Preview
i fl ‘
-'
f FILE
'
0/
AT 5f £2 o'CLgCK#M
JAN 1 22023
CAUSE NO. CL—22-0058-D
m. coum cum
m___os mouse co.
0mm
URGENT REQUEST t
GERARDo CASTILLO IN THE COUNTY AT LAw No.4
407 MANHATEN CIRc DONNA Tx 78537
'
DEFENDANT PR0 SE ‘
.. HIDALGo COUNTY TEXAS.
VS
US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE
TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR
STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007—HE7
PLAINTIFF
MOTION TO STAY THE WRIT OF POSSESSION
MOTION SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION WRIT OF POSSESSION
SET AS‘DE SALE OF TRUSTEE AND REQUEST FOR
(TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDEN), (TEMPORARY |NJUNCTION),( EFFECT OF SUPERSEDEAS ).
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT.
COMES NOW, GERARDO CASTILLO, and files this his Defendant original petition and motion to
set aside sale of trustee and request for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporarxfi Injunction
Effect of Supersedeas , in the above stYle and numbered cause and would thle court the
following:
this case is brought, inter alia, pursuant to the uniform declaratory judgments act, Texas Civil'
Practice and Remedies Code, charter 37 Discovery level on this case is level |l| and ,
determination is request from the court for discovery schedule.
This court is the court which Defendant has sought and has invoked the in that thi.s 'court has
exclusive to rule on matters of titles and deeds. This court has over the parties and the
property, the subject matter of this lawsuit.
Venue is proper in that the court in that the property is within the geographical Iim ts of this
county.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant seeks monetary relief of less than 575000.00 and also non-monetary
relief. This is a non-expedited section pursuant to the Texas Property Code.
IV.
Property
The property the subject matter of this lawsuit:
Lot AND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
10,PARAD|SE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
DONNA,H|DALGO COUNTY,TEXAS ACCORDING TO MAP THERE OF RECORDED IN
VOLUME 32,PAGE 144B,MAPRECORDS OF HIDALGO COUNTY ,TEXAS.
Stree address:407 Manhatten circ ,
Donna ,Hidalgo County ,Texas 78537.
(
Hereinafter referred to as the ”property”).
PARTIES.
DEFENDANT ,GERARDO CASTILLO,IS A NATURAL PERSON WHO A RESI DENTE OF
HIDALGO CO UNTY ,TEXAS.
US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCI ATION ON
BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIE S 1 TRUST
2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF
VI.-
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
‘
5.-Trustee is not a citizen of Texas ,U.S.BANK NATIONAL ,when deterr‘nining
citizenship oftrustee which control ,not the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the
trust, U.S. Bank national association’s articles of association establish that OHIO
is its main office. Therefore ,trustee is a citizen of OHIO for diversity prrposes.
6- Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other than Texas,
there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.
B. -
Amount in controversy
7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold.
A party may remove an action from state Court to federal court if the action is one over which
the federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(3).
Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amoun't in
controversy exceeds $75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).
8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district
courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal,
alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum.
See S.E.S erectors ,
inc v. infax.inc. 72 f,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition does not allege
a specific amount of damages the removing party must prove by a preponderance ?f the
evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v. State arm Lloyds
,205 fspp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 [5th cir
1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th cir
2002)(exp|aining that the removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it "fécially
apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& oli|& Gas
co. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th Cir 1995).
9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefor'e, the
foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, l, and the Texas Property Code.
From stop eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ ,Donna Texas 78537 (
The
property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75,000.
10.- The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for ZJIZ is no
less than $242,306 .
11.- Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged | the petition for removall that
support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
In action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in
controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief
which if successful would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and
trustee's right to foreclose on and take possession of the property.
12.- When the vaIIdIty of a contract or a right to property Is called Into question In Its entirety,
the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. The amount in contr versy in an
action for declaratory or injunctive relief ,
is the value ofthe right to be protected or the
extent of the injury to be prevented.
Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose ,
the object of the litigati lnisthe
property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property.
The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less th!an
$242,306.00 per the records ofthe Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See .
The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for
diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages asserted by defend'ant.
VII.-
FACTS.
RESPONSE:
A) on or about July 13 ,2007,DEFENDANT executed a promissory note in the original
principal amount of one hundred fifty three thousand dollars and no cents.
($153,000.00) us currency.
B) The promissory note called for DEFENDANT to make monthly payments in the amount
of about one thousand, fifty and eight Dollars ten cent ($1058.10) including t-axes and
insurance.
