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
FnDoomed
Some thread on the forum postulated three events in sequence: 1) notice of default, 2) mortgage assignment, 3) foreclosure; and proposed a position of alleging the debt was already in default when the party foreclosing took the debt by assignment.

Other than under the FDCPA definitions of "credit" and "debt collector" I'm having a hard time applying this argument - what's the point?

Seems to me that if you make that argument you are by definition admitting a default.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Wow... That other thread I remembered was me...

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/When-BANK-becomes-DEBT-COLLECTOR-5265611?highlight=fdcpa

Quote 0 0
....
FnDoomed wrote:
Some thread on the forum postulated three events in sequence: 1) notice of default, 2) mortgage assignment, 3) foreclosure; and proposed a position of alleging the debt was already in default when the party foreclosing took the debt by assignment.

Other than under the FDCPA definitions of "credit" and "debt collector" I'm having a hard time applying this argument - what's the point?

Seems to me that if you make that argument you are by definition admitting a default.


I usually don't have a problem like yours. IF YOU CAN'T FIND A CASE WHERE THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THERE HAS TO BE A REASON WHY. Debt collector, securitization, insurance proceeds, non-negotiable note, ect... are all losing arguments. The winning arguments keep winning and are easily accessible in most jurisdictions.

Rather than use very colorful "theories" and admit to a default (as you suggested) simply making them PROVE their case with ADMISSIBLE evidence is, and has always been, a winner.

This is NOT as easy as it sounds. It takes a lot of research and reading the case law. It takes a lot of proof reading and hopefully you have a friend that will give a second opinion. You need CLEAR well put together arguments SUPPORTED BY CASE LAW. Until you have completely torn apart the Plaintiff's evidence, it is really premature to venture off and lose focus on what wins.

But of course, what do I know.
Quote 0 0
w
.... "But of course, what do I know."

can you, "....", upload ohhhh how bout 65% of "what [] I know"?

tu for all that you have shared and the time spent in helping us to get a handle on this foreclosure thing!
Quote 0 0
Lynn
FnDoomed,

In my opinion, the argument would be that a debt taken with notice of default bars the holder in due course status, as well as, the immunity a holder in due course has against most borrower's defense. Taking with knowledge of default opens the plaintiff to all law relating to contracts.

Also, the order of events, as you mentioned, may involve conditions precedent. Mr. Roper taught that failure to perform conditions precedent is sometimes a better defense than lack of standing because it requires a decision from the court. Search for conditions precedent on this site and see what he taught.

If I may go a little off topic to respond to the "theories" mentioned in a negative vein on this site. Some homeowners even fail to present persuasively the tried-and-true defenses. Most of the cases I've read are successful mostly for the lack of standing defense. But I read a Supreme Court dissenting opinion recently from a judge who argued that standing is being pleaded where real party in interest is more applicable and more effective. He opined that real party in interest allows the court to get to the merits, whereas lack of standing does not. (Rules 17 gives direction about real party in interest.)

About the insurance argument being a theory going nowhere. That is not always true. It depends on what is being argued. Arguing that the borrower no longer has to pay if insurance covered the loss is futile. However, arguing that the party who received the insurance proceeds is longer entitled to relief can be far more than a theory. For instance, my judge agreed that insurance paid to cover a loss from default after SEC proof of liquidation of the debt is material evidence. That's because the prospectus related to the trust has a subrogation clause clearly stating that if insurance paid the loss, the right to recover from the borrower transferred to that insurance company. This means the borrower is subject to multiple claims. In this case, the possibility of multiple claims is not conjecture or theory; it is sure. I think that the PSA and prospectus related to my loan is boilerplate for CW loans, so it probably applies to many loans. I found the PSA and prospectus on the SEC Web site. I searched for "subrogation" once I found the trust.

I am researching now whether the Rule 26 might be relevant:

"...Disclosure of insurance coverage will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation. It will conduce to settlement and avoid protracted litigation in some cases, though in others it may have an opposite effect. The amendment is limited to insurance coverage, which should be distinguished from any other facts concerning defendant's financial status (1) because insurance is an asset created specifically to satisfy the claim; (2) because the insurance company ordinarily controls the litigation; (3) because information about coverage is available only from defendant or his insurer; and (4) because disclosure does not involve a significant invasion of privacy...."

A lot of double dipping went on, but if no one dares to present it to the court or we allow others to dissuade us from trying it because that person considers it a mere "theory," the issue effectively is waived. I dared to present this and the judge listened. Trial is soon, so I'll find out how persuasive it ends up.

With that said, insurance payment does not affect the borrower's obligation to the debt, but it likely changes the party entitled to recover from the borrower.

