IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
This is a declaratory relief case brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust on behalf of
the 2007 IMPAC Certificate Holders vs Lissette Napoleoni. The case was filed in the
District Court of Nevada in October, 2019. This statement summary encompasses facts
from the following range of years:
-2006: the year Ms. Napoleoni signed an ARM predatory loan with IMPAC
Financial Group.
-2007: the year Deutsche National Bank Trust started their duties as a Wall
Street trustee for the 2007 IMPAC Certificates in the Securities Exchange
Commission.
– 2010-2011: two years in which multiple Assignments of Deed of Trust were
executed by Deutsche Bank National Trust, all completed after Ms. Napoleoni’s
Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing (which she did in order to obtain a 30 year fixed loan).
– 2015: the year Ms. Napoleoni’s Note was declared lost (for the first time) by
Bank of America, which created a situation in which Ms. Napoleoni couldn’t
refinance, sell or give back the house safely. The 2015 Bank of America Lost Note
Affidavit would change and have negative repercussions on Ms. Napoleoni’s life. The
best protection a homeowner can have is a canceled Note after finishing payments and
this possibility had gone out the window for Ms. Napoleoni. For all the previous years,
courts had been protective of this basic right. But Deutsche Bank National Trust
would not go to court to fix this problem. They would instead wait and let the heat
from the housing crisis cool down, knowing that an indemnity bond is what
homeowners usually get under these circumstances. According to the 2015 Lost Note
Affidavit, her Note could have been lost since 2006, and could have been protected
under stricter laws and UCC interpretations. In fact, many states UCC guidelines
require possession and ownership of the promissory Note at the time of loss. But
Deutsche Bank National Trust winning card was to keep waiting for laws to ease after
the housing crisis, even if this meant trapping Ms. Napoleoni in a difficult financial
situation.
-2017: the year Deutsche Bank National Trust introduced themselves to Ms.
Napoleoni as her Note holder via a letter she received from their new servicing
company, Select Portfolios (this after Bank of America had declared the Note lost in
2015).
-2019: the year the Appellee filed a Declaratory Relief lawsuit in which they
filed a completely different Lost Note Affidavit. This Affidavit was executed by Select
Portfolios in 2017 and contains a completely different set of facts on when, how and
who lost Ms. Napoleoni’s Note, shattering every single drop of credibility on they ever
having possessed the Note to start with.
-2021: the year the case was decided in favor of the Appellee, which Findings of
Fact ignored the multiple Lost Note Affidavits and multiple Assignments of Deed of
Trust filed by the Appellee, among many other important facts that are usually
examined carefully in cases like this across the nation before deciding the outcome of a
case. This judgment will lead to foreclosure. Foreclosure after Ms. Napoleoni has not
been able to sell, refinance or modify her loan for years all due to all the mysfuncional
bank paperwork surrounding her deed of trust since she signed it. Foreclosure after
promises made in the 2021 Summary Judgment hearing where the Appellee
guaranteed they would modify Ms. Napoleoni’s loan. When all is said and done, Ms.
Napoleoni would have been trapped in an ARMS loan for a period of seventeen years,
and due to foreclosure she won’t be able to buy a home with a 30 year fixed loan term
until her sixties and after a total of eight years in court fighting for her rights to a fair
loan. Her efforts to buy a home during her 30s, which are most people’s prime
financial years, have been crushed since she signed her deed of trust in 2006. Now Ms.
Napoleoni won’t be able, despite all her efforts, to pay off a new home by her 80’s.
DETAILED SUMMARY OF FACTS AND THE NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES A PREDATORY ARM LOAN AND LACK OF A PROPER
BUSINESS STANDARDS IN HOME DOCUMENTATION HAVE CAUSED IN MS.
NAPOLEONI’S LIFE:
1. From 39 years old -42 years old (Years 2006-2010)
Events: An ARM Predatory loan, false promises that she would one day obtain a 30 year
fixed loan, modification attempts that never panned out, Deutsche Bank National Trust
role as a trustee of certificates.
From the very beginning, Ms. Napoleoni was set up to be stuck with a predatory subprime loan
when she signed an ARM Adjustable Rate Note with the IMPAC Funding Group in 2006.
