113.  That since neither WELLS FARGO nor PENZETTA had ownership
or control over the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE, and therefore could not
consolidate that mortgage with the GAP MORTGAGE, where did the
$143,000.00 that was paid at closing end up.

            --- OTHER RESULTS BY END OF CLOSINGS ---

    114.  Defendants WELLS FARGO, PENZETTA, and AGENT FRANCIS acting
both individually and in concert, took PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL MORTGAGE
that was a fixed rate 30 year mortgage and converted it to an ARM
that in two years would exceed the original fixed rate and continue
to increase, all to the advantage of the above named Defendants.

    115.  That PLAINTIFFS were not told of the terms of the interest
rate for the equity line of credit beforehand, were not told in
advance that the interest rate was tied into prime rate, and that
due to the deliberate and contrived delays by Defendants, PLAINTIFFS
were given no choice in matter because they would have to forfeit
the $30,000.00 deposit that had been paid to secure their retirement
home in Virginia, as WELLS FARGO, PENZETTA, and AGENT FRANCIS knew
fully well.

    116.  That the home equity credit line was part of a total
package, setup well before first closing, and even before PLAINTIFFS
signed the counter offer by WELLS FARGO, as this combined process
was created by AGENT FRANCIS as part of her scheme which would allow
PLAINTIFFS to purchase the Virginia property, the sole reason for
approaching WELLS FARGO for possible financing in the first place,
as those Defendants involved in the above stated actions knew full
well how to manipulate the situation to their advantage.

    117.  That the scheme initiated by AGENT FRANCIS and other
employees or agents, forced PLAINTIFFS into accepting their terms by
creating the abovementioned scheme, knowing that PLAINTIFFS had no
alternatives, except at the very beginning to approach another
lender, for which Defendants avoided by promising and lying and
drawing in PLAINTIFFS to their trap.  As stated elsewhere in this
Complaint, PLAINTIFFS were dealing with professionals, operating
under the color of State and Federal Laws that would protect them.

     --- PLAINTIFFS ATTEMPT AT SELLING OF THE PROPERTY ---

    118.  PLAINTIFFS immediately after the closing on the home equit    y
line of credit, put the PROPERTY back on the market, readvertised
it, and engaged the large nationally known real estate firm of
Weichert Realtors to effectively promote the PROPERTY in the
Northern New York Metro Area.  The firm, however failed to advertise
and promote the PROPERTY as agreed, and rather then confirm in
writing what promotion would be actually done as a condition for
PLAINTIFFS for extending the exclusive sales contract agreement,
Weichert "fired" PLAINTIFFS.

    119.  PLAINTIFFS shortly thereafter engaged a new privately owne    d
local real estate firm which did not have the constraints of
franchise operations, and who agreed to effectively promote the
PROPERTY in the Northern New York Metro Area.  PLAINTIFFS, having
done sufficient research into their backgrounds, were however
unaware at that time, that their very own property was in
foreclosure which later explained why the promised advertising
abruptly stopped several months into the signed sales agreement.

                              - 19 -
H


    120.  PLAINTIFFS then immediately went back to selling the
PROPERTY as for sale by owner (hereinafter "FSBO") and began holding
open house, along with the setting up of signs each weekend in the
area, and sent out over 150 letters to all the local major real
estate firms guaranteeing them the standard 3% commission if they
found a buyer.

    121.  PLAINTIFFS tried diligently to work with WELLS FARGO, and
kept AGENT FRANCIS apprised of all their activities regarding the
selling of the PROPERTY and even requested WELLS FARGO materials
regarding financing for a future purchasher.  AGENT FRANCIS sent
many items including brochures, business cards, which PLAINTIFFS
always kept in plain view on the dining room mantel.  PLAINTIFF
Scott Webster during all of the many open house promotions of the
PROPERTY gave out numerous copies of WELLS FARGO promotion material
to not only prospective buyers, but many who were actively looking
for real estate in the area.

    122.  PLAINITFFS holding open house often attracted 50 to 100
viewers during the weekends of the summer and fall of 2006, and for
those potential buyers who appeared to be seriously interested,
PLAINTIFF always steered them to WELLS FARGO through AGENT FRANCIS
for financing, by handing our the WELLS FARGO materials and AGENT
FRANCIS' business card.

           --- PLAINTIFFS FIRST SALE OF THE PROPERTY ---

    123.  During the holding of the very first open house after goin    g
FSBO, PLAINTIFF Scott Webster was approached by a couple, who were
so interested in the PROPERTY, that they came back later the same
day, took at least 35 pictures of the PROPERTY, and came back later
that evening after having dinner to discuss financing.  This couple
twice returned on several different days with close friends to show
them their "new home", and even purchased a heavy stove that they
moved on to the PROPERTY to heat the carriage house.   They were
also introduced to the next door neighbors and the neighbors across
the street, as the new buyers.

