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
Has anyone had an affidavit "prepared" and signed by a Carrie Johnson? Seems one firm employs alot of Johnsons lol.

I cannot find anything on her.

My attorney does have an affidavit by the original lender stating the the person who signed the Assignment of Mortgage was never employed by them and never had authority to sign anything on their behalf.

I'm wanting to attack the endorsement on the note which I also believe is false. I called the bank and they stated that they don't have anyone there by their name, didn't think they'd ever employed anyone by that name, etc.

Help!!
Quote 0 0
f
Who was the originator and who is the servicer? When was the promissory note executed and in what state?

With the little information you have furnished, no one would even have an idea where to look.

Separately, realize that all of the notes have had valid original endorsements all along. The servicers and foreclosure mills were just forging endorsements on allonges as a matter of convenience rather than out of necessity.

When you fully appreciate this, it also suggests the appropriate investigative strategy. Since the robo-signing meltdown and OCC consent orders, servicers and foreclosure mill law firms have been at least somewhat cleaning up their act.

To this end, for newly filed foreclosures, very often a copy of the real note is now being plead. Most originators had only a single person in the loan closing or secondary marketing department who was responsible for endorsing the notes. The endorsement was uniformly completed within 72 hours before the note was delivered to the institutional custodian of the Lender's warehousing lender.

The only reason for any variation in the identity of the endorser would have been (a) a change in job responsibilities or (b) the primary endorser being out sick, on vacation, or otherwise out of the office. There would have never been an occasion when endorsement and delivery of the instruments to the warehousing lender would have waited even a single day for the return of the primary endorser.

So if you look at recent judicial foreclosures by the same originator, you are likely to see what the REAL endorsements look like. And these will be the same for that originator nationally.

When you know what the real endorsement looks like, you will then be able to distinguish whether your endorsement is real of anomalous.

Even so, you probably need an expert like Mr. Roper to actually prove the mischief.

Also, do not harbor any illusions that showing that the endorsement is unusual, out of the ordinary or simply anomalous will be enough. There is a presumption of regularity. Many states also have rules or statutes requiring denial of execution or signature, including denial of an endorsement or assignment to be verified. Read the UCC carefully and look at the cases for your jurisdiction on denial of signature. You will have a tough time prevailing on this argument even with pretty good evidence.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
When you know what the real endorsement looks like, you will then be able to distinguish whether your endorsement is real of anomalous.

--

But that's not to confuse a challenged signature with an anomolous indorsement right? "Anomalous indorsement" is a specific term that means an indorsement not by the holder (as opposed to not by the usual employee of the holder).

UCC 3-205 •(d) "Anomalous indorsement" means an indorsement made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.
Quote 0 0
The originator is First Financial Bank
Servicer is PHH
We are in Ohio
Quote 0 0
f
§3-308. PROOF OF SIGNATURES AND STATUS AS HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

(a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under Section 3-402(a).

(b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under Section 3-301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-308

The burdon of proof is on the proponent of the signature. But the signature is presumed to be authentic.

In other words, you are not going to be able to stand on a mere denial, absent something more that suggests irregularity.
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
But that's not to confuse a challenged signature with an anomalous indorsement right? "Anomalous indorsement" is a specific term that means an indorsement not by the holder (as opposed to not by the usual employee of the holder).

UCC 3-205 •(d) "Anomalous indorsement" means an indorsement made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.


You are correct to distinguish use of "anomalous indorsement" from anomalous signature.

If a negotiable instrument was made out payable to ABC Bank and someone placed an indorsement on the instrument that says:

"Pay To _________

/s/ Linda Green, Asst. Treasurer
XYZ Bank"

(presuming that there is no other intervening indorsement in favor of XYZ)

This would be an anomalous indorsement, because XYZ Bank is NOT the payee and an instrument made payable to a specific person (ABC Bank) could not be properly negotiated without indorsement by the actual payee.

Since XYZ Bank cannot be the holder under these circumstances, the indorsement by XYZ is anomalous.

By contrast, suppose that the indorsement says:

"Pay To _________

/s/ Martha Kunkle, Asst. Treasurer
ABC Bank"

(further suppose that the original instrument was dated January 1, 2005)

Here, the proper party is making the indorsement (ABC Bank). So the indorsement is not anomalous.

