HomeMy WebLinkAbout949017Recording requested by and when recorded, mail to:
BRANDON T. BENTLEY
1716 EAST BURNING OAK DRIVE
DRAPER, UTAH 84020
RECEIVED 8/19/2009 at 3:33 PM
RECEIVING # 949017
ORIGINAL RECORD: BOOK: 730 PAGE: 234
Entry 5 JEANNE WAGNER
Book/Page ge # #702/670
Date Recorded: 8/20/08 LINCOLN COUNTY CLERK, KEMMERER, WY
ParcelTax/APN No. 100085200641042199
Legal Description: LOT 101 OF VALLI-VU GOLF VILLAS, AN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF AFTON, LINCOLN COUNTY
COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT
On 08/06/2009 and via the instrument entitled NOTICE OF FAULT, FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER was
given due NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND by BRANDON T. BENTLEY.
A consumer has the right to cancel and/or rescind any/ all contracts and any/all security interests appertaining
thereto as a result of fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
There is no statute of limitations on rescinding a contract for fraud as fraud vitiates all contracts. To date, FIRST
HORIZON HOME LENDER has never disclosed all the material facts' related to the transaction in question, nor
provided BRANDON T. BENTLEY with true, complete, accurate, and timely documentation of the same. The
record thus far evidences significant disclosure violations which, alone, sufficiently qualified BRANDON T.
BENTLEY to cancel the CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED referenced herein thereby allowing the
rescission, revocation, and renunciation of all signatures on said instrument making it null and void ab initio,
nunc pro tune.
Additionally, the purported CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED referenced herein was obtained and acquired
from BRANDON T. BENTLEY by wrongful acts of fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment, and fraudulent
misrepresentation, giving BRANDON T. BENTLEY absolute recourse, right, and cause of action under numerous
state and federal laws.' Therefore, based on the aforementioned discovery of facts proving that a fraud was
intentionally perpetrated upon BRANDON T. BENTLEY by FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER, it was
BRANDON T. BENTLEY 's duty to promptly, unconditionally, and invasively rescind said contract.'
Due to the fraudulent nature of the transaction in question, BRANDON T. BENTLEY had no obligation under
CONTRACT/NOTE and TRUST DEED appertaining thereto. Consequently, FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER
and any/all successors, assigns, beneficiaries, trustees, and/or substitutes, known or unknown, are NOT entitled
to remuneration or recourse from BRANDON T. BENTLEY with regards to the instant matter due to the fact that,
collectively and/or severally, said parties have realized compensatory consideration from said fraudulent
transaction through selling, trading, converting, hypothecating, and/or collateralizing said CONTRACT/NOTE
and TRUST DEED. Consequently, the CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED in question is thereby satisfied in
full.
As a result of the foregoing, the CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED in question is has been FULLY
CANCELED, and any security interest or lien appertaining thereto has been automatically voided and FIRST
HORIZON HOME LENDER et al., has agreed and acknowledged this fact by its silence.
I Where a relationship of trust and confidence bound in good faith exists between two parties, there is a duty to disclose all material facts.
Damages and actionable fraud exist when one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the misrepresentation and concealment
of others. State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155,135 Ariz. 480. (Ariz App. 1983); Leigh v. Loyd, 244 P.2d 356,74 Ariz. 84- (1952); Morrison v. Acton,
198 P.2d 590,68 Ariz. 27 (Ariz. 1948); Van Buren v. Pima Community College Dist Bd., 546 P.2d 821,113 Ariz. 85 (Ariz. 1976); Regan v. First
National Bank, 101 P.2d 214, 55 Ariz. 320 (Ariz 1940); Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P.2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34- (Ariz. 1937); Universal Inv. Co. Sahara
Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P-2d 485,127 Ariz. 213- (Ariz. App. 1980).
