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
alex
After discussing this for weeks with William and the other members of the forum I think I've given up on any assignments.   WHEN PEOPLE ON THE FORUM DISCUSS NOT FINDING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THEIR MORTGAGE THEY MEAN THE MORTGAGE NOT THE NOTE.  Notes are negoatiated not assigned.  Notes do not have to be recorded and most are not.  The mortgage follows the note.  If the note is negoatiated they have the mortgage, recorded or not.  My state requires without execption that assignments be recorded but case law still over and over says the mortgage follows the note recorded or not.  I every once in a while read something again that gives me hope and I waste time trying to figure out how they transfer the mortgage without recording it.  THEY DON'T HAVE TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT FOLKS.  It's a hard thing to bring your self to grasp.  It is very hard for me.  Especally when you see a MERS assignment that you know is a fraud. 

Quote:

So I believe that the argument that a belated conveyance into the trust is invalid is NOT going to prove to be a winning argument where the plaintiff actually UNDERSTANDS the law and the facts and makes a compelling argument.

 

But I also believe that this is the incorrect argument for another different reason, and this is something that distinguishes my position from many other foreclosure defense advicates.  Others look at the evdience of the belated assignment and see an untimely conveyance.

 

I look at this assignment and see a forged instrument which conveys nothing at all and which was fabricated solely for use as false evidence in the foreclosure.  And so instead of focusing on trying to prove that the instrument was invalid, through tardiness, I would be seeking to prove that the instrument itself was a forgery and a fraud upon the court.

 

 

William puts it best with this quote.  There are no assignments of notes only assignees.  Those of you who look to the county records and see no assignment are preparing a losing battle.  When a late MERS assignment is entered you need to look at this as a forgery that shows how far the plaintiff is willing to go to mislead the court.   You have an officer of the court that has a duty to diligently verify the information in the pleadings, exhibits, ect..

is as correct as it can be.  A lot of the time the attorneys prepair these assignments themselves. 

 

You must focus on attacking the authenticity of the note.  You must attack the negoation of the note.    You must attack the fraud on the court.  Please don't get sidetracked by spending too much time on a mortgage assignment. 

 

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.  I'm writing this to help others and keep reminding myself,  Note Note Note Note Note Note Note.

 

Maybe I'll write this 100 time like in third grade until I remember. 

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Alex, there may be one noteworthy EXCEPTION to this general rule, IN A BANKRUPTCY SETTING.  There are some cases where courts seem to have found that the failure to PERFECT the interest in the mortgage BY RECORDING IN ADVANCE OF THE BANKRUPTCY FILING may leave the creditor in an unsecured position with respect to the trustee.  Also, a belated MERS assignment or a belated assignment by an extinct entity may turn out to be unsecured in a bankruptcy setting.

This remains an emerging area of bankruptcy law with some differing decisions across several jurisdictions and no significant appellate decisions to give us better guidance.

I have often mentioned that I have very little knowledge and understanding of bankruptcy law.  Those for whom bankruptcy might have some other advantages would be well counselled to carefully read and understand the various Bankruptcy cases relating to lien priority.

Quote 0 0
Alex

I do agree with you that the long standing tradition was that the mortgage does follow the note and that assignments of the mortgage need not be made or recorded.  But the problem that comes into play is that the note and mortgage are made to two different entities (Bifurication) and they need to try and perfect the note and mortgage back together. 

I feel we need to really hammer away at this because we need to get one judge or court to set the precedent and the house of cards will start to crumble. 

If their argument is that the mortgage is an incident to the note, then both need to be in the same name to protect the contract, but once MERS came in as the mortgaee and the lender was different on the note, how can the mortgage follow something that is not in the same name.

Yes, granted that the borrower gave permission for the mortgage to be in the name of another entity, but their is never any admissible evidence that the lender has granted those rights.  Just some thoughts.
Quote 0 0

You all should quit thinking like peons.  As the note maker you have the right to know if you are paying the proper party, obviously.  This is a fundamental fact in commerce, and it needs no case law or support.  Otherwise, when one pays off his mortgage and receives a satisfaction from a non-party to his mortgage, which is worthless if the note is still floating about in someone's file, who might find it and claim you owe the note to them or whoever can produce it.  Not a good situation to be left in, surely.