But there is a separate latent problem with such an indorsement.

That is the trouble associated with the fact that Martha Marie KUNKLE (b 25 Jan 1922, d 24 Oct 1995 – Tarrant Co., TX) was already DEAD on January 1, 2005, and couldn't have been the indorser.

See “Dawn of the Zombie Robo-Signer” and “Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector”, by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Wall Street Journal, December 31, 2010.

See also Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., SEC Form 8-K, January 3, 2011, Exhibit 99.1, SEC Acession No. 0001299933-11-000008, available online through the SEC’s EDGAR filing disclosure system at URL:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1185348/000129993311000008/0001299933-11-000008-index.htm

But it is unusual for an anomalous signature to be so transparent.

See some cases on anomalous indorsement:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Anomalous+indorsement%22&btnG=&as_sdt=2%2C39
Quote 0 0
Bill
f wrote:
§3-308. PROOF OF SIGNATURES AND STATUS AS HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

(a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under Section 3-402(a).

(b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under Section 3-301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-308

The burdon of proof is on the proponent of the signature. But the signature is presumed to be authentic.

In other words, you are not going to be able to stand on a mere denial, absent something more that suggests irregularity.



Even if you overcome this presumption, the UCC also offers protection for a purchaser of a note in regards to the endorsement. As f posted, to prevail on an argument like this may be out of reach.


§ 3-405. EMPLOYER\\\'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR FRAUDULENT INDORSEMENT BY EMPLOYEE.

b) For the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of a person who, in good faith, pays an instrument or takes it for value or for collection, if an employer entrusted an employee with responsibility with respect to the instrument and the employee or a person acting in concert with the employee makes a fraudulent indorsement of the instrument, the indorsement is effective as the indorsement of the person to whom the instrument is payable if it is made in the name of that person. If the person paying the instrument or taking it for value or for collection fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss resulting from the fraud, the person bearing the loss may recover from the person failing to exercise ordinary care to the extent the failure to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.


§ 3-403. UNAUTHORIZED SIGNATURE.

(a) Unless otherwise provided in this Article or Article 4, an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value. An unauthorized signature may be ratified for all purposes of this Article.

§ 3-406. NEGLIGENCE CONTRIBUTING TO FORGED SIGNATURE OR ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENT.

(a) A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
The originator is First Financial Bank
Servicer is PHH
We are in Ohio


Check county land records in Ohio counties that also have online dockets with digital images of the filings. Look in the land records for assignments out of First Financial Bank. Note the name of the mortgagor. Focus on assignments from about January 2011 forward.

Then search the court records for a judicial foreclosure involving these properties. (Search by borrower name)

Look at the exhibits to the complaint and exhibits to any affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment.

You may find that the patterns of indorsement (as to use of allonges and identity of the indorser) is different since the servicers began cleaning up their act.

If you think that you are going to be able to establish evidence of irregularity based upon someone doing this work for you or that someone already has this information and is going to simply give it to you, you are deluding yourself!
Quote 0 0
Angelo
f wrote:
Quote:
But that's not to confuse a challenged signature with an anomalous indorsement right? "Anomalous indorsement" is a specific term that means an indorsement not by the holder (as opposed to not by the usual employee of the holder).

UCC 3-205 •(d) "Anomalous indorsement" means an indorsement made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.


You are correct to distinguish use of "anomalous indorsement" from anomalous signature.

If a negotiable instrument was made out payable to ABC Bank and someone placed an indorsement on the instrument that says:

"Pay To _________

/s/ Linda Green, Asst. Treasurer
XYZ Bank"

(presuming that there is no other intervening indorsement in favor of XYZ)

This would be an anomalous indorsement, because XYZ Bank is NOT the payee and an instrument made payable to a specific person (ABC Bank) could not be properly negotiated without indorsement by the actual payee.

Since XYZ Bank cannot be the holder under these circumstances, the indorsement by XYZ is anomalous.

By contrast, suppose that the indorsement says:

"Pay To _________

/s/ Martha Kunkle, Asst. Treasurer
ABC Bank"

(further suppose that the original instrument was dated January 1, 2005)

Here, the proper party is making the indorsement (ABC Bank). So the indorsement is not anomalous.

But there is a separate latent problem with such an indorsement.

