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
Already There
Looking for links to or actual copies of documents signed by Tiaquanda Turner.

Ms Turner is an employee of BAC home loan servicing LP.

I have copies of her signing as the VP of other organizations, need to add to my colloection.

Thanks In Advance...
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Already There said:
Looking for links to or actual copies of documents signed by Tiaquanda Turner


Might I suggest (a) that you identify the place of execution and a date range of the documents you have identified thus far and (b) the identity of notaries you have identified as authenticating Ms. Turner's signature?

The Forum is a two way information exchange.  Others might benefit from what you have learned and to the extent that you can share elements of this without injury to your cause, it would be better to do so.

Moreover, I have found that in actually seeking additional examples through data mining, it is useful to first establish one or more known points.  From these points, one can first seek to fill in missing data between the known points and then seek to find additional data beyond those points.

Looking for records during an interval that the person was not even employed is going to prove unproductive.

Also, sometimes the robo-forgers and robo-perjurers are allocated work by geographic area, mortgage investor, or foreclosure mill law firm.  Beginning the investigation with the known characteristics of identified records can ground an investigation.

Think of this as mortgage fraud CSI.  Mark a spot and tell us to "Begin a search HERE!". 

P.S. -- I will NOT undertake ANY search for records to assist others who are unwilling to share.
Quote 0 0
Already There
Well I will share... I have four TT signatures... two are Her signing as a BAC Asst vp

This document was signed on 7/13/2010.. Maria Muzaurieta attested to her signature. (The same Lady who attested to her sig in my case)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cacheBDS_fGMPAEJ:mylandrecords.appspot.com/pdf/ma017-24149-120/aR9DPybcg0d/foreclosure%2520deed.pdf+Tiaquanda+Turner&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVBUCM3v-6tvH9LQyANlwHNgf3rc-GaF53rt091S5FVQm1oHmB-AjVeV15_oGKVWrot766hwHwLHDVew_Dl_SYLjiFe0B96AjDd-rz3GkBQsM89rzHMjkSa9WrjsEgqqqq-AZ4&sig=AHIEtbR23Cbj3vryWLgiF_e6w46raxnmfQ&pli=1

Here she signed a Mass Assignment of Bid.. Again attested to by Maria M. date of sig August 10, 2010

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cacheBDS_fGMPAEJ:mylandrecords.appspot.com/pdf/ma017-24149-120/aR9DPybcg0d/foreclosure%2520deed.pdf+Tiaquanda+Turner&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVBUCM3v-6tvH9LQyANlwHNgf3rc-GaF53rt091S5FVQm1oHmB-AjVeV15_oGKVWrot766hwHwLHDVew_Dl_SYLjiFe0B96AjDd-rz3GkBQsM89rzHMjkSa9WrjsEgqqqq-AZ4&sig=AHIEtbR23Cbj3vryWLgiF_e6w46raxnmfQ&pli=1

I have another document signed by her... as the VP of Lenders Direct... 

Will find the link and post it..

The last copy of her signature that I have is from my case... which I am very hesitant to post.. safe to say that the similarities are that T. Turner signed it and Maria M. attested to it.. Not in any of the above jurisdictions or foreclosure law firms.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Permit me to begin our inquiry into Tiaquanda TURNER with three cases in which Ms. TURNER is expressly identified within the decision:

 

Bank of N.Y. v. Markos, No. 05AP-906, 2006 Ohio 2073; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1906 (Oh. App. 10th Dist., 2006)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5118227872191127693

 

Bank of NY Mellon v Argueta, Index No. 2009-34485 (NY Sup. Ct. Suffolk 2010) [unpublished]
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010feb/51003448520091sciv.pdf

 

In re: Glenn D. and Judith A. Riddle; BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 10-36259, Case No. 3:11MC00011 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ohio, 2011)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11132185948819626306

 

The first case reflects Tiaquanda's maiden name.  The latter decision, just two weeks old reflects what happens when one has allegations unsupported by actual proof. 

Quote 0 0
Already There
Here are the corrected links from my above post


In the above documents, Ms Turner signed as the asst VP of BAC, which she is authorized to do.. Also note on the 7/13 Deed her signature not only shows the "chain" of her authority but also references a Power of Attorney duly recorded with the county.

