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
My mortgage is signed by Stuart Urkov, CEO of WAMU.  Would like to compare this signature with others by Urkov...
Click image for larger version - Name: MortgageSignature.jpg, Views: 167, Size: 110.38 KB
Quote 0 0
Knows About Fraud

Look at the document again.  Urkov is not the CEO of WAMU, he claims to be the CEO of Solutions Funding Inc.  The document is being ASSIGNED to WAMU.  You'll need to do some discovery to get to the corporate records of Solutions Funding to find out if he really is or was the CEO.

Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
Posted by "Knows About Fraud"
Look at the document again.  Urkov is not the CEO of WAMU, he claims to be the CEO of Solutions Funding Inc.  The document is being ASSIGNED to WAMU.  You'll need to do some discovery to get to the corporate records of Solutions Funding to find out if he really is or was the CEO.

This "Knows About Fraud" actually knows a little less about notes and assignments than he thinks he does.

What is depicted is NOT an assignment.  What is depicted is an indorsement appearing on the face of a promissory note.  Promissory notes are negotiable instruments under the UCC and they are negotiated not assigned.  Negotiation is by indorsement and delivery

By the fonts, it appears as though the instrument may have originally been indorsed IN BLANK, with "Washington Mutual Bank FA" subsequently added in.  This is perfectly legal.  As with most indorsements, the indorsement is UNDATED.

"Knows About Fraud" IS correct in pointing out that the indorser appears to be Stuart URKOV, who is seemingly shown to be CEO of Solutions Funding, Inc., either the payee of the negotiable instrument or the payee shown in a previous unshown indorsement.

Such an indorsement, coupled with the delivery to Washington Mutual would seem to be a valid negotiation making Washington Mutual the holder.  Once Washington Mutual's name was entered in the "Pay To:" space, another subsequent purchaser, such as a mortgage trust, could NOT be the lawful holder without ANOTHER indorsement, either to such purchaser or IN BLANK, and delivery to such purchaser.

Solutions Funding Inc. was an Illinois corporation.  See the Florida foreign corporation registration at:       

You will find Stuart URKOV to be named in the 2005 annual report filed with the Florida Secretary of State's Office.  See .  He is not shown to be the CEO, but this does not foreclose the possibility that he was the CEO at the date of the indorsement. 

Generally, most indorsements appearing on the actual promissory note are genuine and were executed contemporaneously with the pledge or sale of the promissory note.  The indorsement usually takes place the same day the note is executed or the following day.  Given that the instrument appears to be a Florida transaction and Mr. URKOV appears to have been in Illinois, it would follow that the instrument was sent via overnight air to the corporate offices, where it was indorsed and likely delivered to the institutional custodian for the warehousing lender.

An assignment is a separate instrument in writing conveying the grantor's interest in a mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument to the grantee.  The assignment is also usually authenticated by a notary to qualify the instrument for recording.  Most assignments recorded contemporaneous to or after the commencement of suit for foreclosure are forgeries.

In looking at the signatures, also bear in mind that discovering anomalies with signatures doesn't really get you a lot of traction.  There is no requirement that a person sign his or her name the SAME WAY every time.  And in some places, it is permissible to authorize another to sign on one's behalf.  This is NOT usually the case where the signature is authenticated by notary, who is, in effect, swearing that the person exceuting the document appeared IN PERSON and signed in the presence of the notary.

Discovery of anomalies of a notarized signature may get a little traction, but absent some proof that the person lacked authority, I doubt you are going to get a judge to take an interest.  Anomalies with a signature on the indorsement probably isn't going to get you anywhere.

Moreover, you are going to find that maker or grantor of the instrument can usually RATIFY the instrument, thereby making it good.  Therefore, if the entity purportedly executing questions the authenticity the court will probably be interested.  If someone else affected by the instrument questions its validity, absent some repudiation by the entity purportedly executing the instrument, this is likely to be a legal dead end.

Quote 0 0
Honest Help
"Knows about" you are a
tremendous asset to this forum.
Please stick around!

Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes

Is WAMU the plaintiff in your foreclosure?  Or is the plaintiff another institutional mortgage investor or servicer?