That's why the issue of "who is the original Note Holder", with proper assignment to that note holder, is of utmost importance.  You have the RIGHT TO KNOW WHO IT IS.

It's not much different than a check someone holds, which you wrote to them.  If you pay it off and they just give you a copy of the original check, and then someone shows up a month later holding the original, claiming to be the holder that bought the debt/check, won't you just feel like a jackass? 

You signed the note.  Demand to see the original note that has been properly, legally assigned to the current holder, regardless of filings etc.  If the person who has the note does not have proof that it is the assignee, they're in trouble, and you must make an issue of it. 

Further, the UCC requires the assignment to be affixed to the note, or firmly attached, not just some loose piece of paper that is separate from the note.  Banks have lost millions on that one UCC rule alone, because they had purchased mortgages with loose assignments folded and paperclipped to the note.

Quote 0 0
Alex
Quote:
After discussing this for weeks with William and the other members of the forum I think I've given up on any assignments.   WHEN PEOPLE ON THE FORUM DISCUSS NOT FINDING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THEIR MORTGAGE THEY MEAN THE MORTGAGE NOT THE NOTE.  Notes are negotiated not assigned.  Notes do not have to be recorded and most are not.  The mortgage follows the note.  If the note is negotiated they have the mortgage, recorded or not.  My state requires without exception that assignments be recorded but case law still over and over says the mortgage follows the note recorded or not.  I every once in a while read something again that gives me hope and I waste time trying to figure out how they transfer the mortgage without recording it.  THEY DON'T HAVE TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT FOLKS.  It's a hard thing to bring your self to grasp.  It is very hard for me.  Especially when you see a ME RS assignment that you know is a fraud. 

 

You are right on with this Alex.  It was difficult for me to grasp and accept also, but once you understand, you will begin to see MANY STRONG LEGAL avenues of attack on the transfer/negation of the note. 



Quote 0 0
Bill
Sorry Alex, I accidentally typed your name in as the poster.

Sincerely,

Bill
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
David James said:
You signed the note.  Demand to see the original note that has been properly, legally assigned to the current holder, regardless of filings etc.


David: 

Your post reveals the shallowness of your understanding and your ignorance!

If the plaintiff in a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding has pleaded a copy of the note which LACKS indorsement, the very LAST THING that you want to do is get the plaintiff to produce the note.  The note is LIKELY to have an indorsement.

Where there is an unindorsed note in evidence, the borrower should maintain a low profile, AVOID calling the plaintiff's attention to this defect prematurely and seek by defensive summary judgment motion a dismissal based upon the FAILURE of the plaintiff to plead an indorseed note OR to produce the original.

Pressing the production of the note is usually the most CERTAIN means of LOSING THE CASE!

*

Quote:
David James said:
Further, the UCC requires the assignment to be affixed to the note, or firmly attached, not just some loose piece of paper that is separate from the note.  Banks have lost millions on that one UCC rule alone, because they had purchased mortgages with loose assignments folded and paperclipped to the note.



There is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT IN THE UCC.  You are confusing assignments and allonges.  Assignments convey an interest in the mortgage subject to a jurisdiciton's statute of fraud and the recording acts.  Allonges are a means of adding additional indorsements to a note.  Yes, allonges must be affixed.  No, assignments do NOT have to be affixed.

Get your facts correct before you start posting erroneous information which may confuse others!
Quote 0 0
Your post reveals the shallowness of your understanding and your ignorance!

If the plaintiff in a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding has pleaded a copy of the note which LACKS indorsement, the very LAST THING that you want to do is get the plaintiff to produce the note.  The note is LIKELY to have an indorsement.
Where there is an unindorsed note in evidence, the borrower should maintain a low profile, AVOID calling the plaintiff's attention to this defect prematurely and seek by defensive summary judgment motion a dismissal based upon the FAILURE of the plaintiff to plead an indorseed note OR to produce the original.

Pressing the production of the note is usually the most CERTAIN means of LOSING THE CASE!

