CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

District Court, Denver County, State of Colorado Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street, Room 256 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 720-865-7800 Plaintiffs: LINDA FAYE DONNA, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and JILL JONES, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. v. Defendants: CS LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a/ THE CASTLE LAW GROUP, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; ABSOLUTE POSTING & PROCESS SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; CAREN CASTLE, an individual; DEANNE STODDEN, an individual; LAWRENCE CASTLE, an individual; KATHLEEN BENTON, an individual; and RYAN O CONNEL, an individual. Plaintiffs Attorneys: ALLEN & VELLONE, P.C. Kevin D. Allen, (#8878) Patrick D. Vellone, (#15284) Matthew M. Wolf, (#33198) Shelley Thompson, (#39999) Tatiana G. Popacondria, (#42261) 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 534-4499 Fax: (303) 893-8332 kallen@allen-vellone.com pvellone@allen-vellone.com mmwolf@allen-vellone.com sthompson@allen-vellone.com tpopacondria@allen-vellone.com COURT USE ONLY Case No: Div: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND COME NOW Linda Faye Donna and Jill Jones (the Named Plaintiffs ), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through counsel, ALLEN & VELLONE, P.C., and for their Complaint against CS Legal Services, LLC, d/b/a The Castle Law Group, LLC, a 1

Colorado Limited Liability Company, Absolute Posting & Process Services, LLC, Caren Castle, Lawrence Castle, Kathleen Benton and Ryan O Connel (collectively Defendants ) allege as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c), venue is proper in this Court because Defendant CS Legal Services, LLC is a resident of Denver County, Colorado. 2. Pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, Article VI 9, this Court is vested with the subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this action. II. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Linda Faye Donna ( Plaintiff Donna ) is a resident of the state of Colorado and brings this action as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 4. Plaintiff Jill Jones ( Plaintiff Jones ) is a resident of the state of Colorado and brings this action individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 5. Defendant CS Legal Services, LLC, d/b/a The Castle Group, LLC, ( Castle ) is a Colorado limited liability company conducting business in the state of Colorado, with the principal business address of 999 18th Street, Suite 2301, Denver, CO 80202, United States. 6. Defendant Absolute Posting & Process Servicers, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company conducting business in the state of Colorado at the principal business address of 11990 Grant St., Ste. 110, Northglenn, Adams County, CO 80233 ( Absolute ). Upon information and belief, CMS Holdings/RP Holdings purchased a 40% interest in Absolute; the remainder is held by Kathleen Benton and Ryan O Connel, Castle s accountant. 7. Defendants Caren Castle and Deanne Stodden are individuals residing in the state of Colorado and, upon information and belief, are the managing partners of Castle. 8. Defendant Lawrence Castle is an individual residing in the state of Colorado and, upon information and belief, is of counsel at Castle. 9. Defendant Kathleen Benton is an individual residing in the state of Colorado and one of the owners of Absolute. 10. Defendant Ryan O Connel is an individual residing in the state of Colorado, an accountant at Castle, and one of the owners of Absolute. 2

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DEFENDANTS FORECLOSURE BILLING PRACTICES. 11. The Named Plaintiffs discovered the unlawful facts and allegations underlying the claims asserted in this Complaint in July/August of 2013, after the findings of the investigation conducted by the office of the Attorney General of the State of Colorado were made public. 12. Castle is the largest foreclosure firm in the state of Colorado and is, upon information and belief, a registered debt collector in the state of Colorado. 13. Mortgage servicers retain Castle and similar law firms to process foreclosures in Colorado. Castle and similar law firms are to receive, as payment for their services, reasonable attorneys fees which are usually simple flat-rate fees, which are, upon information and belief, is currently $1,225 per file. The attorneys fees include all services required to be performed under the state law to process and prosecute the foreclosure. 14. Mortgage servicers also pay Castle for its actual, reasonable, and necessary costs. Castle represents the truth and accuracy of its costs when it presents such costs for payment to the mortgage servicers. The costs for which Castle is paid include services such as posting notices, mailing notices of hearing, court filing costs, and title searches. 15. Mortgage servicers are reimbursed by the third-parties, e.g., homeowners who cure and reinstate and/or modify the loan, persons who purchase the property at auction, and the loan investors, for all amounts paid to Castle. 16. If the foreclosure sale is initiated, Castle represents the truth and accuracy of the foreclosure fees and costs in the bid statements submitted to the office of the public trustee on behalf of the lender and relied upon and considered by the purchasers in, inter alia, formulating a bid amount. 17. If the homeowner seeks to cure a default and reinstate the loan, Castle represents the truth and accuracy of the fees and costs on the cure statements submitted to the office of the public trustee and sent to the homeowners. 18. In order to cure any default, reinstate the loan through the public trustee, and keep their homes, the homeowners are required to pay all fees and costs enumerated in the cure statement submitted by Castle to the public trustee and then sent by the public trustee to the homeowners. 19. Castle thus represents its fees and costs to the general public, homeowners, public trustees, and potential purchasers, as actual, reasonable, and necessary costs and fees. As explained, supra, these costs and fees are ultimately borne by the public, not the mortgage servicer who employed Castle. 3

