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
Sometimes it's good to know what the opposition is teaching. This American Securitization Forum white paper (November 2010) includes these items in the Table of Contents:

Transfer and Assignment of Residential Mortgage Loans in the Secondary Mortgage Market

1. Basic Principles
2. Transfer of Promissory Notes Secured by Mortgages. 
  • What Constitutes a “Negotiable Instrument?”
  • How is a Negotiable Mortgage Note Transferred?
  • Who May Enforce A Negotiable Mortgage Note?
  • What Rights Against Borrower Defenses are Available to the Holder of a Negotiable Mortgage Note?
  • How Is a Mortgage Note Transferred Under Article 9 of the UCC?
  • Transfer of Mortgage Notes: Conclusion
3. Assignment and Transfer of Ownership of Mortgages

  • What is the Relationship Between the Transfer of a Mortgage Note and the Transfer of Ownership of the Mortgage?
  • What is the Relationship Between the UCC and State Real Property Laws?
  • How Does the Use of MERS Affect These Issues?
4. Conclusion

Here's an excerpt of Tom Deutsch's introduction to the paper:
To be thorough, the White Paper undertakes a review of both common law and the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) in each of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. One of the most critical principles is that when ownership of a mortgage note is transferred in accordance with common securitization processes, ownership of the mortgage is also automatically transferred pursuant to the common law rule that “the mortgage follows the note.” The rule that “the mortgage follows the note” dates back centuries and has been codified in the UCC. In essence, this means that the assignment of a mortgage to a trustee does not need to be recorded in real property records in order for it to be a valid and binding transfer.
Quote 0 0
Here's a great, big IF on page 11:

"Accordingly, a person in possession of the note becomes a “person entitled to enforce” if it can prove that it is the transferee."

This tells me that they are aware that they must PROVE they are the transferee.

I'm reading case after case where the plaintiff's lawyer says the plaintiff has possession of the original note, but never offers evidence of this. Too many judges are accepting the lawyer's statement and a copy of the note at filing. It reminds me of robosigning by the thousands: If the servicers had the legal documents then why commit fraud? If the servicer has possession of the original note, then why not surrender it to the court before judgment is rendered? At one time, surrendering the note was required. When did that change? 

Quote 0 0

Right !!   And I read somewhere on this forum yesterday the pretender lender will not produce that information in the discovery phase, even if held in contempt of court.

Quote 0 0
Diane, you might want to check out this link:

"Significantly, in discussing the transfer of the Note, the Supreme Court of Nevada cited to the recent In Re Veal decision from the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appeals Panel (which was previously discussed on this website), holding that the borrower “has the right to know the identity of the entity that is ‘entitled to enforce’ the mortgage note under Article 3 (of the Uniform Commercial Code).” The Court concluded that Article 3 “clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a negotiable instrument”. The court found that there was no endorsement and no assignment, and reversed the District Court."
Quote 0 0
Dianne wrote:

Right !!   And I read somewhere on this forum yesterday the pretender lender will not produce that information in the discovery phase, even if held in contempt of court.

You should NEVER ASSUME that the Plaintiff will not or can not produce information about the note and it's negotiation.  This information can be obtained and I think most likely WILL be produced if it really came down to it.  The failure to follow a court order to compel CAN very easily end up in a dismissal with prejudice as well as the exclusion of evidence such as the promissory note crippling the Plaintiff's case.   This is not what the Plaintiff wants.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...