    124.  This sale was virtually a done deal, and PLAINTIFFS had a
contract prepared by their attorney and sent to the buyer's attorney
for signing, which had a closing date of August 21, 2006.

    125.  PLAINTIFFS were later informed that the contract of sale
was signed and sent back to their attorney, along with a check for
$40,000.00.

    126.  PLAINTIFFS were told by their attorney that the buyers
attorney had done a title search at the time of the contract
signing, a function which is normally done by the title company.
This was unusual and raised some concerns with PLAINTIFFS, then
shortly after this seacrh, the buyers attorney requested the
destruction of this signed contract, for which PLAINTIFFS attorney
immediately responded ion writing that he had "shredded" the
contract without PLAINTIFFS knowledge or approval.

    127.  PLAINTIFFS much later found out from their search of the
County Records, that the GAP MORTGAGE, the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE,
and the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE were all being listed as outstanding,
showing mortgages totaling over $1,214,000.00, far greater than the

                              - 20 -
H


agreed price of $817,000.00, and upon information and belief, was
the reason used by the attorneys to kill PLAINTIFFS' sale, which had
been a "done deal" up to then.


       --- SEEKING HELP FROM WELLS FARGO/AGENT FRANCIS ---

    128.  PLAINTIFFS by August 2006, were now facing serious financa    l
problems that could lead to defaults on the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE
without additional financing on the Virginia property which they now
owned outright free and clear.  This was not at that time a
desirable option, since the original intent in selling the PROPERTY
was to retire on the Virginia property without any mortgages
what-so-ever.

    129.  Believing that a close relationship existed through what
PLAINTIFFS thought to be mutual cooperation, especially in their
steering interested buyers to WELLS FARGO by PLAINTIFFS putting
their trust in AGENT FRANCIS and discussed by phone and then sent
her a personal letter on September 12, 2006, detailing the problems
faced since the deal with the Murrays had been terminated, and kept
in contact with her by telephone.

    130.  At her suggestion PLAINTIFFS then contacted WELLS FARGO to
see what could be worked out by telephone, and were told to send in
a "hardship letter" detailing what problems PLAINTIFF'S were
encountering.  PLAINTIFFS were told that someone would then be
assigned to them to work things out, particularly with the sale of
the PROPERTY.

    131.  On October 24, 2006, PLAINTIFFS sent WELLS FARGO their
five page hardship letter (hereinafter "HARDSHIP LETTER") detailing
what had happened, their entire financial situation including all
assets, how they were proceeding with the attempts to sell the
PROPERTY and that PLAINTIFFS were having very good responses from
the FSBO open houses, and requested that WELLS FARGO give them
reasonable leeway before taking direct action towards any
foreclosure proceedings, and making a point that at that point,
PLAINTIFFS were behind less then $25,000 owed on back mortgage
payments, or 2% of the total loans with WELLS FARGO, and that WELLS
FARGFO was protected with at least a $350,000 pure equity balance on
the PROPERTY.

    132.  PLAINTIFFS constantly contacted WELLS FARGO many times by
phone to find out the status of their HARDSHIP LETTER and request,
what could be worked out about help in selling the PROPERTY and were
told repeatedly that someone would be assigned to work with them,
but it usually took 30 to 45 days to, according to WELLS FARGO'S
agents, "open a file" and assign it to one of their people.

    133.  PLAINTIFFS were repeatedly told by WELLS FARGO employees
that either the HARDSHIP LETTER was lost, not in the computer, that
the "file" had been assigned to this person or that, that no "file"
had been opened or assigned to someone.  This was now well after
forty five days, and PLAINTIFFS' calls became more frantic, calling
and calling to get some indication of WELLS FARGO'S intention.

    134.  Additionally, PLAINTIFFS were told many times such things
as "we don't want your property" "when someone is assigned to your

                              - 21 -
H


case things will work out ok", "Wells Fargo won't foreclose on you
as you are trying to sell the property" "we will work with you"
etc.  These kind of statements are on WELLS FARGO'S taped records,
and PLAINTIFFS have some of their own recordings.

    135.  PLAINTIFFS found out later, only after it was too late,
that WELLS FARGO apparently never opened a "file" or contacted
PLAINTIFFS with any kind of written acknowledgement, or telephone
call, or any indication that the HARDSHIP LETTER had even been read,
or a contact person assigned to PLAINTIFFS case until PLAINTIFFS
received a vague, ambiguous, unsigned letter dated January 22, 2007,
that was not connected to Defendants requests in any way.