That is the trouble associated with the fact that Martha Marie KUNKLE (b 25 Jan 1922, d 24 Oct 1995 – Tarrant Co., TX) was already DEAD on January 1, 2005, and couldn't have been the indorser.

See “Dawn of the Zombie Robo-Signer” and “Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector”, by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Wall Street Journal, December 31, 2010.

See also Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., SEC Form 8-K, January 3, 2011, Exhibit 99.1, SEC Acession No. 0001299933-11-000008, available online through the SEC’s EDGAR filing disclosure system at URL:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1185348/000129993311000008/0001299933-11-000008-index.htm

But it is unusual for an anomalous signature to be so transparent.

See some cases on anomalous indorsement:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Anomalous+indorsement%22&btnG=&as_sdt=2%2C39

But what happens when the plaintiff claims that the endorsement came from an agent of the payee, do they then hold the burden of proof that this is a valid endorsement? By providing a attorney in fact, or some type of agency agreement?
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
But what happens when the plaintiff claims that the endorsement came from an agent of the payee, do they then hold the burden of proof that this is a valid endorsement? By providing a attorney in fact, or some type of agency agreement?


This never, ever happens! If this is what the plaintiff is claiming, then they are [i]lying.[/b]

The key to winning in this situation is NOT to directly and immediately attack the endorsement. This is the very worst thing you can do. Instead, you want to get them lying under oath in interrogatory responses and at oral deposition.

The proof in such cases is usually the production of the original instrument. The original instrument WILL contain a valid endorsement. And this endorsement may very well be different that the forged endorsement (on an allonge) that is plead and furnished in discovery.

Sometimes, the foreclosure mill will also forge an original instrument so that they have an unendorsed copy which matches the allonge.

If you begin with the idea in mind that the original is not endorsed, then you are going to LOSE. If you take your adversaries to school and telegraph where you are going, you are going to LOSE. But if you let them lie and lie under oath, compounding their earlier lies, then, sometimes, you can catch them in their lies by making them produce the original instrument. If you can get a court to order the production, they will either forge a new original or they will settle!

You also need to bear in mind that proving the forgery is a non-trivial problem. The proof is not in getting some forensic expert to examine the original. That is expensive and of uncertain outcome. What you need is to run discovery against the institutional custodian. Because the institutional custody operations are every bit as honest and squeaky clean as the foreclosure operations are dishonest and deceitful.

What you will find is that there exist conclusive records that the original note, never left the vaults of the institutional custodian. But if you haven't created a predicate for obtaining the records of the institutional custodian through discovery, you cannot succeed.

This is another reason that a pro se litigant has little chance of success with this strategy.

You need to depose at least one employee of the servicer early and get that person lying under oath in the deposition. Then, you need to immediately follow up to obtain the documents from the institutional custodian. The servicer will resist and will usually succeed in stonewalling a pro se litigant. But a capable attorney experienced in litigation (not one of the defense foreclosure mill law firms who are accomplished only at self-promotion) can get you an order to compel.

Getting an order to compel after the plaintiff has been caught repeatedly lying ends the case. Getting such an order prematurely when they haven't sworn to anything, simply gets you a new round of amended pleadings and excuses from the plaintiff's attorneys about scriveners' errors and inadvertent mistakes. ("Yes, we accidentally forged an allonge. No one knows how that happened, but everything is OK, now your Honor, because we found that there was an endorsement on the original and we located it in the most unexpected of places! It was in the vault all along. Now we just need you to sign this order for summary judgment to get these deadbeats out of our client's house so we can sell it at a steep loss!")
Quote 0 0
Angelo
Oh it did happen, I have a note that has XYZ bank fsb. as the lender, the mortgage is a MERS mortgage, and the note has an endorsement of it that states,

Pay to the order of__________ without recourse, and signed by ABC mortgage.

If this was a broker done mortgage deal, do/would they have the authority to sign/negotiate the note on behalf of XYZ bank? And if so, would the holder of the note now have a valid claim, since they are holding a note with a blank endorsement, even though there is no power of attorney,agent agreement that validates the signature.
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
Oh it did happen, I have a note that has XYZ bank fsb. as the lender, the mortgage is a MERS mortgage, and the note has an endorsement of it that states,

Pay to the order of__________ without recourse, and signed by ABC mortgage.


