# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH CAROLINA > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Alumbee%3A1dc8ec1663bcf221 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## Text IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH CAROLINA David Locklear, Case No. 2021-001 Petitioner vy. Ron Oxendine, PETITIONER’S MOTION Respondent TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO CANDIDATE and Tribal Elections Board, Intervenor NOW COMES David Locklear, the Petitioner in this matter, by and through his counsel, respectfully requesting this Honorable Court in the hearing of this matter to require the Respondent and candidate, Ron Oxendine to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he meets the residency requirements set out in the Lumbee Constitution, and in support of this motion states the following: 1, It is undisputed that the Respondent lived out of the Lumbee territory and only recently had been physically present in the territory. The Petitioner, based upon information and belief and after reasonable inquiry, questioned whether the Respondent met the residency requirements; thus, this challenge Petition. The Respondent has within himself all the particulars needed for the Court to make a reasoned and sound determination as to whether the Respondent meets the candidacy requirements. With all due respect, the standards and burden of proof set out in the Election Board Policy and Procedures is outdated and unworkable. All jurisdictions know to this Petitioner require the candidate, when his/her residence is challenged, to prove that he/she meets the requirements. In other words, when a candidate’s residency is challenged, the burden shifts to the candidate to prove residency, rather than the challenger. The North Carolina Statute 163-127.5 Burden of Proof states that “the burden of proof shall be upon the candidate, who must show by a preponderance of the evidence on the record as a whole that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.” It goes on to say that the candidate must show, among other things, “actual abandonment of the first domicile.” It is for the reasons stated above that Petitioner prays that the Court adopt the commonly accepted requirement that when a candidate’s residency is challenged, that the burden shifts to the candidate. Respectfully submitted electronically this 13" day of October, 2021. Gary L. Locklear Attorney for Petitioner locklearlaw(@gmail.com Copy sent to Matt Roller for the Court at Mroller@lumbeetribe.com Copy sent to Respondent at Ron.oxendine1954@gmail.com IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH CAROLINA David Locklear, Case No. 2021-001 Petitioner Vv. Ron Oxendine, PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR COURT Respondent TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION and Tribal Elections Board, Intervenor NOW COMES David Locklear, the Petitioner in this matter, by and through his counsel, respectfully requesting this Honorable Court to reconsider its October 8, 2021 Order that allowed the Lumbee Tribal Election Board to intervene in this matter, and in support thereof avers as follows: I. Neither the Lumbee Constitution nor the Judicial Code of the Lumbee Supreme Court make any provisions for intervention, not by right nor by permission; however, Petitioner acknowledges the Court has inherent authority to enter certain orders when special and rare circumstances require it to do so. Petitioner argues that this case is not the appropriate case to exercise such discretion and is prepared to offer compelling evidence at the hearing to support this claim. 2, The Tribal Election Board never filed a motion seeking to intervene so they should not be allowed to intervene. 3. Petitioner was not noticed nor made a party to the intervention; thus, Petitioner never had an opportunity to oppose the intervention. 4. Articles [X and X of the Lumbee Constitution clearly place jurisdiction of this challenge before this Court in the nature of an appeal. Appeals in this context do not normally give the body that issued the original rulin , the Election Board, an opportunity to be heard again. This Court can and should resolve this matter based solely upon the evidence presented at the hearing between the Petitioner and the Respondent, and not be swayed by outside influences. 5. The Policy and Procedures of the Election Board provide that any matter certified by it shall be final and reviewable by the Supreme Court. Nothing in their Policy and Procedures remotely suggests that the Election Board gets to participate in the appeal process. They’ve already ruled. Nobody expects that the Election Board will do anything different if the Court gives them a forum to demean and question the Court’s authority to resolve this matter in a fair and equitable way after a hearing. It would be totally unfair for the Court to allow the Election Board to help Ron Oxendine make is case. Make the Respondent prove to the Court by a preponderance of the evidence that he meets the constitution residency requirement. Why give the Election Board a forum to deflect from the real issue, that being whether the Respondent meets the residency requirements? 6. Allowing the Election Board to be a party in this action going forward means that the Election Board will in affect, represent the Respondent, Ron Oxendine. That’s totally wrong. That’s allowing them to take a side in this matter. Appearance and perception are reality, should that occur. 7. The Court should not be concerned about “how the members of the Election Board feel when their authority is questioned” by the Petitioner. This matter is far greater than the hurt feelings. Petition has never suggested that the Election Board intentionally did anything wrong; but rather, simply didn’t ask all the requisite questions of the Respondent to ensure that he met the residency requirement. This is a case of first impression, so Petitioner appreciates the dilemma the Election Board faced. 8. Lastly, the Election Board should not be allowed to intervene because they failed to share even the most basic information with the Petitioner when Petitioner sought a copy of Respondent’s candidacy application in order to determine how long the Respondent claimed that he had been in the territory. The Election Board sent a totally redacted (blank) copy of the application (attached) containing only the Respondent’s name. That alone should bar the Election Board from participating further in this case. Respectfully submitted electronically this 13 day of October, 2021. Gary L. Locklear, Attorney for Petitioner locklearlaw@gmail.com Copy sent to Matt Roller for the Court at Mroller@lumbeetribe.com Copy sent to Election Board at THE SUPREME COURT OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH CAROLINA David Locklear, Case No. 2021-001 Petitioner v. PETITONER’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF | DISQUALIFICATION OF THE CANDIDACY OF RON OXENDINE FOR TRIBAL CHAIRMAN Ron Oxendine, Respondent and Tribal Elections Board, Intervenors NOW COMES David Locklear, the Petitioner above, by and through counsel, submitting this Memorandum of Law in support of the Petition previously filed and now being considered by this Court wherein the Petitioner seeks the disqualification of the candidacy of Ron Oxendine for Tribal Chairman of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. SUMMARY OF THE CASE AND PERTINENT FACTS Respondent Ron Oxendine and three (3) other members of the Lumbee Tribe filed candidacy applications with the Lumbee Tribe Election Board within the filing deadline of September 3, 2012 seeking the office of Lumbee Tribal Chair in an election schedule for November 9, 2021. The Lumbee Constitution requires, among other things, that a candidate for Tribal Chair meet the residency requirement set out in Article VIII, section 2(b). It reads as follows: “b. have maintained his or her principal place of residence in the territory of the Tribe for the preceding one (1) year.” The application for Tribal Chair contains wording similar to the above with the additional clause of “no less than, the” and requires the applicant to