1. Did the Court misapprehended the law and facts in affirming the District Court's decision to dismiss the fraud claims based on the failure to state a Claim? More specifically the Court erred factually in finding that the appellant failed to (a) failed to allege materiality, damages, fraudulent intent and reliance?

2. Did the Court misapprehended the law that Rule 9(b) prohibits a property owner from asserting a claim for fraud if they are in default of the loan?

3. Did the Court misapprehended the law that filing a Proof of Claim and the submission of fraudulent documents by an attorney in a bankruptcy case does not form the basis for a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act?

Did the Court misapprehended the law and facts in affirming the District Court's decision to dismiss the fraud claims based on the failure to state a Claim?