20. By way of a background, in Colorado, two notices have to be posted regarding foreclosure on the property a notice of a limited opportunity to defer foreclosure for 90 days (H.B. 09-1276) and a notice of the Rule 120 hearing (H.B. 10-1240 notice). The posting of these notices only requires a single visit to the property to tape the notice to the door. 21. Beginning at least in 2009 and continuing at least until 2013, the exact date being unknown to the Named Plaintiffs, Defendants agreed with each other, and with other persons and entities, to, inter alia: (a) take control of the market; (b) fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize at an artificially high level the price for posting of the foreclosure notices; and (c) make a profit from the costs associated with the posting of the foreclosure notices. 22. In furtherance of this scheme Defendants, inter alia: (a) agreed with each other and with other persons and entities, including the second largest foreclosure firm of Aronowitz & Mecklenburg, LLP, upon a price to be charged for posting of the foreclosure notices; (b) concealed and/or misrepresented the fact that the price of the service was highly inflated and was not actual, necessary, and reasonable; (c) represented the inflated price on the statements sent to the public trustee, the homeowners, and mortgage servicers; and (d) received payments from the unsuspecting parties and retained profits yielded by their scheme. 23. This scheme to mislead and defraud consumers evolved as follows: 24. Castle used its company CMS Holdings Group, LLC ( CMS Holdings ), which later changed its name to RP Holdings Group, LLC ( RP Holdings ), a company owned in part by one or more principals of Castle, to post foreclosure notices. On or about August 1, 2009, CM Holdings/RP Holdings purchased a 40% interest in Absolute, a company Castle then hired to post all of its foreclosure notices. 25. As the largest foreclosure firm in Colorado, Castle ensured profitability of the scheme by directing all of its postings to Absolute, who then charged the price of $125 per posting. This price was inflated significantly above Absolute s actual costs of $10 and the market rate of $25 charged by the process serving companies in Colorado unrelated to the foreclosure law firms for the same services. Absolute pays its process servicers only $10 per posting and has little overhead because it requires that its process servers pay for their own vehicle, gas, maintenance, and insurance. Absolute was able to charge the significantly inflated price of $125 per posting only because it did not need to compete in the free market as a result of its exclusive or near exclusive relationship with Castle. 26. Upon information and belief, Defendants together with other individuals and entities, including Aronowitz & Mecklenburg, LLP, agreed to and ultimately set the minimum amount of $125 to be charged by Absolute to Castle and by Castle to the public. 27. Upon information and belief, Castle, Caren Castle, Lawrence Castle, and/or Deanne Stodden, and together with other individuals and entities, including Aronowitz & 4

Mecklenburg, LLP, agreed to and persuaded the Colorado legislature to pass H.B. 10-1240, a bill requiring posting of the second foreclosure notice regarding a Rule 120 hearing. The bill went in effect on May 5, 2010. 28. Upon information and belief, between August 2009 and May 2010, as a result of Defendants efforts to defraud and mislead consumers, Absolute and its owners, including principals of Castle invested in Absolute, made approximately $2 million in profit from posting of the H.B. 09-1276 notices alone. Furthermore, after May 2009, additional profit of approximately $8 million was made from posting of both HB 09-1276 and HB 10-1240 notices. 29. Upon information and belief, nearly 150,000 foreclosures were filed in Colorado between 2009 and 2012 alone. Castle filed the most foreclosures in the state. Given the amount of foreclosures handled by Castle since 2009, most of which required two postings, the disparity between the actual costs and the represented and charged costs amounted to several millions of dollars. 30. Upon information and belief, discovery will reveal that Defendants also agreed and conspired to profit from other foreclosure costs, including but not limited to, attorneys fees and title work costs, and performed various overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. 31. All of the inflated and overstated costs were ultimately borne by the persons such as the Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. 32. Defendants actions described in this Complaint caused significant damages to the Named Plaintiffs and the Class. C. PLAINTIFF DONNA. 33. Plaintiff Donna is the owner of the property with the address of 20000 Mitchell Place # 83, Denver, CO 80249 (the Mitchell Place ). 34. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP was the purported qualified holder of the note and the alleged beneficiary of the deed of trust on Mitchell Place. 35. The cure statements received by Plaintiff Donna in January of 2010 from the public trustee s office contained foreclosure fees and costs itemized and represented by Castle that had to be paid in order to cure and reinstate the loan and thus save the home from foreclosure. Among these items were HB 1276 posting costs in the amount of $125, title work fees in the amount of $275, and attorneys fees. 36. The cure statements received by Plaintiff Donna on or about July 11, 2011, August 11, 2011, and August 25, 2011 from the public trustee s office contained foreclosure fees and costs itemized and represented by Castle that had to be paid in order to cure and reinstate the loan and thus save the home from foreclosure. Among these items were HB 1240 posting costs 5