Quote 0 0
Chase is the plaintiff.  Solutions Funding immediately sold the loan to WAMU.  Does it even make any difference if this guy is real or not?  I researched him and found Solutions Funding, Inc. is no longer in business but this guy never showed up in any searhes as CEO.  He is showing up at airmortgage as a broker currently.

Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
Send him a certified letter with only his signature allowed (ask PO about help).  Take the signature and if it does not match, they you have a genuine title issue.

It looks like someone other than this man signed and executed doc.  Did he have authority?  Was he an officer of that company?  Did he actually sign the endorsement?  Take his depo.  Challenge everything!
Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
You seem to be missing a rather critical detail.

UNLESS there is ANOTHER indorsement on the promissory note, from WAMU IN BLANK or from WAMU to Chase, Chase CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE HOLDER.

Again, in order for a person to be the holder, there must be indorsement and delivery.

There is a seemingly valid indorsement from Solutions Funding, Inc. to WAMU.  But WHERE is the indorsement from WAMU to Chase?

Ella, think of the problem in this way.  Suppose that you wrote a check out to Sol N. FUNDING.  Sol indorses the check "PAY TO Ezra WAMU", signing his name and delivering it to WAMU.  Now our good friend Nye LAVELLE happens along and purloins the check (Nye is upright and would never actually do this).

Nye has possession of the check.  Is he a holder of the check?  Can he present the check to your bank for payment? 

The answer under the UCC is unequivocally NO!  Negotiation of the check requires indorsement and delivery.  Sol N. FUNDING negotiated the check to Ezra WAMU, because he indorsed and delivered it.  WAMU in this instance has the right as holder to enforce the check.

But under the set of facts just described, there was really neither an indorsement OR a delivery to Nye.  When presented with the check by Nye, the bank should point out that it is indorsed to Ezra WAMU and Mr. WAMU hasn't indorsed it to anyone else.  Nye is essentially a stranger to this check.

Of course, Nye could retreat from the bank and get some confederate to FORGE Ezra's name on an indorsement.  And frankly, unless Ezra was a customer of the bank and his signature was well known AND unless the bank had some reason to suspect Nye, they would probably cash the check for Nye or at least allow him to deposit the check (although they might very well REFUSE to negotiate the check EXCEPT when presented by Nye's bank -- that is they might REFUSE to cash it for a non-customer and insist that he collect it through deposit at his financial institution).

It would appear that Chase is a stranger to your promissory note.

It would seem that both statute and case law is fairly well established that negotiation requires both indorsement and delivery.

While Nye is technically correct in suggesting that you contest everything, this may not actually be such a great idea in this particular case.

What is most likely going on is that the plaintiff -- Chase -- has pled a COPY of the promissory note from the loan file.  The ORIGINAL promissory note remains in the vault of the institutional custodian.  The plaintiff is UNLIKELY to notice this lack of indorsement until such time as it is brought to the plaintiff's attention.

I would suggest a more subtle strategy than a direct assault on the note.  (You may want to PRESERVE your standing argument by making such an argument in the pleadings.  This is REQUIRED in some states, such as New York and there is some case law in Ohio requiring the pleading of the standing argument or it is waived.)

Make your defensive arguments, including that you owe Chase NOTHING.  You can truthfully assert that you didn't borrow any money from Chase, that you signed no promissory note in favor of Chase and executed no mortgage in favor of Chase.

Initiate good discovery.  You need to use all of the written discovery tools:  interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission.   READ THE RULES FOR YOUR JURISDICTION. 

Within your discovery, be sure to ask them to produce genuine copies of the promissory note and mortgage.  But make it easy for them.  Attach both the promissory note and mortgage that THEY PLEADED and ask them to authenticate that these are true and correct copies of the originals.  Also get them to admit that these are exact copies.  The authentication should be by sworn interrogatory response.  The admission constitutes a judicial admission. 

If an assignment has been pled, also get them to authenticate the assignment.


Let them proceed with their DEFECTIVE COPY which LACKS an indorsement in favor of Chase.

