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
April
Trying to find the answer to this question...even though we didn't fight to save our home, we are still interested in finding the answers and getting a lawyer for the damage that was done to us.  Litton didn't comply with the first QWR we sent back in Nov. 2007, and we have since let the house go in Chapter 7.  But after completing my own version of a forensic audit, my mortgage timeline, there are gaping holes and the math just is NOT doable!  What, do these companies literally pull numbers out of their ass?!  I figure if I can get the QWR's answered, it might make it easier for me to get an attorney - or, since we gave up on the foreclosure, do you think we'll need an attorney to get the servicer's to comply at all in the first place?  Btw, our servicer's were Wilsire, Countrywide, and Litton.

Bottom line need to know is - is there a SOL (Statute of Limitations) on sending a RESPA QWR?
Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
Yes, one year at the end of "servicing"
Quote 0 0
Ok, so our bankruptcy was discharged last April or May, which would be the end of servicing for Wilsire and Litton...Countrywide sold the servicing to Litton at the beginning of our Chapter 13 (May 2006) so go ahead with Wilsire and Litton, but Countrywide is too late?

Our would end of servicing be the date of the Sheriif's sale 8/14/08?
Quote 0 0

P.S.  Regarding Countrywide, would our lawyer be able to demand the information? They are, after all, the servicer that drove us into the Chapter 13.

Quote 0 0
Ed
April wrote:

P.S.  Regarding Countrywide, would our lawyer be able to demand the information? They are, after all, the servicer that drove us into the Chapter 13.



Talk to your bk attorney.
Quote 0 0
This is from one of my own pleadings, it titled;

TRACKING THE MORTGAGE CHRONOLOGY

 

Exhibit “A”

 

 

H&R Block Originates the alleged Mortgage             Dated; June 9th, 2005                                                            

 

Plaintiff ERROR #1            Here is where the confusion/obfuscation begins. Plaintiff

 

introduces “as evidence” Plaintiff’s exhibit no 25,

 

Titled “EXECUTION COPY”  RE: Purchase Price and Terms Agreement” Dated “As of June 10, 2005” One day after the alleged Mortgage creation! Purporting to explain how Barclay’s Bank has bought the alleged Mortgage Note and debt from Option One after Option One had combined that same note and debt into “The Trust”. Yet next, you will notice that the alleged Mortgage has yet to be assigned to Option One. That will not occur for another 140 days (over 4 months!). It should also be noted that Plaintiff’s Exhibit #25 lacks any signatures or authentication by either “Buyer” or “Seller” clearly in violation of U.C.C. and Contract & Securities Laws and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously noted.

 

Evidentiary RULE 1002. Requirement of Original

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute enacted by the General Assembly not in conflict with a rule of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

Plaintiff ERROR #2 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #26 titled “EXECUTION COPY FLOW

 

AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND

 

WARRANTIES AGREEMENTDated August 15th, 2005 (2 Months and 5 days after the above referenced exhibit #25 but still months before the The Assignment from H&R Block (alleged Mortgage Originator) to Option One. Plaintiff’s Exhibit “10”

 

This document catalogs the purchase of the “Trust” from the “Company & Seller” Option One Mortgage to the “Purchaser, Barclay’s Bank, PLC

 

Again, it should be noted that Plaintiff’s Exhibit #26 lacks proper signatures or

authentication by  “Seller” clearly in violation of U.C.C. and Contract & Securities Laws and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract.

 

That said, the conclusion so far is that the alleged Note & Mortgage could not have been included into the Trust” nor into the ownership of Barlays Bank PLC until at least the day of or after the day of the Assignment from H&R Block to Option One Mortgage Corporation dated November 22nd, 2005.

 

Plaintiff’s ERROR # 3 Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 27 titled “EXECUTION COPY 

 

ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE” dated August 19th, 2005.

 

This document does purportedly represent the Assignment and Conveyance of the “Trust” from Option One to Barclays Bank PLC,  Again, it should be noted that Plaintiff’s Exhibit #27 any lacks proper signatures or authentication by  either “Buyer” or “Seller” clearly in violation of U.C.C. and Contract & Securities Laws and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously noted. Also, Assignment from H&R Block to Option One does not happen until October 27th, 2005, nearly 2 months AFTER the alledged assignment and conveyance of the “Trust” that Plaintiff would have us believe already contained the mortgage, yet they submit proof it could not have had.

 

NOTICE… ALL OF THE ABOVE OCCURRED BEFORE THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT DATE!

 

H&R Block Assigns Note & Mortgage to Option One

 

see assignment dated: October 27, 2005 & Recorded November 22nd, 2005

                                                                                                Plaintiff’s Exhibit “10”

 

 

Plaintiff’s ERROR # 4 Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 28 titled “EXECUTION COPY”

 “BILL OF SALE” dated January 26th, 2006.

 

Here we have a “Bill of Sale” that represents that “BARCLAYS BANK PLC (“the Seller”), in consideration of (i) the sum of $1,214,208,.30” …………………………

 

Let me write that out…. One Million, two hundred and fourteen thousand, two hundred and eight dollars (I guess) then a coma(!) and then a decimal point (I guess) and 30 cents (I guess) dollars. This NOT a typographical error on my part (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28).  Naming Option One as the Servicer, Mortgage Ramp, Inc. as loan performance advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association , as trustee as of January 26, 2006.