IMPAC Funding Group used predatory, aggressive and deceptive lending tactics when giving
Adjustable Rate loans to people like Ms. Napoleoni, a teacher/musician/filmmaker, who had
good credit, was not an investor or remotely interested in investing. She was simply a married
woman seeking her family’s first home loan. Ms. Napoleoni had asked for a 30 year fixed loan
from their loan agent, as this was the preferred loan for the homes her family owned. However,
Ms. Napoleoni was told by the agent that banks were giving out trial loans only and that they
would change the loan to a 30 year fixed term after she proved she could pay the loan for a year
or so. Subsequently, Ms. Napoleoni, who was foolishly convinced by this argument like
thousands of others predated upon during the pre housing crisis year, was given a balloon
payment that would ultimately require refinancing. Unfortunately, refinancing would be
impossible to accomplish as with the upcoming 2008 housing crash many of these homes in
CDO’s would be upside down. Furthermore, the terms made it difficult or impossible to repay,
and made her vulnerable to foreclosure. In 2007, just a few months after Ms. Napoleoni signed
the deed of trust, the Deutsche Bank National Trust’s 2007 IMPAC Certificates pooled Ms.
Napoleoni’s Note into their CDO’s portfolio without executing an Assignment of Deed of
Trust that year, without obtaining an endorsement, an allonge or a transfer that any court
has seen to date. Basically, the transfer of Ms. Napoleoni’s Note into the 2007 IMPAC
certificate seems to have been done without any legal paperwork or receipts to back it up
whatsoever. This Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) was governed by Deutsche Bank
National Trust, which carried out the rules within these certificates. Unbeknown to Ms Napoloni
until she was sued in the 2019 declaratory relief case, Deutsche Bank National Trust, in their
role as a trustee for these certificates, limited modifications through their pooling and servicing
agreement in order to hike profits for their investors. This would mean that Ms. Napoleoni not
only was lied to about IMPAC Mortgage’s willingness to change her terms to a 30 year fixed
loan in the future, but that all her efforts to modify her loan for over a decade would end up
being a complete and utter waste of time. In fact, in both 2007 and 2008, Ms. Napoleoni
requested IMPAC Funding Group to change her terms, but was told to wait longer. While
waiting for a modification in 2008, CDO’s would take homebuyers down with them during the
housing crash, but not before banks cashed in bailouts and American taxpayers. And it was in
2008 that the IMPAC Certificates filed a SEC 15-D. If a company takes action to remove
itself from the public markets, an act referred to as going private or going dark, filing
Form 15-15D is part of the process. Therefore, Ms. Napoleoni doesn’t understand how
she would get sued by investors and a company that had filed a SEC 15D status. In 2009
and 2010, Lissette continued asking for a modification of her loan, this time because her
home was underwater, and she was now trapped under terrible loan terms she would not
be able to refinance.
2. From 42 years old to 47 years old – (Years 2010-2015).
Events: 2010 Bankruptcy filing by Ms. Napleoni in order to obtain a housing crisis court
mandated modification from the court, multiple Assignments of Deed of Trust filed by
Deutsche Bank National Trust, an IMPAC Mortgage/ Bank of America ‘modification’ that
was actually meant to keep ARM terms in place, and a mid bankruptcy Proof of Claim
with an unendorsed Note.
In 2008, the US economy crashed due to the housing crisis. In 2010, Ms. Napoleoni filed a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy to convert her IMPAC Mortgage subprime loan into a 30 fixed year loan
as it was common knowledge that this was the government’s way to fix ARM loans given during
the housing crisis crash. Ms. Napoleoni had received a letter from IMPAC Funding Group
around 2010 telling her that they were considering her for a modification and with the help of her
bankruptcy lawyers she both filed for a modification and her Chapter 13 bankruptcy at the same
time. Unfortunately, Bank of America, who had recently acquired Countrywide (her servicing
company at the time), gave Ms Napoleoni a modification meant to be a continuation of the same
ARM loan she already had, even though obtaining a 30 year fixed loan was the only reason Ms.
