Denise Subramaniam 

Self-represented 

13865 SW Walker Rd 

Beaverton OR 97005 

503-764-5300 

FILED 8 .. Jll '15 9 ~USDC-oRP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-01836 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 

pro per 

Defendant 

JUDICIAL DECISION AND ORDER 

IN LNV CORPORATION V. MADISION 

REAL EST A TE LLC 

Comes now Defendant, Denise Subramaniam, representing herself, and moves this court 

pursuant to Federal Rule 201 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts to take judicial notice of the 

documents described herein in and in support states as follows: 

1. THE DEFENDANT moves this Court to take judicial notice of: 

Judicial Decision and Order , LNV Corporation v. Madison Real Estate, LLC, Docket 

No: 103576/2010, Supreme Court, New York County, 2010 NY Slip Op 33376U) (See 

"Exhibit A" attached hereto.) 

2. Federal Rule of Evidence 201 - "Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts" states: 

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a 

legislative fact. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13
(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a 

fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: 

(1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or 

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy 

cannot reasonably be questioned. 

( c) Taking Notice. The court: 

( 1) may take judicial notice on its own; or 

(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with 

the necessary information. 

3. In the present case the court is supplied with the adjudicative fact to be noticed, i.e. 

Defendant's exhibit A. 

4. The judicial decision and order (adjudicative fact) in the aforementioned case to be 

noticed is relevant to the present case because it shows that another judge has found that 

LNV Corporation ("LNV"), Plaintiff in this foreclosure case, lacked standing to 

foreclose. The circumstances in the present case and the case to be judicially noticed are 

identical with the present case. Defendant in the present case claims LNV lacks standing 

to foreclose in the present case. (Many similar judicial decisions and orders specific to 

LNV or other Beal owned entities such as LPP Mortgage Inc. show that other judges 

have determined that these Beal entities lack standing to foreclose. Judge Louis B. York 

cited on in his decision to be noted here: LP P Mortgage Lfd v. Sabin8 Properties, No. 

I0364811 0, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4216, at *7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 1, 2010),) 

5. Quoting from the judicial decision and order to be judicially noticed in the present case: 

"A defendant may seek dismissal of a claim if the plaintiff cannot show that it has 

legal capacity to sue. CPLR 5 321 1 (a)(3). If Defendant shows that Plaintiff lacks 

standing to sue, Plaintiff may not proceed in this action. See Stark v. Goldberg, 

297 A.D.2d 203, 204, 746 N.Y.S.2 d 280, 281 (1st Dept. 2002). In an action for 

foreclosure Plaintiff must show that it is the owner of the note as well as the 

mortgage at the time the action is commenced. See LP P Mortgage Lfd v. Sabin8 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 13
Properties, No. 10364811 0, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4216, at *7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 

Co. Sept. 1, 2010), (quoting LaSalle Bank Nat 'l Ass 'n v. Lamy, 12 Misc3d 

119l[A], 1191, 824 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2006 NY Slip Op 51534[U] (Sup Ct Suffolk 

Co. 2006)) .... 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not hold title to both the note and the 

mortgage in this case. Absent an effective transfer of the debt as well as the note, 

the assignment of the mortgage is void and Plaintiff cannot foreclose on the 

properly for nonpayment of the note. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Merino 16 

Misc. 3d 209, 212, 836 N.Y.S.2d 853, 855 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2007); Merit v. 

Bartholick 36 N.Y. 44, 45 (1 867). According to Defendant, Plaintiff cannot 

foreclose because 'la necessary element of the plaintiffs cause of action for 

foreclosure of the mortgage is precluded where the plaintiffs ownership interest in 

both the note and the mortgage is not ascertainable from the pleadings and the 

documentation submitted in support of the motion." Lamy, 824 N.Y.S.2d at 769 

(Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2006) .... 

ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted;" 

6. Federal Rule 301 Presumptions in Civil Cases states: 

" ... unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a 

presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the 

presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on 

the party who had it originally." 