in the amount of $125, HB 1276 posting costs in the amount of $125, title work costs in the amount of $275, and attorneys fees. 37. On or about September 3, 2011, Plaintiff Donna cured all of the defaults then outstanding and reinstated the loan by paying the full amount represented by Castle as due and payable. 38. Upon information and belief, Castle inflated and overstated the foreclosure costs and fees that were paid by Plaintiff Donna, including, but not limited to, posting costs. 39. Plaintiff Donna was damaged as a result of Castle s wrongful conduct relative to Mitchell Place. 40. Plaintiff Donna is also an owner of the property with the address of 10685 Nucla Court, Commerce City, Colorado 80022 ( Nucla Court ). 41. The cure statements received by Plaintiff Donna on or about October 26, 2012, November 9, 2012, July 19, 2013, and August 6, 2013 from the public trustee s office contained foreclosure fees and costs itemized and represented by Castle that had to be paid in order to cure and reinstate the loan and thus save the home from foreclosure. Among these items were HB 1276 posting costs in the amount of $125, title work fees in the amount of $275, and attorneys fees. 42. Upon information and belief, Castle inflated and overstated the foreclosure costs and fees that Plaintiff Donna is required to pay with respect to the Nucla Court property, including, but not limited to, posting costs. Castle is currently attempting to collect these inflated and overstated costs and fees. 43. Plaintiff Donna is currently liable for the inflated and overstated costs and fees associated with the Nucla Court foreclosure and, as such, has suffered damages. C. PLAINTIFF JONES. 44. Plaintiff Jones was the owner of the property with the address of 2918 East 110 th Drive, Northglenn, CO 80233 ( Jones Property ). 45. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for RALI 2006QA3, ( DBTCA ) was the purported qualified holder of the note and the alleged beneficiary of the deed of trust on Jones Property. 46. On or about June 17, 2010, Castle initiated a foreclosure action pursuant to Colo.R.Civ.P. 120 on behalf of DBTCA against the Jones Property. 6

47. Plaintiff Jones was not able to cure all defaults and reinstate the loan and the lender proceeded with the foreclosure sale. 48. On February 14, 2011, Castle submitted a bid to the public trustee on behalf of DBTCA to purchase the property for $118,781.40. The bid submitted to the public trustee s office contained foreclosure fees and costs itemized and represented by Castle including, but not limited to, posting costs in the amount of $250, title work costs in the amount of $935.00, other attorneys fees in the amount of $175, and statutory notice in the amount of $33.75. 49. Upon information and belief, Castle inflated and overstated the foreclosure costs and fees represented in the bid statement including, but not limited to, posting costs. 50. These inflated and overstated foreclosure costs were among the costs subtracted by the ultimate property purchaser in order to arrive at the bid amount offered to the public trustee. 51. NPH Real Estate, LLC purchased the Jones Property at the February 23, 2011 foreclosure sale for $118,782.40, creating deficiency liability of $47,111.87 for Plaintiff Jones, which liability includes Castle s inflated and overstated foreclosure costs and fees. 52. Plaintiff Jones was damaged as a result of Defendants actions. IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 53. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 54. Pursuant to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Named Plaintiffs bring this action and seek certification of the claims and issues in this action on behalf of a Class defined as follows: All persons in the state of Colorado who paid inflated and overstated real property foreclosure costs and fees represented by Castle to cure defaults and reinstate their loans, during the period extending from August 2009 through and to the filing date of this Complaint. All persons in the state of Colorado whose real property was foreclosed upon through the law firm of Castle, during the period extending from August 2009 through and to the filing date of this Complaint, which foreclosure included the overstated and inflated fees and costs. 55. The Named Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition if further investigation and discovery indicates that the foregoing definition should be narrowed, expanded, or otherwise modified. 7

56. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, and Defendants partners, employees, affiliates, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate family and judicial staff. 57. Defendants practices and omissions were applied uniformly to all members of the Class, including any subclass arising out of the claims alleged herein, so that the questions of law and fact are common to all members of the Class and any subclass. 58. All members of the Class and any subclass were and are similarly affected by the Defendants conduct described herein, and the relief sought herein is for the benefit of the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class and any subclass. 59. Based on the number of foreclosures filed by Defendant Castle between 2009 and present, it is apparent that the number of the aggrieved parties in both the Class and any subclass is so large as to make joinder impractical, if not impossible. 60. Questions of law and fact common to the Named Plaintiffs, the Class and any subclass exist that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including, inter alia: a. Whether Defendants practices and representations related to the foreclosure billing were unfair, deceptive and/or unlawful in any respect, thereby violating Colorado s Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-105, et. seq. b. Whether Defendants practices and representations related to foreclosure billing violated Colorado s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. 12-14-101, et. seq. c. Whether Defendants actions described herein violated Colorado s Antitrust Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-4-101, et. seq. d. Whether Defendants conduct as set forth herein injured persons residing in the state of Colorado and if so, the extent of the injury. e. Whether money was lost due to Defendants misrepresentations, omissions, and concealment of material facts. f. Whether Defendants are liable for negligent misrepresentation. g. Whether Defendants supplied false information to others. h. Whether defendants fraudulently concealed and/or misrepresented facts. 8

i. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class. j. Whether Defendants committed theft knowingly and/or with intent to permanently deprive the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their valuable property. k. Nature and amount of damages suffered by the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class. 61. The claims asserted by the Named Plaintiffs in this action are typical of the claims of the members of the Class and any subclass, as the claims arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants, and the relief sought within the class and any subclass is common to the members of each. 62. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class and any subclass. 63. The Named Plaintiffs retained counsel competent and experienced in commercial, consumer protection, and class action litigation. 64. Certification of this class action is appropriate under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because the questions of law or fact common to the representative members of the Class and any subclass predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members. This predominance makes class litigation superior to any other method available for a fair and efficient decree of the claims. 65. Absent a class action, it would be highly unlikely that the Named Plaintiffs or any other members of the Class or any subclass would be able to protect their own interest because the costs of litigation through individual lawsuits would greatly exceed expected recovery. 66. Certification is also appropriate because Defendants acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to both the Class and any subclass, thereby making appropriate the relief sought on behalf of the Class and any subclass as respective wholes. Further, given the large number of the aggrieved persons, allowing individual actions to proceed in lieu of a class action would run the risk of yielding inconsistent and conflicting adjudications. 67. A class action is a fair and appropriate method for the adjudication of the claims and issues alleged herein, in that it will permit a large number of claims to be resolved in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary hardship that would result from the prosecution of numerous individual actions and the duplication of discovery, effort, expense, and burden on the courts that individual actions would engender. 9

68. The benefits of proceeding as a class action, including providing a method for obtaining redress for claims that would not be practical to pursue individually, outweigh any difficulties that might be argued with regard to the management of this class action. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF COLORADO S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT COLO. REV. STAT. 6-1-105, et. seq. (Against Defendants Castle, Caren Castle, and Lawrence Castle) 69. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 70. Colorado s Consumer Protection Act is intended to deter and punish deceptive trade practices committed by businesses in dealing with the public. 71. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. 6-1-105(1)(l). 72. Defendants Castle, Caren Castle, and Lawrence Castle engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice by, inter alia, making false or misleading statements or omissions of material facts concerning the actual, reasonable, and necessary foreclosure costs and fees on the cure statements, bids, and invoices as described in this Complaint. 73. Defendants unfair or deceptive trade practices occurred in the course of Defendants foreclosure business, vocation, or occupation. 74. Defendants unfair or deceptive trade practices significantly impact the public as actual or potential consumers of the Defendants services. 75. The Named Plaintiffs and Class members suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest as described in this Complaint as a result of Defendants actions. 76. Where, as here, there is sufficient, common evidence of Defendants false or misleading statements or omissions of material facts, injury and causation elements may be inferred on a class-wide basis. 77. The Named Plaintiffs and Class members were damaged as a result of Defendants unfair or deceptive trade practice in the amount to be proven at trial. 10

