--- WHY PLAINTIFFS WENT TO WELLS FARGO ---

    92.  At this point in this complaint, PLAINTIFFS need to explain
why they went to WELLS FARGO, and why, given several disturbing
events that had occurred, they continued the relationship.

    93.  PLAINTIFFS initially went to WELLS FARGO because they were
the current service provider to PLAINTIFFS' then current ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE plus PLAINTIFF'S comfort and knowledge of the over 100 year
old institution's reputation that WELLS FARGO would protect and not
jeopordize or risk the "good will" the company had enjoyed and
implied to the community with its famous advertising of the stage
coach with horses and cowboys upholding the honesty and integrity of
the "old west", and that PLAINTIFFS were in safe hands.

    94.  PLAINTIFFS felt comfortable in initially going to WELLS
FARGO seeking refinancing or a bridge loan, and assumed that given
the office, building, and physical layout of AGENT FRANCIS'S Office,
that, like most banks, AGENT FRANCIS was an obvious employee, which
PLAINTIFFS still believe, as her business card lists "Home Mortgage
Consultant" along with the WELLS FARGO icons and logos, as well as
other promotion materials given to PLAINTIFFS.

              --- WELLS FARGO'S RECENT HISTORY ---
                - What PLAINTIFFS did not know -

    95.  PLAINTIFFS however, at that time of the refinancing, were
not aware that the original Wells Fargo company, Headquartered in
San Francisco, California, that its bank, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is
legally chartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and that the current
WELLS FARGO company is now a result of a merger between
California-based Wells Fargo & Co.  and Minneapolis-based Norwest
Corporation in 1998, and that the new company chose to keep the name
Wells Fargo to capitalize on the 150-year history of the Wells Fargo
name and trademark stagecoach.  After the merger, the company
maintained its headquarters in San Francisco, and as of September
30, 2005, WELLS FARGO had 6,250 "stores", 23 million customers, and
153,000 employees.

    96.  Only after Defendant WELLS FARGO later initiated a
foreclosure action that forced PLAINTIFFS to defend, then, only then
did PLAINTIFFS, through research, learn that as recently as
September 2003, less than two years before PLAINTIFFS refinance
closing, that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had
sought information about the lending practices of Wells Fargo and
other national banks.  Two suits seeking injunctive relief were
filed against Spitzer, one by the Office of the Comptroller of
Currency and one by the Clearinghouse association of banks,
asserting that Spitzer had no authority to regulate the activities
of national banks. The suits both resulted in the granting of
injunctive relief preventing the continuation of Spitzer's efforts
to obtain bank information, including Wells Fargo information.

    97.  PLAINITIFFS had repeatedly been assured by WELLS FARGO
agents that touted the integrity and reputation they enjoyed such as
the following pledges, claims, and assurances, that are from the
WELLS FARGO'S own website:



                              - 15 -
H


     "Wells Fargo does not tolerate abusive, misleading or
     fraudulent lending practices in its operations. In
     addition, we have adopted a set of affirmative
     responsible lending principles designed to help us
     fulfill our vision of helping customers who need nonprime
     real estate products to meet their financial needs.  ...

     "we work diligently to help customers who do have
     difficulties in making their loan payments to stay in
     their homes; ...

     "Simply stated, Wells Fargo's goal is not only to get
     customers into homes, but also to keep them there; and we
     are proud of our track record of making good solid home
     loans to qualified borrowers. ...

     "Informed Choices - We provide consumers with the
     information necessary to make fully informed decisions
     about the terms of our loans. Consumers receive
     disclosures that exceed legal and regulatory requirements
     about loan options, costs, and prepayment fee agreements.
     ..."

     --- RECAP OF SOME OF THE ACTIONS THROUGH THE CLOSINGS ---

          -- Never closed out the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE --

    98.  WELLS FARGO, and PENZETTA had by the morning of the closing
on May 16, 2005, completely changed the terms that were printed on
the COMMITTMENT LETTER that required a pay off of the $162,000.00
ORIGINAL MORTGAGE.  At that time, as County Record documents clearly
show, the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE was still owned by MERS until January
10, 2007, when it was sold back to WELLS FARGO, and after the filing
date of the foreclosure action of December 14, 2007.  Again, the
COMMITMENT LETTER clearly stated;

         "EXISTING LIENS Unless otherwise provided in the
         specific conditions section of this commitment, any and
         all existing liens on the property must be paid in full
         at closing." "CONDITIONS OF LOAN APPROVAL (cont'd)"
         demanded "PAYOFF ALL LIENS OF RECORD AGAINST SUBJECT
         PROPERTY."

    99.  In spite of the fact that PENZETTA signed the HUD-1A
statement which clearly showed what funds were paid, or going to be
paid by the end of closing, it contained the following important
wording at the bottom of that document regarding Section M and
therefore WELLS FARGO and PENZETTA violated the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (Form HUD-1A ref.
RESPA (2/94)) (RESPA: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act).  The
wording clearly stated:

        Section M. DISBURSEMENT TO OTHERS
        Item 1501 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.       $143,409.56

        "The undersigned hereby aknowledges receipt of a
        completed copy of this document.  To the best of my
        knowledge the HUD-1A ref.  RESPA Settlement Statement is
        a true and accurate account of the funds which were

                              - 16 -
H


        received and have been or will be distrubited by the
        undersigned as part of the settlement of this
        transaction."

