STATE BAR OF GEORGIA

GRIEVANCE
CONFIDENTIAL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK ONLY
DO NOT ALTER THIS FORM

YOUR NAME: Deidra and Jesse Hooper, Jr.

MAILING ADDRESS: 12550 Bethany Road Alpharetta GA 30004

Street or P.O. Box City State Zip

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]; [email protected]

YOUR PHONE NUMBERS: (H/CELL) 470.318.0507 (W) 770.882.1128

NAME OF THE ATTORNEY: Matthew F. Totten - Georgia Bar No. 798589

Fill out a separate form for each attorney. Do not list law firms.

ADDRESS OF THE ATTORNEY: N/A

DATE OF FIRST CONTACT WITH ATTORNEY: May 25, 2018 DATE OF LAST CONTACT WITH ATTORNEY: September 19, 2022

DOES THIS ATTORNEY CURRENTLY REPRESENT YOU? YES  NO  WAS THIS YOUR ATTORNEY? YES  NO 

IS YOUR CASE: CRIMINAL  CIVIL  CASE # 2017CV294971

COUNTY: Fulton OR FEDERAL DISTRCIT: NORTHERN  MIDDLE  SOUTHERN 

CLEARLY DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT AND ATTACH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

Matthew F. Totten ("Totten") violated Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in "professional conduct

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentations" and racketeering activity in violation of the RICO Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1957).

Totten was retained by the Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (the "Enterprise") to represent Deidra Hooper, (the "Complainant")

for her defective-title insurance claim. Instead, he colluded with the Enterprise by participating in a fictitious lawsuit (the "Lawsuit") drafted

by the opposing party's law firm, Neel, Robinson and Stafford ("NRS")—also hired by the Enterprise—to commit Residential Mortgage

Fraud for the Enterprise's preferred client, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings, LLC ("MS"). As counsel, he conspired with the

Enterprise and NRS by lying to the Complainant about the Lawsuit's ability to cure her title-defect, in order to gain her consent to the

unlawful relief sought by the opposition. When the Complainant objected, Totten withdrew as counsel as instructed by the Enterprise,

leaving the Hoopers without legal representation for their title insurance claim. See attached detailed complaint and its exhibits.

If more space is needed, please attach other pages. Please do not write on the back.

Return to: State Bar of Georgia “I affirm that I have read and understand the information and instructions.
Office of the General Counsel The information I have provided here is true to the best of my knowledge.”
104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100 SIGNATURE:
Atlanta, GA 30303 DATE:

OPTIONAL: PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF SOMEONE WE CAN CONTACT IF WE HAVE
DIFFICULTY CONTACTING YOU.

NAME OF CONTACT PERSON:

PHONE NUMBERS OF CONTACT PERSON: (H) (CELL)

Revised 07.02.2020
 STATE BAR OF GEORGIA

DEIDRA and JESSE HOOPER )

)
v. )
)
MATTHEW F. TOTTEN )
)

COMPLAINT

1. This is a complaint against Matthew F. Totten (“Totten”), Georgia Bar No.: 798589.

2. Totten is licensed to practice law in Georgia and is a lawyer subject to disciplinary authority of

this jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

3. On May 9, 2005, builder/seller Nema Homes, LLC (“Nema”) secured a loan from the Piedmont

Bank of Georgia (“Piedmont”), part of which was used to purchase, improve and sell the Property

(the “Property”) to Deidra and Jesse Hooper (the “Complainants”) 1.

4. The title defect occurred on the closing date, December 23, 2008, when Complainants purchased

the Property from Nema. This and all subsequent conveyances were void as a nullity, as Nema

did not receive a clear, marketable title until January 10, 2019 2. A true and correct copy of the

Quitclaim Deed of Release is attached hereto and incorporated herein as ‘Exhibit A’.

5. Nema’s bank, the PrivateBank and Trust (formerly Piedmont, the “PrivateBank”) retained its

legal title to the Property.

1
Both the actual referenced loan for the Property and title insurance policy are solely in the name of Deidra
Hooper, but as Joint Tenants and Respondents in the Lawsuit, both Deida and Jesse Hooper are being used
interchangeably throughout Complaint.
2
“One cannot transfer or convey an interest in real Property greater than he has”. See Lionhart v. Fowler and
Clarence L. Martin P.C. v. Wallace, 248 Ga. App. 284, 288(1), 546 S.E. 2d 55 (2001).
 6. Due to Nema’s default on PrivateBank’s superior lien 3, on March 1, 2011, the PrivateBank

foreclosed 4 (the “Nema Foreclosure”) and sold the Property to its subsidiary, PB GA OREO.

