F l o r i d a l a

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION Green Tree Servicing, LLC Plaintiff, vs. MARK R. REINHARDT, et al Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Defendants MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE, RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR DISMISSAL MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE NOW COMES Defendant, MARK R. REINHARDT, filing pro se, who files this Motion to Quash Service and as grounds therefore states: SERVICE OF PROCESS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE CHAPTER 48 OR FLORIDA RULE 1070(e) 1. Service of Process has not been perfected. Plaintiff has failed to serve process in compliance with statutes. The process of service as returned to the Court does not have the date and time that process was served notated on the original and all copies. Copies of the Lis Pendens, Summons and Complaint as received by Defendant are included as Exhibits C, D and E, respectively. According to Florida Rule 1070(e): Copies of Initial Pleading for Persons Served. At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading shall be delivered to the party upon whom service is made. The date and hour of service shall be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. 2. Additionally, FS. 48.031, Subsection (5) states: A person serving process shall place, on the first page of at least one of the processes served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process. The person serving process shall list on the return-of-service form all initial pleadings delivered and served along with the process. The person issuing the process shall file the returnof-service form with the court. 3. Statutes that govern service of process are to be strictly construed to ensure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings . The burden of proving the validity of the service of process is on the Plaintiff . Carter v. Lil Joe Records, 829 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). [S]trict compliance with service of process procedures is required. Baraban v. Sussman, 439 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 1 of 10

1983) (citing - Electro Engg Prods. Co. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1977)). The burden of proof to sustain the validity of service of process is on the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Henzel v. Noel, 598 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (citing Carlini v. State Dept of Legal Affairs, 521 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). 4. Ineffective service cannot become effective simply through the Defendant's knowledge of the proceeding. 5. Absent strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the Complaint must be dismissed. Sierra Holding v. Inn Keepers Supply, 464 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) . WHEREFORE, Defendant MARK. R. REINHARDT respectfully requests the Court to grant the instant Motion to Quash Service and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2013. By: _____________________________________ MARK R. REINHARDT Defendant, pro se 12 Wilson St. Amissville, VA 20106 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via US Mail this _____ day of _______________, 2013 to Law Offices of Daniel Consuegra, P.L. Attn: Benjamin A. Ewing, counsel for Plaintiff 9204 King Palm Dr. Tampa, Florida 33619-1328 By: _____________________________________ MARK R. REINHARDT 12 Wilson St. Amissville, VA 20106 Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 2 of 10

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION Green Tree Servicing, LLC Plaintiff, vs. MARK R. REINHARDT, et al Case No: 12-014096-CI Defendants RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT Defendant, MARK R. REINHARDT, filing pro se, who for his response to the Plaintiff's Complaint states as follows: 1. Paragraph 1): Denied. Plaintiff has not shown standing to file the foreclosure action. 2. Paragraph 2): Denied. Defendant lacks information to form a belief. Plaintiff has not attached an original Note and Mortgage to the Complaint. 3. Paragraph 3): Denied. No supporting evidence showing any assignments or chain of title have been attached to the Complaint. 4. Paragraph 4): Denied. 5. Paragraph 5): Denied. 6. Paragraph 6): Denied. No accounting has been provided to support the amount alleged. Florida Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought to its complaint. Plaintiff has failed to attach any document that supports its allegations as either being a party of interest or a holder in due course. Plaintiff alleges possession of business records but did not attach them to the Complaint. 7. Paragraph 7): Denied. All conditions precedent have not been met. Valid notice of assignment of the debt was never sent to Defendants by Plaintiff. Service of Process was not performed according to statute. Plaintiff ignored a Qualified Written Request (hereinafter QWR) sent by Defendant in May 2012, prior to the Complaint being filed. Ignoring the request is a violation of RESPA regulations. Providing a response to a QWR is a condition precedent to any action. 8. Paragraph 8): Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff is obligated to pay Plaintiff's attorney a reasonable fee for the attorney's services. Defendant lacks information to form a belief. 9. Paragraph 9): Denied. Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 3 of 10