state the “length of time at this residence”. It also contains a certification sheet with similar language. Other than personal information, the application does not require additional proof of residency for the required period in order to file 1 om a for Tribal Chair, The application does not require the applicant to swear or affirm before a Notary Public that the responses are true. It only has a statement about the residency requirements and requires the applicant’s signature and an accompanying witness’ signature. The Respondent, was born and lived in the territory during his youth; however, he spent most, if not all, of his adult life elsewhere, and has only recently returned to the territory, as the evidence will show. Petitioner concedes only that the Respondent recently lived in a residence within the territory when he filed his application seeking election to Tribal Chair. The conduct of the Respondent (which will be further developed and brought to the Court’s attention at the challenge hearing) has created a reasonable and well-founded suspicion among many Tribal members that while the Respondent may have lived in the territory foran undetermined period, he does not otherwise meet the constitutional requirement set out in the Lumbee Constitution. Petitioner is an active and concerned Lumbee Tribal member. After hearing countless rumors regarding the Respondent’s conduct that was contrary to his claim of residency in the territory, he waited and waited for someone, preferably one or all of the other candidates for Tribal Chair, to challenge the residency of the Respondent. When that did not happen, he filed this Petition on October 7, 2021 by himself on behalf of the many concerned members of the Lumbee Tribe who simply want this cloud of suspicion lifted before the election of Tribal Chair on November 9, 2021. The Court issued an Emergency Order on October 7, 2021 seeking guidance from all candidates, including Tribal Council candidates, who seck office during this election cycle as to how this case should proceed, given that the election is set for November 9, 2021. The Court thereafter issue subsequent Orders setting the matter for hearing on Thursday, October 14, 2021 and fixing a deadline for filing legal briefs, that being 10:00 p.m. on Monday, October 11, 2021. The attorney for the Election Board sent a “To Whom it May Concern” letter, including several attachments, dated October 8, 2021 (apparently sent to this Court) demanding that the Court apply the standards and procedures of her client, the Lumbee Tribe Election Board, in this matter; and further, challenging the Court’s authority to direct the Election Board to stop processing absentee ballots until this case is resolved. The Court in a subsequent Order allowed the Election Board to intervene in the matter of Locklear v. Oxendine 2021-0001. Petitioner filed a written request with the Election Board before the Petition was filed for redacted copies of the applications for Tribal Chair in order to determine what information the Respondent and others included in their applications. When the Election Board finally responded to the request at 8:00 a.m. Monday, October 11, 2021, they sent fully redacted copies, which is to say they sent a four (4) page application for each of the candidates for Tribal Chair that contained only the name of the candidate with every space for information blacked out. This puts the Petitioner and every Tribal member at a disadvantage in getting information that they should be unquestionably entitled to have. ISSUES PRESENTED 1, Does the Tribal Election Board have standing to intervene in this matter? 2. Does the Supreme Court of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina have original jurisdiction and/or inherent authority to resolve the residency question raised by the Petition? 3. Is this Court bound by the procedures, standards, and/or definitions adopted by the Election Board? 4. Whether the burden of proof is on the Petitioner or on the Respondent? 5. Can a person be physically present in the territory for more than a year from the commencement of the term for Tribal Chair and still not meet the constitutional residency requirement? 6. Has the Respondent abandoned his former residence outside the territory, and if so, when? 7. Does the Respondent meet the constitutional requirement to file for Lumbee Tribal Chair? ARGUMENT Issue one: Does the Tribal Election Board have standing to intervene in this matter? The answer is NO. Lumbee Tribal Election Board is a necessary and vital Board created by Article X of the Lumbee Constitution to conduct Lumbee Tribal elections. The same Article X gives the Election Board the authority to make rules and regulations for conducting elections. This Board serves an extremely worthwhile purpose when they do what they are charged with doing. Item 3 of Article X in the Constitution reads as follows: “Any matter decided or certified by the Tribal Elections Board shall be deemed final tribal action and shall be reviewable by the Supreme Court of the Lumbee Constitution”. The Election Board certified the candidacy of the Respondent. That final action is reviewable by the Supreme Court; thus, the Election Board no longer has jurisdiction in this matter. As result, the Election Board has no standing to intervene and should not have been allowed to do so. Further, Section 7(5.) of the Election Board Policy and Procedures (for reference see documents filed by Election Board) reads as follows: “Any matter decided or certified by the Tribal Elections shall be deemed final Tribal action and shall be reviewable by the Supreme Court of the Lumbee Constitution”. This is nearly identical language to that found in the Lumbee Constitution, as set out above. Correctly or incorrectly, the Election Board certified the Respondent’s candidacy. They did what they were charged with doing. That should end the Election Board’s participation in the certifying process. Petitioner raised the residency challenge in the Supreme Court which is, as stated above, the proper forum for this issue to be resolved. This challenge is in effect an appeal. The Election Board is not a party to this Petition; they have no standing to intervene. Allowing the Election Board to intervene is tantamount to allowing the Election Board to represent Ron Oxendine. That certainly is the appearance if not the reality if the Election Board is allowed to intervene, Petitioner restates his position that the Election Board is not a party in this action and should not be allowed to participate in it as an intervenor. The Lumbee Constitution grants no right of intervention. Petitioner-concedes that the Court may have limited discretion to allow intervention but that this case is not the appropriate case because, if allowed, it means the Election Board represents Ron Oxendine and the Flection Board’s attomey will be paid for by the Lumbee people. This situation is untenable for reasons that need not be argued. Issue two: Does the Supreme Court of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina have original jurisdiction and or inherent authority to resolve the residency question raise by the Petition? The answer is YES. Article LX of the Lumbee Constitution states “The Supreme Court of the Lumbee Constitution shall have original jurisdiction over all cases and controversies arising underthe Lumbee Constitution and all ordinances of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.” Further, as stated above in issue one, Article X Section 3 of the Constitution and Section 7(5) of the Election Board Policy and Procedures, both clearly state that the Supreme Court is the proper forum to resolve the constitutionally required residency of the candidate. Issue three: Is the Court bound by the procedures, standards, and/or definitions adopted by the Election Board? The answer is NO. It has been well settled law since U.S. Supreme Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 uled in the Marbury v. Madison case that the Supreme Court decides what the law is and that the Court has the power to overturn acts of Congress, or in this instance, acts of the Election Board. It is also universally