UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C.  20549

                                    FORM 10-K

     [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
         EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

     [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE  ACT OF 1934

     For the transition period to __________ from _______________

     Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-130694-20

              Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-1
          (Exact name of Issuing Entity as specified in its Charter)

                      Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc.
           (Exact name of depositor as specified in its Charter)

                Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC,
                successor-in-interest by merger to Morgan Stanley
                             Mortgage Capital Inc.
             (Exact name of sponsor as specified in its Charter)

                                          Pooling Tier REMIC-1 20-8525670
                                          Pooling Tier REMIC-2 20-8525711
                                              Lower-Tier REMIC 20-8525761
                                              Upper-Tier REMIC 20-8525810
                                                 Class X REMIC 20-8525911
                   New York                      Grantor Trust 20-7286502
           (State or other jurisdiction                  (I.R.S. Employer
         incorporation or organization                Identification Number
               of issuing entity)                        of issuing entity)

          c/o Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
          1761 East St. Andrew Place
          Santa Ana, California                                  92705
 (Address of principal executive offices                     (Zip Code of
         of issuing entity)                                issuing entity)

            Issuing Entity's telephone number, including area code:
                               (714) 247-6000

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
                                     None.

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
                                     None.

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned
     issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes [ ]  No[X]

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
     reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes[ ] No[X]

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
     required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
     that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
     subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes [X]  No [ ]

     Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to
     Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not
     contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the
     registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
     incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment
     to this Form 10-K.         Not Applicable.

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated
     filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller
     reporting company.  See the definitions of "large accelerated
     filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2
     of the Exchange Act.  (Check One):

      Large accelerated filer [  ]  Accelerated Filer [  ]
      Non-accelerated Filer [X] (Do not Check if a smaller reporting company)
      Smaller reporting company [  ]

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as
     defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  [  ] Yes  [X] No

     State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common
     equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at
     which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked
     price of such common equity, as of the of the last business day of
     the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter

     Not Applicable.

     DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

     See Item 15(a).

                                     PART I

     ITEM 1.  Business.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 1A.  Risk Factors.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

     None.

     ITEM 2.  Properties.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

     Not Applicable.

                                     PART II

     ITEM 5.  Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder
     Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 6.  Selected Financial Data.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 7.  Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
     Results of Operations.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9.  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
     Financial Disclosure.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9A.  Controls and Procedures.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9A(T).  Controls and Procedures.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9B. Other Information.

     None.

                                     PART III

     ITEM 10.  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 11.  Executive Compensation.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 12.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
               and Related Stockholder Matters.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 13.  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and
               Director Independence.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 14.  Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

     Not Applicable.

              ADDITIONAL ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)

     Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial
     Information.

     No single obligor represents 10% or more of the pool assets held by the
     issuing entity.

     Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB , Significant Enhancement Provider
     Information.

     No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit
     enhancement or other support for the certificates within this transaction
     as described under Item 1114(a) of Regulation AB.

     Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivative Instruments.

     Morgan Stanley Capital Services Inc. provides an interest rate swap
     derivative instrument for the issuing entity.  No additional disclosure
     is necessary because the significance percentage for the interest rate
     swap is less than 10%.

     Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC

     In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of
     business, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC ("the Company")
     has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions.
     Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for
     substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for
     indeterminate amounts of damages.

     Regulatory and Governmental Investigations:  The Company and its affiliates
     are currently responding to subpoenas and requests for information from
     certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination,
     purchase, securitization and/or servicing of subprime and non-subprime
     residential mortgages and related issues.

     Civil Litigation re American Business Financial Services, Inc. The Company
     has been named as one of a number of defendants in a matter styled Miller
     v. Santilli, et al., which is pending in the Court of Common Pleas for
     Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  The complaint in this action was filed
     on July 13, 2006 and is being brought by the bankruptcy trustee for
     American Business Financial Services, Inc. ("ABFS").  The complaint
     alleges, inter alia, that the Company, certain of the Company's affiliates,
     and various other financial institutions deepened the insolvency of ABFS,
     and aided and abetted fraud and breaches of fiduciary duties committed by
     certain former officers and directors of ABFS, by providing warehouse
     loans to ABFS and participating in securitization transactions with ABFS.
     The complaint seeks damages in excess of $750 million.  The deepening
     insolvency claim has been dismissed, and the case is currently in
     discovery.

     Bauer, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. is a matter filed
     on December 1, 2004 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
     State of Louisiana, Case No. 2004-17015. On February 17, 2005, the
     plaintiffs re-filed the case as two separate class action lawsuits, Bauer,
     et al., v. Dean Morris, et al., filed as Case No. 05-2173 in the Civil
     District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, and
     Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al., filed as Case No. 05-2174 in
     the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
     On January 24, 2006, the United States District Court for the Eastern
     District of Louisiana granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration
     in Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.  On January 25, 2006, the United
     States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the
     Saxon Mortgage Services's motion to compel arbitration in Patterson, et
     al., v. Dean Morris, et al.  At the present time, neither plaintiff has
     initiated arbitration.

