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
William A. Roper, Jr.
There is a new decision dismissing a foreclosure in NJ due to lack of plaintiff standing.  This case, Bank of America v. Limato, was before the Superior Court for Bergen County.  The case is:
Bank of America v. Melissa Limato, No. BER-F-61880-09, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, APril 25, 2011.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54520504/Dismissed-Bank-of-America-v-Melissa-Limato [at Scribd courtesy of Foreclosure Fraud]
The defendents were represented by John Denbeaux, of the firm Denbeaux & Denbeaux, of Westwood, NJ.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
There are a couple of useful nuggets on evidentiary issues within the Limato decision:
"Affidavits by attorneys of facts [e.g. those acting under a power of attorney]" not based upon their personal knowledge but related to them by and within the primary knowledge of their clients constitute objectionable hearsay.  See Murray v. Allstate Ins. Co., 209 N.J. Super. 163, 169 (App. Div. 1986).  The requirement of the rule also are not met by affidavits containing argument, other forms of hearsay and general factual or legal conclusion.  Pressler & Verniero, Current NJ Court Rules, comment on R. 1:6-6 (2011).  Where hearsay is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule which requires specific conditions have been satisfied, hearsay eveidence cannot be deemed competent unless it is first determined that those conditions have been satisfied.  Jeter v. Stevenson, 284 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div. 1995).  Merely appending relevant documents to the motion brief does not constitute compliance with R. 1:6-6; such documents must be incorporated by reference in an appropriate affidavit or certification, which properly authenticates material which is otherwise admissible.  See Celino v. General Acc. Ins., 211 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 1986)." 

Do these arguments sound familiar?

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
For convenience, I have appended below links to the Google Scholar versions of the cases cited within the quoted material from the Limato decision:
Murray v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. A-4071-84T1, 209 N.J. Super. 163, 507 A. 2d 247 (NJ App. Div. 1986)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16450732423404860530

Jeter v. Stevenson, No. A-1908-94T5, 284 N.J. Super. 229, 664 A. 2d 952 (NJ App. Div. 1995)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4347779843053054778

Celino v. General Acc. Ins., No. A-1002-85T1, 211 N.J. Super. 538, 512 A. 2d 496 (NJ App. Div. 1986)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4636499047942645977
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Two of the other key NJ decisions discussed within Limato are subjects of prior MS Fraud Forum message threads:

A Key NJ Decision: Bank of New York, N.A. v. Raftogianis
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5137473

 

Wells Fargo Bank v. Sandra A. Ford: A GREAT New Appellate Decision in NJ
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5068779


See also the topic:

Personal Knowledge, Hearsay, Conclusory Averments and the Best Evidence Rule
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4903945


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...