 

“to be paid to it in immediately available funds by SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC (the “Purchaser) and (ii) the Class X, Class P and Class R Certificates issued pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2006 (“the Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18)  ,, among the Purchaser, as Depositor, Option One Mortgage Corporation, as servicer and responsible party, MortgageRamp, Inc., as loan performance advisor, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee, does as of January 26, 2006, hereby sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey to the Purchaser without recourse, all the Seller’s right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, including al interest and principal received by the Seller on or with respect to the Mortgage Loans.”………….

 

            In Summary; Barklays Bank PLC sells the Mortgage Loans from the “Trust” to SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC as Purchaser & Depositor, to Option One Mortgage Corporation, as servicer and responsible party, MortgageRamp, Inc., as loan performance advisor, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee, as of January 26, 2006 for an undecipherable amount and for Class X, P & R Certificates issued pursuant to ““a” Pooling and Servicing Agreement” and then divides ownership between the four in whatever ethereal undisclosed manner ….. as it does not specify.

 

Please note this document is accompanied by an unspecified signature page and is signed by one Paul Menefee “Director” from SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC,  and one John Cuccoli (probably misspelled but close!), Managing Director of BARCLAYS BANK PLC            ,  and that there is no authentication given for either signatures power to enter into this contract and also no Power of Attorney Stamp and Seal accompanying this document and no signature date, clearly in violation of Contract & Securities Laws and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously noted.

 

Please note also the date of January 26th, 2006 as the day of this transaction.

 

As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement

 

On occurrence of a “Credit Event”

 

Trust Transfers Mortgage BACK to Option One

 

As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 2:03 (d) “Within 30 days of the earlier of either discovery by or notice to the Responsible Party that any Mortgage Loan does not conform to the requirements”….”of any breach of a representation or warranty”….”that materially and adversely affects the value of any Mortgage Loan”… the Responsible Party shall”…..” remove such Mortgage Loan (a “Deleted Mortgage Loan”) from the Trust and substitute in its place a Substitute Mortgage Loan”………………..

 

So, contractually, according to the alleged Pooling & Servicing Agreement supplied by Plaintiff (Plaintiff’s exhibit 18) , 90 days after the alleged default which occurred September, 2007 as of Plaintiff’s exhibit “20” (Payment History) , otherwise stated as January 2008, Option One Regained sole possession of the Note and Mortgage (with no assignment or any other authentication provided) and supplied  a substitute Note & Mortgage to take it’s place as is evidenced by Plaintiff’s own sworn evidentiary production of the Assignment from Option One Mortgage Corporation to Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Plaintiff’s exhibit “11”)dated March 3, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008, such date being AFTER recordation of Foreclosure action and as such voiding Plaintiff’s argument of Note holdership at time of foreclosure initiation and also voiding Plaintiff’s standing in this action!

 

It should be noted that the signatory page(s) given at the rear of the Pooling & Servicing Agreement each contain only One signature, with empty signatory spaces for each other and that there is no one Signatory page containing all signatures, no authentication of any signatures, no dates of signatures and no certification of any signatures by Power of Attorney clearly in violation of U.C.C. and Contract & Securities Laws and as such represents NOT even a legally binding Contract.

 

Please note date of Re-Possession of Mortgage Note to Option One as January 2008.

 

As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 203(d).

 

 

February 27th , 2008 … Foreclosure Action is filed

 

Option One then assigns Note & Mortgage to Wells Fargo to act as Foreclosure

 

Special Servicer.

 

See Assignment (Plaintiff’s Exhibit “11” dated;  March 7th, 2008 and recorded

 

March 27th, 2008. Signed by a Ms Topaka Love who purports herself as “assistant

 

Secretary” who “personally appeared”  for signature somewhere in Minnesota and that

 

the document was prepared by Plaintiff’s Counsel LERNER, SAMPSON &

 

ROTHFUSS in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mortgage was assigned from Option One to Wells

 

Fargo Bank for NO CONSIDERATION.  Contract Law states there is no value

 

established unless there is a “meeting of the minds and consideration is passed”, again,

 

no legal contract is established, as no “consideration” has been passed.

 

 

In Conclusion, Plaintiff’s own exhibits prove so many irregularities and illegalities that unless each and every one is “proved”, then the Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank can NOT be deemed the “Holder in Due Course” of the subject Mortgage and Promissory Note and in fact do represent more a meeting of men in Stuttgart Germany which resulted in the formation of the Nazi party OR a meeting of men in Polarmo that resulted in the formation of the Mafia, more than it resembles the actions taken by any Government regulated Corporations in America today.

 

 

It' still in rough draft!

Quote 0 0
In the above I feel I should mention I believe you must read through it with a "Timeline" frame of mind. It doesn't make any sense, because it cannot have happened! God doesn't make a timeline that it fits into to my knowledge. It appears to me more, that when confronted with Discovery, someone threw a bunch of papers together trying to obfuscate the real facts because, in my own case's timeline, if the "TRUST" sold off any sort of financially beneficial device based on the holding of my particular mortgage, then the TRUST committed fraud to the investors. Because the TRUST could not have obtained the "Note" until it was assigned the note from HR Block, some 4 months after they alledgedly had already put it in the TRUST (a transaction we know did not occur). That leaves Barclays holding the "Note" with no actual and timely transferrance of it to the TRUST at all! Hmmmmmmmmmm    Organized Crime

PitchForks & Rakes!

Quote 0 0
Ed
John those aren't errors they are deliberate violations of the law but you have to specify which law you can't just say it was illegal.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...