' Acts of fraud taint/void everything they touch as the US Supreme Court has declared: "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud
vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61). "Where a party desires to
rescind upon the grounds of mistake or fraud he must upon the discovery of the facts, at once announce his purpose, and adhere to it." Grymes v.
Saunders, 93 US 55, 62.
3,, If they proposed to rescind, their duty was to assert that tight promptly, unconditionally, and invasively." Richardson v. Lowe, 149 Fed Rep
625,627-28.
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06/18/2009 COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 2 OF 8
Additionally, due to FIRST HORIZONHOME LENDER's failure to perform its lawful duties after NOTICE was
given of the intent to. cancel, FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER agrees to, grants, and conveys a self-executing
power of attorney to BRANDON T. BENTLEY in order to fulfill, execute,. and enforce any steps necessary to rectify
any/ all negative effects of the canceled/ rescinded fraudulent CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED referenced
herein.
Respectfully submitted under my hand Without Prejudice and with All Rights Reserved,
By:
BRANDON T.. ENTLEY
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS
"Indeed, no more than [such affidavits are] necessary to make the prima face case."
United States v Kis, 658 F.2nd 526, 536 (7th Cir.1981) Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169, S. Ct March 22nd 1982.
The unchanging principles of Commercial Law are:
1. All have equal protection under the law.
2. In Commerce, truth is sovereign.
3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.
4. An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in Commerce.
5. An un-rebutted affidavit becomes a Judgment in Commerce.
6. All matters must be expressed to be resolved.
7. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through an affidavit by a point-for-point rebuttal, resolution by jury, or
payment tendered.
The requirements for a conscionable, valid, and binding contract are:
1. Offer by a Private Individual qualified to make the contract.
2. Acceptance by a Private Individual qualified to make and accept the contract.
3. Agreement, full disclosure, and complete understanding by both parties.
4. Valuable consideration given by both parties.
5. Agreed upon duration of term.
6. Both parties must be sui juris; that is, of lawful age,. usually 21 years old.
LET IT BE KNOWN that BRANDON T. BENTLEY, (hereafter "AFFIANT"), affirms the following facts
appertaining to the instant matter regarding FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER (hereafter "BANK").
1. THAT, AFFIANT was induced to believe by BANK's advertising, and further by certain officers/ employees of
BANK, that BANK had money of its own to "loan" to AFFIANT and to others.
2. THAT, AFFIANT accepted BANK's offer to "loan" AFFIANT the BANK's money, and AFFIANT signed what
appeared to be a CONTRACT/ NOTE dated August 15; 2008 based on the aforementioned inducement.
3. THAT, BANK did also induce AFFIANT to sign a TRUST DEED dated August 15, 2008, granting BANK a
security interest in and a lien on certain- personal property of AFFIANT currently held, owned, or otherwise
acquired. BANK caused AFFIANT to believe this TRUST DEED was necessary for BANK to protect and insure
its valuable and lawful "consideration," ie., the "loaning" of BANK's money to AFFIANT as advertised and
promised.
4. THAT, BANK did further induce AFFIANT into signing said TRUST DEED wherein BANK did cause other
undeserving third parties to obtain a lien against, a security interest in, and complete control over the
AFFIANT's personal property. Again, BANK led AFFIANT to believe this TRUST DEED and assignment was
necessary to further secure BANK's valuable, lawful consideration against any potential "risk of loss" regarding
"loaning" the AFFIANT the BANK's money.
5. THAT, at no time prior to AFFIANT signing of any the required "loan" and/or financial documents, and to this
date, did BANK, nor any of its officers/ employees, assigns, et al.; ever fully described and categorized all of the
underlying, undisclosed particulars, details, and principals of law regarding BANK's entire purported "loan"
process, including, but not limited to, where the money came from to fund the NOTE, how it was
obtained/ created, and by whom the purported "loan" was made.