7. LNV as the plaintiff had the burden of proof or persuasion in the present case. LNV 

submitted to the court various mortgage related documents that included deed 

assignments, the deed of trust, the note with endorsements and allonges to the note as 

evidence of its standing to foreclose on Defendant's property. Defendant challenges the 

authenticity of these documents. However deed assignments, since they are filed with the 

property recorders' office carry a presumptive burden. Presumptions governed by Rule 

301 are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party (Defendant in the present 

case the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party 

invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 13
8. Adjudicative fact in the criminal indictment and conviction of Lorraine Brown (See 

Defendant's Motion for Judicial-Notice oflnformation and Criminal Indictment and Plea 

Agreement of Lorraine Brown (Documents 64 and 64-1) for conspiracy to commit mail 

and wire fraud defeats the burden of presumption that deed assignments and other 

documents filed with a property recorders' office must be genuine. Adjudicative fact in 

this noticed criminal conviction establishes that over 1 million fraudulently signed and 

notarized mortgage-related documents were produced through the crimes of Lorraine 

Brown and her co-conspirators and these false and forged documents were filed enmass 

with property recorders' offices across the country; THEREFORE courts cannot assume 

the genuineness of such records. 

9. The document attached hereto as Exhibits "A" may be accessed online from PACER 

under LNV Corporation v. Madison Real Estate, LLC, Docket No: 103576/2010, 

Supreme Court, New York County, 2010 NY Slip Op 33376U). 

10. Timely written notice of this request is hereby given by email and postal mail service 

upon Plaintiff's counsel as required by law. 

11. WHEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 THE DEFENDANT moves 

this Court to take Judicial Notice of the Judicial Decision and Order in: LNV Corporation 

v. Madison Real Estate. LLC, Docket No: 103576/2010, Supreme Court, New York 

County, 2010 NY Slip Op 33376U) without hearing and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. 

Denise Subramaniam, Pro-per 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served upon all counsel of record, pro-se parties and the United States Attorney General and the 

Attorney General of the State of Oregon via the Court's CM/ECF system, email, and/or regular 

mail, and/or certified mail with return receipt requested. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Loretta Lynch, 

U.S. Attorney General 

950 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001 

202-514-2000 

Gabrielle D. Richards I Perkins Coie LLP 

1120 NW Couch Street 

10th Floor 

Portland, Oregon 97209-4128 

D. +1.503.727.2255 

F. + 1.503.346.2255 

grichards@perkinscoie.com 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 5 of 13
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 6 of 13
LNV Corp. v Madison Real Estate, LLC 

2010 NY Slip Op 33376(U) 

December 6, 2010 

Supreme Court, New York County 

Docket Number: 103576/2010 

Judge: Louis B. York 

Republished from New York State Unified Court 

System's E-Courts Service. 

Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for 

any additional information on this case. 

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official 

publication. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 7 of 13
.. 

(/) -

-

z 

0 

t/l 

~ a: 

(!) 

wz 

~~ I- 0 t/l _, ::> _, .., 0 

0 LL 

I- w 

Q :c 

w la: a: 

a: 0 tl! LL 

w 

a: 

> 

_, 

...J 

::> 

LI. 

t; 

w 

Q. 

Cl) 

w 

a: 

VJ 

-

w 

(/) 

cs: 

u 

-2 

0 

lo 

~ 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY 

PRESENT: LOUIS !!. YORK PART 2.---

J . ~ r Justice 

INDEX NO. 

MOTION DATE 

- v -

MOTION SEO. NO. I 

Hl}/)/SO/J MOTION CAL. NO. 

I 

The following papers. numbered 1 to __ were read on thia motion to/for -------

PAPERS NUMB!;RED 

Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits ... 

Answering Affidavits - Exhibits -------------

Replying Affidavits-----------------

Cross-Motion: fl( Yes D No 

Upon the foregoing pnpers. it is ordered that this motion 

FI LED 

DEC 09 2010 

T NEW YORK 

COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 

Dated: _ J ___,,__---1- ~f.b/,·o __ • _____ _ 

I 

t 

Check one: 0 FINAL DISPOSITION ,0' NON-F£1VA"t--Dl5'.cSSCclON 

Check if appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST 0 REFERENCE 

0 SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. 0 SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. 

-~/6 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 

i 

I 

I ! 