I have pressed for the production of the properly assigned note, and the one attempting foreclosure has given me 6 copies to date of an unassigned note, without their name on it as Holder or agent of Holder.  If this is all they have, I don't believe they are any more entitled to enforce the note than the man in the moon. 

If you think that by holding back on this challenge is a good idea, then if they can indeed produce the note eventually anyway, I don't get what you're saying. They would proudly produce the COMPLETE original note copy if they had it or could get it.

RE: UCC law, see Alderman - Empire case, where the court said it has always ruled that the assignments must be affixed on the note or so firmly/permanently attached to the note, and that a loose assignment paperclipped on is not sufficient to prove proper assignment.

Without proper assignment of the note and a copy of the complete note, that note is basically worthless for enforcement by an entity that is not the original lender or agent of that lender. Also see cases where banks have lost millions by purchasing improperly assigned notes: 

"if the primary party pays an instrument bearing an improper indorsement, he will not have paid a holder, and the true owner of the instrument may recover against the primary party." See 1 R. Aldermann, A Transactional Guide to the Uniform Commercial Code 633 n. 294 (2d ed. 1983).

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
David James said:

I have pressed for the production of the properly assigned note, and the one attempting foreclosure has given me 6 copies to date of an unassigned note, without their name on it as Holder or agent of Holder.  If this is all they have, I don't believe they are any more entitled to enforce the note than the man in the moon.


IF the note is indorsed in blank and delivered to another person, that is a valid negotiation under the UCC.  The name of the holder need NOT be filled in for this to be a valid indorsement.  This is black letter law with respect to the UCC in every state.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
David James said:
RE: UCC law, see Alderman - Empire case, where the court said it has always ruled that the assignments must be affixed on the note or so firmly/permanently attached to the note, and that a loose assignment paperclipped on is not sufficient to prove proper assignment.


You continue to confuse assignments and allonges.  You need to do a LOT of reading and get your facts and the law straight or you will almost certainly LOSE your house.

The Judge will NOT be at all confused about the distinction or the law.  And if you wander into court and begin presenting the arguments that you are making here, after only a few minutes the Judge will perceive that you have no idea what you are talking about, have no valid arguments and will shut you off.

Courts have wide discretion as to the conduct of hearings and trial and when you clearly exhibit that you are simply making incoherent and legally false arguments, the Judge will let you speak only long enough to get your incoherence into the record and then will bring the gavel down and move on to another case where the defendant shows up prepared, knowledgeable and well informed.

Based upon what you have posted, you have ALREADY LOST, because instead of reading the prior responses, investigating and understanding, you are busy TELLING those who are far more knowledgeable and experienced than you that you are here to instruct US.

I do NOT have time to coach those who refuse to read and refuse to LISTEN or consider.  You are so far off the range that helping seems to be a WASTE OF TIME.

Take some time to scroll or search through past posts.  Read the UCC.  Read the material posted on allonges and assignments.  Learn before you seek to TEACH.

Feel free to ASK QUESTIONS.  Please do NOT post material which you assert is fact or law when you DO NOT KNOW.  And simply because you found some material at a wingnut foreclosure defense web site, please do NOT bring that erroneous material HERE and post it where it might confuse others who are actually interested in learning and successfully defending their cases.

We recently ran off a convicted criminal who preys on poorly informed foreclosure defendants such as yourself.  He makes various pronouncement with great certainty, but is infrequently actually correct, charging people money for an unauthorized practice of law.  Vet infomation found elsewhere before posting it OR post the material as a question as to its validity rather than blindly accepting the erroneous and then polluting this Forum by spreading the garbage!
Quote 0 0
Vet infomation found elsewhere before posting it OR post the material as a question as to its validity rather than blindly accepting the erroneous and then polluting this Forum by spreading the garbage!