7. This defect was the reason the Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (the “Enterprise”)

accepted coverage (Claim No. 577715) for Complainants’ putative lender, Morgan Stanley

Mortgage Capital Holdings, LLC (“MS”) and on its behalf hired the Neel, Robinson & Stafford

(“NRS”) law firm to draft the September 5, 2017, fictitious lawsuit (Petition for Equitable Relief,

Case No. 2017CV294971, (the “Lawsuit”)—wherein the true party-of-interest, MS, was illegally

substituted with the Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust as Owner

Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III (“WSFS”) and whereby Complainants

were summoned as a Respondent on October 12, 2017. A true and correct copy of the Petition for

Equitable Relief is attached hereto and incorporated herein as ‘Exhibit B’ 5.

8. Having been made aware of their lack of title by the Lawsuit, Complainants filed Claim No.

605821, for which the Enterprise accepted coverage on November 1, 2017.

9. Rather than curing the title-defect of the Complainants’ 2008 purchase, to its benefit, the

Enterprise’s Lawsuit fast-forwards to the 2011 Nema Foreclosure, wherein the Enterprise could

direct a cast of lead and supporting actors in a plot to deny the Complainants’ title claim and help

MS to commit residential mortgage fraud.

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

10. As an Associate Attorney of the Gilroy Bailey Trumbell, LLC Law Firm (“Gilroy”), Totten was

assigned by the Enterprise to represent Complainants in its fictitious Lawsuit.

3
Both the Private Bank and Trust and PB GA OREO were acquired by the Canadian Imperial Banc of
Commerce (“CIBC”), prior to the filing of the Enterprise Lawsuit.
4
There exists no announcement of the Private Bank and Trust’s foreclosure sale as required by Georgia law.
O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.
5
Exhibits have been omitted to reduce file size.
11. Totten lied to Complainants regarding the putative lender’s lack of standing. As a matter of real

Property law, the lender did not have a secure interest in the Property, as title had not been

conveyed to the Complainant.

12. Conspiring with the Enterprise, Totten deceived the Complainants and the Fulton County

Superior Court by withholding the identity of the true party-of-interest, MS.

13. In representing Complainants, Totten lied about their contractual obligation to cooperate with

their lender in addressing any title issues on their property. In fact, the Security Deed was never

vested of legal title, and had been extinguished, as was the reason for the Lawsuit. The same deed

was further void for the violation of the lender’s adherence to the terms of the deed. Both the

Complainants and the putative lender had title policies that covered title defects—independent of

each other.

14. On May 25, 2018, Totten set out to extort Complainants by leveraging their ‘consent’ against the

relief sought by the opposition as a condition necessary to cure their defective-title insurance

claim. True and correct copies of Totten’s misleading and extorsive email correspondences are

attached hereto and incorporated herein as ‘Exhibit C’

15. Totten refused to honor Complainants’ request to file Answers of ‘General Denial’ to Lawsuit

wherein Complainants have been prejudiced, thus demonstrating a greater concern for opposing

party and the insurer’s monetary interests.

16. Failing to gain consent to the relief sought in the Lawsuit for WSFS/MS, on June 11, 2018,

Totten conspired with the opposition’s counsel to ascertain whether they could “drop the

[Complainants] as unnecessary to obtain the requested relief. A true and correct copy of Totten’s

email to opposition counsel, Emilie Denmark, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as

‘Exhibit D’

17. Totten failed in his professional independence as a lawyer by colluding with and rendering legal

services for the insurer and opposition party as against the interests of the Complainants. Rule 5.4

(c).
18. On August 8, 2018, the Fulton County Superior Court granted Totten’s Motion to Withdraw as

Counsel for Deidra Hooper and Jessie [Jesse] Hooper Jr., leaving Complainants to resort to

defending the title, for which they were insured, pro se.

