

RlôJ¡'ioNÐ

{cHÀ10NO

ìtcHir"10No

14801

212e

:sr'¡cND

l.iS05

;4ACl

tæì

licHftoND

?4€0ô

1059

¡sfll
IELLINGS

AVE

J4e06

IOANN

ì]CHÞ1OND

Þ,i804

st

RICNI\ICND

/46ô

Rlcti¡toNÐ

l7c0

WE

7

l48Ci

AVÊ

R-ANDVIE\,4/

s4e04

¡EVIN

C

fANGLEWCOD

ìiciMoNo

cHto

1741

æ48

3222

n2

c-

o'\

LO

o)

o

N
c)

cÐ

o)

(d
o_

r-l

cr)

N
N
0)

@
o

Ð

ir
s
|'-

c
c.)

E

=
O
o

o
U)

O

ì0165€538

Ð1¡Êci45
?c1985ôe9
tc1385492

æ16eæ?4
ôc1e€$5ê

:0'1€4â148

Ð5Ë023.i1

$¡üALT 2oO5€
WMALT 20C¡r8

eNllu 20t5.4R12
&AMU æ05-4R13

wat\lrJ 2ø5-^R15

ú,rrÂLi ?Ò0û5

20qìJ

ÀltALT æOô-AR5
I'\'MÀLT

cccR 2000-2
,4/ìrALÍ 2Ò07-Ol

.u;fããaç
20c7.

2007-HE1

f"{fA!i

gasc
HASC2007-HÊr

,vÀlliu 20c+PR4
!1SÀC 200&llE8
cÊÀ4Lr 2005-4

s
T¿N1AC

2!9$OPT2

svHE 200e¡F15

200,1-PR2
¡VAMU ?0¡5'PR2

^At\4U

(o
cr)
o

O

C'

ö
(ú

v)

c.)

O
r'vaMrJ 2005:PR2
:HWæ05-SC01

&hlÞÍt

c

7
2è16

121

2728

n1

tng

:ô5i

t9

t¡ta

¿B€A

n3.
tJ59
923.'

)54.

Dh.

SEAVIEW

iæÂLoN

3ROON1

]CKBOARO

ffiADOWAROOK

ITNARCH
:ÉRN MEÁOOW
iEACLIFF

,RKGÀTE

ua¡/

IUAìLHILL

NARTHSHORE

{aRaoR
}TH

DR

{/E

?l
otF

ìo
;T

Unir

ci..y

rcHf!1cND

ìfcHrrtcND

RtciñioNÞ

zip

)¡oc1

l4¿04

5725

1161

t34S

2057

r¡3ô3

94êC3

!642

X€03

169e

202S

)¿3Cò

r4¿0,1

RICIiMÔNE

TCHMCND

94eCð

¡4ec4

ì]CHMAND

tlCHr¡ONO

ltcìrMoND

)4804

ì¿a06

2833

2577

!

g8-c

CT

)4303

ùcll(10N0

1173

)953

1321

3{0c4

3113

9480¡

7rs5

J4093

RlciI4oND

)18C4

l0rl8

94a6

ïct\10N0

ì4€C1

I]CHJMOND

]R

]R

ST

]R
r_l

oo

LO

c,

o
cr)

a)
o)
(õ
o_
cÐ

J
N
N
co
o

E

e
LL
.t
f'*
C
A.)

E
f
O

o

ô
C)

O

s
(o
(o
ct.)

o
o
çl

ö
c)
v)

õ
O

,4Û24Ê721

r6!753690

¡Ê0s14116
76d314262
¡6í003571
¡0111135€
/61-199398

MSAC 2004"NC7

-BNiLT 2006_WL2

ahtbtrc

!141700145

los€10053'2

;505000354

{31r570115

!3213201€i

s210qæ7

43'1?210117

n

0s6300165

¡ôi

5441

5031

454

1300

lô8
l¿03

->81

4€02

s11

Dlr.

IOOSE\€LÍ

:ARÀ1SIEAO

flsfA

:s¡¿ÔND

ìD

qVE

SI

'R
crR

)R

rlH

lORNII]GSIDE

j.T

]R

\VE

SLVO

AVE

{vè

25rH

ìUAILHILL

IOTH

!lCLAUGHLIN

]UITìNG
OTH

ESMOND

DOREMUS

¡EAOOW VlEW

ûR,

ST

303

c.tv

:LSOBRAIfi

:lcHr\10ND

J4801

)¿806

)4¡0r

14e06

94¿03

94€t3

1ró0

tas

1230

;¿æ5

Ê,4SC6

)4601

RICHMONS

CHtvICNO

)48C3

¡4805

3801

1947

3825

)48C2

r7€1

),1803

?4805

)4803

ì.tcHñorll)