C) DEFENDANT,as collateral ,granted by deed of trust a security interest in rea property
legally described as:
LOT 10 , PARADISE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AN ADDITION TO THE CITY THE
DONNA,H|DALGO COUNTY,TEXAS ACCORDING TO MAP THERE OF RECORDED N
VOLUME 32,PAGE 144B,MAP RECORDS OF HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS. And kr own
locally as 407 Manhatten Circle ,Donna, Hidalgo County, texas 78537.
D) Real property located at 407 Manhatten circle ,Donna ,Hidalgo county, Texas 78537.
Is DEFENDANT homestead and sole residence and was improperly foreclosed on January
7,2020.
E) DEFENDANT had been able to more make payments for over 14 year. Ordinarily
DEFENDANT woul be making his mortgage payments timely; however, due tio
unexpected circumstances ,DEFENDAT stayed behind on a few payments.
F) DEFENDANT contacted PLAINTIFF regardin their situation , but PLAINTIFF refused to
take late payments. due to a car accident, poor physical health, a very slow recovery
process for more than 4 years, even so | was making payments, the same SEL CT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING,INC informed me that there was
,
a loan modification program,
to lower the interest of the note from 11% to a lower one, I took their consideration,
and | asked to enter the program.
G) Isent my documents that they asked me, see They took a long time to m ke the
all
modification that they had to ask me for more updated documents, until the time came,
when was going to make the monthly payment, they
| did not accept the pay'ments,
their explanation was why we were in the process of The loan modification.
H) for me it was not normal, and less l asked that in what was done, the loan they, would
take the payments, they did not accept them, this to me worried me more aBout the
situation, see the dates of the documents expired sent, and had to fly see th m to
renew by instructions from them, a lot of time passed on this, they with the same
position, of not receiving payment, and they said that it was part of their own
administration of the loan modification.
l) DEFENDANT wishes to remain in his home and requested PLAINTIFF to allow
DEFENDANT pay his arrears.
J) DEFENDANT has never received a demand letter from PLAINTIFF putting DEFENDANT
on notice of demand for late payments or intent to accelerate if not cured.
K) PLAINTIFF failed to provide DEFENDANT the right to a cure period, Demand for
payment and notice of acceleration must not be simultaneous. Williamson v.
Dunlap,693 S.W. 2d 373 ( tex.1985) Her ,DEFENDANT were not allowed the r legal
right to cure; therefore ,invalidating any notice of acceleration provided herein.
L) Situation that they themselves caused due to the modification of the loan, that they
did not acicept the payments, they did not have the opportunity to cure the note and
at the end of the current year, they did not notify, that the modification was not
approved, at the end December, and not give time or notice to speed up the note.
PLAINTIFF have not made a due diligent affort to allow DEFENDANT to bring the account
current despite the fact that DEFENDANT has tried to make his payments but PLA‘INTIFF
have refused to accept payment.
Furthermore DEFENDANT will have an irreparable injury and/or has no adequate emedy at
law unless this honorable court grants a temporary restraining order against SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. AND
US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE T0 LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION O BEHALF
I
OF THE HOLDERS 0F BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET
BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF
M) DEFENDANT never received any notice of foreclosure as required by law the 'efore the
foreclosure did not follow the steps mandated by statute ,i.e. the Texas Property
Code...As to substitute trustee,
N) There is however, much confusion as to the status of the substitute trustee and the
identity of said trustee.
O) There cannot be more than one trustee to perform all of the duties entrusted to said
"a"
individual as a "trustee"....the deed of trust and Texas Property Code speaks of
trustee not several trustees.
P) The appointment of several trustees and for each to have a separate duty might fulfil
the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.
Q) The substitute trustee has several duties not only the actual verbal sale of the property.
R) The trustee has double duty ; one to the mortgage and another to the mortg'age,
therefore said duty may not be "tossed around" at the last minute.
S) The trustee may not be "scratched" out at the last minute. The duty has already been
imposed to said individual.
T) The appointment is ab initio and not after the fact for the substitute trustee , the duty
befalls on the once appointed .it is not a shared duty.
U) The appointing a trustee is to inform the public of the sale and that the trustee is to
inform the public of the sale and that the trustee has the right to negotiate asl
to the
representative of the mortgage.
V) The appointment and the duties attached to the power of substitute trustee a/e not
retroactive but to be exercised in the future.
W)A substitute trustee may not be blotted out after the fact.
X) The appointment must be a formal document property notarized and properly filed in
the official in the records of the county. Every act must be most transparent.