This is the third instance of her signature I have found


In the Lenders document she claims to be the asst VP of Lenders.

In my case she has signed as the asst VP of yet another mortgage company. 

Quote 0 0
Already There
Quote:
Permit me to begin our inquiry into Tiaquanda TURNER with three cases in which Ms. TURNER is expressly identified within the decision:

 

Bank of N.Y. v. Markos, No. 05AP-906, 2006 Ohio 2073; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1906 (Oh. App. 10th Dist., 2006)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5118227872191127693

 

Bank of NY Mellon v Argueta, Index No. 2009-34485 (NY Sup. Ct. Suffolk 2010) [unpublished] 
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010feb/51003448520091sciv.pdf

 

In re: Glenn D. and Judith A. Riddle; BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 10-36259, Case No. 3:11MC00011 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ohio, 2011)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11132185948819626306

 

The first case reflects Tiaquanda's maiden name.  The latter decision, just two weeks old reflects what happens when one has allegations unsupported by actual proof. 


I understand the need for actual proof to support the allegations that are being made in court.

That is what I am attempting to do by gathering actual documents signed by Ms Turner where she is attesting that she is the asst Vice President of various organizations.

I have not made the allegation that she is a robo signer.. I am making the allegation that if one signs their name as the VP of an organization that they are indeed not the VP of, is fraudulent and therefore the document they are signing is fraudulent.

Not sure how the decisions of the above cases help my specific need to gather more documentation.
Quote 0 0
Already There,



Those Texas notaries must maintain a journal of every transaction. Robo-signers like to cut corners. I would get the notaries address from the TX SoS. You might find it on the website, or you might have to call. Read the Texas Notary handbook. I am positive they have to write the date their commission expires under their signature, the seal doesn't count.

That's one violation that may mean the doc is not fit for recording.



I would send the Notary a certified letter w/green card with the required elements to aquire of copy of the transaction from the journal as spelled out in the handbook and code. There is a good chance she has moved without keeping her address up to date with the TX SoS. That is two more violations. 



If you get the goods on that notary a strategy that is working is to file an injunction based on a notary complaint. If the law firm is recording and filing false docs that is a crime. If they try to replace them, they are admitting there is something wrong with the first ones.



This may be something you want to investigate as it just might even the playing field. Check it out.




Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
In my earlier post above, I cited the correct Ohio appellate case, but then furnished the incorrect link.  Markos went up on appeal twice, once in 2004 and again in 2006.  The correct link is:

Bank of N.Y. v. Markos, No. 05AP-906, 2006 Ohio 2073; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1906 (Oh. App. 10th Dist., 2006)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15248497821489160275



Quote 0 0
Already There:

Can you contact me directly?  I might have some information which would be useful for you.
Quote 0 0
Quote:
In my earlier post above, I cited the correct Ohio appellate case, but then furnished the incorrect link.  Markos went up on appeal twice, once in 2004 and again in 2006.  The correct link is:

Bank of N.Y. v. Markos, No. 05AP-906, 2006 Ohio 2073; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1906 (Oh. App. 10th Dist., 2006)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15248497821489160275


Thanks for updating that link... Now I know that Ms Turner was employed at Countrywide and then to its successor corp BAC...

BTW, William, you have mail.


Quote 0 0
Already There
Quote:
Already There,



Those Texas notaries must maintain a journal of every transaction. Robo-signers like to cut corners. I would get the notaries address from the TX SoS. You might find it on the website, or you might have to call. Read the Texas Notary handbook. I am positive they have to write the date their commission expires under their signature, the seal doesn't count.

That's one violation that may mean the doc is not fit for recording.



I would send the Notary a certified letter w/green card with the required elements to aquire of copy of the transaction from the journal as spelled out in the handbook and code. There is a good chance she has moved without keeping her address up to date with the TX SoS. That is two more violations. 



If you get the goods on that notary a strategy that is working is to file an injunction based on a notary complaint. If the law firm is recording and filing false docs that is a crime. If they try to replace them, they are admitting there is something wrong with the first ones.