Conflicts of Interest

19. Totten violated rules regarding Conflicts of Interests Rule 1.8[1A] – “As a general principle, all

transaction between client and lawyer should be fair and reasonable to the client. The client

should be fully informed of the true nature of the lawyer’s interest or lack of interest in all aspects

of the transaction. In such transactions a review by independent counsel on behalf of the client is

often advisable”.

20. Totten actively participated in an agenda conflicting with the interest of the Complainants by

colluding with the Enterprise and opposing counsel to secure judgment against his clients. Rule

1.8[5] – “Because third-party payers frequently have interests that differ from those of the client,

including interests in minimizing the amount spent on the representation and in learning how the

representation is progressing, lawyers are prohibited from accepting or continuing such

representations unless the lawyer determines that there will be no interference with the lawyer’s

independent professional judgment and there is informed consent from the client”.

21. Totten never acted in his legal, independent capacity, but colluded with both the insurer and

opposing counsel to strategize the Complainant’s defeat. Rule 5.4(c) – “A lawyer shall not permit

a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to

direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services”.

Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation

22. Totten violated Rule 8.4 (a)(4) of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct that provides that a

lawyer shall not “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation”.
 23. Totten engaged in dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation by withholding the identity of the true

party of interest in the Lawsuit from both the Complainants and the Fulton County Superior

Court.

24. Totten misrepresented the status of WSFS as being lenders, having standing.

25. Ultimately, Totten lied to Complainants about the Lawsuit’s inability to cure their title-defect as

the outcome left all parties to the suit without title, but fraudulently gave the illusion of

conveyance to the opposition, thereby, aiding and abetting MS and the Enterprise to commit fraud

upon the court and Residential Mortgage Fraud.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to defending the Complainants, Totten lied about foundation of their title-defect by

deflecting from the fraudulent conveyance of 2008 and shifting the focus to the 2011 Nema

Foreclosure. As instructed by the Enterprise, he abandoned his professional independence as a lawyer

to limit the scope of his representation to coercing Complainants into consenting to the relief sought

by the opposition, to the prejudicial detriment of Residential Mortgage Fraud 6.

Clearly Matthew F. Totten is not fit to continue in his professional capacity under the rules as set

forth by the Georgia Bar. His actions insurmountably violate the Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct and rise to levels of RICO Violations. Totten, NRS, along with the Enterprise, having

scienter, constitute an ‘association-in-fact enterprise’ — “a group of persons associated together for a

common purpose of engaging in a racketeering course of conduct”. United States v. Turkette, 452

U.S. 576, 583 (1981). The germane provision of RICO makes it unlawful for a person employed by

or associated with an enterprise that affects interstate commerce to conduct or participate in the

conduct of the enterprise’s affair through a pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S. C. § 1962(c).

6
On August 16, 2022, the Complainants were grant a Writ of Possession by Fulton County State Court judge,
the Honorable Elizabeth Emmanuel, after the January 4, 2021, wrongful foreclosure, and sale of and
November 18, 2021, unlawful eviction from their Property.
WHEREFORE, the Complainants respectfully request the State Bar of Georgia to fully investigate

the facts and violations described in this complaint and that it duly, expeditiously, and properly

enforce the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
Deidra and Jesse Hooper Jr.
12550 Bethany Road
Alpharetta, GA 30004
 EXHIBIT
A

https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=73009286&key1=59601&key2=393&county=60&countyname=FULTON&userid=694917&ap… 1/2
https://search.gsccca.org/Imaging/HTML5Viewer.aspx?id=73009286&key1=59601&key2=393&county=60&countyname=FULTON&userid=694917&ap… 2/2
 012345ÿ741538ÿ91
 4ÿ7413
ÿÿÿ
ÿ!"#ÿ$%$!%ÿ&'
EXHIBIT ()*+,-,.,ÿ0123.41.5ÿ(-,67
B

89:;<=8>?>;:
EXHIBIT
C
you on this email.

Thanks,

Matthew Totten
Attorney

THE GILROY FIRM

3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Main Number: 770-518-5515
Direct Line: 678-317-0389
[email protected]
www.gilroyfirm.com

<image001.png>

Notice: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended
solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone number listed above and delete this message and all copies and backups
thereof. Thank you.

From: Matthew Totten

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:25 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc: Kristy J. Baker <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper

Ms. Hooper –

Hope all is well with you. As you are aware, our firm is representing you and your husband in
the course of the Wilmington Litigation, which you were previously discussing with Kelsea
(who is no longer with our firm).