Every step of foreclosure is controlled by statute these are the following: Tex. Prop. Code
ss 12.00.12, 51.002, 51.0075 , 51.0076 and 51.007.
The legislative intent would be frustrated when there would be several trustees and the work
of one would be applied retroactively.
The substitute trustee ,
or the original trustee if no substitute is appointed, is required to give
notice of the foreclosure sale, to give notice of the sale ,the trustee must
|
(1) post the Notice of substitute trustee’s sale at the courthouse door of each county where
the property is located ,
(2) file the notice with the county clerk of each county where the property is located, and
(3)serve written notice of the sale on each person obligated to pay the debt by certified mail.
Tex. Prop. Code 5551.002
.
(b) .
The notice requirements must be met at least 21 clays before the date of sale. Tex. Prop.
Code . ss 51.002 (b).
The sale must be scheduled for a time between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and stard within tree
hours of the scheduled Itime. 51.002 (a),(c).|n 2015,the Texas Legislature enacted Texas.
Property . Code . Ss 51.0076, which establishes that the appointment of a substitulfe trustee
in a notice of sale is effective as of the date of the notice as long as the notice complies with
the statute states...”notwithstanding...any agreement,” the statute is to b e followed.
Fortunately, the property was purchased by PLAINTIFF at the foreclosure sale.
Shortly thereafter, PLAINTIFF began eviction proceedings against DEFENDANT.
In that the attorney representing PLAINTIFF had agreed that defendants would cease eviction
proceeding if DEFENDANT would file an original petition to set aside foreclosure sal e,
DEFENDANT immediately filed this cause of action.
The PLAINTIFF is now being represented by a difference counsel who is commencing eviction
proceedings against DEFENDANT prior to any hearing with this court, in a breach of the
aforementioned agreement.
DEFENDANT will suffer irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law if this court does
not issue a temporary restraining order and subsequently, a temporary injunction.
defendant here by brings the ca uses of action which are breach of contract, wrongful
foreclosure, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of duty
by trustee, fraud, consumer protection and breach of rights prescribed by Texas Prqperty
Code.
A|| copy of or a description by category and location of all documents electronically stored
information and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession custogy or
control and may use to support its claims.
A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party making available
for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or others evidentiary rqlaterial, not
privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including
material bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.
For inspection and coping as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement under whic any
person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all ofa judgment
which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy
the judgment.
VIII.
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
INTER ALIA ,
Defendant invokes 565.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Co|de in that .
defendant is being irreparably injured or threatened ownership of real property bel onging to
Defendant irrespective of any remedies at law.
Defendant is requesting that the court to set aside the sale of Trustee as the ultima1 te request
and prevent the plaintiff from selling to an innocent bona fide purchaser for valuab e
consideration.
It is most probable that defendant will prevail and recover from Plaintiff after a tria on the
merits ,in that plaintiff has wrongfully foreclosed. defendant will be irreparably harn wed in that
no amount of damages may be granted to compensate for hiss loss, first of all, land is unique.
There is insufficient time to serve notice on plaintiff and to hold a hearing on this a; Jplication,
there, it should be done ex parte, (rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).
IX.
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
DEFENDANT request the court to set the application for temporary injunction for a heaflng
and after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against Plaintiff. Defendant, at the hearing
wi|| present testimony and evidence of the allegations in the affidavit to prove his r ght for a
temporary injunction.
From information and belief, all necessary parties will be present at the hearing wh ich would
include all indispensable parties.
X
CAUSES OF ACTION.
DEFENDANT here by brings the causes of action which are breach of contract, wrongful
forecloéure, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, bre each of duty
by trustee, fraud, consumer protection and breach of rights prescribed by Texas Property
Code.
X|
DEMAND FOR JURY
DEFENDANT demands a trial byjury and the appropriate fees have been tendered.
X||
All preceding conditions have been met for relief or has been performed a list
pending will be filed
XIII
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE.
DEFENDANT REQUEST that within 50 days from service of this applicatior, plaintiff
disclose all material described in rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Produre.
XIV
OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE
DEFENDANT objects to the referral to an associate judge of this case.
PRAYER.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant asks that plaintiff be cited to
appear and answer herein and that final trial, that Defendant be awarded
judgment against plaintiff for the following:
1.-That a Temporary Restraining Order be issued that the court, to restrain Plaintiff
from selling the property to a 3rd party and to eviction defendant from the
property;
2.- That a temporary injunction be issued as the extension of the temporary
restraining order and that plaintiff be joined from selling the property to a third
party and from eviction defendant from property during the pendency the trial;
o{
3.- That upon final hearing, the court declares the sale, if any, was not conducted
according to law, therefore, it is null and void.
