STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF JOHNSON E*TRADE BANK

) ) )

IN THE JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT III CAUSE NO. 41D03-1008-MF-00399

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KENNETH D. HUNTER, STATE OF INDIANA, ) DON BRAY CONSTRUCTION, MARTHA ) WOMACKS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) AND GE MONEY BANK ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________________ AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TRIAL RULE 60(B)(3) ________________________________________________________________________ Comes now Kenneth Hunter, pro se, and files this Amended Verified Motion to Vacate Judgment to move this Court to vacate and set aside the void judgment entered on May 07, 2013, pursuant to Indiana Rules of Trial Rule Procedure Trial Rule 60(B)(3), for the reason set forth herein. This Amended Verified Motion to Vacate Judgment is intended to supercede and replace Affiant/defendants Verified Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Trial Rule 60(b) (3), which was an earlier, unfinished draft of said original motion, inadvertently and erroneously filed on September 20, 2013. Kenneth D. Hunter, the defendant in the above captioned case, being first duly sworn, avers that: 1. On or about July 19, 2012, judgment was entered by this Court in the above styled

action wherein E*Trade Bank, an alleged assignee of Home Loan Center, Inc., d/b/a Lending

Tree, was Plaintiff and this Affiant was defendant, by which it was adjudged Plaintiff is hereby granted a personal judgment against Kenneth D. Hunter in the sum $95, 312.84, which included interest, filing fees, Sheriffs service fee, late charges, reimbursable advances, and costs of collection, publication costs and reasonable foreclosure attorneys' fees and for any other fees expended for services performed in connection with the defendants alleged default and for the purposes of protecting Plaintiffs alleged interest in the property and its alleged rights under the mortgage agreement and ordering the foreclosure of the Affiants property located at 1413 S. Center Ln., Franklin, IN 46131. 2. The Affiant/defendant has just uncovered recently the proof necessary to demonstrate

to this Court, unequivocally, that the assignment of mortgage was fabricated by Danielle Abenes, a Bank America (BOA) employee; that she signed this material mortgage document using a fraudulent job title of vice president of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), and claimed therein that she was acting on behalf of MERS in executing the instrument; that such acts were carried out by Danielle Abenes pursuant to carrying out a BOA policy to separate and insulate itself from the toxic Countrywide mortgage loans that were negligently and fraudulently bundled and securitized for sale on the secondary markets. 3. The facts will further demonstrate that the alleged assignment of mortgage from

MERS as nominee for Home Loan Center, Inc., d/b/a Lending Tree to the Plaintiff was fraudulent and could not have occurred on or about the 6 th day of October, 2010, the day the assignment of mortgage was fraudulently recited and the note was endorsed and transferred because Countrywide Home Loans Inc. did not exist at the time. 4. Therefore, judgment was rendered on the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

based in large part by perjured affidavit and fabricated assignment of mortgage and the

endorsements on the note were presented by surprise on February 28, 2012, attached to their Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs summary judgment was decided by the Court by submission of both surprise and deceptive fabricated evidence without affording the Defendant sufficient opportunity to investigate and unravel this carefully constructed fraud prior to rendition of judgment, and thereby making the impeachment of this evidence impossibility. 5. The premature termination of the case by granting summary judgment, despite the

numerous contested evidentiary issues, also denied the Affiant the opportunity to fully explore and prove this meticulously crafted and concealed perjury, forgery and fraud by written discovery and deposition. The Affiant had initially served discovery on the Plaintiff in September, 2010, seeking to inspect the original note, which went unanswered. The Affiant was not allowed opportunity to inspect the alleged original note until July 19, 2012, at which the time the forged endorsements Lending Tree to Countrywide were revealed to be alleged endorsements on the back of the note. 6. The Plaintiffs fraudulent concealment of the transfer to Countrywide entities until