     Jumar Hooks and Diane Felder, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc. is a matter
     filed on October 12, 2005 in the Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County,
     Ohio as Case No. CV 05 574577.  The plaintiffs filed this case as a class
     action, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Ohio borrowers,
     alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Saxon Mortgage, Inc. ("Saxon
     Mortgage") engaged in unlawful practices in originating and servicing
     the plaintiffs' loans.  During the second quarter of 2006, the court
     granted the Saxon Mortgage's motion to compel individual arbitration as
     to each of the two named plaintiffs and stayed the court proceedings
     with no class having been certified.

     Jones, et al., v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, et al. is a matter filed on
     September 24, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas for Berks County,
     Pennsylvania as Civil Action-Law No. 07-10540.  The plaintiffs allege
     that the putative class members were not credited properly for payments
     made on their mortgage loans which were allegedly collected by non-
     affiliated intermediary entities and forwarded to the servicer defendants.
     Saxon Mortgage Services services two loans for putative class members.
     Saxon Mortgage Services and other defendants filed a consolidated motion
     to dismiss the case.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.

     Because Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. ("Saxon") and its affiliates
     are subject to many laws and regulations, including but not limited to
     federal and state consumer protection laws, it is regularly involved in
     numerous lawsuits filed against it, some of which seek certification as
     class action lawsuits on behalf of similarly situated individuals.

     Saxon and/or its affiliates are also involved, from time to time, in
     other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal)
     by governmental agencies regarding Saxon's and/or its affiliates
     businesses, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements,
     fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

     Saxon contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in
     each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the
     outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek
     substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and
     proceedings are in the early stages, Saxon cannot predict with certainty
     the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such
     matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what
     the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be.
     Subject to the foregoing, the following matters are potentially material
     to the financial condition of Saxon.

     Regulatory and Governmental Investigations:  Saxon and its affiliates are
     currently responding to subpoenas and requests for information from
     certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination,
     purchase, and/or servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential
     mortgages and related issues.

     Bauer, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. is a matter filed
     on December 1, 2004 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
     State of Louisiana, Case No. 2004-17015. On January 26, 2005, the
     plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, and the
     court entered an order dismissing the case on January 31, 2005.  On
     February 17, 2005, the plaintiffs re-filed the case as two separate class
     action lawsuits, Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al., filed as Case No.
     05-2173 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
     Louisiana, and Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al., filed as Case
     No. 05-2174 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State
     of Louisiana.  On January 24, 2006, the United States District Court for
     the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Saxon's motion to compel
     arbitration and stayed the court proceedings as to named plaintiffs
     Keenan and Karen Duckworth in Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.,
     filed as Case No. 05-2173 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
     Orleans, State of Louisiana.  On January 25, 2006, the United States
     District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Saxon
     Mortgage Services's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court
     proceedings as to named plaintiff Debra Herron in Patterson, et al., v.
     Dean Morris, et al., filed as Case No. 05-2174 in the Civil District
     Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.  The court
     subsequently remanded the underlying court proceedings in both the Bauer
     and Patterson cases to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
     State of Louisiana.  At the present time, neither plaintiff has initiated
     arbitration.

     Jones, et al., v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, et al. is a matter filed on
     September 24, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas for Berks County,
     Pennsylvania as Civil Action-Law No. 07-10540.  The matter was
     subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania as Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-04328-JG.  The
     plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on October 9, 2007 naming Saxon as
     a defendant.   The plaintiffs allege that the putative class members
     were not credited properly for payments made on their mortgage loans
     which were allegedly collected by non-affiliated intermediary entities
     and forwarded to the servicer defendants.  Saxon services two loans for
     putative class members.  The plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily
     dismissed all named plaintiffs except for the Jones's.  Saxon Mortgage
     Services and other defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss the
     case.

     Jumar Hooks and Diane Felder, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc. is a matter
     filed on October 12, 2005 in the Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County,
     Ohio as Case No. CV 05 574577.  The plaintiffs filed this case as a class
     action, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Ohio borrowers,
     alleging that Saxon's affiliate, Saxon Mortgage, Inc. ("Saxon Mortgage")
     engaged in unlawful practices in originating and servicing the plaintiffs'
     loans.  During the second quarter of 2006, the court granted the Saxon
     Mortgage's motion to compel individual arbitration as to each of the two
     named plaintiffs and stayed the court proceedings with no class having
     been certified.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding Countrywide Financial Corporation

     Pursuant to a Form 10-K filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation
     ("the Company") on February 29, 2008 (Commission File No. 001-8422;
     CIK No. 0000025191), the parent of Countrywide Home Loan Servicing LP,
     one of the servicers and original loan sellers, the Company stated
     that various lawsuits alleging claims for derivative relief on behalf of
     the Company and securities, retirement plan, and other class action suits
     have recently been brought against us and certain current and former
     officers, directors and retirement plan administrators in either federal
     district court in Los Angeles, California, or state superior court in Los
     Angeles, or state court in Delaware.  The Company stated that among other
     things, these lawsuits allege breach of state law fiduciary duties and
     violation of the federal securities laws and the Employee Retirement Income
     Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The Company stated that these cases
     allege, among other things, that the Company did not disclose complete and
     accurate information about mortgage lending practices and financial
     condition. The Company stated that shareholder derivative cases brought in
     federal court are brought on the Company's behalf and do not seek recovery
     of damages from the Company.

