Lori Diane Baczkowski, Appellant in propria persona 

1025 NE Fall Drive 

Grants Pass, OR 97526 

Telephone: 541-441-3898 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF OREGON 

"LORI DIANE BACZKOWSKI," Case No. 6:16-cv-00150-MC 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 15-06085-fra 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR 

et al., EXPEDITED RELIEF FROM 

Appellees. JUDGMENT - FRCP 60 

No Oral Argument Requested 

I move this court for expedited relief from its "JUDGMENT."1 I 

base this motion on FRCP 60(b ), 2 the case record, my Request for 

Judicial Notice, and: 

This Motion is Timely 

This Motion is timely filed according to FRCP 60 and FRAP 4(a) 

(4)(A)(vi). According to this Appellate Rule, to preserve my right of 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit I must file this Motion for Relief within 28 

1 See docket #25 "Entered: 11/03/2016" 

2 See also FRBP 9024: "Rule 60 F.R.Civ.P. applies in cases under the 

Code ... " 

1 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 27
days of the date the Judgment was entered. As a matter of law so long 

as this motion is delivered to this court for filing no later than 

December 1st that right is preserved. 

Why this Motion should be sufficient for the relief requested 

FRCP 60(b) provides "On motion and just terms, the court 

may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding 

for the following reasons ... " Therefore, as a matter of law, I make this 

motion according to this Rule's 60(b)(3), (4), (5) and (6).3 

The Judgment said "Based on the record, the bankruptcy judge's 

Adversary Dismissal Order is AFFIRMED and this action is dismissed." 

Although Judge McShane provided more explanation in his earlier 

"OPINION AND ORDER,"4 that "Adversary Dismissal Order" said 

"Dismissal of the underlying Chapter 13 case deprives the Court of 

jurisdiction in the above-captioned adversary proceeding." That 

provides the threshold question for why I'm entitled to relief from that 

judgment. 

3 Please note the boldface is my added emphasis to quoted text 

4 Docket #24 

2 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 27
This court set the standard for FRCP 60(b) fairly recently in 

Naharaja v Wray, Case No. 3:13-cv-01261-HZ, (Dist. Court. D. Oregon 

2015):5 

"Rule 60(b)(3) provides that a court may relieve a party from 

a final judgment due to fraud, misrepresentation, or 

misconduct by an opposing party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). To 

prevail, the moving party must prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through 

fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the 

conduct complained of prevented the losing party 

from fully and fairly presenting the defense. De 

Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b)(3) "is aimed at judgments which 

were unfairly obtained, not at those which are 

factually incorrect." Id. at 880." 

I am asking for expedited relief based on my Request for Judicial 

Notice, which shows despite these proceedings Appellees have 

scheduled a sale of my property January 5th. 

Why dismissal of the underlying Chapter 13 case did not deprive the 

bankruptcy court of jurisdiction in my adversary proceeding 

FRCP 60(b)(4), (5) and (6) gives this court authority to relieve me 

of the Judgment based on "the judgment is void," "applying it 

5 Available to everyone online@https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? 

case=l 775111922079157484&q=KUMAR+NAHARAJA&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29 

3 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 27
prospectively is no longer equitable; or" and "any other reason that 

justifies relief," respectively. I believe all apply to this point. 

This narrow, threshold focuses this direct attack on these 

proceedings for both manifest error of fact and law. A manifest error is 

error "that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete 

disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record. "6 

Errors of fact include how both this court and my adversaries have 

consistently referred to my "REQUEST TO DISMISS, "

7 submitted 

plainly under authority of 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b),8 as "Motion to Dismiss 

Case."9 This proves none of you have bothered to read it. 

The Opinion and Order also said "Debtor did not appeal the 

Chapter 13 Case Dismissal Order. "10 This is a complete falsehood 

perpetrated by Judge McShane. My Notice of Appeal plainly stated "I 

6 Black's Law Dictionary 582 (8th ed. 2004) 

7 See BK docket #27, erroneously docketed as "Motion to Dismiss Case" 

8 " ... on request of a party in interest ... and after notice and a hearing, 

the court ... may dismiss a case under this chapter" 

9 "2 - OPINION AND ORDER": "On November 16, 2015, Debtor filed 

a Motion to Dismiss the Chapter 13 Case." 

lOAlso found at "2 - OPINION AND ORDER" 

4 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 4 of 27
appeal this court's orders "ORDER OF DISMISSAL" (docket# 21)."11 

The Opinion and Order also perpetrated a manifest error of law 

when Judge McShane said:12 

"III. Order was not ineguitable 

"Appellant also fails to present how the Order of 

Dismissal was inequitable. Appellant had the opportunity 

to continue with her Chapter 13 proceeding, preserving her 

ability to continue with the Adversary Proceeding. Instead, 

she chose to move forward with the dismissal of her Chapter 

13 case. Appellant was fully informed of the 

consequences of this decision and given more than 

sufficient time to act in a manner that would preserve 

her Adversary Proceeding. There is no evidence order 

to dismiss was inequitable." 