4.- That Defendant recover actual damage;
5.-That Defendant be awarded pre and post judgment interest.
6.-That Defendant be awarded attorney fee with a contingency ifthere Jan
i
|
appeal, and
8.-Any other relief at law or equity that defendant may show himselfjustly entitled
to receive.
XV.
EFFECT OF SUPERSEDEAS.
THE PLAINTIFF WITH CASE NO. CL-22-0058-D PROCEDURE WITH THE FINAL
,
DECISION OFCOURT NO. 4 OF HIDALGO TEXAS, FINAL JUDGMENT OF PO|SSESION,
WRIT OF POSSESSION, ORDEN AND REQUEST,FOR SUCH REASON THE
DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR THE APPEAL TO THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS,
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS. THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION,
WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS.(RULE 24.2,3,4) OF THE APPEALS CODE.
Respectfully submitted
Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan .
Pro se Defendant
Gerardo Castillo
407 Manhatten circ .Dona texas 78437.
Telephone: (956) 2741940
PLAINTIFF US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIA iTION
ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS 0F BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES.2007- HE7 .
Through undersigned counsel, herby remove this case no. CL-22-0058-D , FROM T HE IN THE
COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS,(the state co th action”)
see plaintiff filed an answer on JANUARY 1, 2022 in the state Court Action”) to the :united
states.
Plaintiff de'nies the allegations of the complaint and the damages contained therein , and files
this notice without waiving any defenses, exceptions, or obligations that may exist i n its favor
of her in state or federal court. |
II.
-
PLEAJDINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT
2.-True and correct copy of all process and pleadings in the state court action are being filed
along with this notice of removal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of this removal
is being served on plaintiff and filed in the state court action.
|||.- STATEMENT OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This action is within the original jurisdiction of the United States District court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1332(A)(1). That statute provides ,
in pertinent part ,that "the district court shall have
the original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceedst he sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between citizens of different states," 28
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1441(A) because tht a state
court where the state court Actions been pending is located in this district. As discu ssed in
detail below, this action satisfies the statutory requirements for diversity of citizens hip
jurisdiction.
|V.- DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
A.- CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES
_4.- This civil action involves a controversy between citizens of different states.
Defender s a citizen of states of Texas.
5.- trustee is not a citizen of Texas. U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the tl 'UStee
ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee of a trust. When determining citizenship of a trust for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which control,- ngt the
citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust, U.S BANK National Association's articles 'of
association establish that Ohio is its main office.
Therefore, trustee is a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes.
-
6. Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other tham Texas,
there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.
B. - Amount in controversy ~
I
7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold. A party
may remove an action from state Court to federal court if the action is one over whi'ch the
federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Such jurisdiction
exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy elxceeds
$75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(3).
8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district
courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of relmoval,
alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum.
See S.E.S erectors , inc v. infax.inc. 72 f ,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition doe not allege
a specific amount of damages the removing party must prove by a preponderance fthe
evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v.‘ State Farm Lloyds
,205 fspp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 (5th cir
1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th cir‘
2002)(exp|aining that the removing pa rty satisfies this burden if the court finds it "facially
apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& l-|i
o|i|& Gas
c0. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th cir 1995).
9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefore, the
foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, I, and the Texas Property Code.
From stop eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ ,Donna Texas 78537:( The
property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75,000.
10.- The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for 2 12 is no
less than $242,306 .
11.- Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged I the petition for removal that
support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. In actIon
seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in controversy is
measured by the value of the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief which if [successful
would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and trustee's right 'to
foreclose on and take possession of the property.
12.- When the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into question in it-s entirety,
.
the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy in an
action for declaratory or injunctive relief , is the value of the right to be protected or the
extent of the injury to be prevented.
Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose ,
the object of the litigation is the
property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the pro:perty.
The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than
$242,306.00 per the records of the Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See di.
|
The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for
diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages aSserted by defendant.
V.-
THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR
TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.(RULE
24.2,3,4) OF THE APPEALS CODE. CAUSE ACTION 13-22-00226-CV
THE SUSPENCION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATIORII OR
TRIAL BEFORE THECOURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:22-CV-00007.