February, 2012 and the stonewalling discovery attempts to view the note, effectively precluded the Affiant and opportunity to conduct any meaningful discovery to timely acquire compelling evidence of the Plaintiffs perjury and forgery in time to be presented by Affiant as affirmative and defensive summary judgment evidence. 7. The Affiant/defendant incorporates by reference his previous pleadings in this Court,

specifically, his Emergency Motion for Stay of Trial Court's Order and Defendants Response to Motion by Plaintiff, A Person Entitled to Enforce Note Pursuant to IC 26-1-3.1-301, for Summary and Default Judgment Entry and Decree of Foreclosure, filed March 28, 2012,

and attached exhibits, all of which placed before the Court a portion of the evidence and information supporting Affiants arguments and allegations of Plaintiffs lack of standing, the Courts lack of jurisdiction to hear this particular case, as well as Plaintiffs perjured affidavit, evidence fabrication and fraud upon the Court. This deceptive behavior has been compounded by the unwitting complicity of the Court, which has become entangled the deceptions, the violations of Indiana Code, and the violations of Affiant/defendants constitutional rights of due process of law and equal protection under the law. 8. The jurisdictional question can be raised at any time and cannot be waived. Parkview

Hosp., Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 977 N.E.2d 369, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). trans. denied. 9. While it is undisputed that the Court had jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the

case at bar belongs, the Affiant/defendant avers that this Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter in this particular case if the Plaintiff is not the real party in interest. [T]he objection that there is no jurisdiction of the subject-matter may be interposed at any time. McCoy v. Able (1892), 131 Ind. 417, 30 N.E. 528. 10. Conversely, [f]or some time, Indiana has adhered to the rule that the judgment of a

court having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and the person, however irregular, is not void and not impeachable, unless it may for fraud. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 541-42 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Mishler v County of Elkhart, 544 N.E.2d 149,151 (Ind. 1989). 11. A void judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of confirmation or

ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N. E. 2d 1114, rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 dist. 1993). Void judgment is one that from its inception is a complete nullity and without legal effect Stidham V. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998). 12. Despite the fact that at the time of commencement of the above captioned cause, the

Plaintiff was not able to produce a note with either a special endorsement or endorsed in blank raises a prima facie question of standing to commence the action on August 30, 2010, the Affiant/defendant Plaintiff could not have acquired possession of the subject note from a MERS as nominee for Home Loan Center, Inc., d/b/a Lending Tree, because the last owner of the mortgage loan was Countrywide Home Loans, Inc and the assignment of mortgage alleged to have transferred it was fraudulent and perjured document. 13. Under existing law there is really only one way to attack a judgment on grounds of

fraud on the court; namely, an independent action pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B). See, e.g., Global Travel Agency, 727 N.E.2d at 1103-04; Glover v. Torrence, 723 N.E.2d 924, 932 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); In re Marriage of M.E., 622 N.E.2d 578, 581 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993); In re Paternity of Tompkins, 518 N.E.2d at 504. Violations of Indiana Code 14. Danielle, Abenes, both as an officer of BOA and signatory on the Assignment of

Mortgage, commits the crime of counterfeiting, violating IC 35-43-5-2(a)(1)(D), where (under version A of the law) she makes or utters a written instrument which purports to be by authority of one who did not give authority., a Class D felony (Level 6 felony) and IC 35-435-3(a)(2), Deception, when being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institutionknowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property a Class A misdemeanor. 15. Thaddeus Larimer, as default Hearing Manager of Specialized Loan Servicing,

LLC, committed perjury in furnishing the Court with a sworn, false affidavit in support of the Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Judgment Entry And Decree of Foreclosure, violating IC 35-44-2-1: Perjury a class D felony (Level 6 felony).

16.

The subject assignment of mortgage signed and executed by Danielle The law firm of

Feiwell & Hannoy P C, in Indianapolis, Indiana, and attorney Susan M. Woolley of Feiwell & Hannoy colluded to generate a fraudulent assignment of mortgage to make it appear as though the Plaintiff (E*Trade) had standing to foreclose on the subject property. E*Trade Never Had Standing to Foreclose 17. Standing is a fundamental, threshold, constitutional issue that must be addressed by

this, or any, court to determine if it should exercise jurisdiction in the particular case before it. Alexander v. PSB Lending Corp., 800 N.E.2d 984, 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). 18. The Court and the Affiant/defendant were not fully aware to the extent that Danielle

