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
NJ48
The authority to do business in (N.J.) or in other states and the right to use the courts(N.J.S.A. 14A:13-11) depends on your state statues and how they are worded. The N.J. statue was crafted to be constitutionally acceptable and the case that made it possible was : First Family Corp. v. Durham, 108 N.J. 277(1987). It allows the state to require ALL COROPRATIONS, including national banks, to file Activities Reports (N.J.S.A. 14A:13-15). Corporations, etc. were allowed to do business interstate and intrastate, but if they wanted to use the courts, they have to comply with the Activities Report Act and/or be reinstated by paying the fees due. That was the remedy. In OneWest's case, remedy is not available because they have transferred all their alleged loans to Ocwen. If Ocwen filed a (new)complaint and sent  a Notice Of Intent To Foreclose(as in N.J.) it cannot be named as "Lender," in my opinion, because as a matter of law, it is not a "Lender" as required by law, it is a non-bank entity and not a lender. Without Activities Reports, the court has no jurisdiction.  
OneWest and other banks and in other states are most likely in violation of their state's authority to do business. Check it out.      
Quote 0 0
texas
NJ48, are you saying that under one set of laws (state or federal) there is a right to conduct business, whereas to invoke a courts jurisdiction requires compliance with another set of law(s)? Are you saying, to sum it up, to invoke a court jurisdiction requires compliance of both sets of law? If so, I would say correct!
Quote 0 0
NJ48
As I under stand it, interstate commerce corporations and national banks, even Federal State Banks(FSB), were all claiming the "the supremacy clause" or an exemption from state law. So the N.J. Courts performed "judicial surgery" on the statue, N.J.S.A. 14A;13-15 that allowed the state to inquire if these corporations had any sales tax liability by filing an Activities Report. Its a state law that would prevent a federal law from kicking in. The withholding of the use of courts would only come into play if the corporations or national banks would not make use of the remedy available to them prior to bringing in a suit. In foreclosure and in other suits, the court would not have jurisdiction to hear the case without the authority to do business in the state.
The First Family case explains it better than I can. It's an 1987 case that has rarely been used.    
Quote 0 0
texas

NJ, might consider: More can be found at http://www.scribd.com/alviec and at trilliondollarfubar.com or ourlemon.com if updated timely.

The Many State(s) Law

Does it matter if it is a mortgage (title theory) “or” a deed of trust (lien theory)?  Could it matter that an alleged lender is under a federal charter (National Bank, agent, trustee, or etc...) and not a resident of a state?  Bet you jurisdictional security it could matter.

True, a lien theory state allow(s) for actions to be taken outside of the eyes of the court. True, a title theory state requires the eyes of the court.

Here arises a question, how serious depend(s), does having a federal charter giving a right to operate a business in a state equate to having residence status to invoke a court(s) jurisdiction.

For those in a deed of trust state to prevent illegal action(s) requires filing of a suit. This filing of the suit allows the federal charter entity to voluntarily submit to the court personal jurisdiction.

As personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction has been achieved by the court, the federal charter entity has now a right to jurisdiction under the court and can request relief be granted by the court.

Whereas in a title theory state for the federal charter entity not having standing as a non residence has no rights to bring an action before the court.

However, if a plaintiff brings the federal charter (defendant) entity into any court action, standing as to personal jurisdiction has established as to both plaintiff and defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction is applicable when both parties claim rights.

Quote 0 0
NJ48
To invoke the court's jurisdiction is an issue of capacity to sue, not an issue of standing to sue, as I understand it. Found this in "El T. Mexican Rests., Inc. v. Bacon, 921 S.W.2d 247, 249(Tex. App. Houston[1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied)."   Residence status is not a factor, I believe because as a foreign corporation, or a national bank, or a federally chartered bank and even local entities all have equal access to the state court(N.J.) provided they obtained a certificate of authority to do business.
Not all federally chartered banks are national banks which have been claiming the "supremacy clause." Federal Savings Banks(FSB) are chartered by the Office of Thrift  Supervision which is now administered by the Office of the Comptroller and national banks are chartered under federal law by the OCC.       
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...