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 »
I went back an looked and I do see where I told Jade to file a motion to dismiss which would be premature.

I'll try not to give any more advice.

Quote 0 0
Jade
It's ok. Ive already filed motion to dismiss prior to your post.
Quote 0 0
Bill
Cabinetmaniac wrote:
Henry wrote:
Cabinetmaniac, be sure to print out a copy of this thread and put it amongst your case materials. Then, when the plaintiff in re-litigation unexpectly presents a fully indorsed note and it turns out that the note was indorsed all along, come back here and apologize to Ansel and Sam. They were trying to help you, but you were so convinced of your own faulty reading that you were exceptionally rude to them.

Best of success with your case!


I still don't see how they overcome the fact that they already filed the "original note" in the previous litigation. Do they just say "Oops?" That wasn't actually the original, so sorry?

I have no problem apologizing right now to Ansel, Sam and anyone else who was trying to help me and I do. I was way too argumentative for one so ignorant.

I also apologize to Jade again for highjacking her thread.





You need to read some more FL cases. That is exactly what they say. Sorry your Honor, that was not the correct note. It was some kind of paperwork error, I don't know where it came from. Here is the REAL original and everything is in order, we're ready to foreclose. The same goes for assignments that are prematurely attacked. It was a paper work error.







Quote 0 0
Henry
Quote:
I still don't see how they overcome the fact that they already filed the "original note" in the previous litigation. Do they just say "Oops?" That wasn't actually the original, so sorry?


In re-litigating a case, the servicer will very often switch law firms. This allows for the new attorneys to shrug their shoulders and say (with some plausible deniability): "We have no idea how that happened, your Honor! We weren't representing the plaintiff in that case."

Usually a plaintiff is entitled to the return of the original instrument at the conclusion of the case. What, if anything, the Clerk does to preserve a valid copy of an original exhibit filed, varies from state to state and usually within a state. Bear in mind that even if a copy exists, the copy may not clearly show staple holes even if they are there and the absence of staple marks on the copy will hardly be conclusive. Moreover, the plaintiff can suggest to the court in respect of the failure to attach an allonge that it was (or might have been) attached when given to the Clerk, but that perhaps the Clerk removed the staples for the purposes of making a copy, etc. (Applies to the situation of failure to affix.)

Realize that YOU will have the burden of proof as to the state of the note at the prior litigation. Of course, if the order of dismissal of the prior case contains some express mention of the absence of indorsement, then this is quite helpful. But almost universally defendants haven't thought to insist that this be included.

So you are arguing that something is a fact, when the exhibit itself has been withdrawn and is no longer directly available for inspection. And it is YOU who has the burden of proving the prior state of the instrument. "Losing" pages from the case files of cases currently underway is unusual. But once a case if closed, very often the physical case files are sent to some archive facility and the security and chain of custody of the files may be treated much more casually. The disappearance of papers from closed case files is going to be treated much more casually. Everyone will just shrug their shoulders and declare that they have no idea how it happened. Perhaps the copies were carried of by rats for nesting material. It will be declared to be unknowable and everyone will ten go about their business.

In respect of absence of indorsement, part of the "explanation" will be fact dependent upon the placement of the indorsement on the original instrument. If the indorsement appears on the back of the instrument, the plaintiff can plausibly assert that the clerk failed to make a copy of the back of the instrument. Indorsements on the back are not only permitted, but that is what indorsement actually means (to write on the back of something). Thus, absence of indorsement on the extant copies will be found to be inconclusive.

If you haven't already done so, you might want to go and check the record to see precisely what is now available on file.

If there is a copy of the original instrument, you might want to get a certified copy of the exhibit now, before even the copy is inadvertently "Lost".

I saw a very interesting letter once by a judge directed that a Clerk destroy certain documents presented by the plaintiff in the case. The letter then said that the letter itself was not to be included in the case file. The judge didn't want this instruction in the permanent record. Sometimes a record can still be further "shaped" after a case ends. If you get a certified copy of the key documents now, this will vastly improve your situation when it is later claimed that the Clerk doesn't have a copy of that record any more.

In respect of failure to affix an allonge, I would always recommend that upon discovery of a "missing staple" that you bring back some witnesses to view the original and the allonge. Taking photos with a digital camera is also a very good idea. In selecting a "witness" you want to identify someone whose credibility is impeccable and who you can rely upon to be available. It is best if the person is not "interested" in the case. It would be better to bring two other witnesses rather than just one. This would allow a defendant to present three separate affidavits that the original was unindorsed OR that the allonge to an instrument was not affixed at the date of the visit.