Napoleoni filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Ms. Napoleoni believed her lawyers’ modification
agents when they told her that the modification was going to be a type of contract that was going
to have fixed loan terms, after all, modification related motions in court described the contract as
such. However, as Ms. Napoleoni reread the contract a year later, it clearly stated at the end of
the document that after five years, the loan terms would return to those of the original ARM
contract terms. By the time she reread her modification, it was too late, and she had already
signed the modification. After Ms. Napoleoni signed her modification with IMPAC Funding
Group and Bank of America, Deutsche Bank National Trust filed a 2011 Proof of Claim in her
bankruptcy to claim the modification as theirs and at the same time switch positions from trustee
to lender. However, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank National Trust did not inform Ms.
Napoleoni via letter that she had a new lender, which is what the government requires servicing
companies (and lenders) to do for the obvious reason that otherwise a homeowner does not know
who she owes money to. Deutsche Bank National Trust 2011 Proof of Claim included as proof
of ownership an unendorsed Note which also lacked an allonge. This Note was nothing but a
mere copy of the document Ms. Napoleoni signed in 2006. According to the July 30th, 2010
Assignment of Deed of Trust, the first Assignment that Deutsche Bank National Trust would file
at the Recorder’s Office in Nevada, this Note would have had to be endorsed by IMPAC
Mortgage’s trustee Ron Morrison. But Ms. Napoleoni’s Note was not only not endorsed by Ron
Morrison (or Countrywide or Bank of America), but accompanying the Note was a newer
August 10th, 2011 Assignment of Deed of Trust that said nothing about Ron Morrison’s
signature and had the wrong parcel number. In 2011, yet a third Assignment of Deed of Trust
showed up in Ms. Napoleoni’s records at the county. This third Assignment of Deed of Trust,
also filed on August 10, 2011, had identical signatures and handwriting to the second
Assignment of Deed of Trust, but it had the right parcel number and wrong homeowner. Both
assignments filed in August 2011 looked as if they were robo signed. While all these multiple
Assignments of Deed of Trust were being filed in her bankruptcy and at the Clark County
Recorder’s Office, nobody in her bankruptcy law firm saw it necessary to send her an email or
call her or even tell her in person that Ms. Napoleoni had a new lender in 2011. In fact, there’s a
finding of Fact in the judgment that reads as follows: Her bankruptcy counsel never objected to
the Proof of Claim or Amended Proof of Claim, both of which list Appellee as the
beneficiary/lender. How in the world was Ms. Napoleoni able to figure out that a Proof of
Claim that has a trustee name on it and that was filed mid bankruptcy was meant to be a way for
her to get a new lender? When in fact this Proof of Claim was never discussed with her? She
never even saw it! If there were conversations between Ms. Napoleoni’s lawyers and Deutsche
Bank National Trust in which they would become a lender mid bankruptcy, Ms. Napoleoni was
left out in the dark about these discussions. But apparently, Ms. Napoleoni was in the same boat
as many other dozens, maybe hundreds of people, according to a Reuters article published
regarding Deutsche Bank National Trust practices called: “US investigates Deutsche Bank in
foreclosure case”, By Scot J. Paltrow: “…a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice is
investigating whether Deutsche Bank filed false documents and attempted to mislead a
bankruptcy judge in a foreclosure action. The inquiry involves Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co, the Deutsche Bank unit that acts as trustee for thousands of trusts that invested
in mortgage-backed securities. The U.S. Trustees’ Office is a division of the Department of
Justice responsible for overseeing administration of bankruptcy cases. In recent months, the
office has stepped up efforts around the United States to block banks and law firms from using
false or fabricated documents in home foreclosure actions. Jane Limprecht, spokeswoman for the
U.S. Trustee’s office, confirmed that the examination was part of a nationwide effort begun by
the office in recent months to investigate suspected improper actions by banks and other
mortgage servicers in foreclosure cases.”