known and accepted that the Supreme Court, wherever located, not only is the ‘highest law of the land” and “the highest tribunal”, but has the power to rule and/or change existing law. In the October gt" letter from the Election Board’s attorney (for reference see documents submitted by Election Board) she stated unequivocally that the Supreme Court, must use the standards established by the Election Board. That is simply wrong and 4 totally misplaced. The letter further states that “the Supreme Court lacks any authority over the independent Board of Elections as it is not a party to any action to prohibit any action authorized by statute to stop the issuance of ballots”. Wrong again! That is a direct challenge to your authority as members of the Supreme Court. Again, it is well settled that the Supreme Court is the highest law of the land, and in this instance, the highest law and final arbiter of constitutional questions arising among and between members of the Lumbee Tribe. The Election Board adopted the definition for “voter residence”, as opposed to residency fora candidate, from the N.C. General Statute 163- 57(1),https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PD F/BySection/Chapter 163/GS 16 3-57.pdf except that the Election Board failed to include the several exceptions set out in the state statute. Failing to include the exceptions makes all the difference in the world in the definition. The Election Board’s definition, without the many exceptions, fails to address the real issue and fails to distinguish residency from domicile. There is a huge difference in being a qualified voter and being a qualified candidate. The requirements are much different. Hopefully this Court will adopt a definition of residency that is appropriate in this hearing and more applicable in all situations, not just the current one. Issue four: Whether the burden of proof in this resid ency challenge is on the Petitioner or on the Respondent? The burden of proof should be on the Respondent. Petitioner concedes that the Election Board in Section 7(4) of their Policy and Procedures (see documents submitted by Election Board) states that the burden of proof is upon the challenger. That requirement is totally misplaced and contrary to common sense and contrary to all statutory provisions known to the Petitioner. It is well settled and commonly accepted that after a minimal showing, e.g., reasonable suspicion formed after good faith inquiry by the Petitioner (challenger), the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent (the challenged candidate) in this context. This is for good reason. It is the challenged person who has all of the pertinent information necessary to sustain the challenge. In this instance, the Election Board refused to share any information with the Petitioner other than the candidate’s name. No reasonable system of justice can survive under this scheme. How can people have faith in the election process when basic information is kept from them? The Court through this hearing can rectify this misplaced burden, Issue five: Can a person be physically present in the territory for more than a year from the commencement of the term for Tribal Chair and still not meet the constitutional residency requirement? The answer is YES. The rule in all jurisdictions is that you may have multiple residences, even in many states, but you can have only one state of domicile. Residence and domicile are not interchangeable. It is a matter of what the facts show. Don Wright, former General Counsel to the N.C. State Board of Elections wrote a lengthy article in 2007 entitled Residency for Election Purposes https://www.waynegov.com/DocumentCenter/View/63/Residency-for-Election- 5 Purposes-PDF that is helpful in this challenge. Wright states that a person may have an actual abode (residence) in one place, and his permanent established home (domicile) in another. He cites Lloyd v. Babb 296 NC 416 (1979) stating that “a person has domicile for voting purposes at a given place if he/she 1) has abandoned his prior home (emphasis mine) and he is residing elsewhere; and 2) has a present intention to make that place his home, and 3) has no intention presently to leave that place. He goes on to say that “to establish a change of domicile, a person must show: (1) an actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intention not to return to it (emphasis mine); (2) the acquisition ofa new domicile by actual residence; and (3) the intent of making the newer residence a permanent home. Farnsworth v. Jones 112 N.C. App. 187 (1994)”. Petitioner intents to show at the hearing of this matter that the Respondent, by his conduct, has not abandoned his first domicile, that is his residence in Virginia; further, Petitioner will show that regardless of the period of time Respondent claims physical presence in the territory, even if the time frame fits the residency time frame, that alone does not mean he meets the constitutional residency requirement. Petitioner will show that simply “being here in the territory” does not meet the requirements. Issue six: Has the Respondent abandoned his former residence outside the territory, and if so, when? Respondent’s conduct suggests that the answer is NO. Petitioner will solicit evidence at the hearing of this matter to support Petitioner’s claims. The Respondent has all the necessary information to establish this claim. Ifthe Court shifts the burden of proof to the appropriate party, the Respondent, then he will explain to the Court his position and will be subject to cross examination. Ifthe Court does not shift the burden, then the Respondent will be called as the first witness and have to answer questions on direct examination, and there will be many. Issue seven: Does the Respondent meet the constitutional requirement to file and run for Tribal Chair? The answer is NO. Again, the Respondent has all the necessary information. It will be solicited from him either on direct examination or on cross examination, depending upon the Court’s ruling on who has the burden of proof. Petitioner intends to show through the evidence that the Respondent cannot meet the constitutional residency requirements to file and run for Tribal Chair, even if he has been physically present in the territory for what would otherwise be the required period. SUMMARY The Petitioner never intended to create a firestorm. He simply wants what every other member of the Lumbee Tribe should want, and that is what is best for the Lumbee Tribe. In this instance, Lumbee Tribal members are absolutely entitled to know that the candidate for Tribal 6 Chair that they vote for does in fact meet the constitutional residency requirements. Surely Ron Oxendine wants this, too. One would think that the Respondent would be eager to prove that he meets the residency requirement, but regrettably, it seems otherwise. Petitioner closes with a question: What if no challenge hearing was held in this matter and the Respondent went on to win the election for Tribal Chair, and then after the fact, subsequent evidence revealed that he never met the residency requirement? What a colossal and embarrassing mess that would be. That is precisely why the Petitioner brought this challenge. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted this 11 day of October, 2021 by email to: mroller@lumbeetribe.com Gary Locklear, Attorney locklearlaw@gmail.com THE SUPREME COURT OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO. 2021-001 ROBESON COUNTY DAVID LOCKLEAR, Petitioner PETITIONER’S RESPONSE Vv. TO THE COURT’S INQUIRIES RON OXENDINE, Respondent COMES NOW David Locklear, the Petitioner in the above-styled matter, by and through counsel, respectfully responding to the inquiries of the Honorable Joshua D, Malcolm, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, on behalf of the full Court, as follows: 1. What Order(s), if any should the Court issue to ensure eligible tribal voters are not disenfranchised during the pendency of the Court considering the as of Locklear v. Oxendine, File no, 2021-001? Qualified Tribal voters should under no circumstances be deprived of voting, and they will not be deprived, regardless of the outcome of this requested candidate challenge. As set forth in the Petition, the Petitioner is of the strongly held opinion that the Court can and should hold an expedited hearing, given the significant constitutional issue at stake, in no Jess than seven (7) days from date of filing (and subsequent notice to the Respondent). This action was filed on Wednesday, October 6, 2021. A full seven (7) days would be Wednesday, October 13, 2021. The tribal election is some twenty-seven (27) days after the suggested hearing date. Requests for absentee ballots must be received by 5 p.m. on Friday, October 8, 2021. As of Thursday, October 7, 2021, approximately 100+/- absentee ballots had been mailed out. Of course, it is likely that some limited number of timely requests remain to be processed. At the end of the absentee ballot request period, the Tribal Election Board will know precisely the number of absentee ballots mailed out, each person’s name and the addresses of all who received absentee ballots. If the Respondent is able to prove to the Court that he meets the residency requirement, then no changes in the election process would be required; however, the Court could and probably should direct the Election Board to hold the remaining absentee ballot requests until the challenge hearing is resolved. That should only be a few days from October 8% until the date of the hearing. If the Respondent is not able prove to the Court that he meets the residency requirements, then only the limited number of persons who have received absentee ballots would be impacted; however, they certainly would not be deprived of voting. New ballots would need to be printed with the proper listing of candidates and re-sent to those who previously received the original absentee ballot. Again, no Tribal member would be deprived of his or her right to vote. The short answer to the Court’s question above is that no Order is needed “during the pendency of the Court considering the case”. Only a directive to the Election Board to hold the unprocessed absentee ballots would be needed. Once the case is heard, if the Respondent cannot prove that he meets the constitutional residency requirements, the Court should direct (order) the Tribal Elections Board to re-print ballots with the corrected candidates and send the new ballots to those Tribal members who previously received an absentee ballot. . What procedure(s), if any, should the Court follow in response to Petitioner’s request for it to “set this matter for an immediate and/or expedited hearing within seven (7) days or sooner so that it can be quickly resolved in order to not interfere with Tribal elections scheduled for November 9, 2021”? Petitioner acknowledges that the Court’s Judicial Code sets out time constraints as it should. If the Petitioner is bound by those constraints, especially in this instance where there is a significant constitutional question at issue, then the Court will have chosen form over substance. If the Court does not hold an expedited hearing before the election, Tribal members will be deprived of knowing whether the Respondent was held to the same residency standard as all other candidates. In other words, the election of the Tribal Chairperson has the potential of being severely tainted if this expedited challenge hearing is not allowed. A challenge hearing after the election is a situation that no reasonable person or court wants. That would be an untenable and potentially disastrous situation. Petitioner acknowledges that courts have procedural rules for obvious reasons, and that they almost always follow their established rules; however, courts also have inherent authority and discretion to veer from those rules when exigent circumstances exist or when the particular situation demands it, such as in this case. For example, Courts regularly hold expedited hearings when significant harm could/would otherwise occur. The significant harm in this instance is the possibility that a person could be elected leader of the Lumbee people who does not meet the constitutional residency requirements. That would be an embarrassment of epic proportions should that happen. The Lumbee tribe would lose all credibility should that occur. The future of the Lumbee people is too important to let procedural rules get in the way of finding out the truth. No candidate should be allowed to remain a candidate when the candidate’s residency is challenged and the candidate is unable to prove that he meets the residency requirements imposed by the Lumbee Constitution. In the present case all our Tribe has is a signed statement by the Respondent that he met the residency requirements, What assurances, if any, do the Lumbee people have that official checks were made to verify the residency claim when the application was filed? The circumstances in this case are unique and unlike any others, given Respondent’s recent move to the territory from another state, as opposed to have been in the territory for years. Under these circumstances, when officially challenged, it is incumbent upon the candidate to prove that he meets the requirements. This will never happen without a hearing. The Lumbee people will never know withouta hearing. Only this Court can grant that hearing. If the Court has the power to grant the hearing, then the Court has the power to grant an expedited hearing. The short answer to this question is that the Court should consider the seriousness of this matter, the harm and negative implications that potentially would follow if a candidate who fails to meet the residency requirements is allow to run and possibly get elected as Tribal Chaitman, and as a result, exercise its inherent authority and enter a simple order expediting the hearing, hopefully within the period requested by the Petitioner. Again, at the risk of being redundant, if the Court grants the hearing on October 13", 2021 and finds in favor of the Respondent, then the voters have full confidence that all candidates meet the residency requirements set out in the Lumbee Constitution. However, if the Court grants the hearing on October 13, 2021 and disqualifies the Respondent, that leaves twenty-seven (27) days before the November 9, 2021 Tribal elections in which the Tribal Election Board can order and receive new ballots and resend absentee ballots to approximately 100+/- absentee ballot recipients. While this is a condensed time to conduct the election, it is nevertheless, adequate time to get it done. 3. What procedure(s), if any, should the Court follow in response to Petitioner’s request for it to “direct the Lumbee Tribal Election Board to withhold the printing of ballots until this matter is resolve,” which this Court has interpreted as a request for the Court to order the Election Board to “cease distributing absentee ballots until such time as the Court decides otherwise and/or until this matter is resolved”? Given that October 8, 2021 is the deadline for seeking absentee ballots, at the end of the day, the Tribal Election Board will know exactly how many absentee ballots have been sent to voters (100+/-) and how many remaining pending requests for absentee ballots that have not been processed and sent. The initial Court Order should direct the Tribal Election Board to hold any un-sent absentee ballots until the challenge hearing is completed and to await further orders from the Court. If the Respondent is able to prove that he meets the residency requirements at the requested challenge hearing, the Court would direct the Election Board to continue processing the timely absentee ballot requests and the election process would continue as planned. If the Respondent is unable to prove that he meets the residency requirements at the requested challenge hearing, the Court would direct the Election Board to immediately re-print ballots with the names of all candidates that meet the residency requirements, send the new ballots with appropriate instructions to those voters who had requested and received absentee ballots, and then process any remaining timely absentee ballot requests by sending the new ballots. The Court should also direct the Election Board to develop a process whereby only the corrected absentee ballots are processed and counted. Respectfully submitted via electronic mail this 88 day of October, 2021. /s/ David Locklear David Locklear, Petitioner 2822 Saddletree Road Lumberton, N.C. 28360 Tribal Enrollment # 116049 /s/ Gary L. Locklear Gary L. Locklear Attorney for Petitioner 910-618-4327 locklearlaw@gmail.com THE SUPREME COURT OF THE LUMBEE TRIBE OF ‘o NORTH CAROLINA 3 NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO. 7021 - 00 (od ROBESON COUNTY N77 PETITION CHALLENGING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT OF RON OXENDINE, CANDIDATE FOR TRIBAL CHAIRPERSON DAVID LOCKLEAR, Petitioner RON OXENDINE, Respondent 1. David Locklear, hereinafter the Petitioner, resides in the territory of the Tribe at 2822 Saddletree Road, Lumberton, N.C. 28360, Robeson County, North Carolina; my telephone is 910-734-1 870; I am an active Tribal member and my enrollment number is 116049. 