Preview
413.2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BRISTOL, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2173CV00074
ANTONIA V. ALVES, BRISTOL SS SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff FILED
APR 14 2021
vy.
MARC J SANTOS. ESQ.
ELLIOT SCHNEIDER, et al., CLERK/MAGISTRATE
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF ELLIOT SCHNEIDER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ELLIOT
SCHNEIDER AND MOTORCADE, LLC’S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS LIS
PENDENS
I, Elliot Schneider, do on oath depose and state as follows:
1 Tam one of the named defendants in the above action. I am the sole member and
manager of Defendant Motorcade, LLC, one of the other defendants in this action. Motorcade is
a Massachusetts limited liability company formed in April 2019. 1 am making this affidavit
based upon facts known personally by me and the business records of limited liability companies
that I am the member/manager of. In addition, I am relying upon exhibits attached the Verified
Complaint and documents produced by counsel of Plaintiff, specifically a purported loan
commitment, as well as the Affidavit of Defendant Lezan Hodge (“Lezan”) submitted by her
attorney.
2 Tam a member and manager of Signature Lending LLC (“Signature Lending”).
Signature Lending is in the business of lending money to people and entities, some of
them in the real estate and construction business. Signature Lending has been in business since
2012,
3 Over time, Signature Lending has made numerous loans to George Hodge (“George”)
and entities that he has been involved with. Unfortunately, George passed away on October 10,
2020.
THE LOAN FROM SIGNATURE LENDING
4. On April 7, 2020, Signature Lending made a !oan (“Loan”) to Defendant Paylee, LLC
(“Paylee”). The Loan was for $314,000.00 and was to be used for the purchase and renovation
of 17 Travers Street, N. Dartmouth, MA, (the “Property”) the property now claimed by Plaintiff,
Antonia Alves (‘Plaintiff’).
5 The Loan is evidenced by a Commercial Balloon Note (the “Note”), attached as Ex. 1.
The Note has an interest rate of 12% per year and required monthly payments due on the first of
each month. Defendant Lezan, individually and as manager of Paylee, and George in his
individual capacity, signed the Note. George had no ownership interest in Paylee and was not a
manager of Paylee.
6 The Maturity Date on the Note is October 7, 2020. Upon payment in full, the borrowers,
Lezan, George and Paylce, owe a $10,000.00 termination fee to Signature Lending.
7 The Note contains a default penalty of $36,000.00 if it is not paid in full by the Maturity
Date of October 7, 2020. After the Maturity Date, the interest rate increases to an annual rate of
21%.
8 The Note is secured by a Commercial Mortgage, Security Agreement And Assignment
Of Leases And Rents (“Mortgage”), dated April 7, 2020. A copy of the Mortgage is attached as
Ex. 2,
9. Lezan signed the Mortgage. The Mortgage was recorded on April 14, 2020 in the Bristol
South Land Court Registry District, Noted on Certificate 25189, BK 00146, PG 110, Doc
00127598.
10. On April 7, 2020, Lezan and George signed Unlimited Guaranties of the Loan. Copies of
the Unlimited Guaranty are attached as Ex. 3.
lL. Using funds from the Loan supplied by Signature Lending, Paylee purchased the
Property from Wakeby Development, Inc. for $205,000.00.
12. According to the terms of the Loan, George and Lezan were to use the Loan proceeds to
renovate the house located on the Property, 17 Travers Road, N. Dartmouth, MA.
THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY
13. Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and exhibits thereto, Plaintiff
and Paylee entered into a purchase and sale agreement (“P&S”) that was signed on June 16,
2020. The sale price was $300,000.00. The time for the closing was listed as June 1, 2020 and
there was a financing commitment date of $200,000.00 by May 28, 2020. The P&S also
contains a “time is of the essence” clause. The Verified Complaint references.a $100,000.00
down payment check made out to Paylee which was deposited by Paylee into its bank account in
Citizens Bank.
14. The time for the closing, June 1, 2020, expired even prior to the execution of the P&S.
The Verified Complaint, Ex. 3, signed August 17, 2020, references an extension of the P&S to
September 20, 2020. It goes without saying, that no closing occurred by September 20, 2020.
