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
I had a mediation meeting today with the opposing counsel in my case.  This is the first time I actually had an opportunity to hear what they have to say about the case.  Some of you that have been in this fight will shake your heads and say, "Yes, we keep telling everyone that is what they say".  But they say it almost verbatium!
   In November 2007 I received a notice from ASC that my loan was adjusting.  Up until that time I thought it was a 30 year fixed.  When I called ASC to discuss it I was told to hold payments for 90 days and they would be me into loan modification.  So I did. And they had NDEX West file a NOD.
   I won't go into the frustrating details of trying to clear it up.   Bottom line it went to Trustee sale, they negogiated a forebearance but then sent paper work saying 'use this time to get the rest of the money".  I hired an attorney and filed for  TRO. Which was granted. Now in the time ensuing I have learned:
1) The loan was sold 3 times before landing in the trust.
2) The only additional recorded assignment of the DOT from the orginial assignment when I purchased the house is AFTER Ndex filed the NOD and was subsituted as a trustee.
3) The assignment is invalid because the Attorney in fact is listed before the principal.
4) The assignment goes from the loan orginator (who is in Bankruptcy) to the trust -- skipping two of the other owners.
5) The PSA specifically details the path of the loan.
6) The PSA specifcially states the loan can not be modified to a fixed rate; but the servicer sent me the paperwork (FIVE months later) verifiying that they had told me they would modify the loan.

Opposing counsel said that their not following the legal process of foreclosure in California (i.e. Deutsche did not record the assignement until a full month and 1/2 after Ndex had been subsituted) is a "no harm, no foul".  They can just refile.
   The mediator said that since "most" of what they did was right, the judge won't want to open the gates for 1,000's of other cases to flood their courtroom and most likely will consider it to be a minor technicality.
   Is this possible in California?  I thought since a valid assignment is a REQUIREMENT of law --- that there is no room for interpretation.  The judge has to order them to record a valid assignment.  And that no foreclosure can commence until that vallid assignment is filed.  (Which I don't believe they can ever do).  Does anyone know of any other case that is similiar to this?  Any help, advice?  Their only offer is for me to walk away.

Quote 0 0
When you were in mediation, did they have your original note?????

Did you inspect it if they did have it? Was it your wet ink signature on it???

Quote 0 0

judges are supposed to enforce the law as it written, any other interpretation is abuse of discretion

Quote 0 0
i f@##$$%%$$$KIN had it...

i need names of these judges... all of these dirtbags...
it is time for a smear campaign of SHAME OF GRAND PROPORTIONS
it appears the norm is theses judges are holding both stock [ like $$ shares in mbs & banking investements]
this put them all at a direct "conflict of interest" but they will not recuse themselves.
instead the side with the money & continue the out right robbery of the
middle-class that carry the burden of this county

WE out number them 100 to 1 ... this is not about homes to them this is about preserving THEIR POWER BY ISSUING & CONTROLING MONEY...PERIOD !

without us these useless leeches will wither & die then their rotting repugnant remains will be swept away in the dust..

Quote 0 0
my user name was so-pose to appear as angry & not taking it...
all it says is angry-taking it.. i dont know what the [ & ] symbol does to the code here
hahaha yea
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
There is a difference between the execution of an assignment and the recordation of an assignment.

Many states have recording statutes that say essentially failure to record a proper and valid assignment does not effect the validity of the assignment itself. The recording of such is merely making the fact of the transaction known to the world.

I have some trouble with this as it presents opportunities for properties to be fraudulently sold and/or transferred.

Imagine selling the same piece of property to several people, none of which transactions have been properly recorded.

If the issue you're dealing with revolves around post commencement execution of the assingment of mortgage then requisite standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court was something the plaintiff did not have, therefore the court had no subject matter jurisdiction.

If it is a matter instead of mere recording of the transaction you're on less solid ground.

Unfortunately the law is not what it says, the law is what the court says it is, even when it is obvious the court is wrong.

Quote 0 0
I haven't gone to court on the assignment.  This was a mediation meeting.  I understand the difference between execution and recording of the assignment.  I think I do.  It was signed and notarized (that would be the execution of the assignment, correct?) and then it was recorded with the county recorder three or four days later.

It is the date that it was signed and notarized that we are focused on.  That and the fact the principal is listed after the attorney, which in California should automatically render it invalid.

I thought when a state is non-judicial there is suppose to be a "strict adherence" to the process/laws because the homeowner never gets their day in court, unless they file a suit themselves. (Which is what I have done).  I am suing for fraud; and now we are modifying the complaint to include the fact that they actually have no standing.

I was wondering if anyone else out there has had this issue and has gone to court? Or if they used it to settle with the servicer and their cronies.

I am hoping that when I go to court at the end of the month the judge will agree with us and demand that a proper assignment be executed.  Which I don't think they will be able to do and that will give me more standing to pursue the fraud case.
Quote 0 0
Philip S wrote:

judges are supposed to enforce the law as it written, any other interpretation is abuse of discretion

That is what I am thinking.  Which is why I don't understand the concern for "substantial compliance".  They completed the process out of order, and the process is suppose to be initiated by a valid assignment, which doesn't exist.  So even if they complete a, b, d and e correctly, the fact that c (the assignment) is invalid makes the rest wrong. 
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One

Are you also familiar with p-notes, negotiable instruments, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the processes of endorsement and delivery?

If not a read of UCC Article 3 would be very helpful. A link to the UCC through Cornell Law:

In short a p-note is a negotiable instrument and holdership is passed from one party to another by one payee endorsing it to another payee, and also requires the instrument being delivered to the new payee. There are other posts here in the forum that go into much more detail in this regard.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...