Unaware that she had a new lender, ignorant of the messy paperwork Deutsche Bank
National Trust had just filed in her bankruptcy court case, oblivious that there was a Proof of
Claim in her bankruptcy, Ms. Napoleoni called Bank of America directly and again demanded
she’d be given the 30 year fixed modification she applied for in bankruptcy. All of this thinking
that Bank of America were connected to her lender IMPAC Funding Group or that at the very
least, by now they had taken full control when it came to decision making of her Note. Around
2014, Bank of America told Ms. Napoleoni that not paying her loan would qualify her for a 30
year fixed loan under Obama modification plans. She then did what everyone was doing and
applied for a modification yet again, not realizing that the Attorney General of Nevada had sued
Bank of America over bad modifications in the Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d
661. Nevada alleged that Bank of America misled Nevada consumers about the terms and
operation of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes, but in the end the
Attorney General lost this lawsuit. In addition to that messy lawsuit with the Attorney General of
Nevada, in 2014, the Department of Justice ordered Bank of America to Pay $16.65 Billion in
Historic Justice Department Settlement for Financial Fraud Leading up to and During the
Financial Crisis.
Notwithstanding all this history, Bank of America denied her modification again around
2015 and swiftly exited her life in 2016. This is the moment when Ms. Napoleoni understood
why thousands of people had walked away from their loans after the housing crisis, and she was
about ready to do the same thing. It had become clear to Ms Napoleoni, that during the aftermath
of the housing crisis, not even the Attorney General of Nevada, not even the Department of
Justice fines upon Bank of America, not even government bailouts requirements upon banks to
modify loans would ever compel Bank of America to modify loans to 30 year fixed loans. And
these loans were near impossible to escape from unscathed. To fully understand how
Countrywide utilized mortgage companies to recruit new loans through deceptive practices, and
how difficult these loans are to refinance there is a case in California that makes the process
crystal clear: The People of the State of California Vs. CountryWide Financial Coporation.
Countrywide was in fact Ms. Napoleoni’s first servicing company almost immediately after the
IMPAC Funding Group. By 2015, the housing crisis, her bankruptcy, the modifications
processes, etc., had added up to five years spent in court and this whole experience had left Ms.
Napoleoni emotionally exhausted. This was exacerbated by her divorce mid bankruptcy and by
the fact that her ex-husband walked away highly suspicious of her loan ever becoming a good
loan, and was he right. Meanwhile, Ms. Napoleoni’s family stood in horror of the hardships Ms.
Napoleoni had to go through all these years in order to obtain the type of loan they easily got, as
in Puerto Rico, laws protect families from being preyed upon and given convoluted commercial
loans. In any event, the Appellee, wearing the trustee hat from every single angle: trustee to the
2007 IMPAC Certificates and who eventually would also become a trustee to her own deed
of trust (in addition to silently becoming her lender), had a deleterious influence over her
financial life because after all, Deutsche Bank National Trust is a company seeking to make
money through Wall Street trusts and certificates designed for investors, not through being a fair
mortgage company that gives out fixed loans to families.
From 47 to 51 years old. (Years 2015 to 2017)
Event: The Appelle’s first Lost Note Affidavit executed by Bank of America arrives
in Ms. Napoleoni’s mail. By 2015, Bank of America hadn’t changed her loan terms through
bankruptcy or the Obama program as promised, and she couldn’t refinance her house due to
having a bankruptcy in her record. Therefore, Napoleoni was ready to walk away. Like many
other people did during this time, she would just let Bank of America foreclose and look for a
fair loan somewhere else. It was then, in 2015, that Ms Napoleoni received the Bank of
America Lost Note Affidavit in the mail, which basically stated that her Note could have been
lost at any time since she signed her loan in 2006. This Lost Note Affidavit created a ‘no way
out’ situation for her, as now she didn’t know which bank could foreclose her from all the
entities involved with her loan from 2006-2015 including IMPAC Mortgage, Countrywide, Bank
of America and or third party companies involved with her trust. She also didn’t know if her
loan was paid off through bailouts or insurances or if there was tax fraud, or even an improper
transfer, or if her loan should go to Fannie Mae. She did try one last ditch effort to get rid of her
loan through a deed in lieu through Bank of America, but Bank of America literally told her she
no longer had an agent at the bank and proceeded to disappear in 2016. Without any bank
possessing her Note, the Appellant couldn’t be foreclosed, she couldn’t sell the house, she
couldn’t refinance as without her Note she was literally boxed in. This 2015 Lost Note
Affidavit period in her life tied her to the home as she was not able to come and go like any other
homeowner. She literally was the ‘guard’ of a home without a Note. Since she was on title, the
home was her responsibility. She didn’t know if at any point in time a company would appear
out of nowhere, on any given day, claim to be her lender, and have documentation that could
leave her on the street in a matter of days. In order to correct this situation, she would have had
to hire an expensive lawyer and figure out many legal and financial concepts dealing with
CDO’s, research the why’s and how’s of the shredding of Notes down at Countrywide during the
housing crisis, and read dozens of case across the nation of homeowners that were going through
the same situation, cases which she later was forced to learn about through the 2019 Declaratory
Relief case. It looked like she would have to put her creative and teaching projects on hold to
enter a whole new phase of court motions dealing with her predatory ARM deed of trust.