Also, be sure to ask discovery questions to establish whether the plaintiff has lost any documents, destroyed any documents, or altered or fabricated any documents.

The plaintiff will RESIST answering your discovery.  They may ask for extensions, which you should probably grant them.

After obtaining your discovery responses, and possibly even WITHOUT responses, at some point you will want to move for defensive partial summary judgment.  You can ask for a summary judgment solely on the question of whether you are indebted to Chase.  Keep the motion simple.  DENY Chase's ownership of the note by affidavit.

Set the matter for hearing.  Bring a strong memorandum of law showing that negotiation REQUIRES indorsement and delivery and showing that it is evident from its face that the instrument lacks and indorsement in favor of Chase.  You can cite the UCC.  There will undoubtedly be some cases from your jurisdiction showing that indorsement and delivery is REQUIRED.

In a summary judgment proceeding, Chase is ONLY allowed to put in evidence by affidavit.  If they haven't produced evidence of an indorsement to Chase at least one day prior to the hearing, then you should win AS A MATTER OF LAW, because it is legally impossible for Chase to be the holder if the instrument lacks indorsement.

IF you insist that they bring the original note to the hearing, you will surely LOSE.  It WILL have a REAL and VALID indorsement. 


The bottom line is that they have predicated their case on defective evidence.  You might be able to use this to push for a dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction.  But such a dismissal will be without prejudice.  The plaintiff will then get the real promissory note out of the vault and REFILE.

Getting a summary judgment on the merits disposes of the matter on the merits and Chase will NOT be allowed to refile.  Res judicata will preclude their suing you over the same matter again.
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Such colorful language is worthy of deeper coverage.

purloin, v.t. 1. to take dishonestly; steal; pilfer. -- v.i. 2. to commit theft; steal.

There are a number of synonyms I favor, specifically as pertains to alleged mortgage lending, including but not limited to:

misappropriate, swindle, usurp, hijack, shark, rip off.

Quote 0 0
Follow The Indorsement

Didn't Chase BUY WAMU?

Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
Yes!  Washngton Mutual Bank was seized by the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision on Sept. 25, 2008, and placed the bank under the receivership of the FDIC.  The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries' assets to J.P Morgan Chase for $1.9 billion the next day.

Even with a bulk sale of assets, negotiation of a promissory note is by indorsement and delivery.

It is UNCLEAR to me from a cursory review of online material whether Washington Mutual is bein fully merged into Chase or whether Chase has continued to operate WAMU as a subsidiary.  The distinction is VERY IMPORTANT.  In a true merger, the assets and liabilities of the merged entities become one under the survivor of the merger.  In a merger, it would not be necessary to indorse and deliver.  In an acquisition of assets, it WOULD.

When operated as a subsidiary, it would be impermissible for Chase to SUE on WAMU's claim.

Check the SEC filings and publicly posted material.  I do NOT have time to do this for you.

IF there is a merger underway, you may be better off with the standing argument.  Typically standing is measured from commencement of the suit.  That is, if Chase and WAMU had NOT merged by the date of the complaint, Chase would NOT have standing to sue on WAMU's claim. 

Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
Incidentally, although WAMU may have portfolioed qiite a few mortgages, MOST were no doubt sold to mortgage truststhrough securitization.  WAMU in many case retained theservicing.

If WAMU sold YOUR loan to a mortgage trust, then Chase is probably only the servicer rather than the mortgage investor.  Whether the suit can be brought in Chase's name depends somewhat on the laws of your jurisdiction.

Generally, in order to enforce the note on behalf of another, the servicer would still have to have physical custody of the promissory note. 

Using some discovery to learn the true facts of your case is probably a very good idea.  I would try to AVOID telegraphing to the plaintiff that the problem is a failure to indorse from WAMU to Chase.  With these under a single corporate umbrella, this can be quickly and easily corrected.  Butit cannot be corrected IN COURT during a summary judgment hearing.
Quote 0 0
Thank you so much. Lots to check on now!
Quote 0 0
equestrain person
ella wrote:
My mortgage is signed by Stuart Urkov, CEO of WAMU.  Would like to compare this signature with others by Urkov...
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...