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

Can You Find the Fraud? The Judge Did.

Here is a copy of the indorsements which were affixed to the Note that was attached to the Complaint in a mortgage foreclosure case I’m defending.

Here is a copy of the indorsements which were affixed to the original Note, which the Plaintiff, Citimortgage, Inc., filed after filing suit.

The notes themselves were identical, but notice any differences in the indorsements?

Upon close inspection, it’s clear that the Note attached to the Complaint contains an indorsement in blank, whereas on the “original” Note, the blank indorsement is filled in with the stamp of “Citimortgage, Inc.”

At my motion to dismiss hearing today, Citimortgage’s lawyer argued this was irrelevant – whether the Note was specifically indorsed or indorsed in blank, Citimortgage would have standing either way.

The judge’s view, however, was much different.

I cited the Second District’s recent decision in Feltus v. U.S. Bank, N.A. http://www.scribd.com/doc/69517251/4DCA-FELTUSvUSBANK-Lost-Note-Fraud-Affidavit-Rule-1-190-a
which explains how banks cannot rely on an “original” note that is different from the Note attached to the Complaint.

But it’s more than that. The obvious question, and the one that the judge posed, was why the original Note was specifically indorsed to Citimortgage when the Note attached to the Complaint was indorsed in blank.

The bank’s lawyer argued “maybe the Note that was stored electronically was different than the hard copy.” But the judge wasn’t buying that argument, especially since it was prefaced with “maybe.” The judge granted the motion to dismiss and directed that Citimortgage, Inc. explain, in its Amended Complaint, how Citimortgage’s stamp appeared on the original Note when it wasn’t on the Note attached to the Complaint.

The lawyer’s explanation, in my view, is hogwash. I suppose I could see this argument if there was no indorsement at all on the Note attached to the Complaint. In that event, it might be possible that the specific indorsement was done later. However, I see no innocent explanation for how there was a blank indorsement on the Note attached to the Complaint, and that very indorsement had the name “Citimortgage, Inc.” on the blank when the original Note was filed. In my view, there’s only one explanation here – Citimortgage had a Note, indorsed in blank, and said “We don’t want this indorsed in blank, let’s put our stamp on it.” Maybe I’m wrong, but let’s put it this way – I can’t wait to hear their explanation.

By the way, there was a court reporter for this hearing, and the transcript will be a great read – I will post it upon receipt.

Mark Stopa

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

This entry was posted in Main. Bookmark the permalink.
Quote 0 0

aside from the fact the stamp for Citi was upside down, neither had a date establishing when the note was allegedly endorsed.

I'm glad you have a judge that can tell the difference


Quote 0 0
Bill

Crickett wrote:

aside from the fact the stamp for Citi was upside down, neither had a date establishing when the note was allegedly endorsed.

I'm glad you have a judge that can tell the difference



Note endorsements are usually NEVER dated.
Quote 0 0
Good work..

In reading the judges opinion in Feltus v US Bank NA

The court had a problem with the fact that the person who was said to have witnessed the daily record keeping of the account aka a bookkeeper.

Had US Bank presented an attorney from there legal department or a high ranking bank official as the SUPPOSED witness to the account quit possibly the outcome of Feltus v US Bank NA would of been totally different.

So in the future could we expect to see Officers of the court or high ranking bank officials testify in these cases?

Will they perjure themselves to acquire a win in court?

Best Regards

Acesfull
Quote 0 0
Bill

acesfull wrote:
Good work..

In reading the judges opinion in Feltus v US Bank NA

The court had a problem with the fact that the person who was said to have witnessed the daily record keeping of the account aka a bookkeeper.

Had US Bank presented an attorney from there legal department or a high ranking bank official as the SUPPOSED witness to the account quit possibly the outcome of Feltus v US Bank NA would of been totally different.

So in the future could we expect to see Officers of the court or high ranking bank officials testify in these cases?

Will they perjure themselves to acquire a win in court?

Best Regards

Acesfull


Lets keep in mind that it would be unusual for ANYONE from U.S. Bank to execute an affidavit.  Most of the current foreclosures are being prosecuted by the Servicers and not the bank.  If you look at a few of the affidavits that are posted here (litton loan) the affiant states he has NO contact with the bank.  Most of these "book keepers" are just Servicer employees and unless you get into extensive litigation and the Servicer is backed into a corner,  You will rarely see ANYTHING executed by an actual Trustee. 
Quote 0 0
Bill

I'm sorry, I meant to say to look at the depositions posted here not affidavits.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...