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 think I have a condition precedent issue and a pretty good one but it all hinges on date calculations.  I also believe plaintiff is aware of it and is possibly trying to throw me off by stating it gave me an additional day to cure the default than they did in a motion.  So it all boils down to this, and I will throw in a hypothetical date to see if we all agree on the same date.  If the default letter states the following what date do you come up with:

"within 32 days from June 30, 2009" (June 30, 2009 being the date of the letter)

I am curious to any response as well any info that can back up your answer.

Thanks for all the information you guys are providing on these boards.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

August 1, 2009, is rather clearly the date which is precisely thirty two (32) days from June 30, 2009.

However, I would immediately caution you that you need to carefully inspect the express provisions of the promissory note, the mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument, as well as any statutory provisions of your jurisdiction and the cases interpretting these statutes to understand precisely what rights you have as to notice.

To the extent that the statutory language and/or the contractual language speaks to certain minimums, it seems plausible that if the actual notice provided some longer period that this election to afford you a longer period would seem likely to be binding on the purported mortgage investor.

But I would also offer two additional cautions.  If the sole basis of your defense is the premature filing of the suit by a day or two, it is unclear to me the extent to which many trial judges are going to find this to be determinative.  Moreover, this would seem to be something that could be relatively easily remedied by simply dismissing and refiling the suit.

I would encourage you to do some independent research, but also to show the documents and the statutes and cases you find to a competent lawyer, expereinced in foreclosure defense.

You will be walking a tightrope.  Failure to timely present this argument might operate as a waiver of this defense.  But premature identification of this defect might take your opposition to school and afford them an opportunity to clean up the issue sooner, possibly by dismissing and refiling.  You need to strike a balance and sufficiently plead the defect to preserve the issue, while avoiding any unnecessary detail to preclude the plaintiff from fully appreciating the precarious nature of their case.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...