Okay then.  I have understood and allonge to be that permanent part of a note that is affixed to the note that only contains assignments.  If this is wrong, then please tell me where I'm wrong when I say that an entity that produces a note with no allonge containing assignment to itself is a valid note.  I am preparing a lawsuit, pro-se, that demands production of a valid note to examine in court, which shows that the entity attempting to enforce the note is the entity that is the last one on the allonge. Tell me before you continue telling me I'm a doofus.  How is an allonge different from the history of assignments attached to the note? My friend paid off his note and got his note back, which had the allonge with the assignment history, and that's what I'm going by.  I'd like your help if you've got experience and not just your "solid beliefs" on this critical issue.  Where am I wrong?
Quote 0 0

There is no endorsement in blank on the note.  There is no endorsement on it at all.  The original note I signed to JPMorgan is all they have and the forclosing entity is neither the holder or the agent and they say in a letter that it was assigned to some other entity.

Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Quote:
Where am I wrong?


You are wrong in your freaking nomenclature.  You can't use the word ASSIGNMENT as you did earlier (allonge) or as you are using now (indorsements).

Roper has pointed this out time and again.  You have got to get the language right or you will get creamed.  If roper beats you up on language here thank the dude that he's trying to spare you an embarrassingly short court case.

The allonge is the piece of paper that must be attached. 

The allonge is the piece of paper who's failure to attach has cost banks an unspecified amount of trouble.

The allonge is the piece of paper originally devised to contain extra INDORSEMENTS.

The word ASSIGNMENT has no place in a discussion about a promissory note EXCEPT when you're looking at a MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT.



Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Quote:
I am preparing a lawsuit, pro-se, that demands production of a valid note to examine in court, which shows that the entity attempting to enforce the note is the entity that is the last one on the allonge. Tell me before you continue telling me I'm a doofus.


Please accept some really sincere advice.  First, scan all topics on this board in the last couple of years and read those that apply.

Get yourself to http://scholar.google.com/ and click on the Advanced Scholar Search link.  Set the thing up for your choice of "state" or "federal". 

Start googling.  Get your feet wet by googling "foreclosure".  Read the help by clicking on the Advanced Search Tips link.  Narrow or broaden your research as desired.

THEN ask the next question...

Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Quote:
please tell me where I'm wrong when I say that an entity that produces a note with no allonge containing assignment to itself is a valid note.


If Maker makes a note to Payee and that note is stolen by Thief or is found by Finder then Thief or Finder still have a valid note.  There is nothing wrong with the note.

However

Alleged possession of a note alone does not make one a holder in due course, a holder or even necessarily a transferee or any other person entitled to enforce per UCC 3-301 and as such things are typically codified in your state's version of the UCC. 

There I go with the language again... Does it sound overly pedantic ?   You better believe it...  You have to know this stuff cold or find a good lawyer for at least some coaching.

Go read the cases that apply to your state and federal cases that also apply to your state.  Include those terms above in your research.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
David James said:

There is no endorsement in blank on the note.  There is no endorsement on it at all.


David:

Two quick notes. 

First, it is generally a VERY BAD IDEA to be posting details about YOUR CASE under your correct actual name.  It would be better to use one or more pseudenyms, if you are not already doing so.  Foreclosure mills and contract forgers and perjurers sometimes troll these boards, particularly when it appears that a person has self-identified themselves and is posting facts and strategy from their litigation.

Second, do NOT delude yourself based upon the widely circulating MYTH that the original notes are NOT really actually indorsed.  The FACT that the note presented to the court lacks an indorsement is a blunder on the part of the plaintiff, but a very common one.

This problem has its origin in speed, economy, arrogance and cutting corners.  The foreclosure mill typically files suit based upon a digital COPY of the note obtained from the servicer's files.  This is often attached to the complaint.  And the servicer's copy, made BEFORE indorsement and sale of the note, typically LACKS THE INDORSEMENT.

The original note is in the vaults of the institutional custodian.  It is usually indorsed.

*

If you want to LOSE YOUR CASE, you will buy into the MYTH and then INFORM the plaintiff of ALL of the identifiable defects in its pleadings and evidence as quickly as possible.  Then the plaintiff will simply obtain the REAL evidence and use it against you!

As you beat your breast, self-impressed with your cleverness in demanding production of the original note, YOU ARE THE FOOL.

The unindorsed COPY will entitle you to a dismissal.  Production of the original note, will result in the loss of your house.