Judge McShane must not have read this part of my brief. 13 As I 

will explain below, not only did he cite no authorities to support his 

llSee my Brief, page "-3," "BASIS OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION" 

12"4 - OPINION AND ORDER" 

13All explained in my Brief beginning on page "-8" under the heading 

"3. The court's orders as appealed were inequitable, which 

bankruptcy courts are forbidden to do" 

5 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 5 of 27
arbitrary conclusions, he put his thumb on the scales of justice to favor 

Defendants. 14 He did this by bootstrapping15 the bankruptcy court's 

lack of authority to dismiss my my adversary complaint in Defendants' 

favor. 

The Opinion and Order then Concluded: "The bankruptcy court's 

final order applied the correct legal standard regarding consent and 

application ofLBR 7008-1. Finding no abuse of discretion, the 

bankruptcy judge's Adversary Dismissal Order is AFFIRMED." 

Manifest error of law is highlighted by the way this court glossed 

over without questioning the bankruptcy court's simply-stated cause for 

dismissal. I addressed this in my brief on page " - 7" and cited what I 

thought was a controlling authority, Menk v. Lapaglia (In re Menk), 241 

BR 896, 904 (BAP 1999), which provides: 

"The important point about § 1334 is that there is no 

explicit requirement that a "case" be open under § 

14Being too eager to manufacture this Order is not "in accord with traditional 

equitable principles and without the aid of presumptions" - Perfect 10, Inc. v. 

Google, Inc., 653 F. 3d 976, 981 (9th Circuit 2011) 

15 "bootstrap ... To reach an unsupported conclusion from questionable premises." -

Black's Law Dictionary 195 (8th ed. 2004) 

6 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 6 of 27
1334(a) for a court to act in a "civil proceeding" under§ 

1334(b)." 

Returning to this court's Naharaja v Wray: 

"Rule 60(b)(4) provides that a court may relieve a 

party from a final judgment when the judgment is 

void. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). The Ninth Circuit has found 

that "[a] final judgment is 'void' for purposes of Rule 

60(b)(4) only if the court that considered it lacked 

jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or 

over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner 

inconsistent with due process of law." Rubicon Global 

Ventures, Inc. v. Chongquing Zongshen Grp. Imp. I Exp. 

Corp., 575 F.App'x 710, 712 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting United 

States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir.1999) (internal 

citations omitted))." 

Naharaja v Wray, this court's sister case, suggests perhaps "the 

only issue is whether the Court acted in a manner inconsistent with 

due process of law." 

In the recent Zapata v Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV 

15-4028-DMG (C.D. Cal 09/14/2016), by your sister court for the Central 

District California, the Honorable Dolly M. Gee decided a similar issue: 

"2. Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction 

"The Court reviews a "bankruptcy court's 

7 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 7 of 27
decision not to exercise jurisdiction over an 

adversary proceeding following the dismissal of the 

underlying bankruptcy case for an abuse of 

discretion." Davis v. C.G. Courington (In re Davis), 177 

B.R. 907, 910 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit has 

held that "bankruptcy courts are not automatically 

divested of jurisdiction over related cases when the 

underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed." Carraher v. 

Morgan Elecs., Inc. (In re Carraher), 971F.2d327, 328 (9th 

Cir. 1992). In such circumstances, the Bankruptcy Court 

should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 

comity in deciding whether or not to retain jurisdiction. In re 

Davis, 177 B.R. at 913 (citing In re Carraher, 971 F.2d at 

328). The court's weighing of these factors is discretionary. 

In re Carraher, 971 F.2d at 328. 

"Here, there is no evidence in the record that the 

Bankruptcy Court considered economy, convenience, 

fairness, and comity in dismissing the adversary 

proceeding. Based on its examination of the written orders 

and the May 7, 2015 Hearing Transcript, the Court cannot 

conclude that the Bankruptcy Court "necessarily would have 

dismissed the action if [it] had considered the appropriate 

factors." See In re Davis, 177 B.R. at 913. While there are 

factors that may support dismissal - the Bankruptcy Court, 

for instance, did recognize that the underlying bankruptcy 

proceeding had been dismissed "some time ago" before 

Zapata filed the adversary proceeding - there appear to be 

other factors that weigh against dismissal. For example, 

Zapata has a claim for relief that requests that the court 

determine the validity, extent, and priority of Defendants' 

claim or lien upon his real property. FAC at 2, 4-5. Contrary 

to the Bankruptcy Court's statement that the adversary 

8 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 8 of 27
complaint is outside its "ancillary jurisdiction," this claim by 

Zapata appears to be a "core" proceeding, enumerated in 28 

U.S.C. section 157(b)(2), over which the Bankruptcy Court 

has jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) 

("determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens")." 

