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
stillinMyHome
At the top of the note it give this name Freeport Illinios and under is the property address. Why is the city of Freeport IL. at the top?


 Also who should bring the action against the home owner The servicer or the trustee?
Quote 0 0
    Very often, the originator of the "obligation" no longer exists and no transfer of the obligation to any third party ever occurred.
    So what the servicer will do is "create" a phony Trust as the plaintiff
(claiming it has a "power of attorney" from the phony Trust to verify the
Complaint).  Then it will "assign" the Mortgage and the Note to the phony
Trust, claiming it has a "power of attorney" from the "defunct" originator.
     In almost every case I have researched, the "servicer" never had a
"power of attorney" from the originator nor from the phony Trust.
     Powers of attorney must be recorded in Official Records so if it is not
there, it means the Servicer never had it. This is blatant fraud and perjury
and should result in a dismissal with prejudice.
     When you see an "XYZ" 2005 Trust and an assignment done in say 2008
this should be a warning signal that you are dealing with a fraudulent attempt by a Servicer to foreclose on an obligation it does not own, nor hold.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
The trust is real but I have no way of finding out if the loan is really in that trust. Yes I have been to Edgar already.
Quote 0 0
stillinmyhome
My other question still has not been addressed.
Quote 0 0
Seth
Quote:
 
My other question still has not been addressed.


It is common for contracts and unilateral instruments to show the date and place of execution of the instrument.

When choice of law issues arise, the default is usually that a contract or negotiable instrument is controlled by the law of the place of execution.  By contrast, a deed, mortgage or other instrument relating to rights in real estate is most often controlled by the law of the place where the real property is located.

If this indication appeared at the top of the note, this suggests that the note was executed in the place shown.  Whether this is correct or not would not usually affect the validity or negotiability, but rather only the law that should be used to interpret the instrument.

If the date or place shown was incorrect, the borrower ought to have corrected it prior to execution.  Under the so called parole evidence rule, courts will not allow oral or written testimony of persons (even parties to the instrument) to vary the terms of the instrument itself.  In other words, even if the place is wrong, it is legally going to be the place of execution, because that's what the note says.

Since the UCC is fairly uniform throughout the country (except as to use of allonges in NY state), designation of another place is not going to usually be important.  If the place is wrong as to city, but correct as to state, it doesn't matter at all.  If it is wrong as to state, for example, suppose that you really signed in Wisconsin or Minnesota, it is still not going to be relevant unless you know of some difference in the UCC between the place of actual execution and the place shown.

It is good to question everything, but this is probably not a productive avenue of inquiry or defense.

Perhaps Texas (who is well familiar with the UCC) or another participant has a better answer, but I think that this is probably not fruitful.
Quote 0 0
Texas
I find it interesting not the city but that the note is an adjustable rate note based on LIBOR. A question that would cross ones mind, did a payment rate change and did such change match the LIBOR Indice.

If a payment rate changed not in correlation with the index, would that be fraud upon the instrument?
Quote 0 0
stillinmyhome
The note I signed was in my home in wisconsin. Not in freeport IL. 4 years later they modified the loan to a fixed rate. They changed the terms of the loan. Also they told me there was a new investor.EMC
Quote 0 0
Seth
Quote:
The note I signed was in my home in wisconsin. Not in freeport IL.
4 years later they modified the loan to a fixed rate. They changed the
terms of the loan. Also they told me there was a new investor.EMC


OK, so what?

Texas makes an interesting point about LIBOR, given the current
LIBOR scandal.  But if your loan was modified to a fixed rate,
complaining about LIBOR dishonesty seems to be out the window.

What you seem to not be getting is that pursuant to the parole evidence rule,
your testimony that the instrument was executed in Wisconsin rather than
Illinois will be inadmissible over the objection of the plaintiff.  But even if you
proved that the instrument was executed in Wisconsin, this would NOT alter
your obligation under the note.

The only thing that it might do is require the use of Illinois rather than
Wisconsin law in interpreting the note.  Since provisions of the UCC are
going to be the same in both places, this is totally irrelevant and useless.