10. Paragraph 10): Defendant lacks information to form a belief. Defendant can only suppose that if Plaintiff were able to demonstrate having a true beneficial interest in the property then naming MERS as a defendant would be completely unnecessary. Since Plaintiff's standing could only arise from a proper assignment from MERS or assignment by a party designated by MERS, it must be that Plaintiff is also doubtful as to its indemnity from MERS, hence Plaintiff's naming of MERS as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges that MERS may have a beneficial interest in the property by virtue of a Mortgage. This is the exact same Mortgage that Plaintiff alleges is the instrument that gives Plaintiff the authority to file this Complaint. Plaintiff cannot simultaneously allege that it has standing while also alleging that the entity who would give it that standing may also itself have standing. Such a situation could not indemnify Defendant to additional claims per F.S 673.3091(2). This is a genuine issue of material fact and for this reason alone the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 11. Paragraphs 11-19): Denied. Plaintiff has spuriously filed an action against parties not related to the instant case or property in question. Laurie E. Smith, the party listed on the title to the property in question, is not Laura A. Smith, Laura F. Smith, Lorie Ann Daddio, Lorie Smith, Laura Smith, Laura D. Smith, Laurie A. Smith or any other variation of that name in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's neglect of basic fact-checking has captivated the time of several government agencies and has perpetrated a fraud upon the Court by filing a fraudulent claim against the wrong parties. For this reason alone this Complaint should be dismissed. 12. Paragraph 20): Denied. 13. Paragraph 21): Denied. Plaintiff did not at any time lend money to Defendants as Plaintiff alleges. Defendant has never entered into any agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff again alleges that a copy of, and not the original, Note and Mortgage are attached to the Complaint. Without the original, wet-ink signed Note and Mortgage, Plaintiff does not have standing to make the Complaint and the Complaint should be dismissed. 14. Paragraph 22): Denied. It is impossible for Plaintiff to suppose the true intentions of parties in a transaction of which Plaintiff had no part. Historically, property transfers of that parcel use the exact same language as in the exhibit Mortgage. If Plaintiff were to get its wish, Plaintiff would cause self-damage by clouding the title with ambiguous language. Plaintiff again shows neglect of basic fact-checking with regard to the legal description of the subject property. 15. Paragraph 23): Denied. Plaintiff cannot change on a post-facto basis the legal description of property solely for Plaintiff's convenience. Plaintiff has filed the Complaint based on a property description that does not exist in any transaction or Public Record. Plaintiff's Complaint is therefore fundamentally flawed and on this reason alone should be dismissed with prejudice. 16. Paragraph 24): Denied. Plaintiff had ample time to perform due diligence before entering into any alleged transaction with any other party, at which time any perceived defects could be addressed and/or Plaintiff could have chosen to not pursue its alleged involvement in any transaction. Any damage to the Plaintiff is solely due to Plaintiff's neglect of due diligence. Furthermore, as written in the Court Opinion in Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Patti Englander Henning, Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-14016 03 Noreen Dows and Gregory Dows, Appellants, V. Nike, Inc., The Sports Authority, Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 4 of 10

Inc., and The Sports Authority Florida, Inc., Appellees: It is never the role of a trial court to rewrite a contract to make it more reasonable for one of the parties or to relieve a party from what turns out to be a bad bargain. Dickerson Florida Inc. v. McPeek, 651 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). 17. Paragraph 25): Denied. Plaintiff has filed a claim over a property using the description that Plaintiff wishes it to be, instead of the original property description as it actually appears in the attached exhibits. The property description on the Mortgage in Plaintiff's Exhibit A reads: 18. LOT 11 AND THE NORTH 5 FEET OF LOT 12, BLOCK 48, DUNEDIN ISLES UNIT NO.1, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 20, PAGES 34 THROUGH 37, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. 19. In the Notice of Lis Pendens filed with the Court, Plaintiff uses the following property description (the difference to the above is underlined): 20. Lot 11 and the North 5 feet of Lot 12, Block 48, A REPLAT OF A PART OF DUNEDIN ISLES UNIT NO. 1, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 20, Pages 34 through 37, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 21. Plaintiff has not entered any plats or replats into evidence. The very boundaries of the property are now in question as Plaintiff is simultaneously referring to two different plats in the Complaint. Plaintiff's Complaint is flawed because it does not refer to any recorded or transacted legal description of any property; instead the property description entered by Plaintiff in the Notice of Lis Pendens reads how Plaintiff wishes it to read. This presents a genuine issue of material fact. For this reason and the many others presented in the Affirmative Defenses below, the Court should dismiss this complaint. 22. Additionally, Plaintiff's plead for a deficiency judgment should be summarily denied as Plaintiff has not shown any monetary damages and has not entered into evidence any accounting whatsoever that could document any alleged damages to which Plaintiff would be entitled. Plaintiff is not the original lender. Plaintiff is not named on the Mortgage or the Note. Plaintiff has not provided any chain of title establishing it as having any beneficial interest in the subject property. Plaintiff has never entered into any agreement with this Defendant. If the original Mortgage and Note have ever been transferred to another party (although no assignments have been alleged by Plaintiff), then the original lender was, at the time of transfer, made whole by virtue of adequate consideration given by the acquiring party. To simply award an amount based on unsubstantiated claims would be unjust enrichment for the Plaintiff.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I. FAILURE TO POST A NON-RESIDENT COST BOND Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 5 of 10