Have you seen the original note? Or only COPIES of the note? Is the indorsement on the note itself or on a separate allonge?

Admittedly, mistakes DO happen now and then, but these would have been RARE on the original instruments. By contrast, when the foreclosure mills are fabricating documents, they are exceptionally careless! So the circumstance you describe would by 100 or 1,000 time more likely to occur as a result of evidence fabrication as opposed to routine mortgage banking operations.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
f wrote:
Quote:
Oh it did happen, I have a note that has XYZ bank fsb. as the lender, the mortgage is a MERS mortgage, and the note has an endorsement of it that states,

Pay to the order of__________ without recourse, and signed by ABC mortgage.


Have you seen the original note? Or only COPIES of the note? Is the indorsement on the note itself or on a separate allonge?

Admittedly, mistakes DO happen now and then, but these would have been RARE on the original instruments. By contrast, when the foreclosure mills are fabricating documents, they are exceptionally careless! So the circumstance you describe would by 100 or 1,000 time more likely to occur as a result of evidence fabrication as opposed to routine mortgage banking operations.


It is a "true and correct copy" of the note, and the endorsement is on the note not an allonge. Im just trying to figure how and when to attack the endorsement. Do you have to deny the endorsement in the initial answer or can you wait until the opposition of summary judgement?
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
It is a "true and correct copy" of the note, and the endorsement is on the note not an allonge. Im just trying to figure how and when to attack the endorsement. Do you have to deny the endorsement in the initial answer or can you wait until the opposition of summary judgement?


That means absolutely nothing! Stamping "true and correct copy" on something is simply a TRICK that these foreclosure mills use to fool pro se litigants and incompetent attorneys.

The instrument is only authenticated by affidavit. And the robo-signers continue to falsely authenticate documents on a daily basis.

But simply stamping something "true and correct copy" with NO PERSON accepting responsibility and swearing to the authenticity means nothing whatsoever. Of course, when you fail to properly Object to the admissibility, it can come in without any authentication at all!

So what you have is purported copy and nothing more. Moreover, there is no legal consequence to anyone for having plead a forged or fabricated copy that no one swore to by affidavit. The attorneys will just say, "No idea how that happened your Honor!" and that will be the end of it.

So you need to get this "true and correct copy" nonsense completely out of your vocabulary. It has no meaning except to confuse and deceive.

As to your latter question, the answer lies in the Rules and statutes of your jurisdiction.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Angelo - you have a fact pattern very much like mine in that I made a note to Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck indorsed the note in blank and Goofy is in court trying to foreclosure. Goofy has sworn up and down in two different courtrooms that they got the note from Donald. UCC 3-301(ii) applies. Goofy must prove they got the note from the holder and that isn't Donald...

You have a note to ABC. Your note was signed by XYZ. Is some other person in court against you? Say BANK.

I'm assuming that ABC and XYZ are distinct entities bearing no relationship to each other? If so You absolutely positively MUST get BANK to swear they got the note from XYZ.

I rely alot on FDIC v Houde in my Court of Appeals since it upholds UCC 3-301(ii) just the way I want it to:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3524357345915220078&q=houde&hl=en&as_sdt=2,20
Quote 0 0
Angelo
FnDoomed wrote:
Angelo - you have a fact pattern very much like mine in that I made a note to Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck indorsed the note in blank and Goofy is in court trying to foreclosure. Goofy has sworn up and down in two different courtrooms that they got the note from Donald. UCC 3-301(ii) applies. Goofy must prove they got the note from the holder and that isn't Donald...

You have a note to ABC. Your note was signed by XYZ. Is some other person in court against you? Say BANK.

I'm assuming that ABC and XYZ are distinct entities bearing no relationship to each other? If so You absolutely positively MUST get BANK to swear they got the note from XYZ.

I rely alot on FDIC v Houde in my Court of Appeals since it upholds UCC 3-301(ii) just the way I want it to:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3524357345915220078&q=houde&hl=en&as_sdt=2,20

@Fn
Correct me if im wrong, but that case has to deal with a note that has NO endorsement on it. They argued that the note was transfered from a dissolved bank to the FDIC as a receiver. That in my opinion is apples and oranges, I have a note that is endorsed in blank, which would make it bearer paper, and any person in possession would be entitled to enforce it.