2. Ron Oxendine, hereinafter the Respondent, based upon information and belief, claims residency at the home of the late Emma Locklear at 1837 Hezekiah Road, Maxton, N.C. 28364. (NOTE: During the drafting of this Petition, the Tribal Elections Board would not disclose the residency date claimed by the Respondent or any other non-personal information in his application for Tribal Chairperson.) 3. A significant Lumbee Tribal constitutional question, set out more fully below, is at issue; thus, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and this Court is the proper forum in which to resolve this matter. 4. Respondent filed a timely application with the Lumbee Tribal Elections Board seeking the office of Lumbee Tribal Chairperson for the three-year term beginning January 2022. 5. This petition seeks a judicial ruling on the issue of whether the Respondent meets the residency requirement set out in Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the Lumbee Constitution. Section 2 of Article VIII reads in part that: “,... the privilege to run for the office of Tribal Chairperson shall be limited to those tribal members who at the commencement of the term: a). are thirty-five (35) years of age; b). have maintained his or her principal place of residence in the territory of the Tribe for the preceding one (1) year; ¢). (Not applicable in this instance)” 6. The Petitioner alleges and says that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, the Respondent failed to meet the residency requirement set out above in the Lumbee Constitution in that Respondent has not maintained a principal place of residence in the territory for the preceding one (1) year prior to the commencement of the term; therefore, his candidacy is in violation of Article VILL, Section 2(b) of the Lumbee Constitution, 7. The Petitioner alleges that evidence will be shown at the hearing of this noatter that will convince the Court that the Respondent has not abandoned his former residence (for one year preceding the term) regardless of how long the Respondent claims residency in the Tribal territory; and further, upon information and belief, that residence is outside of the Tribal territory in the State of Virginia; and even further, that the evidence will prove more than sufficient to convince the Court when the it considers the totality of the circumstances, that the Respondent is not eligible to be a candidate for Tribal Chairperson in this election cycle, 8. This Court should follow the generally accepted legal practice of requiring the candidate, Ron Oxendine in this instance, when the challenge or protest is based upon failure to meet a residency requirement, to offer evidence sufficient to prove to the Court by a preponderance of the evidence that the residency requirement has been met. 9. Petitioner asserts that exigent circumstances are present that require quick resolution of this significant constitutional question; otherwise, a cloud of uncertainty, that being whether or not the Respondent truly meets the residency requirements, will taint the Tribal elections and possibly the Office of the Tribal Chairman if Respondent is elected without resolution. 10. This Court recognizes that time is of the essence; thus, Petitioner seeks a waiver from the Court, and such waiver is totally within the Court’s discretion, of any other time constraints that would delay this hearing, given the scheduled November 9, 2021 Tribal election, 11.All members of the Lumbee Tribe are entitled to quick, if not immediate, resolution of this matter; thus, on behalf of all members of the Lumbee Tribe, Petitioner urges an expedited hearing within seven (7) days or sooner from filing this challenge. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays, in the interest of election integrity and in the best interest of the people who are the Lumbee Tribe, that the Court grant the following relief: 1. In the Court’s inherent discretion, waive the time constraints in Section Five-3 of the Court’s Judicial Code and Item 9 of the General Instructions for Filing a Petition, and set this matter for an immediate and/or expedited hearing within seven (7) days or sooner so that it can be quickly resolved in order to not interfere with Tribal elections scheduled for November 9, 2021. 2. Enter an immediate Order upon receipt of this Petition that directs the Lumbee Tribal Elections Board to withhold the printing of ballots until this matter is resolved. 3. Follow the accepted legal practice when a voter or candidate is challenged by requiring the candidate, the Respondent herein, to show by a preponderance of the evidence on the record as a whole that he has satisfied the residency requirement in the Lumbee Constitution to be a candidate for Tribal Chairperson in this election cycle. 4. After considering the totality of the circumstances presented at the hearing of this matter, enter an order that the Respondent, Ron Oxendine, is not eligible to be a candidate for Tribal Chairperson in this election cycle. 5. For such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. This the 6" day of October, 2021. ) ) David Locklear 2822 Saddletree Road Lumberton. N.C. 28360 Tribal Enrollment #116049 Note: Attorney Gary Locklear will be representing me at the hearing of this matter. He will prepare additional paperwork in support of this challenge/protest for your consideration at the hearing. You may contact him at 910-618-4327 and at locklearlaw@gmail.com . Thank you. 10/12/21, 3:02 PM RONNIE OXENDINE 1837 HEZEKIAH RD MAXTON, NC 28364 Voter Search RAL APES ex Collapse all sections | Expand all sections ee et Sections YOUR VOTER DETAILS County: Status: Voter Reg Num: NCID: Party: Race: Ethnicity: Gender: Registration Date: NCDMV Customer: YOUR JURISDICTIONS Precinct: Congress: NC Senate: NC House: Superior Court: Judicial: Prosecutorial: County Commissioner: School: YOUR VOTING LOCATIONS https://vt.nesbe.gow/RegLkup/VoterInfo/ ROBESON ACTIVE 000000537252 DR152655 DEM AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE NOT HISPANIC or NOT LATINO MALE Yes PROSPECT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 9 NC SENATE DISTRICT 13 NC HOUSE DISTRICT 46 16B SUPERIOR COURT 16B JUDICIAL 20TH PROSECUTORIAL COUNTY COMMISSIONER #4 BOARD OF EDUCATION #4 1/3 10/12/51, 12:42 PM — Crystal Gateway Condominium - Google Maps Google Maps Crystal Gateway Condominium Map data ©2021 1000 ft kemmmnnimnmmanenmeaad Crystal Gateway Condominium 1300 Crystal Dr Arlington, VA 22202 09 ® © © Directions Save Nearby Sendtoyour Share phone Photos htlps:/www.google.com/maps/place/Crystalt Gateway+Condominium,+4 300+Crystal+Dr,+Arlington,+VA+22202/@38.86 16369,-77.058275,15z/data=|... 1 2 + 10/12/21 , 12:42 PM _ Crystal Gateway Condominium - Google Maps psi google comimaps/place/Crystl¥ Gateway Condominium, +1300+Cryetal+Dr, tington+VA‘222021@)38 8616980, 7.058275, 15z/datast... 