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 0611812009 COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 4 OF 8
r~--P li)237
6. THAT, at no time prior to AFFIANT signing any of the "loan" documents, and to this date, did BANK, nor any
of its officers/ employees, assigns, et al. ever disclose to AFFIANT the fact that the funding of the NOTE was
being created/ obtained by and through AFFIANT's signature on AFFIANT's NOTE; the same NOTE which
BANK, later arbitrarily and deceitfully claimed as its own, and then either sold, bargained, traded,
hypothecated, and /or collateralized for BANK's own benefit and use.
7. THAT, by and through AFFIANT signing the fraudulent CONTRACT, NOTE, and TRUST DEED, BANK caused
AFFIANT to believe that a binding, lawful contract was created between BANK, its officers/ employees, assigns,
and beneficiaries et al., and AFFIANT.
8. THAT prior to, and at the time of AFFIANT signing all BANK's required financial instruments as instructed,
AFFIANT was very unlearned and unsophisticated in such lending and financial practices, including a total lack
of knowledge of all the various underlying, undisclosed details, particulars, and legal consequences pertaining
to the same. To the contrary, AFFIANT relied wholly and entirely upon BANK, and its officers/ employees, to
have "clean hands," and operate in good faith, and to thus provide AFFIANT with full, complete, and truthful
disclosure of the entire financial transaction in question.
9. THAT BANK charged an undisclosed and usurious "interest rate" base on a "loan" amount that BANK didn't
actually risk nor was based on real and valuable consideration and that all "principle" and "interest" paid to
BANK were pure profit.
10. THAT, following the aforesaid financial transaction concerning BANK, AFFIANT studied and researched the
above particulars regarding BANK's "loan" process from legitimate sources, including numerous publications
from the various Federal Reserve Banks, and concluded that BANK did not, in fact, operate with clean hands
nor in good faith, nor did BANK, nor any of its officers/ employees, provide full, complete and truthful
disclosure of its underlying, undisclosed, and secret intentions. To the contrary, BANK's continued refusal to
provide internal accounting records provided sufficient evidence to support the following conclusions:
a) THAT BANK used acts of, but not limited to, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
fraudulent intent in its advertising and claim to have "loaned" its money to AFFIANT.
b) THAT BANK did not fulfill its fraudulent promise/ agreement to lend AFFIANT its own money; BANK did
not contribute anything of intrinsic value nor incur any risk/ loss in the formation or outcome of the
transaction and BANK, therefore, did not sacrifice nor contribute any valuable lawful consideration; and,
thereby, could not, and did not, suffer any loss, damage, or injury.
c) THAT BANK arbitrarily and discretely stole AFFIANT's NOTE, claimed it as its own, and converted it to a
negotiable instrument for BANK's sole benefit, use, and gain.
d) THAT BANK further compounded its predatory, wrongful, and fraudulent actions by inducing AFFIANT
to sign an unconscionable TRUST DEED, thereby, granting additional third parties undeserving control,
benefit, and interest in AFFIANT's personal and real property all under the guise of "necessity."
e) THAT without being fully and truthfully informed and disclosed as to ALL the details of the purported
"loan," and the underlying disingenuous intentions of BANK, there could not be, and was not, a "meeting
of the minds."
f) THAT the fraudulent CONTRACT, NOTE, and TRUST DEED created by BANK and any of its
officers/ employees, assigns, et al. and signed only by AFFIANT does not constitute a lawful binding
contract due to BANK's acts of nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance as more particularly outlined
above; and that any such purported "contract" would be unconscionable and is void ab initio.
11. THAT, as confirmed above and throughout, BANK defaulted on its fiduciary responsibility to AFFIANT by
refusing to provide full, complete, truthful, and accurate disclosures, regarding all financial instruments
AFFIANT was compelled to sign, while blatantly obsfucating the true nature and exact particulars of BANK's
entire "loan" process, to wit:
]CC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06/18/2009 COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 5 OF 8
tt 23
a) THAT BANK refused the good faith willingness of AFFIANT to satisfy BANK's fraudulent claim by
providing a proof of claim.
b) THAT BANK refused to respond POINT FOR POINT to AFFIANT's requests for information and
substantiating documentation via a non-judicial administrative process, thereby failing to substantiate a
valid claim against AFFIANT with regards to the "loan" in question.