     The Company stated that two consolidated cases alleging claims for
     derivative relief on behalf of the Company are also pending in federal
     district court in Delaware, and allege, among other things, that certain of
     the Company's proxy filings contain incorrect statements relating to the
     compensation of the Chief Executive Officer.

     The Company stated that various class action lawsuits relating to the
     proposed merger with Bank of America have been filed in the state courts
     of California and Delaware on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders
     against the Company, the Company's directors and Bank of America.  The
     Company stated that the class action lawsuits filed in state court in
     California have been removed to federal court in Los Angeles and that
     these lawsuits allege that the Company's directors breached their
     fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering into the
     merger agreement with Bank of America and that Bank of America allegedly
     aided and abetted those alleged breaches.  The Company stated that,
     similarly, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative lawsuits brought
     in California state and federal court recently have amended their
     complaints to add similar class action allegations relating to the
     proposed merger with Bank of America.

     The Company stated that it is difficult to predict the resulting outcome
     of these proceedings, particularly where investigations and proceedings
     are in early stages.  The Company stated that given the inherent
     difficulty in predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, the Company
     cannot estimate losses or ranges of losses for legal proceedings where
     there is only a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, such
     as those discussed in the two immediately preceding paragraphs.  The
     Company stated that it provides for potential losses that may arise out
     of legal proceedings to the extent such losses are deemed probable and
     can be estimated.  The Company stated that although the ultimate outcome
     of the legal proceedings discussed above cannot be ascertained at this
     time, the Company believes that any resulting liability will not
     materially affect the consolidated financial position; such resolution,
     however, could be material to operating results for a particular future
     period depending upon the outcome of the proceedings and the operating
     results for a particular period. The Company stated that its assessment
     is based, in part, on the existence of insurance coverage.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding Fremont General Corporation

     Pursuant to a Form 8-K filed by Fremont General Corporation (the "Company")
     (Commission File No.: 001-08007, CIK: 0000038984), parent of Fremont
     Investment & Loan ("FIL"), the servicer and the original loan seller,
     on March 5, 2007 (the "March 5th Announcement"), the Company stated that on
     June 2004, the then State of California Insurance Commissioner, John
     Garamendi (the "Commissioner"), as statutory liquidator of Fremont
     Indemnity Company ("Fremont Indemnity"), filed suit in Los Angeles
     Superior Court against the Company, alleging the improper utilization by
     the Company of certain net operating loss deductions ("NOLs") allegedly
     belonging to its Fremont Indemnity subsidiary. The Company stated that
     this complaint involves issues that were considered resolved in an
     agreement dated July 2, 2002, among the California Department of
     Insurance, Fremont Indemnity and the Company (the "Letter Agreement").
     According to the announcement, the Letter Agreement was executed on behalf
     of the California Department of Insurance by the Honorable Harry Low, the
     State of California Insurance Commissioner at that time. On November 22,
     2005, upon the Third Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed the lawsuit.
     Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner commenced an appeal.

     According to the March 5th Announcement, on February 28, 2007, the Court of
     Appeal of the State of California reversed the trial court's dismissal and
     sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company
     stated that they continue to believe that this lawsuit is without merit and
     intends to vigorously defend against it.

     In addition, according to the March 5th Announcement, in August 2004, the
     Commissioner, as statutory liquidator of Fremont Indemnity, filed an
     additional and separate complaint against the Company on behalf of Fremont
     Indemnity as successor in interest to Comstock Insurance Company
     ("Comstock"), a former affiliate of Fremont Indemnity, which was
     subsequently merged into Fremont Indemnity. This case alleged similar
     causes of action regarding the usage of Comstock's NOLs as improper
     transactions with other insurance subsidiaries and affiliates of Fremont
     Indemnity. This complaint also involves issues that were considered
     resolved in the Letter Agreement. The Company stated that on April 22,
     2005, the Court dismissed, without leave to amend, the entire complaint.
     Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner appealed.