After reviewing our file and Kelsea’s notes to catch up to speed, it is my understanding that you
and Mr. Hooper have agreed to consent to the relief sought by Wilmington to resolve any
questions about the priority of that particular security deed.

If this is correct, please either respond/confirm on the above, or alternatively feel free to give me
a call anytime today, at my below number, to discuss further.

Thanks in advance,

Matthew Totten
Attorney

THE GILROY FIRM

3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Main Number: 770-518-5515
Direct Line: 678-317-0389
[email protected]
www.gilroyfirm.com

<image001.png>

Notice: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended
solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone number listed above and delete this message and all copies and backups
Jesse Hooper

From: Matthew Totten <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:35 PM
To: Deidra Hooper
Cc: Jesse Hooper; Kristy J. Baker
Subject: RE: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper

Ms. Hooper –

After receiving a very hostile phone call from Mr. Hooper, I am going to try and address line by line your email. As I
stated earlier, I believe this is better discussed over the phone, as I can tell you are trying to understand the legal
implications of what Wilmington is proposing.

Mr. Hooper - as a general matter of professional practice, outside of a court hearing, I do not permit audio recording of
myself in the course of representing any client. I also did not appreciate your extreme hostility and name calling in your
phone call, which was wholly unwarranted.

Please see below comments.

Hello Matthew/Kristy,

I am sorry, but your understanding of our position is incorrect. You probably gathered that understanding from Kelsea's
notes because that is the direction that your firm was pushing, prior to the "Automatic Stay" due to my Chapter 13
bankruptcy. When I last spoke with a lawyer at your firm, I was told that our title insurance company represents
Wilmington as well. [the title insurance company issued separate title insurance policies to both the Hoopers and the
lender, with Wilmington as the successor/assignee to the original ender, at the time of your property acquisition] I was also
told that since the lawyers know each other it would easy to work with them since they the know each other and talk back
and forth all of the time [we are regularly on opposite sides in litigation with the law firm representing Wilmington]. In
addition, I was told that your firm would represent me regarding my title, however, would absolutely not represent us
regarding any opposition to Wilmington's petition for relief [that is generally correct – Fidelity can speak more specifically as
to any questions of what is and is not covered by your title insurance policy]. This is why I am a bit confused by this email,
as I’ve clearly discussed my position regarding this matter.

Please allow the following to be a clear statement of our (Deidra Hooper's and Jesse Hooper's) position regarding this
matter of agreeing to consent:

We do NOT consent to the relief sought by Wilmington to resolve any questions about the priority of that particular
security deed at 12550 Bethany Road, Alpharetta, Ga 30004. We have never agreed to consent to the relief sought by
Wilmington to resolve any questions about the priority of that particular security deed at 12550 Bethany Road,
Alpharetta, Ga 30004, which was the purpose for our contacting our title insurance company [please see the last sentence I
commented on. Also, please be aware that your original loan requires you to cooperate with the lender in addressing any
title issues on your property]. Wilmington has not acted in good faith on our behalf, as a mortgage company, as they
refused to pay the (escrow items) homeowner's insurance & taxes [this is not what Wilmington is litigating within the matter
we are representing you, and as discussed later in my comments, may be a matter for your bankruptcy attorney]. We've
have paid those items. Wilmington has, however, entered a claim in my Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and may be receiving
funds which, if so, should be returned to the Trustee, until this matter is settled [this is something that should be
handled/addressed by your bankruptcy attorney – this is not within the litigation we are handling, which is purely a title
matter].

I believe that both my lawyers and Wilmington lawyers want to do the right thing, therefore, I have listed my concerns
below and trust that you will advise me of my best course of action.