0. THAT BANK refused to provide requested contact information for the Private Individual who would serve
as principal and alleged damaged party in this matter, and who via sworn written affidavit, under full
commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts of the matter were true, correct,
complete, and not misleading, was competent to testify, had personal knowledge of the "loan" in question,
was the real party in interest, and was able to represent BANK and bind it in the settlement of this matter.
d). THAT BANK refused to explain why AFFIANT was the only Private Individual to sign the agreement and
yet BANK still believed this unilateral contract was valid and binding.
e) THAT BANK refused to provide requested evidence that the fraudulent CONTRACT, NOTE, and TRUST
DEED between BANK and AFFIANT met the requirements of a balid, binding, bilateral contract.
f) THAT BANK refused to rescind, revoke, and cancel any and all authority and/or instructions to third
parties assigned to collect on this fraudulent and unsubstantiated debt as per U.S.C. Title 15. This included,
but was not limited to, the foreclosure of any security interest believed to be associated with this alleged
debt.
g) THAT BANK refused to provide the requested VERIFIED invoice (true bill in commerce) evidencing a
claim bearing the blue, wet-ink signature of the private individual requested to stand as principal for BANK
and declare the invoice true and correct under penalty of perjury.
h) THAT BANK refused to provide the requested VALIDATED copy of ALL account statenients and general
ledgers (GAAP compliant). appertaining to this "loan" evidencing that BANK had, in its possession prior to
the contract date, the very funds that it "loaned" to fund the "loan" in question.
i) THAT BANK refused to provide the requested evidence demonstrating that the source of funds "loaned" to
AFFIANT were those of BANK's derived from commerce, or those of its depositors as they claimed.
j) THAT BANK refused to provide the requested verified explanation and substantiating evidence that BANK
1) was put at risk as a result of the "loan" in question, 2) offered valuable consideration for the "loan" in
question, and 3) would incurred "damages" if payments were no longer credited to the "loan" in question.
k) THAT BANK refused to provide the requested original, unaltered, unmarked NOTE bearing AFFIANT's
wet ink signature, demonstrating that BANK was the actual holder in due course of said NOTE and,
therefore, had the right to collect upon it. In good faith, BANK was informed that prior to AFFIANT's
personal inspection, AFFIANT would accept a color copy (front and back) of the note bearing the blue, wet-
ink signatures of the contracting parties, yet BANK failed to do so.
1) THAT BANK refused to provide requested information as to where in the contract alteration of the NOTE
was an agreed upon term.
m) THAT BANK refused to provide requested information as to where in the contract the
monetization/conversion of AFFIANT's NOTE/CREDIT/SIGNATURE was a disclosed and agreed upon
term.
n) THAT BANK refused to provide the requested information and substantiating documentation as to 1)
where in the contract the securitization of the NOTE was fully disclosed as an agreed upon term, 2) the
amount of monetary gain BANK realized by securitizing the NOTE in question, 3) if the proceeds of the
securitization of NOTE was credited to the "loan' in question, and, if not, why BANK had the lawful right
to realize profits from said security, and 4) who was the current holder in due course.
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06/1812009 COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 6 OF 8
o) THAT to this date, BANK, or any of its agents, assigns, or beneficiaries et al., have failed to provide any
bona fide, tangible evidence that any of the aforementioned parties are, in fact, the bona fide holder in due
course (nor even a holder of value) and bona fide owner of the NOTE in question, all of which would be
necessary in order to initiate ANY form of collection action or foreclosure proceeding.