From 51-53 years old (Years 2017-2019)
Events: Deutsche Bank National Trust finally introduces themselves in 2017 via a letter
from Select Portfolios. Afterwards, they sent Ms. Napoleoni many modification offers. Yet no
one lawyer from Deutsche Bank National Trust ever returned her calls asking them to explain
why they claimed to be a Note holder if she had gotten a previous Lost Note Affidavit.
The Appelle finally introduced themselves to Ms Napoleoni in 2017 as Note holder of her
deed of trust. Unfortunately, Ms. Napoleoni had the 2015 Bank of America Lost Note Affidavit
in her possession stating that her Note was lost, so what they said contradicted Bank of America.
Truth be told, Ms Napoloni thought she was doing business strictly through Bank of America till
2016. She did start hearing about investors in conversations with Bank of America around 2015
and 2016, something to the fact that the modification she was applying to or any requests had to
be run by lawyers representing investors. At this point, she did start thinking that there was a
third party associated with her loan that exerted some kind of power over decisions. She knew
her loan was tied to Wall Street in some way as it was a deed of trust and there was an echo of
investors starting to have a strong voice according to Bank of America reps. But Bank of
America did not describe the lawyers as representing the 2007 IMPAC Certificates over the
phone or as a lender of any kind. Regardless of all that confusion, in 2017 Deutsche Bank
National Trust did make it crystal clear over a letter that they were representing investors, that
they were the Note holder and that Select Portfolios was their servicing company. Shortly after
that, around 2017 Select Portfolios started making empty promises that they would modify her
subprime loan. These modification letters asked her to call them and she did and reps were
always more than happy to help her with a modification. But the truth is that they couldn’t
legally fulfill a modification as they didn’t have a Note, or receipts or Note endorsements.
Select Portfolios said they would speak to their lawyers about her concerns but no lawyer ever
returned her messages. Ms. Napoleoni figured if Select Portfolios had rights to her Note, they
would follow through their promises for a modification, but instead they just grabbed all her
private financial information for a ‘modification review’ only to tell her a few days later that the
Deutsche Bank National Trust didn’t include a modification in their agreement with Select
Portfolios. Select Portfolios lack of power to change loan terms confirmed to her that legally
they didn’t have ownership rights over her loan. Without a Note, without being able to modify
her loan legally, Ms. Napoleoni felt that any payments to Select Portfolios would have been
as good as throwing money away, as she did not have any assurances that the Appellee
were the legitimate owner of the Note. On top of that, they already had added a ton of
arrears to the loan, so if she started paying a loan at that moment, and without protection
from a court to restart the loan, they could simply foreclose on her whenever they liked.
Since 2017, the Appellee has been dangling the modification carrot in front of Ms. Napoleoni in
at least a dozen modification offers because they wanted a warm body in the house until they
could claim the home in court years later. Had Ms. Napoleoni abandoned the home, it could
have been declared condemned and be claimed by the government as in 2017 the Nevada courts
didn’t accept Lost Note Affidavits, which is all the proof of possession Deutsche Bank National
Trust really ever had. And even then, the two Lost Note Affidavits they had executed
contradicted each other on their version who, when and where Ms. Napoleoni’s Note was lost. It
would be much easier for Deutsche Bank National Trust to win in court by making Ms.
