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
Base on my limited research, I see of lot of these "Assignment of Bid" (From Bank A to Bank B) after a plaintiff (Bank A) obtains a Final Judgement in a Foreclosure Case.

My question is:  Doesn't this illustrates that Bank A was not the Owner and Holder of the Note at the time the Foreclosure Action was filed?  I see a lot of these "Assignment of Bid" in Public Records after Final Judgement have been obtained.  

See link for one such example.

http://205.166.161.12/oncoreV2/showdetails.aspx?id=52511570&rn=0&pi=0&ref=search

In the above example, Washington Mutual was the Original Lender and JPMorgan Chase became the new owner by virtue of the 2008 FDIC action.  I see no other assignments in the public record (I know it is not necessarily a requirement that such assignments be recorded) to suggest how 
FANNIE MAE (FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN) became the Owner/Holder of the note.  And if they are the Owner/Holder, shouldn't the original Lis Pendens be done by Fannie Mae?

Can someone enlighten me on the finer issues at work here?

BTW, here is another of such Assignment of Bid:

http://205.166.161.12/oncoreV2/showdetails.aspx?id=52678284&rn=4&pi=0&ref=search
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
I think it's when bank A forecloses and assigns to bank B the property to use as collateral in order to bid at the auction without putting up any money. You should confirm whether A was the legal owner with the authority to assign and sell because Banks do this all the time and dont put up one penny.

Alot of times the forecloser buys at the auction while claiming they were the holder prior to that date because ownership status is not contested by the homeowner.
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
P.S. The purchase and assumption agreement between JPMorgan and the FDIC on the sale of WaMu assets do NOT list or mention any of the mortgage loans purchased. I believe JPM denied wanting any reprocussions from the loans. You need to check out at the national information center the mergers, acquisitions and name changes of the bank in question in order to determine what entity purchased another entity and if they did a name change. May have nothing to do with who the servicer is because those rights are also sold to others.
Quote 0 0
Terrence
Quote:
I think it's when bank A forecloses and assigns to bank B the property to use as collateral in order to bid at the auction without putting up any money. You should confirm whether A was the legal owner with the authority to assign and sell because Banks do this all the time and dont put up one penny.

Alot of times the forecloser buys at the auction while claiming they were the holder prior to that date because ownership status is not contested by the homeowner.


More gibberish from jcam37. In a judicial foreclosure, it is most game over once a judicial decree of foreclosure is entered. The foreclosure sale happens afterwards. There are an exceptionally limited number of avenues to preclude an order of confirmation of sale after the final order of foreclosure has been handed down.

Anyone going into court and using this wingnut's bizarre vocabulary instantly loses all credibility and any hope of success.
Quote 0 0
jlcam37
Your a jerk Terrence, why dont you keep your nasty comments to yourself and add something relevant. 
Quote 0 0
Rick
Who is this jlcam37 who keeps posting false and legally erroneous information? Is jlcam37 a scam artist or just a fool who was taken in by the scam artists? Does anyone know for sure?
Quote 0 0

CITI-THEFT

Sui Juris Litigant a.k.a. Pro Se for 4 years finally lost but is on appeal.

I just received a Motion for assignment of right to bid from one of the two law firms involved and filed it with regardrs to Fannie which I knew had a loan against the house. Yet they were never mentioned in the lawsuit. This just proves several things:

1. The pleading was never signed by the lender only the atty.
2. There's no POA allowing them to  sign for the lenders behalf.
3. The lender did not sign it.
4. The servicer a.k.a CITI did not sign.
5. Fannie did not sign.
6. Does this not prove that the servicer who foreclosed did not have anyhting in the game since they are asking permission from the LENDER FANNIE to bid?

Curious

Quote 0 0
Scott
Quote:
CITI-THEFT

Sui Juris Litigant a.k.a. Pro Se for 4 years finally lost but is on appeal.

I just received a Motion for assignment of right to bid from one of the two law firms involved and filed it with regardrs to Fannie which I knew had a loan against the house. Yet they were never mentioned in the lawsuit. This just proves several things:

1. The pleading was never signed by the lender only the atty.
2. There's no POA allowing them to sign for the lenders behalf.
3. The lender did not sign it.
4. The servicer a.k.a CITI did not sign.
5. Fannie did not sign.
6. Does this not prove that the servicer who foreclosed did not have anyhting in the game since they are asking permission from the LENDER FANNIE to bid?

Curious


In most states, the parties are not required to sign the pleadings.  There are occasionally statutory exceptions or special matters which must be verified when pled within a complaint or as defenses, but the law or rules are often ambiguous about precisely who must verify the allegations.

Usually, no Power of Attorney is required for a law firm to file pleadings on behalf of a party.  However, rarely would a law firm file such pleadings without firm obtaining a signed written representation or retainer letter from the client.  This letter is probably subject to attorney-client privilege in most places, though there are circumstances where this privilege can be pierced.

Unless there is some specific exeption in your jurisdiction, it is unlike that the failure of the mortgage investor or the servicer to sign the pleadings would be a defect which might be a subject of an appeal.  Even if this was a defect, it still might not be an appealable issue unless you properly raised this issue within your answer, by special exception, and/or within your response to a motion for summary judgment (or at trial).

In some states, Rules provide a mechanism to challenge a law firm to show its authority to bring a suit.  For example, Rule 12 in Texas deals specifically with this topic:

RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY
A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act.  The notice of the motion shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion.  At the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party.  Upon his failure to show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears.  The motion may be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing.


I won a (non-foreclosure) Texas case once by raising precisely such a motion.  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case rather than answering the motion. 

But even in Texas, if a defendant fails to raise this issue by motion pursuant to Rule 12, the issue is waived and would not be a valid subject of appeal.

Failure of either Citi or Fannie to sign the pleadings or even failure to have or present to the court a POA is not likely to be a valid defense which would be a robust issue for appeal.  By contrast, if it could be shown that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit, then this would be an issue that could even be raised in some places for the very first time on appeal, even if not plead in the trial court.  But this is not universally the case.  In some states, like Maine, standing has been held to be a prudential rather than Constitutional imperative.  In other states, like New York, a standing defense must usually be raised in a defendant's first defensive pleading.  But many states, including Texas, Connecticut and most recently Ohio have held that standing is a jurisdictional defect which deprives the court of the authority to hear and decide a case.  Even so, the defense usually needs to be raised while a court retains authority to determine a matter and cannot usually be a means of collateral attack against a final judgment.  Mr. Roper has posted about this in many threads and those posts are very well reasoned and supported.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...