In getting someone to witness a filed document also ought to be a rather precision operation. You need to bear in mind that you need to avoid creating a spectacle at the Clerk's Office, because there is no assurance that any of the other people witnessing your activities are your friends. They may very well inform the plaintiff back channel of your activities.

The witnesses ought to be coached in advance what to look for (e.g. missing signatures and/or missing staples) so that you do not need to verbally call attention to these. You probably ought to be able to simply point.

Bring a camera and take multiple digital photographs. Again, you need to do this without raising a great deal of attention. But simply doing this is already probably going to be unusual.

It will be less noticed if you have practiced in advance. By this I mean that you ought to have experimented with taking digital photographs of pages in several lighting conditions that are similar to those you know you can expect to find at the Clerk's Office. This will also help you to identify the best settings for your camera. You probably want to use a "Museum" setting to avoid use of a flash.

Make sure the date/time on your camera is correctly set and turn on the facility to add a date/time stamp to each photo. Consider adding a sequence number to each photo, as well, either directly using a better camera or afterward using photo editing software.

If you practice, you will have already learned to take great photos in a matter of a few minutes with minimal fuss and without unnecessarily drawing attention to yourself. If you do not practice and haven't taken digital photographs of pages before, you will probably spend twenty or thirty minutes and call the attention of everybody in the Clerk's Office to what you are doing (and they will in turn share this with your adversaries).

After your photo shoot with witnesses, you need to debrief the witnesses afterward and review the photos you have taken in the presence of the witnesses. Then, you can prepare an affidavit for each witness to contemporaneously sign attesting to what they saw. This better assures that the witnesses exactly remember what they saw and that you have the evidence you might later need in a future summary judgment procedure. It might even be a good idea to write a draft affidavit in advance of visiting the Clerk to show to the witnesses so that they have a fairly clear idea of what it is you are hoping that they will witness and swear to. This draft can then be more quickly finalized afterward with the participation of the witnesses. Consider printing out color copies of one or more of the digital photographs to attach to the affidavits as exhibits. Also, consider giving digital copies of the photos to the witnesses to safeguard. This may assist them if they are later called to authenticate the photos.

Take great care in any post photo shoot editing of the photos by cropping or enhancement. To any extent that the photos are altered in any way, you need to preserve the original images and keep good notes as to each alteration that was made. Otherwise, you could discover that you have made alterations that are easily and readily detectable by a professional and which could arguably show that you have altered the photos in a dishonest way.

The bottom line is that you seem to be all so certain that you can readily prove the state of the note at the prior filing. Maybe you can. But if this is the case, it will be because you have carefully and meticulously preserved the record. More commonly, a pro se litigant seeks to put in unauthenticated and uncertified copies and these are simply IGNORED in the future summary judgment proceeding. The facts are what the admissible evidence says the facts to be. It may very well turn out that these "facts" of which you are so certain never get into evidence because you have little understanding about precisely how this must be done.

You might be in great shape. But it may already be too late to conclusively establish the facts as to the disposition of the note in the prior case.
Quote 0 0
Henry
Quote:
You need to read some more FL cases. That is exactly what they say. Sorry your Honor, that was not the correct note. It was some kind of paperwork error, I don't know where it came from. Here is the REAL original and everything is in order, we're ready to foreclose. The same goes for assignments that are prematurely attacked. It was a paper work error.


Bill has explained this much more succinctly. The new attorneys will avoid expressly lying and will instead rely upon the fact that a different firm was involved during the previous litigation. "Paperwork error" is this generic description that can almost never get them into trouble. Of course, the nature of the paperwork error was that they erred by forging another duplicate original including the forgery of your signature. But this was all just a minor mistake and they are not asking the court to rely upon the prior "erroneous" copy.

This put YOU in the position that YOU have to explain and even prove what the note said in the other case. As aforesaid, most borrowers (and even a lot of mediocre and careless defense attorneys) will neglect to bring any evidence in admissible form and the plaintiff is just going to roll right over you.