I didn't avoid investigating that issue despite the fact that some think certain issues are mere theories. I've found some are not theories at all. While I do believe showing that the plaintiff did not prove its case is fundamental and usually can be effective, I have learned that the court has a mind set of how foreclosure is supposed to be, and how it has been for centuries. Therefore, too much is presumed in favor of the banks and servicers. Gradually, honorable courts are seeing much more is involved in this mess.

Quote 0 0
Melinda
Quote:
Some thread on the forum postulated three events in sequence: 1) notice of default, 2) mortgage assignment, 3) foreclosure; and proposed a position of alleging the debt was already in default when the party foreclosing took the debt by assignment.

Other than under the FDCPA definitions of "credit" and "debt collector" I'm having a hard time applying this argument - what's the point?


There are two possible arguments. As observed above, there is the issue of holder in due course immunity. It is essential to appreciate that while taking the debt after default precludes holder in due course immunity it does not preclude the right of enforcement as holder.

Holder in due course immunity is usually pretty thin, since almost any origination fraud would be subject to a statute of limitations.

The second argument relates to Mr. Roper's conditions precedent argument. How can an entity declare default prior to acquiring its interest in the debt? See Mr. Roper's thread on conditions precedent.
Quote 0 0
....
Unless you have a counterclaim that is NOT barred by the limitations (it is already 2012), holder in due course does NOT matter. It is sufficient to just be the holder.

Quote 0 0
?
Holder of what?

Language from a Mortgage Backed Security

Depositor is generally engaged in the business of serving as depositor of one or more trusts that may authorize, issue, sell and deliver bonds or other evidences of indebtedness or certificates of interest that are secured by a pledge or other assignment of, or represent an interest in, mortgage loans and other mortgage assets. The Depositor is also generally engaged in the business of acquiring, owning, holding, transferring, assigning, pledging and otherwise dealing with mortgage assets.

Language from a Security Instrument (Deed of Trust)

20. Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance.
The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.

"Interest in" is nothing but a Transferable Record whereas UCC 9 applies but Local Laws of Jurisdiction do not apply to Transferable Records, 15 USC 7003…
Quote 0 0
....
? wrote:
Holder of what?

Language from a Mortgage Backed Security

Depositor is generally engaged in the business of serving as depositor of one or more trusts that may authorize, issue, sell and deliver bonds or other evidences of indebtedness or certificates of interest that are secured by a pledge or other assignment of, or represent an interest in, mortgage loans and other mortgage assets. The Depositor is also generally engaged in the business of acquiring, owning, holding, transferring, assigning, pledging and otherwise dealing with mortgage assets.

Language from a Security Instrument (Deed of Trust)

20. Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance.
The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.

"Interest in" is nothing but a Transferable Record whereas UCC 9 applies but Local Laws of Jurisdiction do not apply to Transferable Records, 15 USC 7003…


Most of the time when a "Holder" is discussed it means the Holder of the note.

The "Holder" is the entity that physically has the note and usually are entitled to enforce the note when endorsed in blank.

I'm pretty lost with what you posted, I don't see the relevance.
Nothing in the PSA helps a borrower. You are not a party to the contract and can't enforce the PSA or complain about it's breach.

Maybe you could explain a little more.
Quote 0 0
?
It's all explained on http://www.ourlemon.com

MSFraud.org provides discussion on how to use in a court of law.

Left of or in the Security has supporting law, to the right of or is a transferable record and the Security Instrument does not follow a transferable record.
Quote 0 0
May be possible to his worldview, the property of their fundamental or everyone thinking of different heart.


-----------------
http://www.mmolive.com/
http://www.mmohome.com/gold/Maple-Story-US.html
Quote 0 0
Jack
the right of the Trust to enforce the note is governed by the PSA and the homeowner can always raise the issue of the rights or standing of the Trust to enforce the note.
Quote 0 0
Oliver
Quote:
Holder of what?

Language from a Mortgage Backed Security

Depositor is generally engaged in the business of serving as depositor of one or more trusts that may authorize, issue, sell and deliver bonds or other evidences of indebtedness or certificates of interest that are secured by a pledge or other assignment of, or represent an interest in, mortgage loans and other mortgage assets. The Depositor is also generally engaged in the business of acquiring, owning, holding, transferring, assigning, pledging and otherwise dealing with mortgage assets.

Language from a Security Instrument (Deed of Trust)

20. Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance.
The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.

"Interest in" is nothing but a Transferable Record whereas UCC 9 applies but Local Laws of Jurisdiction do not apply to Transferable Records, 15 USC 7003…


This is the sort of garbage put out by debt elimination scam operators to swindle distressed borrowers!