Abenes could not possibly be an officer or employee of MERS as she claimed in her assignment of mortgage. Or, that BOA had an internal policy to separate and insulate itself from Countrywide mortgage loans and to the extent that in order to insulate BOA from the Countrywide mortgage loans, they would collude with the Plaintiff and their counsel Feiwell & Hannoy to fraudulently advance this foreclosure action. 19. E*Trade, knowingly stood on a fraudulent document to maintain the appearance of

standing in the subject foreclosure action. Without valid proof of an assignment to substantiate their cause of action they lacked standing in the subject foreclosure proceedings. It is clear that the law firm of Feiwell & Hannoy P C and Susan M. Woolley, along with BOA and Danielle Abenes, are guilty of extrinsic fraud in that they colluded to generate a fraudulent assignment of mortgage to make it appear as though the Plaintiff (E*Trade) had standing to foreclose on the subject property. 20. The issue of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper one to

invoke the courts power. Scott v. Randle, 736 N.E.2d 308 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The standing

requirement assures that litigation will be actively and vigorously contested, as plaintiffs must demonstrate a personal stake in the litigations outcome in addition to showing that they have sustained, or are in immediate danger of sustaining, a direct injury as a result of the defendants conduct. Id. To establish standing, therefore, a plaintiff must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and that the injury is a result of the defendants conduct. Hibler v. Conseco, Inc., 744 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). If properly challenged, when a plaintiff fails to establish standing in the pleadings, the court must dismiss the complaint. Schulz v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1041 [(Ind. Ct. App. 2000)].Id. 21. Because there are material, factual and legal issues as to the subject matter and in

persona jurisdiction under Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, TR 17(A)(2) and TR 12(B) (1) (2) (6) and (7), due to lack of Ratification of Commencement by the Real Parties in Interest that needs to be addressed by this Court sua sponte as a threshold issue under Section 12 of the Article 1 Sec. 12 of the Indiana Constitution, and as such, this Court should vacate its Judgment. 22. The primary averment here is that the mortgage assignment was fraudulently executed

to mislead and burden the state court and the Affiant/defendant and thereby achieve an objective of foreclosure judgment without standing. BOA Acquired Countrywide and Created Shell Entities to Evade Liabilities 23. In 2006, the Affiant initially contacted Lending Tree Loans and applied for a home

equity line of credit. But, Lending Tree, being only a loan aggregator had to immediately sell, assign or transfer, etc, the Affiants home equity loan to Countrywide Home Loans, because the Affiant then shortly thereafter received a checkbook from Countrywide to draw on the funds by and through Bank of New York (now Bank of New York Mellon) who was acting as

trustee for 530 Countrywide securitization trusts. (See copy of a Countrywide check provided to Affiant/defendant) 24. Affiant recently discovered that BAC first announced its plans to purchase

Countrywide, however, and increasingly thereafter, Countrywides contingent liabilities were mounting, with regulators, investors, shareholders, and insurers all alleging that Countrywide had engaged in fraud and imprudent underwriting. Cognizant of these liabilities, BAC

engaged in a series of transactions in an attempt to evade liability for Countrywides fraud and other misconduct while acquiring its valuable assets and business operations. 25. Specifically, BAC set out to acquire control over Countrywide Financial Corporation

and its subsidiaries, strip those companies of all their valuable assets and business operations, while at the same time, distancing itself from toxic assets (non-performing loans), leaving shell entities behind to act as protective filters for Countrywides mounting contingent liabilities from what it called its most toxic assets, or those assets 26. The so-called toxic assets related to Countrywide include knowingly selling vast

quantities of fraudulent mortgages in order to securitize them and sell them to unwitting investors or where Countrywide on illegal securitization where notes and mortgages were never delivered to the trust that issued the securities. 27. The Affiant/defendant hereby avers that in furtherance of BOAs plans to distance and

insulate itself from toxic Countrywide assets BOA colluded to generate a fraudulent assignments of mortgage to fabricate ownership of Affiants mortgage as part and parcel of its scheme to evade liabilities involving Countrywide mortgages, such as Affiants. 28. Unbeknownst to the Affiant, BOA did away with the Countrywide brand in 2008. On

the above referenced date the Affiant discovered a press release on BOA website dated April