12. THAT AFFIANT did spend additional time researching several particulars regarding BANK's entire "loan"
process as outlined above, and became further perplexed. If BANK had indeed given full, complete, accurate,.
and truthful disclosure regarding all elements of its "loan" process, as set forth above and throughout; and did,
in fact, provide valuable, bona fide consideration, and did, in fact, believe BANK created a lawful, binding
contract with AFFIANT, then why didn't BANK's officers/representatives/beneficiaries sign their naive on the
NOTE? The same applies to the TRUST DEED. If BANK knew it was not involved in any manner of fraudulent
inducement, misrepresentation, concealment, or unjust enrichment, and did, in fact, have a bona fide legal
contract with the AFFIANT, sufficient to prevail in a foreclosure action if need be; then why did BANK feel it
necessary to have a TRUST DEED created, wherein, BANK did cause complete control of the purported
"loan/ note" to be turned over to an undeserving third party, who, in turn, never put their signature to the
instruments in question? In consideration of all the above statements and findings, it is only reasonable to
conclude that BANK knew full well that it had defrauded AFFIANT from the outset as to the true nature and
undisclosed rudiments of the entire "loan" process, and was not receptive to further implicating and/or
incriminating itself by signing its name to the documents that BANK knew were fraudulent, full of lies,
unfulfilled promises, secret intentions, inducement, entrapment, and unjust enrichment.
13. THAT it is unlawful for BANK to fraudulently obtain or steal another's property, claim it as their own, and then
further bargain, assign, or sell the same to obtain an unjust enrichment, benefit, and gain for themselves, all at a
loss and detriment to the lawful, bona fide owner.
14. THAT, in this case, the original NOTE in question is, and always was, the property of AFFIANT, and that
AFFIANT did not knowingly or otherwise assign, transfer, allow the sale of, or give the NOTE away for
another 's benefit and gain, especially to the loss and detriment of AFFIANT.
15. THAT BANK refused the opportunity to remedy the fraudulent CONTRACT, NOTE, and TRUST DEED in
question thereby vitiating said contract ab initio.
16. THAT BANK disregarded AFFIANT's NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL and allowed said NOTICE to expire
without contest or rebuttal, thereby accepting said NOTICE unconditionally and executing it in FULL FORCE.
Notwithstanding BANK's unconditional acceptance of AFFIANT's RIGHT TO CANCEL, BANK continues to
pursue collection activities against AFFIANT's property unlawfully.
LET it be known that BANK, and any of its officers, agents, assigns, or beneficiaries, et al. have failed to provide any
evidence in contradiction to the matters set forth above and throughout. Accordingly, the record hereby establishes
that all aforementioned facts, statements, determinations, and related Attachments/ Exhibits (which are incorporated
herein in their entirety) are entirely true and remain un-rebutted and uncontroverted.
IN CONCLUSION, due to additional research, further understanding, and for all of the reasons set forth above, and
throughout this Affidavit, all of which the AFFIANT incorporates herein in its entirety and by reference, AFFIANT
has cause to believe that the fraudulent CONTRACT/ NOTE referenced herein and other such instruments entered
into between AFFIANT and BANK and any and all of its agents, assigns, and beneficiaries have no legal force or
binding effect, and the same are in fact - Null and Void - ab initio and nunc pro tune.
Therefore, FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER and any/ all successors, assigns, beneficiaries, trustees, and/or
substitutes, known or unknown, are not entitled to further remuneration or recourse from BRANDON T. BENTLEY
with regards to this instant matter due to the fact that, collectively and / or severally, said parties have realized
sufficient consideration from said fraudulent transaction through selling, trading, hypothecating, and/or
collateralizing the CONTRACT /NOTE. Consequently, the CONTRACT/ NOTE in question is thereby satisfied in
full and FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER et al., agrees and acknowledge this fact forthwith.
