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
William A. Roper, Jr. Show full post »
ka

Quote:
This is the copy of the back of my note, the plaintiffs attorney states that
this is signed in blank, I have to disagree. (I received this copy from a qwr
and I dont believe the attorney knew this before he responded to my motion to
dismiss)  Either way this note is endorsed to home loan center with a stamp from
countrywide that I dont believe means a thing.

 

Take a look at In Re Tanya R. Bass, No. COA11-565 (NC App. Dec. 6, 2011).

Quote 0 0
DT

I havent been able to find this in a google search 

Quote 0 0
DT
Never mind, I found it.  Very interesting.  I will read this decision again when I have a nice cup of coffee in the morning.  Thank you.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75068606/In-re-Bass-11-565-Invalid-Indorsement-Foreclosure-NC-Appeal-December-6-2011
Quote 0 0
ka

LexisOne has it as:

In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust executed by Tonya R. Bass, No. COA11-565, 2011 N.C. App. LEXIS 2426 (NC App. Dec. 6, 2011).
The case might later appear in the Southeastern Reporter.

Google Scholar has the case at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9119646261380832182


Quote 0 0
wileecoyote
I am not a lawyer, but upon reading the U.C.C. Article 3 concerning Negotiable Instruments, does it not say that a negotiable instrument is NOT a security, and thus not a consideration of Article 3, but governed separately in Article 8? How
can it be both, when it is not legally considered as such? If it exists as 2 separate
entities, as defined by law, how can it's counterfeited duplication be considered to be legal and not securities fraud? Exactly when does a negotiable instrument turn into a security, despite this legal definition that it is not? Possibly, when it is properly recorded, as stipulated by yet another law? How can anyone legally sell anything that is not even tangible? If I loan something to my neighbor, can I then sell the enjoyment or satisfaction that he derives from it? Better yet, can we build a system of economics on it? Apparently, we have-it's called consumer confidence [or, perception]. So, I guess you could truthfully say that's it's all merely a state of mind. Exactly how is this long prophesied & devastating economic collapse of our economy going to occur, when nothing of any tangible substance is holding it up to begin with?  I would greatly appreciate responses that anyone may post to be in comprehensible layman's terms, for those of us who do not speak the forked tongue.
Quote 0 0
Bill
wileecoyote wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but upon reading the U.C.C. Article 3 concerning Negotiable Instruments, does it not say that a negotiable instrument is NOT a security, and thus not a consideration of Article 3, but governed separately in Article 8? How
can it be both, when it is not legally considered as such? If it exists as 2 separate
entities, as defined by law, how can it's counterfeited duplication be considered to be legal and not securities fraud? Exactly when does a negotiable instrument turn into a security, despite this legal definition that it is not? Possibly, when it is properly recorded, as stipulated by yet another law? How can anyone legally sell anything that is not even tangible? If I loan something to my neighbor, can I then sell the enjoyment or satisfaction that he derives from it? Better yet, can we build a system of economics on it? Apparently, we have-it's called consumer confidence [or, perception]. So, I guess you could truthfully say that's it's all merely a state of mind. Exactly how is this long prophesied & devastating economic collapse of our economy going to occur, when nothing of any tangible substance is holding it up to begin with?  I would greatly appreciate responses that anyone may post to be in comprehensible layman's terms, for those of us who do not speak the forked tongue.

You have a little bit of a misconceptions about notes.  A promissory note is a negotiable instrument.  It ALWAYS remains a negotiable instrument and NEVER becomes a security.  

Notes are (and have been for decades) used to BACK securities and bonds.  A bunch of notes are put together and the money from this pool of notes fund the bonds or securities.  The note NEVER GOES AWAY OR CHANGES.  Just where the proceeds (homeowners payments) go changes from one bank, to a few certificate/bond holders.  This is legal, banks have used this method to make money for decades.  As long you are sending your payment to the designated party, what they do with the money is NOT a concern of the homeowner.   
Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
I am not a lawyer, but upon reading the U.C.C. Article 3 concerning Negotiable Instruments, does it not say that a negotiable instrument is NOT a security, and thus not a consideration of Article 3, but governed separately in Article 8? 

 

You seem to be totally confused by and misunderstand basic concepts of commerical law, real estate law and securities law.

 

The term security as used in the UCC most often pertains to a security interest securing an Article 3 debt.  The promissory note secures the promise to repay, but a may be further secured by an Article 8 security interest in goods, chattels, other securities and even real property.

 

The term security has a different meaning within the Securities and Exchange Act.

 

In the residential mortgage business, the borrower's debt is memorialized by a promissory note and further secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, security deed or similar mortgage security instrument executed by the borrower and securing the real property to the loan.

 

The mortgage loan, including both the note and the mortgage security instrument is often securitized by the sale or exchange of a pool of such loans into a trust that then issues trust certificates, which are transferrable securities.  The mortgage security instruments must not be confused with the securities represented by the trust certificates.

 

Swindlers often prey upon the ignorance and confusion of distressed borrowers to blur these concepts and create a false impression that the trust is not the rightful owner of the distressed borrower's note and lacks the right to enforce the note.  This myth is used in support of a variety of debt elimination scams to swindle money from the borrowers.

Quote 0 0
bobbief
Quote:
This is legal, banks have used this method to make money for decades.  As long you are sending your payment to the designated party, what they do with the money is NOT a concern of the homeowner.  


Not a concern of the homeowner, even with the payments redirected away from
the correct account? If you are, and can show proof, sending your payments to
the designated party yet find yourself in default...it's not of any concern?
Oh My.
:/
Quote 0 0
bobbief
Quote:
This is legal, banks have used this method to make money for decades.  As long you are sending your payment to the designated party, what they do with the money is NOT a concern of the homeowner.  


Not a concern of the homeowner, even with the payments redirected away from
the correct account? If you are, and can show proof, sending your payments to
the designated party yet find yourself in default...it's not of any concern?
Oh My.
:/
Quote 0 0
bobbief
Apologies about the redundant posting.  There was an error message instead of
the first posting showing up.


Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
Not a concern of the homeowner, even with the payments redirected away from the correct account? If you are, and can show proof, sending your payments to the designated party yet find yourself in default...it's not of any concern?

IF you are sending the payments to the party designated within the note and mortgage or such other successor parties as are expressly designated in writing as provided by the instruments, then you CANNOT BE IN DEFAULT.

 

Payment is always a valid affirmative defense in a foreclosure action. 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...