2/2 Pel Le, 1012/21, 3:12 PM Moore Co Register of Deeds Judy D. Martin, Registrar j Search Real Estate Index - Moore Public Access Welcome Visitor, Login | wil View Basket Welcome Links Birth Death Marriage | Real Estate UCC FAQ Real Estate Document Access Criterla: Grantor Begins with OXENDINE RONNIE; Glick here for Showing Records 1 through 4 (4 records found as of 10/12/2021 03:12:16 PM count agaln ) Search Instructions Gat a Free Copy Other Options o ns mney stan Results List NewSearch Back toGrentortist (63 KB (Pago 4 a) Sort 6, Selected Detailis) tet in rch Selected Images) (Clean) instrument # ‘ Party Nane ca Image! ©) Rook-Page Date Filed | Decuient Type Reverse Party Name Lagat Dascription Status rs . 1010971 Rh] OXENDINE RONNIE + 1 Qvew C9 2opsanos7i 05/11/2021 DEED OF TRUST mI LOT 1331 S7 MID SOUTH CLUB MCNEILL TP | Viaw, 5612-283 [E] FIRST BANK Get a Free Copy Other Options ne a or Results List New Search Back to Grantor List 9 €3 (Pa Sort By;) vi Selected Detailis) Refine Search Selected Image(s) (Clean) Please read important information regarding North Carolina SS 192-4,10 (9) Aumentum Recorder - Public Access Web Ul, Version 2020.2.0 Copyright © 2001 - 2021 Aumentum Technologies, Alt Rights Reserved QaQionsr ee Cc htlps://rod.moorecountync.gov/RealEstate/SearchResults.aspx Ww 10/12/21, 3:02 PM Voter Search During the early voting period, voters may cast a ballot at any one-stop site in their county, and eligible individuals may register and vote at the same time. Find one-stop sites and schedules in your county with the One-Stop Early Voting Site Search. Voting sites change for each election and become available when finalized. Election Day voters must cast a ballot at their assigned polling place. Click the name of your Election Day polling place below for location details, your county board of elections contact information, and sample ballots when available. 35 PROSPECT - PROSPECT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4024 MISSOURI RD MAXTON, NC 28364 se a aN A RI YOUR SAMPLE BALLOT (0) a If this section is blank, you do not have any upcoming elections in your jurisdiction for the current year. “Ballots not assigned yet” means a sample ballot is not yet available. Return to this site closer to the election date to view your sample ballot(s). practice making your selections with the accessible sample ballot by choosing “Option 4" on the absentee ballot portal. Election ee ‘Your Sample Ballot(s) 41/02/2021 MUNICIPAL No eligible ballots. YOUR ABSENTEE BALLOT: BY MAIL OR EARLY VOTING (0) a By North Carolina law, in-person early voting and by-mail voting are “absentee” voting, as you vote “absent” of Election Day. Note: County boards of elections will post ballot acceptance information, but ballot requests are no longer public record until the ballot is returned, or until Election Day, whichever is earlier. If you have not received your ballot within two weeks of your request, contact your county board of elections To track your by-mail absentee ballot from request to acceptance, sign up for status notifications through BallotTrax, YOUR VOTER HISTORY (0) a If this section is blank, we do not have a record that you voted in a past election in North Carolina. For more information, please contact the Robeson County Board of Elections, IMA N71 AIP State Baal “Blactinne \ ‘ wat! whe ps: -{nesbe.gov/RegLkup/VoterInfo/ 2/3 oy LOAN #; 2600038578 CONSTRUCTION/PERMANENT LOAN RIDER TO SECURITY INSTRUMENT (INCLUDING SECURITY AGREEMENT) {To be attached to and secorded with this Security Instrurnent) THIS CONSTRUCTION LOAN RIDER TO SECURITY INSTRUMENT (this ‘Rider’| is made on May 10, 2024 and shail be deemed to amend and supplement the Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Security Deed of the same date, to which this Rider is attached (“thls Security Instrument’), given by the undersigned (‘Borrower’) for the benefit of . First dank, a Chartered Bank (‘Lender’) to secure Borrower's Note to Lender and the Constiyction Loan Addendum to Note. both of the same date (col lectively, the “Note”) and covering the property desoribed in this Seourity Instrument (the “Property"), All terms defined In the Note and elsewhera in this Security instrument shall have the same meaning In this Rider. IN ADDITION TO THE COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS MADE IN THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT, Borrower and Lender further covenant and agree as follows: 1, Gonstruction Loan Agreement, The Note evidences Borrower's promise to pay Lender the aggregate amount of all advances made and distributed by Lender under the terms.and conditions ofa Consiuction LoanAgreement between Lender and Borrower dated the same date as the Note (the “Loan Agreement’). The Loan Agreement provides for construction of certain improvements (the “Improvements") on the Property. Borrewer agrees to comply with the cavenants and conditions of the Loan Agreement. This Sacurity Instrument secures to Lender (a) the repayment of the debt evidenced by the Note, including the aggregate amount of all advances made by Lender fram time to time under (he terms of the Loan Agreement, with interest as provided in the Note, and all renewals, extensions, and madifications of the Note, (b) the performance of all Of Borrawer's cavenants and agresmerits linder the Note, this Security Instrument, the Loan Agraement and afl other documents pertaining 1o the Laan (the “Loan Dacuments’), and (c) the payment of ail other sums, wilh interost at the Note Rate, advanced by Lendev to protect the security of this Security lastrument. or to perform any of Borrower's obligations under the Loan Documents, Upon the failure of Borrower to Keep and perform atl the covenants, conditions and agreements of the Loan Agreement, the Principal and alll interest arid ether charges provided for in the Loan Documents and secured hereby shall, at the option of the Lender, and subject to any right of Borrower to cure Borrower's default, become immediately due and payzble in full, This Security Instrument is a constuetion mortgage as such term is defined in North Carolina General Statutes §25-9-334(h) to the extent it secures an obligation Incurred for the construction of improvements upon the Properties, including the acquisition cost of the real property, 2, Future Advances, Quring the Constrction Loan Phase, interest will accrue on the outstanding Principal according to the ferms sai forth in the Note. Provided thers has been no default as defined in the Note, the Loan Agreement, or this Securily Instrument, and provided Borrower has satisfied all conditions precedent required for an advance under the Loan Documents, Lender is iegally ghligated to make advances of principal upon application therefor by Borrower In accordance with the provisions of the Note and the Loan Agreement up to 4 maximum principal amount (including present and future Gbiigations), which is equat to the amount of the Note as sel forth in this Security Instrument, Such advances shail be evidenced by the Note, made under the terms of the Loan Agreament and secured by this Security Instrument and may occur tor @ period up to the end of the Construction Loan Phase. but inno event after 18 months from the date of this Rider. 3. Assignment of Rights or Claims. From time to time as Lender deams hecessary to protect Lender's interest, Borrower shall, upon request of Lender, execute, acknowledge before a notary public, and deliver to Lender, assignments of any and all rights or claims which refate to the consuuction on the Property, 4, Breach by Borrower. In case of breach by Borrower of the covenants and conditions of the Loan Agreement, subject to any fight of Borrower to cure Borrower's default, Lender, at Lender's option, witly ar without entry upan the Property (2) may invoke any of the rights or remedies provided in the Loan Agreement, (b) may accelerate the sums Secured by this Sacurily Instrument and invoke any of the remedies provided in this Security Instrument, or (c) may do both. Lender's failure to exercisa any of Its rights and cemadias at any one time shall not constitute a waiver by Lender of its right to exercise (Ital right or remedy, of any ather right or remedy. in the fuyure. 