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF COLORADO S FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT COLO. REV. STAT. 12-14-101, et. seq. (Against Defendant Castle) 78. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 79. Castle is a debt collector within the definition under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA ). 80. Castle violated the FDCPA by making false, deceptive and/or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt regarding the actual, necessary, and reasonable foreclosure costs on the cure statements, bids, and invoices as described in this Complaint. 81. Castle violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect and collecting inflated foreclosure costs and fees not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 82. The Named Plaintiffs and Class members were damaged as a result of Castle s conduct violating the FDCPA as described in this Complaint in the amount to be proven at trial. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF COLORADO S ANTITRUST ACT COLO. REV. STAT. 6-4-101, et. seq. (Against all Defendants) 83. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 84. The Colorado Antitrust Act (the CAA ) provides that every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal. CAA. 85. The Colorado Supreme Court has recognized that price fixing is prohibited by the 86. Defendants, in the course of their business, occupation, and/or vocation had agreed and conspired among each other to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize at an artificially high level the prices to be charged for the foreclosure notice posting costs. 87. Defendants engaged in one or more overt acts in furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, including, but not limited to: (a) agreeing on the price of the service; (b) representing 11

such price on the bids and cure statements sent to the public trustee and to the homeowners, and invoices; ( c) concealing and/or misrepresenting that the amounts stated were not reasonable, necessary and actual; (d ) collecting payments of such amounts; (e) receiving and keeping the profits yielded by the unlawful practice described in this Complaint; (f) using related entit ies owned and controlled in part by the same people who own and control Castle, for posting foreclosure notices and assistance with the scheme to inflate costs of such posting. 88. This unlawful conspiracy constitutes a per se violation of the CAA. Alternatively, conduct described herein violated the rule of reason analysis as the anticompetitive conduct clearly outweighs any pro-competitive justification. 89. The aforesaid combination and conspiracy had the following effects, including, but not limited to: (a) the costs borne by the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were fixed, raised, maintained and/or stabilized at an artificially high, supra-competitive levels and (b) the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were deprived of the benefits of free and open competition in foreclosure servicing industry. 90. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conspiracy alleged in this Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured as described above and damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Against Defendant Castle) 91. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 92. Castle negligently misrepresented or omitted/concealed material existing facts on the cure statements and bids, which they knew, or should have known, were false, to the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class. 93. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were ignorant of Castle s misrepresentations and/or concealment. 94. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class reasonably relied on, and had no reason or opportunity to question, the truth and accuracy of the cure statements and bids in that these documents were supplied by the office of the public trustee, which office received the documents from attorneys and officers of the court subject to the rules of ethics. 95. At the time Defendants made the representations and/or omissions/concealment described herein, Castle had no reasonable grounds to believe they were true. 12

96. Where, as here, there is sufficient, common evidence of misrepresentations or omissions of material facts across the entire class, reliance and ignorance elements may be inferred on a class-wide basis. 97. As a result of Castle s actions, the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were injured as described herein and damaged in the amount to be proven at trial. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD (Against Defendants Castle, Lawrence Castle, and Caren Castle) 98. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 99. As described herein, Defendants made false representations to the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class of the foreclosure costs and fees on the cure statements and bids. Defendants knew that their representations were false in that the foreclosure costs and fees represented were inflated and overstated. 100. The false representations made by Defendants were of material facts. If Defendants disclosed that the foreclosure costs were inflated, Plaintiff Donna and members of the Class she represent would not have paid the whole amount. If Defendants disclosed that the foreclosure costs were inflated, the foreclosure bids against Plaintiff Jones and members of the Class she represents would have been at greater values. 101. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were ignorant of the falsity of Defendants representations since the falsity was actively concealed from them. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class thus reasonably relied on, and had no reason or opportunity to question, the truth and accuracy of the cure statements and bids in that these documents were supplied by the office of the public trustee, which office received the documents from attorneys and officers of the court subject to the rules of ethics. 102. Defendants false representations were made with intent that they be acted upon. 103. Where, as here, there is sufficient, common evidence that Defendants fraudulently misrepresented material facts to the class members, reliance and ignorance elements may be inferred on a class-wide basis. 104. As a result of Defendants actions, the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were injured as described herein and damaged in the amount to be proven at trial. 13