1
  1. Your email, asking if I agreed, was Wilmington’s attempt to bypass the courts to get a quick and dirty “yes”,
thereby making make good on a bad investment. [again, incorrect – Wilmington is represented by another law
firm. See also following comments below, as well as remember that your original loan requires you to cooperate
with the lender in addressing any title issues on your property]
2. Selling something that you don't own is illegal. Wilmington should seek relief from the "SELLER", in the form of
a refund, to correct this matter. [again, incorrect – the relief Wilmington is seeking is to unwind an improper
foreclosure by the developer’s bank, with the developer’s bank foreclosing over your ownership of the property.
By you not agreeing to Wilmington’s proposed relief, you are legally stopping yourselves, the Hoopers, from
owning/having legal title to the property and effectively arguing that the foreclosure should stand. Please call me
further to discuss what precisely is the relief Wilmington is seeking, and which I recommend consent to, as I
believe that is the primary basis of confusion here]
3. If Wilmington knowingly purchased my loan “AS IS” and is artfully trying to get me to sign something that
obligates me to pay them, that may/may not be illegal but it is certainly unethical. It would however, explain the
tone of their representative who initially contacted me trying, vigorously, to get me unnecessarily sign a new
agreement that would clearly change all of the terms to our detriment. [this sounds like a proposed loan
modification or something similar, which would be outside of the scope of this litigation – you should speak to
your bankruptcy attorney on this]
4. Lastly, I am concerned that Wilmington is much more important than the Hooper's are, to the Title Company,
thereby making fair representation impossible. [wholly incorrect – Fidelity retained our firm, as well as a separate
law firm for Wilmington, to separately represent and protect both of its respective insured’s rights. Another law
firm represents Wilmington in the litigation]

Please review and help me to understand to what end was your previous email, written? Can you confirm if my answer to
your inquiry, if positive, would have resulted in Wilmington being listed at the courthouse, as having 1st security rights? I
appreciate your email and look forward to your response. [Again, please call me further to discuss the relief Wilmington is
seeking – as stated above, the relief Wilmington is seeking is to unwind an improper foreclosure by the developer’s bank,
with the developer’s bank foreclosing over your ownership of the property. By you not agreeing to Wilmington’s proposed
relief, you are legally stopping yourselves, the Hoopers, from owning/having legal title to the property and effectively
arguing that the foreclosure should stand]

Sincerely,
Deidra Hooper

Matthew Totten
Attorney

THE GILROY FIRM

3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Main Number: 770-518-5515
Direct Line: 678-317-0389
[email protected]
www.gilroyfirm.com

Notice: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by the telephone number listed above and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.

2
Cc: Kristy J. Baker
Subject: RE: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper

Ms. Hooper –

Procedurally, what you are asking me to do is nonsensical. I am unsure what you do professionally, but it would be akin
to asking an auto mechanic to change the propeller on the car.

As I stated, the way to resolve this issue is by consenting to the relief sought by Wilmington, as the other parties have
defaulted. Please call me to discuss further.

Thanks

Matthew Totten
Attorney

THE GILROY FIRM

3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Main Number: 770-518-5515
Direct Line: 678-317-0389
[email protected]
www.gilroyfirm.com

Notice: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by the telephone number listed above and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.

From: Hooper, Deidra [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 2:43 PM
To: Matthew Totten <[email protected]>; 'Jesse Hooper' <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Cc: Kristy J. Baker <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper

Hello Matthew,

Thank you for reiterating…. With your extremely clear explanation, I know that our first order of business must be to
resolve the improper developer bank foreclosure and restored our title interest in OUR property. Since my title
insurance, covers this sort of mishap, please file a motion for relief on our ( The Hooper’s) behalf to remove the bogus
title. It should be extremely easy and the developer’s bank and the foreclosure purchaser should default on this
litigation as well, thereby giving us the clear title in “judgement by default”. By your explanation, since that is the only
thing blocking Wilmington, we should all be successful. Am I correct???

There is no need to do this via Wilmington, when I have you

3
From: Matthew Totten
To: Hooper, Deidra; "Jesse Hooper"
Cc: Kristy J. Baker; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 10:16:07 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image004.png
image005.png
RE Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper (138 KB).msg

Ms. Hooper –

I definitely understand being cautious after witnessing the foreclosure crisis and aftermath, particularly with a front
seat view to what happened to your neighbors/neighborhood.

As I described in my email yesterday, the issue being litigated is to unwind an improper foreclosure by the
neighborhood developer’s bank, with the developer’s bank foreclosing over your ownership of the property (and
Wilmington’s loan). Wilmington’s loan is the same loan you used to acquire/refinance your property. By you not
agreeing to Wilmington’s proposed relief, you are legally stopping yourselves, the Hoopers, from owning/having
legal title to the property and effectively arguing that the developer bank’s improper foreclosure should stand.