This may be something you want to investigate as it just might even the playing field. Check it out
.

Will look into this... Took a look at the notary signature on the assignment of mortgage in my case.. The notary has hand written the date that her license expires.

But appreciate the info... When I have time I will look into the regulation governing Texas notaries.. Will post what I find.

Quote 0 0
.

Will look into this... Took a look at the notary signature on the assignment of mortgage in my case.. The notary has hand written the date that her license expires.

But appreciate the info... When I have time I will look into the regulation governing Texas notaries.. Will post what I find.



If she did write the expiration date of her commission after her signature, next look to see if she stated the signer appeared before her and whatever else is required by TX law.

It doesn't cost much to send her a certified letter with green card requesting a copy of the transaction from her journal. There is an excellent chance she didn't maintain the journal according to Texas Law and/or moved without informing the SoS.

If the assignment of mortage is a false doc as determined by the TX official who handles the complaints, the assignment of mortgage is trashed and you can generally prove a felony. You might get an umimpeachable government witness out of the deal when you get the determination back.

In the vast majority of foreclosures, the docs are forged and the notary complaint is a great way to get them thrown out along with the case itself.

If you find something worthy of a notary complaint, a TRO/injunction if necessary will be 100% successful based on the notary complaint.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
christopherjoseph said:
If you find something worthy of a notary complaint, a TRO/injunction if necessary will be 100% successful based on the notary complaint.


Once again, Christopher is posting utter nonsense!

*

This is NOT to say that attacking and impeaching the notary is not a good idea.  If teh notary is breaking the law, a complaint is certainly warranted.  Complaints will help to impeach witness credibility.  Complaints may help to remove notaries that ought not have commissions.

I am FOR NOTARY COMPLAINTS when warranted.

I am opposed to setting up unrealistic expectations about the efficacy of alternative legal strategies.
Quote 0 0
George Burns
A TRO or injuction is, by definition temporary. What effective purpose will it serve?

An improperly notarized document can be redone very quickly.

An improperly notarized document will not usually, by itself, invalidate a mortgage obligation.

So I am wondering what purpose does it serve for foreclosure defense, to go after the notary? In fact, going after the notary before finishing the formal discovery process would alert the forecloser to deficiencies in their documents and expose your defense strategy.

Going after the notary should be a side issue, one of ethics or morals, not a major thrust in defending a foreclosure.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
George Burns said:
A TRO or injuction is, by definition temporary. What effective purpose will it serve?

An improperly notarized document can be redone very quickly.

An improperly notarized document will not usually, by itself, invalidate a mortgage obligation.

So I am wondering what purpose does it serve for foreclosure defense, to go after the notary? In fact, going after the notary before finishing the formal discovery process would alert the forecloser to deficiencies in their documents and expose your defense strategy.

Going after the notary should be a side issue, one of ethics or morals, not a major thrust in defending a foreclosure.


Well said, George!  Bravo!!
 
I heartily concur with each of the statements above!!
 
*
 
To this I would add only that there might be some means of attacking a notary independent of ANY of the instruments in a particular foreclosure matter.  For example, there is some reason to believe that one persistent irregularity in robo-signing is the failure of a notary to keep a valid and complete record book in jurisdictions where this is required.
 
In Texas, the notary's record book is inspectable by any member of the public.  And one can ask to inspect pages of a book for particular days.
 
Therefore, it is NOT necessary to make an inquiry in respect of one's own mortgage.  Instead, one can make an inquiry in respect of an assignment forgery perpetrated in respect of the mortgage of a complete stranger, even a person whose foreclosure is already complete.
 
Moreover, the defendant borrower need not be the person inquiring or the complaintant.  The defendant-borrower might instead find a shill to make inquiries and to file VALID complaints in respect of ANY notaries for which unlawful behavior is observed.
 
I think that George is correct that this should be viewed as a side issue and not a central basis of a successful defense.  But a well conceived and zealous effort to attack notary irregularities or criminality might very well both cause additional plaintiff confusion, and create some additional issues to impeach the notary and attach the credibility or validity of an instrument.  I would liken this to what we call "target preparation" by indirect fire.  Whether initial artillery, mortar, naval gun fire or missile attacks are effective in causing serious death, injury or damage to the objective, these will almost certainly cause more than a little disruption.
 
