DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SABRINA KOEHLER

Plaintiff )
) DOCKET NUMBER___________
)
vs. )
) LIS PENDENS
)
NEW AMERICAN FUNDING, DBA )
BROKERS SOLUTIONS, INC. )

MIDLAND MORTGAGE,
Defendants

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Notice is hereby given of the commencement and pendency of a suit

in the District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri entitled as above the

general object of which is to quiet title of the property owned by Sabrina

Koehler. described below against a Deed of Trust recorded within the office

of the recorder of deeds Jefferson County to Brokers Solutions, Inc., New

American Funding, and Midland Mortgage. It is recorded in Plat Book 158,

page 14 and instrument number 2020R-050032 and holds title to the subject

property recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds, Jefferson County

 Legal Description

Lot 73 of Northwest Point Plat Two, according to the Plat thereof

recorded in Plat Book 158, Page 14 of the Jefferson County Records.

Commonly known as 4023 Fawn Hollow Drive, House Springs, Missouri

The complaint in the above entitled action was filed in the District Court of

the Eastern District of Missouri.

____________________
SABRINA KOEHLER

Date_________________ (Notary)_________________________
 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SABRINA KOEHLER

)
Plaintiff )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
vs. ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
) FOR QUIET TITLE
)
)
NEW AMERICAN FUNDING, DBA )
BROKERS SOLUTIONS, INC. )
Docket Number____________
MIDLAND MORTGAGE,
Defendants

COMES NOW plaintiff Sabrina Koehler unmarried, acting in Pro se on

behalf of herself reside at 4023 Fawn Hollow Drive, House Springs, Missouri and

files this Verified Complaint and Action to Quiet Title.

PARTIES

The Plaintiff Sabrina Koehler resides in at 4023 Fawn Hollow Drive, House

Springs, Missouri, in Jefferson County Missouri.

1
 The Defendant, New American Funding, doing business as Brokers

Solutions, Inc, are mortgage brokers and are located at 14511 Myford Road, suite

100 Tustin, CA 92780

Defendant Midland Mortage is a division of Midfirst Bank is a mortgage

loan servicer and located at Midfirst Bank, (legal dept) 501 NW Grand Blvd,

Oklahoma City OK, 73118.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The transactions and events which are the subject matter of the Complaint

all occurred within the Jefferson County, State of Missouri. The subject property

giving rise to the lawsuit is known as 4023 Fawn Hollow Drive, House Springs,

Missouri. The Plaintiff resides at the Property, as their primary and sole

residence. The Legal Description for the Subject Property, in relevant part,

describes it as:

Lot 73 of Northwest Point Plat Two, according to the Plat thereof recorded in

Plat Book 158, Page 14 of the Jefferson County, Missouri Records.

2
 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. The Plaintiff purchased property located at 4023 Fawn Hollow Drive, House

Springs, Missouri, in Jefferson County Missouri on November 12, 2019. The amount of

the loan was $157,000.00. A copy of the Deed and original loan documents are

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. Plaintiff paid the loan as agreed. Plaintiff was not suffering financial hardship and

told Defendants that they did not need to defer the loan, refinance or do any loan

modification.

3. Defendants, Brokers Solutions, doing business as New American Funding on

November 17, 2020 filed a release of deed on loan 3000337494 which shows this loan

was paid in full, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. Defendants forged signatures on a Note and Deed of Trust second set of loan

documents which, according to their records was signed on on October 20, 2020 in the

amount of $154,614.00 dollars Copies of these loan documents are attached hereto as

Exhibit C.

5. Plaintiff alleges that the forged loan documents was prepared to allow the

Defendants to apply for federal funding related to the Covid 19 pandemic under the

Cares Act.

6. Plaintiff discovering the fraud contacted the police department and a police report

was made regarding the fraud. A copy of this report is hereto attached as Exhibit D.

3
7. Plaintiff logged into the Defendants New American funding website to check the

balance and found three separate loan applications listed. One showed the borrower as

Arthur Jennewein for the amount of $151,954.00, dated November 29, 2020. A

separate line shows another loan for the amount of $151,954.00, the borrower Sabrina

Koehler dated September 29, 2020, and another line for the amount of $154,303.00

dated November 4, 2019. A copy of the website showing these an documents are

attached hereto as Exhibit E.

8. Plaintiffs, fearing foreclosure paid on the “loan” even though they never agreed to

the loan's terms and conditions.

PAYMENT PROBLEMS

1. The monthly payment was $1,002.64. The payment should be applied as $270.60 to

principal, $380.42 for interest, and 351.62 for escrow.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent monthly mortgage statements that were

contradicting, inaccurate, confusing with unauthorized fees. A copy of the statements

showing payment history and a spreadsheet are attached hereto as Exhibit F.

2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not properly credit the payments when sent in

extra to principal.

3. See statement date April 28, 2021 it shows that the next payment is not due until

July, meaning the account was paid ahead by three months.

4. See statement dated May 17, 2022, there are fees charged to the Plaintiff for the

amount of $525.00 for Publication, $18.39 for mail, and $24.52 for mail.