Go back and read the attorney's explanation in the In Re Hill case for the fabricated letters. (It did not work in In Re Hill, but this is the exception, not the rule.)
Quote 0 0
bill wrote:
You need to read some more FL cases. That is exactly what they say. Sorry your Honor, that was not the correct note. It was some kind of paperwork error, I don't know where it came from. Here is the REAL original and everything is in order, we're ready to foreclose. The same goes for assignments that are prematurely attacked. It was a paper work error.



I'm reading every case I can find. Google Scholar is my friend.

I suppose they can give that a try. It used to work but the courts are getting tired of the game. The Florida Supreme Court amended the Rules of Civil Procedure and now requires that every complaint in a foreclosure case is verified when filed.

"An oath or verification requires a swearing or affirmation which would
subject the person signing the pleading to a prosecution for perjury if the
facts sworn to be true are false and the person knew they were false when
sworn to or affirmed."

They must swear that they have personal knowledge, or a sworn statement from another, supporting every aspect of the case being true, prior to filing.

They would have to go a little farther out on a limb then they used to do.

Henry wrote:

In re-litigating a case, the servicer will very often switch law firms. This allows for the new attorneys to shrug their shoulders and say (with some plausible deniability): "We have no idea how that happened, your Honor! We weren't representing the plaintiff in that case."



I expect them to use a different law firm. I don't expect a different plaintiff though. The plaintiff provided the documents in each instance. At the very least, a different note plead as the original will cast doubt on which note is enforceable.

Quote:

What, if anything, the Clerk does to preserve a valid copy of an original exhibit filed, varies from state to state and usually within a state.



The Clerk scans everything in the file and stores it electronically. They post much of it online. When the file is closed they will return the originals to the plaintiff and store the remaining file in archives in the County seat.

Quote:

Realize that YOU will have the burden of proof as to the state of the note at the prior litigation. Of course, if the order of dismissal of the prior case contains some express mention of the absence of indorsement, then this is quite helpful. But almost universally defendants haven't thought to insist that this be included.



I hadn't received a copy of the Motion to Dismiss from my attorney before today. They had agreed to dismiss prior to the hearing and so I never met him at court to get a copy. I had assumed that he argued the lack of indorsement from the original lender since that was the issue I kept harping on. It appears he might be a better attorney than I thought. He didn't argue that at all. He didn't even mention it. He argued that the plaintiff failed to verify the complaint by affidavit as required. He also argued that the plaintiff lacked standing based on TBW's indorsement in blank and the assignment not corresponding to the record.

5. A review of the Promissory Note indicates a blank allonge endorsement signed by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, Mortgage Corporation.
6. It appears that the Note was endorsed to an unknown payee who is not named in the assignment of record. As the Note was endorsed to an unknown person or entity, that person or entity should have been the assignor to the Plaintiff herein.
7. The assignment of the subject mortgage was recorded after the lawsuit was filed. The assignment was from MERS as nominee of the original lender to the Plaintiff.
8. As the endorsement does not state to whom the Note was endorsed, there was no proof as to the fact that MERS was the endorsee. There no chain of title to indicate that MERS received the endorsement and had the authority to assign the same to the Plaintiff herein.
9. Without the proper endorsement, MERS does not have the authority to assign the same to the Plaintiff. Since MERS cannot be identified as the entity to which the note was endorsed, it is unknown what other entity or person may have ownership of the Note.
10. It is unknown to whom the Note was endorsed and such person or entity is an indispensable party to this matter. Failure to name such party is cause for the dismissal of this lawsuit.

So perhaps when they re-litigate they still will not have noticed the lack of original indorsement. If that happens I can probably drag this out long enough to receive a summary judgment in my favor after the limitations expire.

Quote:

In respect of absence of indorsement, part of the "explanation" will be fact dependent upon the placement of the indorsement on the original instrument. If the indorsement appears on the back of the instrument, the plaintiff can plausibly assert that the clerk failed to make a copy of the back of the instrument. Indorsements on the back are not only permitted, but that is what indorsement actually means (to write on the back of something). Thus, absence of indorsement on the extant copies will be found to be inconclusive.

If you haven't already done so, you might want to go and check the record to see precisely what is now available on file.

If there is a copy of the original instrument, you might want to get a certified copy of the exhibit now, before even the copy is inadvertently "Lost".



I inspected the file. I have a certified copy of the "Notice of Filing of Original Note and Mortgage" which includes copies of the original note and mortgage. They appear to be genuine.