If the robo-notary has to spend a couple of hours preparing a sworn response to a valid notary complaint, the notary might be unable to authenticate several hundred perjured affidavits or forged instruments.  This might cause some work backups.  If several notaries from the same criminal enterprise are the subject of complaints and actually lose their commissions, this could impair foreclosure operations.
 
Several of the criminal enterprises have been less than caring of employee interests as these enterprises have imploded.  The former employees are more likely to come forward and spill their guts when asked when they feel mistreated.  The foreclosure mills will often lay off an employee when that employee ceases to be productive in carrying forward the criminal conspiracy.
 
I would encourage vigorous activity uncovering notary wrongdoing and filing valid complaints.  But I would approach this altruistically, since this is simply something that a good citizen ought to do anyway.  I think it somewhat unlikely that a borrower would materially benefit from these complaints, but think that the nation and community benefits and that this makes the project worthy of energy.
Quote 0 0
I could care less who can p_ss the farthest.



THE PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER 4.  FORGING, STEALING, MUTILATING, AND FALSIFYING
                 JUDICIAL AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS



I direct your attention to 115.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=112-117



So what would make someone believe an attorney is going to substitute new documents? Wouldn't that be like admitting there was something wrong with the first ones? Isn't that admitting to a class 6 felony without probation?

I wonder what the life expectancy of a foreclosure mill attorney is in prison?
Quote 0 0

Penalties Vary Greatly by Case! For accurate penalties, talk to the court clerk or a lawyer!

StateAvg. FinesAvg. JailAvg. ProbationOther
Alabama$1,500.00-$7,000.002 years-15 yearsVaries by Case
Alaska3000three years of supervised releaseVaries by Case
Arizonanot less than $1500.00 or more than $7000.002 yearsVaries by Case
Arkansas$20-250,0006-27 monthsupto 36 months
California34305 years2 years
Coloradoa fine up to $750,000 10-32 years in prisonVaries by Case
Connecticut$4000-6,000three - five years3 yearscommunity service
Delaware$250000 -100,0000more than one year30 monthscommunity service
District of Columbia$1,000-$10,000up to 10 yearsup to 3 yearsJudge may order restitution.
Floridaup to $5,000 up to 5 years Varies by Case
Georgiaup to $1,000up to 1 yearup to 1 yearJudge may order restitution.
Hawaii$100-5006-12 months2-5 yearscommunity servic
Idahodepends on the value of the documentsVaries by Caseno probation
Illinois500not exceeding two yearsVaries by Case
Indiananot more than $1000.001 yearVaries by Case
Iowa10001 month Varies by Case
Kansasnot more than $1,000.00not more than 1 year Varies by Case
Kentucky$4000-1500012 years1 yearcommunity service
Louisiana$500-250,0002 years two yearscommunity service
Mainedepends upon the value of the forged docuentVaries by CaseVaries by Case
MarylandVaries by Case2-10 yearsVaries by Case
MassachusettsVaries by CaseUttering false or forged records is the act of attempting to pass off the forgery in an attempt to defraud. It is a separate crime that carries a sentence of up to 2 years in jail, or 10 years in prison.Varies by CaseForgery is the act of intentionally counterfeiting / forging a document, most often a check. If convicted of forgery, it carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison or 2 years in jail.
Michigannot more than $1,000.00not more than 1 year Varies by Case
Minnesotaup to $10,000up to 5 yearsup to 3 yearsJudge may order restitution.
Mississippiup to $100001-5 years2-5 yearscommunity service
Missouri3000three years of supervised releaseVaries by Case
Montana2500005 years5 yearscommunity service
Nebraska200three years two yearscommunity service
Nevada$340-10,000 upto 6 monthsupto 5 years
New Hampshire$250000 -1000000015 years6 monthscommunity service
New Jersey$0-250,0000-10 yearsVaries by Case
New Mexico$500-$2,000up to 3 yearsup to 1 yearJudge may order restitution.
New YorkVaries by CaseVaries by CaseVaries by CaseA ranging level of federal imprisonment sentences, Severe fines to deter this practice, as well as fines for restitution of alleged economic losses by federal government or corporate entities, Civil suits and liens from the IRS and other private or public entities suffering damages.
North Carolina$1000-10000, not including restitution3 to 10 years depending on the type of documents forgedVaries by Case
North Dakota3000three years of supervised releaseVaries by Case
Ohio$10,000-$100,0001 year-5 yearsup to 3 yearsJudge may order restitution.
Oklahoma$1,000-$10,000up to 5 yearsup to 2 yearsJudge may order restitution and/or community service.
Oregonup to $5,000up to 5 yearsup to 3 yearsJudge may order restitution and/or community service.
Pennsylvanianot more than $1,000.00 not more than 1 yearVaries by Case
Rhode Islandup to $5,000up to 5 yearsup to 1 yearJudge can order restitution to be paid.
South Carolina$2,500-$10,0001 year-10 yearsup to 3 years
South Dakota$1000 -10,0003 years3 yearscommunity service
Tennessee$1,000-$15,0006 months-5 yearsup to 3 yearsJudge may order restitution.
Texas1000not less than 1 yearVaries by Case
Utah4003 months1 month1 month comunity service
Vermont$1,000-$10,000up to 3 yearsup to 3 yearsJudge may order restitution.
VirginiaSevere fines to deter this practice, as well as fines for restitution of alleged economic losses by federal government or corporate entities A ranging level of federal imprisonment sentencesVaries by CaseCivil suits and liens from the IRS and other private or public entities suffering damages
Washingtonup to $5,000up to 5 yearsup to 1 yearJudge may order restitution as a result.
West Virginiaup to $5,000up to 3 yearsup to 1 yearJudge may order restitution and/or community service.
Wisconsin$207-250000 15-55 years1-3 years

