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
Show full post »
FnDoomed
I'm thinking that the whole PSA or equivalent discovery is useful in just a couple of situations.

1) Servicer on behalf of Bank is foreclosing, but Note is in possession of a trust of which no mention is made by Bank or Servicer, and no agency agreement exists between Bank or Servicer and Trustee.

2) A trust is foreclosing, then if you have the schedules or equivalent that proves the trust never negotiated for the note *** PER THE UCC *** not the PSA.

Don't get caught up in "received into the trust after closing date" arguments because while that may compromise the trust's tax status, the trust can still be valid holder of a note if the law were followed in other respects.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
FnDoomed:

I think that you are generally on the right track here.  But permit me to make another observation about the PSA and discovery.

In most places, written discovery responses can be used against the responding party, but are NOT affirmative evidence in support of the responding party.  And the party propounding the discovery need NOT use or seek to enter into evidence ALL of the discovery.  Some subset of the responses can be used.

This is NOT generally the case with deposition responses, which can usually be used by either side.

As a consequence, if one frames interrogatories, requests for production and especially requests for admission to elicit information about the PSA or other securitization documents, the defendant can later pick and choose WHICH responses to put into evidence.

The entire PSA need NOT be put into evidence AT ALL, as doing so USUALLY will undermine rather than boster the borrower's case.  But getting the plaintiff to ADMIT certain PSA provisions, such as the domicile of the trust, choice of law provision governing the trust and the express language describing the required events proximate to the conveyance of the mortgage collateral, one can, perhaps AVOID putting the PSA itself into evidence.

For that matter, getting the plaintiff to ADMIT that the trust is governed by a particular PSA can be used against the plaintiff IF there is a strong argument to be made along the lines proposed by Adam LEVITIN, but such admission is NOT affirmative PROOF that the PSA and trust documents govern which could be used by the plaintiff to possibly cure the evidentiary deficiencies that it is a valid holder.
Quote 0 0
Bill

Quote:

In most places, written discovery responses can be used against the responding party, but are NOT affirmative evidence in support of the responding party.  And the party propounding the discovery need NOT use or seek to enter into evidence ALL of the discovery.  Some subset of the responses can be used



Answers to requests for admissions are judicial admissions, and are binding on the Plaintiff.  What about interrogatories?  How binding are these on the Plaintiff?  Is the Plaintiff able to answer a question under oath then withdraw the answer, change the answer, submit evidence in conflict with the answer, state they made a mistake in regards to the answer, ect....

When faced with interrogatory answers that they find out later conflict with their cause of action, how hard is it to weasel out of?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...