Napoleoni the enemy in 2019, the person who just wants ‘a free home’ as they claimed many
times in and out of court. Ms Napoleoni would have to overcome that label, which was
exacerbated by her accent, and which Deutsche Bank National Trust would use to subtly play
into people’s subconscious stereotypes. And so Ms. Napoleoni was manipulated into staying in
the home with promises to fix everything related to her loan made over the phone. Deutsche
Bank National Trust would wait until the last year of statute of limitations, and once in court,
they waited for the Supreme Court of Nevada to accept Lost Note Affidavits as proof, which
happened in 2020 after her case had started in 2019.
4. From 52 years old to 55 years old (Years 2019-2022)
Event: 2019-2022 Declaratory Relief case at the 8th District Court. Years after not being
able to foreclose in 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust finally filed a declaratory relief case in
2019. After leaving Ms. Napoleoni in absolute limbo for years, Deutsche Bank National Trust
finally admitted in court that they did not have her Note even though they had told Ms.
Napoleoni via letter they were the Note holder in 2017. (LETTER HERE). However, to Ms.
Napoleoni surprise, Deutsche Bank National Trust changed all the facts of how the Note was lost
with a completely different Lost Note Affidavit executed by Select Portfolios in 2017. Deutsche
Bank National Trust even went as far as accusing Ms. Napoleoni repeatedly of simply wanting a
‘free home’, without taking responsibility for the chaos they created with their 2015 Bank of
America Lost Note Affidavit. Their brand new 2017 Select Portfolios Lost Note Affidavit
claimed that Deutsche Bank National Trust had the Note all along, and that it was in their vaults
in 2017. If they had never really lost the Note before, it would have been useful for them to tell
Ms. Napoleoni a few years earlier so she could have walked out right then, when there wasn’t a
clouded title. But instead of telling her they had the Note in 2017 and that it was never lost to
start with, they just kept sending Ms. Napoleoni letters about how they just wanted for her to
have a good loan or how they wanted to help her. But the truth is that the Appellee was simply
waiting for courts to ease their requirements for banks in declaratory relief cases. As Deutsche
Bank National Trust stated in their Summary Judgment hearing, the US vs Jones case of 2020
allowed banks to file a Lost Note Affidavit in court and to them that meant that the Supreme
Court now had a low bar of proof for cases like this. As far as she is concerned, Ms. Napoleoni
spent three years in court, from 2019 till 2021, without a trial, just waiting for the Appelle to
make a move after Jones vs US Bank was decided in 2020.
During 2019-2021, Ms. Napoleoni figured out the ins and outs of bank documentation, as
she knew that challenges to Assignments and Lost Note Affidavits can help to ensure that the
correct party is, in fact, foreclosing, and that she will not have to pay another eventual claimant.
It is Ms. Napoleoni’s right to know, after all the incredibly poor paperwork filed by banks over
the years, who the right claimant is. Ms. Napoleoni wanted to know that the foreclosing entity
was in fact entitled to enforce the debt, as she had questions regarding transfers, as she simply
never saw even one transfer from Countrywide to any company. These types of questions and
investigation should be encouraged as the possibility of having the wrong lender claim the home
is a possibility and it is a good reason for researching Assignment and Lost Notes Affidavits
carefully, as well as all relevant documents to the ultimate facts of a case. Ms. Napoleoni
brought up these issues of faulty documentation in a Motion to Dismiss in 2021 as well as in her
Opposition to Summary Judgment. She was about to talk about the conflict of Lost Note
Affidavits and Assignments of Deed of Trust during her first turn to defend her case in the
Summary Judgment hearing, when she was suddenly barred from speaking by Judge Susan
Johnson, who brought to her attention that she must speak about Jones vs US Bank first. She sent
Ms. Napoleoni home and orders her to read it. Jones vs US Bank 2020 was brought up by
Deutsche Bank National Trust during their introduction at the Summary Judgment hearing.
However, Deutsche Bank National Trust had not mentioned this case at all during their Summary
Judgment motion. Ms. Napoleoni was stopped right on her tracks, and was sent home to read the
case and was not able to speak during the first day of the Summary Judgment hearing. When she
returned, Judge Susan Johnson said she herself had just read the case and that Ms. Napoleoni was
in ‘trouble’. Ms. Napoleoni felt obligated to address the case before her presentation and said
her case was much different, seemed to have more companies, and that her case Countrywide
never did a transfer to Bank of America or anyone else and that the true owner was impossible to
figure out in her own case and that is all she wanted to do, figure out the real owner of the Note.