    136.  When Defendants called the telephone number on the letter
several days later, PLAINTIFFS were told for the first time that
they were being "uncooperative".  This January 22, 2007 letter from
WELLS FARGO was dated over a month after PLAINTIFFS were served with
foreclosure papers, and was a direct result to PLAINTIFFS answer
which raised many issues.

          --- SUPREME COURT PAPERS - FILING THE SUIT ---

    137.  On December 15, 2006, WELLS FARGO through their attorneys,
the BAUM LAW FIRM, filed a lis pendens (hereinafter "LIS PENDENS"),
summons and complaint (hereinafter "SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT") against
PLAINTIFFS and their PROPERTY, but served only the SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT several days later on Thursday December 21, 2006, at
4:30pm, a mere three (3) days before Christmas Day, the following
Monday.  This now left only the next day, Friday for which most law
firms would only be open a half day, the weekend immediately before
Christmas, Monday Christmas Day, the following Christmas week when
most non consumer sales business are closed, the following weekend,
and then the following week to secure a law firm, put an answer
together, and respond by that Friday.

    138.  PLAINTIFFS at that time both being in Virginia for the
Christmas Holidays, were at a severe handicap by not having access
to County and Court Records which were located 600 miles and an 11
hour drive from their Virginia property to Putnam County, nor had a
copy of the LIS PENDENS, which showed that PLAINTIFFS were actually
being sued on the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE that had been paid off, and for
which they had a copy of the SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE in their
possession.  Upon information and belief, this tactic was used to
prevent PLAINTIFFS from forming a proper answer to challenge the
suit and assert that the suit was brought on a mortgage that had
been paid and satisfied.

    139.  PLAINTIFFS prepared their answer, representing themselves
pro se, and responded with a 64 paragraph answer which contained
affirmative defenses, exhibits, as well as several counterclaims.
However not having a copy of the LIS PENDENS at that time,
PLAINTIFFS had no way of knowing that they were actually being sued
on the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE and not the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE.

    140.  PLAINTIFFS did not know at that time, that WELLS FARGO or
PENZETTA had failed under New York State Law to file the
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE on the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE, or that they had
actually filed the GAP MORTGAGE, as well as the CONSOLIDATED
MORTGAGE, giving the appearance to any title company, or anyone else

                              - 22 -
H


looking at the County Records that over $1,214,000.00 was needed to
clear the title on the PROPERTY.

    141.  The service of the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT was sixty-eight
(68) days from the date WELLS FARGO received PLAINTIFFS HARDSHIP
LETTER, and WELLS FARGO never even bothered to look at it until
after filing the foreclosure action, and then only when PLAINTIFFS
raised the issue in their Answer to the complaint.

    142.  Had WELLS FARGO denied the HARDSHIP LETTER application
within a reasonable amount of time, PLAINTIFFS could have easily
obtained financing on what WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM
prejudicially referred to as PLAINTIFFS' "vacation home" in Supreme
Court papers.  Again, only $25,000 was needed for the back payments
to free up the PROPERTY for PLAINTIFFS' continued sales promotion.

                  --- SUPREME COURT PAPERS ---
           --- ACTIONS OF WELLS FARGO AND BAUM FIRM ---
      DENYING PLAINITIFFS DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

           ----- DISCOVERY - BILL OF PARTICULARS -----

    143.  On January 30, 2007 PLAINTIFFS sent WELLS FARGO through
the BAUM LAW FIRM a Demand for a Bill of Particulars dated January
30, 2007, which they received on 02/02/2007 7:57 AM that ordered
WELLS FARGO comply with those demands.  That Demand for a Bill of
Particulars included around sixty four (64) requests either for
informational statements, or documents, several of which were most
critical.  WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM did not comply with
that demand whatsoever nor did they respond within the ten (10) day
period to either to move the Court to vacate, modify, or specify
objections as required by New York CPLR which states:

         "A preclusion order precludes the remiss party
         from giving any evidence at the trial of items
         he has failed to particularize... and a total
         failure would mean total preclusion:
         being barred from putting into evidence any
         part of one's case." (Siegel Section 241)

    144.  Instead of moving the Court via Motion, or complying with
the Demands, WELLS FARGO through BAUM instead filed a Motion for
Summary Judgement and Order of Reference notarized February 16,
2007, fourteen (14) days after the BAUM LAW FIRM had received the
Demand.