I submit Judge Gee's Zapata provides this court with an excellent 

example of what a truly just judge would have decided on the identical 

point. 

Why my last motion for extension should have been allowed 

This court denied my last "Request To Extend Time To File Brief' 

the day after my Adversaries filed their Response. "16 My request was 

based on no less than four citations of authority. It's significant neither 

this court's "ORDER: Denying Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time 

to file brief' nor" APPELLEES BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AND 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.'S RESPONSE TO 

APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF" 

bothered to cite any supporting authority. 

What is significant on this point is my Request said "In this 

Circuit extensions will normally be granted in the absence of bad faith 

16 Docket##21-23 

9 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 9 of 27
or prejudice to the adverse party on the part of the party seeking relief." 

I then cited Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th 

Cir. 2010) in footnote 1 to support that statement. Neither this court 

nor my Adversaries addressed either bad faith nor prejudice as a 

foundation for what they did to me! Both of you should have read the 

pertinent part of Ahanchian, 624 F.3d 1258-1259, after citing FRCP 

6(b)(l): 

"This rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, "[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate 

the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on 

the merits." Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 

1983) (quoting Staren v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of 

Chicago, 529 F.2d 1257, 1263 (7th Cir. 1976)); see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 1 ("[The Federal Rules] should be construed 

and administered to secure the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination of every action and 

proceeding.")." 

I remind you all this court has an additional duty under the Rules 

10 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 10 of 27
Enabling Act17 to not use any of the procedural rules as an excuse to 

deprive me of my substantive rights, including due process. Or to 

administer this case in the manner than it has so far! 

Relief due to fraud. misrepresentation. or 

misconductby an opposing party 

If the above is somehow not enough on which to base the relief I'm 

moving for, FRCP 60(b) also gives this court authority because of"(3) 

fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." 

What this and the bankruptcy court has done is kept me from 

addressing what my original complaint was intended to do, challenge 

my Adversaries' claims against my property. Among the other issues 

(merits) which should have been addressed is their utter neglect to obey 

Oregon law, among them ORS 73.050l's mandate to exhibit my Note 

and prove they have the right to enforce it.18 In my pre-bankruptcy 

1728 U.S.C. § 2075: "The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by 

general rules ... the practice and procedure in cases under title 11. Such rules 

shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right." 

18This statute also provides because they did neither, there is no 

default 

11 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 11 of 27
dealings with them they amply proved their bad faith in violation of 

ORS 71.3040. 

"Bad faith" is defined as "Dishonesty of belief or purpose. "19 Our 

Supreme Court long ago set the standard as existing when a claim is 

asserted, "the primary aim of which is something other than the 

procurement of the fair adjudication of an authentic claim. "20 

Does Defendant Trust Legally Exist? 

A misrepresentation, in its ordinary sense, is a false 

representation of fact. 21 

Instead of pursuing "the procurement of the fair adjudication of an 

authentic claim" it has instead ignored its duties and obligations under 

Oregon law and instead proceeded, with both court's active assistance, 

to skirt having to prove they have Note Holder standing and the 

capacity or status to sue. 

It appears my main Adversary is "Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a 

The Bank of New York, as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders of the 

Alternative Loan Trust 2007-23cb, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, 

19 Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 149 

20 See Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or. 1, 10, 803 P2d 723 (1990) 

21State v. Ferguson, 173 Or.App. 118, 20 P.3d 242, footnote 2 (2001) 

12 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 12 of 27
Series 2007-23cb ("the Trust"). So far all of you have given it a pass on 

having to prove it even exists as a legal entity. Instead, a trust is not a 

separate legal entity that can sue or be sued:22 

"A trust is not a legal entity. A trust is not an entity 

distinct from its trustees and capable of legal action on 

its own behalf, but merely a fiduciary relationship 

with respect to property. A trust is not a legal 

"person" which can own property or enter into 

contracts, rather, a trust is a relationship having 

certain characteristics." 

Complicating this issue is the fact this Trust's "Corporate 

Ownership Statement" required by FRBP 7007 .1 actually neglected to 

disclose anything about its ownership. 23 Neither did this Trust bother 

to include a similar disclosure statement with this court with its Show 

Cause Motion. 24 So none of us know who or what this Trust actually is. 