27, 2009. In that press release BOA officially announced that after acquiring Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. on July 01, 2008, they are now launching BOA Home Loans brand, and also officially retired the Countrywide brand. (See BOA press release/article, dated Monday, April 27, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit A) (source:http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-release/countrywide/bank-americaresponds-consumer-desire-increased-transparency-home-loan-pro BOA Fraud Through MERS 29. When the Plaintiff filed the above captioned complaint on the Affiant, based on the

assignments produced by the Plaintiff in their summary judgment proceedings, BOA/Countrywide was the last owner of Affiants mortgage and thus the only entity capable of assigning his mortgage to the Plaintiff, not Lending Tree Loans. This was recognized and agreed on by both the Court and the Plaintiff at the hearing on Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment conducted in July of 2012. 30. Clearly, based on the paper trail offered up by the Plaintiff and defendant,

Countrywide succeeded Lending Tree as early as 2006. But, BOA, the Countrywide successor in interest, deemed it necessary to document the transfer of ownership of Affiants mortgage with a fraudulent document reciting false job titles and a phony assignor to give the appearance of standing. 31. Affiants mortgage (Line of Credit) Lending Tree originally named the Mortgage

Electronic Registration System Inc, (MERS) solely as nominee for Home Loan Center Inc., d/b/a/ Lending Tree. MERS is a privately-held company that operates a national electronic registry to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans in the United States. The MERS system purportedly operates as follows:
When a home is purchased, the lender obtains from the borrower a promissory note and a

mortgage instrument naming MERS as the mortgagee (as nominee for the lender and its successors and assigns). In the mortgage, the borrower assigns his right, title, and interest in the property to MERS, and the mortgage instrument is then recorded in the local land records with MERS as the named mortgagee. When the promissory note is sold (and possibly re-sold) in the secondary mortgage market, the MERS database tracks that transfer. As long as the parties involved in the sale are MERS members [as are most large financial institutions], MERS remains the mortgagee of record thereby avoiding recording and other transfer fees that are otherwise associated with the sale) and continues to act as an agent for the new owner of the promissory note.

In re MERS Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1370 n.6 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2009) 32. The fact that MERS is supposed to keep a close track on mortgage loan transfers is

confirmed by R.K. Arnold, President of MERS is to eliminate what he calls unnecessary assignments and track mortgage loans. (See copy of relevant portion of video deposition of R.K. Arnorld, given on September 25, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B). 33. However, the fact is that MERS was created in 1995 to enable the mortgage industry

to avoid state recording fees, allow for the rapid sale and securitization of mortgages, and shorten the time it takes to pursue foreclosure actions. Its corporate shareholders include, among others, BOA, Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. 34. When the Plaintiff initially filed their Complaint they attached a fraudulent

Assignment of Mortgage, seemingly executed by MERS employee, Danielle Abenes, allegedly acting as nominee for Home Loan Center, Inc., d/b/a/ Lending Tree Loans. 35. However, according to William Hultman, Senior Vice President of MERS, not only

are there no salaried employees at MERS, they have no employees at all. (See relevant portions of deposition given by William Hultman, dated April 07, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit C). 36. In fact, Danielle Abenes is really an assistant vice president with BOA (MERS

Shareholder), with a direct office phone number 336-333-7242 at the headquarters of BOA,

located at the Triad Center, 4161 Piedmont Pkwy, Greensboro, N.C., 27140, in Guilford County, North Carolina. The same county in North Carolina that appears in the notarys verification on the subject Assignment of Mortgage attached to the Complaint by the Plaintiff. 37. Moreover, BOA employee, Ms. Danielle Abenes, has been working at BOA since at

least October 01, 2009, because a document entitled Authority to Cancel is recorded with the Chancery Clerk, Desoto County, Mississippi. See copy of Authority to Cancel executed by Ms. Abenes, identifying her a an assistant vice president of BOA, attached hereto as Exhibit D 38. The banking industry created a private registry of mortgages that offers homeowners

