Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
How is this for a clever way to get more bailout to the banks? Call it a homeowner bailout, or "aid," or loan. Tell homeowners they can stay current or catch up late payments with this wonderful opportunity. Just tack no interest to it and the homeowner will be none the wiser.

Don't fall for it!

When "a billion dollars for homeowners" idea is being floated, we can know that the pillar is stressed and cracking. If we keep fighting in court, more of us will win.

The law says the homeowner has a right to ask for and get the identity of the correct party to pay. Remember the Veal case a couple of weeks ago? Read the following important excerpt from that 9th Circuit opinion (along with my emphasis):


A thorough understanding of the concept of a “person entitled to enforce” is key to sorting out the relative rights and obligations of the various parties to a mortgage transaction. In particular, the person obligated on the note – a “maker” in the argot of Article 3 – must pay the obligation represented by the note to the “person entitled to enforce” it.
UCC § 3-412.

Further, if a maker pays a “person entitled to enforce” the note, the maker’s obligations are discharged to the extent of the amount paid. UCC § 3-602(a).

Put another way, if a maker makes a payment to a “person entitled to enforce,” the obligation is satisfied on a dollar for dollar basis, and the maker never has to pay that amount again. Id. See also UCC § 3-602(c).

If, however, the maker pays someone other than a “person entitled to enforce” – even if that person physically possesses the note the maker signedthe payment generally has no effect on the obligations under the note. The maker still owes the money to the “person entitled to enforce,” (Miller & Harrell, supra, ¶ 6.03[6] [b] [ii]), and, at best, has only an action in restitution to recover the mistaken payment. See UCC § 3-418(b)


We are in a serious fight for our future. Borrowing more money to pay the wrong party is not an option!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...