    100. In spite of the fact that the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE was paid
off as confirmed by PENZETTA, WELLS FARGO, and or agent PENZETTA,
never actually filed the SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE that was mailed to
PLAINTIFFS, which again for reference, this critical point clearly
stated:

    "Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you that we
    have processed the funds necessary to pay your loan in full."
    ... "We will mail loan satisfaction documents to you or to
    your county recorder, according to your state guidelines."

    101.  A recent letter from PENZETTA to PLAINTIFFS dated August
13, 2007 in response to PLAINTIFFS prior written demand of what had
actually happened at and after the closing, he clearly stated the
following:

    "The original account with Wells Fargo was closed out by
    the payment of the $143,409.56,..." [balance of the $162,000.00]

    102.  The facts are clear, the original $162,000.00 mortgage had
been paid in full according to documents sent by WELLS FARGO and
later verified by PENZETTA, yet WELLS FARGO and/or PENZETTA clearly
failed to file the legally required satisfaction with the County
Clerk.  New York State Law requires the following:

       "While the mortgage is extinguished by its payment, the
    instrument executed by the mortgagee to remove the mortgage
    recording of a mortgage creates a lien against the real
    property and necessitates the recording of a formal instrument
    from the record.  Such an instrument is called a ... certificate
    of satisfaction, ..." ... "but if the
    mortgage was recorded, the mortgagor is entitled to a
    satisfaction of the mortgage. ..."
    (78 N.Y. Jur.2d Mortgages Section 375)

       "4.  In the case of a mortgage secured by property improved
    by a one-to-six family, owner occupied, residential structure
    .... if the mortagee fails within ninety days to deliver
    the satisfaction of mortgage ... the mortgagee shall be
    liable to such person in the amount of five hundred dollars
    or the economic loss to such person, whichever is greater."
    RPAPL Section 1921, Subd. 4." (239 A.D.2d 68)

    103.  Defendants WELLS FARGO and PENZETTA, are clearly in
violation of the above stated law, as they willfully failed to file
the required satisfaction with the Putnam County Records.

    104.  The terms of the loan application and mortgage were
completely changed the morning of the closing by WELLS FARGO and
agent PENZETTA and were therefore in violation of RESPA as the terms
were changed to PLAINTIFFS serious detriment at the last minute
before the closing.  That detriment is clearly acknowledged in an
Affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court as WELLS FARGO through
their BAUM LAW FIRM now claim "laches" against PLAINTIFFS as a
defense to PLAINTIFFS legal position, at that time.

                              - 17 -
H


    105.  PLAINTIFFS had signed the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE which as
stated above was witnessed by PENZETTA'S assistant.  This mortgage,
(Exhibit 3) according to the agents of WELLS FARGO, the direct
wording on the above stated documents, that PLAINTIFFS would only
have one obligation outstanding the CONSOLIDTED MORTGAGE and the
equity credit line against the PROPERTY.

    106.  PLAINTIFFS relied upon the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE.  Unknown
to PLAINTIFFS however, is that WELLS FARGO and/or PENZETTA
apparently never actually consolidated the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE and the
GAP MORTGAGE, and could not, because MERS still had ownership and
control of the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE until January 10, 2007, as stated
above until well after WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM began the
foreclosure process on December 15, 2006.

    107.  PLAINTIFFS did not know by the time of the second closing
for the equity line, that WELLS FARGO or PENZETTA never filed the
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE for the $162,000,00 ORIGINAL MORTGAGE in
the County Records, but then filed the $380,346.31 GAP MORTGAGE and
the CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT and attached CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE for
$522,200.00, all showing $1,214,000 in leins against the PROPERTY.

    108.  PLAINTIFFS never submitted any loan application for a
Consolidated Mortgage or Agreement, and never applied for the GAP
MORTGAGE for $380,346.31.

    109.  PLAINTIFFS fairly believed they had been dealing with
lending professionals operating under State and Federal Laws, and
had no reason to question whether the proper transactions were ever
filed, and others not filed with the County Clerk relating to the
now outstanding mortgages shown publicly in the County Records.

    110. PLAINTIFFS at that time had no idea that the seeds for
foreclosure had been planted in the Putnam County Records with the
filing of the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, the GAP MORTGAGE, and the
wilful leaving of the satisfied ORIGINAL MORTGAGE on the public
record for any attorney, interested buyer, or real estate person to
realize that any closing could be made very difficult by the mere
delaying of clearing up or correcting the records.

    111. Additionally, WELLS FARGO or PENZETTA could not have really
consolidated the ORIGINAL or the GAP MORTGAGES, because the County
Record clearly shows that at that time the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE was in
fact owned by MERS, and not transfered to WELLS FARGO until, as
stated above, January 10, 2007, (Exhibit 1) well after foreclosure
procedings had been taken on December 14, 2006, and therefore the
entire "consolidation" was a total fraud and charade played against
PLAINTIFFS.  Yet they saw fit to file it in the County Records.

    112. This fraud was later brought to PLAINTIFFS' attention only
when WELLS FARGO via the BAUM LAW FIRM submitted to the Supreme
Court affidavits, and in particular as an exhibit from a Prime Title
Search Company which clearly stated "Mortgage to be foreclosed"
listing the $162,000.00 ORIGINAL MORTGAGE.

    113.  These filings gave WELLS FARGO complete control of any sal    es
closing, or negotiations by holding up the SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE,
or, as PLAINTIFFS found out later, could completely kill a sale that
would later allow them to foreclose and pick up PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY
for a fraction of the fair market value.
                              - 18 -
H