little accountability, slashes millions of dollars from county revenue, and skates over hundreds of years of state property laws. 39. The entire MERS fraudulent artifice is designed to enable a person like Ms. Abenes to

enter into one or more agreements for signing authority which purports to allow employees of Servicing Agents and foreclosure mill law firms like Plaintiffs counsel Feiwell & Hannoy to prepare and execute fraudulent mortgage assignments with false job titles in which the assignor and assignee are not possessed of the capacity stated, and of which the person executing the document(s) has no knowledge. MERS Named as Nominee for Lender Indicates Intent to Securitize Mortgage Loan 40. The Affiant/defendant also recently learned that the very presence of MERS indicated

that the Affiants loan was certainly bundled with a group of mortgage and securitized, and that neither Countrywide/BOA ever had a beneficial interest in Affiants mortgage after it was securitized in 2006. 41. To put it more clearly, in an Opinion and Order issued by John R. Jolly, Jr., Chief

Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases, in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court of State of North Carolina, Judge Jolly, Jr., stated: [I]t appears that MERS exists to facilitate the creation and maintenance of mortgagebacked securities. The creation of mortgage-backed securities requires the acquisition and repackaging of groups of mortgages. The conversion of groups of mortgages into marketable securities requires that the beneficial interest in a mortgage, along with servicing rights, be rapidly transferred through multiple parties. Put simply, underlying mortgages must be assigned through a chain of parties ultimately to become securitized. 42. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Affiants loan was certainly bundled with a group

of mortgage and securitized, and that neither Countrywide/BOA ever had a beneficial interest in Affiants mortgage after it was securitized in 2006. (It will be demonstrated below, Countrywide was in the business of fraudulently marketing non-mortgage backed securities as mortgage backed securities). 43. In any event, the proceeds of Affiant/defendants home equity line was supplied, by

and through the Bank of New York, the trustee for hundreds of securitized trust traceable back to Countrywide purchased mortgage loans; Thus, the only entity that could directly assign the mortgage to the Plaintiff would be the trustee of the securitized trust to which the Affiants mortgage loan was supposedly transferred during the process of securitization his mortgage. BOA Motivation for Forging the Defendants Assignment of Mortgage 44. After BOA acquired Countrywide in 2008 and was actively and earnestly involved in

stripping the assets from Countrywides productive mortgage loans, BOA knew when foreclosing on defaulting Countrywide mortgages there was a problem with the chain of ownership. BOA discovered that many of the loan assets they acquired were not only subprime loans mislabeled as prime, but they also were notoriously defective due to

Countrywides routine practice of failing to transfers loan documents to the securitization trusts. 45. In October, 2010, at the time the defendants mortgage was fraudulently recited by

BOA employee Danielle Abenes, BOA was defending against a vigorous challenge regarding the right of the Bank of New York, as trustee for Countrywide securitization trusts, to foreclose on Countrywide mortgages when the loan documents had not been properly transferred. 1 46. In the case of Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Kemp) 440 B.R. 624

(Bnkr. D. N.J. (2010), filed in May, 2008, on a note made out to Countrywide and MERS named as nominee for the lender, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the Kemp loan was allegedly pooled and securitized, naming the Bank of New York as the trustee the same bank that provided the funds for the Affiant/defendants home equity loan. Countrywide Never transferred Mortgage Documents to Securitization Trusts 47. However, the Affiant only recently discovered that in the Kemp case there was

testimony that revealed that, endorsements were not only fraudulently prepared in anticipation of the litigation, they were signed several weeks before the trial. 48. Linda DeMartini, a supervisor and operational team leader for the Litigation

Management Department for BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. testified that endorsements were fabricated in anticipation of litigation and further that it was customary for Countrywide to improperly maintain possession of the original note and related loan documents. (See copy of Opinion, In re Kemp) 440 B.R. 624 (Bnkr. D. N.J. (2010), page 6-8, attached hereto as Exhibit E)

49.