The law pertaining to right of enforcement of a negotiable instrument is crystal clear in all fifty states and is found within Article III of the UCC.

Mr. Roper's posts have shown the way to interpose viable defenses for which there is actual strong statutory and case law support. Those who peddle the nonsense shown above are simply using this as a false pretext to sell various scam products include loan securitization audits and forensic loan audits.

Those who buy into this garbage get swindled a second time by the very same scam operators who were peddling sub-prime mortgages during the bubble. These criminals claim to have "turned over a new leaf" and are purporting to help distressed borrowers. In fact, there is not a single case anywhere in the United States where a borrower has prevailed using these vacuous arguments.

By contrast, there are scores of distressed borrowers here at the Forum who have held off foreclosure for years using Mr. Roper's costless suggested defensive methods. Because Mr. Roper has sought to put these criminals out of business and behind bars, they appear at this Forum to attack and demonize him.

Before you spend $10 on any of these scam products, you ought to spend that amount on good reliable ball ammunition to defend your home against these scammers!
Quote 0 0
....
Jack wrote:
the right of the Trust to enforce the note is governed by the PSA and the homeowner can always raise the issue of the rights or standing of the Trust to enforce the note.


The right of the Trust or anyone to enforce the note is governed by the UCC NOT the PSA.

If you raise the issue of the "rights or standing" of the Trust to enforce the note you will quickly lose that argument.

READ THE UCC AND CASE LAW.
Quote 0 0
Oliver
Quote:
the right of the Trust to enforce the note is governed by the PSA and the homeowner can always raise the issue of the rights or standing of the Trust to enforce the note.


Although the case law on this point continues to emerge, the cases mostly show that a borrower can attack an assignment based upon nemo dat principles including both lack of interest in the subject matter of the assignment as well as lack of power of an agent to convey an interest after teh extinction of its principal.

On the other hand, most cases have established that the borrower has no right to challnge the authority of the person executing the assignment nor can the borrower seek to enforce terms of the PSA. The borrower is not a party to the PSA.

While there is nothing wrong with making these latter arguments, do not expect to prevail using these arguments.

These latter arguments exist and are championed solely as a pretext to sell various debt elimination scams and to peddle worthless securitization audits. There is not a single case in the United States ever where a borrower used a securitization audit to defeat a foreclosure.

It costs nothing to make the legal argument. Even $1 spent on a securitization audit is completely wasted.
Quote 0 0
lb
I read

The PSA terms trump Article 3 Rules as an otherwise agreed provision under 1-302 of the UCC and therefore the notes in a securitized trust are transferred by Assignment and not by Negotiation. And, the Assignment Rules are set and structured by the PSA and the collateral Mortgage Loan Sales Agreements related to the PSA.
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
You need to challenge the mortgage and or loan failed to make it into the trust and know whether or not the trust stopped filing with the SEC. If they did there is no trust, it is DEAD and GONE. Also, you can't be a true Holder if you bought debt you knew was in default at the time of purchase. Once a loan is securitized it becomes personal property ( a certificated piece of paper) and you cannot secure real property with an investment security.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Jcam: Also, you can't be a true Holder if you bought debt you knew was in default at the time of purchase

Say more. I know the scenario you describe causes you to be a debt collector for FDCPA purposes -- I know that taking a note with notice of default can prevent becoming holder in due course.

Is that what you meant by "true holder" ?? If not, say more...
Quote 0 0
Bill
jlcam37 wrote:
You need to challenge the mortgage and or loan failed to make it into the trust and know whether or not the trust stopped filing with the SEC. If they did there is no trust, it is DEAD and GONE.

Also, you can\\\'t be a true Holder if you bought debt you knew was in default at the time of purchase.

Once a loan is securitized it becomes personal property ( a certificated piece of paper) and you cannot secure real property with an investment security.


He really doesn\\\'t need to say more.

Weather or not the trust stopped filing with the SEC has NOTHING to do with if there is a valid trust. This was discussed in other threads. If the amount of investors holding certificates falls below a certain level you are NOT required to report to the SEC.

Being a holder has NOTHING to do with if the debt was in default. There is over a hundred years of case law that shows you can buy bad debts and try to collect. You may not have \\\"holder in due course\\\" immunity from a borrowers claims but you are still the holder.

The third part of his statement is more rubbish. Having a loan put into a pool with securitization does NOT change the Note, mortgage, or obligation to pay. It just changes the flow of the money. Mortgages are NOT turned into certificates. They BACK (with proceeds from the payments) the certificates. This is why they are called a MBS (mortgage BACKED security). This is 100% legal and has been done for decades.