To the extent that the instrument was later modified, choice of law would
probably be controlled by the modification agreement anyway.

Once again, it is a good idea to question everything.  But then you need
to use a little bit of judgment and let go of the useless and irrelevant!

Focus on those issues that can actually win your case! 
Quote 0 0
stillinmyhome
So lets get this straight. The notary can say they saw us sign this in another state (we didn't) but that's ok for the bank because our signatures are on it.
 From what I have learned on trusts is that even if your loan is not in the stated trust state on your note that's ok too.  So the bank gets a bailout and we get the boot. They get in trouble from majorly screwing with all of these liars loans and what ever else then they get a bailout and if we get in trouble from loss of income we get no slack at all. The f-ing bank doesn't give up crap do they???? There's somethng wrong with this picture isn't there???
Quote 0 0
Seth
Quote:
So lets get this straight. The notary can say they saw us sign this in
another state (we didn't) but that's ok for the bank because our signatures
are on it. 

From what I have learned on trusts is that even if your loan is not in the
stated trust state on your note that's ok too. So the bank gets a bailout
and we get the boot. They get in trouble from majorly screwing with all
of these liars loans and what ever else then they get a bailout and if we
get in trouble from loss of income we get no slack at all. The f-ing bank
doesn't give up crap do they???? There's somethng wrong with this
picture isn't there???


I am not taking the notary's word for it.  I am taking YOUR word
for it! 
YOU SIGNED IT WITH THAT LANGUAGE AT THE TOP!!

As I understood your question, you wondered about the legal effects of
showing a different place of execution at the top of the note.  Suppose 
that I wrote you a check.  Further suppose that I wrote at the top of the
check that I was signing the check in Chicago.  But I really wrote the 
check in Tampa.  After giving you the check and obtaining in return six
bushels of your best turnips, I call the bank and tell them that they
should not pay the check because I had written Chicago at the top of the
check, but I wasn't really in Chicago at the time, but was really in Tampa.

Do you really think that I shouldn't have to pay you for the turnips?

Will my writing Chicago absolve me of responsibility for either criminal
prosecution for writing a hot check or civil liability for paying you for the
turnips?

If you think that this is a strong defense, can I buy some turnips (as
well as emeralds and bearer bonds) from you?  I have a check here
that says "Atlanta" at the top (I am not really in Atlanta).

You are going to find that court cases everywhere will agree that you
had a responsibility to read the instrument.  Here, we aren't even
talking about some defect buried in the fine print, but something crying
out at the very top of the instrument.

There is no court in the United States that would accept your testimony
(over the plaintiff's objection) to vary the express language shown in
the note or mortgage.  That is what the parole evidence rule is all about. 
If courts allowed parties to later argue about the validity or effectiveness
of words appearing within a contract based upon oral testimony, it
wouldn't really be very important what a written contract say, would it?

Your frustration with bailouts of too big to fail banks is certainly
understandable.  But that is really a different issue, isn't it?  We
need to vote this corrupt president out of office and elect public officials
who are not carrying water and currying favor to corrupt bankers!
Quote 0 0
Seth
Let's also be clear.  The notary didn't sign the note.  The notary
would only ever sign the mortgage.  Notes are not authenticated!

The ONLY representation that this instrument was executed in Freeport,
Illinois is YOUR SIGNATURE!!

What should the court believe?  What the note says?  Or what YOU say
now that you are faced with foreclosure.

You need to let go of this issue man and move on to some
REAL ISSUES!
Quote 0 0
Texas
Will not get into a debate on with Seth on who should be in elected office, but a point was made about a subsequent contract modification replacing the original contract. Would this action of executing a subsequent contract waive any argument by either party to the contract that was replaced?

Seniors do comment on item as presented precisely as presented.

From a point of view that most overlook, trying to prove a contract was not valid is an admission that such contract existed. Never make admissions.