1. The Plaintiff has not alleged that it is a registered Florida Corporation or that it is authorized to do business in the State of Florida. 2. Upon knowledge and information, the Plaintiff is a non-resident to the State of Florida. 3. Florida Statute 57.011 provides, in pertinent part: Costs; security by non-residents. When a nonresident plaintiff begins an action or when a plaintiff after beginning an action removes himself or herself or his or her effects from the state, he or she shall file a bond with surety to be approved by the clerk of $100, conditioned to pay all costs which may be adjudged against him or her in said action in the court in which the action is brought. On failure to file such bond within 30 days after such commencement or such removal, the defendant may, after 20 days' notice to plaintiff (during which the plaintiff may file such bond), move to dismiss the action or may hold the attorney bringing or prosecuting the action liable for said costs and if they are adjudged against plaintiff, an execution shall issue against said attorney. II. PLAINTIFF IS NOT OWNER OF NOTE 4. By Plaintiff's own allegation in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Plaintiff is not the owner of the Note. Plaintiff alleges that Federal National Mortgage Association owns the Note and authorizes the action. No supporting documentation of these allegations has been presented. Under Florida law, assignment of the Mortgage without a specific assignment of the Note is a nullity. In the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carpenter v. Longan: The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. [FN 3 cites Jackson v. Blodget, 5 Cowan, 205; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johnson, 43.] Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271; 21 L. Ed. 313; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1157; 16 Wall. 271 (U.S. 1873). In Florida, the prosecution of a foreclosure action is by the owner and holder of the mortgage and the note. Plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action in which it seeks to foreclose on a note which Plaintiff, by its own allegation, does not own. Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, 316 So.2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). III. VALID NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT NOT GIVEN TO DEFENDANT 5. Pursuant to F.S, 558.715, Plaintiff did not provide to this Defendant proper notice of assignment of the debt, and giving such notice is a condition precedent to this action. UMLIC-VP, LLC v. Reggie Levine, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 336a (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 2003) & Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Richard Smith, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 169a (Leon County Court 2007). Without all conditions precedent to this action being performed, Plaintiff has no standing to bring this action and the Complaint should be dismissed. IV. SERVICE OF PROCESS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE CHAPTER 48 OR FLORIDA RULE 1070(e) Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 6 of 10

6. Service of Process has not been perfected. Plaintiff has failed to serve process in compliance with statutes. The process of service as returned to the Court does not have the date and time that process was served notated on the original and all copies. A copy of the cover pages of the Lis Pendens, Summons and Complaint as received by Defendant are attached as Exhibit C, D, E, respectively. According to Florida Rule 1070(e): Copies of Initial Pleading for Persons Served. At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading shall be delivered to the party upon whom service is made. The date and hour of service shall be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. Additionally, FS. 48.031, Subsection (5) states: A person serving process shall place, on the first page of at least one of the processes served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process. The person serving process shall list on the return-of-service form all initial pleadings delivered and served along with the process. The person issuing the process shall file the returnof-service form with the court. 7. Statutes that govern service of process are to be strictly construed to ensure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings . The burden of proving the validity of the service of process is on the Plaintiff . Carter v. Lil Joe Records, 829 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). [S]trict compliance with service of process procedures is required. Baraban v. Sussman, 439 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (citing - Electro Engg Prods. Co. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1977)). The burden of proof to sustain the validity of service of process is on the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Henzel v. Noel, 598 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (citing Carlini v. State Dept of Legal Affairs, 521 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). 8. Ineffective service cannot become effective simply through the Defendant's knowledge of the proceeding. 9. Absent strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the Complaint must be dismissed. Sierra Holding v. Inn Keepers Supply, 464 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) . V. ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE NOT ATTACHED 10. In Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Plaintiff states that they have attached a copy of the Note and Mortgage to the Complaint. A wet-ink signed original Note and Mortgage have not been attached, by Plaintiff's own allegation. The Plaintiff has no standing to make the claim and the Complaint should be dismissed. 11. Defendant(s) or their counsel must inspect the physical note to determine who the real parties were that held and endorsed the subject note, due to the fact that counter-claims and other actions may exist based on improperly inflated principal balance, amount owed or escrow account by not applying payments properly and correctly, adding fees not legally owed by the Defendant to the principal Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 7 of 10