     According to the March 5th Announcement, on February 28, 2007, the Court
     of Appeal of the State of California reversed the trial court's dismissal
     and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The
     Company stated that they continue to believe that this lawsuit is without
     merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

     Pursuant to a Form 8-K filed on March 8, 2007 (the "March 8th
     Announcement"), the Company announced that it, FIL and the Company's
     wholly owned subsidiary, Fremont General Credit Corporation, entered into
     a voluntary formal agreement, to be designated as a cease and desist order,
     with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. According to the
     announcement, the cease and desist order requires, among other things, FIL
     to cease and desist from the following:

        Operating with management whose policies and practices are detrimental
        to FIL;

        Operating FIL without effective risk management policies and procedures
        in place in relation to FIL's brokered subprime mortgage lending and
        commercial real estate construction lending businesses;

        Operating with inadequate underwriting criteria and excessive risk in
        relation to the kind and quality of assets held by FIL;

        Operating without an accurate, rigorous and properly documented
        methodology concerning its allowance for loan and lease losses;

        Operating with a large volume of poor quality loans;

        Engaging in unsatisfactory lending practices;

        Operating without an adequate strategic plan in relation to the
        volatility of FIL's business lines and the kind and quality of assets
        held by FIL;

        Operating with inadequate capital in relation to the kind and quality of
        assets held by FIL;

        Operating in such a manner as to produce low and unsustainable earnings;

        Operating with inadequate provisions for liquidity in relation to the
        volatility of FIL's business lines and the kind and quality of assets
        held by FIL;

        Marketing and extending adjustable-rate mortgage products to subprime
        borrowers in an unsafe and unsound manner that greatly increases the
        risk that borrowers will default on the loans or otherwise cause losses
        to FIL, including (1) adjustable-rate mortgage products that qualify
        borrowers for loans with low initial payments based on an introductory
        rate that will expire after an initial period, without adequate analysis
        of the borrower's ability to repay at the fully indexed rate, (2)
        adjustable-rate mortgage products containing features likely to require
        frequent refinancing to maintain affordable monthly payment or to avoid
        foreclosure, and (3) loans or loan arrangements with loan-to-value
        ratios approaching or exceeding 100 percent of the value of the
        collateral;

        Making mortgage loans without adequately considering the borrower's
        ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms;

        Operating in violation of Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, in
        that

        FIL engaged in transactions with its affiliates on terms and under
        circumstances that in good faith would not be offered to, or would not
        apply to, nonaffiliated companies; and

        Operating inconsistently with the Federal Deposit Insurance
        Corporation's Interagency Advisory on Mortgage Banking and Interagency
        Expanded Guidance for Subprime Lending Programs.

     According to the March 8th Announcement, the Company stated that the cease
     and desist order also requires FIL to take a number of steps, including
     (1) having and retaining qualified management; (2) limiting the Company's
     and Fremont General Credit Corporation's representation on FIL's board of
     directors and requiring that independent directors comprise a majority of
     FIL's board of directors; (3) revising and implementing written lending
     policies to provide effective guidance and control over FIL's residential
     lending function; (4) revising and implementing policies governing
     communications with consumers to ensure that borrowers are provided with
     sufficient information; (5) implementing control systems to monitor
     whether FIL's actual practices are consistent with its policies and
     procedures; (6) implementing a third-party mortgage broker monitoring
     program and plan; (7) developing a five-year strategic plan, including
     policies and procedures for diversifying FIL's loan portfolio; (8)
     implementing a policy covering FIL's capital analysis on subprime
     residential loans; (9) performing quarterly valuations and cash flow
     analyses on FIL's residual interests and mortgage servicing rights from
     its residential lending operation, and obtaining annual independent
     valuations of such interests and rights; (10) limiting extensions of
     credit to certain commercial real estate borrowers; (11) implementing
     a written lending and collection policy to provide effective guidance
     and control over FIL's commercial real estate lending function, including
     a planned material reduction in the volume of funded and unfunded non-
     recourse lending and loans for condominium conversion and construction
     as a percentage of Tier I capital; (12) submitting a capital plan that
     will include a Tier I capital ratio of not less than 14% of FIL's total
     assets; (13) implementing a written profit plan; (14) limiting the payment
     of cash dividends by FIL without the prior written consent of the Federal
     Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Commissioner of the California
     Department of Financial Institutions; (15) implementing a written liquidity
     and funds management policy to provide effective guidance and control over
     FIL's liquidity position and needs; (16) prohibiting the receipt, renewal
     or rollover of brokered deposit accounts without obtaining a Brokered
     Deposit Waiver approved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
     (17) reducing adversely classified assets; and (18) implementing a
     comprehensive plan for the methodology for determining the adequacy of
     the allowance for loan and lease losses.

     Pursuant to the March 8th Announcement, the Company announced that it has
     consented to the terms of the cease and desist order issued by the Federal
     Deposit Insurance Corporation without admitting to the allegations
     contained in the cease and desist order.