OMITTED MATERIAL FACTS FROM THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT
15. Plaintiff omitted from her Verified Complaint that an original P&S was sent on May 15,
2020 from George’s attomey’s office to George which contained a sale price of $363,000.00
with a deposit of $10,000.00. A copy of the email and purchase and sale is attached as Ex. 4.
Thus a closing date of June 1, 2020 and a financing commitment date of May 28, 2020 makes
sense,
16. On June 4, 2020 a revised P&S was sent from George’s attorney to George with the
$300,000.00 sale price and $100,000.00 deposit. A copy of the email from George’s attorney is
attached as Ex. 5 along with the unsigned purchase and sale agreement.
17. George told me that Plaintiff was going to provide him with a promissory note of
$60,000.00 at the closing. A fact omitted from Plaintiffs Verified Complaint is that Plaintiff,
Antonia Alves, was also an employee of George, who worked for him for close to a decade. 1
believe that Plaintiff could not qualify for a $263,000.00 loan, thus George changed the deal to
the $300,000.00 sale price so that Plaintiff could qualify for a $200,000.00 mortgage and the
mortgage company would not have to learn about the promissory note of $60,000.00. A sale
price of $300,000.00 makes no sense when George, Lezan and Paylee owed significantly more
than $300,000.00 on the Loan. As of October 7, 2020, Paylee owed a penalty of $36,000.00,
plus the principal of $314,000.00, plus interest.
18. Thave read the Affidavit of Lezan Hodge submitted by her counsel in opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion For A Lis Pendens, attached here as Ex. 6. In her Affidavit, Lezan states that
she did not sign the P&S; she believes that her father, George, signed the P&S; and that Lezan
did not authorize her father to sign the P&S on her behalf. See Lezan Affidavit, par. 22.
19, Lezan’s Affidavit also references the $100,000.00 deposit check. Lezan notes that she
did not endorse the deposit check and that signature appears to be her father’s signature. Lezan
Affidavit, par. 26.
NEITHER MOTORCADE NOR I AM LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ANY CAUSE
OF ACTION OUTLINED IN THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT
20. T can assure this Court that neither I, Signature Lending, nor Motorcade received any
portion of the $100,000.00 deposit check made by Plaintiff. Thus, we could not possibly be
liable to Plaintiff for conversion as alleged in Plaintiffs Verified Complaint, Count II.
21. The Note became due on October 7, 2020 and Paylee was in default on the Note.
22. George was in default of other promissory notes that Signature Lending was the payee,
and Signature Lending had mortgages on other properties owned by George located in
Massachusetts.
23. On or about October 8, 2020, I had conversations with Lezan and George about the
overdue Note and other promissory notes. Due to their inability to pay, we decided that since
Paylee could not pay the amount due on the Loan, Signature Lending would take back a Deed In
Lieu of Foreclosure on the Property and other properties that George had provided mortgages on
and, in turn, would conditionally waive default penalties which Signature Lending was entitled
to enforce.
24, On October 9, 2020, Paylee signed a deed to the Property over to Motorcade, which is
acting as a holding company. The deed is attached to the Verified Complaint as Ex. 10.
Although the deed references consideration of less than $100.00, I agreed on behalf of Signature
Lending to accept the deed on the Property as satisfaction of the $314,000.00 loan and Note. My
agreement to accept a deed in lieu. was made in good faith, was for reasonably equivalent value
and not fraudulent as to Plaintiff pursuant to G.L. c. 109A, s. 6(a).
25. On October 9, 2021, four properties in total were signed over via deeds in lieu
representing a total of approximately $860,000.00 owed by George, Lezan or Paylee, not
including fate fees or penalties. These properties were located at 122-124 Florence Street, New
Bedford, 118 Prospect Street, Dartmouth; 24-26 Wing Street, New Bedford; and the Property.
26. Neither I, nor Motorcade, made any representations of fact to the Plaintiff regarding her
entering into the P&S with Paylee, George or Lezan or the sale of the Property. Certainly,
Plaintiff could not have relied on any representation that I made, or Motorcade made to Plaintiff,
as again, no representations of fact were made to Plaintiff.
27. Most importantly, Plaintiff's Verified Complaint does not contain any representations
made by me personally or by Motorcade. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint references.a
misrepresentation of fact concerning the Deposit which was to be placed in escrow and credited
toward the purchase price at closing. The misrepresentation is made by Lezan, Paylee, and
George. See Verified Complaint, par. 47.
28. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint alleges that Motorcade and I should be liable for
improvements made by Plaintiff in the amount of $2,400.00. Verified Complaint, par. 50.
However, neither I, nor Motorcade, had any prior knowledge that Plaintiff was making repairs to
the Property prior to her purchase.
29, Plaintiff's alleged improvements were done in expectation of her purchasing the Property
based upon the P&S. Neither I, nor Motorcade, were privy to or had knowledge of Plaintiff
improving the Property. We were also not parties to the P&S. Plaintiff had no expectation that I
would reimburse her for her work and Plaintiff never asked Motorcade or me for reimbursement
for her work. Moreover, Signature Lending made a loan to Paylee wherein Paylee was supposed
to make improvements to the Property. In turn, Signature Lending expected Paylee to repay the
loan in full. Just as Plaintiff incurred harm by George’s absconding with the deposit, so too
Signature Lending has been harmed because Paylee could not perform under the terms of the
P&S.
30. Although Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her deposit of $100,000.00, she must bear
some of the blame for her loss. She gave $100,000.00, one-third of the purchase price of
$300,000.00, directly to George, who was not the owner of the Property. This is an
extraordinary amount of a deposit for a residential sale. One must ask why Plaintiff gave George
that kind of money. I believe that because Plaintiff had worked for George for many years, she
must have trusted him. However, as someone who had worked for George, she must have been
aware of George’s financial difficulties, which were well-known and have been confirmed since
George’s death. Since his death, I have learned that George had an $800,000.00 lien on some of
his properties including his marital home and office.
31. Plaintiff either knew or should have known that Signature Lending had a first mortgage
of $314,000.00 on the Property. Thus, Plaintiff knew or should have known that if her loan of
$200,000.00 was approved, she could not receive clear title to the Property unless Paylee could
payoff Signature Lending’s first mortgage. Plaintiff knew that her financing with Residential
Mortgage Services, Inc. (“RMS”) was contingent on many things, including a satisfactory
appraisal of property meeting all investor and insurer guidelines and supporting value of
$300,000.00. Sec Conditional Mortgage Loan Commitment attached as Ex. 7, produced by
Plaintiff's counsel to my counsel. I note that this “commitment”, dated August 14, 2020, is
unsigned by RMS. It also contains numerous contingencies.
32. Based upon my more than 38 years of experience in real estate, RMS would not proceed
with the loan of $200,000.00 unless there was clear title. However, no certificate of good title
could be given unless Signature Lending’s mortgage could be discharged. As of October 7,
2020, Paylee owed a penalty of $36,000.00, plus the principal of $314,000.00, plus interest.
Even the Verified Complaint-at par. 24, Ex. 6, states that the lender, RMS, could set a closing for
October 20, 2020. Paylee owed Signature Lending a significant amount of money over and
above the $314,000.00, the principal amount of the Loan. It is clear that Paylee could not pay
the amount owed Signature Lending, and Plaintiff has not claimed that she either had the
independent financial means to do so, or was willing to do so. Thus, even if Plaintiff had
secured a “conditional commitment” from RMS, RMS would never have provided $200,000.00
to close the sale based upon Paylee’s inability to provide clear title, a requirement under the
P&S.
33. The Verified Complaint fails to reference when Plaintiff began living at the Property. In
fact, as Lezan’s Affidavit shows, Plaintiff had been living at 122 Florence Street, New Bedford,
MA. The Verified Complaint fails to mention that Plaintiff and her family are actually squatting
at the Property and do not have a written lease or oral tenancy. Since the filing of the Verified
Complaint, but before service of the pleadings on me, Motorcade served a Summary Process
Summons and Complaint on February 2, 2021. Since many of Plaintiff’s requests for relief in
her Verified Complaint are equitable in nature, that Plaintiff and her family are squatting and not
paying rent, mitigate against any equitable claims she may have against me or Motorcade.
34, In summary, Signature Lending acted as a bank to Paylee by lending Paylee money
evidenced by a Note and recording its first mortgage. When Paylee could not pay back the Loan,
Motorcade took back a deed in lieu at George and Lezan’s request. Neither I, nor Motorcade,
received anything that it was.not entitled to. Plaintiff's claims for conversion, fraud and unjust
enrichment lies against the estate of George’ Hodge, not Motorcade or me.
SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THIS(Y. DAY OF
MARCH 3021
IOT SCHNEIDER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the attorneys of record
by email on March_/7 _, 2021.
L-
John B. Harkavy, Esquire
Preview
413.2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BRISTOL, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2173CV00074 ANTONIA V. ALVES, BRISTOL SS SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff FILED APR 14 2021 vy. MARC J SANTOS. ESQ. ELLIOT SCHNEIDER, et al., CLERK/MAGISTRATE Defendants AFFIDAVIT OF ELLIOT SCHNEIDER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ELLIOT SCHNEIDER AND MOTORCADE, LLC’S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS LIS PENDENS I, Elliot Schneider, do on oath depose and state as follows: 1 Tam one of the named defendants in the above action. I am the sole member and manager of Defendant Motorcade, LLC, one of the other defendants in this action. Motorcade is a Massachusetts limited liability company formed in April 2019. 1 am making this affidavit based upon facts known personally by me and the business records of limited liability companies that I am the member/manager of. In addition, I am relying upon exhibits attached the Verified Complaint and documents produced by counsel of Plaintiff, specifically a purported loan commitment, as well as the Affidavit of Defendant Lezan Hodge (“Lezan”) submitted by her attorney. 2 Tam a member and manager of Signature Lending LLC (“Signature Lending”). Signature Lending is in the business of lending money to people and entities, some of them in the real estate and construction business. Signature Lending has been in business since 2012, 3 Over time, Signature Lending has made numerous loans to George Hodge (“George”) and entities that he has been involved with. Unfortunately, George passed away on October 10, 2020. THE LOAN FROM SIGNATURE LENDING 4. On April 7, 2020, Signature Lending made a !oan (“Loan”) to Defendant Paylee, LLC (“Paylee”). The Loan was for $314,000.00 and was to be used for the purchase and renovation of 17 Travers Street, N. Dartmouth, MA, (the “Property”) the property now claimed by Plaintiff, Antonia Alves (‘Plaintiff’). 5 The Loan is evidenced by a Commercial Balloon Note (the “Note”), attached as Ex. 1. The Note has an interest rate of 12% per year and required monthly payments due on the first of each month. Defendant Lezan, individually and as manager of Paylee, and George in his individual capacity, signed the Note. George had no ownership interest in Paylee and was not a manager of Paylee. 6 The Maturity Date on the Note is October 7, 2020. Upon payment in full, the borrowers, Lezan, George and Paylce, owe a $10,000.00 termination fee to Signature Lending. 7 The Note contains a default penalty of $36,000.00 if it is not paid in full by the Maturity Date of October 7, 2020. After the Maturity Date, the interest rate increases to an annual rate of 21%. 8 The Note is secured by a Commercial Mortgage, Security Agreement And Assignment Of Leases And Rents (“Mortgage”), dated April 7, 2020. A copy of the Mortgage is attached as Ex. 2, 9. Lezan signed the Mortgage. The Mortgage was recorded on April 14, 2020 in the Bristol South Land Court Registry District, Noted on Certificate 25189, BK 00146, PG 110, Doc 00127598. 10. On April 7, 2020, Lezan and George signed Unlimited Guaranties of the Loan. Copies of the Unlimited Guaranty are attached as Ex. 3. lL. Using funds from the Loan supplied by Signature Lending, Paylee purchased the Property from Wakeby Development, Inc. for $205,000.00. 12. According to the terms of the Loan, George and Lezan were to use the Loan proceeds to renovate the house located on the Property, 17 Travers Road, N. Dartmouth, MA. THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY 13. Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint and exhibits thereto, Plaintiff and Paylee entered into a purchase and sale agreement (“P&S”) that was signed on June 16, 2020. The sale price was $300,000.00. The time for the closing was listed as June 1, 2020 and there was a financing commitment date of $200,000.00 by May 28, 2020. The P&S also contains a “time is of the essence” clause. The Verified Complaint references.a $100,000.00 down payment check made out to Paylee which was deposited by Paylee into its bank account in Citizens Bank. 14. The time for the closing, June 1, 2020, expired even prior to the execution of the P&S. The Verified Complaint, Ex. 3, signed August 17, 2020, references an extension of the P&S to September 20, 2020. It goes without saying, that no closing occurred by September 20, 2020. OMITTED MATERIAL FACTS FROM THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT 15. Plaintiff omitted from her Verified Complaint that an original P&S was sent on May 15, 2020 from George’s attomey’s office to George which contained a sale price of $363,000.00 with a deposit of $10,000.00. A copy of the email and purchase and sale is attached as Ex. 4. Thus a closing date of June 1, 2020 and a financing commitment date of May 28, 2020 makes sense, 16. On June 4, 2020 a revised P&S was sent from George’s attorney to George with the $300,000.00 sale price and $100,000.00 deposit. A copy of the email from George’s attorney is attached as Ex. 5 along with the unsigned purchase and sale agreement. 