So the better strategy is to oppose the foreclosure WITHOUT TAKING YOUR OPPONENTS TO SCHOOL.  The deck is already so stacked against you, WHY would you want to be helping the plaintiff to obtain its judgment?

*

One interesting detail commonly overlooked by defendants (and virtually unknown to plaintiffs) is the FACT that an instrument attached to a pleading is typically a judicial admission of the facts shown in the exhibit which controls over the allegations of the pleading.

IF the plaintiff has PLEADED the unindorsed copy, you really do NOT want to COACH THEM into amending their pleadings.  It is better to develop the case in other ways and then to wait for the summary judgment hearing to spring the defect on the opposition.  For that matter, you might want to file a defensive motion for summary judgment.

This is especially true where the plaintiff has pleaded a forged assignment which purports to be executed AFTER the commencement of the suit.

The absence of indorsement is conclusive as to the lack of indorsement at commencement (there are a number of cases supporting this holding) and the post-commencement assignment usually purports to convey BOTH the note and the mortgage.  Often this is a bald forgery from a defunct entity or MERS.

But where the instrument is dated AFTER commencement, WHY NOT SAVE the impeachment of the assignment for the SECOND SUIT after the initial dismissal?

*

While the impulse is to prove the forgery, IF the assignment itself DEFEATS the plaintiff's case, why not just take the matter to summary judgment after a leisurely discovery period and get the case dismissed.  Thereby, one also SAVES some dry powder for the second outing.

OR you can just blurt out EVERYTHING that you note about the defects of the plaintiff's case.  But do not be surprised when they amend their pleadings with your suggestions!  The amended pleadings will be much stronger with your vigorous coaching.  And you can then celebrate your cleverness in noting and calling attention to all of the defects in the plaintiff's case from your cot in a homeless shelter!
Quote 0 0
I guess I'm in the wrong forum, since I'm not yet in default, but for six months have been demanding a copy of the original note with assignment endorsed over to the new servicer.  They just send me a copy of my original note with no additional endorsements on it, admit they are collecting for someone other than the entity I signed the note to, and then they went and filed a robo-signed "assignment of mortgage and note". 

I'm putting together a Plaintiff's lawsuit to force them to either show how they legally own the note or collect for the current holder, since they have ignored this issue and just say "fanniemae owns your loan", which is not what I asked.  Fanny will not answer certified letters and only tell me my "loan is a fanniemae investor loan" which is still no help.

How can I expect to pay off my note to a non-holder and non-party to my note, even though they'll gladly give me a phony satisfaction of mortgage but never return my note to me?

Anyway, you'al don't follow me so I guess I need to keep searching for a plaintiff's case, which there are none that I can find.
Quote 0 0
dave
Quote:
I guess I'm in the wrong forum, since I'm not yet in default, but for six months have been demanding a copy of the original note with assignment endorsed over to the new servicer.

 
so basically you are saying that even though you are not in default and not in foreclosure, you have decided to help the lender get its case in order by corresponding with them and assuring that they go get the real note out of the vault and have it ready whenever the foreclosure really begins.  you are resolved to see that the plaintiff's complaint is defect free so that they can get a foreclosure in a matter of a couple of months rather than two or more years.  you are very thoughtful and helpful to the banksters.  maybe you are an investor in bank stock?
Quote 0 0
steve
I wonder how much he had to pay Mike H. to come up with this idiotic strategy.  David seems to be the biggest fool that ever visited the Forum.  Not only is he "taking the plaintiff to school" as roper says, but he is instructing them in advance of suit.  I think this guy deserves to lose his house.

He is really going to wish that he went to see a lawyer instead of putting his home at risk based upon misguided material he read off the Internet or bought from a criminal like Mike H.
Quote 0 0
Moose
This is not legal advice, but I think one of the fundamental misunderstandings of civil law can be explained with an overly-simplified analogy:

Suppose your irritating neighbor from across the street accuses you of backing into his parked car sometime during the night and threatens to sue if you don't pay up $1,500. He accuses you because he claims the dent in the door matches the height of your bumper, the color appears to be similar and when you back out of your driveway, you do approach their parked vehicle.