My problem is trying to figure out how to attack the endorsement from an unknown entity. If there is a ruling that the endorsement isn't valid, then this case might come into play.
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
@Fn
Correct me if im wrong, but that case has to deal with a note that has NO endorsement on it. They argued that the note was transfered from a dissolved bank to the FDIC as a receiver. That in my opinion is apples and oranges, I have a note that is endorsed in blank, which would make it bearer paper, and any person in possession would be entitled to enforce it.

My problem is trying to figure out how to attack the endorsement from an unknown entity. If there is a ruling that the endorsement isn't valid, then this case might come into play.


It is important to distinguish between an unknown signer and an anomalous indorsee.

If a negotiable instrument is made out in favor of First Bank, but never indorsed by First Bank, but is instead indorsed only by Second Bank, then this is an anomalous indorsement.

If the instrument is indorsed on behalf of First Bank by a person unknown to you -- for example Jane SMITH has indorsed:

"PAY TO ____________

/s/ Jane SMITH (scrawl)
FIRST BANK"

. . . then you simply have an indorsement by First Bank by a person unknown to you and this is an argument that just isn't going to go anywhere. Challenging such an indorsement is problematic for another reason and that is the simple fact that the negotiation is a separate transaction to the original note to which the borrower is NOT IN PRIVITY. The very same cases which have often held that a borrower cannot attack an assignment could also be used to negate a borrower attack on the indorsement.

It is going to require only exceptionally slim proof to establish the validity of the negotiation, absent some facts that take the case well out of the ordinary.

One example, above, is where someone identifiable is shown to have signed -- Martha KUNKLE -- then that person is known to be dead. Another exception might arise where there is some indication that the indorsement took place after the date at which the indorsee was formally dissolved and became extinct as a corporate entity or after the entity was placed in receivership (in bankruptcy). Even so, these latter cases can be problematic, too, since the indorsement is almost always undated.

Unfortunately, the site administrators recently removed one of Mr. Roper's most important threads regarding judicial admissions. (Remnants of that thread can still be found on Google.)

Mr. Roper's thread points to an exceptionally important proof avenue available where plaintiffs have plead an unindorsed copy of a note. The pleading of that unindorsed copy constitutes a [i]judicial admission that the note was unindorsed at the date that the complaint was filed![/b]

Not noted by Mr. Roper, but just as important, is that even where the original complaint is subsequently amended, superseding the original complaint, the earlier complaint still serves as a "quasi-admission". It is not conclusive, as a judicial admission would be, be it remains some evidence that the note was unindorsed at the date the complaint was filed.

Those who are seeking to attack indorsements and allonges need to realize that it is best to get traction where ever it may be found. And Mr. Roper's post on judicial admissions was one of the most important unexploited defensive avenues. This is a defensive approach that is viable in all fifty states and is supported by very solid appellate case law everywhere.

It is unsurprising that Mr. Roper now has utter contempt for the corrupt operators of this site for removing his exceptionally important efforts to help others!
Quote 0 0
Angelo
f wrote:
Quote:
@Fn
Correct me if im wrong, but that case has to deal with a note that has NO endorsement on it. They argued that the note was transfered from a dissolved bank to the FDIC as a receiver. That in my opinion is apples and oranges, I have a note that is endorsed in blank, which would make it bearer paper, and any person in possession would be entitled to enforce it.

My problem is trying to figure out how to attack the endorsement from an unknown entity. If there is a ruling that the endorsement isn't valid, then this case might come into play.


It is important to distinguish between an unknown signer and an anomalous indorsee.

If a negotiable instrument is made out in favor of First Bank, but never indorsed by First Bank, but is instead indorsed only by Second Bank, then this is an anomalous indorsement.

If the instrument is indorsed on behalf of First Bank by a person unknown to you -- for example Jane SMITH has indorsed:

"PAY TO ____________

/s/ Jane SMITH (scrawl)
FIRST BANK"

. . . then you simply have an indorsement by First Bank by a person unknown to you and this is an argument that just isn't going to go anywhere. Challenging such an indorsement is problematic for another reason and that is the simple fact that the negotiation is a separate transaction to the original note to which the borrower is NOT IN PRIVITY. The very same cases which have often held that a borrower cannot attack an assignment could also be used to negate a borrower attack on the indorsement.

