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
bwssr
Last year we lost in court and the bank of new york mellon won the foreclosure judgement. We have had 4 sheriff's sale scheduled and then postponed or cancelled. During this time Wells Fargo our servicer has given us some info we needed when we went to court. What we knew was that Wells Fargo owned our note until 2009 when they did a loan mod from an arm to a fixed rate loan. They told us our new investor was EMC. What they told us in court was the invester was Bear Stearns but because JP Morgan now owns bear stearn that they were the investor and bank of new york mellon was the trustee. Now WF says that EMC was the original purchaser that sold the note to JP Morgan. EMC is not on my note. So what should I do now or am I still screwed?

From Wells Fargo of recent
[image]

They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
bwssr
Then is is from the note.
[image]
They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
texas
bwwsr

Most likely outside of the creators of this unlawful nightmare,likely is only a handful of people in the world that can explain what is fixing to be explained.

Under UCC Article 3 we have what is an appearance of a lawfully negotiated instrument by negotiation via indorsement, The Transferor/Assignor/Payee 1 is identified with an alleged attempt to show the UCC 3 instrument was negotiated to identified Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Transferee/Assignee/Payee 2 by Joan Mills who by placement of a skewed stamping appears to be acting as agent of JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. as Trustee for a Bear Stearn's Asset Backed Security, title Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-2. The actual date of negotiation is not apparent on the review of the snippet but Series 2006-2 suggests that it was required to have been negotiated to the 2006-2 Trust somewhere in the year of 2006 or within a short duration afterward, the Instrument's creation date on it's face would closer define the alleged negotiation date. However, if a Beneficial Interest in the Note secured by a Security instrument was sold where such is value of the payment stream prior to negotiation of the instrument, then under UCC 3-3203(d) negotiation of the instrument could not have occurred. Maybe it's true that many attorney's and judge's do not understand or could it be that exposing such legal failure to comply with law would upset global economics which includes the derivatives that trigger upon a default of intangible payment stream obligation with misdirection to attempt to blame the tangible obligor for the default triggering. How many credit default leverage hedging has been applied to protect every step of the intangible monetary path. 1 to 1, 3 to 1, 10 to 1, any default trigger that results in paying of value greater than 1 to 1 just put the investor in the counter parties [insurance] at a monetary loss which could have not been legally created in the manner created.

In short form, I see an intangible payment stream was ripped from the note reducing the note of value with an unlawful attempt to negotiated rights to the purchaser of the intangible obligation. Too allow such places all other monetary obligations under risk as they too could be sold for less than full value, upsetting world trade commerce of negotiable instrument.

Who wants to collapse the worlds economy and see many people lose everything invested? Maybe that is one reason why there is a lack of success, second possibility, the back-end/downstream attorneys need to protect the upstream attorneys so that both are guaranteed a paycheck.

Encumbrance's {Lien's & Mortgages affecting real property} are governed under laws of local jurisdiction, intangible beneficial interest in the [note/secured as personal property] is under governance of UCC 9. Consider 9-109(d) if such is applicable to encumbrances. In short, if the laws of jurisdiction were complied with then a party might have rights to take possession of the paper but lack rights as to laws of local jurisdiction.
Quote 0 0
mar7
discovery discovery did u do any?
Quote 0 0
texas
There was a typo:
In short, if the laws of jurisdiction were "NOT" complied with then a intangible obligee party might have rights to take possession of the paper but lack rights as to laws of local jurisdiction.
Quote 0 0
texas

Discovery to me is only seeking confirmation of what you should already know in specificity. If the Questions in the Interrogatories are on target with specificity, then discovery would support argument, else discovery is most likely delay. Maybe the following will help:

An encumbrance {UCC definition} [Lien, Deed of Trust,Mortgage affecting real property] is under governance of local laws of jurisdiction [states real property laws], many of the banks have bowed to belief that UCC 9 which governs security interests applies to perfection of real property security instrument of the state [IT DON"T] {see UCC 9-109(d) exclusions}. As summarized, A tangible encumbrance is governed by local laws of a states real property law whereas the intangible security interest under governance of UCC 9 is secured by the personal property of the paper tangible whereas the tangible legal rights were not and could not have been negotiated/assigned/transferred/conveyed at a states level in a timely manner as prescribed in UCC 3-203(d) unless one wants to risk that a instrument in all other areas of instrument law can be sold for less than full vale. In addition, claiming an endorsement without naming a payee as intentioned to transfer rights to a subsequent party, i.e. "Pay to Order of ______" is an incomplete special endorsement, reference UCC 3-115 as an incomplete special indorsement that does not identify a subsequent Payee does not constitute the creation of a bearer instrument {bearer paper} [case law at many federal and state level will support - google it up], additionally where the subsequent Payee is unidentified, then no party can be an agent of an unidentified principle [MERS cannot be an agent of an unidentified principle]. In short, an intangible obligee [trustee of a trust,public or private, includes the GSE's] may have rights to the paper tangible as personal property but not have rights to the real property rights {foreclosure} the tangible paper once held if local laws of jurisdiction where not complied with to provide continuous attachment and perfection of the Lien, Deed of Trust or Mortgage.

If question, feel free to post, would also would love to hear opposite argument, but doubt it.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...