What should you do?

(a)  Measure the height of your bumper, then measure the impact point on the dent on the damaged door to prove it was or wasn't you.
(b) Research the law on overnight parking of vehicles on the street.
(c) Try to find other cars in the neighborhood with similar bumpers and colors.
(d) Nothing. Just deny doing it.
(e) Tell your neighbor that your car was parked somewhere else during the whole night. (Something that just happens to be true.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The answer is (d) Nothing. (Yes, most people would start with (e) if it were true but for this example, let's say you want to mess with your neighbor who refuses to take your word for it.)

In civil matters the plaintiff is required to substantiate their claims with evidence. You are not required to submit anything unless or until their evidence needs to be contradicted by your evidence.  It's like a tennis match - serve and volley.

Let them bring the case, make the allegations and show what they have as evidence.

Your response and motion for summary judgment includes security camera footage from your relative's gated apartment complex showing your car was parked at your relative's residence from 5:00pm to 11:00am the night in question and an affidavit from the apartment manager that it's from their security system as well as one from your relative. That evidence is dispositive; MSJ is so ordered.

You didn't have to help them with their case.

Granted that's an oversimplification, but again, the plaintiff is required to prove (by a preponderance of the ADMISSABLE evidence) their case.

Moose


Quote 0 0
David,
You may want to look at this video on AZ State Representative Michelle Reagan. She allegedly asked the bank to send her a copy of her note, and she ended up being sued by her bank. According to what she says in the clip, she was not in default, nor was she even anticipating going into default. I don't know the details, the grounds for which the bank sued, nor how it turned out, as I was not really interested, but it may be worth your while to Google and research it, in case you are in a similar situation. There were several news stories on it - this is just one short video that I found that gives a brief overview. You maybe throwing up an extremely large red flag in continually asking for your note. 

 http://www.kpho.com/video/23009083/index.html

The prior posts recommend you do more research, (at the minimum, you owe it to yourself to look into the areas they have pointed out), but going from forum to forum until you find one that agrees with you is the equivalent of going from doctor to doctor until you find one who gives you the diagnosis you want to hear. The above people have given you (and the rest of us) a gift, in my view, by pointing out why you are wrong. These issues might possibly be the same issues your opposing lawyers or judges might point out. In my opinion, anytime someone tells you you're wrong and why, you research it to find they are correct, or confirm they are wrong, but either way you come away being that much more knowledgeable.

Good luck to you.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
David James said:
I'm putting together a Plaintiff's lawsuit to force them to either show how they legally own the note or collect for the current holder, since they have ignored this issue and just say "fanniemae owns your loan", which is not what I asked.  Fanny will not answer certified letters and only tell me my "loan is a fanniemae investor loan" which is still no help.


Even considering bringing a plaintiff's lawsuit under these circumstance is sheer insanity.

If you want to obtain additional information on the ownership of your mortgage, I would encourage you to read these threads:

"Does Fannie Mae Own Your Mortgage?"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5199854

 

"MERS Servicer ID Lookup"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5346473


Instead of spending money to sue your Lender, why not RELAX and make an appointment with your therapist?  Homelessness is NOT likely to be helpful to your condition!
Quote 0 0
jm
For David James:

Take a look at this prior thread for more information on allonges:

"Allonge Defined"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5080041

Quote 0 0
jm
For David James:

These old posts might also help:

"Thinking About Allonges Under the UCC and New York Law"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5077362

 

"Distinguishing Indorsement In Blank and Assignment In Blank"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5042928

Quote 0 0

David,
You may want to look at this video on AZ State Representative Michelle Reagan. She allegedly asked the bank to send her a copy of her note, and she ended up being sued by her bank. According to what she says in the clip, she was not in default, nor was she even anticipating going into default. I don't know the details, the grounds for which the bank sued, nor how it turned out, as I was not really interested, but it may be worth your while to Google and research it, in case you are in a similar situation. There were several news stories on it - this is just one short video that I found that gives a brief overview. You maybe throwing up an extremely large red flag in continually asking for your note. 

 http://www.kpho.com/video/23009083/index.html

The prior posts recommend you do more research, (at the minimum, you owe it to yourself to look into the areas they have pointed out), but going from forum to forum until you find one that agrees with you is the equivalent of going from doctor to doctor until you find one who gives you the diagnosis you want to hear. The above people have given you (and the rest of us) a gift, in my view, by pointing out why you are wrong. These issues might possibly be the same issues your opposing lawyers or judges might point out. In my opinion, anytime someone tells you you're wrong and why, you research it to find they are correct, or confirm they are wrong, but either way you come away being that much more knowledgeable.