It is going to require only exceptionally slim proof to establish the validity of the negotiation, absent some facts that take the case well out of the ordinary.

One example, above, is where someone identifiable is shown to have signed -- Martha KUNKLE -- then that person is known to be dead. Another exception might arise where there is some indication that the indorsement took place after the date at which the indorsee was formally dissolved and became extinct as a corporate entity or after the entity was placed in receivership (in bankruptcy). Even so, these latter cases can be problematic, too, since the indorsement is almost always undated.

Unfortunately, the site administrators recently removed one of Mr. Roper's most important threads regarding judicial admissions. (Remnants of that thread can still be found on Google.)

Mr. Roper's thread points to an exceptionally important proof avenue available where plaintiffs have plead an unindorsed copy of a note. The pleading of that unindorsed copy constitutes a [i]judicial admission that the note was unindorsed at the date that the complaint was filed![/b]

Not noted by Mr. Roper, but just as important, is that even where the original complaint is subsequently amended, superseding the original complaint, the earlier complaint still serves as a "quasi-admission". It is not conclusive, as a judicial admission would be, be it remains some evidence that the note was unindorsed at the date the complaint was filed.

Those who are seeking to attack indorsements and allonges need to realize that it is best to get traction where ever it may be found. And Mr. Roper's post on judicial admissions was one of the most important unexploited defensive avenues. This is a defensive approach that is viable in all fifty states and is supported by very solid appellate case law everywhere.

It is unsurprising that Mr. Roper now has utter contempt for the corrupt operators of this site for removing his exceptionally important efforts to help others!


f
Obviously if a note was signed by a person who is unknow to me then it will be legal and binding, but what happens when its an anomalous indorsee? is there any way they can memorilize the signature?
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Angelo: I'm sorry - I thought you made a note to FIRM1 who then transferred but did not indorse to FIRM2, who did indorse in blank and you are in court against FIRM3...



Quote 0 0
My real question was if anyone knew if Carrie Johnson really works for PHH.

But thank you for the info. I did do a search in the surrounding counties and it seems that anytime this certain person's signature (not Carrie Johnson) appears on a note, the quality of the endorsement is so bad compared to the rest of the copy. It is shady to say the least......
Quote 0 0
I found her! Granted it goes back to 2007, but she was a proud employee of Foreclosure Solutions Inc. who became Lender Processing Services. Picture and everything! I've printed it out. :-)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49948458/Lenderp-Processing-services-f-k-g-FIS-newsletter-The-summit-Oct-2007
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
I found her! Granted it goes back to 2007, but she was a proud employee of Foreclosure Solutions Inc. who became Lender Processing Services. Picture and everything! I've printed it out. :-)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49948458/Lenderp-Processing-services-f-k-g-FIS-newsletter-The-summit-Oct-2007


You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble had you noted the place of execution of the authentication. That is almost always a dead giveaway as to the identity of the employer of the signer.

Mr. Roper posted about this a long time ago. Take a look at these posts:

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1267388299&postcount=4 within
Signs of a false document
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Signs-of-a-false-document-5105714

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1265933113&postcount=4 within
In Re Wilson, Case No. 07-11862
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4950187

Mr. Roper also posted several very detailed threads about FIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc./LPS, but these were REMOVED by the corrupt site administrator.
Quote 0 0
f
Be sure to take a look at Mr. Roper's Scribd pages and especially the information about the [i]In Re Wilson case for more information about LPS.[/b]

When Mr. Roper discovered that the site administrators were removing his posts about LPS from the Forum and also taking credit for his extensive research on the LPS fraud, he began posting documents to Scribd instead.

Mr. Roper has a lot of primary materials on the LPS fraud. In fact, I understand that he was the person who brought the FIS newletters to the attention of the Justice Department for use in the In Re Wilson matter! He is purported to have a collection and has shared additional details with other Forum participants.

Also, search the Forum for other posts about FIS/LPS and the In Re Wilson case. Also look at the posts about Dory Gobel.

John Lewis, who has also left the Forum due to his posts being deleted by the site administrator, was one of the principal exponents of the idea that every borrower needs to first read Mr. Roper's to understand the mischief. There was a lot of merit to John Lewis' hypothesis!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...