17. George told me that Plaintiff was going to provide him with a promissory note of $60,000.00 at the closing. A fact omitted from Plaintiffs Verified Complaint is that Plaintiff, Antonia Alves, was also an employee of George, who worked for him for close to a decade. 1 believe that Plaintiff could not qualify for a $263,000.00 loan, thus George changed the deal to the $300,000.00 sale price so that Plaintiff could qualify for a $200,000.00 mortgage and the mortgage company would not have to learn about the promissory note of $60,000.00. A sale price of $300,000.00 makes no sense when George, Lezan and Paylee owed significantly more than $300,000.00 on the Loan. As of October 7, 2020, Paylee owed a penalty of $36,000.00, plus the principal of $314,000.00, plus interest. 18. Thave read the Affidavit of Lezan Hodge submitted by her counsel in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For A Lis Pendens, attached here as Ex. 6. In her Affidavit, Lezan states that she did not sign the P&S; she believes that her father, George, signed the P&S; and that Lezan did not authorize her father to sign the P&S on her behalf. See Lezan Affidavit, par. 22. 19, Lezan’s Affidavit also references the $100,000.00 deposit check. Lezan notes that she did not endorse the deposit check and that signature appears to be her father’s signature. Lezan Affidavit, par. 26. NEITHER MOTORCADE NOR I AM LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ANY CAUSE OF ACTION OUTLINED IN THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT 20. T can assure this Court that neither I, Signature Lending, nor Motorcade received any portion of the $100,000.00 deposit check made by Plaintiff. Thus, we could not possibly be liable to Plaintiff for conversion as alleged in Plaintiffs Verified Complaint, Count II. 21. The Note became due on October 7, 2020 and Paylee was in default on the Note. 22. George was in default of other promissory notes that Signature Lending was the payee, and Signature Lending had mortgages on other properties owned by George located in Massachusetts. 23. On or about October 8, 2020, I had conversations with Lezan and George about the overdue Note and other promissory notes. Due to their inability to pay, we decided that since Paylee could not pay the amount due on the Loan, Signature Lending would take back a Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure on the Property and other properties that George had provided mortgages on and, in turn, would conditionally waive default penalties which Signature Lending was entitled to enforce. 24, On October 9, 2020, Paylee signed a deed to the Property over to Motorcade, which is acting as a holding company. The deed is attached to the Verified Complaint as Ex. 10. Although the deed references consideration of less than $100.00, I agreed on behalf of Signature Lending to accept the deed on the Property as satisfaction of the $314,000.00 loan and Note. My agreement to accept a deed in lieu. was made in good faith, was for reasonably equivalent value and not fraudulent as to Plaintiff pursuant to G.L. c. 109A, s. 6(a). 25. On October 9, 2021, four properties in total were signed over via deeds in lieu representing a total of approximately $860,000.00 owed by George, Lezan or Paylee, not including fate fees or penalties. These properties were located at 122-124 Florence Street, New Bedford, 118 Prospect Street, Dartmouth; 24-26 Wing Street, New Bedford; and the Property. 26. Neither I, nor Motorcade, made any representations of fact to the Plaintiff regarding her entering into the P&S with Paylee, George or Lezan or the sale of the Property. Certainly, Plaintiff could not have relied on any representation that I made, or Motorcade made to Plaintiff, as again, no representations of fact were made to Plaintiff. 27. Most importantly, Plaintiff's Verified Complaint does not contain any representations made by me personally or by Motorcade. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint references.a misrepresentation of fact concerning the Deposit which was to be placed in escrow and credited toward the purchase price at closing. The misrepresentation is made by Lezan, Paylee, and George. See Verified Complaint, par. 47. 28. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint alleges that Motorcade and I should be liable for improvements made by Plaintiff in the amount of $2,400.00. Verified Complaint, par. 50. However, neither I, nor Motorcade, had any prior knowledge that Plaintiff was making repairs to the Property prior to her purchase. 