I 

! 

i I 

! 

I 

I I 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 

i I 

j 

~ f 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 8 of 13
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------x 

LNV CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

-againstMADISON REAL ESTATE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

----------------------------------------------------------------x 

Index No.: 103576/2010 

DECISION/ORDER 

F "LED 

DEC 09 2010 

LOUIS B. YORK, J.S.C.: • NEW ~O . COUNTyc RK 

Plaintiff LNV Corporation, a banking corporation organize~B~§J?lfR~taws of the 

State of Nevada, brings this action for foreclosure against Defendant, Madison Real 

Estate, LLC, (Madison Real Estate) the owner of 55 Wall Street Unit 633 (55 Wall 

Street). The complaint alleges that Defendant executed a note whereby it agreed to pay 

$513,000 with interest to Wall Street Mortgage Bankers LTD (Wall Street). As security 

for the payment, Defendant executed and delivered a mortgage for the property at 55 

Wall Street in the amount of the debt. Under the original mortgage agreement between 

Wall Street and Madison Real Estate in the section titled "Borrower's Transfer to lender 

of Rights in the Property", Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), 

"holds only legal title to the rights granted ... by me in this Security Instrument, 

but, if necessary to comply with law or custom MERS (as nominee for Lender 

and Lender's successors and assigns) has the right: 

(A) To exercise any or all of those rights, including but not limited to, the right to 

foreclose and sell the Property ; and 

1 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 9 of 13
(B) To take any action required of lender, including but not limited to, releasing 

and cancelling this Security Instrument." 

The agreement also defines MERS as a separate corporation acting as mortgagee for 

the purposes of recording the mortgage for Wall Street 

Plaintiff alleges that underthis mortgage agreement, MERS had the authority to 

transfer the mortgage and underlying note to Plaintiff on behalf of Wall Street. Plaintiff 

bases this cause of action on Defendant's failure to comply with the conditions of the 

mortgage and note because Defendant did not pay the principal and interest that were 

due and payable on March 1, 2009. Plaintiff now calls due on the entire amount with 

interest that was secured by the mortgage. 

Presently, Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint. According to Defendant, 

Plaintiff does not have standing under CPLR § 3211 (a)(3) because Plaintiff is not the 

owner of the note underlying the mortgage. Defendant also alleges that Plaintiff does 

not state an actionable claim under CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) because Plaintiff did not send a 

notice of breach to Defendant and therefore failed to comply with a condition precedent 

to accelerating the cause of action for foreclosure. 

Standing 

A defendant may seek dismissal of a claim if the plaintiff cannot show that it has 

legal capacity to sue. CPLR § 3211 (a)(3). If Defendant shows that Plaintiff lacks 

standing to sue, Plaintiff may not proceed in this action. See Stark v. Goldberg, 297 

A.D.2d 203, 204, 746 N.Y.S. 2d 280, 281 (1st Dept. 2002). In an action for foreclosure 

Plaintiff must show that it is the owner of the note as well as the mortgage at the time 

the action is commenced. See LPP Mortgage Ltd v. Sabine Properties, No. 103648/10, 

2 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 10 of 13
2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4216, at *7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 1, 2010), (quoting LaSalle 

Bank Nat'/ Ass'n v. Lamy, 12 Misc3d 1191 [A], 1191, 824 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2006 NY Slip 

Op 51534[U) (Sup Ct Suffolk Co. 2006)). 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not hold title to both the note and the 

mortgage in this case. Absent an effective transfer of the debt as well as the note, the 

assignment of the mortgage is void and Plaintiff cannot foreclose on the property for 

nonpayment of the note. See U.S. Bank Nat'/ Ass'n v. Merino 16 Misc. 3d 209, 212, 836 

N.Y.S.2d 853, 855 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2007); Merrit v. Barlholick 36 N.Y. 44, 45 

(1867). According to Defendant, Plaintiff cannot foreclose because "a necessary 

element of the plaintiffs cause of action for foreclosure of the mortgage is precluded 

where the plaintiffs ownership interest in both the note and the mortgage is not 

ascertainable from the pleadings and the documentation submitted in support of the 

motion." Lamy, 824 N.Y.S.2d at 769 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2006). 

