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
As I have continued to read various foreclosure cases one rather discernible pattern I have seen in the few DEFENDED cases where a pro se litigant has actually ANSWERED the suit is the defendant's failure to appreciate the challenges associated with defending against the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

In MOST foreclosure cases, the defendant NEVER even answers and the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against them.  I have commented upon this in another discussion thread relating to the necessity of ANSWERING a properly filed suit.

But even when the Defendant DOES answer, what tends to happen next in judicial foreclosure states is the plaintiff files for a motion for summary judgment.

Pro se litigants would be well served to read their state's Rules and related CASES on summary judgment.  Generally speaking, summary judgment is a means by which litigants can dispose of cases where the essential FACTS are NOT in dispute and where, rather, facts may be established as a matter of law because facts presented by one or the other litigant are unrefuted or uncontested BY EVIDENCE by the other side.

Typically, the plaintiff will use as summary judgment evidence an affidavit prepared by its attorneys and executed by an employee of the mortgage servicer OR executed by a contract perjurer in the employ of the mortgage servicer.

This affidavit, even when prepared by a person LYING UNDER OATH constitutes summary judgment proof by the plaintiff.  IF THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO ANSWER THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND TO AFFIRMATIVELY GET SOME EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD TO DISPUTE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEN THE DEFENDANT WILL USUALLY LOSE!

The Defendant's summary judgment evidence can usually be affidavits OR discovery responses.  Pro se defendants often fail to realize that NO TESTIMONY will typically be taken at the summary judgment hearing and the matter will be decided upon the competent summary judgment evidence ON FILE.  In many states, the evidence by affidavit must be submitted some time in advance of the hearing.  The rules relating to the deadline for filing affidavits VARIES.  Pro se litigants need to familiarize themselves with the Rules as they relate to the submission of summary judgment evidence.

Even where the defendant believes that there are substantive defects in the plaintiff's case which might seem to give the defendant some cause for hope, it may very well be a good idea to present at least a few of the essential defensive FACTS by way of affidavit so that there is SOME defensive summary judgment proof within the RECORD.

For example, suppose that the plaintiff were to be COLLOSAL BANK USA, as trustee for the EPIC MORTGAGE AND ASSET BACKED TRUST SERIES 2006-SSP but that the original Lender was SHADY SUBPRIME MORTGAGE.  Suppose further that NO ASSIGNMENT had ever been recorded assigning SHADY SUBPRIME's interest to COLLOSSAL BANK USA.

An affidavit by the defendant or another person with KNOWLEDGE of the plaintiff's pleadings AND the land records might then reasonably SWEAR:

1.  The alleged mortgage dated DD MMM YYYY showing the Defendants as grantors purporting to secure an alleged principal amount of $xxx,xxx and attached to Plaintiff COLLOSSAL BANK USA's Complaint as Exhibit "B" identifies as the grantee of such alleged mortgage SHADY SUBPRIME MORTGAGE.

2.  At the date that Plaintiff COLLOSSAL BANK USA institued suit there was no assignment of record showing assignment of the alleged mortgage ... by SHADY SUBPRIME MORTGAGE to COLLOSSAL BANK USA.

3.  The Defendants have NEVER borrowed any money whatsoever from COLLOSSAL BANK USA.

etc.

Of course, it is ESSENTIAL that any affidavit you prepare and file in defense of a motion for summary judgment be TRUTHFUL and that you not only be TRUTHFUL but endeavor to avoid being misleading or evasive with the Court.

By contrast, you will find that the Plaintiff's affidavits used as summary judgment evidence are deliberately crafted to be VAGUE and to make varoius general statements which are difficult to easily refute AND which would make it difficult to prosecute the plaintiff's employees and agents for their perjury.

If you critically read the plaintiff's affidavits, the averments therein can also be a fertile source of material for defensive affidavits.

There are usually a number of defects in the plaintiff's case and affidavits which need to be IDENTIFIED and very often pointed out in the defensive affidavit.  The Defendant may also want to OBJECT TO the admissibility of the plaintiff's affidavits, which often contain heresay, perjury or are executed by persons lacking personal knowledge or without authority.

The purpose of this post is NOT to give instruction on developing your defnsive case, but rather as a REMINDER as to the necessity and desirability of preparing and filing some admissible evidence, usually in the form of affidavits or discovery responses, before the court hears and determines a motion for summary judgment.  Failing to do this may cause an unnecessary and premature LOSS of your case!

Perhaps others can comment upon their own summary judgment experiences and share with us both their successes and even instructive failures to help others avoid their mistakes.
Quote 0 0
OT- Question

can you put injunction against a mortgage company to keep them from hurting your credit?

Quote 0 0
Bill
Looks like a few attorneys in FL are finally catching on to this new argument. Oh wait, this was posted in 2008 by WAR and we are just FINALLY seeing this argument being made and prevail 3 years later.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=4D10-1372&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10&case=864783928451428243&scilh=0
Quote 0 0
Hungarian Pro se
Bill wrote:
Looks like a few attorneys in FL are finally catching on to this new argument. Oh wait, this was posted in 2008 by WAR and we are just FINALLY seeing this argument being made and prevail 3 years later.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=4D10-1372&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10&case=864783928451428243&scilh=0

I am not sure i understand what is your point in the Glarum case? It is about hearsay and business records. What am i missing?
Quote 0 0
Boyd
Quote:
I am not sure i understand what is your point in the Glarum case? It is about hearsay and business records. What am i missing?


It is about winning cases by applying actual legal principles that work rather than infatuation with wingnut nonsense.
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
A Lawyer (or an assignee of debt or buyer of default debt) that does not represent an original creditor holds records that are hearsay. In other words, the documents have not been authenticated and are inadmissible as evidence. Usually they came into possession of the docs from a third party. Didnt read the case, only answering last question posted.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...