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (Against Defendants Castle, Lawrence Castle, and Caren Castle) 105. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 106. Defendants Castle, Lawrence Castle, and Caren Castle concealed material existing facts described in this Complaint from the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class, including, but not limited to, the facts that (a) the costs and fees represented and charged were not reasonable, necessary and actual; (b) that the costs and fees represented and charged were inflated and overstated; (c) Defendants were receiving and keeping the profits yielded by the unlawful practice described in this Complaint; ( d) Defendants were using a related entity for posting foreclosure notices and assistance with the scheme to inflate costs of such posting; and (e) Defendants conspired to fix the price of the posting costs. 107. These facts were material to the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class and were ought to have been disclosed in equity and good conscience. 108. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were ignorant of Defendants fraudulent concealment. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class thus reasonably relied on, and had no reason or opportunity to question, the truth and accuracy of the cure statements and bids in that these documents were supplied by the office of the public trustee, which office received the documents from attorneys, officers of the law subject to the rules of ethics. 109. Defendants representations were made with intent that they be acted upon. 110. Where, as here, there is sufficient, common evidence that Defendants fraudulently concealed material facts from class members, reliance and ignorance elements may be inferred on a class-wide basis. 111. As a result of Defendants actions the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class were injured as described herein and damaged in the amount to be proven at trial. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND DISGORGEMENT OF PROFITS (Against all Defendants) 112. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 113. Defendants benefitted from their unlawful acts through the overpayment for the foreclosure services. It would be inequitable and unconscionable for Defendants to be permitted 14

to retain the benefits of these overpayments, which were conferred by the Named Plaintiffs and Class members and retained by Defendants. 114. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to have returned to each of them the amount of such overpayments as damages or restitution. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CIVIL THEFT COLO.REV.STAT. 18-4-401 & 18-4-405 (Against all Defendants) 115. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 116. This claim for relief is made pursuant to C.R.S. 18-4-405. 117. As described in the Complaint, Defendants knowingly obtained and exercised control over valuable property of the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class by deception and concealing of or misrepresenting material facts known to Defendants but not known to the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class. 118. Defendants acted with the intent to permanently deprive the Named Plaintiff and members of the Class of their valuable property. 119. Defendants knowingly used or concealed valuable property belonging to members of the Class and the Named Plaintiff. 120. The Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been damaged by Defendants theft in the amount to be determined at trial. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against all Defendants) 121. The Named Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding 122. Defendants, in the course of their business, occupation, and/or vocation had agreed and conspired with each other to accomplish a goal through unlawful means. The goal included, without limitation, taking control of the market, fixing the price of the service, and making a profit from the costs and fees associated with the foreclosure process, including posting costs, attorneys fees, and title fees. 15

123. One or more unlawful acts were performed to accomplish the goal, including without limitation: (a) agreeing on and fixing the price of the service; (b) representing such price on the bids and cure statements sent to the public trustee and to the homeowners, as well as invoices; (c) concealing and/or misrepresenting that the amounts stated were not reasonable, necessary and actual; (d) collecting payments of such amounts; (e) receiving and keeping the profits yielded by the unlawful practice described in this Complaint and concealing this fact; and (f) using a related entity for posting foreclosure notices and assistance with the scheme to inflate costs of such posting and concealed the same from all interested parties. 124. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy alleged in this Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured as described above in an amount to be determined at trial. V. JURY DEMAND The Named Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Named Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, request that the judgment be entered on their Complaint against Defendants and in favor of the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class on all claims for relief as follows: a. Awarding actual and compensatory damages in the amount to be determined at trial; b. Requiring Defendants to make full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the conduct described in the Complaint; c. Awarding damages under Colo.Rev.Stat. 18-4-405, 12-14-113(1), and 6-4-114(1) & (2); d. Awarding pre- and post-judgment and moratory interest, costs incurred and reasonable attorneys fees as authorized by law; and e. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED THIS 14th day of August, 2013. 16

Respectfully submitted, /s/patrick D. Vellone Kevin D. Allen, #8878 Patrick D. Vellone, #15284 Matthew M. Wolf, #33198 Shelley Thompson, # 39999 Tatiana G. Popacondria, # 42261 ALLEN & VELLONE, P.C. 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1100 Denver, Co 80202 Telephone: (303) 534-4499 PLAINTIFF DONNA S ADDRESS: P.O. Box 39064 Denver, CO 80239 PLAINTIFF JONES ADDRESS: 2801 E. 120th Avenue, #E307 Thornton, CO 80233 17