Quote 0 0

This is for CA

 

In order to obtain an injunction against foreclosure the Plaintiff (the homeowner) which is known as the “moving party” must prove the following:

  1. Likelihood of success on the merits of the case (for example, likelihood of proving a TILA violation that allows for recsission) (Or the likelyhood of proving that a document or documents(by determination of the Secretary of State where the document was signed and notarized) filed in your case is a false/forged document and therefore a fraud on the court.)
  2. That money damages – the usual remedy at law – are inadequate and will not make the Plaintiff whole (for example, property is unique, and money damages will not make the Plaintiff whole since she cannot go and repurchase the exact same property, plus if the property is sold, the owner will not likely be able to get it back)
  3. That Plaintiff will face imminent irreparable harm and injury if the threatened action (i.e. foreclosure of the property) is permitted to ensue.
  4. That the balance of equities favors granting the injunction (Court will weigh the harm to the Plaintiff if the injunction is not granted, versus the injury to the Defendant if the injunction is granted). Generally, there will be limited harm to the Defendant by having to wait until the conclusion of the litigation to sell the property. The Court can require a posting of a bond by Plaintiff to protect against any perceived harm caused by the TRO and/or injuction.
Quote 0 0
dave
hey dick tracy aka christopherjoseph,

try to find a single criminal prosecution much less a conviction.  you continue to waste everyone's time by posting material that is so shallow that it is absolutely juvenile.

we try to have useful informed discussions here.  why dont you report back to us when you have actually found a single prosecution of a foreclosure mill attorney or even a disbarment.

if you spent 10% of the energy reading, listening and learning that you devote to giving ill-conceived advice to others, you could vastly raise your intellect, possibly even to a 10th grade level.  most of already graduated high school.  please spare us your uninformed posts.  
Quote 0 0
So what is actually useful about what you posted other that you like to plant your lips on certain posters's backsides?

At least my way you have a reasonable chance to win.

The idea is get them to back down and eventually they might get the message, just like you might, but I kind of doubt it. They have a thing called a bond and property, you on the only hand are probably some homeless guy posting from the public library.


Quote 0 0
Moose
christopherjoseph wrote:
...
At least my way you have a reasonable chance to win. ...


