Donnie Dunn

1 2 3 4

Donnie R. Dunn Plaintiff in Pro per P.O. Box 231 Free Union, VA 22940 (434) 973-4257 SUPERIOR COURT OF VIRGINIA

5 6

COUNTY OF ABLEMARLE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Donnie R. DUNN

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MERIDIAN MORTGAGE ) DOES 1 TO 50 ) Defendants ) ________________________)

CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 1. Negligence Misrepresentation 2. Enterprise Liability 3. Anticipatory Repudiation (Breach)

15 16

COMPLAINT

17 18 19 20 21

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Donnie R. Dunn, In Pro per who complains and alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff Donnie R. Dunn at all times herein is or was

22

The owner of real property commonly known as:

23

34.73 Acres situated on State Route 601 Known as Free

24 25 26 27

Union Road, Free Union, VA. ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND WITH IMPROVEMENTS THEREON AND OPPURTENANCE THEREUNTO BELONGING, SITUATED IN THE

28

1

1 2 3

WHITE HALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THE WEST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 601, CONTAINING 34.73 ACRES, MORE

4

LESS, BEING DESCRIBED AS LOT 1 PLAT G.V. KIRK HUGHES. LAND OWNED

5

BY BERNICE AND ORLANDO DUNN CONTAINING 34.73 ACRES, WHITE HALL

6 7

DISTRICT, ABLEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,”OF RECORD IN THE CLERK’S

8

OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT OF ABLEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN DEED

9

114,PAGES 315 AND 316.

10 11 12

2. Defendant MERIDIAN MORTGAGE, hereinafter referred to as “MERIDIAN,” is a company who on information and belief

13

is conducting business in the State of Virginia.

14

3. The true name of defendants named herein as DOES 1

15

through

16 17

50, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,

18

are presently unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues said

19

defendants by such fictitious names; Plaintiff is informed

20 21

and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants

22

so designated herein proximately caused and contributed to

23

the facts herein alleged, and Plaintiff will ask to leave of

24

court to amend the Complaint to insert the true names and

25 26

capacity of DOES 1 through 50 when the same have been

27

ascertained and to join such Defendants

28

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges 2

1 2

that at all times herein mentioned each of the Defendants

3

sued herein in relation to the property they claim an

4 5

interest in was the agent of each of the remaining

6

Defendants and at all times was acting within the purpose

7

and scope of such agency employment.

8

5. On or about September 22 , 2006, Plaintiff executed an “

9 10

nd

adjustable Rate Note” promising to pay Meridian Mortgage

11

the sum of #380,000.00 by monthly payments.

12

6. The Adjustable Rate Note was base upon a six-month

13 14

“LIBOR” adjustable rate.

15

7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants an each of them did not

16

Explain the working of the interest rate, how it is

17

Computed or its inherent volatility or interest only note.

18 19

8. Further, on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges

20

that Defendants charged and obtained improper fees for the

21

placement of their loan as “sub-prime” when Plaintiff

22

qualified for a prime rate mortgage which would have

23 24

generated less in fees and interest.

25

9. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the

26

service of the purported note was, without Plaintiffs

27 28

knowledge, by some means had transferred from or by

3

1 2 3

Defendants either completely or by association or other means to another Defendant unknown to Plaintiff provided

4

services in various forms to others which were of such

5

nature to render them a “servicer”.

6 7 8

10.The Deed of trust was recorded with the Charlottesville County Recorder.

9

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

10

Negligence Misrepresentation

11 12 13

11. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

14

as though fully set forth herein.

15 16

12. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that

17

Defendants Meridian Mortgage and each of them are agents or

18

employees or persons actively involved in the extension of

19

credit.

20 21

13. In September 2006, Plaintiff gave a note for $380,000 to

22

PR Investor Services, Inc. as an agent for Defendant,

23

Meridian Mortgage Investors Fund VII,LLC. The Note was

24

secured by a Deed of Trust on a 34.73 acre property in

25 26

Albemarle County owned by Plaintiff, Donnie Dunn. The

27

property is unoccupied and has remained in Plaintiffs family

28

for several decades, Plaintiff took out a $380,000 loan to 4

1 2

do some improvements. The mentioned property is not in any

3

way commercial property and was going to be used as

4 5

residential property.

6

14. Defendants failed to provide information to Plaintiff on

7

his adjustable-rate 6-month Libor loan.

8

15. The Defendants, and each of them did not explain the

9 10

difference between the Libor rate and Treasury rate.

11

Defendants did not work the loan in the best interest of the

12

plaintiff as to the difference in the rates.

