good morning i would like to thank the court for your time in the opportunity to listen to my plea this action was brought against wells fargo hor more mortgage wells fargo bank and other name defendants who were in collusion and conspiracy in violation of fifteen u s c section sixty ninety one and the truth in lending act in which i'm seeking damages in recession under federal tort twenty eight sections twenty six eighty twelve u s c section seventeen zero weight and some tino nine are here today because the district court failed to recognize this court's longstanding application of the doctrine of continuing violation as exceptions to the statute of limitations for violating the law the doctrine of continued violation was also held by this court's decision and the u s versus rivera ventre case which ruled that statute of limitations does not begin until the offense is complete so you filed claim outside the one year limitation correct that's correct and when did you when did you first when were you first aware of  became first came in aware of the violation in august twenty fifteen during the state's for closures discovery proceedings when a copy of the actual appraisal report was given in paragraph fourteen of the complaint e as well as a lot it may suggest that however i never saw a copy of the praise all communication of the fair market value was given through the broker who solicited business from me fire wells fargo if you saw the appraisal when you became aware that's correct ok and closed and credit transactions such as in mortgage loans this quarter joined by other circuits established that statue of limitations does not toll on the d the loan in mortgage agreement was entered but when the money was dispersed as ruled in the mckenney verse is a story of finance which means that the statue of limitation does not toll that the banker lender still has possession of the loan monies with the permission  scores married sections fifty two and fifty eight of the complaint where i stated that conduct is still can to new ng because it because the monies are still non possession paragraph fifty two states upon quote upon information and belief other relevant documents in connection with f h a two or three k loan were not seen and signed by the plaintiff myself at the time of closing among which included the hud certificate home owner contractor agreement for renovation repairs the specification of repairs and narrative of scope drive requests authorizing the release of funds prior to the command commencement of repairs or their proved inspection by the new york city department of buildings unquote paragraph fifty eight upon information and belief no accounting has been made by the defendant while fargo home mortgage to the plaintiff regarding the distribution of said two hundred three k loan monies despite the fact upon further information believe and significant portion of these monies which interest has been charged to the to me remains the possession of wells fargo bank and regarding continuing violation the pallies have argued in their opposition papers that such argument is waived because it is not raised in the district court however and must be noted that i was not the movement move in for the motion of in the district court but only opposing the motion before the district court the standard requirement which a claim is case you need not to set out the detail of the claim but a short plain statement of the claim giving notice of the nature of the ground upon which it rests a motion to dismiss is decided by the court significantly by viewing the in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as was ruled an us supreme court she were versus rhodes case assuming argue when doe this court considered pelleas line of argument true it is well established that this circuit consider waved arguments on a rule that is prejudicial ceased to send you into a versus bank of austria austria and also properly exercised this discussion were necessary to avoid a manifest injustice or if a question of law presented itself claim to the extent that it's based on an appraisal report that understates the repairs that are necessary and i'm sure there will trouble understanding how that relates to the terms of the loan or to the liability of the bank as opposed to that the seller and its agents are persuading you to buy something that you shouldn't perhaps have been buying in the first place because they told you made false statements about the worth of the thing you're buying how does that relate to truth on the part of the bank about the terms of the loan the previous will report incorrectly stated that the property was up to the standards that made its market value four hundred ten thousand dollars a portion of that loan was the two zero three k loan which was supposed to also be distributed to me so that i can pay the contractors so that it would be worth the full market value and the error in the truth in lending is that there is a there is the loan was was made to me based on false criteria that was documented in the in the praiser report it failed to if the prison report also fail to describe structural defects and finally if you never got the appraisal report at the time how does the falsity of the appraisal property up to code where they would give you money to bring the property they did not state that was supposed to be the money was supposed to be issued from wells fargo through the draw schedule as part of the two or three loan reasonable diligence and because of x or ordinary starcom stances i was on timely in bringing this action it is also my contention that equable tolling be applied because this court applied the doctrine in the circus or brain versus international ladies garment workers case speaking to the fraudulent concealment of facts the district court misconstrued paragraph fourteen of the complaint to suggest that i was given the prey's a report during closing i pleaded in paragraph fourteen to mean that the praise will report existed and that there was misrepresentation of true fact of the premise but i did not receive the praise or report during closing as such the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss furthermore there was also fraudulent concealment of facts on material documents  s today i take it you were able to provide to the district court when the district court had this matter under consideration i don't understand not trying to trick you with anything i'm just the district court had my complaint and section fifty right right right got you there but you didn't give me an affidavit saying and by the way you know they told me this and i know you're on which which of the documents referred to in p h fifty two is mr howard's appraisal report in paragraph fifty two there praise a report is not there well you see that's the problem isn't it you're saying that the district court misinterpreted your complaint but paragraph fourteen says that mr howard prepared a grossly inflated and accurate appraisal report which you praise all was presented to the point of as a true reliable estimate of the worth of the premises which suggests that was presented to you paragraph fifty two refers to various documents that were not present at the time of the closing but not one of them that's that's correct your honor i did not see appraisal report i did not ok if i may continue shortly  just finish up ok on your time ok i'm sorry just in closing i just wanted to add that the praise or report was not provided an actual copy to me until august twenty fifteen and it did it would have highlighted to me that the property did not meet f h a guidelines and in regarding extraordinary circumstances in closing i just wanted to refer to paragraph sixty seven and sixty eight and sixty eight paragraph sixty nine and seventy and which which states of the fact that i was making reasonable attempts to attain the documentation from the various defendants and i was unable to go on successively so in closing it is my prayer that this court consider reversing the decision of the district court  but that's based on horror her review of an appraisal she claims to have never seen which simply values the property of what she was told property had been valued at is no connection to a violation which is the only federal claim that would bestowed federal jurisdiction of on the district court i don't think it's even a question that a legit discovery of an appraisal report in twenty fifteen does anything of the statue of limitations on that deal claim or to be treated as if it were never discovered until that  seems to me that's the point that palin is making here i think i think she cannot make that point on the facts as alleged they can even even under a liberal ruling because of what she's saying is the appraisal report revealed the value that they told her it was there's no well i don't think it's specific enough to allege a violation of teela so even if she's even if i take this to be true that they told her the property was a four bedroom and it was five that  if there are no other questions all of us on the what you're saying is there's one issue which would be a state law claim with its own statute of limitations and its own rules and so on as to defrauded into buying the property and the eats and whether the appraisal report says it's worth a million dollars or it's worth two hundred thousand dollars or lies about what it's worth that goes to the fraud inducement of the purchase and does not go to a violation of truth in lending terms is that the point you're making that's the point and yet that's such the point i'm making complaint what is the truth in lending violation that it alleges if failure to disclose that closing of the loan the central terms acquired by that statute which it would have to do with the rates and the terms of repayment and things of that sort correct and is there anything in the talks to an obligation at least in connection with a mortgage to verify the value of the property that is part of the mortgage transaction i don't think so and i don't know