"No one has done more to question the validity of this lien than the Plaintiffs themselves."
What follows is drawn entirely from the Plaintiffs' own sworn filings, their own Custodial Agreement, the Baltimore County Land Records, and the federal government's own loan-level disclosure. The Defendant supplies no accusation he did not first find in their pages. He has only turned them around to face their authors.
A foreclosure turns on one question: was the foreclosing party entitled to enforce the Note when it sued? Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 3-301; Real Prop. § 7-105(d)(5). Everything else is noise.
To win below, the Plaintiffs answered that question with three sworn propositions — that the Note was never transferred, never securitized, and always Wells Fargo's. They prevailed on those propositions in the May 31, 2026 Order.
Then the federal record arrived. And it was the Plaintiffs — not the Defendant — who had already written the contradiction. Every exhibit below is theirs.
Pool Issuer, Servicer, and — for roughly twelve years — its own document custodian, all at once. The Note's special indorsee. Yet not in possession at the appointment, nor at the commencement.
Physically held the original Note from September 27, 2022 onward — including on every date material to this action. A bailee. Never a party to this suit.
The program that pooled this Note in 2010 and whose public, issuer-reported disclosure data the Plaintiffs could neither edit nor suppress. The witness they could not silence.
Reconstructed the custody truth from 70+ GB of public Ginnie Mae data after the materials this Court called "something simple to provide" were withheld.
Left: the Plaintiffs' position, as the May 31 Order adopted it. Right: Ginnie Mae's own loan-level disclosure for Pool 082539. The Defendant wrote none of this. They did.
Having prevailed on "never transferred, never securitized, always Wells Fargo," the Plaintiffs cannot now invoke the very Ginnie Mae pooling, removal, and custody regime they denied to explain Wells Fargo's possession or authority. A party "may not, after taking and prevailing upon one position, assume a contrary position simply because [its] interests have changed." Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149 (2006). They denied the framework when denial won. They cannot borrow it back now.
Standing is measured the day the action is filed; it cannot be retrofitted. A specially indorsed note in another's hands makes that other a mere bailee — and leaves the indorsee, out of possession, no holder either.
The Plaintiffs swore repeatedly that the Note is indorsed in blank. Their own high-resolution production shows a single special indorsement to Wells Fargo, executed by Joan M. Mills, VP — a named payee, not a blank.
Only the holder of the deed of trust (or the holder's agent) may appoint substitute trustees. No possession of the specially indorsed Note → not the holder → no authority to appoint.
Their sworn affidavit certifies a "COVID-19 Recovery Standalone Partial Claim was not offered" — and that no HUD forbearance was offered. The county's own land records say otherwise.
This Court ordered the original Note produced. It surfaced in Maryland not at the Plaintiffs' direction, but only through this Court's discovery orders and the Defendant's own subpoena.
The Custodial Agreement's Fee Schedule (Exhibit 8) was produced with both columns fully redacted — services and amounts alike. The entire 46-page instrument contains not one dollar figure.
The Plaintiffs would point to a single clause — "for the sole benefit and use of the Owner" — as proof this was mere storage for Wells Fargo. But the clause does not end there. Read in full, it closes a loop that defeats them:
And by incorporating V-01 into their own contract, the Plaintiffs made Ginnie Mae's rules the Agreement's own terms — so the self-custody without vertical independence and the special indorsement instead of a blank are departures from the very document they rely on. Offered as impeachment and as a shield against unauthorized foreclosure, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage v. Neal, 398 Md. 705 (2007) — not as a claim under the Guide.
A non-holder in possession must prove the transaction by which it acquired the instrument; a party out of possession of a specially indorsed note is not a holder.
Possession, not ownership, confers holder status. The named indorsee out of possession holds nothing.
Extrinsic fraud reopens an enrolled judgment where it "prevented a fair submission of the controversy" or imposed upon the court's jurisdiction.
The test is whether the fraud "prevented the actual dispute from being submitted to the fact finder at all." A document withheld cannot be tested within the proceeding.
Under Md. Rule 2-535(b), the Court may revise a judgment procured by fraud or irregularity "at any time."
Ratification does not end this. It cannot embed a premise the concealed record disproves.
An eagle, soaring high, was struck down by an arrow. Looking at the shaft that had killed her, she saw that it was fletched with one of her own feathers.
"We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction."
fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent
The Defendant has authored no accusation the Plaintiffs did not first commit to a sworn page. He demanded the custody materials this Court called "simple to provide"; they were withheld. He reconstructed the truth from the government's own records; it indicted them. They have been, from first filing to final contradiction, the authors of their own demise.