Oregon's Uniform Trust Code 402's "Requirements for creation" 

says in what I think to be relevant here: 

"(1) A trust is created only if all of the following 

requirements are met: 

22 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 3 (2005) 

23 BK docket #11 

24Docket #9 

13 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 13 of 27
(a) The settlor has capacity to create a trust. 

(b) The settlor indicates an intention to create the trust. 

(c) The trust has a definite beneficiary****** 

(d) The trustee has duties to perform. 

(e) The same person is not the sole trustee and sole 

beneficiary." 

In Brandrup v. Recontrust Company, N.A., 303 P. 3d 301, 319 

(2013), our Supreme Court said: 

" ... a trustee typically holds legal title to the subject of the 

trust and the beneficiary holds equitable title. "When a trust 

is created, the legal title is vested in the trustee * * *. 'A 

trust implies two estates, - one legal, and the other 

equitable; it also implies that the legal title is held by one 

person, the trustee, while another person, the cestui que 

trust [the beneficiary], has the beneficial interest.'" Morse et 

al. v. Paulson et al., 182 Or 111, 117, 186 P.2d 394 (1947) 

(quoting Allen v. Hendrick, 104 Or 202, 223, 206 P 733 

(1922)) (emphasis added)." 

I submit until this Trust meets the standards required by Oregon 

law, it should be treated as a sham trust and not be given the benefit of 

the doubt it has standing sufficient to be treated as an interested party. 

14 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 14 of 27
Why the Judgment is void 

FRCP 60(b)(4), (5) and (6) gives this court authority to relieve me 

of the Judgment based on "the judgment is void," "applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or" and "any other reason that 

justifies relief," respectively. I believe all appy to this point. 

The Ninth Circuit has pre-determined this point in United States 

v. One 1990 GEO Storm, 106 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 1997): "Ajudgment is 

void .. .if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of 

law.'"25 In the very minimum due process requires I be "heard .. .in a 

meaningful manner. "26 

Conclusion 

So far both the bankruptcy court and this court have actively 

assisted my adversaries in avoiding the consequences of the Negotiable 

Instruments Law. Both of you have put your thumb on the scales of 

25Quoting Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985): "It is 

well settled that ... A void judgment is a legal nullity and a court 

considering a motion to vacate has no discretion in determining 

whether it should be set aside." 

26 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) explains this is a 

"fundamental requirement of due process" 

15 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 15 of 27
justice to put them above the law. What a blatant and manifest 

miscarriage of justice! 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

This court's order relieving me of its "Judgment" in an expedited 

manner! 

I expressly reserve the right to amend or supplement this Motion 

ifl believe it is necessary. I also expressly invoke FRBP 1001/FRCP 1 

to apply to this and all my written submissions to this court. 

/

5fSubmitted with all rights reserved on December , 2016 

Lori Diane Baczkowski, Appellant in propria persona 

16 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 16 of 27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND SERVICE 

I certify on November ....... I attempted to confer with Appellees' 

attorneys about this Motion. I was told . .. .. .. .. By the time I sign this, 

with enough time to be at the local post office's cut-off time for priority 

or express delivery the court for Thursday's deadline, no one from 

Appellee's attorney's office had called me. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this date I mailed a true copy of this Motion to 

Appellees' attorneys at their address of record. 

Bank of New York, as trustee, and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 

represented by: 

Crystal K. Chase Cf o~~ UA~<J.. () . Stoel, Rives, LLP q~ ;fv<. 5t-t ~ 

.QOO 8"'.V 6th Ave., Sttite 6QO, 71{ tJ SW 3~ Portland, OR 97204 p;tl{rrJJ (} /_ 1?2--05' 

Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington, represented by: 

Casey C. Pence 

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP 

920 SW Third Avenue 

First Floor 

Portland, OR 97204 

Submitted with all rights reserved on December j s/-, 2016 

~»~~-b~ Lori Diane Baczkowski, Appellant in propria persona 

17 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 17 of 27
Lori Diane Baczkowski, Appellant in propria persona 

1025 NE Fall Drive 

Grants Pass, OR 97526 

Telephone: 541-441-3898 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF OREGON 

"LORI DIANE BACZKOWSKI," Case No. 6:16-cv-00150-MC 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 15-06085-fra 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, APPELLANTS' REQUEST 

et al., REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 

Appellees. NOTICE 

I request the court to take notice of the attached necessary 

information. 

FRE 201 provides "(c) The court .. . must take judicial notice if a 

party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary 

information" and "( d) The court may take judicial notice at any stage of 

the proceeding .. "1 

I expressly reserve the right to amend or supplement this Request 

if I believe it is necessary, including adequate notice to reply to all other 

1 See FRBP 9017: "The Federal Rules of Evidence ... apply in cases 

under the Code." Please note my added emphasis to quoted text is in 

boldface 

1 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 18 of 27
parties' in interest responses to this Request. I also expressly reserve 

the right to have this Request construed so as to do justice according to 

at least FRBP 1001,2 and to ensure I am ''heard at a meaningful time 

and in a meaningful manner. "3 

I certify I mailed a true copy to the other parties' attorneys to 

their addresses of record . 

Submitted with all rights reserved on December J ).;, '2016 

c/tk ~~d~l Lori Diane Baczkowski, Appellant in propria persona 

2 "The Bankruptcy Rules ... shall be construed to secure the just, 

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every case and proceeding." 

3 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (this is a "fundamental 

requirement of due process") 

2 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 19 of 27
}~ 

~ ~ ~ 

J 

i 

1 

t 

! 

I '

I 

I 

i 

j 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

Quality Loan Service Corp. of WA 

Return '.\Jail Processing 

2763 Camino Del Rio S., 1st FL 

San Diego, CA 92108 I Ill 1111111 

7103 9628 5942 3054 8985 

11 1

1

11 •1 11 I•1111'•111•1111111 11

1

h•1• 1l1111111111'111 11l111111 •I• 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111: 

OR-14-625812-NH 

LORI D BACZKOWSKI 

1025 '.\E FALL DRIVE 

GRA'.\TS PASS, OR 97526 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 20 of 27
TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF SALE 

T.S. No.: OR-14-625812-NH 

Reference is made to that certain deed made by, LORI D. BACZKOWSKI as Grantor to TICOR TITLE, as trustee, 

in favor of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR 

AMERICAHOMEKEY, INC., as Beneficiary, dated 7/2/2007, recorded 7/9/2007, in official records of 

JOSEPHINE County, Oregon in book/reel/volume No. and/or as fee/file/instrument/microfilm/reception number 

2007-013283 and subsequently assigned or transferred by operation of law to Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a 

The Bank of New York, as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2007-23CB, 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-23CB covering the following described real property situated 

in said County, and State, to-wit: 

APN: 37-06-06-C0-001100 

A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, 

TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, JOSEPHINE COUNTY, 

OREGON, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT 

WHICH IS RECORD 1320.00 FEET SOUTH AND 610.50 FEET, ACTUAL FOOTAGE 608.61 FEET, EAST OF 

THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE NORTH 0°22'28" EAST 461.57 FEET TO 

AN IRON ROD; THENCE NORTH 36"08'16" EAST 343.93 FEET TO AN IRON ROD ON THE SOUTHERLY 

RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FISH HATCHERY ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE 

AROUND A 198.18 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 

79°17'53" WEST 92.01 FEET TO AN £RON ROD; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE 

SOUTH 87°20'49" WEST 259.59 FEET TO AN IRON ROD FOR THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 

CONTINUE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AROUND A 316.48 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE 

RIGHT, THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89°49'02" WEST 27.28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 

23°38'35" WEST 299.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7°5 I '30" WEST 46.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°55'28" 

EAST 79.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°00'54" EAST 280.1 I FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACT 

DESCRJBED JN VOLUME 334, PAGE 420, JOSEPHINE COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 

0°27'28" EAST I00.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36°08'16" EAST 70.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°00'54" WEST 

284.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT THAT IS SOUTH 23°38'35" WEST OF THE TRUE POINT OF 

BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 23"38'35" EAST 255.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF 

BEGINNING. 

Commonly known as: 6101 FISH HATCHERY ROAD, GRANTS PASS, OR 9752'7 

The undersigned hereby certifies that based upon business records there arc no known written assignments of the 

trust deed by the trustee or by the beneficiary and no appointments of a successor trustee have been made, except as 

recorded in the records of the county or counties in which the above described real property is situated. Further, no 

action has been instituted to recover the debt, or any part thereof, now remaining secured by the trust deed, or, if 

such action has been instituted, such action has been dismissed except as permitted by ORS 86.752(7). 

Both the beneficiary and the trustee have elected to sell the said real property to satisfy the obligations secured by 

said trust deed and notice has been recorded pursuant to Section 86. 7 52(3) of Oregon Revised Statutes. 

There is a default by grantor or other person owing an obligation, performance of which is secured by the trust deed, 

or by the successor in interest, with respect to provisions therein which authorize sale in the event of such provision. 

The default for which foreclosure is made is grantor's failure to pay when due the following sums: 

Delinquent Payments: 

Payment Information 

From Through Total Payments 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 21 of 27
71112011 

Late Charges 

From 

7/1/2011 

8/16i2016 

Througl:! 

8/16/2016 

Beneficiary's Advances, Costs, And Expenses 

Fees 

Interest On Advances 

Other Fees 

Total Advances: 

TOT AL FORECLOSURE COST: 

TOTAL REQUIRED TO REINSTATE: 

TOTAL REQUIRED TO PAYOFF: 

$75.271.78 

Total Late Charges 

$0.00 

$2,038.07 

$6.92 

Sl,201.13 

f3°,246.12 

$_8U4il.8.2 

~aws6_._fill 

By reason of the default, the beneficiat)' has declared all sums o\\ing on the obligation secured by the trust deed 

immediately due and payable. those sums being the following. to- wit: 

The installments of principal and interest which became due on 7/1/2011, and all subsequent 

installments of principal and interest through the date of this Notice, plus amounts that are due for 

late charges, delinquent property taxes, insurance premiums, advances made on senior liens, taxes 

and/or insurance, trustee's fees, and any attorney fees and court costs arising from or associated with 

the beneficiaries efforts to protect and preserve its security, all of which must be paid as a condition 

of reinstatement, including all sums that shall accrue through reinstatement or pay-off. Nothing in 

this notice shall be construed as a waiver of any fees owing to the Beneficiary under the Deed of 

Trust pursuant to the terms of the loan documents. 

Whereof, notice hereby is given that Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington, the undersigned trustee will 

on 1/5/2017 at the hour of 1:00 PM, Standard of Time, as established by section 187. I JO, Oregon Revised Statues, 

Inside the main lobby of the County Courthouse 500 NW 6th Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 County of 

JOSEPHINE, State of Oregon, sell at public auction to the highest bidder for cash the interest in the said described 

real property which the grantor had or had power to convey at the time of the execution by him of the said trust 

deed, together with any interest which the grantor or his successors in interest acquired after the execution of said 

trust deed, to satisfy the foregoing obligations thereby secured and the costs and expenses of sale, including a 

reasonable charge by the trustee. Notice is fm1hcr given that any person named in Section 86. 778 of Oregon 

Revised Statutes has the right to have the foreclosure proceeding dismissed and the trust deed reinstated by payment 

to the beneficiary of the entire amount then due (other than such portion of said principal as would not then be due 

had no default occurred), together with the costs, trustee's and attorney's fees and curing any other default 

complained of in the Notice of Default by tendering the perfom1ance required under the obligation or trust deed, at 

any time prior to five days before the date last set for sale. 

Other than as shown of record, neither the beneficiary nor the trustee has any actual notice of any person having or 

claiming to have any lien upon or interest in the real property hereinabove described subsequent to the interest of the 

trustee in the trust deed, or of any successor in interest to grantor or of any lessee or other person in possession of or 

occupying the property. except: 

Name and Last Known Address and Nature of Right, Lien or Interest 

LORI BACZKOWSKI 

6101 FISH HATCHERY ROAD 

GRANTS PASS, OR 97527 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 22 of 27
Original Bmrnwer 

For Sale Information Call: 888-988-<i736 or Login to: Salestrack.tdsf.com 

In construing this notice. the singular includes the plural, the word "grantor'' includes an} successor m mterest to 

this grantor as well as any other person owing an obligation, the perfonnance of which is secured by the trust deed, 

and the words ·'trustee" and "beneficiaiy'" include their respective successors in interest, if any. 

Pursuant to Oregon Law, this sale will not be deemed final until the Trustee's deed has been issued by Qualit~· Loan 

Service Corporation of Washington. If any irregularities are discovered within I 0 days of the date ohhis sale. the 

trustee will rescind the sale, return the buyer's money and take further action as necessary. 

If the sale is set aside for any reason, including if the Trustee is unable to convey title, the Purchaser at the sale shall 

be entitled only to a return of the monies paid to the Trustee. This shall be the Purchaser's sole and exclusive 

remedy. The purchaser shall have no further recourse against the Trustor, the Trustee, the Beneficiary, the 

13eneficiary's Agent. or the Beneficiary's Attorney. 

If you have previously been discharged through bankmptcy, you may have been released of personal liability for 

this loan in which case this letter is intended to exercise the note holders right's against the real property only. As 

required by law. you arc hereby notified that a negative credit repoit reflecting on your credit record may be 

submitted to a credit report agency if )'OU fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations. 

Without limiting the trustee's disclaimer of representations or warranties, Oregon law requires the trustee to 

state in this notice that some residential property sold at a trustee's sale may have been used in 

manufacturing methamphetamines, the chemical components of which are known to be toxic. Prospective 

purchasers of residential property should be aware of this potential danger before deciding to place a bid for 

this property at the trustee's sale. 

'.'IOTICE TO TENAJ\iTS: TENANTS OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY HAVE CERTAIN 

PROTECTIONS AFFFORDED TO THEM UNDER ORS 86.782 AND POSSIBLY UNDER FEDERAL 

LAW. ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE OF SALE, AND l~CORPORATED HEREIN, IS A NOTICE TO 

TENANTS THAT SETS FORTH SOME OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO A 

TENANT OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY AND WHICH SETS FORTH CERTAIN 

REQUIRMENTS THAT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BY ANY TENANT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE 

AFFORDED PROTECTION, AS REQl!IRED UNDER ORS 86.771. 

QUALITY MAY BE CONSIDERED A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTE'1PTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND 

ANY INl<'ORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

TS No: OR-14-625812-NH 

Dated: [):.- 16- /Ji 

Trustee's Mailing Address: 

Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington 

C!O Quality Loan Service Corporation 

,11 l lvy Street 

San Diego, CA 9210 I 

Quality Loan Ser\lice Corporation of Washington, as Trustee 

/ 

Signature By: ______ . ~ ... 

.Joseph Car~~ Assistant Secretary 

Tmst~~~_J>hys.i@l.A<;ld,/s~ Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington 

I 08 I" Ave South, Suite 202, Seattle, WA 98104 

Toll Free: (866) 925-0241 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 23 of 27
NOTICE TO RESIDENTIAL TENANTS 

The property in which you are living is in foreclosure. A foreclosure sale is 

scheduled for 1/5/2017. The date of this sale may be postponed. t:nless the lender that is 

foreclosing on this property is paid before the sale date, the foreclosure will go through and 

someone new will own this property. After the sale, the new owner is required to provide 

you with contact information and notice that the sale took place. 

The following information applies to you only if you are a bona fide tenant 

occupying and renting this property as a residential dwelling under a legitimate rt'ntal 

agreement. The information does not apply to you if you own this property ot "if you are not 

a bona fide residential tenant. 

If the foreclosure sale goes through, the new owner will have the right to require you 

to move out. Before the new owner can require you to move, the new owner must provide 

you with written notice that specifies the date by which you must move out. If you do not 

leave before the mon-out date, the new owner can have the sheriff remove you from the 

property after a court bearing. You will receive notice of the court hearing. 

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION 

IF YOU ARE A BONA FIDE TENANT OCCUPYING AND RENTING THIS 

PROPERTY AS A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, YOU HA VE THE RIGHT TO 

CONTl1"UE LIVING IN THIS PROPERTY AFTER THE FORECI,OSURE SALE FOR: 

• 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE YOU ARE GIVEN A WRITTEN TERMl~ATION 

NOTICE, IF YOU HA VE A FIXED TERM LEASE; OR 

• AT LEAST 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE YOU ARE GIVEN A WRITTEN 

TERMINATION NOTICE, IF YOU HAVE A MONTH-TO-MONTH OR WEEKTO-WEEK RENTAL AGREEMENT. 

If the new owner wants to move in and use this property as a primary residence, the 

new owner can give you written notice and require you to move out after 30 days, even 

though you have a fixed term lease with more than 30 days left. 

You must be provided with at least 30 days' written notice after the foreclosure sale 

before you can be required to move. 

A bona fide tenant is a residential tenant who is not the borrower (property owner) 

or a child, spouse or parent of the borrower, and whose rental agreement: 

• Is the result of an arm's-length transaction; 

• Requires the payment of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for 

the property, unless the rent is reduced or subsidized due to a federal, state or local 

subsidy; and 

• Was entered into prior to the date of the foreclosure sale. 

ABOUT YOUR TENANCY BETWEEN NOW AND THE FORECLOSURE SALE: RENT 

YOU SHOULD CONTINUE TO PAY RENT TO YOUR LA1"DLORD UNTIL THE 

PROPERTY IS SOLD OR UNTIL A COlJRT TELLS YOU OTHERWISE. IF YOU DO 

NOT PAY RENT, YOU CAN BE EVICTED. BE SURE TO KEEP PROOF OF ANY 

PAYMENTS YOU MAKE. 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 24 of 27
SECURITY DEPOSIT 

You may apply your security deposit and any rent you paid in advance against the 

current rent you owe your landlord as provided in ORS 90.367. To do this, you must notify 

your landlord in writing that you want to subtract the amount of your security deposit or 

prepaid rent from your rent payment. You may do this only for the rent you owe your 

current landlord. If you do this, you must do so before the foreclosure sale. The business or 

individual who buys this property at the foreclosure sale is not responsible to you for any 

deposit or prepaid rent you paid to your landlord. 

ABOUT YOUR TE~ANCY AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE 

The new owner that buys this property at the foreclosure sale may be willing to 

allow you to stay as a tenant instead of requiring you to move out after 30 or 60 days. After 

the sale, you should receive a written notice informing you that the sale took place and 

giving you the new owner's name and contact information. You should contact the new 

owner if you would like to stay. If the new owner accepts rent from you, signs a new 

residential rental agreement with you or does not notify you in writing within 30 days after 

the date of the foreclosure sale that you must move out, the new owner becomes your new 

landlord and must maintain the property. Otherwise: 

• You do not owe rent; 

• The new owner is not your landlord and is not responsible for maintaining the 

property on your behalf; and 

• You must move out by the date the new owner specifies in a notice to you. 

The new owner may offer to pay your moving expenses and any other costs or 

amounts you and the new owner agree on in exchange for your agreement to leave the 

premises in less than 30 or 60 days. You should speak with a lawyer to fully understand 

your rights before making any decisions regarding your tenancy. 

IT IS UNLAWFl:L FOR A.~Y PERSON TO TRY TO FORCE YOU TO LEAVE 

YOUR DWELLING UNIT WITHOUT FIRST GIVING YOU ·wruTTEN NOTICE AND 

GOING TO COURT TO EVICT YOU. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR 

RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD CONSULT A LAWYER. If you believe you need legal 

assistance, contact the Oregon State Bar and ask for the lawyer referral service. Contact 

information for the Oregon State Bar is included with this notice. If you do not have 

enough money to pay a lawyer and are otherwise eligible, you may be able to receive legal 

assistance for free. Information about whom to contact for free legal assistance is included 

with this notice. 

Oregon State Bar: (503) 684-3763; (800) 452-7636 

Legal assistance: http://oregonlawhelp.org/ 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 25 of 27
TS No.: OR-14-625812-NH 

NOTICE: 

YOU ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR PROPERTY 

IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY 

This notice is about your mortgage loan on your property at: 

Street Address: 6101 FISH HATCHERY ROAD 

City: GRANTS PASS State: OR ZIP: 97527 

---

Your lender has decided to sell this property because the money due on your 

mortgage loan has not been paid on time or because you have failed 4>-fulfill some 

other obligation to your lender. This is sometimes called "foreclosure." 

The amount you would have to pay as of 8/16/2016 (date) to bring your mortgage 

loan current was $82,240.82. The amount you must now pay to bring your loan 

current may have increased since that date. 

By law, your lender has to provide you with details about the amount you owe, if 

you ask. You can call 888-818-6032 to find out the exact amount you must pay to 

bring your mortgage loan cmTent and to get other details about the amount you 

owe. 

You may also get details by sending a request by certified mail to: 

Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington 

c/o Quality Loan Service Corp. 

411 Ivy Street 

San Diego, CA 92101 

THIS IS WHEN AND WHERE YOUR PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD IF 

YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION: 

Date and Time: 1/5/2017at1:00 PM 

Place: Inside the main lobby of the County Courthouse 500 NW 

6th Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 

THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP THE SALE: 

1. You c'¥1 pay the amount past due or correct any other default, up to five 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 26 of 27
TS No.: OR-14-625812-NH 

days before the sale. 

2. You can refinance or otherwise pay off the loan in full any time before the 

sale. 

3. You can call Select Portfolio Sen>icing, Inc. at 888-818-6032 to find out 

if your lender is willing to give you more time or change the terms of your 

loan. 

4. You can sell your home, provided the sale price is enough to pay what 

you owe. 

There are government agencies and nonprofit organizations that can give you 

information about foreclosure and help you decide what to do. For the name and 

phone number of an organization near you, call the statewide phone contact 

number at 855-480-1950. You may also want to talk to a laVvyer. If you need 

help finding a lawyer~ call the Oregon State Bar's Lawyer Referral Service at 

503-684-3763 or toll-free in Oregon at 800-452-7636 or visit its website at 

www.osbar.org. Legal assistance may be available if you have a low income and 

meet federal poverty guidelines. For more information and a directory of lcgalaid programs, go to http://www.oregqnlawhelp.org/. 

WARNING: You may get offers from people saying they can help you keep 

your property. Be careful about those offers. Make sure you understand any 

papers you are asked to sign. If you have questions, talk to a lawyer or one of 

the organizations mentioned above before signing. 

Dated: 

Trustee Name: Quality Loan Sen>ice Corporation of Washington 

·~--------­ !/--

By: Joseph Carro ,~ssistant Secretary 

Trustee telephone number: (866) 925-0241 

Case 6:16-cv-00150-MC Document 27 Filed 11/30/16 Page 27 of 27