     Pursuant to a Form 8-K filed on October 5, 2007 (the "October 5th
     Announcement"), the Company, doing business primarily through its
     wholly-owned industrial bank, FIL (collectively, "Fremont"), issued a
     press release responding to the lawsuit filed against Fremont by the
     Massachusetts Attorney General's office. According to the October 5th
     Announcement, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office announced
     the filing of a lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk
     County on behalf of borrowers in Massachusetts, alleging that Fremont
     engaged in unfair or deceptive practices in connection with origination
     and servicing of residential mortgage loans. The complaint seeks
     injunctive relief and equitable relief for Massachusetts borrowers and
     civil penalties. Fremont stated that they believes the lawsuit is
     without merit and will defend itself vigorously.

     In addition, pursuant to a Form 10-Q filed on November 9, 2007 by the
     Company, the parent of Fremont, the original loan seller and servicer,
     on October 23, 2007, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC filed
     a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
     of New York against Fremont alleging breaches with respect to residential
     mortgage loans it sold to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC
     between May 1, 2005 and December 28, 2006. The complaint alleges damages
     of at least $10 million.

     Pursuant to a Form 8-K filed on January 14, 2008 (the "January 14th
     Announcement") by the Company, the Company stated that on January 8, 2008,
     a purported shareholder derivative complaint, entitled Frank Taylor, Jr.
     vs. Fremont General Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States
     District Court for the Central District of California.  The Company stated
     that the derivative complaint was brought for the benefit of the Company
     against former members of the Company and alleges that all of such
     individuals breached their fiduciary duties, resulting in substantial
     monetary losses and other damages to the Company, and that the former
     Chairman of the Board engaged in insider trading and was thereby unjustly
     enriched.

     In addition, pursuant to the January 14th Announcement, the Company stated
     that the derivative complaint seeks, among other things, (i) unspecified
     damages equal to the amount by which the Company has been damaged by the

     defendants as a result of their breach of fiduciary duties; (ii) the
     establishment of a constructive trust in favor of the Company for both the
     amount of proceeds received by the former Chairman from both the sale of
     his Company common stock during the period specified in the complaint as
     well as for proceeds otherwise derived from his service as a director
     and/or executive officer of the Company; (iii) an order requiring the
     former Chairman to disgorge to the Company all proceeds derived from his
     sale of the Company common stock during the period specified in the
     complaint in addition to all proceeds otherwise derived from his service
     as a director and/or executive officer of the Company; (iv) the
     establishment of a constructive trust in favor of the Company for proceeds
     derived from the service by the former President and Chief Executive
     Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer as
     directors and/or executive officers of the Company; and (v) an award to
     the plaintiff of costs and disbursements of action, including reasonable
     attorneys' and experts' fees, costs and expenses.

     On February 25, 2008, Judge Ralph D. Gants, in Massachusetts Suffolk
     Superior Court, granted a preliminary injunction against Fremont.  The
     order prohibits Fremont from initiating or advancing foreclosures on
     loans that are "presumptively unfair."

     Under the terms of the injunction, Fremont must provide the Massachusetts
     Attorney General's Office with at least a 30-day notice of all foreclosures
     it intends to initiate for the approximately 2,200 loans that Fremont still
     owns and services, and allow the Attorney General an opportunity to object
     to the foreclosure going forward.  If Fremont has issued a loan that is
     considered "presumptively unfair," and the borrower occupies the property
     as his or her principal dwelling, the Attorney General has 45-days to
     object to the foreclosure.  A loan is "presumptively unfair" if it
     possesses the following characteristics:

        The loan is an adjustable rate mortgages with an introductory period
        Of three years or less:

        The loan has an introductory or "teaser" interest rate that is at least
        three percent lower than the fully-indexed rate (the relevant index at
        the time of origination plus the margin specified in the mortgage note);

        The borrower has a debt-to-income ratio (the ratio between the
        borrower's monthly debt payments, including the monthly mortgage
        payment, and the borrower's monthly income) that would have exceeded
        50% if Fremont had measured the debt, not by the debt due under the
        teaser rate, but by the debt due under the fully-indexed rate; and

        Fremont extended 100% financing or the loan has a substantial prepayment
        penalty or penalty that lasts beyond the introductory period.

     After the notice and objection process, Fremont may only proceed with a
     foreclosure to which the Attorney General objects if Fremont files a
     request with the court, and the court reviews the matter and agrees that
     a foreclose is appropriate.  In considering whether to allow the
     foreclosure, the court will consider, among other factors, whether the
     loan is unfair and whether Fremont has taken reasonable steps to work out
     the loan and avoid foreclosure.  The preliminary injunction does not
     release borrowers from their monthly mortgage obligations.

     The Attorney General's Office filed suit on October 5, 2007, in Suffolk
     Superior Court against Fremont based on the defendant's alleged unfair and
     deceptive loan origination and sales conduct.  The complaint specifically
     alleges that the company was selling risky loan products that it knew was
     designed to fail, such as 100% financing loans and "no documentation"
     loans.  The complaint further alleges that the company sold these loans
     through third party brokers and provided financial incentives to these
     brokers to sell high cost products.  In addition to injunctive relief,
     the Attorney General's Office is seeking civil penalties and restitution.