Susan Johnson stated that the filing of the 2017 Lost Note Affidavit by Deutsche Bank National
Trust indicated that the Appellee was unmistakably her lender. Ms. Napoleoni anticipated that
after addressing the Jones vs. US Bank issue, she would be able to present her original
presentation and opposition, which she had prepared on the first day of the Summary Judgment
hearing, before she was sent home to study Jones vs. US Bank, and which consisted of a
discussion of her Motion to Dismiss and written opposition, but Susan Johnson abruptly decided
the case before she could present these facts. Ms. Napoleoni then addressed Judge Johnson and
stated that she was not through, and she noted that the evidence had not even been discussed. Her
best friend, with whom she had rehearsed her presentation, sat in the courtroom in disbelief.
Susan Johnson neglected to make sure that Ms. Napoleoni, a Pro Se defendant learning how to
navigate the courtroom, had concluded her presentation despite having been given the
opportunity to counsel to properly present their case and to add fresh facts at the last minute.
Since Ms. Napoleoni was prepared with the necessary documents on the first day of the
Summary Judgment hearing, it is obvious that Judge Johnson prevented her from having her
initial discussion at that time. She would now have to postpone making her whole argument in
her opening brief to the Supreme Court of Nevada, where she is pleading for the court to do a
close examination of the proof de novo. Even though the government forbade foreclosure
lawsuits from occurring between the years of 2019–2022, and despite the Nevada governor
making it abundantly clear that these cases shouldn’t proceed, Deutsche Bank National Trust
continued to file court filings during these pandemic years.
Ms. Napoleoni has spent eight years of her life in court, between attempting to obtain a
modification in 2010 through her Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and the three years she has spent in the
district court, and she still does not have a normal loan like most homeowners in the United
States of America. What was probably most alarming to Ms. Napoleoni was learning that
Deutsche Bank National Trust had filed a Proof of Claim in her bankruptcy in 2011 and that it
claimed to have a 10-year relationship with her as a lender without a Note or introduction until
2017. Ms. Napoleoni saw, during a 2022 visit to her Chapter 13 bankruptcy files in Las Vegas,
that Deutsche Bank National Trust began filing post modification motions close to her 2015
discharge date, including the 2015 Bank of America Lost Note Affidavit. However, when she
received the 2015 Bank of America Lost Note Affidavit in the mail, she was unable to deduce
anything other than that they were a third party under her deed of trust with IMPAC Mortgage
and Bank of America.
This is the reason why the government should mandate that servicing companies introduce
lenders, which Select Portfolios eventually did, but in 2017 rather than 2011 as they claim in the
judgment, resulting in complete confusion about Note ownership, which was not even supported
by any evidence and was contradicted by their own two Lost Note Affidavits. Therefore, after
Select Portfolios introduced themselves in 2017, Lissette Napoleoni did not even deal with them,
which is why she did not pay them either. Due to this, she views Deutsche Bank National Trust
as a trustee attempting to exert control over a lending position without an allonge or a Note.
55 years old (2022); Judge Susan Johnson grants declaratory relief without including all
the evidence in the Findings of Fact. In actuality, the 2015 Lost Note Affidavit was
disregarded and not even referenced in the Finding of Facts, as were the 2010 and 2011 multiple
Assignments of Deeds of Trust. Lissette Napoleoni did not even know who Deutsche Bank
National Trust was at the time she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2010 and requested a
modification, as stated in the Findings of Fact. Considering that Deutsche Bank National Trust
did not claim a lender position until after the 2011 modification, it is incomprehensible that she
would even seek a Wall Street certificate for a modification. All documents containing their
name listed them as a trustee; nonetheless, this does not constitute them a lender, but a trustee.
To be a lender, one must be able to conduct financial transactions with the minimum documents
necessary by the state and have the Note in your vaults. Additionally, you must introduce
yourself at the moment you claim to be the new lender, and if you lack the Note, you must have
successfully completed a declaratory relief case.