HONORABLE. RICARDO H.HINOJOSA .U.S. DISTRICT OURT BENTSEN TOWER ,11TH
FLOOR ,1701 WEST BUS .HWY.83 MCALLEN ,TEXAS 78501
14.- FORTHE FOREGOING REASONS, DEFENDANT ASKS IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4
IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 A TRUE AND CORRECT 1|:OPY OF
THE FOREGOING AND/OR ATTACHED WAS SERVED ON THE FOLLOWING IN ACCORDANCE
WHICH RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5 (B) AS FOLLOWS:
Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan , this potential witnesses may
testify from the loan file , regarding all issues pertaining to the subject loan as neces -sa ry
Plaintiff allegations
RESPONSE: Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan .
Pro se Defendant
Gerardo Castillo
407 Manhatten circ .Dona texas 78437.
Telephone: (956) 3025300.
Matrbl
Preview
i fl ‘ -' f FILE ' 0/ AT 5f £2 o'CLgCK#M JAN 1 22023 CAUSE NO. CL—22-0058-D m. coum cum m___os mouse co. 0mm URGENT REQUEST t GERARDo CASTILLO IN THE COUNTY AT LAw No.4 407 MANHATEN CIRc DONNA Tx 78537 ' DEFENDANT PR0 SE ‘ .. HIDALGo COUNTY TEXAS. VS US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007—HE7 PLAINTIFF MOTION TO STAY THE WRIT OF POSSESSION MOTION SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION WRIT OF POSSESSION SET AS‘DE SALE OF TRUSTEE AND REQUEST FOR (TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDEN), (TEMPORARY |NJUNCTION),( EFFECT OF SUPERSEDEAS ). TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT. COMES NOW, GERARDO CASTILLO, and files this his Defendant original petition and motion to set aside sale of trustee and request for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporarxfi Injunction Effect of Supersedeas , in the above stYle and numbered cause and would thle court the following: this case is brought, inter alia, pursuant to the uniform declaratory judgments act, Texas Civil' Practice and Remedies Code, charter 37 Discovery level on this case is level |l| and , determination is request from the court for discovery schedule. This court is the court which Defendant has sought and has invoked the in that thi.s 'court has exclusive to rule on matters of titles and deeds. This court has over the parties and the property, the subject matter of this lawsuit. Venue is proper in that the court in that the property is within the geographical Iim ts of this county. CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendant seeks monetary relief of less than 575000.00 and also non-monetary relief. This is a non-expedited section pursuant to the Texas Property Code. IV. Property The property the subject matter of this lawsuit: Lot AND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF 10,PARAD|SE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION DONNA,H|DALGO COUNTY,TEXAS ACCORDING TO MAP THERE OF RECORDED IN VOLUME 32,PAGE 144B,MAPRECORDS OF HIDALGO COUNTY ,TEXAS. Stree address:407 Manhatten circ , Donna ,Hidalgo County ,Texas 78537. ( Hereinafter referred to as the ”property”). PARTIES. DEFENDANT ,GERARDO CASTILLO,IS A NATURAL PERSON WHO A RESI DENTE OF HIDALGO CO UNTY ,TEXAS. US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCI ATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIE S 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF VI.- JURISDICTION AND VENUE ‘ 5.-Trustee is not a citizen of Texas ,U.S.BANK NATIONAL ,when deterr‘nining citizenship oftrustee which control ,not the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust, U.S. Bank national association’s articles of association establish that OHIO is its main office. Therefore ,trustee is a citizen of OHIO for diversity prrposes. 6- Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other than Texas, there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. B. - Amount in controversy 7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold. A party may remove an action from state Court to federal court if the action is one over which the federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(3). Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amoun't in controversy exceeds $75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). 8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal, alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum. See S.E.S erectors , inc v. infax.inc. 72 f,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition does not allege a specific amount of damages the removing party must prove by a preponderance ?f the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v. State arm Lloyds ,205 fspp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 [5th cir 1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th cir 2002)(exp|aining that the removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it "fécially apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& oli|& Gas co. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th Cir 1995). 9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefor'e, the foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, l, and the Texas Property Code. From stop eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ ,Donna Texas 78537 ( The property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75,000. 10.- The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for ZJIZ is no less than $242,306 . 11.- Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged | the petition for removall that support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. In action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief which if successful would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and trustee's right to foreclose on and take possession of the property. 12.- When the vaIIdIty of a contract or a right to property Is called Into question In Its entirety, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. The amount in contr versy in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief , is the value ofthe right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose , the object of the litigati lnisthe property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property. The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less th!an $242,306.00 per the records ofthe Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See . The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages asserted by defend'ant. VII.