1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. PIERCE DIVISION)

__________________________________________________________

SANDRA SHEPHERD and EARL SHEPHERD, individually,

 Plaintiffs, Case No: 20-cv-14157

v.

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET

INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES

2005-4 AND DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants.

_____________________________________ ______________________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND TO QUIET 

TITLE TO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY

Plaintiffs, SANDRA SHEPHERD and EARL SHEPHERD (hereafter “Plaintiffs” unless 

referred to individually), through their undersigned counsel, file and serve their Complaint for 

Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and to Quiet Title to certain residential real property against 

Defendants U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED 

ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES 

SERIES 2005-4 (hereafter “USBTE”) and DOES 1-10, and state:

A. Introduction, Parties, and Jurisdiction

1. This is an action which is brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. sec. 2201(a) and 28 U.S.C. Rule 57 for the purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of 

all rights, title, and interest in a certain residential mortgage loan contract, and as to rights, title, 

and interest in certain real property including quieting title thereto, and for other relief.

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 1 of 15
2

2. Plaintiffs are and were at all times material hereto sui juris residents of the State of 

New York and the owners of the Property which devolved to Plaintiffs after the passing of one 

Dorrel A. Morgan, who was the mother of Plaintiff SANDRA SHEPHERD. Dorrel A. Morgan 

was the previous owner and titleholder to the Property identified herein infra.

3. Defendant USBTE is a foreign (non-Florida incorporated) investment banking entity 

which claims to be the “trustee” for a securitized mortgage loan trust (the STRUCTURED 

ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST 2005-4, hereafter the “Trust”) which was formed in 

connection with the issuance and sale of a series of mortgage-backed securities (the

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-4, hereafter the “MBS”) which 

were collateralized, in part, by the assets of the Trust. For purposes of this action, Defendant 

USBTE’s address is 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Defendant USBTE is subject to 

the jurisdiction of this Court as it regularly transacted business in the State of Florida, and as it 

previously sought to foreclose on the Property. 

4. Defendants DOES 1-10 are included for purposes of adding any additional, necessary, 

and/or indispensable parties who may be revealed in discovery.

5. Jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1332, as there is complete 

diversity between the parties and as the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand 

and 00/100 U.S. Dollars ($75,000.00). Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1331 as 

at least one claim is asserted under a Federal statute.

6. Jurisdiction of the pendent state-law claim for Quiet Title is proper pursuant to 28 USC

sec. 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction) as the claim for Quiet Title is so related to the claim for 

Declaratory Relief brought pursuant to 28 USC sec. 2201 et seq. that it forms part of the same 

case and controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 2 of 15
3

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1391(b)(2) as the Property 

which is the subject of this action is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Property 

address is 7405 Laurels Place, Port St. Lucie, Florida, and is legally described as LOT 2, OF 

PARCEL 15A AT THE RESERVE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS 

RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 28, AT PAGES 18 AND 18A, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF 

ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereafter “the Property”).

8. All transactions and occurrences material hereto took place within the jurisdiction of 

this Court and were directed toward Florida.

B. Background Material Facts

9. On January 28, 2005, non-party Dorrel A. Morgan executed and delivered a Note and 

Mortgage in favor of non-party Finance America LLC. The Better Business Bureau (hereafter 

“BBB”) has published that Finance America LLC is no longer in business, and the telephone 

number listed by the BBB (that being (800) 303-4944) automatically disconnects when it is 

dialed. The telephone number listed on Finance America LLC’s company profile (that being 

(949) 440-1000) answers with without identifying that it belongs to Finance America LLC and 

with a message that “this number is available for your marketing needs”.

10. Dorrel A. Morgan passed away on May 18, 2012. The Property devolved to Plaintiffs 

as heirs of Dorrel A. Morgan as part of St. Lucie County, Florida Circuit Court Case No. 2013 cp 

617.

11. The Circuit Court in and For St. Lucie County, Florida has determined, in connection 

with an In Rem Final Judgment of Foreclosure dated March 10, 2020 in 19th Judicial Circuit Case 

No. 2018-CA-942, that Plaintiffs are the heirs of Dorrel A. Morgan and succeeded to the interest 

in the Property, and became liable for the claimed mortgage debt of Dorrel A. Morgan which is 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 3 of 15
4

associated with the Property. The asset represented by the claimed liability on the Note (which 

liability devolved to the Plaintiffs by virtue of the matters set forth in paragraph 11 above), and 

the asset represented by the residential real Property the subject of the litigation referred to above

are being used by Defendant USBTE in connection with its unilateral modification of the 

mortgage loan contract as set forth more fully hereinbelow, which use is ongoing.