5. See statement dated March 17, 2022 Plaintiff was charged for FC Title of $250.00

and $20.00 for an inspection. 4

9. See statement dated April 18, 2022. Plaintiff was charged for appraisal, $475.00,

FC attorneys fees, $412.50, FC Title $300.00, and FC title of $75.00.

10. See statement dated May 17, 2022 Plaintiff was charged publication $525.00,

mail, $18.39 and mail $24.52.

11. See statement dated June 17, Plaintiff was charged FC title cost $300.00 on

June 9, 2022, attorney fees $361.25 on June 14, 2022 even though the Plaintiff was

making payments.

12. The statement dated August 5, 2022 Plaintiff was charged for FC Title cost

$300.00, on June 28, 2022 and FC attorney fees, $1375.00 on June 29, 2022.

5
 Defendants violated both state and Federal Laws

Missouri law states the following:

§ 428.029.Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors. 1. A transfer made or obligation

incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer
was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the
obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer
or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent
as a result of the transfer or obligation. 2. A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as
to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made
to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the
insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.”

Chapter 443

§443.930.Prohibited acts — constitutes mortgage fraud — no private right of action

created. —1.It is unlawful for a person, in connection with the application for or
procurement of a loan secured by real estate to:(1) Employ a device, scheme, or artifice
to defraud;(2)Make an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material
fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in the light of the circumstances
under which it is made, not misleading;(3) Receive any portion of the purchase, sale, or
loan proceeds, or any other consideration paid or generated in connection with a real
estate closing that such person knew involved a violation of this section; or
(4)Influence, through extortion or bribery, the development, reporting, result, or review
of a real estate appraisal, except that this subsection does not prohibit a mortgage
lender, mortgage broker, mortgage banker, real estate licensee, or other person from
asking the appraiser to do one or more of the following:
(a)Consider additional property information;
(b)Provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser's value
conclusion; or(c)Correct errors in the appraisal report in compliance with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.2.Such acts shall be deemed to
constitute mortgage fraud.

6
 CAUSES OF ACTION

THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

Count One

Title 15 US Code §1692e

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits debt collectors from
using abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices to collect debts.
including: Misrepresenting the nature of the debt, including the amount owed.

1. The Defendants clearly violated §1692e, of the FDCPA by forging Plaintiffs

signatures on the loan applications, Deed of Trust, and Promissory Note.

2. Plaintiff asserts If these notes were to refinance there is no record of any money

received by the Plaintiffs, nothing on any of the forged loan documents state

“refinance”. Plaintiff had no reason to want to refinance the home.

3. The Defendants, thus by forging promissory notes with conflicting note ownership

do not have standing to enforce any of these notes which are void ab-initio.

Title 15 US Code §1692g

4. Defendants are considered debt collectors. The excessive fees were never

agreed upon. A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to

collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the

foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

7
(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense
incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized
by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.
(2) The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of a check or other
payment instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is
notified in writing of the debt collector's intent to deposit such check or instrument not
more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit.
(3) The solicitation by a debt collector of any postdated check or other postdated
payment instrument for the purpose of threatening or instituting criminal prosecution.
(4) Depositing or threatening to deposit any postdated check or other postdated
payment instrument prior to the date on such check or instrument.
(5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of
the true purpose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to,
collect telephone calls and telegram fees.
(6) Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or
disablement of property if --
(A) there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through
an enforceable security interest;
(B) there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or
(C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.
(7) Communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card.
(8) Using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector's address, on any
envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram,
except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate
that he is in the debt collection business.

8
 The False Claims Act

COUNT TWO

Defendants violated the False Claims Act which is a federal law that imposes liability on

persons and companies who defraud governmental programs such as FHA. It is the

main tool utilized by the federal government to combat fraud and an overwhelming

amount of these fraud claims are a result of actions initiated by whistleblowers. Part of

this act contains a “Qui Tam” provision that allows people with no government affiliation

file actions on the government’s behalf, referred to as whistleblowers). Individuals who

file Qui Tam actions are entitled to a percentage of the amount of money that is

recovered.

1. Plaintiff alleges that if Defendants received any government money from the CARES

ACT, it will be revealed during discovery.

9
 Fraud

Count Three

Fraud in the Factum is a type of fraud where misrepresentation causes one to enter a

transaction without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred. This

can be when the maker or drawer of a negotiable instrument, such as a promissory note

or check, is induced to sign the instrument without a reasonable opportunity to learn of

its fraudulent character or essential terms. Determination of whether an act constitutes

fraud in the factum depends upon consideration of"all relevant factors." Fraud in the

factum usually voids the instrument under state law and is a real defense against even

an holder in due course.

1. Because Plaintiff never agreed to refinance the loan and it was procured by

fraudulent terms the Defendants are guilty of committing fraud.

2. Plaintiff has employed an expert witness that can testify that the handwriting that

Defendants used to forge the loan documents are not authentic. They do not match the

Plaintiff's signatures.