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06/1812009 COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 7 OF 8
ICC# BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06118/2009 COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT; AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS
® s o e o
°b ,
MW
~ u. i~ ~ 0282
~~.tr~~ ~1,5G
E3 Refum R~c~ pt Frn:>
0 Hera `
(Fndors9mentFiaguirod) OP00•_
ED Reetdctcd Delivery ae 1
r-9 (I'rtdorsentcnt Raguire Fc d) .
m Total PI 1 Feos 08/06/2449 i
C3
H•
0
-
0
'
iP
e••
I
$1.56
0M'
m
r'odliled Fee
07 Foe"mI
C3
Q
O
Return Fier®i, t NO
(rommeraseq'ur~rd)
$0.00
- Here
F'ie~lilf.'tfiLt M'.".,SiVOi`~v Fee
(EgrrtmMontFtecnlrac)
~ P r' V
ra
m
Postage a roes
-real
ara_ 5
08/06/2049
C
Lrl
"wri-In
~~Ae
.
r
q
r-
~b W
~I
m
C3
s• o w 7
Postings
S1
56
m
C'.erdf od Fee
.
c
r"
07
p
C3
RetumReceipt Fee
(Endarsemei, Required)
f~tsfrrc~et~
~ Hem,
,
p
Restricted Oeiivery Fee
rl
(Endowment Requited)
r9
M
fatal I~astag~ Fa®~
08/46/2449
4
C3
~Rnr ~d
~j
1
T11
Bye
,
or PO
cXE~FB®% No, S+,
1
I In
1 .
6a1.4V ~rfr:2v~s~t~~!..
P
ru
tti
{,piLM
r`
r~Q~tag~
:
$1.56
C3
CorUnad Fes
C3
F
dp
f~
d
sAnt
uti
PostnSad ; e
wRsrE+ 4
rr
r
a
(
n
eq
Q.
C3
Restrlcted Delivery Fee
rq
(Endgrse'nrent Required)
0
;
m
-total Postage & Fees
08/06/ ' .
IM
'sdt d
or Foe BoxM
/ ►i `,e'
0%ft'r +Sf3z t~v C(fat~t
PROOF OF SERVICE
C 9~.+1g'
I, Shannon Chris Connelly, the undersigned, am an inhabitant of the state of Utah, one of the united ~ ^~24,
America, and was at the time of service of the papers herein, over the age of 18 and not a party to he action f herein.
My mailing address is:
10249 S Ashley Hills Circle Sandy, UT 84092
On the date indicated below, I served the following document(s):
COURTESY NOTICE OF CANCELED CONTRACT
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS
on the parties in this action addressed as follows:
WILLIAM C. LOSCH III FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER
165 MADISON MEMPHIS,, TENNESSEE 38103 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7008 1830 0000 9002 6999
DANETTE BALDACCI CASTLE, MEINHOLD & STAWIARSKI LEGAL SERVICE, LLC.
330 S. WALSH DRIVE, STE. 202 CASPER, WY 82609 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7008 1830 0000 9002 7033
MERS INC. c/o Registered Agent, PO BOX 2026 FLINT MI 48501 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7008 1830 0000 9002 7002
FNMA c% Registered Agent, 2 Galleria Tower, Suite 950 13455 Noel Rd Dallas TX 75240 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7008
1830 0000 9002 7026
FIDUCIARY ALLIANCE TITLE AND ESCROW
71 US HIGHWAY 30 N KEMMERER, WY 83101 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7008 1830 0000 9002 7019
WILLIAM C. LOSCH III FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER
165 MADISON MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7008 1830 0000 9002 6999
on behalf of
BRANDON T. BENTLEY
184 JOHNNY MILLER DRIVE
AFTON, WY 83110
executed on AUGUST 6, 2009 at:
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
ALTA CANYON STATION
SANDY, UT 84093
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Utah that the foregoing is true and correct and I
affix my signature to this document and the affirmations herein.
b:
S nnon Chris Connelly
10249 S Ashley Hills Circle
Sandy, UT 84092