As stated in the attached email, and which I reiterate here, I recommend consenting to the relief sought by
Wilmington, as that will unwind the developer bank’s improper foreclosure and legally secure your title interest in
the property subject to the loan you used to acquire/refinance your property, now owned by Wilmington.

Thanks

Matthew Totten
Attorney

THE GILROY FIRM

3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Main Number: 770-518-5515
Direct Line: 678-317-0389
[email protected]
www.gilroyfirm.com

Notice: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely
for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination,
distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by the telephone number listed above and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.

From: Hooper, Deidra [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 9:49 PM
To: 'Jesse Hooper' <[email protected]>; Matthew Totten <[email protected]>
Cc: Kristy J. Baker <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper
 EXHIBIT

From: Matthew Totten

D
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: Kristy J. Baker; Monica Gilroy
Subject: RE: Hooper - Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Deidra Hooper et al
Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 4:45:11 PM
Attachments: image005.png
image007.png

Emilie –
 
Wanted to circle back with you regarding our 6/5 phone conversation on this file, where you stated
you would look into whether you would be able to drop the Hoopers as unnecessary parties to
obtain the requested relief, which we discussed in some detail. Do you have any updates on this
discussion point and whether you will be able to drop the Hoopers from the litigation?
 
If not, based on our separate discussion with Fidelity regarding the requested relief, we would
respectfully request a 45 day extension for the Hoopers to file an answer. Our calculation of the
answer deadline otherwise given the bankruptcy and MFR order is June 18th. If this is agreeable to
you, I will prepare a stipulation to this effect for your review.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Matthew Totten
Attorney
 
THE GILROY FIRM
3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA  30022
Main Number:  770-518-5515
Direct Line:  678-317-0389
[email protected]
www.gilroyfirm.com
 

 
Notice: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential
information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by the telephone number
listed above and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
 
 
 
From: Emilie Denmark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 3:21 PM
To: Monica Gilroy <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomiya Lewis <[email protected]>
Subject:
 
Hi, Monica.  I hope this e-mail finds you well.  I’m e-mailing you about Wilmington Savings Fund, FSB
v. Diedra Hooper and Jessie L. Hooper, Jr., Case No. 2017-CV-294971, Fulton County Superior Court. 
Your clients are the Hoopers.  We filed a petition seeking to reform title, and the Hoopers then filed
for bankruptcy.  In bankruptcy, I obtained an order granting relief from the bankruptcy stay.  Please
see the attached.  Thus, I’m now ready to proceed with obtaining an order reforming title to the
property. 
 
Jessica Rahm was the attorney handling this matter, but she’s no longer with the firm.  She informed
me that the Hoopers were willing to consent to the relief sought in the complaint and would sign a
Consent to that point.  Can you confirm that?  If that’s true, we’ll prepare a consent to submit to you
for consideration. 
 
It’s my understanding that, although the remaining defendants are in default in the reformation
action, the Hoopers want to pursue other remedies against those defendants even if the court
enters an order granting the relief sought in the petition and reforming title to the property. 
 
Thus, if your clients will sign a consent, we plan on filing a motion for default judgment
contemporaneously with the Hoopers’ consent in order to obtain a recordable judgment reforming
title, and then leaving your clients to seek their relief against the other defendants as they see fit. 
 
Please let me know if all of this conforms with what you know of this matter.  If you’d like to further
discuss or need other documents from us in order to review this matter, just let me know.  I look
forward to hearing back from you. 
 
Thanks!
 

 
               Emilie O. Denmark
               Glenridge Highlands One
               5555 Glenridge Connector
               Suite 400
               Atlanta, GA 30342
               Direct 404-705-7965
               Main 404-459-9600
               www.nrs.law
 

                    
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail and delete this message and
any attachments. An attorney client relationship cannot be created by this message or by any reply to this message. An
attorney client relationship can only be created by a signed engagement letter with this law firm.  Thank you.

Please also advise us immediately if you or your employer does not consent to receipt of Internet e-mail for confidential
messages of this kind.
 
DISCLAIMER
Pursuant to Circular 230 issued by the United States Treasury Department and relating to practice before the Internal
Revenue Service, any comment or opinion in this communication relating to a federal tax issue is not intended to be used, and
cannot be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.