     Pursuant to a Form 8-K filed on March 28, 2008 (the "March 28th
     Announcement") by the Company, the Company stated that on March 26,
     2008 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), with the
     concurrence of the California Department of Financial Institutions,
     issued a Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive ("Directive")
     to FIL, to the Company and to Fremont General Credit Corporation ("FGCC"),
     the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary and direct parent to FIL.  According
     to the March 28th Announcement, the Directive requires FIL, the Company
     and FGCC to take one or more of the following actions to recapitalize
     FIL within 60 days, or by May 26, 2008:

        FIL shall sell enough voting shares or obligations of FIL so that FIL
        will be "adequately capitalized, " as defined under the Federal Deposit
        Insurance Act and the related FDIC regulations, after the sale; and/or

        FIL shall accept an offer to be acquired by a depository institution
        holding company or combine with another insured depository institution;
        and

        The Company and FGCC shall divest themselves of FIL.

     According to the March 28th Announcement, the Company states that in the
     Directive, the FDIC has categorized FIL as being an "undercapitalized"
     depository institution, as defined under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
     and FDIC rules and regulations.  Additionally, the Company stated that
     the Directive also sets forth certain limitations and restrictions on FIL
     and its business. The Company stated that the Directive restricts the
     interest rates that FIL may pay on deposits to prevailing rates paid on
     deposits of comparable amounts and maturities paid by other FDIC insured
     depository institutions in the State of California. In addition, the
     Company stated that FIL is not permitted to make any capital distributions
     to the Company, FGCC or any affiliate of FIL, or to pay bonuses or increase
     the compensation of any director or officer of FIL. The Directive further
     restricts transactions between FIL and its affiliates.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding First NLC Financial Services, LLC

     Pursuant to a Form 8-K filed on January 18, 2008 by Friedman, Billings,
     Ramsey Group, Inc. ("FBR") (Commission File No. 000-50230; CIK No.
     0001209028), the parent of First NLC Financial Services, LLC ("FNLC"),
     one of the original loan sellers, FBR stated on January 11, 2008 FNLC
     filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of
     the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court
     for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.

     As disclosed in the 424(b)(5) Prospectus filed on February 28, 2007
     (Commission File No. 333-130694-20), in December 2002, Accredited was
     served with a complaint and motion for class certification in a class
     action lawsuit, Wratchford et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
     brought in Madison County, Illinois under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
     and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection statutes
     of the other states in which Accredited does business and the common law
     of unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that Accredited has a practice
     of misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it pays to third
     parties in connection with the residential mortgage loans that it funds.
     The plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of others
     similarly situated, that is, those who paid Accredited to pay, or reimburse
     Accredited's payments of, third-party fees in connection with residential
     mortgage loans and never received a refund for the difference between what
     they paid and what was actually paid to the third party. The plaintiffs are
     seeking to recover damages on behalf of themselves and the class, in
     addition to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any other
     relief the court may grant. On January 28, 2005, the court issued an order
     conditionally certifying (1) a class of Illinois residents with respect to
     the alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
     Practices Act who, since November 19, 1997, paid money to Accredited for
     third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never
     received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid to
     Accredited and the amount Accredited paid to the third party and (2) a
     nationwide class of claimants with respect to an unjust enrichment cause
     of action included in the original complaint who, since November 19, 1997
     paid money to Accredited for third-party fees in connection with
     residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference
     between the amount they paid Accredited and the amount Accredited paid the
     third party. The court conditioned its order limiting the statutory
     consumer fraud act claims to claimants in the State of Illinois on the
     outcome of a case pending before the Illinois Supreme Court in which one
     of the issues is the propriety of certifying a nationwide class based on
     the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. That
     case has now been decided in a manner favorable to Accredited's position,
     and, in light of this ruling, Accredited intends to petition the Illinois
     Supreme Court for a supervisory order reversing the lower court's class
     certification decision, the lower court having denied Accredited's motion
     for reconsideration of (a) the court's order granting class certification
     and (b) the court's denial of Accredited's request for leave to take an
     interlocutory appeal of such order. There has not yet been a ruling on
     the merits of either the plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims of
     the class, and the ultimate outcome of this matter and the amount of
     liability, if any, that may result is not presently determinable.
     Accredited intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter and does
     not believe it will have a material adverse effect on its business.

     In January 2004, Accredited was served with a complaint, Yturralde v.
     Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., brought in Sacramento County, California.
     The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of Accredited,
     and the complaint alleges that Accredited violated California and federal
     law by misclassifying the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees as
     exempt employees, failing to pay the plaintiff on an hourly basis and
     for overtime worked, and failing to properly and accurately record and
     maintain payroll information. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf
     of himself and all of our other similarly situated current and former
     employees, lost wages and benefits, general damages, multiple statutory
     penalties and interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and also seeks
     to enjoin further violations of wage and overtime laws and retaliation
     against employees who complain about such violations. Accredited has been
     served with eleven substantially similar complaints on behalf of certain
     other former and current employees, which have been consolidated with the
     Yturralde action.  Subject to court approval, the parties have agreed to
     a settlement with respect to the named plaintiffs and with respect to a
     class of current and former Accredited employees which the parties will
     jointly request the court to certify.  The amount payable by Accredited
     under the settlement is not material to Accredited's financial condition.