- FACTS. RESPONSE: A) on or about July 13 ,2007,DEFENDANT executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of one hundred fifty three thousand dollars and no cents. ($153,000.00) us currency. B) The promissory note called for DEFENDANT to make monthly payments in the amount of about one thousand, fifty and eight Dollars ten cent ($1058.10) including t-axes and insurance. C) DEFENDANT,as collateral ,granted by deed of trust a security interest in rea property legally described as: LOT 10 , PARADISE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AN ADDITION TO THE CITY THE DONNA,H|DALGO COUNTY,TEXAS ACCORDING TO MAP THERE OF RECORDED N VOLUME 32,PAGE 144B,MAP RECORDS OF HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS. And kr own locally as 407 Manhatten Circle ,Donna, Hidalgo County, texas 78537. D) Real property located at 407 Manhatten circle ,Donna ,Hidalgo county, Texas 78537. Is DEFENDANT homestead and sole residence and was improperly foreclosed on January 7,2020. E) DEFENDANT had been able to more make payments for over 14 year. Ordinarily DEFENDANT woul be making his mortgage payments timely; however, due tio unexpected circumstances ,DEFENDAT stayed behind on a few payments. F) DEFENDANT contacted PLAINTIFF regardin their situation , but PLAINTIFF refused to take late payments. due to a car accident, poor physical health, a very slow recovery process for more than 4 years, even so | was making payments, the same SEL CT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,INC informed me that there was , a loan modification program, to lower the interest of the note from 11% to a lower one, I took their consideration, and | asked to enter the program. G) Isent my documents that they asked me, see They took a long time to m ke the all modification that they had to ask me for more updated documents, until the time came, when was going to make the monthly payment, they | did not accept the pay'ments, their explanation was why we were in the process of The loan modification. H) for me it was not normal, and less l asked that in what was done, the loan they, would take the payments, they did not accept them, this to me worried me more aBout the situation, see the dates of the documents expired sent, and had to fly see th m to renew by instructions from them, a lot of time passed on this, they with the same position, of not receiving payment, and they said that it was part of their own administration of the loan modification. l) DEFENDANT wishes to remain in his home and requested PLAINTIFF to allow DEFENDANT pay his arrears. J) DEFENDANT has never received a demand letter from PLAINTIFF putting DEFENDANT on notice of demand for late payments or intent to accelerate if not cured. K) PLAINTIFF failed to provide DEFENDANT the right to a cure period, Demand for payment and notice of acceleration must not be simultaneous. Williamson v. Dunlap,693 S.W. 2d 373 ( tex.1985) Her ,DEFENDANT were not allowed the r legal right to cure; therefore ,invalidating any notice of acceleration provided herein. L) Situation that they themselves caused due to the modification of the loan, that they did not acicept the payments, they did not have the opportunity to cure the note and at the end of the current year, they did not notify, that the modification was not approved, at the end December, and not give time or notice to speed up the note. PLAINTIFF have not made a due diligent affort to allow DEFENDANT to bring the account current despite the fact that DEFENDANT has tried to make his payments but PLA‘INTIFF have refused to accept payment. Furthermore DEFENDANT will have an irreparable injury and/or has no adequate emedy at law unless this honorable court grants a temporary restraining order against SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. AND US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE T0 LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION O BEHALF I OF THE HOLDERS 0F BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF M) DEFENDANT never received any notice of foreclosure as required by law the 'efore the foreclosure did not follow the steps mandated by statute ,i.e. the Texas Property Code...As to substitute trustee, N) There is however, much confusion as to the status of the substitute trustee and the identity of said trustee. O) There cannot be more than one trustee to perform all of the duties entrusted to said "a" individual as a "trustee"....the deed of trust and Texas Property Code speaks of trustee not several trustees. P) The appointment of several trustees and for each to have a separate duty might fulfil the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. Q) The substitute trustee has several duties not only the actual verbal sale of the property. R) The trustee has double duty ; one to the mortgage and another to the mortg'age, therefore said duty may not be "tossed around" at the last minute. S) The trustee may not be "scratched" out at the last minute. The duty has already been imposed to said individual. T) The appointment is ab initio and not after the fact for the substitute trustee , the duty befalls on the once appointed .it is not a shared duty. U) The appointing a trustee is to inform the public of the sale and that the trustee is to inform the public of the sale and that the trustee has the right to negotiate asl to the representative of the mortgage. V) The appointment and the duties attached to the power of substitute trustee a/e not retroactive but to be exercised in the future. W)A substitute trustee may not be blotted out after the fact. X) The appointment must be a formal document property notarized and properly filed in the official in the records of the county. Every act must be most transparent. Every step of foreclosure is controlled by statute these are the following: Tex. Prop. Code ss 12.00.12, 51.002, 51.0075 , 51.0076 and 51.007. The legislative intent would be frustrated when there would be several trustees and the work of one would be applied retroactively. The substitute trustee , or the original trustee if no substitute is appointed, is required to give notice of the foreclosure sale, to give notice of the sale ,the trustee must | (1) post the Notice of substitute trustee’s sale at the courthouse door of each county where the property is located , (2) file the notice with the county clerk of each county where the property is located, and (3)serve written notice of the sale on each person obligated to pay the debt by certified mail. Tex. Prop. Code 5551.002 . (b) . The notice requirements must be met at least 21 clays before the date of sale. Tex. Prop. Code . ss 51.002 (b). The sale must be scheduled for a time between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and stard within tree hours of the scheduled Itime. 