There is a "however" that is even more complicated. In short, did the party that executed the second contract have legal standing to execute such subsequent contract? Where there is an admission, possible there is standing.
Quote 0 0
Eric
Quote:
Since the UCC is fairly uniform throughout the country (except as
to use of allonges in NY state), designation of another place is not going
to usually be important.  If the place is wrong as to city, but correct
as to state, it doesn't matter at all. If it is wrong as to state, for
example, suppose that you really signed in Wisconsin or Minnesota,
it is still not going to be relevant unless you know of some difference
in the UCC between the place of actual execution and the place shown.

It is good to question everything, but this is probably not a
productive avenue of inquiry or defense.
  

I think that Seth and Texas have ably responded to this query.

I would only add that if there was some difference in Illinois and Wisconsin
law as to either interpretation of the contract or the course to follow in
the event of a default (as with differing cases on application of conditions
precedent, discussed today in another thread), a defendant could probably
insist that the Wisconsin court apply Illinois law in regards to a suit on the
breach of a note shown to be executed in Illinois!

Just as the Federal courts rely upon the law of the appropriate state, one
state court may be required to apply the law of another state in respect of
a suit on an instrument controlled by the laws of another state.

In an case involving a note shown to be executed in Illinois and a mortgage
also shown to be executed in Illinois in respect of Wisconsin property, if
the suit was filed in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin court might be required to
apply Illinois law to the claim on the note and Wisconsin law to the claim
for foreclosure on the mortgage.  The law of the forum state (Wisconsin)
would be applied to all procedural issues.

For that matter, if, after execution, the note was negotiated in yet another
place, such as New York, the law ofhte place of delivery of the instrument
would control the negotiation, which is considered to be a separate transaction!

If the borrower failed to argue the difference in law, the issue would
most likely be waived and Wisconsin's law would be applied to all issues.

I think that Seth is correct that the UCC is going to give pretty mush the
same result in both places.  But there are some minor differences between
the states in application of laws relating to conditions precedent.  Also,
bear in mind that most of the critical conditions are in the mortgage rather
than the note.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
The notary did sign that they witnessed my signing the note. It says witnessed before her. Also when this loan was modified they told me and sent me a letter that we had a new investor. I have a very stong feeling that our loan is not where they say it is but I cannot prove it.

Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
I know this doesn't make much of a difference but as far as I am concerned the note I signed was in wisconsin and I am sticking to it. And as I just said I do not think my loan is in the stated trust they say it is in.
Quote 0 0
Texas
Shall bow to the fact you signed the Note (admission). Where does not really matter for the Note.

Like a check, you write in California and state it was done in Florida, still can be cashed in Montana, Arkansas or Kansas.
Quote 0 0
T-Bill
What are you trying to accomplish?  Will it cause the Judge to rule in ur favor?
Quote 0 0
T-Bill

And if the Judge doesn't rule in your favor -- is it an issue that can be raised on appeal?

Quote 0 0
stillinmyhome
From what I have learned is the notary subject is not worth pursuing. Also I am not sure on the trust issue. It would seem to me that there would be some kind of standing issue if the loan was not in the correct trust but then I probably am wrong on that too. As I understand it the entity that owned the trust failed and was bought out for pennies on the dollar by another entity 2 years after my loan was placed in that trust. I wish some one on this site could explain how that works.  Unless you have a sense for the legality of all of this you will completely frustrated by the whole process of trying to save your home. No wonder so many just get up and leave when foreclosure papers are served.
Quote 0 0
Texas
Fraud involving a notary stamp is fraud where an instrument requires such notary which a Note does not. Never try to prove a Trust hold a Notes, prove that the method and means for the Trust to have ownership thus standing per Trust documents by the evidence of missing indorsements and public records, prove the negative.

As Roper once said, it is Conditions Precedence of not having followed the Trust documents that deprive the Trust of Standing to invoke a courts Jurisdiction.
Quote 0 0
T-Bill
What if the mortgage is not properly notarized for recording?

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/What-if-the-mortgage-is-not-properly-notarized-for-recording-5272231
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...