13 14

16. Defendant’s failed explained to Plaintiff the difference

15

between the interest rates between the two, Libor and

16

Treasury rates. Since 2007, the rates on which the indexes

17

are based have diverged sharply, and borrowers with Libor-

18 19

based adjustable-rate mortgages are paying more than they

20

would have had their mortgages been tied to treasuries.

21

Moreover , the proportion of libor-based ARMs has increased

22

significantly, especially for subprime loans. Libor has

23 24

risen to unprecedented levels.

25

17. Plaintiff further alleges that doctrines of mutual and

26

unilateral mistake sometimes condition liability itself on

27 28

the information that was (or was not) communicated prior to

5

1 2 3

the contract. In a similar way, the rules of contract formation (including the doctrine of unconscionability)

4

sometimes block the enforcement of entire terms that were

5

not adequately communicated in advance. In addition,

6 7

misrepresentation and nondisclosure can themselves be

8

grounds for rescinding an otherwise valid contract, as well

9

as the basis for damages in a tort. (Virginia Law Review

10 11 12

Vol. 92, June 2006,No.4) 18. Plaintiff further alleges that these violations are such

13

as to require rescission or cancellation of the loan herein

14

and return of all funds received by Defendants from

15

Plaintiff.

16 17

19. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

18

compensatory damages in the amount to be determined at

19

trial.

20 21

20. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

22

attorney fees according to statute in the event that they

23

retain counsel.

24

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

25

ENTERPRISE LIABILTY FRAUD

26 27

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10

28

as fully set forth herein. 6

1 2

Based upon information and belief, and on that bases

3

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and each of them fall

4 5

within the Enterprise Liability Doctrine.

6

21. Defendants, and each of them failed to disclose the term

7

Of the loan. Defendants giving Plaintiff a 6 month

8

adjustable rate Libor loan, then using it as a one year

9 10

balloon payment with the monies received constitutes

11

fraud with in the meaning of the statute of fraud within

12

Virginias statute.

13 14

22. Defendants in their loan documents never mention of a

15

balloon payment, only a 6 month Libor adjustable loan with

16

plaintiff. Defendants after using the 1 year balloon payment

17

started foreclosure proceedings on plaintiffs property.

18 19

23. Defendants failed to disclose any information to

20

plaintiff as to any exact information or performance or any

21

other material fact has been misrepresented or not disclosed

22

by defendant constitutes Enterprise Liability and Fraud

23 24

towards Plaintiff.

25

24. Plaintiff on information and belief, and on that bases

26

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and each of them, placed

27 28

loans for the purpose of unlawfully increasing or otherwise

7

1 2 3

obtaining yield spread fees and sums in excess of what would have been lawfully earned.

4

25. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis

5

plaintiff alleges that Defendant Meridian Mortgage

6 7

violations require rescission of the loan and return of all

8

funds received by defendants from plaintiff.

9

26. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 27. Plaintiff further alleges that he is entitled to attorney fees according to proof in the event that they retain counsel. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION (BREACH) 28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 10 as though fully set forth herein.

20

29. Defendants loan to plaintiff should be “void” because

21

of Defendants Breach. Defendant and each of them Breached

22 23

the loan contract by not fully disclosing all necessary

24

terms and rates and specific common law duties within the

25

meaning, as to their intentions within the loan documents as

26

to the loan on the real property.

27 28

30. Plaintiff was given a 6 month adjustable Libor loan by

8

1 2 3

Defendants. Defendants failed to disclose the true nature of the loan to Plaintiff and disclose the balloon payment which

4

was never written into the note.

5

31. Plaintiff use of his property is also an issue as to

6 7

Defendants statement that the loan was a commercial loan,

8

however the loan was a property loan not for commercial

9

purposes but to use as residential.

10 11 12

32. The Defendants conduct within the loan, and using the funds on a balloon payment that does not exist in the loan

13

documents them selves and was unaware to Plaintiff shows a

14

Breach and Unfair Business Practices in Plaintiffs loan.

15

33. Plaintiff alleges that the commencement of foreclosure

16 17 18 19 20

proceedings upon the property lawfully belonging to Plaintiff without the production of documents demonstrating the lawful rights for the foreclosure constitutes a breach and Anticipatory Repudiation.

21

34.As a consequence and proximate result, plaintiff has

22

been damaged in the sum to be proven at trial.

23 24

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages as follows:

25

1. For compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Twenty

26

Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

27 28

2. For punitive damages in the amount in excess of Twenty

9

1 2 3

Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) 3. For any statory or compensatory damages according to

4

proof;

5

4. For rescission of the contract and loan;

6 7

5. For attorney’s fees in the event that counsel is

8

retained;

9 10

6. For other and further relief as the court deems proper

11

and just,

12

Dated this 28

th

day of May, 2009

13 14

___________________________ DONNIE R. DUNN Plaintiff In Pro per

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1