Just about everything he posted is WRONG. These are the kind of \\\"theories\\\" and \\\"misconceptions\\\" that a lot of forum participants have been trying to dispel for years. Because websites like Living Lies say these are good arguments does not make it so.

I would be more than willing to read any CASES or FACTS you have that show my assertions are incorrect...But won\\\'t hold my breath.
Quote 0 0
Luke
Quote:
Jcam: Also, you can't be a true Holder if you bought debt you knew was in default at the time of purchase


You are confusing the concepts of "holder" and "holder in due course".

A holder is entitled to enforcement of a negotiable instrument under the UCC. Holder in due course is an immunity status that applies to some holders.

A person who becomes a holder through a negotiation after default is still a holder and entitled to enforce the instrument. But such a holder is not a holder in due course and is not entitled to interpose the holder in due course immunity.

Mr. Roper has posted about this several times, but some of these posts have been deleted by the site administrator.
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
Defense is "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" ask court to dismiss without prejudice. Anyone suing not the original creditor has no actual case or controversy (claim against you) and the court is without JURISDICTION to hear the case. Entity is not real party in interest and any evidence they hold is hearsay and inadmissible because they are NOT original creditor. Cant be a holder if you knew debt was in default when purchased. DENY< DENY< DENY any debt owed!!
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
Bill- you are full of $*&^. HIDC status has everything to do with determining whether they have the right to enforce the debt. You purchase default debt you are attempting to collect unsecured defaulted debt. Only the originator does NOT have to include "we are attempting to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose". As far as a non reporting entities with the SEC if no trust exists you are paying a stranger for a non existent debt. After the A<B<C<D transactions are fulfilled (originator,sponsor,depositor,trust)EVERYONE is paid in full and debt is gone!! Why dont you ask the IRS if the said trust is reporting income?? I'll bet you any amount of money it is NOT being reported but it is being accepted! A REMIC loses it's tax free status if they earn profit and excess proceeds is profit they aren't allowed to make.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
JLCam - listen to Bill. HDIC is just a stronger form of holdership in that HDIC cuts off certain defenses that the maker could raise against a mere holder. You most certainly CAN be a holder even if you acquire debt in default.

You are also a debt-collector under FDCPA but you are STILL A HOLDER or IOW a "person entitled to enforce an instrument" under UCC 3-301.

Please provide a case where holdership was denied because the debt was in default when acquired...
Quote 0 0
Bill
jlcam37 wrote:
Bill- you are full of $*&^. HIDC status has everything to do with determining whether they have the right to enforce the debt. You purchase default debt you are attempting to collect unsecured defaulted debt. Only the originator does NOT have to include \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"we are attempting to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". As far as a non reporting entities with the SEC if no trust exists you are paying a stranger for a non existent debt. After the A<B<C<D transactions are fulfilled (originator,sponsor,depositor,trust)EVERYONE is paid in full and debt is gone!! Why dont you ask the IRS if the said trust is reporting income?? I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ll bet you any amount of money it is NOT being reported but it is being accepted! A REMIC loses it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s tax free status if they earn profit and excess proceeds is profit they aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t allowed to make.


You are again are showing just a plain lack of understanding. You are buying into a securitization argument that has never won in court. It is used to have unsuspecting homeowners purchase useless products and services from websites like Living Lies in an attempt to defend their homes. Just like on these swindler websites you fail to post any case law that supports your assertions.

1. You really are NOT buying a defaulted debt. You are buying a promissory note. There is a difference. The enforcement of a promissory note (whether or not it is a mortgage) is controlled by the UCC which as been adopted by all 50 states. The correct standards for enforcing a promissory note and determine who can enforce the note is the UCC.

2. You are totally confused about Securitization. Because a trust is below the threshold of certificate holders that require it to publicly report to the SEC does NOT mean it doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t exist. Maybe you should ACTUALLY READ what the trusts file with the SEC.

3. While all the members of the Securitiztion chain have been paid, the Certificate holders who are entitled to the proceeds of the notes have not. The trust does NOT make any money except agreeded upon fees. All the income flows to the proper owner (the certificate holders) who are responsible for reporting the income. THIS IS WHAT A REMIC TRUST IS SET UP TO DO. Why not ACTUALLY READ the tax code?

Your garbage arguments do confuse unsophisticated homeowners (I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m guessing that would be YOU) but here your incorrect claims and assertions don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t fly. What do you have that supports your position other than \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"because I said so\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"? Do you have one case from any jurisdiction? I imagine you don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t because there are none.