10
 UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES

Count Four

Defendants are also guilty of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).

Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) in or

affecting commerce. Acts or practices may be found to be unfair when or if(l) they cause

or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) the injury cannot be

reasonably avoided by consumers, and (3) the injury is not outweighed by

countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. Public policy may also be

considered in determining whether acts or practices are unfair. Acts or practices may be

found to be deceptive if (I) there is a representation, omission, act, or practice that

misleads or is likely to mislead a consumer, (2) the act or practice would be deceptive

from the perspective of a reasonable consumer, and (3) the misleading representation,

omission, act, or practice is material.

1. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant's actions which caused significant harm.

The loan was considered deceptive, and the charges to the plaintiff were illegal and

unfair as well as unconscionable.

11
 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Count Five

29 U.S. Code § 1109 - Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the

responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by this sub-chapter shall

be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from

each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have

been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to

such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including

removal of such fiduciary.

1. A refinance will reset the loan's length of time and will not benefit the Plaintiff but will

end up paying more interest in the long term.

2. Plaintiff was incorrectly charged interest, the principal was not correctly credited and

remaining principal balance was also wrong.

12
 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALING

Count Six

In addition to the express terms of a contract, the law provides that every contract

contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This means that, even

though not specifically stated in the contract, it is implied or understood that each party

to the contract must act in good faith and deal fairly with the other party in performing or

enforcing the terms of the contract. To act in good faith and deal fairly, a party must act

in a way that is honest and faithful to the agreed purposes of the contract and consistent

with the reasonable expectations of the parties. A party must not act in bad faith,

dishonestly, or with improper motive to destroy or injure the right of the other party to

receive the benefits or reasonable expectations of the contract.

1. Plaintiff never agreed to getting a refinance which means Defendants violated the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The forged documents are proof that

Defendants acted in a dishonest manner.

13
 UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Count Seven

Unjust enrichment occurs when Party A confers a benefit upon Party B without Party A

receiving the proper restitution required by law. This typically occurs in a contractual

agreement when Party A fulfills his/her part of the agreement and Party B does not fulfill

his/her part of the agreement

1. Defendants were unjustly enriched by taking advantage of the Plaintiff. The

statements and spreadsheet shows just some of the harm done to them.

2. Plaintiff anticipates revealing additional amounts of unjust enrichment to be

determined during discovery.

14
 INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Count Eight

Defendant's actions fall under the term "Abusive Mortgage servicing". This occurs when

a servicer, either through action or inaction, obtains or attempts to obtain unwarranted

fees or other costs from borrowers, engages in unfair collection practices, or through its

own improper behavior or inaction causes borrowers to be more likely to go into default

or have their homes foreclosed.

1. Defendant's actions caused infliction of emotional harm to the Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress from the

constant threat of foreclosure by Defendants.

15
 FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

Count Nine

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is the primary federal law that governs the

collection and reporting of credit information about consumers. Its rules cover how a

consumer's credit information is obtained, how long it is kept, and how it is shared with

others—including consumers themselves. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are the two federal agencies

charged with overseeing and enforcing the provisions of the law. Many states also have

their own laws relating to credit reporting. The FCRA in its entirety can be found

in United States Code Title 15, Section 1681.1 The three major credit reporting bureaus

—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion—as well as other, more specialized companies,

collect and sell information on individual consumers' financial history. The information in

their reports is also used to compute consumers' credit scores, which can affect, for

example, the interest rate that they'll have to pay to borrow money or whether they can

qualify for a loan at all.

1. The credit score of the Plaintiff has suffered as a result of the Defendant's actions.

16
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows against all Defendants:

1. For an order quieting title to the subject property in the Plaintiffs favor.

2. For a judicial declaration that the Plaintiff is the full legal and beneficial owner of

the Property.

3. For a determination by the court that the attached Notes and Deed of Trust are

invalid.

4. Judgment against Defendants as jointly and severally liable for all issues in

excess of $1,000,000.00

5. For costs of suit; and attorneys fees

6. Actual and statutory damages for violations of the FDCPA pursuant to 15 USC

1692(k) and relevant Missouri law.

7. Rescission of the entire Deed of Trust and Note amounting to clear title to

property as a result of the aforementioned and

8. Damages for the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices and

9. Damages in the amount of three times the interest paid

10. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

________________ ___________________

Date SABRINA KOEHLER

17
 VERIFICATION

STATE OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

I have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE and know its

contents. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge

except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief and, as to those

matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of

the State of Missouri that the foregoing is true and correct.

_______________________

SABRINA KOEHLER

Dated_____________________
 Certificate Of Service

I hereby certify that I am over the age of 18 and I have sent via a certified

copy of this Verified Complaint to Quiet Title to the following Defendants:

New American Funding

4511 Myford Road, Tustin, CA 92780

Midfirst Bank, Midland Mortgage

501 NW Grand Blvd, Oklahoma City OK, 73118.

________________________

SABRINA KOEHLER

Dated_____________________