Please show us an actual order in a case that can be verified.

All you have with your approach is a delaying tactic.

Moose
Quote 0 0

here

Quote 0 0
This is not legal advice, ask an attorney if you are incompetent.

On a slightly different "note" regarding GSE's, only the Secretary of HUD or Commissioner can foreclose if you fail to object properly.  http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C38A.txt

This case lacks ratification of commencement under F.R.C.P. 17 (a) (3) of F.R.C.P. by joinder or substitution of the Real parties in Interest under F.R.C.P. 19 (a) The attorney is not competent to testify under Federal Rules of Evidence §601. (Find the corresponding rules for your state.)

e-CFR Data is current as of May 26, 2011


Title 12: Banks and Banking
PART 226—TRUTH IN LENDING (REGULATION Z)
Subpart E—Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 226.39 Mortgage transfer disclosures.

(a) Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For purposes of this section:

(1) A “ covered person” means any person, as defined in §226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.



Quote 0 0
George Burns
What you have linked to is not relevant to most. As it says at the very start:
(b) Purpose
      The purpose of this chapter is to create a uniform Federal
    foreclosure remedy for single family mortgages that -
        (1) are held by the Secretary pursuant to title I or title II
      of the National Housing Act [12 U.S.C. 1702 et seq., 1707 et
      seq.]; or
        (2) secure loans obligated by the Secretary under section 1452b
      (!1) of title 42.

Does anyone here have or raised an issue with a mortgage held by the Secretary pursuant to title I or title II or a secure loan under 1452b  of title 42? 

What use does it serve to continually post irrelevant items and items taken out of context?
Quote 0 0
dave
Quote:
What use does it serve to continually post irrelevant items and items taken out of context?


it serves to prove that christopher is incoherent and incompetent.  he might be able to use his posts to establish that he is totally metally incompetent and thereby eligible for a social security disability pension. 

it is very hard to disagree with the premise that he is mentally incompetent.

why should we pretend to be idiots by replying to his useless posts?

Quote 0 0
Already There
I have moderated and administered several forums, from investment forums to Christian forums, and the one thing that always ticked me off was the hijacking of a thread...

It would seem to me that if you want to discuss the notaries, how to fight documents by attacking how they were notarized, then please start your own thread.

I started this thread for a specific purpose to share information on one specific robo signer... And would really appreciate it if it would stay within that scope or something akin to it..

Thanks


Quote 0 0
Already There wrote:
Quote:
Permit me to begin our inquiry into Tiaquanda TURNER with three cases in which Ms. TURNER is expressly identified within the decision:

 

Bank of N.Y. v. Markos, No. 05AP-906, 2006 Ohio 2073; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1906 (Oh. App. 10th Dist., 2006)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5118227872191127693

 

Bank of NY Mellon v Argueta, Index No. 2009-34485 (NY Sup. Ct. Suffolk 2010) [unpublished] 
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010feb/51003448520091sciv.pdf

 

In re: Glenn D. and Judith A. Riddle; BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 10-36259, Case No. 3:11MC00011 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ohio, 2011)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11132185948819626306

 

The first case reflects Tiaquanda's maiden name.  The latter decision, just two weeks old reflects what happens when one has allegations unsupported by actual proof. 


I understand the need for actual proof to support the allegations that are being made in court.

That is what I am attempting to do by gathering actual documents signed by Ms Turner where she is attesting that she is the asst Vice President of various organizations.

I have not made the allegation that she is a robo signer.. I am making the allegation that if one signs their name as the VP of an organization that they are indeed not the VP of, is fraudulent and therefore the document they are signing is fraudulent.

Not sure how the decisions of the above cases help my specific need to gather more documentation.
Quote 0 0
Adam
Came across the same info as Chris... But according to the links I found it is a Nov 2009 addition to the TILA laws... Do not see where they require prior transfers to be disclosed... 

Quote 0 0
George Burns
You DID miss something. You missed reading the Subsection in its entirety.

Where do you see anything that is applicable to residential first mortgages?
Quote 0 0
Adam

Quote:


§§ 226.37–226.38

§ 226.39  Mortgage transfer disclosures.