Why are there no cases supporting your arguments after being in a foreclosure crisis for years? Are you smarter than all the homeowners, lawyers, Judges, and everyone else in the American population? Maybe you are the only one that understands, but until the time comes where the rest of the United States catches up with your advanced thinking and some cases are decided in FAVOR of your THEORIES all of your arguments are losers.

POST A CASE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENTS.
Quote 0 0
Nelson
Quote:
Bill- you are full of $*&^. HIDC status has everything to do with determining whether they have the right to enforce the debt. You purchase default debt you are attempting to collect unsecured defaulted debt. Only the originator does NOT have to include "we are attempting to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose". As far as a non reporting entities with the SEC if no trust exists you are paying a stranger for a non existent debt. After the A<B<C<D transactions are fulfilled (originator,sponsor,depositor,trust)EVERYONE is paid in full and debt is gone!! Why dont you ask the IRS if the said trust is reporting income?? I'll bet you any amount of money it is NOT being reported but it is being accepted! A REMIC loses it's tax free status if they earn profit and excess proceeds is profit they aren't allowed to make.


Bill and Luke got that argument right. jlcam37's argument has no legal merit whatsoever.

Mr. Roper covered this topic in numerous posts when he participated in the Forum.

The right of enforcement under the UCC is set forth within §3-301:

§ 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-301

Holder in due course is an immunity status. It is explained in UCC §3-302:

§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
(a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), "holder in due course" means the holder of an instrument if:

(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and

(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).

(b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument.

(c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor's sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.

(d) If, under Section 3-303(a)(1), the promise of performance that is the consideration for an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised performance.

(e) If (i) the person entitled to enforce an instrument has only a security interest in the instrument and (ii) the person obliged to pay the instrument has a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument that may be asserted against the person who granted the security interest, the person entitled to enforce the instrument may assert rights as a holder in due course only to an amount payable under the instrument which, at the time of enforcement of the instrument, does not exceed the amount of the unpaid obligation secured.

(f) To be effective, notice must be received at a time and in a manner that gives a reasonable opportunity to act on it.

(g) This section is subject to any law limiting status as a holder in due course in particular classes of transactions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-302

Swindlers and scam artists often use public confusion about the distinction between [i]holder and holder in due course as a pretext to extol various debt elimination scams.[/b]

jlcam37 is at best an idiot. More likely, jlcam37 is promoting various debt elimination scams by his legally vacuous posts.
Quote 0 0
Rick
Chuck already addressed some of the issues raised by Hungarian back in February in this thread:

Can a lost or stolen Note be assigned?
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Can-a-lost-or-stolen-Note-be-assigned-5705467

It is pretty clear that Hungarian has spent the past seven months schooling himself up on Internet myths perpetrated by the debt elimination scam operators rather than reading statutes or cases. He seems even more confused today than he was in February.

That he thinks he knows enough to pontificate here at the Forum is truly amazing! He ought to be asking questions and showing appreciation to those who are willing to answer rather than posting erroneous information and then showing contempt for those who are trying to help him out of the fog!
Quote 0 0
Rick
This message thread by Mr. Roper including several informative posts in the months before he gave up on the Forum addresses the issue of right of enforcement of the note:

Assignment of the Mortgage Without the Note Is a NULLITY
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Assignment-of-the-Mortgage-Without-the-Note-Is-a-NULLITY-5314462

There are a lot of useful old threads like this. They are far more worthy of reading than current threads filled with trash posted by Mike H. and his fellow swindlers.
Quote 0 0
Rick
There are several excellent posts by Chuck, Bill, the Equitable One and Walt in this thread from early this year:

Under what circumstances can an agent bind a principal?
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Under-what-circumstances-can-an-agent-bind-a-principal-5711755

It seems as though Hungarian didn't read, appreciate or understand the posts or maybe has just become confused by all the trash posted at foreclosure defense sites operated by various scams.

This thread is also interest in that it shows that Florida attorney Mark Stopa is totally clueless about foreclosure defense.

Hungarian participated in this and other threads and now holds himself out as an expert, even though he doesn't understand even a thimble full of the wisdom shared by these valuable contributors, who have mostly stopped posting due to interference and post deletions by the site administrator.
Quote 0 0
Rick
There are also a couple of thoughtful posts by Chuck on right of enforcement near the end of this thread:

Proper Notice of Default Filing
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Proper-Notice-of-Default-Filing-4682562
Quote 0 0
Rick
Here is another old thread with many useful posts by Mr. Roper, including links to some other useful threads:

Distinguishing Indorsement In Blank and Assignment In Blank
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Distinguishing-Indorsement-In-Blank-and-Assignment-In-Blank-5042928


Mr. Roper knew that Mike H. was a rat, but the site administrator removed Mr. Roper's warnings so that others could be victimized.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...