This meant that not only was Countrywide fraudulently marketing securities as

mortgage backed securities, but that neither Countrywide or BOA could foreclose on loans under the name of the trustee, the Bank of New York. The very entity upon which the defendant was drawing upon for his home equity funds. 50. BOA acquired Countrywide only two (2) months after the Kemp bankruptcy

petition was filed and final disposition was in November, 2010; thus, BOA carried out this fraudulent fabrication involving the Plaintiff at the same time it was fabricating documents in the above captioned case. In an attempt to the problem stemming from Countrywides fraudulent and illegal securitization practices, BOA set up a litigation and foreclosure division to apparently fabricate documents in order to give foreclosing entities the appearance of standing to foreclose mortgages involving numerous socalled toxic Countrywide assets.
51. Since BOA/Countrywide routinely never passed on the mortgage loan documents they

did not issue mortgage back securities at all, they in fact, perpetrated a fraud, by issuing nonmortgage backed securities, making the Affiant/defendant and others, an unwitting, third party to a fraudulent and illegal investment contracts and thereby clouding titles to borrowers property. The Plaintiffs Unclean Hands 52. At the outset of this case, the Plaintiff has proceeded in bad faith and colluded with

BOA to engage in extrinsic fraud on this Court to maintain the appearance of standing. This should give this Court pause to consider these circumstances and the case be dismissed on the basis of unclean hands alone. This is no mere oversight or mistake. 53. The Plaintiff knew they were not the real party in interest with standing to foreclose

because the assignment of mortgage came from Lending Tree Home Loans, Inc.

54.

The doctrine of unclean hands requires that he who seeks equity . . . come into court

with clean hands and closes the door of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief, however improper may have been the behavior of the defendant. Id. (quoting ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 330 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring)). Almost any kind of conduct the [court] may consider to be unethical or improper might suffice to bar the plaintiffs claim, even if the conduct is not actually illegal. Id. at 34748 (quoting 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies 2.4(2) (2d ed. 1993)). 55. Plaintiff filed the above captioned Complaint and attached a note made out to Home

Loan Center, Inc., d/b/a/ Lending Tree Loans. The Plaintiff then colluded with BOA and fabricated an assignment of mortgage to cover up a fraudulent investment contract. 56. The Plaintiff effectively admitted to this Court July 19, 2012, that they agreed that the

assignment of mortgage named the wrong party, and that that party making the assignment should be Countrywide (BOA) and not Lending Tree. 57. Therefore, this Court should not grant relief to the Plaintiff if they have acted in an

unethical manner in relation to the subject matter of this cause. If the Plaintiff has engaged in extrinsic fraud and has unclean hands this Courts judgment should be declared void and the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. 58. The relevant facts of the defendants case are quite simple. The defendant Kenneth D.

Hunter executed a note and mortgage in favor of Home Loan Center, Inc., d/b/a Lending Tree and Lending Tree sold the subject mortgage loan to Countrywide entities and the Plaintiff colluded with Countrywide successor in interest BOA, to mislead the Court with fraudulent documents to maintain the appearance of standing.

CONCLUSION 59. Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the Affiant/defendant pray that this Court grant the

affiant/defendants Motion to Vacate Judgment and for all other relief defendant proves himself to be entitled. Verification I, Kenneth Hunter, am a party to this above captioned action, and I have read the foregoing Verified Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(B)(3) and know its contents. The matters stated in said motion are true based on my own knowledge, information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Indiana that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September______, 2013 as Franklin, Indiana Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Kenneth Hunter, Pro Se 1413 S. Center Ln., Franklin, Indiana, 46131 (317) 736-4847

ORDER
The Court being duly advised, denies / grants the Motion to Vacate Void Judgment. The Court hereby orders: (___) defendants motion set for hearing / (___) said judgment vacated and this matter set for contested hearing on _______________________, 20____, at ________.m. Date: __________________________ ____________________________________ David Riggins, Special Judge Johnson Superior Court No. 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this _______ day of ___________________, 2013, by mailing same to: BRYAN K. REDMOND c/o FEIWELL & HANNOY, P.C. 251 N. Illinois Street, Suite 1700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 -1944 __________________________ Kenneth Hunter 1413 S. Center Ln., Franklin, Indiana, 46131 (317) 736-4847