     In September 2005, Accredited and Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company
     ("AHLHC") were served with a class action complaint, Phillips v. Accredited
     Home Lenders Holding Company, et al., brought in the United States District
     Court, Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of
     the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with prescreened offers of
     credit made by Accredited. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of
     herself and similarly situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest,
     declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief
     the court may grant. On January 4, 2006, plaintiff re-filed the action in
     response to the court's December 9, 2005, decision granting Accredited's
     and AHLHC's motion to (1) dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that
     Accredited's offer of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous
     disclosures required by FCRA, (2) strike plaintiff's request for
     declaratory and injunctive relief, and (3) sever plaintiff's claims as to
     Accredited and AHLHC from those made against other defendants unaffiliated
     with Accredited or AHLHC. Plaintiff's remaining claim is that Accredited's
     offer of credit did not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement. A motion to
     certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on
     the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of
     the putative class. Accredited and AHLHC intend to continue to vigorously
     defend this matter. If, however, a class were to be certified and were to
     prevail on the merits, the potential liability could have a material
     adverse effect on Accredited. The ultimate outcome of this matter and the
     amount of liability, if any, which may result is not presently
     determinable.

     In March 2006, Accredited was served with a class action complaint,
     Cabrejas v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., brought in the Circuit Court
     for Prince George's County, Maryland. The complaint alleges that
     Accredited's origination of second lien loans in Maryland violated the
     Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (the "SMLL") and Consumer Protection
     Act in that fees charged on such loans exceeded 10% of the respective loan
     amounts.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
     similarly situated individuals, damages, disgorgement of fees, pre-judgment
     interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other
     relief the court may grant.  On April 13, 2006, Accredited removed the
     action to the United States District Court, District of Maryland.  On May
     15, 2006, Accredited filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of
     action alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act on the
     basis that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an unfair or deceptive
     trade practice, which motion was granted on December 4, 2006.  On January
     3, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging that
     Accredited's origination in Maryland of second lien loans with balloon
     payments was also a violation of the SMLL.  On January 16, 2007,
     Accredited filed a motion to dismiss this new claim on the basis that
     the SMLL's prohibition of balloon payments was and is preempted by the
     federal Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act.  The court has not
     yet ruled on this motion.  A motion to certify a class has not yet been
     filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's
     remaining individual claims or the remaining claims of the putative class,
     and the ultimate outcome of this matter and the amount of liability, if
     any, which may result is not presently determinable.  Accredited intends to
     continue to vigorously defend this matter and does not believe it will have
     a material adverse effect on its business.

     In October 2006, by virtue of the merger of AHLHC and Aames Investment
     Corporation ("AIC"), and the related merger of certain subsidiaries of
     AHLHC and AIC, AHLHC and certain of its subsidiaries succeeded to the
     litigation interests of AIC and certain of its subsidiaries.  Two of
     those matters, Webb, et al., v. Aames Investment Corporation, et al.
     (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) and Cooper, et al.,
     v. Aames Funding Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
     Wisconsin), are class action complaints which allege violations of the
     Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit
     and are similar in nature to the Phillips matter referenced above.  The
     Cooper matter was transferred to the Central District of California and
     consolidated with the Webb matter by stipulation of counsel on
     September 29, 2006.  A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed,
     and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiffs'
     individual claims or the claims of the putative class.  AHLHC and each
     affected subsidiary intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter.
     If, however, a class were to be certified and were to prevail on the
     merits, the potential liability could have a material adverse effect on
     Accredited.  The ultimate outcome of this matter and the amount of
     liability, if any, which may result is not presently determinable.

     In October 2006, as a result of the merger referenced above, Accredited
     succeeded to the position of Aames Funding Corporation ("AFC") under a
     class action complaint, Miller v. Aames Funding Corporation, filed in
     the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas.  The complaint
     alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans originated by AFC in Texas
     violate the Texas Constitution's requirement that such loans be scheduled
     to be repaid in substantially equal installments.  The plaintiffs seek to
     recover, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals,
     damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other
     relief the court may grant.  On September 29, 2006, the court on its own
     motion stayed the action, pending the resolution of class certification
     issues in a similar action pending before the court.  A motion to certify
     a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits
     of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of the putative
     class.  Accredited  intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter.
     If, however, a class were to be certified and were to prevail on the
     merits, the potential liability could have a material adverse effect on
     Accredited.  The ultimate outcome of this matter and the amount of
     liability, if any, which may result is not presently determinable.