Good luck to you.

Hi Guys,

At least the last response quoted above was not nasty, and it attempted to help rather than simply say I deserve to lose my home.  I checked out that video, and I don't think it applies to me, but I would welcome a suit of that type, since I am entitled to demand to know that I am paying the CURRENT holder/owner of my note.
 
Here's the deal:
I'm not in foreclosure yet, and have some help if I want to pay off my loan, but the "helper" demands that I make sure I'm going to get a proper satisfaction of mortgage, since anybody can file one, even if it is worthless.  I need the actual current holder to tell me in writing he will give me one, but first he has to prove he is indeed the current holder/owner of my note, so I want to make sure that I get a proper satisfaction, since my new servicer can simply file a satisfaction even though they are not the actual mortgagee nor are they collecting for the actual mortgagee.
 
Don't you guys see the problem?
 
It's called a "here's your clouded title" if I don't get the proper satisfaction after payoff, and then someone might show up with the original note after I've paid this new servicer off, and then I'd be in court again.
 
The original note, WITH THE ASSIGNMENT AFFIXED TO IT showing the new CURRENT mortgagee/noteholder is what I want to see before paying it off or continuing to pay monthly payments. I have the right to know that I am paying the holder of my note, and most of you don't see this.  You all sound like the inexperienced lawyers I've talked to and spent money on, since, like one said: "Oh, they'll come up with the note if you give them enough time".  Then he says: "I've got some clients that are still in their houses for 4 years because we have demanded they produce the original note showing the current holder".
 
Sounds like doublespeak to me.  If the new servicer cannot show me my original note that is indorsed in an assignment over to the current holder/mortgagee, then this servicer has no right to enforce the note.
 
So, it's a little different situation than what you're talking about.  I've studied this thing for 7 months, and I know that I am not required to pay someone just because they claim in a letter that they hold or own the note.  I have a right to see the original with an assignment to the new holder. 
 
An attorney recently sued his lender for the ONLY reason that he paid them off and they cannot send him his original note back, so now he's asking for his money back in a lawsuit unless they can produce it.  I'm doing the same thing, except I'm demanding it BEFORE my friend gives me a private loan to pay off my note, since he told me he'd only help me if I could get a certified copy of the updated original note that shows the CURRENT holder that will sign the SATISFACTION.  He's right to demand this, since a satisfaction from someone other than the current holder is not a bona fide satisfaction, and the TRUE note holder can come to collect even after I pay off the note to this new servicer.
 
Apparently most of you don't see the original note with assignment(s) AFFIXED to it as being important.  It is!  It is the ONLY reason that foreclosures are being stopped, but ONLY when this issue is challenged.  It's not automatic that you get what you deserve, and the judge gives summary judgment in spite of all the phony paperwork, even if the party that is foreclosing IS NOT THE ACTUAL HOLDER who can prove they bought the note.
 
The one standing to foreclose in most cases today is NOT the current holder legally entitled to enforce the note, so this is the real challenge.
 
Again, most of you apparently don't understand the basic principal that as party to the mortgage and note you have the right to demand presentation of the updated original note.
 
I welcome response that is civilized like the last one quoted above, that doesn't wish me to lose my home.