5, Permanent Mortgage Date. On the day the Construction Loan Phase ends, the loan evidericed by the Note will became @ permanent mortgage loan (the “Permanent Mortgage Date”). Beginning on the Permanent Morigage Date, interest shall accrue as stated in the Note and monthly payments of principal and interest shall be due and payable as set forth in the Note, 6, Occupancy, Segtion 6 of this Security instrument Is amended and restated to read as follows: Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property ’S Borrower's principal residence within 60 days after the Permanent Mortgage Date and shall continue lo occupy the Property as Borrower's principal tesidence Tarot lsust one year alter ihe date of occupancy, unless Lender otherwise agrees In wring, whiclt consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist which are beyond Borrower's control. North Carolina ~ Conatruction’Permanent Loan Rider to Securily Instrument NOONSTPROU o716 Ellie Mao, I simone. Page 1of3 GCNSTARLU (CLs) 05'06/2021 12:19 PM PST ee LOAN #: 2600038578 7. Security Agreement and Financing Statement, a. The proparty covered by this Security Instrument inctudes the Property previously describad or referred to In this Security Instrument, together with the folowing, all of which are referred to as the “Property.” The portion of the Property that constitutes real property is sometimes referred to as the Real Propeity.” The portion af the Properly which constitutes personal property is sametimes referred to as the "Personal Property,” and Is described as follows: (i) Borrower's right to possession af the Property; {ii) any and all fixtures, machinery, equipment, building materials, appliances, and goods of every nature whatsoever now or hareafter located in, or on, or used, oF intended to be used in connection with the Property or the Improvements, and all replacements of and accessions to those goods; and (lil) pracaeds and products of the Personal Property. Despite any other provision of this Rider or aty other Loan Document, however, Lender is nol granted, and wil nol have, a non-purchase money Security interest in household goods, to the extent that such a security interest would be prohibited by applicabte law, b. This Seourity Instrument is and shail be a security agreement granting Lender a first and prior security interest in all of Borrower's right, titfe and interest in and to the Personal Property, under and within the meaning of applicable state taws, a5 well as a document granting a lien upon and against the Real Property. In the event of any foreclosure sale, whether made by Trustee, of under judgment of a court, or otherwise, all of the Real Property and Personal Property may, at the option of Lender, be sold as a whole or in parcels. It shall net be hecessary to have present at the place of such sala the Personal Properly or any part thereof. Lender, as well. as Trustee oni Lender's behelf, shall have all the rights, remedies and fecourse with respect to the Personal Property afforded to a “Secured Pa ty" by applicable state laws in addition to and not In limitation of the other rights and remedies afforded Lencier and/or Trustee Under this Security Instrument, To the extent permitted by applicable law, Borrower shall, upon demand, pay to Lender the amount of any and all expanses, Including the fees and disbursements of Lender's legal counsel and of any experts and agents, which Lender may Incur In conneclon with: (i) the making and/or administration of this Security instrument; (ii) tha custody, preservation, use or operation of, or the sale of. collection front, or other realization upon any Property, real and/or personal. described in this Security Instrument: (iil) the exercise or enforcement of any of the rights of Lender under this Security Instrument; or (iv) the fallura by Borrower to perform or observe any of the provisions or covenants in this Security Instrument, ¢ Lander may, at Its election. at any ume after the delivery of this Security Instrument, sign one of more coples of this. Security instrument in order that such caples may be used as a financing staternent under applicable state laws, Lender's signature need not be acknowledged, and is not necessary to ihe olfactiveness hereol as a deed of trust. a seourlty agreement, or (unless otherwise required by appiicabte state laws) a financing statement. 4, Borrower also quthorizes Lender to sign and file, without Borrower's signature, such financing and continuation state: ments, amendments, and supplements thereto, and olher documents that Lender May from tine to time deem necessary 0 perfett, preserve and protect Lender's security interest in the Property. If any other documents are necessary to pratect Lender's interest in the Property, Borrower agreas to sign these documents whenaver Lender asks, Borrower also gives Lender permission to sign these documents for Borrower, 8, Invalid Provisions. If any one oF more of the Provisions of this Security Instrument, or the applicability of any such provision to a specific situation, shal! be held invalid or unenferceable, such provision shalt be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make It or its application valid and enforceable, and the validity ard enforceabitly of all other provistons of this Securily Instrument and all other applications of any such provision shall not be affected thereby. 5, Addresses, The name and address of the Borrower Is: Rontiie Oxendine 1837 Hezekiah Road Maxton, NC 28364 The name and address of the Lender/Securad Party is: First Bank, a Chartered Bank 101 N. Spring Street Greensboro, NG 27401 10, Additional Praviston Regarding Future Advances (North Carolina Future Advances Statute, North Caralina General Statutes §48-67, et seq,). This Security Instrument Is given to secure both (i) existing obligations identified in this Security instrument and alt advances made al or prior to the registration of this Security Instrument, and ((t} future advances andéor future obligations that may be made or incurred under this Security instrument and/or under the Instruments or obligations secured by this Security Instrument (including without limitation under the Note andlor the Loan Agreement), The maximum principat amount that may be secured by this Deed of Trust at any one time is $816,500.00, The patiod In which future advances may be made and future obligations may be incurred and secured by this Security Instrument is the period between the dale of this Securlty instrument and that dote which Is thirty (30) years from the date of this Security Instrument. If the maximum amount secured by this Security Instument has not been advanced ar if any North Carolina - Construction/Permanent Loan Rider to Security Instrument Initials: Bila Mae, Ino, Page 2 of 3 NocNeTRXOU 4716 GCNSTPRLU (CLS) May "30%, 06/08/2021 12:18 PM PST & LOAN #: 2600028678 obligation secured hereby is pald or is reduced by partial payment, future advances may be made and additional obligations secured by this Security Instrument may be incurred from tlme to time within the time Kmit and maximum amount fixed by this Security Instrument as set forth above and such further advances and obligations shall be secured by this Security Instrument, Any additional amounts not otherwise described above and advanced by the Lender or the holder of the Note or any indebtedness secured hereby shall be deemed to be necessary expenditures for the preservalion of the security. The provisions of this Section sre intended to comply with the North Carolina Future Advances Slawte, North Carolina General Statutes §45-67, et seq. BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accepts and agrees to the terms and covenants contalned in this Rider. Lee: Ola. Lotti 2 / (Seal) RONNIE OXENDINE / DATE Soot. Lwncliue LE Sleep Ef _ ious TINA OXENDINE DATE ATTENTION GOUNTY CLERK, This instrument covers goods that are or are to become fixtures on the Property described herein and is to be tiled for record In the records where Security Instruments on reat estate are recorded, Additionally, this instrument should be appropriately indexed, not only as a Security Instrument but also as a financing statement covering qoods that are or are ta become fixtures on the Property described herein. The mailing address of the Sorrower (Debtor) and Lender (Secured Party) are set forth In this Security Instrument, North Caralina - Construction/Permanent Loan Rider to Security Instrument (nitials: MeL Ze Ellie