    145.  PLAINTIFFS demand for a Bill of Particulars was not even
mentioned in the Affidavit of SEAN NIX, dated February 13, 2007 in
support of their motion.  Upon information and belief, this was a
deliberate attempt by SEAN NIX, WELLS FARGO, and the BAUM LAW FIRM
to thwart PLAINTIFFS lawful discovery, and a violation of due
process.  Not until PLAINTIFFS brought their Demand to the attention
of the Court in opposition papers requesting an order of the Court
demanding compliance, did WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM then
address the issue they had chosen to ignore.

    146.  The premature filing of WELLS FARGO'S Motion for Summary
Judgement before proper discovery had been completed, was a method
WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM used to deny PLAINTIFFS right of

                              - 23 -
H


due process, as they put forth to the Supreme Court in their papers
in response:  "First and foremost, pursuant to CPLR 3214(b),
discovery is stayed pending outcome of Plaintiff's summary judgement
motion" as PLAINTIFFS had shown of a preponderance of issues that
need to be resolved by way of discovery.

    147.  PLAINTIFFS demanded proof that WELLS FARGO had the signed
note, especially for the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE that was being foreclosed
on, and that it actually was in the possession of WELLS FARGO as
PLAINTIFFS had every right to know and to prove just who held the
"note(s)", and the only "proof" put forth was in their affidavit
which merely claimed "...Plaintiff [WELLS FARGO] has submitted
proper evidence of its INTEREST IN THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE being
foreclosed herein..." but as PLAINTIFFS pointed out that nowhere in
any of the WELLS FARGO supporting papers do they state under oath
that the original Note and Mortgage were owned by them and were in
their actual possession.  Again without compliance or the requested
Court Order, PLAINTIFFS were denied due process and were put at a
serious disadvantage in defending the foreclosure action.


    --- FINDINGS OF THE COURT: DECISION AND ORDER 04/27/07 ---

    148.  On April 27, 2007 by way of a Decision and Order
(hereinafter "ORIGINAL DECISION AND ORDER") that the Lower Court
agreed with PLAINTIFFS position in part, and issued the following
findings, and held, inter alia, that the 1995 Mortgage had been paid
in full and satisfied as stated:

        "Defendants allege the $162,000 was satisfied and not
        in default.  They are Correct."

        "The Bank acknowledges Loan #4061738 in the original
        sum of $162,000 was satisfied..."

        "On or about May 16, 2005 Defendants borrowed $380,346.31
        from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  They also obtained an equity
        loan in the sum of $150,000 which was consolidated with the
        $380,346.31.  The total consolidated loan was $522,200."

    149.  WELLS FARGO and the BAUM LAW FIRM served their Notice of
Entry upon PLAINTIFFS on or about June 12, 2007, and within the next
thirty days as required by law, neither side filed notices of
appeal, nor made any timely motions via CPLR 2221 to reargue the
holdings of that Decision, and therefore the ORIGINAL DECISION AND
ORDER became "the law of the case" to which all parties became
bound.

    150.  PLAINITIFFS after the thirty day period had elasped and
feeling secure that they were protected under the rules of the CPLR,
that the issue was settled, and felt that they could live with the
ORIGINAL DECISION AND ORDER rather than go through the lengthy and
costly process of appealing part of the holdings of the Decision.

    151.  PLAINTIFFS after the various motions and cross motions,
affidavits and exhibits, even after being denied due process for
discovery on the Demand for a Bill of Particulars, realized that not
only had WELLS FARGO and PENZETTA not filed the SATISFACTION OF
MORTGAGE on the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE, filed the GAP MORTGAGE as well as

                              - 24 -
H


the CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, making it appear in the public record
that $1,214,000.00 needed to be paid off to clear the title.

    152.  In an attempt to clear up the title on the PROPERTY, on
June 14, 2007 PLAINTIFFS sent WELLS FARGO through their attorney the
BAUM LAW FIRM a letter captioned as "DEMAND TO REMOVE ERRONEOUS
MORTGAGES FROM COUNTY CLERK'S RECORDS" with, (hereinafter "REMOVE
LETTER") inter alia, the following paragraphs:

        "We hope that as counsel for the Plaintiff herein, you
        will notify and compel them [WELLS FARGO] to remedy this
        situation as soon as possible so that we can proceed with
        an orderly sale of the property without further
        interference and having to seek an order of the court
        compelling compliance.