I also obtained a certified copy of the fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage.

Quote:
In respect of failure to affix an allonge, I would always recommend that upon discovery of a "missing staple" that you bring back some witnesses to view the original and the allonge. Taking photos with a digital camera is also a very good idea. In selecting a "witness" you want to identify someone whose credibility is impeccable and who you can rely upon to be available. It is best if the person is not "interested" in the case. It would be better to bring two other witnesses rather than just one. This would allow a defendant to present three separate affidavits that the original was unindorsed OR that the allonge to an instrument was not affixed at the date of the visit.



Great idea! I'll try to set that up for tomorrow while the file is still there. I called and they verified it is still there.

The viewing area is in full view of the clerks and monitored by cameras. I'll try to not make a scene but it will be obvious to anyone paying attention what I am doing.

Quote:

You might be in great shape. But it may already be too late to conclusively establish the facts as to the disposition of the note in the prior case.



I think I am in good shape. The witnesses and photographs idea will help me cover my bases.




Quote 0 0
Ansel wrote:
Quote:
This is relevant because my original lender was 1st Florida. MERS assigned the mortgage, after filing suit, from 1st Florida to Ocwen. The MERS number on the mortgage does not correspond to 1st Florida, who was never a part of MERS. The MERS number corresponds to Taylor, Bean and Whitaker.

This raises several questions, which I am researching.


This can be a potent issue! You ought to e-mail Mr. Roper about this. He is the leading national expert on MERS.


Thanks, I did.

I am awaiting a reply.

Quote 0 0
Kathy
Quote:
You need to read some more FL cases. That is exactly what they say. Sorry your Honor, that was not the correct note. It was some kind of paperwork error, I don't know where it came from. Here is the REAL original and everything is in order, we're ready to foreclose. The same goes for assignments that are prematurely attacked. It was a paper work error.


It isn't exactly the same issue, but I thought I would share what the lawyer said when the servicer sued after MERS had previously made exactly the same claim in sworn filings. This exchange wasn't in respect of an altered instrument, but when MERS first sought to enforce the instrument (supported by an affidavit swearing that MERS was the owner) and then later the servicer sought to enforce the same instrument contradicting the sworn averments filed on behalf of MERS, the exchange went like this (from the transcript):

Quote:
"THE COURT: So then why is it that MERS filed the original claim and then . . . [servicer] files the complaint?

MR. ATTORNEY: Why I filed -- Judge, unfortunately I was not involved at that time, but the point is they’re not prosecuting that claim and couldn’t prosecute that claim. I think there was some confusion originally with who needed to file the claim; that confusion is [sic] no longer exists with that [sic]. I’ve been told to come here today to say MERS does not have a dog in this hunt, as the Court said. I don’t know why it was filed, it wasn’t filed by my firm originally, I just know it was filed."


Later, the Judge granted summary judgment for the plaintiff. The case is on appeal.
Quote 0 0
Jade
Posted 10/16/12 at 08:21 PM          #42 
Thanks for all who replied

Ok regarding the assignment:

My mortgage note is $125k
The assignment of mortgage they filed was only $25k
How can they prove that they have the legal standing
When they don't even have the correct amount without any
Explanation?

This big mistake does not mean anything?
they did not include the assignment when they originally filed
The complaint.

I filed a motion to dismiss.

They came back trying to amend with the wrong assignment and lo
and behold! With an indorsement in blank with purpoted copy of the
note!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok guys! I appreciate all the response!

An update: the plaintiff file motion to amend petition
Judge dismiss the case without prejudice and allowed plaintiff to amend.
Plaintiff refiled complaint, this time with just the copy of the note (indorse in blank) and no assignment???
Thinking of filing motion to dismiss again? any thoughts?? I'm still pro se, but don't think will be this time.

Quote 0 0
my
jade wrote:
Diane, The robo signer is Ricky L. Thompson, Dakota County, Minnesota and notarized by Angela Williams, pls tell me how i can obtain more copies of their robosign documents pls. thank you Jade


Go to Orange County FL property records or any other county especially Broward county and you will see Notary Angela M Williams signatures which are all different, and also go to Minnesota records you will find her there too. Good Luck!!! I have different signatures for her. Wish you the best!!!
Quote 0 0
f wrote:
Quote:
Angela Marie Williams notary of Minnesota, Ricky L Thompson signed as MERS representative, OK I know for a fact that MERS INC in the State of Minnesota does NOT exist, they have no business license to conduct business in that state, check the MN secretary of state and do a license search and print it out, MERS does not exist in Minnesota, so if Ricky L Thompson signed as a Mers rep and Angela Williams notarized it in that state it should not be valid because MERS does not exist in Minnesota. You need to do research and fight to keep your home!!! Good Luck, use this info as part of your answer to the courts, send them copies and explain just as I explained to you, that MERS does not exist in the state of minnesota, no business license.