Maa, Ino, Page 3of3 NCCNSTPROU 0716 GONSTPRLU (CLS) LS ed 95/06/2021 12:10 FM PST s o] < é LOAN #: 2600098878 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RIDER THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RIDER Is mada this 10th day of May, 2021 and is incorporated into and shall be deemed to amend and Supplement the Mortgage, Deed of Trust ar Securlty Deed (tha “Security Insttument’} of the same date, given by the undersigned (the “Borrower') to secure Borrower's Note to First Bank, a Chartered Bank (the “Lender") of the same date and covering the Property described in the Security Instrument and located-at: 100 Eagle Point Ln, Southern Pines, NC 28387-2988, The Property includes, but {s not limited ta, a parcel of land improved with a dwelling, together with other such parcels and cerlain comman areas ani facilities, as described in “COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (the Declaration’). The Property is a part of a planned unit development known as Mid South Club (the “PUD"). The Property also includes Borrower’sinterestin the homeowners association or equivalent entity owning or managing the common areas and facilities of the PUD (the ‘Owners Agsoclation’yand the uses, benefits and proceeds of Borrower's interest. PUD COVENANTS. In addition to the covenants and agreements made in the Security lnstrument, Borrower and Lender further covenant and agree 8S follows: A. PUD Obligations. Borrower shall perform all of Borrower's 0 ligations under the PUD‘s Constituent Documents. The ‘Constituent Documents” are the (I) Daclaration; (1) articles of incorporation, trust instrument or any equivatent document which creates the Owners Association: and (iii) any by-laws or other rules or regulations of the Owners Association. Borrower shall promptly pay, when due, all dues and assessments imposed pursuant to tie Constituent Documents. B, Property Insurance. So long as the Owners Association maintains, with a generally accepted insurance carrier, a “master” or "blanket" policy insuring the Property which is ‘satisfactory to Lender and vinch provides insurance eek in the antounts (including deductible levels}, for the periods, and against loss by fire, hazards included within the term “extended coverage," and any other hazards, including, but not limited to, earthquakes and floods, farwhich Lender Tequires insurance, then: * Lender waives the provision in Section 3 for the Periodic Payment to Lender of the yearly premium installments for praperty insurance on the Property, and (ii) Borrower's Obligation under Section 5 to maintain property insurance Coverage on the Property Is deemed satisfied to the extern that the required coverage is provided by the Owners Association policy. What Lender requires aga condition of this waiver can change during the term of the loan. Borrower shall give Lender prompt natice of any lapse in required property insurance coverage provided by the master or blanket policy. In the event of a disvibution af property insurance proceeds in lieu of restoration or repair following a loss to the Property, or to common areas. and facilities of the PUD, any proceeds payable to Barrower are hereby assigned and shail be paid to Lender, Lender shall apply the proceeds to the sums secured by the Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. C. Public Liability Insurance, Borrower shail take such actions as may be reasonable ta ensure that the Owners Association maintains a public liability insurance policy acceptable in form, amount, and extent of coverage to Lender, oh Initials: & MULTISTATE PUD RIDER-Single Family--Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3480 4/91. Ellie Maa, Ine, Page fof2 FSIBORDU O115 F3150RLU (28 05/06/2021 12:19 PM PS oF LOAN #; 2600038578 D, Condemnation. The proceeds of any award or claim for damages, direct or consequential, payable to Borrower In cormection with any condemnation or other taking of all or any’ part of the Property or the common areas and facilities of the PUD, or for any conveyance in lieu of condemnation, are hereby assigned and shall be paid to Lendér. Such proceeds shall be applied by Lender to the sums sacurad by the Security Instrument as provided in Section 11, E. Lender's Prior Consent, Borrower shall not, &xcept after notice to Lender and with Lender's prior written consent, either Partition or subdivide the Property or consent to; (i) the abandonment or termination of the PUD, except for abandonment or termination required by law in the case of substantial destruction by fire or other casualty or in the case Of a taking by condemnation or eminent domain: (li) any amendmentio any provision of the “Constituent Documents’ if the provision is for the express benefit of Lender; (ii) termination ofprofessional managementand assumption of sell- managerentof the OwnersAssociation; or (iv) any action which would hava the effect of rendering the public lability insurance coverage maintained by the Owners Association unacceptable to Lender. F, Remedies. If Borrower does not pay PUD dues and assessments when due, then Lender may pay them. Any amounts disbursed t Lender under this paragraph F shall become additional debt af Borrower secured by the Security Instrument. Uniess Borrower and Lender agree to other terms of payment, these ‘amounts shall bear interest from the date of disbursement at the Note fate and shall be payable, with Interest, Upon natice from Lender to Borrower requesting paymant, BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accepts and agrees to the terms and covenants contained in this PUD Riga. wells: mh Liffipy 2p tee RONNIE OXENDINE i / BATE a LE LE sft EF (Seal TINA OXENDINE DATE Initials; 24 MULTISTATE PUD RIDER--Single Family--Fannie Mae/Fredaie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3150 1/01 Edle Mae, Inc. Page 2of2 F81508Du O115, F3150RLU (CLS) 08/06/2021 12:18 PM PST For Registration Register of Deeds Judy D. Martin Moore County, NC Electronically Recorded 12:26:53 PM Book: 5612 Page: 283 - 297 #Pages: 15 Fee: $64.00 NC Rev Stamp: $0.00 ; Instrument# 2021010971 -——_— oo —— [Space Above This Line For Recording Dataj— =» __ —_ -— DEED OF TRUST When recorded, return to: First Bank Attn: Post Closing Department 101 N. Spring Street Greensboro, NC 27401 800-303-7592 This document was prepared by: H*. Craig Phifer, IIT First Bank 101 N. Spring Street Greensboro, NC 27401 800-303-7592 LOAN #: 2600038578 DEFINITIONS Words used in multiple sections of this document are defined below and other words are defined in Sections 3, 11, 13, 18, 20 and 21. Certain cules regarding the usage of words used in this document are also provided in Section 16. (A) “Security Instrument” means this document, which is dated May 10, 2021, logether with all Riders to this document. “ {B) “Borrower” is » RONNIE OXENDINE AND WIFE, TINA OXENDINE re Borrower is the trustor under this Security Instrument. (C) “Lender” Is First Bank. Lender is a Chartered Bank, organized and existing under the laws of North Carolina. Lender's address is 101 N. Spring Street, Greensboro, NC 27401, Lender is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. (D) “Trustee” is Kirsten Eltefson Foyles, Esq.. (E) "Note” means the Promissory note signed by Borrower and dated Ma The Note states that Borrower owes Lender EIGH’ UI ARRORHREAM ERT AR EREN RRO TRA RAR ER OME Dollars (U. Plus interesi. Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments and to pa than September 1, 2052, (F) “Property” means the property that is described below under the heading “Transfer of Rights in the Property." Initials: a ) @ debt in full not later NORTH CAROLINA-Single Family-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3034-1/01 Ellie Mae, Inc. Page 1 of 9 NCUDEED 0315 3 NCUDEED (CLS) 08/06/2021 12:19 PM PST d electronically by “clarke, Phifer, Vaughn, Brenner & McNei11, PLLC” invconpi janes wigh North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents r and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Moore County Register of Deeds. [OCR skipped on page(s) 31-58] [Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Alumbee%3A1dc8ec1663bcf221. Public record. Not legal advice.