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
Gary
Does anyone know if the original mortgage note should contain the endorsements from the sponsor/seller to the depositor to the trustee (A to B to C, etc.) if it was securitized and the PSA says that the original note should be endorsed without recourse to the Trustee or in blank (in each case, with all necessary intervening endorsements, as applicable)

If the Note that is purported to be the original does not have the endorsements, is it possible that it is not an original, not sure, but the as applicable is throwing me off but it seems like whichever endorsement is used ( Trustee or in blank) the original should have the intervening endorsements (assuming it is the original).

Quote 0 0
Walt

Quote:
Does anyone know if the original mortgage note should contain the endorsements from the sponsor/seller to the depositor to the trustee (A to B to C, etc.) if it was securitized and the PSA says that the original note should be endorsed without recourse to the Trustee or in blank (in each case, with all necessary intervening endorsements, as applicable)

If the Note that is purported to be the original does not have the endorsements, is it possible that it is not an original, not sure, but the as applicable is throwing me off but it seems like whichever endorsement is used ( Trustee or in blank) the original should have the intervening endorsements (assuming it is the original).
 

 

There is no requirement in the UCC whatsoever that a note contain indorsements for each negotiation.  To the contrary, the UCC expressly provides that when a negotiable instrument is indorsed in blank that it can be negotiated by delivery alone. 

 

No intervening indorsements are ever necessary unless the note is indorsed to a specific entity (rather than in blank), in which case an indorsment in blank by that entity is sufficient to support negotiation.

 

This is an unproductive avenue!  

 

The plaintiff always has the original note, though it is usually in the vaults of the institutional custodian.  The MYTH that the plaintiff does not have or cannot find the original note has been propagated by swindlers to support their debt elimination scams!

Quote 0 0
texas
Wait, that is not entirely correct.

The intervening indorsements are required so as MERS could be the agent of each subsequent intervening, loose that chain and MERS looses it chain of agency.

UCC allows for special endorsements whereas the indorsee identifies the indorser which would  match the subsequent intervening assignor to assignee of the security for MERS to prove up a chain of agency relationship.

But if in following UCC as a blank endorsement though unidentified subsequent intervening indorers/indorsees then MERS could not prove up an agency relationship with unidentified intervening subsequent assignors/assignees, therefore using in blank hides the principle that MERS is an agent for.

The short elevator version, want the long version go read the long version at http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-Mortgage-Notes and lest not forget to always come back to MSFraud.org. This is where you can find me live sometimes, elsewhere not likely.

And for the record, I am the author, also I would read Professor Randall Wray's post on the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall-wray/why-mortgagebacked-securi_b_802600.html and then return to MSFraud.org.

Quote 0 0
Gary
Thank you Walt. I know that they always have the original.

What was puzzling to me was what the UCC says and what the PSA says.  It seems in this particular situation, the PSA required the original to have the intervening endorsements (even if there was a blank endorsement).  I would have thought an original note would contain the endorsements that the PSA requires though.
Quote 0 0
Walt

Quote:
Thank you Walt. I know that they always have the original.

What was puzzling to me was what the UCC says and what the PSA says. It seems in this particular situation, the PSA required the original to have the intervening endorsements (even if there was a blank endorsement). I would have thought an original note would contain the endorsements that the PSA requires though.

 

Gary, since you are not in privity of contract with the parties signatory to the PSA, you have no right of enforcement of that instrument.  For this reason, it hardly matters whether they parties complied with the PSA or not.

 

Moreover, the critical issue with any contract is the intention of the parties.

 

You seem to read the language as requiring intermediate indorsements.  I do not think this language either says this or intends it at all.  And I am sympathetic to borrowers.

 

If one confines oneself to the four corners of the PSA, I do not think that the language supports your interpretation.  If one is to look beyond the four corners of the instrument, then the question is NOT what YOU think the PSA means, but rather what the parties to the PSA intended

 

Finally, one might garner intention from the usual business practice in this or other similar securitizations involving the same parties.  That is, suppose that every other note had intervening indorsements EXCEPT FOR YOUR NOTE.  Then, I think you might have a stronger argument that the PSA expressed an intention that the language contemplated indorsements of each intermediate holder.  But NONE of the other instruments show intermediate indorsements and NONE of the parties to the PSA are complaining about this!

 

Hello!  Earth to Gary!  How do you reach a conclusion on these facts that the PSA reflected an intention of the parties to do intermediate indorsements when (a) the parties claim otherwise, (b) the language doesn't support your reading, (c) the parties practices show that they didn't do intermediate indorsements, (d) industry practice is to negotiate by delivery of a bear instrument alone without intervening indorsements and (e) you lack privity and cannot require adherence to the PSA anyway?

 

It might be time to wake up, smell the coffee and move on to a more valid and robust argument!

Quote 0 0
texas
Walt said:
"Moreover, the critical issue with any contract is the intention of the parties."

Legal implications as to intent, hmmm, intent of the parties to a PSA was to create a Pass Through Tax Special Purpose Vehicle. To meet that degree of intent would require all parties privy to the contract, PSA, to adhere to all applicable laws identified within the contract or applying to contract formation to qualify as tax exempt.

Walt then said:
"
But NONE of the other instruments show intermediate indorsements and NONE of the parties to the PSA are complaining about this!"

Complain and subject oneself to a tax mans bill, until the loss of revenue is great enough will such one such party step forward. (A few have.)

"Hello!  Earth to Gary!  How do you reach a conclusion on these facts that the PSA reflected an intention of the parties to do intermediate indorsements when..."

Reflected intention of the parties, when the parties elected to operate via a special purpose tax vehicle, certain intentions were replaced by operation of law with requirement to follow law. "Hello, Heaven to Walt!"


Quote 0 0
Gary

Walt,

When I read that the PSA says that the original note should be endorsed without recourse to the Trustee or in blank, in each case, with all necessary intervening endorsements, as applicable, I concluded that if I am looking at the true original that I would see an endorsement from A to B to C to D. 

I was incorrect in my assumption.

 My concern is how do you really know it is an original that they have when I can reproduce the same thing with photo editing software and a color copier for example and appear in court and say, “Well I have the original indorsed in blank.”

When you fight, the servicer will get the promissory note after the institution of the suit or after you file BK and use made up evidence and “prepare”  declarations to PROVE that it was the holder at the beginning of the suit or the BK. Also, they use assignments that have no economic reality at all.

Even if they do have the note, it doesn’t show when they came into possession of it. Who delivered it to them and when and shouldn’t there be an general ledger accounting entry on their books indicating that the note was delivered on  this date.

It seems to me that there should be some case law or argument that can be made to when they show up in Court and claim that they have the original note? (what's to stop anybody with good photo editing skills to do this)  Does Negotiation and delivery under the UCC even matter when they do this?   Won’t they just argue that possession is all that matters, so go to hell Gary?   I would think that there is going to be some sort of  tracking of where this note is and has been at all times. 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...