29, Plaintiff's alleged improvements were done in expectation of her purchasing the Property based upon the P&S. Neither I, nor Motorcade, were privy to or had knowledge of Plaintiff improving the Property. We were also not parties to the P&S. Plaintiff had no expectation that I would reimburse her for her work and Plaintiff never asked Motorcade or me for reimbursement for her work. Moreover, Signature Lending made a loan to Paylee wherein Paylee was supposed to make improvements to the Property. In turn, Signature Lending expected Paylee to repay the loan in full. Just as Plaintiff incurred harm by George’s absconding with the deposit, so too Signature Lending has been harmed because Paylee could not perform under the terms of the P&S. 30. Although Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her deposit of $100,000.00, she must bear some of the blame for her loss. She gave $100,000.00, one-third of the purchase price of $300,000.00, directly to George, who was not the owner of the Property. This is an extraordinary amount of a deposit for a residential sale. One must ask why Plaintiff gave George that kind of money. I believe that because Plaintiff had worked for George for many years, she must have trusted him. However, as someone who had worked for George, she must have been aware of George’s financial difficulties, which were well-known and have been confirmed since George’s death. Since his death, I have learned that George had an $800,000.00 lien on some of his properties including his marital home and office. 31. Plaintiff either knew or should have known that Signature Lending had a first mortgage of $314,000.00 on the Property. Thus, Plaintiff knew or should have known that if her loan of $200,000.00 was approved, she could not receive clear title to the Property unless Paylee could payoff Signature Lending’s first mortgage. Plaintiff knew that her financing with Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. (“RMS”) was contingent on many things, including a satisfactory appraisal of property meeting all investor and insurer guidelines and supporting value of $300,000.00. Sec Conditional Mortgage Loan Commitment attached as Ex. 7, produced by Plaintiff's counsel to my counsel. I note that this “commitment”, dated August 14, 2020, is unsigned by RMS. It also contains numerous contingencies. 32. Based upon my more than 38 years of experience in real estate, RMS would not proceed with the loan of $200,000.00 unless there was clear title. However, no certificate of good title could be given unless Signature Lending’s mortgage could be discharged. As of October 7, 2020, Paylee owed a penalty of $36,000.00, plus the principal of $314,000.00, plus interest. Even the Verified Complaint-at par. 24, Ex. 6, states that the lender, RMS, could set a closing for October 20, 2020. Paylee owed Signature Lending a significant amount of money over and above the $314,000.00, the principal amount of the Loan. It is clear that Paylee could not pay the amount owed Signature Lending, and Plaintiff has not claimed that she either had the independent financial means to do so, or was willing to do so. Thus, even if Plaintiff had secured a “conditional commitment” from RMS, RMS would never have provided $200,000.00 to close the sale based upon Paylee’s inability to provide clear title, a requirement under the P&S. 33. The Verified Complaint fails to reference when Plaintiff began living at the Property. In fact, as Lezan’s Affidavit shows, Plaintiff had been living at 122 Florence Street, New Bedford, MA. The Verified Complaint fails to mention that Plaintiff and her family are actually squatting at the Property and do not have a written lease or oral tenancy. Since the filing of the Verified Complaint, but before service of the pleadings on me, Motorcade served a Summary Process Summons and Complaint on February 2, 2021. Since many of Plaintiff’s requests for relief in her Verified Complaint are equitable in nature, that Plaintiff and her family are squatting and not paying rent, mitigate against any equitable claims she may have against me or Motorcade. 34, In summary, Signature Lending acted as a bank to Paylee by lending Paylee money evidenced by a Note and recording its first mortgage. When Paylee could not pay back the Loan, Motorcade took back a deed in lieu at George and Lezan’s request. Neither I, nor Motorcade, received anything that it was.not entitled to. Plaintiff's claims for conversion, fraud and unjust enrichment lies against the estate of George’ Hodge, not Motorcade or me. SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THIS(Y. DAY OF MARCH 3021 IOT SCHNEIDER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the attorneys of record by email on March_/7 _, 2021. L- John B. Harkavy, Esquire