51.002 (a),(c).|n 2015,the Texas Legislature enacted Texas. Property . Code . Ss 51.0076, which establishes that the appointment of a substitulfe trustee in a notice of sale is effective as of the date of the notice as long as the notice complies with the statute states...”notwithstanding...any agreement,” the statute is to b e followed. Fortunately, the property was purchased by PLAINTIFF at the foreclosure sale. Shortly thereafter, PLAINTIFF began eviction proceedings against DEFENDANT. In that the attorney representing PLAINTIFF had agreed that defendants would cease eviction proceeding if DEFENDANT would file an original petition to set aside foreclosure sal e, DEFENDANT immediately filed this cause of action. The PLAINTIFF is now being represented by a difference counsel who is commencing eviction proceedings against DEFENDANT prior to any hearing with this court, in a breach of the aforementioned agreement. DEFENDANT will suffer irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law if this court does not issue a temporary restraining order and subsequently, a temporary injunction. defendant here by brings the ca uses of action which are breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of duty by trustee, fraud, consumer protection and breach of rights prescribed by Texas Prqperty Code. A|| copy of or a description by category and location of all documents electronically stored information and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession custogy or control and may use to support its claims. A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or others evidentiary rqlaterial, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including material bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered. For inspection and coping as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement under whic any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all ofa judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. VIII. APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER INTER ALIA , Defendant invokes 565.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Co|de in that . defendant is being irreparably injured or threatened ownership of real property bel onging to Defendant irrespective of any remedies at law. Defendant is requesting that the court to set aside the sale of Trustee as the ultima1 te request and prevent the plaintiff from selling to an innocent bona fide purchaser for valuab e consideration. It is most probable that defendant will prevail and recover from Plaintiff after a tria on the merits ,in that plaintiff has wrongfully foreclosed. defendant will be irreparably harn wed in that no amount of damages may be granted to compensate for hiss loss, first of all, land is unique. There is insufficient time to serve notice on plaintiff and to hold a hearing on this a; Jplication, there, it should be done ex parte, (rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure). IX. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. DEFENDANT request the court to set the application for temporary injunction for a heaflng and after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against Plaintiff. Defendant, at the hearing wi|| present testimony and evidence of the allegations in the affidavit to prove his r ght for a temporary injunction. From information and belief, all necessary parties will be present at the hearing wh ich would include all indispensable parties. X CAUSES OF ACTION. DEFENDANT here by brings the causes of action which are breach of contract, wrongful forecloéure, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, bre each of duty by trustee, fraud, consumer protection and breach of rights prescribed by Texas Property Code. X| DEMAND FOR JURY DEFENDANT demands a trial byjury and the appropriate fees have been tendered. X|| All preceding conditions have been met for relief or has been performed a list pending will be filed XIII REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. DEFENDANT REQUEST that within 50 days from service of this applicatior, plaintiff disclose all material described in rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Produre. XIV OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE DEFENDANT objects to the referral to an associate judge of this case. PRAYER. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant asks that plaintiff be cited to appear and answer herein and that final trial, that Defendant be awarded judgment against plaintiff for the following: 1.-That a Temporary Restraining Order be issued that the court, to restrain Plaintiff from selling the property to a 3rd party and to eviction defendant from the property; 2.- That a temporary injunction be issued as the extension of the temporary restraining order and that plaintiff be joined from selling the property to a third party and from eviction defendant from property during the pendency the trial; o{ 3.- That upon final hearing, the court declares the sale, if any, was not conducted according to law, therefore, it is null and void. 4.- That Defendant recover actual damage; 5.-That Defendant be awarded pre and post judgment interest. 6.-That Defendant be awarded attorney fee with a contingency ifthere Jan i | appeal, and 8.-Any other relief at law or equity that defendant may show himselfjustly entitled to receive. XV. EFFECT OF SUPERSEDEAS. THE PLAINTIFF WITH CASE NO. CL-22-0058-D PROCEDURE WITH THE FINAL , DECISION OFCOURT NO. 4 OF HIDALGO TEXAS, FINAL JUDGMENT OF PO|SSESION, WRIT OF POSSESSION, ORDEN AND REQUEST,FOR SUCH REASON THE DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR THE APPEAL TO THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS. THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.