12. The subject Final Judgment is currently on appeal in the Florida Fourth District Court 

of Appeal (hereafter “4

th DCA”), with Plaintiffs having filed a Notice of Appeal of the 

aforementioned Final Judgment on March 30, 2020, and with the 4

th DCA assigning Case No. 

4DCA 20-0876 to the subject appeal. No sale of the Property has taken place and no Certificate 

of Title has issued as of the date of the filing of this Complaint.

13. Finance America LLC was a registered and licensed residential mortgage lender.

Defendant USBTE, which claims to have inherited the rights to the Morgan mortgage loan from 

the defunct Finance America LLC, is a commercial investment bank. It is not a residential 

mortgage lender. Defendant USBTE operates as an entity which bundles mortgage loans into 

portfolios and sells the portfolios to various securitization trusts to serve as collateral for 

commercial/business investments including mortgage-backed securities.

14. Defendant USBTE has admitted that the Morgan loan was part of a mortgage-backed 

securities transaction, and has also admitted in writing that “the borrower” is a party to any 

mortgage-backed securities transaction. There is no issue that the Morgan loan was part of the 

mortgage-backed securities transaction which involved, inter alia, the creation and operation of 

the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005-4.

15. However, at no time whatsoever did Defendant USBTE notify Morgan, or the 

Plaintiffs as successors to the Morgan loan, that the loan could or would be converted from a 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 4 of 15
5

regulated residential mortgage loan transaction into an unregulated commercial investment 

transaction whereby the loan was to be commingled with hundreds or thousands of other loans for 

the purpose of providing partial collateral security for one or more commercial investments and 

to provide an income stream to various non-parties to the loan transaction which never lent any 

money to either Morgan or the Plaintiffs and to which neither Morgan nor the Plaintiffs ever 

owed any money. The intentional nondisclosure was part of a well-planned scheme to defraud the 

borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the disclosures not being made in order to 

induce Morgan to execute the loan documents. Had Morgan been advised of the truth, she would

never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

16. Although certain provisions of the loan documents set forth in general terms that the 

loan could be sold, there are no disclosures which provide that upon any such sale that the 

essential character of the loan will be changed from a regulated residential mortgage loan 

transaction into an unregulated commercial investment transaction whereby monthly payments 

would be used to pay numerous non-parties to the loan transaction. The intentional nondisclosure 

was part of a well-planned scheme to defraud the borrower through a fraud by omission 

paradigm, with the disclosures not being made in order to induce Morgan to execute the loan 

documents. Had Morgan been advised of the truth, she would never have agreed to enter into the 

loan transaction.

17. Sometime between origination of the loan and the present, Defendant USBTE and its 

agents caused the loan to be commingled with hundreds or thousands of other loans for the 

purpose of modifying the loan obligation to change the essential nature thereof from a regulated 

residential mortgage loan transaction to an unregulated commercial investment transaction for the 

purpose of providing partial collateral security for one or more commercial investments and

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 5 of 15
6

supplying an income stream to numerous non-parties to the loan, none of which were ever 

disclosed to either Morgan or the Plaintiffs. The intentional nondisclosure was part of a wellplanned scheme to defraud the borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the

disclosures not being made in order to induce Morgan to execute the loan documents. Had 

Morgan been advised of the truth, she would never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

18. Any alleged transfer of the Morgan loan from the defunct Finance America LLC to

Defendant USBTE resulted in a unilateral, and thus unenforceable, modification of the Federallyregulated residential mortgage loan contract into an unregulated commercial investment 

transaction involving several private equity investment concerns and not a Federally-regulated 

mortgage lender, which neither Morgan nor the Plaintiffs were ever informed or and never

consented to. The contractual obligation was materially altered from repaying a loan on a Note as 

part of a residential mortgage loan transaction to a regulated residential mortgage lender, to 

paying an income stream to a servicer for a securitization trust for purposes of providing partial

collateral security for one or more commercial investments and for providing a vehicle for paying 

various non-parties to the loan transaction such as the master and sub-servicers, the expenses of a 

commercial investment securitization trust, and the investors in the MBS, none of which loaned 

any money to either Morgan or the Plaintiffs. The intentional nondisclosure was part of a wellplanned scheme to defraud the borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the 

disclosures not being made in order to induce Morgan to execute the loan documents. Had 

Morgan been advised of the truth, she would never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