(a)  Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For purposes of this section:

(1)  A "covered person" means any person, as defined in § 226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment, or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan or it is assigned to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.

(2)  A "mortgage loan" means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.

(b)  Disclosure required. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any person that becomes a covered person as defined in this section shall mail or deliver the disclosures required by this section to the consumer on or before the 30th calendar day following the acquisition date. If there is more than one covered person, only one disclosure shall be given and the covered persons shall agree among themselves which covered person shall comply with the requirements that this section imposes on any or all of them.

(1)  Acquisition date. For purposes of this section, the date that the covered person acquired the mortgage loan shall be the date of acquisition recognized in the books and records of the acquiring party.

(2)  Multiple consumers. If there is more than one consumer liable on the obligation, a covered person may mail or deliver the disclosures to any consumer who is primarily liable.

(c)  Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, a covered person is not subject to the requirements of this section with respect to a particular mortgage loan if:

(1)  The covered person sells or otherwise transfers or assigns legal title to the mortgage loan on or before the 30th calendar day following the date that the covered person acquired the mortgage loan; or

(2)  The mortgage loan is transferred to the covered person in connection with a repurchase agreement and the transferor that is obligated to repurchase the loan continues to recognize the loan as an asset on its own books and records. However, if the transferor does not repurchase the mortgage loan, the acquiring party must make the disclosures required by § 226.39 within 30 days after the date that the transaction is recognized as an acquisition in its books and records.

(d)  Content of required disclosures. The disclosures required by this section shall identify the loan that was acquired or transferred and state the following:

(1)  The identity, address, and telephone number of the covered person who owns the mortgage loan. If there is more than one covered person, the information required by this paragraph shall be provided for each of them.

(2)  The acquisition date recognized by the covered person.

(3)  How to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the covered person (or persons), which shall identify a person (or persons) authorized to receive legal notices on behalf of the covered person and resolve issues concerning the consumer's payments on the loan. However, no information is required to be provided under this paragraph if the consumer can use the information provided under paragraph (d)(1) of this section for these purposes. If multiple persons are identified under this paragraph, the disclosure shall provide contact information for each and indicate the extent to which the authority of each agent differs. For purposes of this paragraph (d)(3), it is sufficient if the covered person provides only a telephone number provided that the consumer can use the telephone number to obtain the address for the agent or other person identified.

(4)  The location where transfer of ownership of the debt to the covered person is recorded. However, if the transfer of ownership has not been recorded in public records at the time the disclosure is provided, the covered person complies with this paragraph by stating this fact.

(e)  Optional disclosures. In addition to the information required to be disclosed under paragraph (d) of this section, a covered person may, at its option, provide any other information regarding the transaction.

[74 FR 60151, Nov. 20, 2009]

§§ 226.40-226.45


See the highlighted portion above... I believe that a credit transaction that is secured by a primary residence is a pretty good definition of a residential first mortgage...
Quote 0 0

Already there - I've been mining the Mass land records for Tiaquanda Turner, but don't have the Assignment of Bid you mention. What County and what filing date, please?

Quote 0 0
Already there, I forgot to mention - I'm happy to share - also the notary she's often paired with, Jackie Greenwald.

Do you have any informatio on her ever being employed by BAC in New Mexico (rather than just Texas)?

Thanks for sharing!
Quote 0 0
Already There
Already There wrote:
Here are the corrected links from my above post


In the above documents, Ms Turner signed as the asst VP of BAC, which she is authorized to do.. Also note on the 7/13 Deed her signature not only shows the "chain" of her authority but also references a Power of Attorney duly recorded with the county.

This is the third instance of her signature I have found


In the Lenders document she claims to be the asst VP of Lenders.

In my case she has signed as the asst VP of yet another mortgage company. 


Bunny Doo... The above links are to the documents I have found... Nothing on the notary that you have mentioned... 
Quote 0 0
Interesting stuff.   I've sent my State AG copies of the forged documents; but he doesn't act.

I wonder if I should call the state prosecutor's office and formally charge the foreclosure mill under the US Penal Code?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...