(RULE 24.2,3,4) OF THE APPEALS CODE. Respectfully submitted Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan . Pro se Defendant Gerardo Castillo 407 Manhatten circ .Dona texas 78437. Telephone: (956) 2741940 PLAINTIFF US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIA iTION ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS 0F BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES.2007- HE7 . Through undersigned counsel, herby remove this case no. CL-22-0058-D , FROM T HE IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS,(the state co th action”) see plaintiff filed an answer on JANUARY 1, 2022 in the state Court Action”) to the :united states. Plaintiff de'nies the allegations of the complaint and the damages contained therein , and files this notice without waiving any defenses, exceptions, or obligations that may exist i n its favor of her in state or federal court. | II. - PLEAJDINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT 2.-True and correct copy of all process and pleadings in the state court action are being filed along with this notice of removal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of this removal is being served on plaintiff and filed in the state court action. |||.- STATEMENT OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE This action is within the original jurisdiction of the United States District court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(A)(1). That statute provides , in pertinent part ,that "the district court shall have the original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceedst he sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between citizens of different states," 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1441(A) because tht a state court where the state court Actions been pending is located in this district. As discu ssed in detail below, this action satisfies the statutory requirements for diversity of citizens hip jurisdiction. |V.- DIVERSITY JURISDICTION A.- CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES _4.- This civil action involves a controversy between citizens of different states. Defender s a citizen of states of Texas. 5.- trustee is not a citizen of Texas. U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the tl 'UStee ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee of a trust. When determining citizenship of a trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which control,- ngt the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust, U.S BANK National Association's articles 'of association establish that Ohio is its main office. Therefore, trustee is a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes. - 6. Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other tham Texas, there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. B. - Amount in controversy ~ I 7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold. A party may remove an action from state Court to federal court if the action is one over whi'ch the federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy elxceeds $75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(3). 8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of relmoval, alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum. See S.E.S erectors , inc v. infax.inc. 72 f ,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition doe not allege a specific amount of damages the removing party must prove by a preponderance fthe evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v.‘ State Farm Lloyds ,205 fspp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 (5th cir 1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th cir‘ 2002)(exp|aining that the removing pa rty satisfies this burden if the court finds it "facially apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& l-|i o|i|& Gas c0. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th cir 1995). 9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefore, the foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, I, and the Texas Property Code. From stop eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ ,Donna Texas 78537:( The property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75,000. 10.- The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for 2 12 is no less than $242,306 . 11.- Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged I the petition for removal that support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. In actIon seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief which if [successful would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and trustee's right 'to foreclose on and take possession of the property. 12.- When the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into question in it-s entirety, . the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief , is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose , the object of the litigation is the property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the pro:perty. The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than $242,306.00 per the records of the Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See di. | The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages aSserted by defendant. V.- THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.(RULE 24.2,3,4) OF THE APPEALS CODE. CAUSE ACTION 13-22-00226-CV THE SUSPENCION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATIORII OR TRIAL BEFORE THECOURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:22-CV-00007. HONORABLE. RICARDO H.HINOJOSA .U.S. DISTRICT OURT BENTSEN TOWER ,11TH FLOOR ,1701 WEST BUS .HWY.83 MCALLEN ,TEXAS 78501 14.- FORTHE FOREGOING REASONS, DEFENDANT ASKS IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 A TRUE AND CORRECT 1|:OPY OF THE FOREGOING AND/OR ATTACHED WAS SERVED ON THE FOLLOWING IN ACCORDANCE WHICH RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5 (B) AS FOLLOWS: Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan , this potential witnesses may testify from the loan file , regarding all issues pertaining to the subject loan as neces -sa ry Plaintiff allegations RESPONSE: Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan . Pro se Defendant Gerardo Castillo 407 Manhatten circ .Dona texas 78437. Telephone: (956) 3025300. Matrbl