        "At present there are currently four (4) outstanding
        mortgages listed in the public record as Exhibit #1
        shows, totaling $ 1,214,768.00, only one of which is
        ligitiment in the amount of $ 522,200.00.  As stated
        below, we believe that the three (3) erroneous mortgages
        totaling $ 692,568.00 have recently caused the loss of a
        sale within the past two weeks, as is stated below.  It
        is obvious that under these circumstances it is currently
        impossible for us to sell our property."

        "Worse that that, is that we now have strong belief,
        supported by circumstantial evidence, that the three
        erroneous mortgages were direclty responsible in the past
        for loss of the sale of our property for which we had
        signed contracts from the buyers on or about July 14,
        2006."

        "We do know that at the time our lawyer prepared the
        written contract, that the buyers attorney had already
        done a title search as stated by our attorney, which
        would have disclosed that with a sale price of $ 817,000
        against the $ 1,214,768 in recorded mortgages, that we
        could never deliver a clear title."

    153.  By the time of the REMOVE LETTER was sent to the
Defendants noted above, PLAINTIFFS had lost two additional positive
sales, one to a party brought by a broker, the Tompsens, for which
PLAINTIFFS had their attorney make up yet another contract of sale,
and then requested in writing a payoff letter based upon the
ORIGINAL DECISION AND ORDER.  WELLS FARGO and THE BAUM LAW FIRM
delayed the payout letter that forced PLAINTIFFS to send a second
request.  This unnecessary delay allowed the buyers to have second
thoughts and they changed their minds.  Their lawyer also expressed
concern about the clearing of the title.

    154.  Immediately after the Thompsen's deal fell through,
PLAINTIFFS accepted another offer, prepared another contract of
sale, and included the following information in the following
paragraph in the REMOVE LETTER:

        "We then contacted the client from Windchimes [real estate
        broker] who had put in three seperate bids before, and
        settled upon term and price.  She was a very serious

                              - 25 -
H


        buyer, had a preapproval letter, but also had to close
        on a property because she needed to move into her new
        home no later than the first of August, 2007.  This
        urgency and the need for both parties to close as soon as
        possible became critical, and she told the broker that
        she was working on financing and had an attorney.  Then
        suddenly the client failed to respond to the broker and
        dropped contact, only days ago finally stating that she
        had taken another property.  We have reason to believe
        that her attorney ordered a title search for the
        protection of the client, a prudent thing to do, and
        probably advised that our property was too involved for
        her to close by the August first deadline."

    155.  PLAINTIFFS also put forth in the REMOVE LETTER to the BAUM
LAW FIRM the following:

        "Your firm submitted to the Court as your exhibit G with
        the affidavit by Sean Nix, identified as the Vice
        President Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo, and
        compiled by Darleen V.  Karaszewski Esq.  a title search,
        attached hereto as our Exhibit #3 A, B, C.  This report
        clearly states the following:

        "(A)  Mortgage to be Foreclosed"       for $162,000.00
        (Exhibit 3-A Ref #25)
        "(B) Mortgagor: Scott E. Webster..."   for $380,346.31
        (Exhibit 3-B Ref #12)
        "(C) Mortgagor: Scott E. Webster..."   for $150,000.00
        (Exhibit 3-C Ref #14)"

    156.  PLAINTIFFS followed up the above REMOVE LETTER by sending
a copy of it to WELLS FARGO closing agent PENZETTA, in a letter to
him dated August 8, 2007, demanding answers to critical questions
about what happened at closing, especially the failure of WELLS
FARGO to file the SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.  The paragraph read:

        "As a direct result of the actions of Wells Fargo and your
        representation of them at the closing, and perhaps a lack
        of follow up by River City Abstract, we are left at the
        present with currently four (4) outstanding mortgages
        listed in the public record as Exhibit #8 shows, totaling
        $ 1,214,768.00, only one of which is ligitimate in the
        amount of $ 522,200.00.  Additionally, the first one of
        these that was supposed to have been paid off served as
        the basis for the foreclosure action (Exhibit #10) filed
        on behalf of your client, which, as the questions below
        will emphasize, we believe, a case for fraud and
        deceipt.  Please find the attached copy of a letter dated
        August 6, 2007 to Ms. Ellen Juracek, the title agent at
        the above closing in this now very serious matter.  That
        letter will serve as the background".

    157.  PLAINTIFF Scott Webster immediately received a telephone
call from Mr. PENZETTA who tried to explain why the ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE had not the SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE filed with the County
Records, and stated he was going to contact the BAUM LAW FIRM, and
shortly thereafter PLAINTIFFS received a written response that
stated, inter alia, the following statement followed by two guiding
paragraphs from New York State Statutes:
                              - 26 -
H


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

    158.  PLAINTIFFS reiterate the Law:

        "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)