:LSOBRAN:

¡cH¡rlcNo
ìrcu¡¡ollD

{cl.ltiJcND

)4A0ô

l¡8c¡

zE11

118C5

14303

323C

3¿3Cô

14804

ìlc!$rcNÐ

RlcilvoNc

ticHMoNc

ìtcHt¡oNc

ltcHr"l0ND

lìctì(QND

oo

LO
cY)

li90¡ô53æ
1730059595
176550005ô

t\4sÁ20€7-i
MSA2007-2
CHAS€ 2007-A1

ct{AsÊ 2003s2

200544

'

Chase Mo¡?qâaê Fin¡ncè T¡ust 200754
,.P' Móroâ. ñ1o'1oao6 Ttust
,.F. Nl¿rcãn Môn.åoè Ttusl 20054a

:hé!E Mô'Ìðâù6 ÊiÉ¡.ê'Iiù5i 2lO€-S2
:håsc MoÉiâûe Fkì?nre 7rusl :007-54

184456112ô
\rôròâñ s|ârfâv ÂBS Câôil>l I fÈrst2(ñ7-1187

2007-Hã/

Vooan Stânlév AES CaDhâl

CJ

ct

cf)

$

o

| 2ôÒ7,HE7
,,tcHET2@5-S

FiÉr6 UfjlÊd
2CO5'FFH3

Pêr1lershiÞ 2CÉô.4

F¡"¡kli¡ Mortc¡oÉ Loã¡ Tru+

tlortoåqe lo¡n TiJsl 200È,AR1
Moa€ãgo Loan Tru5t æ07,7

{,r,èy Savirìs6 ån¿ Loan Assoóiâtion

:¡¡M5{a¡qè Aler¡aJvB L@h Trust 2@7-41

Lynch lMoi.eaoe lnv€6iors Trusl SerÞs N4LCC 2Co7-2

Fißi Fraùþin Modq!îo Loåi l¡u5Ì 20073

Fì.sl

REsl

I TruEt

(ú
o_

20t5:8

2¡0tD

lo,cA2cole

EOAI\,1S

BAFC 2C0ô-O

AT

tEstF 2cc€-A

2007¡

:liDûlo¡ lo¡nÀoallsltio.' Tr!s!2@71

049€79

l9tòa522
¡@0072c€8

1o41903329

:LA-r

tLA-i 20071

tm1c57700

t4s23{200€

ì473995e80

laq29a3t 57

i350?2!100

,294473621

;c44175742

t0.14035265

F.l

N
N
co

O

E
c)

ir
<'
¡--

=
0)
E
:f
(J

o

o
lr5Sg5+14

C)

O
leû

ta2ae68C¿3

s
(o
(o
(J

o
c9

J

Ø

ö
0)
CÚ

O

llarbo¡Vie

Êxhiblt C

560€6C0129

171800161

ta4
å019
1215

ß26

Dif,

¡EV¡N

\RK CENTRÀL

,EO

13Tti

ìONZAGÀ

{VE

t4805

2ô4A

ztp

ìtchlltoNo

1,48Q3

À5?4

ciry

ltcllMoND

l,!904

52X4

171i

t¿€c4

't-õ33

R CÈÞ10ND

e¿a0¡

94SC3

ã¡sc1

1641

iìlcHr\4oNo

RICHMOND

)4ê03

t
SÏ

ELSOBRANI

l¿Ec4

ì18C6

i4€0¿

i334

1245

3114

¿115

;4604

)!e03

ìtciitr10i\Ð

ìLCHr!10N0

DR

)R

ltc¡táoNÐ

;ÂNOY BAY

OWETL

5f

;T

AVE

ryE

ïc¡iltoNE

DAHO

AVE

RICH14CNÞ

RlcHlvìJ¡lÐ

¡tcHMo¡lo
RlcllrrioNo

ì
I

94eC€

f,i6Cl

94SC1

]4e01

:LSOBRAM

1480€

).1804

).4e03

2642

7407

i6¿0

/3Q5

CHû,1ÓND

licìr[10rìt

¿211

llC¡_f,rlONO

2706

5300

107S

1480ô
2524

ltcHrioñÐ
t47

-lNcclN

at,R

CHMÕND

31

IOMESTEAD

94€ô3

1157

RLCHIVONO

WE

cr

:SIMOND

¡,aoÐsrocK

2

)R

c\

ca

Case3:13-cv-03664-JCS DocumentlT-4 Filedjgl2zl13 Page35 of 35

q
=
q

I
s
I

3

ô
3

!¿

t:

*
s

r
-.1

t4

3

I

2

î

?t
É&

eð
SE

I
ã

g
À
ø

Sc
õ
o

o
g

N

83

¡