This is Internet myth propagated by debt elimination scam artists!

Whether or not a validly existing corporation is registered to do business in a state almost never has any impact or impairment on the validity of that entity to contract or otherwise do business. Most states, do, however, have various punitive procedures to help enforce compliance with corporation laws requiring registration of foreign (out of state) entities.

One of these is a prohibition against non-registered corporations bringing any suit or action in state courts. The wording of these statutes varies from state to state and many types of interstate activity are specifically exempted.

Where applicable, this can be properly raised as a capacity argument. But this needs to be specifically plead, sometimes under oath, in the defensive pleadings.

In select cases, a capacity argument can be a strong and even a winning argument. But this can often be overcome simply by the unregistered corporation registering and paying back taxes, etc. This would be an argument that you would want to present in a very low key way and bury in your answer. If you call attention to the argument, the plaintiff may just correct the problem. If you are [u]low key, you could possibly even win with this argument.[/i]

By contrast, the nonsense posted by the ignorant person or scam artist above has no validity whatsoever. Failure to register will not void or annul contracts. In fact, the U.S. Constitution would prohibit any state from passing a law that has this effect.

Just another debt elimination scam, circulating to create false hope and confusion while separating the naive from their last few dollars!
Quote 0 0
lindsay919
myriam wrote:
Myriam wrote:
jade wrote:
Diane,

The robo signer is Ricky L. Thompson, Dakota County, Minnesota
and notarized by Angela Williams, pls tell me how i can obtain
more copies of their robosign documents pls.

thank you

Jade


Angela Marie Williams notary of Minnesota, Ricky L Thompson signed as MERS representative, OK I know for a fact that MERS INC in the State of Minnesota does NOT exist, they have no business license to conduct business in that state, check the MN secretary of state and do a license search and print it out, MERS does not exist in Minnesota, so if Ricky L Thompson signed as a Mers rep and Angela Williams notarized it in that state it should not be valid because MERS does not exist in Minnesota. You need to do research and fight to keep your home!!! Good Luck, use this info as part of your answer to the courts, send them copies and explain just as I explained to you, that MERS does not exist in the state of minnesota, no business license.


Check property records of others in your county to see if they have the same paperwork with the same people. Angela Marie Williams I have over 6 different signatures of hers from different cases including mine. The only way you can get her original signature is a request to the Notary Assc done by an attorney so I have been told.
Lindsay
Quote 0 0
lindsay919
Hi,
I too have Ricky L. Thompson..... signature as mers assistant secretary Dakota,Minn.
My notary is Amy h Galloway.
What's odd....is the date of my original loan is 2006. It's on all my paperwork,
But my mortgage assignment says the day but 2005!!!! Which is not accurate.
The witness. Signatures....are Corsica keeler and
Carla knaughton.....what's even more odd.
I have found my notarys signature on a public online document....one month after my docs were signed....and the assistant Secretary on that assignment ....in the same office as mine....Bao Thao is now the named assistant secretary.
Amy h Galloway signed mine with Ricky l Thompson as asst sec on 6/6/11
Then 7/28/11 one month later...she signed with a diff asst sec. Claiming to he Bao Thao

Any thoughts....I live in fl
Lindsay
Quote 0 0
Eddy
How can Angela Bowden sign off on an Assignment of Mortgage as Assistant Secretary of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC (Date of Assignment: 8/8/2013)

https://officialrecords.broward.org/oncoreV2/showdetails.aspx?id=53796258&rn=3&pi=0&ref=search

and as Vice President of JPMorgan 
Chase Bank (Date of Assignment: 07/13/2013)

https://officialrecords.broward.org/oncoreV2/showdetails.aspx?id=53695945&rn=6&pi=0&ref=search

Both Assignments were recorded on the same day in the Broward County Recording office (9/3/2013).  I thought these fraudulent Assignments were over with?


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...