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
I was reading this:

Wow.  Just Wow.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
I do not see where the Judge had any choice. This was a poorly argued case.

"The Plaintiff provides no legal authority for his contention that execution by a mortgagee is required. Further, he has not alleged any defect in the mortgage that prevents him from having constructive notice of its contents. In short, the Trustee’s attempt to require extrinsic evidence to validate the terms of a mortgage is without merit."


"The Plaintiff maintains that Mr. Hultman’s ratification of D.M. Wileman's signature is without effect absent such a corporate resolution. The Plaintiff offers no authority for this position,"

Quote 0 0
I was concerned with the DM Whileman part specifically.  This chick has been part of some big suits against some big lenders....
Quote 0 0
From the decision:

Mr. Hultman’s affidavit, referenced above, states “[t]hat the signature of D.M. Wileman on the Assignment of Mortgage . . . is ratified by MERS
as having been done with the authority and consent of MERS.” (Hultman

Here, the Federal Bankruptcy Judge tells us precisely what Mr. Roper has been warning us all along about the fixation with robo-signing.  By the simple expedient of post execution ratification, the robo-signing defect as to assignment is cured.


"Agency, Powers, Principal and Agent"


"Explosive New DOCX Deposition Discusses Surrogate Signers"



"Case Law on Fraud Notary Signatures"

It is bizarre how some Forum participants become fascinated in resurrecting failed arguments rather than helping distressed borrowers make use of the sound guidance posted by Mr. Roper.

Mr. Roper suggests that a means around the ratification argument would have been to point out that the document might have taken legal effect at the date of ratification rather than the date of execution.  That can screw up the plaintiff's standing.  But this argument seems not to have been made in the In Re Jessup case.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...