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"
"NEED TO COMPARE ENDORSEMENT SIGNATURE ON NOTES"
"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.