Quote 0 0
WOW.....DID I JUST READ THAT?!
This has been my problem as well!! & I agree 100%!! I did not know that the entity I originated with was out of business til I started searching on the SERVICING company.....Needless to say I was SMACKED with a reality! & Lots of questions which lead to a QWR only to have just a mere portion answered! I have eagerly AWAITED their threats & court hearing!!  I have what I need! I have often been called a packrat but I kept my papers!!
I was told NOT to do a LOT of things from post here in the forum & all the while I have respectfully done MOST of what I was told not to.
There are more answers to our questions if we continue searching but in the mean time I really just search previous thread cause even if it doesnt apply within our thoughts or case now.....It may just SERVE to something @ a later Date!
 Soooo nice to see another post who is in the same boat & you have NO idea how much of a relief it is to see your post!! I Wish you the best on your Journey as I hear we will have a long run ahead of us!
 


Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Oh for hell's sake dude.  You are now spam by ASSIGNMENT.  I don't have seven months of research into this, more like seven minutes and based on those seven minutes here is the advice of a lay person.  Get a lawyer.

Have your friend hire an escrow company.  Have your friend deposit funds into escrow.  Get this certified and proven to fullest extent available from your friend and the escrow company.

Write tender offer to bank, have it notarized, include escrow statement proving funds are available.  Mail it certified return receipt.  Wait 35 days.  Repeat.

Have a look at UCC 3-603.   Maybe it helps, maybe not.

Good luck

Quote 0 0
Oh for hell's sake dude.  You are now spam by ASSIGNMENT.  I don't have seven months of research into this, more like seven minutes and based on those seven minutes here is the advice of a lay person.  Get a lawyer.

Have your friend hire an escrow company.  Have your friend deposit funds into escrow.  Get this certified and proven to fullest extent available from your friend and the escrow company.

Write tender offer to bank, have it notarized, include escrow statement proving funds are available.  Mail it certified return receipt.  Wait 35 days.  Repeat.

Have a look at UCC 3-603.   Maybe it helps, maybe not.

Good luck

Thanks for your response, and I looked at 3-603 and I hope you note that it includes, over and over again - tendered to the ONE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE NOTE.

 
Why would I tender an offer to one that claims to be the current holder, BUT IS NOT?!  This is the whole problem.  I already wrote the new servicer and told them I will pay them off if they can give me the total amount and prove they are the CURRENT holder of the note or the agent of same.  For seven months I've written repeatedly, and they do not even address "the note or mortgage".  If they could, they would.
 
The last time, they only wrote back with the amount I need to send them and again ignored the issue of proving they are entitled to enforce the note.  Would you like to get a satisfaction of mortgage from these thieves???
 
Also, they keep sending me the same copy of an original note I signed to Morgan, who sold it off years ago.  The new servicer is not Morgan but that's all they have, probably a copy of a copy of a copy of the note, so they made up a phony robo signed assignment with them as the new mortgagee, but no such assignment can be proven to have actually taken place, and nothing is on the note or mortgage copies they sent me.  Morgan wants nothing to do with it, and will not even send a response or clarification.
 
Maybe your seven minutes of study should be expanded a bit, so you begin to understand why the ONLY foreclosures being suspended and/or where the banks are voluntarily withdrawing their complaint are those where the challenged foreclosures are on the basis of proving the current holder of the note with a BONA FIDE assignment to said current holder
 
Millions of foreclosures were granted to banks that did not even have their name on any piece of paper, much less on the note, but if it is not challenged, it easily flies through the court with summary judgment going to the non-party bank that is "claiming" a false claim.
 
Welcome to America.
 
Thanks, but with your suggestion, the amount would be in escrow for up to several years, and they might just ignore me or try to dupe whoever holds the purse strings to the escrow account, knowing they can never prove they are entitled to enforce the note.  Then there'd be hell to pay getting the money released back.
 
If I take suit myself, I'll get the judge to let me pay monthlies into the court registry and force the claimed servicer 30 to 60 days to prove up the note and their entitlement to enforce it.  If they don't prove it up in that amount of time, maybe the judge would give them another 30 days, but this is a fast track to what you suggest.  Anyway, within 3 months or so, I'll either have to turn over the escrow to the actual PROVEN holder or its agent, or I go for a quiet title.  Either way I'll get a clear title.
 
 
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
In regard to Mike H., please see the new thread:

"About Mike H."

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5358980

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...