     In February 2007, Accredited acknowledged service of a class action
     complaint, Sierra v. Aames Home Loan, brought in the Superior Court for
     Los Angeles County, California.  As a result of the merger referenced
     above, Accredited has succeeded to the interest of Aames Home Loan (a
     trade name of "AFC") in this lawsuit.  The named plaintiff is a former
     commissioned loan officer of AFC, and the complaint alleges that AFC
     violated state law by requiring the plaintiff to work overtime without
     compensation.  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and
     other similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime,
     general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest, attorneys'
     fees and costs of suit.  The ultimate outcome of this matter and the
     amount of liability, if any, which may result is not presently
     determinable.  Accredited intends to vigorously defend this matter and
     does not believe it will have a material adverse effect on its business.

     Accredited has accrued for loss contingencies with respect to the foregoing
     matters to the extent it is probable that a liability has been occurred at
     the date of the consolidated financial statements and the amount of the
     loss can be reasonably estimated.  Management does not deem the amount of
     such accrual to be material.

     In addition, because the nature of our business involves the collection of
     numerous accounts, the validity of liens and compliance with various state
     and federal lending laws, we are subject to various legal proceedings in
     the ordinary course of business related to foreclosures, bankruptcies,
     condemnation and quiet title actions, and alleged statutory and regulatory
     violations.  We are also subject to legal proceedings in the ordinary
     course of business related to employment matters.  We do not believe that
     the resolution of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on
     our financial position or results of operations.



     Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and
     Related Transactions.

     The information regarding this Item has been previously filed in a
     424(b)(5) filed on February 28, 2007 (Commission File No. 333-130694-20).

     Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

     See Exhibit 33 and 34.

     Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

     See Exhibit 35.

                                     PART IV

     ITEM 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.


     (a) List the following documents filed as a part of the report:

        (1) Not Applicable.

        (2) Not Applicable.

        (3)

        Exhibit 4 was filed as part of the Registrant's Current Report on Form
        8-K filed on March 14, 2007 (Commission File No. 333-130694-20) and
        is incorporated by reference herein.

        Exhibit 4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2007,
        by and among Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as depositor,
        Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as a servicer, Saxon Mortgage
        Services, Inc., as a servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
        as a servicer and custodian, First NLC Financial Services, LLC, as
        responsible party and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee.

        Exhibit 31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

        Exhibit 33.1 Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.2 First American Corporation's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.3 Southwest Business Corporation's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.4 FIS Tax Services' Annual Report on Assessment of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.5 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.6 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as servicer
        Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for Year End
        December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.7 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Annual Report
        on Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.8 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as custodian
        Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for Year End
        December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.1 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s (Exhibit
        33.1) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.2 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for First American Corporation's Report
       (Exhibit 33.2) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.3 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Southwest Business Corporation's Report
       (Exhibit 33.3) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.4 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for FIS Tax Services' Report (Exhibit 33.4) for
        Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.5 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's (Exhibit
        33.5) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.6 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as
        servicer (Exhibit 33.6) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.7 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Report
       (Exhibit 33.7) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.8 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as
        custodian (Exhibit 33.8) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.1 Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s Annual Statement of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.2 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's Annual Statement
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.3 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's Annual Statement
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

     (b) See (a) above.

     (c) Not Applicable.






                                      SIGNATURE

          Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
          this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
          thereunto duly authorized.



                             By: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc.,
                                 as Depositor on behalf of the Registrant



                                      By:  /s/ Steven Shapiro
                                           Steven Shapiro
                                           Vice President
                                          (Senior Officer in Charge of
                                           Securitization of the Depositor)



     Date: March 28, 2008


     EXHIBIT INDEX

     Exhibit Document

        Exhibit 4 was filed as part of the Registrant's Current Report on Form
        8-K filed on March 14, 2007 (Commission File No. 333-130694-20) and
        is incorporated by reference herein.

        Exhibit 4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2007,
        by and among Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as depositor,
        Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as a servicer, Saxon Mortgage
        Services, Inc., as a servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
        as a servicer and custodian, First NLC Financial Services, LLC, as
        responsible party and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee.

        Exhibit 31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

        Exhibit 33.1 Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.2 First American Corporation's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.3 Southwest Business Corporation's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.4 FIS Tax Services' Annual Report on Assessment of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.5 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.6 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as servicer
        Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for Year End
        December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.7 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Annual Report
        on Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.8 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as custodian
        Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for Year End
        December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.1 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s (Exhibit
        33.1) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.2 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for First American Corporation's Report
       (Exhibit 33.2) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.3 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Southwest Business Corporation's Report
       (Exhibit 33.3) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.4 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for FIS Tax Services' Report (Exhibit 33.4) for
        Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.5 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's (Exhibit
        33.5) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.6 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as
        servicer (Exhibit 33.6) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.7 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Report
       (Exhibit 33.7) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.8 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's as
        custodian (Exhibit 33.8) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.1 Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s Annual Statement of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.2 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's Annual Statement
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.3 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's Annual Statement
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.