19. Defendant USBTE also never disclosed to either Morgan or the Plaintiffs that their 

personal information would be sold and used by Defendant USBTE and its agents to create other 

commercial investment opportunities, including “exotic” investments such as synthetic 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 6 of 15
7

derivatives, which provided additional profits to Defendant USBTE without any new 

consideration to either Morgan or the Plaintiffs. The intentional nondisclosure was part of a wellplanned scheme to defraud the borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the 

disclosures not being made in order to induce Morgan to execute the loan documents and so that 

Defendant could reap significant profits without compensating Morgan. Had Morgan been 

advised of the truth, she would never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

20. After “sale” of the loan to the Trust, the servicer for the Trust (in concert with the 

“investor” “trustee” bank) creates a phantom obligation by which the borrower is to make 

payments “under the Note” despite the fact that the payments are made to numerous non-parties 

to the loan transaction, thereby materially altering the obligation from one where payments are 

intended to be made toward the residential mortgage promissory Note obligation into one where 

the payments are used to fund and provide collateral for commercial investments and an income 

stream to pay numerous non-parties to the loan transaction with no consideration being provided 

to the borrower or successors thereto (e.g. Plaintiffs) in connection therewith, and with no notice 

to or consent from the borrower or the borrower’s successors to pay non-parties to the loan 

transaction. The intentional nondisclosure was part of a well-planned scheme to defraud the 

borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the disclosures not being made in order to 

induce Morgan to execute the loan documents. Had Morgan been advised of the truth, she would 

never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

21. The cash flow stream from the monthly payments made as a result of the phantom 

obligation is used to pay the Trustee, the investors in the MBS, the expenses of maintaining the 

Trust, and to the investors in the MBS with no such monthly payments being used to reduce 

principal or interest under the Note. The creation of the phantom obligation was a unilateral 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 7 of 15
8

modification of the loan contract which was effected by Defendant USBTE and its agents for the 

express purpose of using payments made to provide an income stream to pay numerous nonparties to the loan transaction which provided no monies to the borrower; which neither Morgan 

nor Plaintiffs were ever advised of; never consented to; and for which no additional consideration

was provided to them. The intentional nondisclosure was part of a well-planned scheme to 

defraud the borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the disclosures not being made 

in order to induce Morgan to execute the loan documents. Had Morgan been advised of the truth, 

she would never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

22. No disclosure of these facts are ever made to the borrower, and the “Your loan may 

be sold” language in the mortgage documents is an incomplete and misleading statement, as:

 (a) it does not accurately state that upon such sale to a securitization Trust, the phantom 

obligation is created and that a new obligation to pay third parties who were not the “lender” will 

be created, thus modifying the essential nature of the contract from a residential mortgage loan 

contract to an unregulated commercial investment;

 (b) it is not disclosed that the “loan” obligation would be used to provide partial collateral 

security for and/or to fund one or more commercial investments; 

 (c) it is not disclosed that personal information of the borrower will be sold and used to create 

additional investment opportunities including “exotic” investments such synthetic derivatives 

resulting in profits to Defendant USBTE without compensation or consideration to the borrower

or the borrower’s successors;

 (d) it is not disclosed to the borrower that what was a residential mortgage loan transaction 

governed and protected by the Federal government and Federal lending laws will be converted 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 8 of 15
9

into an unregulated and unprotected private equity investment vehicle for purposes of generating 

profits to numerous non-parties to the loan transaction.

23. The intentionally incomplete and misleading nature and substance of the “your loan 

may be sold” language in the loan documents was part of a well-planned scheme to defraud the 

borrower through a fraud by omission paradigm, with the disclosures not being made in order to 

induce Morgan to execute the loan documents. Had Morgan been advised of the truth, she would 

never have agreed to enter into the loan transaction.

24. By converting the residential mortgage loan transaction into a commercial investment 

vehicle, Defendant USBTE, with the apparent aid and assistance of various “servicers”, has 

effected a unilateral modification of the mortgage loan contract without prior knowledge of or 

consent from Morgan or the Plaintiffs which unilateral modification continues and is ongoing, 

and has allegedly made itself a party to the mortgage loan contract for its own self-interest at the 

expense of and without compensation to the borrower and the borrowers’ successor (including the 

Plaintiffs herein).

25. Florida law prohibits the unilateral modification of a contract without mutual consent, 

without a meeting of the minds, and without consideration for such modification.