55 years old (2022); High arrears, interests and legal charges prohibit her from selling the
home.
5. In 2022, the Appellant attempted to sell the house, but the high arrears prevented her from
doing so. Even though the Appellee was unable to provide any financial services, such as a
refinance or modification of the Note, the Appellee continued to charge arrears for years instead
of filing their 2019 declaratory relief lawsuit in 2014. But that was too close to the housing
crisis, and they would have fared poorly in court, so they postponed Ms. Napoleoni’s case until
2019, when she would be isolated from comparable cases around the country.
No accounting has been provided for all arrears charges, nor for interest or legal fees.
Inexplicable fees are simply added to the overall amount. The charges are so exorbitant that
there is insufficient equity in the house for a secure sale, and she cannot even sell it to avoid a
foreclosure record. If Nevada foreclosure courts did not recognize Deutsche Bank National
Trust as the loan’s owner in 2014, Ms. Napoleoni should not have been required to pay a loan
that is not even recognized by the state’s court system. Being in limbo and not knowing if a bank
could foreclose on you at any moment is not a sustainable way to live. It is distressing not to
know if you may relocate without later discovering that a bank is pursuing you for a mortgage. It
is unjust to be unable to purchase a home due to a tangle in your financial history surrounding
the home you own.
It is inconvenient to be unable to schedule family visits since one does not know who could
come up at her home with ownership documents. Ms. Napoleoni postponed her trip to Puerto
Rico to see her family in order to address this extremely stressful situation that has lingered for
years. No one, absolutely no one, should be charged money during a period of limbo, as the
individual is essentially caught in a circumstance where they cannot leave, either back to their
hometown or to another city, or purchase a new home when interest rates are low. You are
essentially responsible for a home that is in your name, which you must repair as it is your
liability, only to give it up when the bank believes the courts have relaxed their vigilance
regarding housing crisis issues, allowing them to swoop in and acquire homes that were once
part of the portfolio of investors they once represented. You cannot simply leave when a Lost
Note Affidavit is in place; the potential liability is enormous, and you are merely a pawn keeping
the home in good condition until the ‘bank is ready’.
6. 55 years old (2022); Event: Ms. Napoleoni attempted to refinance the home, but due
to the court case and loan history, she was unable to do so. Again, Ms. Napoleoni remained
entrapped in her loan without the court’s assistance in ensuring that her loan was amended
appropriately and that she was not overcharged with arrears, unjustified interest, and legal fees.
No one would be willing to take a gamble on her because the court documents defending her
home throughout the years make it impossible to refinance the property.
7. 55 years old (2022); Event: The Appellee won the lawsuit in 2022, and although Deutsche
Bank National Trust indicated during the Summary Judgment hearing that they intended
to modify her loan, they informed her over the phone, in a very unpleasant way, that they
would never do so. So the courtroom discourse was merely for show. In reality, during the
Summary Judgment hearing, Greg Wilde stated (exhibit 20 P. 8): “In Napoleoni’s moving papers
and in her opposition she says she wants nothing more than another opportunity to modify the
loan. And that is all my client is trying to do. My client still needs to go through the Nevada
State Court Foreclosure Procedures, where Ms. Napoleoni will still have an opportunity to
request a mandatory loan modification meeting, where Deutsche Bank needs to send a
representative and meet with her personally to discuss modification.”
On the other hand, during a telephone conversation with Select Portfolios on 5/24/2022, Select
Portfolios stated that they would never negotiate any sort of modification with her, that it was
utterly impossible and pointless for her to try. Therefore, Greg Wilde’s statements about
Appellee’s true intentions are either a blatant lie or the result of total ignorance. Now she will
have a foreclosure on her report for years to come. Deutsche Bank National Trust will eradicate
the bad ‘housing crisis’ related history. The bad Lost Note Affidavits and Assignments, as well
as Ms. Napoleoni’s financial ruins, will be swept under the rug.
8. From 55 years old to 60 years old (2022); Event: Ms. Napoleoni will now have a
foreclosure on her report, which will once again prevent her from purchasing a property. A
mortgage foreclosure will prevent her from purchasing a home until she is in her sixties,
squandering 20 years of her life.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )