Gary C. Gosha 

KitM. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

gcgosha@gmail.com 

503-522-6571 

Plaintiffs, Pro Se 

FILED15 JAN '1614:1f:IJSDC·ORP 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

GARY C. GOSHA, an individual, and Civil No. 

3

-,

16 CV- O Q 7 3 BR -~ 

KIT M. GOSHA, an individual, and together as 

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

CORPORATION fka THE BANK OF NEW 

YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CW ALT 2005-72), 

Delaware Corporation; BANK OF AMERICA 

N .A., a Delaware Corporation; BAYVIEW 

LOAN SERVICING LLC, a Florida 

Corporation; CLEAR RECON CORP, a 

California Corporation, 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

1. Injunctive Relief 

2. Declaratorv Relief 

3. Violation 15 U.S.C. & 1601 et seo. 

("Consumer Credit Protection Act") 

4. Violation ORS Chapter 646 (Oregon 

Unfair Trade Practices Act) 

5. Common Law Fraud 

6. Violation ORS 166.715 to 166.735 

("Racketeering") 

7. Promissory Estoppel 

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED 

Gary C. Gosha and Kit M. Gosha (hereinafter the "Plaintiffs"), come now before this 

United States District Court and respectfully allege the following: 

PAGE 1 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 52
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Plaintiffs' bring this action in response to the non-judicial foreclosure of their 

Trust Deed commenced by Defendant Clear Recon Corp ("CRC") on September 11, 2015. See 

Exhibit A - Notice of Sale. 

2. Plaintiffs' have substantial legal rights in their property and the Defendants have 

threatened those rights. To insure their rights are protected, the Plaintiffs have brought several 

substantive claims against the Defendants and request judicial supervision, and time, to fully 

adjudicate them. 

3. Plaintiffs' home is scheduled to be sold on January 26, 2016 and they will suffer 

irreparable harm if the sale is not halted. Because the sale is imminent, Plaintiffs have requested 

injunctive relief in this Complaint and have concurrently filed a separate Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and Status Quo Preliminary Injunction. 

A. Plaintiffs Case 

4. Plaintiffs' case can be summarized in two parts. First, the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed 

is "void" because the lender (creditor) named in it did not exist when the document was created 

in 2005. 

5. Second, the Defendants covered-up the "void" Trust Deed by (a) making false 

and misleading statements, and failing to properly disclose material facts, as required under the 

Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), before the loan was closed in 2005, and (b) they continued their 

deception by forging and publically filing various documents to conceal the fatally flawed loan 

and TILA violations so they could foreclose and sell the Plaintiffs home in 2015. 

PAGE2 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 52
B. Part One - Trust Deed is Void 

6. Plaintiffs Trust Deed was on October 24, 2005. The lender (creditor) named in 

the document did not exist when the document was originated. Complaint 1f 33 to 38. The 

Trust Deed is fatally flawed and void as a matter of well settled Oregon law, and the law of the 

Ninth Circuit. Because the Trust Deed is void, all transactions related to it are also void, 

including the Defendants foreclosure of it under ORS 86.705 to ORS 86.795. 

7. Concurrent with their creation of the "void" Trust Deed, the Defendants, or some 

of them, engaged in fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive practices to conceal the true identity 

of the Plaintiffs' lender (creditor), along with other material information relating to the Plaintiffs' 

Loan, in violation ofTILA disclosure requirements prior to closing. Complaint 1f 107 to 120. 

These violations were not revealed to the Plaintiffs until the Defendants began to investigate the 

Defendants claims and documents related to their September 2015 foreclosure filing. 

8. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief are related, in part, to their "void" Trust 

Deed and TILA disclosure and loan rescission issues. 

C. Plaintiffs Case Part Two - Cover-Up 

9. To "avoid' the "void' issues with the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed, and the TILA 

disclosure violations, the Defendants, or some of them, crafted a scheme to cover up the fatal 

defects so they could foreclose and seize the Plaintiffs property. 

10. In March 2015, Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing LLC ("BAYVIEW") omitted 

material facts, and made false and misleading statements to the Plaintiffs, and to the Oregon 

Department of Justice's Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program ("OFAP"), relating to the 

beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed and their authority to appear and negotiate in its name. 

PAGE3 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 52
Complaint 1f 83 to 98. 

11. In May 2015, Defendant BAYVIEW continued the cover-up by forging and 

publically filing an Assignment of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed with the Washington County 

Oregon Recorders office. In that document, the Defendants falsely named an "assignor" who did 

not possess the rights it purportedly assigned to the "assignee", Defendant Bank of New York 

Mellon ("BONYM"). Complaint 1f 99. 

12. In September 2015, Defendant BAYVIEW, acting as an agent for Defendant 

BONYM, then forged, and publically filed, an "Appointment of Successor Trustee" naming 

Defendant BONYM as the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed beneficiary, and used that falsified authority to 

substitute Defendant CRC as its new successor trustee. Complaint 1f 102. 

13. Once that task was completed, Defendant CRC began non-judicial foreclosure 

proceedings against the Plaintiffs property by forging and publically filing a Notice of Default 

and Election to Sell. Complaint 1f 103 to 104. See ORS 165 - Forgery and Related Offenses. 

14. Since each of the forged documents just mentioned were records created and kept 

in the normal course of their business activity, the Defendants violated ORS 165.075to165.080 

relating to the falsification of their business records. 

15. The cover-up allegations speak, in part, to the Plaintiffs' remaining claims 

including violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("Consumer Credit Protection Act"), ORS 

Chapter 646 ("Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act"), Common Law Fraud, and ORS 166.715 to 

166.735 ("Racketeering"). The Promissory Estoppel claim speaks to BANA's behavior as they 

lured the Plaintiffs into default, kept them in default until they could not recover, then foreclosed 

on their home. Complaint 1f 56 to 71. 

PAGE4 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 52
II. JURISDICTION 

16. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq., which confers 

original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action arising under Federal Law. Plaintiffs' raise 

Federal claims under Title 15 relating to consumer rights and protections, which must be decided 

in order that they might prevail on their claims. 

17. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 et seq., because the 

action involves a controversy between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

18. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367 et seq., and has the authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory 

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C § 2201 et seq. 

III. VENUE 

19. Venue is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b), because the real property that is 

the subject of this action is located in this District. Venue is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(c) because the Defendants, or some of them, conduct substantial business in this District, 

have sufficient minimum contacts within this District, and otherwise purposely avail themselves 

of the markets in this District through the promotion, sale, and marketing of their products and 

services in this District. 

IV. PARTIES 

20. Plaintiffs are GARY C. GOSHA and KIT M. GOSHA ("Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs 

are citizens of the State of Oregon, and residents of Washington County Oregon, which is in this 

District. Plaintiffs are the owners of the real property that is the subject of this lawsuit and, at all 

PAGE5 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 52
times, are relevant to this Complaint, as they reside in this District. The property is located in 

this District at 17590 SW Cheyenne Way, Tualatin, Washington County, Oregon 97062 

("Property"). 

21. Defendant THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON ("BONYM") claims to be 

the "beneficiary" of the Plaintiffs Loan as Trustee for the CW ALT 2005-72 REMIC Trust. See 

Exhibit A. BONYM is, therefore, relevant to this Complaint because it claims to be a 

beneficiary, claims a default, and has instructed one, or more, of the other Defendants, to 

foreclose the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed in its name. BONYM may also be acting as an agent for 

other parties not yet known to the Plaintiffs. 

22. BONYM is a global banking and investment company headquartered at 225 

Liberty Street, New York, New York 10286. BONYM is a citizen of New York State for 

purposes of diversity. 

23. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ("BANA") has been identified as the 

Master Servicer for the CW ALT 2005-72 Trust. See Exhibit L. BANA was also the servicer of 

the Plaintiffs' Mortgage at some time. BANA is a national banking company whose corporate 

address is 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28255. As the Master Servicer of the Trust 

claiming ownership and beneficial interests in Plaintiffs' loan, BANA is, at all times relevant to 

this Complaint because it is acting as an agent for Bank of New York Mellon ("BONYM") as 

Trustee for the CW ALT 2005-72 and/or other parties not yet known to the Plaintiffs. BANA is a 

citizen of North Carolina for purposes of diversity. Defendant BANA is, or was, subject to 

specific federal laws and administrative regulations governing mortgage loan servicing activities. 

These laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the Consumer Credit Protection Act 

PAGE6 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 6 of 52
15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") 15 U.S.C § 1692 et 

seq., the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., 12 CFR 

part 1024 (Regulation X), 12 CFR Part 1026 (Regulation Z), and other Federal Consumer 

Protection Statutes. 

24. Defendant BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC ("BAYVIEW") claims to be 

the servicer of the Plaintiffs' real estate loan and is acting as an agent for BONYM. See Exhibit 

I-Page OFAP _3. BANA is also acting as an agent for BANA as BANA hired them as a subservicer for loans in the CW ALT 2005-72 Trust. BAYVIEW is relevant to this Complaint 

because it claims to be the servicer of the Plaintiffs' loan. BAYVIEW is also relevant because it 

is acting as an agent ofBONYM and is directing the foreclosure of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed. 

BAYVIEW appointed a new trustee under the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed and then instructed this new 

trustee to foreclose it. 

25. BA YVIEW's corporate address is 4425 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 5th Floor, 

Coral Gables, FL 33146. BAYVIEW is a citizen of Florida for purposes of diversity. 

BAYVIEW is also engaged in the business of servicing real estate loans secured by real property 

throughout the United States and in the State of Oregon. Defendant BAYVIEW is, or was, 

subject to specific federal laws and administrative regulations governing mortgage loan servicing 

activities. These laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the Consumer Credit 

Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") 15 

U.S.C § 1692 et seq., the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et 

seq., 12 CFR part 1024 (Regulation X), 12 CFR Part 1026 (Regulation Z), and other Federal 

Consumer Protection Statutes. 

PAGE7 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 7 of 52
26. Defendant CLEAR RECON CORP ("CRC") is a subsidiary of the law firm 

Aldridge Pite LLP. Defendant CRC claims to be an agent acting for BAYVIEW and BONYM 

the purposes of foreclosing the Plaintiffs Trust Deed. See Exhibit A. Defendant CRC filed a 

"Notice of Default and Election to Sell" the Plaintiffs' property on September 11, 2015. CRC is, 

at all times relevant to this Complaint, as it is acting as the foreclosing agent for BONYM and 

BAYVIEW and/or other parties not yet known to the Plaintiffs. 

27. CRC is a California company located at 4375 Jutland Drive San 

Diego, CA 92117. CRC is a citizen of California for purposes of diversity. 

V. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 

28. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

A. Loan Origination 

29. Plaintiffs refinanced their home in 2005. The lender named in Plaintiffs' loan 

documents is America's Wholesale Lender, a New York Corporation. The prior lender and the 

new lender are different parties. 

30. Plaintiffs signed a Trust Deed on October 24, 2005 along with various riders to it, 

hereinafter referred to as the "Trust Deed". 

31. Plaintiffs signed a negative amortization variable rate Note on October 24, 2005 

in the amount of $320,000, along with various riders to it, hereinafter referred to as the "Note". 

32. Plaintiffs hereinafter refer to the October 24, 2005 Note and Trust Deed as the 

"Loan". 

PAGES COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 8 of 52
B. Trust Deed 

33. Defendant BAYVIEW produced a "true and correct" copy of the Plaintiffs' Trust 

Deed on March 27, 2015. See Exhibit B- Trust Deed BAYVIEW provided the Trust Deed as 

part of their statutory requirement to do so when they participated in the Oregon Foreclosure 

Avoidance Program ("OFAP") with the Plaintiffs from March 17, 2015 through June 8, 2015. 

34. The Lender named in the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed is "AMERICA'S WHOLESALE 

LENDER. Lender is a CORPORATION organized and existing under the laws of NEW 

YORK", and is hereinafter referred to as ("A WLNYC"). 

35. AWLNYC did not exist when the Plaintiffs signed their Trust Deed on October 

24, 2005. See Exhibit C - NY Name Search. Defendants BONYM, BANA, BAYVIEW, and 

CRC have, at all times, concealed this material fact from the Plaintiffs. 

36. Plaintiffs' Trust Deed is also known as a MERS Originated Mortgage ("MOM"). 

MERS ("Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems") is named as Grantee and Beneficiary in the 

Plaintiffs' Trust Deed as nominee for the non-existent AWLNYC. 

37. A WLNYC is not a MERS member. 

38. AWLNYC has never been registered to do business in the State of Oregon nor has 

it ever been licensed to originate mortgages in the State, either before, or after, the Plaintiffs' 

Trust Deed was created. See Exhibit D - Mortgage Lending License Inquiry. 

C. Note 

39. Defendant BAYVIEW produced a ''true and correct" copy of the Plaintiffs' Note 

on March 27, 2015. See Exhibit E-Note. BAYVIEW provided the Note as part of their 

PAGE9 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 9 of 52
statutory requirement to do so when they participated in the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance 

Program with the Plaintiffs from March 17, 2015 through June 8, 2015. 

40. The Lender named in the Note is "AMERICA 'S WHOLESALE LENDER" 

("AWL"). 

41. Plaintiffs believe that AWL (lender named in the Note) and AWLNYC (lender 

named in the Trust Deed) are the same non-existent entity. 

42. AWL is not a MERS Member. 

43. AWL did not have a license to originate mortgages in Oregon when the Plaintiffs' 

Loan was originated. See Exhibit D - Mortgage Lending License Inquiry. 

44. The Note is not endorsed. 

D. Loan Securitization 

45. The Defendants, all of them, claim the Plaintiffs' Loan was securitized in the 

CW ALT 2005-72 REMIC Trust Fund (the "Trust"). 

46. The Defendants, all of them, claim that BONYM is the Trustee for the Trust. 

BONYM identified Defendant Bank of America N.A. as the Master Servicer of the Trust. See 

Exhibit L - BONYM Inquiry. 

47. The Trust is expressed in the documents that created it including, but not limited 

to, a Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA") dated on, or about, November 1, 2005. See 

Exhibit F - PSA Excerpt. 

48. The Trust was formed under, and is governed by, the laws of New York State. 

49. The PSA is "the primary legal document" that lays out the rights, obligations, and 

authority, of all parties interacting with the Trust, and with each loan in it, including, as the 

PAGE 10 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 10 of 52
Defendants allege, the Plaintiffs Loan. 

50. A full copy of the PSA is available online at the U.S Securities and Exchange 

Commission's website at: 

http://www.sec.gov/ Archives/edgar/data/1345834/000090514806000683/efc6-

0311 57954 78ex99 l .txt . The Plaintiffs incorporate the PSA by reference as if it was fully set 

forth herein. 

E. Servicing and Loan Payments 

51. On, or about December 1, 2005, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("CWHLI") 

identified themselves to the Plaintiffs as the servicer of their Loan. CWHLI has never identified 

themselves to the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs' creditor, noteholder, note owner, or the beneficiary 

of their Trust Deed. 

52. BANA assumed the servicing of the Plaintiffs' Loan some time later. BANA has 

never identified themselves to the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs' creditor, noteholder, note owner, or 

the beneficiary of their Trust Deed. 

53. BANA transferred the servicing of the Plaintiffs' Loan to BAYVIEW in 2013. 

BAYVIEW has never identified themselves to the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs' creditor, 

noteholder, note owner, or the beneficiary of their Trust Deed. 

54. The Plaintiffs began making regular Loan payments to their servicer each month 

from December 1, 2005 through August 26, 2011. The PITI (Principal Interest Taxes & 

Insurance) payments started out at $1,496.29 ($1,104.38 plus escrow of $391.91) and increased 

to $2,589.40 within a few years. 

55. Plaintiffs made each monthly payment even as the amount increased by more than 

PAGE 11 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 11 of 52
$1,000 per month. Plaintiffs made 83 consecutive payments totaling approximately $140,932 

from December 1, 2005 through August 2011. 

F. Plaintiffs Ask DANA For Help and Were Denied 

56. Plaintiffs became increasingly concerned with the rising monthly payments and 

wanted to refinance or modify their Loan to a fixed amount with a reasonable monthly payment. 

57. Plaintiffs asked their Loan servicer BANA for help to refinance or modify the 

terms of their Loan many times when they were current on their Loan. 

58. BANA's response to Plaintiffs' requests for help were ... "that as long as the Loan 

is current, we cannot help you" .... BAN A's statements that "they could not help because 

Plaintiffs' Loan was current", were false and misleading, and BANA omitted the material fact 

that help was available for the Plaintiffs, when they were current on their Loan but in imminent 

danger of default. Help was available because BANA had signed a Servicer Participation 

Agreement with the U.S Treasury in 2009 and updated it in 2010. Under that agreement, BANA 

committed to provide loss mitigation relief for homeowners that were current, but in imminent 

danger of default. BANA also had internal loss mitigation programs available. BANA withheld 

information on these loss mitigation programs from the Plaintiffs when they asked for help. 

59. Increasingly concerned that BANA's customer service was not able to help them, 

the Plaintiffs went to their local BANA branch in Sherwood Oregon and spoke, in person, with 

the Branch Manager. Plaintiffs were told again that, as long as their Loan was current, BANA 

could not help. BANA's Branch Manager's statement that "they could not help because 

Plaintiffs' Loan was current", was false, misleading, and omitted material facts because BANA 

had loss mitigation options available both internally and through their agreement with the U.S. 

PAGE 12 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 12 of 52
Treasury. 

60. When the Plaintiffs asked the BANA Branch Manager what their other customers 

with hardships were doing, they were told that "many of their customers just stopped paying so 

they could get help". 

61. BANA's statements that "as long as their Loan was current they could not help" 

were part of a policy and practice by BANA to lure borrowers into default, keep them there to a 

point they could not recover, then foreclose and take their home. The aforementioned policy 

and practice was driven, in part, by BANA's contractual obligations under the PSA which 

incentivized payments to the BANA if they would foreclose, rather than modify the Plaintiffs' 

Loan. PSA Pages 53-56. 

G. BANA Denied Help Because "Foreclosure" cost them less than "Help" 

62. The PSA for the Trust requires the Master Servicer (BANA) to repurchase the 

Plaintiffs' mortgage Loan for its full face value, using its own money, in order to modify it. 

Plaintiffs were unaware of this fact, at all times, when they were asking BANA for help. PSA 

Page 56(b). 

63. At all times, when the Plaintiffs were asking BANA for help, the PSA would have 

required BANA to repurchase the Plaintiffs' Loan at a cost between $320,000 and $349,500, 

using their own money, after it had been modified. With property values falling, BANA would 

have needed to lay out the full repurchase price of the Plaintiffs' Loan, then underwrite a new 

loan, or modify the existing one, where the unpaid principal balance would have been up to 50% 

higher that the collateral value. 

64. Because the PSA required BANA to repurchase a modified loan, it was 

PAGE 13 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 13 of 52
financially more advantageous for BANA to lure the Plaintiffs into default, keep them in default 

until they could not recover, then foreclose and take their home. This strategy would cost 

substantially less that repurchasing the Plaintiffs' Loan for its full face value, and too, permits 

them to collect fees and costs related to defaulted loans. The longer a loan is in default, the 

more fees and costs BANA can collect. All these fees and costs are fully reimbursable upon the 

liquidation of the defaulted property. PSA Pages 53-56. 

65. By engineering a plan to lure the Plaintiffs into default, keep them there until they 

could not recover, and then foreclose on their home, BANA would not risk any of its own capital 

($320,000 to $445,000), and would get fully reimbursed for all their liquidation expenses. The 

net financial gain to BANA by foreclosing the Plaintiffs' Loan, rather than modifying it, was 

several hundred thousand dollars. 

66. Applying this same cost/benefit illustration to thousands of loans, in hundreds of 

trusts, would yield overall cash savings to BANA in the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, 

of dollars if they denied help and foreclosed on troubled loans. As stated in the PSA, the servicer 

(BANA) gets paid for all their liquidation costs, advances, and expenses before the Trust's 

Certificateholders. 

67. By November 2011, the Defendants alleged the Plaintiffs default, including 

accumulated fees and costs, was approximately $8,000. When the Plaintiffs first asked BANA 

for help, there was no default. 

H. DANA Induced Plaintiffs to Stop Paying 

68. BANA induced the Plaintiffs to stop making loan payments by (a) refusing to 

offer available loss mitigation programs while they were current on their Loan, and (b) by telling 

PAGE14 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 14 of 52
the Plaintiffs that they could only offer help once their Loan was in default. Plaintiffs stopped 

making payments in September 2011 so they could get help. 

69. On October 17, 2011, BANA responded by sending the Plaintiffs a Notice of 

Intent to Accelerate and Foreclose. 

70. Only after BANA had lured the Plaintiffs into default, and threatened them with 

foreclosure, did they offer to help. On October 24, 2011, BANA sent the Plaintiffs a letter 

soliciting them to apply for a loan modification. 

71. BANA's October 24, 2011 letter was false and misleading, and omitted material 

facts that BANA had no intention of modifying the Plaintiffs' Loan, because modifying it would 

cost them more than foreclosing. 

I. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy 

72. Plaintiffs consulted an attorney about BANA's threatened foreclosure and their 

solicitation to apply for a loan modification. Plaintiffs subsequently filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy 

in the U.S District of Oregon Bankruptcy Court as case number 11-40100 on November 28, 

2011. The bankruptcy was filed approximately one month after BANA threatened foreclosure. 

Plaintiffs believed that bankruptcy was the only practical option to save their home from 

BANA's threatened foreclosure and get a fresh start to reaffirm and renegotiate their Loan. 

73. While in bankruptcy, and on February 22, 2012, MERS executed an assignment 

of its beneficial interest in the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed to BONYM (CW ALT 2005-72). See 

Exhibit G - MERS Assignment. MERS cannot not be a beneficiary of a Trust Deed and cannot 

not, therefore, assign an interest that it did not possess to another party. 

74. Plaintiffs' bankruptcy proceeded normally and their personal liability to pay the 

PAGE 15 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 15 of 52
debt associated with their Loan was fully discharged on March 7, 2012. 

75. By March 7, 2012, the Defendants alleged the Plaintiffs default, including 

accumulated fees and costs, was approximately $20,212. When the Plaintiffs first ask BANA for 

help, there was no default. 

76. At all times while BANA serviced their Loan, Plaintiffs were unable to reach a 

loss mitigation accord with them because BANA would not fully disclose material facts and 

details relating to Plaintiffs' Loan, its investor, and loss mitigation programs available. 

J. DANA Transfers Servicing to BAYVIEW 

77. On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiffs received a letter indicating that BANA was 

transferring their Loan's servicing to BAYVIEW. BAYVIEW began servicing the Plaintiffs' 

Loan in May 2013. 

78. Between May 2013 and the date of this Complaint, the Plaintiffs discussed 

various loss mitigation options with BAYVIEW. In each instance, BAYVIEW made false and 

misleading statements regarding the Plaintiffs alleged default and omitted key material facts 

about the Plaintiffs' Loan, its alleged investor/beneficiary, and loss mitigation programs 

available. Because of BAYVIEW' s misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs have been 

unable to reach a loss mitigation accord with BAYVIEW. 

K. Notice of Foreclosure 

79. On January 30, 2015, BAYVIEW sent a letter to the Plaintiffs stating that "the 

lender intends to foreclose". See Exhibit H - Notice of Intent to Foreclose. 

80. By January 30, 2015, the Defendants alleged the Plaintiffs default, including 

accumulated fees and costs, was approximately $102,428. When the Plaintiffs first ask BANA 

PAGE16 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 16 of 52
for help, there was no default. 

81. The January 30, 2015 letter states: 

a) That "the Noteholder intends to initiate foreclosure action on the mortgaged 

property". BAYVIEW does not state who the Noteholder is. 

b) That the Servicer (presumably BAYVIEW) will conduct the foreclosure in the 

name of BONYM (CW ALT 2005-72). BAYVIEW does not state that 

BONYM (CW ALT 2005-72) is the Noteholder. 

c) That the "Servicer or Noteholder has the right to foreclose because it possess 

copies of the necessary assignments". This statement is false because the 

2012 MERS assignment to BONY is meaningless. (Exhibit G). MERS 

cannot not be a beneficiary of a Trust Deed and cannot not, therefore, assign 

an interest that it did not possess to another party; 

d) That the "promissory Note has been made payable to the Noteholder or has 

been duly endorsed to the Noteholder". BA YVIEW's statement that the 

Note has been made payable to the Noteholder is false because the true and 

correct copy of the Note BAYVIEW produced as Exhibit E-Note did not have 

any endorsements on it. 

82. BAYVIEW sent the above letter to the Plaintiffs approximately 6 weeks prior to 

its participation with the Plaintiffs in the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program ("OFAP"). 

L. Defendants Fruadulent Conduct in the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program 

("OFAP") 

83. On, or about March 17, 2015, BAYVIEW asked the Plaintiffs to participate with 

PAGE17 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 17 of 52
them in the OFAP. 

84. The OF AP events that occurred, and documents BAYVIEW produced, or failed 

to produce, concurrent with them, show that BA YVIEW's statements in its January 30, 2015 

letter were false, misleading, and omitted many material facts relating to the Plaintiffs Loan, the 

noteholder, the endorsements on the Note, the Trust Deed's beneficiary, the assignments, and 

BA YVIEW's authority to foreclose. 

85. Oregon requires that a beneficiary non-judicially foreclosing a Trust Deed under 

the Oregon Trust Deed Act ("OTDA") must first participate in the OF AP with the borrower, or 

get an exemption. Defendant BAYVIEW invited the Plaintiffs to participate in the OF AP on 

March 17, 2015. Plaintiffs accepted. The OF AP case number assigned was Bl-150310-1023. 

See Exhibit I - Page 1. 

86. An official record of the OF AP case is currently memorialized by Mediation Case 

Manager ("MCM"), the administrator of the program for the Oregon Department of Justice. The 

OF AP case record can be accesses through an internet website. Plaintiffs will make their 

username and password available to the Court under seal when requested. 

87. Plaintiffs' OFAP case material, and discussions, are not governed under ORCP 36 

relating to confidential settlement discussions. None of the Plaintiffs' 0 F AP case information is 

confidential. As such, Plaintiffs incorporate all information relating to OFAP case BI-150310-

1023, by reference, as if it all were set forth herein. Exhibit B - Trust Deed, Exhibit E - Note, 

and Exhibit I - OFAP Excerpts, are true and correct copies ofa portion of the Plaintiffs' OFAP 

case documents which were produced to the Plaintiffs by Defendant BAYVIEW while they 

jointly participated in the program from March 17, 2015 through June 8, 2015. 

PAGE18 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 18 of 52
88. On March 17, 2015, Defendant BAYVIEW declared that BONYM was the 

"beneficiary" of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed, and that BAYVIEW was acting as BONYM's agent. 

See Exhibit I- OFAP Excerpts Page 2 and 3. 

89. On March 17, 2015, the only publically recorded assignment of the Plaintiffs' 

Trust Deed to BONYM was the 2012 assignment from MERS to BONYM. See Exhibit GMERS Assignment. MERS cannot not be a beneficiary of a Trust Deed and cannot not, 

therefore, assign an interest that it did not possess to another party. The only "beneficiary" of the 

Plaintiffs' Trust Deed on March 17, 2015 was A WLNYC, the non-existent lender. 

90. BAYVIEW did not have the authority to request an OF AP meeting with the 

Plaintiffs. BA YVIEW's OFAP application on, or about March 17, 2015, was falsified based on 

a meaningless assignment of the Plaintiffs Trust Deed from MERS to BONYM in 2012. 

91. ORS 86.726 requires that a beneficiary foreclosing a trust deed must first get a 

Certificate of Compliance ("COC") from the OF AP or they are barred from non-judicially 

foreclosing under the OTDA. The OF AP COC is "step one" when foreclosing a trust deed 

under the OTDA. 

92. ORS 86.729(4) states that the beneficiary (allegedly BAYVIEW on behalf of 

BONYM) must produce true and correct copies of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed and Note, a 

complete payment history, a property valuation, an NPV financial analysis along with its inputs 

and outputs, and a Pooling and Servicing Agreement if applicable. 

93. Defendant BAYVIEW produced a Trust Deed naming non-existent AWLNYC as 

the lender (Exhibit B), a Note with no endorsements (Exhibit E), a partial payment history 

missing nine years of data (Exhibit I - OF AP Excerpts Page 4 to 6, and a Broker Price Opinion 

PAGE19 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 19 of 52
("BPO") valuing the property at $445,000 (Exhibit I - OF AP Excerpts Page 7) which was 

$205,000 higher than the Plaintiffs professionally appraised value of $240,000 completed just 

weeks before the OF AP conference (Exhibit I - OF AP Excerpts Page 8). 

94. Because of the statements Defendant BAYVIEW made in their January 30, 2015 

letter, and the numerous anomalies in the documents it produced, or failed to produce, in the 

OFAP, the Plaintiffs began to suspect fraud. 

95. A resolution conference was subsequently held between the Plaintiffs and 

Defendant BAYVIEW on June 2, 2015. Over the Plaintiffs objections, the OFAP administrator, 

MCM, issued a Certificate of Compliance ("COC") to Defendant BAYVIEW. See Exhibit J -

OF AP COC and Facilitator Report. 

96. The OF AP COC contains false and misleading statements and omits material 

facts as to the BAYVIEW' s authority to act in the manner they asserted in the OF AP. 

M. BAYVIEW's Authority in the OFAP 

97. BAYVIEW falsified its OF AP application by naming BONYM as a beneficiary 

based on the meaningless 2012 MERS assignment of the Plaintiffs Trust Deed. 

98. The Plaintiffs also discovered that on May 1, 2015, a month before the OFAP had 

concluded in June, BAYVIEW publically recorded a new assignment of the Plaintiffs' Trust 

Deed purporting to assign its beneficial interest to Defendant BONYM. See Exhibit K - 2015 

CW Assignment. The May 2015 assignment took place more than three months after BAYVIEW 

claimed to represent BONYM as a beneficiary in their January 30, 2015 letter, and more than 6 

weeks after BAYVIEW claimed to represent BONYM in the OF AP. Defendant BAYVIEW 

concealed the May 1, 2015 assignment from the Plaintiffs, at all times, while they jointly 

PAGE20 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

' I 

I 

{ 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 20 of 52
participated in the OFAP. 

N. BAYVIEW Forged an Assignment of the Trust Deed 

99. The May 1, 2015 assignment of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed is a forgery. It names 

an "assignor" that did not have beneficial right to "assign" to the "assignee" (BONYM) on that 

date. Defendant BAYVIEW, acting as the "attorney-in-fact" for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 

dba America's Wholesale Lender ("CWdbaA WL'') named it as the party transferring its 

beneficial rights to BONYM. CWdbaA WL's beneficial interest in the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed, if 

it ever held any, were sold as "an absolute sale" to another party pursuant to PSA Section 10.04 

(PSA Page 96), when the Loan was securitized in 2005. CWdbaA WL was also not registered to 

do business in Oregon on the date of the assignment. The May 1, 2015 assignment contains false 

and misleading statements and omits material facts regarding the name and nature of the 

"assignor", its interests in the Trust Deed, and the "assignee". 

0. BONYM'S Standing to Foreclose 

100. On May 4, 2015, while the parties were in the OFAP, the Plaintiffs sent an email 

to BONYM inquiring as to BONYM's interest in the Plaintiffs' Loan. See Exhibit L -BONYM 

Inquiry. BONYM's response is as follows: "BNY Mellon in not an investor but a Trustee and 

therefore does not physically own the loan or property". 

101. Defendant BONYM' s statement in Exhibit L that it was "not an investor", and 

"that it did not physically own the loan", contradicts Defendant BAYVIEW's claim that 

BONYM "is an investor" (Exhibit I- OFAP Excerpts Page 9), that BONY is the beneficiary of 

the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed with the authority to foreclose it (Exhibit I - OF AP Excerpts Page 2). 

BONYM does not have standing to foreclose the Plaintiffs Trust Deed. 

PAGE21 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 21 of 52
P. Forged Appointment of Successor Trustee 

102. On September 11, 2015, Defendant BAYVIEW filed an "Appointment of 

Successor Trustee" in the records of Washington County Oregon as document number 2015-

077505. See Exhibit M -Appointment Successor Trustee. This document is a forgery. It 

contains false and misleading statements and omits material facts as to the nature and name of 

the beneficiary and its authority to substitute the trustee. In this document, BAYVIEW, acting as 

an agent for BONYM (CW ALT 2005-72), purports to appoint Defendant CRC as a successor 

trustee of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed. BONYM (CW ALT 2005-72) was not the beneficiary of 

the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed on September 11, 2015 because the May 1, 2015 assignment of the 

Trust Deed to BONYM (Exhibit K) was a forgery and therefore meaningless, and too, the MERS 

assignment in 2012 (Exhibit G) was also meaningless. BAYVIEW, as BONYM's, agent did not 

have the authority to substitute the Trust Deed's trustee as it has claimed. 

Q. Forged Notice of Default and Election to Sell 

103. On September 11, 2015, Defendant CRC filed a Notice of Default and Election to 

Sell in Washington County Oregon as document number 2015-077506. See Exhibit A -NOS. 

The NOS is a forgery as it contains false and misleading statements and omits material facts as to 

the name and authority of the "foreclosing trustee", the name and authority of the "beneficiary", 

and the amount of the "default" claimed. 

PAGE22 

a) The NOS makes reference to a Trust Deed that names MERS as "beneficiary" 

of the Trust Deed when MERS cannot be a beneficiary under the OTDA. 

b) The NOS improperly identifies the legal name of the lender named in the 

Trust Deed as "AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER" when, in fact, the 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 22 of 52
Trust Deed identifies the lender as "AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER, a 

NEW YORK CORPORATION. 

c) The NOS claims the current beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed is 

BONYM when both publically recorded assignments of its beneficial interest 

to BONYM are meaningless; 

d) The NOS claims a default in the amount of $124,752.53 when all payments to 

the Trust are current with respect to the Loan they claim is the Plaintiffs. 

104. Plaintiffs disputed Defendant CRC's Notice of Sale in a letter to them on 

September 16, 2015. 

R. BA YVIEW's Foreclosure is Fraudulent 

105. BA YVIEW's foreclosure is fraudulent, in part, for the following reasons: 

PAGE23 

a) Defendant BAYVIEW produced a Trust Deed naming non-existent 

A WLNYC as the lender (Exhibit B), and MERS as its beneficiary, as their 

authority to foreclose; 

b) Public records show a meaningless assignment of the Trust Deed "only" from 

MERS to BONY in 2012 as their authority to participate in the OF AP in 

March 2015. (Exhibit G); 

c) Public records also show that Defendant BAYVIEW created another meaning 

less assignment of the Trust Deed "only" from CW dbaA WL to BONYM in 

May 2015, as their authority to create the foreclosure documents, when 

CW dbaA WL did not possess and interests to assign to BONYM (Exhibit K); 

d) Defendant BAYVIEW produced a Note with no endorsements (Exhibit E) to 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 23 of 52
any party, including BONYM; 

e) Defendant BAYVIEW produced a partial payment history missing nine years 

of data so an accurate accounting of the Loan could not be established in the 

OFAP. (Exhibit I- OFAP Excerpts Page 4 to 6; 

f) Defendant BAYVIEW produced a Broker Price Opinion ("BPO") valuing the 

property at $445,000 (Exhibit I - OF AP Excerpts Page 7) which is $205,000 

higher than the Plaintiffs professionally appraised value of $240,000 

completed just weeks before the OF AP conference. (Exhibit I - OFAP 

Excerpts Page 8); 

g) Public records show that Defendant BAYVIEW appointed CRC as a the Trust 

Deed's successor trustee for Defendant BONYM based on the May 2015 

meaningless assignment of the Trust Deed to BONYM (Exhibit M); 

h) Defendant CRC then filed the foreclosure (Exhibit A) claiming BONYM is 

the beneficiary, who in tum, claims a default on behalf of the Trust which is 

currently reporting no losses, and that all payments have been received on 

time each month. 

106. The above anomalies in the Defendants documents prevent them from foreclosing 

under the OTDA as they cannot properly identify a beneficiary nor a default. 

S. Plaintiffs Rescind Their Loan under Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") 

107. TILA seeks to assure meaningful disclosure of credit terms and conditions so 

consumers, like the Plaintiffs, will be informed before they sign any loan documents. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1601(a). 

PAGE24 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 24 of 52
108. TILA requires specific disclosures "before the closing" of a credit transaction and 

these disclosures must be "clear and conspicuous". 15 U.S.C. § 1632(a). 

109. The Defendants, or some of them, engaged in fraudulent, misleading, and 

deceptive practices to conceal material facts relating to the Plaintiffs real estate loan in 2005, or 

failed to make these facts "clear and conspicuous" before closing. On information and belief, 

the Defendants, or some of them: 

a) Failed to disclose that the creditor (lender) named on the Plaintiffs Trust Deed 

did not exist; 15 U.S.C. § 1602(f) Reg. Z. § 226.2(a)(l 7); 

b) Failed to disclose that the creditor (lender) named on the Plaintiffs Note did 

not exist; 15 U.S.C. § 1602(f) Reg. Z. § 226.2(a)(l 7); 

c) Failed to make "clear and conspicuous" that the Note provided for an 

undisclosed "co-obligor", in paragraph nine of the document, and by not 

disclosing this fact on the TILA disclosure form; 15 U.S.C. § 1602(f) Reg. Z. 

§ 226.2(a)(l 7); 

d) Failed to disclose that the broker origination fee was $10,400 dollars and not 

$2,400 as stated in TILA disclosure; 15 U.S.C. § 1605(e); Reg. Z. § 

226.4( c )(7); 

110. The Defendants, or some of them, knew these material facts in advance of the 

loan's closing in 2005, failed to disclose them at that time, and have, at all times, concealed them 

from the Plaintiffs. 

111. The above TILA violations were revealed to the Plaintiffs during their 

investigations into Defendant BAYVIEW's foreclosure proceeding against them in September 

PAGE25 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 25 of 52
2015, and the months that followed. 

112. The Defendants, or some of them, also failed to disclose, before closing, that the 

PSA controlling the Trust, to whom the Plaintiffs loan would be sold, would prevent the 

assumption of the Plaintiffs loan, while the TILA disclosure form's "loan assumption checkbox" 

was marked "YES". The PSA also placed refinancing and modification restrictions on the 

Plaintiffs Loan. PSA Page 56. These restrictions were not disclosed to the Plaintiffs and were 

added to the Plaintiffs original Loan terms without their approval. The Defendants, or some of 

them, knew the above facts to be true in advance of the loan's closing in 2005 and have, at all 

times, conceal them from the Plaintiffs. 

113. Plaintiffs are within their rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. to rescind their 

loan because it was never consummated under Oregon law and they have never been 

contractually obligated under it. 

114. Plaintiffs notified Defendant BAYVIEW of their intent to rescind their loan on 

November 10, 2015. See Exhibit N - Notice of Rescission. 

115. Defendant BAYVIEW did not comply and unwind the Loan transaction within 20 

days as required under TILA. 

116. Plaintiffs sent Defendant BAYVIEW a demand letter on December 3, 2015. See 

Exhibit 0 - Demand Letter. 

117. Plaintiffs received a "rescission" reply from BAYVIEW on January 13, 2016 in a 

letter dated January 6, 2015. See Exhibit P - Bayview Rescission Reply. BA YVIEW's letter of 

January 6, 2016 is 34 days past the 20 day deadline to respond to Plaintiffs Notice of Rescission 

as prescribed under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). 

PAGE26 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 26 of 52
118. BA YVIEW's January 6, 2015 letter stated that it would not comply because the 

rescission notice was "not within three years of origination". BA YVIEW's statement to that 

effect is false, misleading, and does not accurately reflect the Plaintiffs rescission rights under 

TILA. 

119. TILA's unconditional three day right to rescind, and its three year right ofrepose, 

do not begin until the credit transaction is "consummated". 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq. In this 

case, the Plaintiffs credit transaction was never consummated because the Trust Deed is void and 

not enforceable under Oregon law and the law of the Ninth Circuit. 

120. Plaintiffs are within their rights to rescind their Loan under TILA if the credit 

transaction that created is was never consummated and they are not contractually bound to it. 

T. Defamation, Humiliation and Harasssment 

121. With days of the Defendant CRC's public filing of the non-judicial foreclosure, 

Plaintiffs property was listed on Zillow, RealtyTrac, and other foreclosure listing websites, as 

either in "pre-foreclosure" or "foreclosure", and some listed "auction dates". 

122. Within days of the Defendant CR C's public filing of the non-judicial foreclosure, 

the Plaintiffs began to receive mail solicitations from people offering foreclosure help, wanting 

to buy their home, and on one occasion, a personal visit from a person knocking on their door 

wanting to look at the property. 

123. Plaintiffs have been defamed, publically humiliated, and personally harassed, as a 

result of the Defendant CRC's advertisement of their property as being in "foreclosure", or "preforeclosure", with an auction date. 

124. As of the date ofthis Complaint, the Defendants alleged the Plaintiffs default, 

PAGE27 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 27 of 52
including accumulated fees and costs, was approximately $135,000. When the Plaintiffs first ask 

BANA for help, there was no default. 

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Injunctive Relief - Against All Defendants 

125. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

126. The Defendants are employing unlawful, deceptive, and unconscionable trade 

practices, and tactics, in the prosecution of their non-judicial foreclosure of the Plaintiffs home as 

more specifically set forth in this Complaint. Pursuant to ORS 646.632, the Court may restrain 

the Defendants from continuing these tactics including the non-judicial foreclosure which is a 

product of the tactics. Plaintiffs ask the Court to protect their countervailing interests in 

avoiding wrongful foreclosure and enjoin the Defendants from selling their home until the 

Plaintiffs claims against them are being adjudicated. 

127. The Defendants are pursuing a pattern ofracketeering through the forgery, false 

filings, and falsification of their business records, as more specifically set forth in their SIXTH 

CAUSE OF ACTION in this Complaint. Pursuant to ORS 166. 725, the Court may restrain the 

Defendants from continuing to engage in this activity and halt the non-judicial foreclosure sale of 

the Plaintiffs' home which is a product of their racketeering activity. Here, again, the Plaintiffs 

have countervailing interests in avoiding wrongful foreclosure, especially considering that the 

Defendants have employed forgery and false filings, and falsified their business records, in order 

to foreclose and sell the Plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs ask the Court to and enjoin the Defendants, 

PAGE28 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 28 of 52
pursuant to ORS 166. 725, from selling their home until the Plaintiffs claims against them can be 

adjudicated. 

128. Plaintiffs request that any bond requirements related to injunctive reliefbe waived 

since the Defendants will suffer no harm if injunctive relief is imposed. The Defendants have 

unlimited resources with which to litigate foreclosures and are indemnified for all losses related 

to this matter under settlements they have reached between themselves and with the Federal 

Government. The Plaintiffs litigation resources are limited and when they first asked the 

Defendants for help, more than four years ago, they were current on their Loan. The Defendants 

could have provided help but refused to do so. Plaintiffs ask the Court to waive any injunctive 

relief bond requirement as equitable relief for the Plaintiffs in this matter. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Declaratory Relief - Against All Defendants 

129. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

130. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202, the Plaintiffs have substantial legal rights in the real 

property that is at issue in this litigation. The Defendants have threatened those rights as set 

forth in herein. 

131. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination and order declaring that (a) the "Lender" 

named in the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed as "AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER. Lender is a 

CORPORATION organized and existing under the laws of NEW YORK'' ("AWLNYC"), did not 

exist as a legal entity on October 21, 2005, that (b) their Trust Deed is void, and that (c) all 

transactions related to their Trust Deed, including assignments of it, and this foreclosure, are also 

PAGE29 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 29 of 52
void and have no legal effect. Complaint" 33 to 38. 

a) Oregon law is clear that persons claiming an interest in a mortgage instrument 

must "exist", or it is '"void". 

b) Plaintiffs' Trust deed names MERS as its beneficiary but MERS cannot be a 

beneficiary under the OTDA; 

c) ORS 86.705(2) states: "Beneficiary" means a person named or otherwise 

designated in a trust deed as the "person" for whose benefit a trust deed is 

. " given ..... . 

d) ORS 86.205(6) states: "Person" means an individual, a corporation, an 

association or a partnership and includes, but is not limited to, a financial 

institution as defined in ORS 706.008, an investment company, an insurance 

company, a pension fund, or a mortgage company. 

e) A WLNYC does not meet the statutory definition of a "person" as defined in 

under ORS 86.205(6) because it does not exist. 

f) AWLNYC does not meet the statutory definition of a "beneficiary" as defined 

in ORS 86.705(2) because it not a "person". 

132. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination and order declaring (a) that a broken chain 

of title exists with respect to the beneficiaries of the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed, (b) that a proper 

beneficiary under the OTDA cannot be established because of it, and ( c) that the non-judicial 

foreclosure the Defendants are pursing under ORS 86. 705 to ORS 86. 795 must be vacated as it is 

improper under the Act. 

a) The Plaintiffs' Trust Deed chain of title is broken and cannot be repaired. 

PAGE30 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 30 of 52
When the document was created in 2005, its "non-existent" lender, 

A WLNYC, named an "invalid beneficiary" identified as MERS. Exhibit G. 

In 2012, the "invalid beneficiary" MERS assigned its "non-existent" 

beneficial interest to BONYM. In 2015, Defendant BAYVIEW created 

another assignment naming a new "assignor". The new "assignor" then 

assigned its "non-existent" beneficial interest in the Trust Deed to BONYM, 

another meaningless act. 

b) The 2012 assignment failed because MERS cannot be a beneficiary under the 

OTDA and cannot transfer something that it does not possess to another party. 

c) The 2015 assignment fails because it is a forgery. Exhibit K. The Defendants 

substituted CW dbaA WL in place of "non-existent" A WLNYC in an attempt 

to perfect the assignment which is the basis of their foreclosure action. This 

was an act of forgery as CW dbaA WL did not possess any beneficial interest 

in the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed on the date the document was created. 

d) Foreclosure in the manner the Defendants have chosen is improper because 

the Defendants cannot legally establish who the beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' 

Trust Deed is other than non-existent lender AWLNYC. 

13 3. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination and order declaring that (a) Plaintiffs' 

"real estate loan" as defined in ORS 86.205(7) was never consummated, that (b) Plaintiffs have 

never been contractually obligated under the "real estate loan", that (c) Plaintiffs' November 10, 

2015 rescission (Exhibit NJ of their Loan pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1635 is enforceable, and (d) 

Defendant BAYVIEW failed to comply within Plaintiffs Notice of Rescission within 20 days 

PAGE 31 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 31 of 52
(Exhibit P) as required under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). 

a) ORS 86.205(7) states that a "real estate loan" is the combination of a loan on 

real property along with a security agreement. The lender named in both the 

Trust Deed and Note did not exist and, therefore, neither document is 

enforceable under Oregon law. 

b) Consummation is further defined under 12 CFR Part 1026.2(13) as "the time 

that a consumer becomes contractually obligated on a credit transaction". 

Lender A WLNYC did not exist as a legal entity and did not, therefore, have 

the capacity to assent to the Trust Deed as a party with standing to enforce it. 

c) Under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq., "rescission" is effective when the borrower 

gives notice to the creditor. 

134. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination and order declaring that the Certificate of 

Compliance (Exhibit J) issued to Defendant BAYVIEW by OF AP program administrator, MCM, 

be nullified, and that the Defendants, all of them, be barred from foreclosing as they failed to 

obtain a valid Certificate of Compliance for the following reasons: 

PAGE32 

a) Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.726(l)(a) when they falsely 

requested an OFAP resolution conference on behalf ofBONYM (CW ALT 

2005-72) when it was not the beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' Loan because the 

February 22, 2012 MERS assignment to BONYM was meaningless; 

b) Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.726(2) by claiming a "void" Trust 

Deed along with meaningless assignment of it as their authority to request a 

resolution conference under ORS 86.726(2); 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 32 of 52
c) Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.729(4)(b)(A) by producing a 

"void" Trust Deed, a payment history of one year when nine years were 

required, a Broker Price Opinion that falsely inflated the value of the 

Plaintiffs' home by $205,000, by not producing a NPV report, by not 

producing a pooling and servicing agreement, and failing to produce a letter 

listing loan modification restrictions or prohibition that may have been 

imposed by the investor; 

d) That Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.732(1)(b)(A) by sending an 

agent that did not have complete authority to negotiate. 

135. For the above reasons, the OFAP Certificate of Compliance issued to BAYVIEW 

on June 4, 2014 must be invalidated and the OF AP record corrected to show that no COF was 

issued. Defendants must then be barred from foreclosing under the OTDA for lack of a valid 

coc. 

136. The Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination and order as to their rights, when 

represented, to attorney's fees and costs, as may be provided for under applicable law. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. 

("Consumer Credit Protection Act") 

13 7. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1641 et seq. 

Count One Against Defendant BAYVIEW 

138. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(l) requires that "not later than 30 days after the date on 

PAGE33 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 33 of 52
which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor 

that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such 

transfer." 

139. BAYVIEW, itself, or as a successor in interest to other parties, or as an agent for 

other parties, failed to comply with 15 U.S.C § 1641(g)(l), in that it failed to notify the Plaintiffs 

within 30 days of the transaction, that the beneficial interest in their Trust Deed had been sold, 

transferred, or assigned, to BONYM (CWALT 2005-72) on May 1, 2015 (Exhibit K). 

140. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Defendant BA YVIEW's failure to take action 

as required under 15 U.S.C § 1641(g)(l) and notify the Plaintiffs when their Loan was sold to 

other parties as required by the Act. 

141. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant BAYVIEW' s refusal to take 

action as required under 15 U.S.C § 1641(g)(l) as more specifically set forth herein, Plaintiffs 

claim damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1640 et seq. which include actual damages in an 

amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a non-existent creditor and $100,000 in 

remodel costs to the property that will be lost through foreclosure, or another amount to be 

proven at trial, statutory damages, and, when represented, their attorney's fees and costs. 

Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq. 

Count One Against Defendant BAYVIEW 

142. Defendant BAYVIEW, itself, or as a successor in interest to other parties, failed 

to comply with 15 U.S.C § 1635(b) and take all necessary steps to release all liens claimed by it, 

or it as an agent of other parties, within 20 days of receiving Plaintiffs' rescission notice on 

November 12, 2015. Exhibit N-Rescission Notice and Exhibit P-Rescission Reply. 

PAGE34 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 34 of 52
143. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Defendant BA YVIEW's refusal to take action 

as required under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) and unwind the Plaintiffs' Loan as required by the Act 

and refund their loan payments and release all liens on their property. 

144. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant BA YVIEW's refusal to take 

action as required under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq., as more specifically set forth herein, Plaintiffs 

claim damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1640 et seq. which include actual damages in an 

amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a non-existent creditor and $100,000 in 

remodel costs, or another amount to be proven at trial, and statutory damages, and, when 

represented, their attorney's fees and costs. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act (ORS Chapter 646) 

145. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

Violation Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act 

Count One Against Defendant BAYVIEW 

146. BAYVIEW acting within the course of their business, did within the State of 

Oregon sell, or offer to sell, services that are covered by ORS 646.607 and ORS 646.608, which 

are primarily used for personal, family or household purposes, and are the subject of enforcement 

under ORS 646.632. 

147. The Defendants, all of them, did willfully, or negligently, engage in the conduct, 

more specifically described in Complaint~ 79-124 above, in violation of ORS Chapter 646. 

148. The Plaintiffs did suffer an ascertainable loss as a result of BA YVIEW's unfair 

trade practices and tactics and claim as follows: 

PAGE35 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 35 of 52
PAGE36 

a) Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.726(l)(a) when they falsely 

requested an OFAP resolution conference on behalf ofBONYM (CW ALT 

2005-72) when it was not the beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' Loan because the 

February 22, 2012 MERS assignment to BONYM was meaningless (Exhibit I) 

b) Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.726(2) by claiming a "void" Trust 

Deed (Exhibit B) along with meaningless assignment (Exhibit G) of it as their 

authority to request a resolution conference under ORS 86. 726(2); 

c) Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.729(4)(b)(A) by producing a 

"void" Trust Deed, a payment history of one year when nine years were 

required, a Broker Price Opinion that falsely inflated the value of the 

Plaintiffs' home by $205,000, by not producing a NPV report, by not 

producing a pooling and servicing agreement, and failing to produce a letter 

listing loan modification restrictions or prohibition that may have been 

imposed by the investor (Exhibits B, E, I); 

d) That Defendant BAYVIEW did violate ORS 86.732(1)(b)(A) by sending an 

agent that did not have complete authority to negotiate. (Exhibit I) 

e) That Defendant BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.007(1)(a-b)- Forgery in the 

Second Degree, ORS 165.013(1)(C)-Forgery in the First Degree, and ORS 

165.080(1)(a-d) - Falsifying Business Records, by falsifying and publically 

filing an "Assignment of Deed of Trust" dated May 1, 2015, that contained 

false and misleading statements and omitted material facts as to the authority 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 36 of 52
PAGE37 

of its "assignor" to assign its beneficial interest to BONYM as more 

specifically set forth in Complaint ~ 99; 

f) That Defendant BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.007(1)(a-b)- Forgery in the 

Second Degree, ORS 165.013(1)(C)- Forgery in the First Degree, and ORS 

165.080(1)(a-d) - Falsifying Business Records, by falsifying and publically 

filing an "Appointment of Successor Trustee" on September 11, 2015 that 

contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts as to the 

name of the beneficiary and its authority to act as more specifically set forth in 

Complaint ~ 102; 

g) That Defendant BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.007(1)(a-b)-Forgery in the 

Second Degree, ORS 165.013(1)(C)- Forgery in the First Degree, and ORS 

165.080(1)(a-d)- Falsifying Business Records, by falsifying and publically 

filing a "Notice of Default and Election to Sell" on September 11, 2015 that 

contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts as to the 

name of the beneficiary and the amount of the default as more specifically set 

forth in Complaint ii 103 to 104; 

h) That BAYVIEW purposely kept the Plaintiffs in default while they collected 

late fees of nearly $2,192.51 as set forth in Exhibit A-NOS and Complaint~ 

56to71; 

i) That BAYVIEW purposely kept the Plaintiffs in default while they collected 

property inspection fees (Exhibit I Page 5) when the property was never 

inspected on a monthly basis as they have claimed in their payment history; 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 37 of 52
j) That Defendant BAYVIEW knew the Loan documents had fatal flaws in 

advance of their foreclosure proceedings and papered over these flaws with 

forged documents and falsified business records to cover them up; 

k) That Defendant BAYVIEW knew that the public filing of their foreclosure 

action would be picked up and rebroadcast over media outlets like Zillow, 

RealtyTrac, and others, and that the Plaintiffs would be publically defamed, 

humiliated, and harassed as a result. 

1) That BAYVIEW knew that their foreclosure would damage the Plaintiffs 

credit rating that they had substantially rebuilt since their bankruptcy in 2011. 

149. At all material times, the Defendants acted knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and 

recklessly in their dealings with the Plaintiffs. 

150. At all material times, Defendant BAYVIEW acted with an outrageous 

indifference to the highly reasonable risk of harm their actions would cause the Plaintiffs. 

151. At all material times, Defendant BAYVIEW acted with a conscious indifference 

to the health, safety, and welfare of the Plaintiffs. 

152. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the greater of their actual damages under 

ORS 646.638 in an amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a non-existent 

creditor and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will be lost through foreclosure, or 

another amount to be proven at trial, and statutory damages of $200, together with their attorney 

fees, when represented, and any equitable relief the Court considers proper pursuant to ORS 

Chapter 646.638 and any equitable relief the Court may provide. 

153. The Plaintiffs are entitled to Injunctive Relief under ORS 646.632 and ask the 

PAGE38 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 38 of 52
Court to restrain the Defendants from foreclosing on their home until all the claims in this 

Complaint, as well as any amendments to it, have been fully adjudicated by all Courts that hear 

the Plaintiffs case. 

154. Plaintiffs seek emotional distress damages under ORS 646.632 in the amount of 

$500,000 as a result of the public defamation, humiliation, and harassment they have 

encountered in their dealing with the Defendants. 

155. Plaintiff seek punitive damages under ORS 646.638(1) in an amount to be 

determined 

156. The Plaintiffs also claim their right, when represented, to prevailing party attorney 

fees and costs pursuant to by this statute or ORS Chapter 646.638, or other remedy as may be 

appropriate. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Common Law Fraud 

157. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

Fraud Count One 

Against Defendant BAYVIEW 

158. BAYVIEW made the following material and false representations to the Plaintiff 

from January 30, 2015 through the date of this Complaint: 

PAGE39 

a) That in their January 30, 2015 letter (Exhibit HJ to the Plaintiffs, they stated 

the "the lender intends to foreclose" but then failed to name the lender; 

b) That in their January 30, 2015 letter (Exhibit HJ to the Plaintiffs, they stated 

the "Servicer on behalf of the Noteholder intends to initiate foreclosure" but 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 39 of 52
PAGE40 

then failed to name the Noteholder; 

c) That in their January 30, 2015 letter to the Plaintiffs, they stated that the 

Plaintiffs' Note had been endorsed to the Noteholder, when it had not (Exhibit 

H); 

d) That in their January 30, 2015 letter to the Plaintiffs, they stated that 

"$102,428.61" was the amount needed to reinstate the Loan, when all 

payments to the Trust have been made on time and the Trust is reporting no 

losses or default (Exhibit H); 

e) That BONYM was the beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' Loan in their January 30, 

2015 letter to the Plaintiffs, when it was not (Exhibit H); 

f) That BONYM was the beneficiary of the Plaintiffs' Loan when they requested 

the Plaintiffs participation in the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program 

("OFAP") in March 2015, when it was not (Exhibit I); 

g) That the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed BAYVIEW produced in the OF AP was valid, 

when it was void (Exhibit B); 

h) That the January 2015 Broker Price Opinion BAYVIEW produced in the 

OFAP was accurate, when it overinflated the actual real appraised value by 

$205,000 (Exhibit I); 

i) That the Payment History BAYVIEW produced in the OF AP was complete, 

when it was missing nine years of data (Exhibit I-Page 10); 

j) That the amount BAYVIEW claimed was needed to bring the Loan current 

was correct, when it was not (Exhibit H); 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 40 of 52
k) That the "Assignment of Deed of Trust" BAYVIEW created and publically 

filed on May 1, 2015, was a valid legal instrument, when it was not (Exhibit 

K); 

1) That as an agent ofBONYM, it lawfully substituted Clear Recon Corp as the 

new Trustee of their Trust Deed on September 11, 2015, when BONYM did 

not have such authority (Exhibit M); 

m) That it had the legal authority to instruct Clear Recon Corp to foreclose on the 

Plaintiffs' home, when it did not (Exhibit A). 

159. BAYVIEW knew these statements and documents were false, or misleading, and 

that they were material in their dealings with the Plaintiffs, and were made with the intentions 

that the Plaintiffs would act on them. The Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of the 

representations and had a right to rely on them. 

160. BA YVIEW's fraud began when they sent the January 30, 2015 letter and 

subsequently invited the Plaintiffs to appear jointly with them in the OFAP in March 2015. 

161. The Plaintiffs did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have 

known, of the scope and nature of the fraud until March 2015, and the months that followed. In 

part, this is due to the complex nature of the fraud. Additionally, many of the documents that are 

a product of the fraud had yet to be made available including the May 2015 Assignment and the 

September 2015 Notice of Substitution and the Notice of Default. 

162. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant BAYVIEW' s fraud, Plaintiffs 

have incurred actual damages in an amount of $140,000 in payments made to a non-existent 

creditor and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will be lost through foreclosure, or 

PAGE41 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 41 of 52
another amount to be proven at trial. 

163. The Plaintiffs also claim their right, when represented, to prevailing party attorney 

fees and costs pursuant to ORS Chapter 20 or other applicable statute. 

Fraud Count Two 

Against Defendant BONYM 

164. BONYM made the following material and false representations to the Plaintiff 

from January 2015 through the date of this Complaint: 

a) That it has a beneficial interest in the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed, when it did not 

(Exhibit G and K); 

b) That it had the authority to foreclose the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed, when it did 

not (Exhibit G, K, and M); 

c) That it had the authority to appoint a successor trustee for the Plaintiffs' Trust 

Deed, when it did not (Exhibit M); 

165. The Plaintiffs did not know, and in the exercise ofreasonable care, could not have 

known, of the scope and nature of the fraud until March 2015 and the months that followed. In 

part, this is due to the complex nature of the fraud. Additionally, many of the documents that are 

a product of the fraud, had yet to be made available including the May 2015 Assignment and the 

September 2015 Notice of Substitution and the Notice of Default. 

166. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant BONYM's fraud, Plaintiffs have 

incurred actual damages in an amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a nonexistent creditor and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will be lost through 

foreclosure, or another amount to be proven at trial. 

PAGE42 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 42 of 52
167. The Plaintiffs also claim their right, when represented, to prevailing party attorney 

fees and costs pursuant to ORS Chapter 20 or other applicable statutes. 

Fraud Count Three 

Against Defendant DANA 

168. Defendant BANA has continuously made the following materially misleading and 

false representations to the Plaintiffs, omitted key material facts relating to their Loan, and 

concealed these facts from the Plaintiffs before, during, and after the Loans origination in 2005 

through the date of this Complaint and claim as follows: 

PAGE43 

a) That BANA knew in advance of the closing of the Plaintiffs' Loan, and failed 

to disclose, that the Loan had been created specifically to be securitized in the 

Trust and that the Trust, without the approval of the Plaintiffs, would restrict 

the Plaintiffs' refinancing, modification, assumption, and loss mitigation 

options that would otherwise be available to them under the terms of their 

original Loan documents (PSA Pages 44-61 ); 

b) That BANA claimed that A WLNYC was a legal entity and had the capacity to 

enter into a the Trust Deed and Note contracts with Plaintiffs in 2005, when it 

did not (Exhibit CJ; 

c) That BANA claimed that A WLNYC had a license to originate mortgage loans 

in Oregon in 2005, when it did not (Exhibit DJ; 

d) That BANA claimed that A WLNYC would be the party entitled to receive the 

Plaintiffs' payments, when it was not (Exhibit Band CJ; 

e) That BANA claimed that AWLNYC had a legal beneficial interest in the 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 43 of 52
Trust Deed, when it did not (Exhibit CJ; 

t) That BANA, as the Loan's servicer, could not modify the Loan when the 

payments were current, when it could have done so, Complaint if 58; 

g) That BANA, as the Loan's servicer, could not talk to the Plaintiffs while they 

were in bankruptcy, when it could have done so Complaint if 58; 

h) That BANA failed, when asked, to disclose any loss mitigation prohibitions or 

restrictions associated with the Plaintiffs Loan including those relating to 

refinancing, modification, or assumption, Complaint if 62 to 67, and 112. 

169. BANA, or BANA as successor in interest to other parties, knew these statements 

were false or misleading, that they were material in their dealings with the Plaintiffs, and were 

made with the intentions that the Plaintiffs would act on them. The Plaintiffs were ignorant of 

the falsity of the representations and had a right to rely on them. 

170. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant BANA's Plaintiffs have incurred 

actual damages in an amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a non-existent 

creditor and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will be lost through foreclosure, or 

another amount to be proven at trial. 

1 71. The Plaintiffs also claims their right, when represented, to prevailing party 

attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS Chapter 20 or other applicable statutes. 

172. The Plaintiffs did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care, cold not have 

known, of the fraud until March 2015, and the months that followed. In part, this is due to the 

complex nature of the fraud and its well-crafted cover-up. And too, many of the documents that 

were a produce of the fraud had yet to be made available to the Plaintiffs. 

PAGE44 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 44 of 52
173. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants' fraud, Plaintiffs have incurred 

damages in an amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a non-existent creditor 

and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will be lost through foreclosure, or another 

amount to be proven at trial. 

174. The Plaintiffs also claim their right, when represented, to prevailing party attorney 

fees and costs pursuant to ORS Chapter 20 or other applicable statutes. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation ORS 166. 715 to 166. 735 ("Racketeering") 

175. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

Racketeering Count One 

Against BAYVIEW 

176. BA VIEW is an "enterprise" as defined by ORS 166.715(2) because it is a 

business entity as described therein. 

177. BA VIEW has committed "racketeering activity" as defined by ORS 

166.715(6)(P,Q) because it conspired with others to forge documents and falsify business records 

as described in Complaint ~ 79 to 104 to further their business of unlawfully foreclosing the 

Plaintiffs Trust Deed in violation of ORS 86.705 to 86.795. 

178. BA VIEW has committed a "pattern of racketeering" as defined in ORS 

166.715(4) because it has committed multiple acts of First and Second Degree Forgery and 

Falsification of Business records as described in Complaint~ 99 to 104. 

179. BAYVIEW acting by itself, or as an agent for BONYM and/or BANA, or all of 

them acting together, did directly commit, or caused others to commit, multiple acts of forgery 

PAGE45 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 45 of 52
with intent to defraud, in violation of ORS 165.007(1)(a-b)- Forgery in the Second Degree and 

ORS 165.013(1)(C)- Forgery in the First Degree. Complaint~ 99-104. These acts of forgery 

were related to records and documents that BAYVIEW kept in the normal course of their 

business and as such, BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.080(l)(a-d) - Falsifying Business Records. 

180. BAYVIEW has violated ORS 166.715 to 735 as follows: 

PAGE46 

a) Defendant BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.007(1)(a-b)-Forgery in the Second 

Degree, ORS 165.013(l)(C)-Forgery in the First Degree, and ORS 

165.080(1)(a-d) - Falsifying Business Records, by falsifying and publically 

filing an "Assignment of Deed of Trust" dated May 1, 2015, that contained 

false and misleading statements and omitted material facts as to the authority 

of the "assignor" to assign its beneficial interest to BONYM as more 

specifically set forth in Complaint~ 99; 

b) Defendant BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.007(1)(a-b)-Forgery in the Second 

Degree, ORS 165.013(1)(C)- Forgery in the First Degree, and ORS 

165.080(1)(a-d) - Falsifying Business Records, by falsifying and publically 

filing an "Appointment of Successor Trustee" on September 11, 2015 that 

contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts as to the 

name of the beneficiary and its authority to act as more specifically set forth in 

Complaint ~ 102; 

c) Defendant BAYVIEW violated ORS 165.007(l)(a-b)-Forgery in the Second 

Degree, ORS 165.013(1)(C)- Forgery in the First Degree, and ORS 

165.080(1)(a-d)- Falsifying Business Records, by falsifying and publically 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 46 of 52
filing a "Notice of Default and Election to Sell" on September 11, 2015 that 

contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts as to the 

name of the beneficiary and the amount of the default as more specifically set 

forth in Complaint 1J 103 to 104; 

181. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant BAYVIEW' s racketeering 

activity, Plaintiffs have incurred actual damages in an amount of approximately $140,000 in 

payments made to a non-existent creditor and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will 

be lost through foreclosure, or another amount to be proven at trial. 

182. Plaintiffs claim damages as provided for in ORS 166.725(7)(a) as a three times 

multiplier of their actual damages. 

183. Plaintiffs claim injunctive relief under ORS 166.725(1) until all matters in this 

Complaint are adjudicated. 

184. The Plaintiffs also claims their right, when represented, to attorney fees and costs 

pursuant to ORS 166.725(14), or other financial recovery remedies that may be available under 

ORS 166.725, or as the Court or a Jury may find equitable. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Promissory Estoppel 

Against Defendant DANA 

185. Plaintiffs re-allege each allegation as set forth above and incorporate each by 

reference as if each were set forth herein. 

Promissory Estoppel Count One 

Against DANA 

186. BANA made false and misleading representations to the Plaintiff that help was 

PAGE47 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 47 of 52
available if their Loan was in default, but not if it was current. Complaint ~ 56-71. 

187. BANA made these false and misleading representations in an effort to get the 

Plaintiffs to default on their Loan, and keep them in default, so they could accrue and collect 

additional fees associated with defaulted loans and their liquidation. 

188. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on BANA's representations that help was available if 

their Loan was in default. 

189. As such, Plaintiffs stopped making their Loan payments so they could get help. 

190. BANA should be estopped from foreclosing on the Plaintiffs property as it was 

BANA's false and misleading statements that caused the Plaintiffs default when, in fact, BANA 

had loss mitigation programs available while the Plaintiffs were current on their Loan but in 

imminent danger of default. 

191. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants' promises, Plaintiffs have 

incurred actual damages in an amount of approximately $140,000 in payments made to a nonexistent creditor and $100,000 in remodel costs to the property that will be lost through 

foreclosure, or another amount to be proven at trial. 

192. The Plaintiffs also claims their right, when represented, to prevailing party 

attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS Chapter 20 or other applicable statute. 

II I 

I II 

Ill 

II I 

PAGE48 COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 48 of 52
VII. PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment and relief on their claims as follows: 

193. That the Defendants, all of them, take nothing from the Plaintiffs lawsuit; 

194. On their FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief) as to All defendants, 

a) That the non-judicial foreclosure now pending and defined in Exhibit A be 

immediately halted until all claims in this action have been fully adjudicated 

by all Courts that may hear the Plaintiffs' case; 

b) That the Court waive any bond payment requirement; 

195. On their SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) as to All 

Defendants: 

PAGE49 

a) That the Plaintiffs' Trust Deed be declared void and that all transactions 

related to it are void and have no legal effect including the non-judicial 

foreclosure action pending against the Plaintiffs; 

b) That the Plaintiffs' "real estate loan" as defined in ORS 86.205(7) be declared 

that it was never consummated and that they have never been contractually 

obligated under it; 

c) That the Court issue an order requiring the Defendants to comply with 15 

U.CS.C. § 1635(b) and refund the payments they extracted from the Plaintiffs 

as a product of a void Trust Deed and an unendorsed Note; 

d) That the Court issue an order vacating the non-judicial foreclosure; 

e) That the Court issue an order vacating all liens the Defendant claim relating to 

the Plaintiffs property. 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 49 of 52
f) That the OF AP Certificate of Compliance issued to the Defendants on June 4, 

2015 be declared invalid; 

g) That because the OF AP Certificate of Compliance is invalid, the Defendants 

non-judicial foreclosure is also invalid and must be vacated. 

196. On their THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. 

("Consumer Credit Protection") Count One Against Defendant BAYVIEW, 

a) Court order enforcing statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1640 et seq. for 

violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (g)(l ). 

b) Court order enforcing remedies as prescribed under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq. 

for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq. 

c) Court order enforcing damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1640 et seq. for violations 

of 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq. 

d) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

e) when represented, their attorney fees and costs. 

197. On their FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation "OUFTPA") Count One 

Against Defendant BAYVIEW, 

PAGE50 

a) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

b) emotional distress damages of $500,000; 

c) punitive damages as permitted under the statute; 

d) when represented, their attorney fees and costs; 

e) an order for injunctive relief barring the Defendants from foreclosing until all 

the Plaintiffs claims have been fully litigated. 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 50 of 52
198. On their FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Fraud) Count One 

Against Defendant BAYVIEW, 

a) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

b) when represented, their attorney fees and costs incurred pursuant to the 

prevailing party provisions of ORS Chapter 20 or other statutory provision 

that may apply. 

199. On their FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Fraud) Count Two 

Against Defendant BONYM. 

a) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

b) when represented, their attorney fees and costs incurred pursuant to the 

prevailing party provisions of ORS Chapter 20 or other statutory provision 

that may apply. 

200. On their FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Fraud) Count Three 

Against Defendant BANA. 

c) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

d) when represented, their attorney fees and costs incurred pursuant to the 

prevailing party provisions of ORS Chapter 20 or other statutory provision 

that may apply. 

201. On their SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Racketeering) Count One Against 

Defendant BAYVIEW, 

PAGE 51 

a) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

b) three times actual damages as provided for under ORS 166.725(7)(a); 

COMPLAINT Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 51 of 52
c) injunctive relief as authorized under ORS 166. 725( 6)(b ); 

d) a jury trial as authorized by ORS 166. 725(7)(b ); 

e) when represented, their attorney fees and costs. 

202. On their SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Estoppel) Count One Against 

Defendant BANA, 

a) actual damages of approximately $240,000 plus interest at 9% per annum; 

b) when represented, their attorney fees and costs incurred pursuant to the 

prevailing party provisions of ORS Chapter 20. 

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

203. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial of their claims by jury to the extent 

authorized by law. 

Date: January 15, 2016 

PAGE52 COMPLAINT 

:J~. (:;05~ ~sha KitM. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

gcgosha@gmail.com 

503-522-6571 

Plaintiffs, Pro Se 

Gary C. Gosha 

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062 

503-522-6571 

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 52 of 52