26. Neither Morgan nor Plaintiffs ever consented to Defendant USBTE, which is a 

private equity investment entity and not a Federally-regulated residential mortgage lender, 

becoming a party to the residential mortgage loan contract or unilaterally modifying it to convert 

it into a commercial investment vehicle for the purposes of (a) providing partial collateral 

security for a commercial investment; (b) providing monies to third parties who never lent 

Morgan or the Plaintiffs any money; and/or (c) for the purpose of using the borrower’s and the

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 9 of 15
10

Plaintiffs’ personal information to create additional investment vehicles and opportunities which 

benefitted Defendant USBTE without compensation or consideration to Morgan or the Plaintiffs. 

27. At all times material, Defendant USBTE had actual knowledge that it intended to 

convert the residential mortgage loan into a commercial investment vehicle for the purpose of 

providing a revenue stream, together with hundreds of other alleged “residential” mortgage loans, 

to fund numerous non-residential mortgage loan transactions, including but not limited to:

 (a) payment to the securitization Trustee (Defendant USBTE) ;

 (b) payment to the Master Servicer;

 (c) payment to the subservicer;

 (d) payment of “expenses” of the securitization Trust; and, if any monies remained 

after payment of these expenses, 

 (e) payment to the investors in the MBS. 

 28. Defendant USBTE intentionally failed to disclose these material facts to either

Morgan or the Plaintiffs, doing to in order to induce Morgan to make payments on the loan. The 

intentional nondisclosure was part of a well-planned scheme to defraud the borrower through a 

fraud by omission paradigm, with the disclosures not being made in order to induce Morgan to 

execute the loan documents. Had Morgan been advised of the truth, she would never have agreed 

to enter into the loan transaction.

 29. The Morgan loan was pooled with thousands of other loans for the purpose of 

providing partial collateral security in connection with the issuance of the MBS, resulting in the 

loan not being owned by any single party and with the rights to the income stream from the loan 

being purchased and claimed by multiple parties including those identified in paragraph 27

above. This material change in the essential character of the loan, which was known to Defendant

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 10 of 15
11

USBTE at all times material, was never disclosed to either Morgan or the Plaintiffs and was 

intentionally withheld from them in order to induce Morgan to make payments on the loan and

subordinate her (and Plaintiffs’) interest in the Property.

COUNT I: DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF

30. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1 through 29 above as if set forth more 

fully hereinbelow.

31. This is an action for Declaratory Relief which is brought pursuant to 28 USC sec. 

2201 et seq.

32. 28 USC sec. 2201(a) expressly provides that in a case of actual controversy within its 

jurisdiction that the court may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party 

seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.

33. This action concerns a determination of the parties’ legal rights in view of the 

fraudulent actions of Defendant USBTE as set forth above.

34. 28 USC sec. 2202 expressly provides that further necessary or proper relief based on 

a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted. By way of Plaintiffs’ assertion of Count II of 

this Complaint for Quiet Title and the request herein for injunctive relief, Plaintiffs seek such 

further relief to quiet title to the Property and an Injunction prohibiting any sale or transfer of the 

Property until the merits of this action have been ultimately determined.

35. The facts set forth above constitute and give rise to a definite, concrete, real, and 

substantial controversy touching the legal rights and relations of the parties and their adverse 

interests, with this claim specific relief through a decree of conclusive character: to wit, whether 

Defendant USBTE or any other entity, if any, has any enforceable interest in either the Note or 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 11 of 15
12

the Mortgage given Defendant USBTE’s unilateral modification of the mortgage loan contact and 

repeated acts of fraudulent conduct in doing so.

36. The instant action is ripe for determination in view of a scheduled sale of the Property 

which has been scheduled to take place on August 4, 2020.

37. In view of Defendant USBTE’s unilateral modification of the mortgage loan contract 

which renders the unilaterally modified contract unenforceable as a matter of law, Plaintiffs have 

a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim for Declaratory Relief.

38. If an injunction prohibiting any foreclosure pending the determination of this action 

on the merits is not entered, the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the form of the loss of 

the Property which Property is unique and not replaceable by mere money.

39. The totality of the circumstances and balance of the equities tips in the Plaintiffs’ 

favor.

40. The requested injunction is in the public interest, as the public has an interest in not 

having Federally regulated residential mortgage loan contracts unilaterally modified into 

unregulated commercial investment contracts, and where the modification was made without 

prior knowledge or consent, without any meeting of the minds, and without any new 

consideration being paid, all of which are required by Florida law in order to legally modify a 

contract.

41. The requested injunction preserves the status quo, but does not afford the Plaintiffs all 

of the relief which they could receive at the conclusion of a full trial on the merits.