balance, miscalculating the interest and not properly amortizing the subject loan, fraudulent selling of the loan or misreporting the defendant(s) on credit reports. VI. PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING 12. Plaintiffs pleadings fail to contain sufficient facts to establish who the actual Plaintiff is and its relationship to Defendant and to the claim for foreclosure of the subject promissory note. The record also fails to sufficiently identify who Plaintiff is and fails to allege facts sufficient to determine the standing of Plaintiff. 13. Plaintiff's attached copy of the Mortgage does not expressly pledge the Note as a security for the Mortgage anywhere in its language. The Note is incorporated into the Mortgage by reference, but no express powers of foreclosure under the Note are given to the Lender or any other party. 14. Plaintiff has not attached any assignments of the Mortgage or the Note to this Complaint. The inability to attach the documentation evidencing the Plaintiffs right to bring this action violates Florida Rule 1.130, evidencing any assignment of right to the Plaintiff to file this action. There does not exist in evidence any chain of title or beneficial interest in the Note and/or Mortgage that can be examined by the Court or the Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to show with proper endorsements on the documents and recordings together with payment of recording and stamp fees for each and every transfer of interest. Therefore the Plaintiff has not shown standing and the Complaint should be dismissed. 15. Additionally, Defendant hereby challenges, per F.S 673.3081, the authenticity of signatures on any assignments of the subject property that may be recorded with the Pinellas County Clerk and also challenges the authenticity of any indorsements as they appear on the Note in Plaintiff's Exhibit A. 16. Although the Plaintiff claims to be the holder of the Note, the Note submitted shows that another party is the owner. The Note makes no mention of Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that another party owns the Note. When exhibits are inconsistent with Plaintiffs allegations of material facts as to who the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 772 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2000); Greenwald v. Triple D Properties, Inc. 424 So.2d 185, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Costa Development Corp, 411 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1983). 17. Standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake in the outcome and that the party bring the claim be recognized in the law as being the real party in interest entitled to bring the claim. This entitlement to prosecute a claim in Florida Courts rests exclusively in those persons granted by substantive law, the power to enforce the claim. Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines Ltd, et al, 462 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1985). 18. In MERS v. Azize, the Circuit Court in Pinellas County found that MERS did not have standing to make the claim and was not the party of beneficial interest and dismissed the case. The participation of MERS before the Bench is solely to collect on behalf of another corporation. None of the files presented to this Court support the status of MERS. There is no chain of ownership... The Court then concludes: Based upon the above analysis, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss with prejudice as Case No: 12-14096-CI-20 Page 8 of 10

to MERS the Complaints as not having been filed by the proper party and therefore the Complaints do not state a cause of action and are dismissed. MERS v. Azize Pinellas County Circuit Court 05001295CI-11 In the instant case, Plaintiff has not shown beneficial interest and is attempting foreclosure on behalf of the owner of the Note, which, by Plaintiff's own allegation, is a party other than Plaintiff. 19. Plaintiff has not provided anything to show that it has authority to make this Complaint. Therefore this Complaint should be dismissed. VI. DEFENDANT NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM COUNTERCLAIMS 20. Without an attachment of the original Note and Mortgage, it cannot be adequately guaranteed under the law that the Defendant would not be subject to claims from any other parties over the same Note and Mortgage. As the Plaintiff alleges possession of an original negotiable instrument, this original instrument must be tendered to the Court. 21. Furthermore, the Complaint as it stands on its face is invalid as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute 673(2) which states: A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the persons right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s.673.3081 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

VI. DEFENDANT SENT A QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST UNDER RESPA TO PLAINTIFF WHICH WAS IGNORED PRECEDENT NOT MET 22. In May of 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff counsel with a Qualified Written Request via Certified Mail, Receipt #7008 1140 0000 5747 3074 under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, codified as Title 12 2605 (e)(1)(B) (e) and Reg. X 3500.21(f)2 of the United States Code as well as a request under Truth In Lending Act [TILA] 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. This was sent to Plaintiff's counsel and signed for by J. Henderson on 5/11/12. A copy of that QWR is attached as Defendant's Exhibit A, and a copy of the Certified Mail Return Receipt is attached as Exhibit B. Plaintiff did not respond in any fashion to such request, and even failed to acknowledged receipt of this request, despite the fact that it was sent to the office of and signed for by Plaintiff's counsel. The statutory response time had long elapsed by the time that Plaintiff filed the Complaint. By not responding to a formal QWR under RESPA, Plaintiff has again not performed a requirement precedent to any action or claim and this Complaint should be dismissed.

Case No: 12-14096-CI-20

Page 9 of 10

WHEREFORE, Defendant MARK R. REINHARDT attests and affirms that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

By: _____________________________________ MARK R. REINHARDT Defendant, pro se 12 Wilson St. Amissville, VA 20106 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via US Mail this _____ day of _______________, 2013 to Law Offices of Daniel Consuegra, P.L. Attn: Benjamin A. Ewing, counsel for Plaintiff 9204 King Palm Dr. Tampa, Florida 33619-1328

Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2013.

By: _____________________________________ MARK R. REINHARDT 12 Wilson St. Amissville, VA 20106

Case No: 12-14096-CI-20

Page 10 of 10