Plaintiff argues that it has standing because MERS validly executed the 

assignment of the mortgage and transferred the underlying note on behalf of Wall 

Street. Plaintiff cites to the section of the mortgage agreement titled "Borrower's 

Transfer to Lender of Rights in the Property," where it states that "MERS has the right: 

... (B) to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and 

cancelling the Security Instrument." See Exhibit Bin Defendant's Notice of Motion. 

Plaintiff contends that this language authorized MERS to assign the mortgage and that 

the assignment included the right to foreclose on the property if the Defendant defaulted 

on payments of the note. 

3 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

; 

I 

! 

! 

! 

I 

I 

! 

' ! 

I 

i 

i 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 11 of 13
A plaintiff who seeks to foreclose on a mortgage must hold legal or equitable 

interest in it. See Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co., 249 A.D.2d 243, 243, 672 N.Y.S.2d 308, 

309 (1st Dept. 1998). The parties do not dispute that the mortgage was assigned to 

Plaintiff. However, because Plaintiff seeks to recover for non-payment of the note, the 

issue is whether the assignment of the mortgage contract to Plaintiff also transferred 

interest in the underlying note. There is little precedent which speaks directly to the 

standing issue in this case. However, after careful consideration, the court concludes 

that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under CPLR § 3211(a)(3). 

The court in Katz cites to a Second Department case which elaborates on the 

ownership interests associated with the transfer of a mortgage. In Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 

A.D.2d 537, 538, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92, 93 (2nd Dept. 1988), the plaintiff attempted to 

foreclose upon a note where it held title to the mortgage, but not the underlying note. 

There, the court held that "absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage 

is a nullity." Implicitly, therefore, Katz approved of the holding that a plaintiff may 

foreclose on a mortgage if it shows that it holds title to the mortgage as well as the 

underlying debt. 

In this case, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence which shows that when 

MERS assigned the mortgage to Plaintiff, it also transferred the interest in the 

underlying note. According to the mortgage assignment contract, MERS held legal title 

to the mortgage. There is no language in the agreement which transfers interest in the 

note to MERS. Because MERS did not hold title to the underlying note, it could not 

transfer any rights to the underlying note when it assigned the mortgage to Plaintiff. See 

LPP Mortgage Ltd v. Sabine Properties No. 103648/10, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4216, at 

4 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 12 of 13
w7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 1, 2010); Lamy I 824 N.Y.S.2d at 769 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 

2006); HSBC Bank USA v. Miller, 26 Misc. 3d 407, 411, 889 N.Y.S.2d 430, 433 (Sup. 

Ct. Sullivan Co. 2009). Without a transfer of title to the underlying note, Plaintiff cannot 

foreclose on the property based on default payment and lacks standing under CPLR § 

3211 (a)(3). 

Acceleration 

Defendant also argues that dismissal of the case is warranted because Plaintiff 

violated a condition precedent to acceleration when it did not provide Defendant with 

notice of breach. Though the court does not reach this issue as Plaintiff has no 

standing, it notes that Defendant's argument has no merit. Defendant contends that 

pursuant to the mortgage agreement, Plaintiff had to send a letter of breach before it 

commenced a foreclosure action and because Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with 

notice, the claim should fail under CPLR § 3211 (a)(?). However, as Plaintiff points out, 

the relevant statute does not require that it plead a condition precedent in the initial 

complaint. See CPLR § 301 S(a). According to the statue, Plaintiff must prove the 

occurrence or performance of a condition precedent at trial. 

Therefore, it is 

ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further 

ORDERED that this action is dismissed; and it is further 

ORDERED that the clerk of the court directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

ENTER: FILED 

DEC 09 2010 

NEW YORK 

COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 

i 

I 

. I 

\ 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 81 Filed 07/08/15 Page 13 of 13