42. The requested injunction against any sale of the Property is not prohibited by the 

Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2283, as the requested injunction is necessary to aid this 

Court in its jurisdiction over the Property and is requested to preserve the status quo of the 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 12 of 15
13

Property so that this Court may protect and effectuate its ultimate Judgment(s) to be entered 

herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment, an Order 

of Disgorgement, and a preliminary injunction as follows:

(a) that Defendant USBTE has unilaterally modified the mortgage loan contract and has 

done so without knowledge of the borrower or Plaintiffs or consent thereof, without any meeting 

of the minds, and with no new consideration being paid for the subject modification rendering the 

unilaterally modified contract unenforceable as a matter of law; and

(b) a disgorging of all profits obtained by Defendant USBTE and any agent thereof as a 

result of the sale or use of Morgan’s or the Plaintiffs’ personal information for the purpose of 

creating or supporting investment vehicles or opportunities created by Defendant USBTE and/or 

its agents for which no compensation or consideration was paid to the Plaintiffs; and

(c) a preliminary injunction prohibiting and precluding the continuation of any 

foreclosure proceedings, including but not limited to any sale of the Property, pending a full 

determination on the merits of the claims in this action; and

(d) a permanent injunction forever barring Defendant USBTE or any agent thereof from 

undertaking any action to seek enforcement of the Note or Mortgage; and

(e) for any other and further relief which is just and proper.

COUNT II: QUIET TITLE

43. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1 through 29 above as if set forth more 

fully hereinbelow.

 44. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 65.061 regarding quiet title:

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 13 of 15
14

(2) Grounds.--When a person or corporation not the rightful owner of land has any 

conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or asserts any claim, or pretends to have 

any right or title thereto, which may cast a cloud on the title of the real owner, or

when any person or corporation is the true and equitable owner of land the record title

to which is not in the person or corporation because of the defective execution of any

deed or mortgage because of the omission of a seal thereon, the lack of witnesses, or 

any defect or omission in the wording of the acknowledgment of a party or parties 

thereto, when the person or corporation claims title thereto by the defective

instrument and the defective instrument was apparently made and delivered by the 

grantor to convey or mortgage the real estate and was recorded in the county where

the land lies, or when possession of the and has been held by any person or

corporation adverse to the record owner thereof or his or her heirs and assigns until

such adverse possession has ripened into a good title under the statutes of this state, 

such person or corporation may file complaint in any county in which any part of the

land is situated to have the conveyance or other evidence of claim or title canceled

and the cloud removed from the title and to have his or her title quieted, whether such 

real owner is in possession or not or is threatened to be disturbed in his or her 

possession or not, and whether defendant is a resident of this state or not, and whether

the title has been litigated at law or not, and whether the adverse claim or title or 

interest is void on its face or not, or if not void on its face that it may require extrinsic 

evidence to establish its validity. A guardian ad litem shall not be appointed unless it

shall affirmatively appear that the interest of minors, persons of unsound mind, or 

convicts are involved.

 45. Plaintiffs are currently in possession of the Property, and the In Rem Final 

Judgment of Foreclosure is on appeal.

 46. Plaintiffs remain the titleholders to the Property as (a) no foreclosure sale has 

taken place and thus (b) no Sale Deed or Certificate of Title has been issued.

 47. A cloud on title to the Property exists as a direct result of Defendant USBTE’s

actions which has diminished the value of the Property.

 48. There are competing interests to the title to the Property which must be 

adjudicated in order that title to the Property be quieted.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a Judgment and Decree which 

removes the cloud on title to the Property created by Defendant USBTE is removed and that title 

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 14 of 15
15

to the Property is fully and clearly vested in Plaintiffs without any lien or other cloud of 

Defendant USBTE, and for any other and further relief which is just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 39(a)(2), 38, and 57, trial by jury of all 

matters so triable as a matter of right and as provided by law. Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 809 

F.2d 1520, 1523 (11th Cir. 1987); Waldrop v. S. Co. Servs., 24 F.3d 152, 156 (11th Cir. 1994); 7th

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Dated this 19th day of May, 2020.

 By: ____/s/___Jeff Barnes, Esq._________

 Jeff Barnes, Esq. 

 W.J. Barnes, P.A.

 Counsel for Plaintiffs

 1515 North Federal Highway, Suite 300 

 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 

 Tel: (561) 864-1067 

 Fax: (561) 338-4840

Case 2:20-cv-14157-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 15 of 15