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

The failure of the judicial system to protect the public from false/fraudulent foreclosures is a sad commentary to all the Rip Van Winkles sitting on their might pulpits waving magic wands, drawing fat salaries, while sound asleep.

Quote 0 0
That's right Stephen.  And as you well know, all those judgments can now be ruled void by the same asleep at the wheel judges who rendered the judgments while the court was patently without jurisdiction.

Does anyone have the U.S. Ct opinion that states that fraud upon a court can not be allowed to remain?

There are hundreds of thousands of cases that can be rendered void just due to the ROBO-signing.  It is going to be interesting to see how the courts deal with the cases that are asking the homeowners to be put back in their homes, even after it has been sold.  All the court has to do is FOLLOW-THE-LAW.  News reports indicate the courts are not too happy to learn they have been duped thousands of times over the last decade.  Well, we did warn them.

In the Ibenez-LaRace case, the court moved one of them back in 2 1/2 years after they were fraudulently foreclosed upon.
Quote 0 0
The Court has to follow the Law ? What law ? It will be up to the Defendants and their attorneys to TELL the Court Which case laws so the Judge can have a place to hang his hat. Read this Motion to Summary Judgment hearing where the Defendants did not provide any Case laws to argue the fact that Plaintiff has no standing to close because they don't have to note at the time the lawsuit was filed. So the Judge granted the Bank the MSJ.



2 THE COURT: Good morning.

3 14Def. Lawyer;  Good morning.

4 THE COURT: What case are you here on?

5 14Def. Lawyer Wells Fargo vs. John Smith.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Have a seat. What are you

8 trying to accomplish today?

9 Def. Lawyer I think it's gonna be a telephonic

10 hearing with the plaintiff's counsel.

11 THE COURT: Yeah. They're on the phone. We've

12 already done two of theirs. We were waiting for you to

13 show up.

14 ef. Lawyer;  I apologize. We're opposing the

15 motion based on the failure of proof. Your Honor, if I

16 might, is she on the phone now?

17 THE COURT: Yeah.

18 14Def. Lawyer;  Good morning.

19 MS. CONTE: Good morning, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: What's the problem?

21Def. Lawyer: The critical issue here is standing.

22 I don't think there's any dispute that the complaint as

23 originally drafted -- and the complaint appears behind

24 Tab No. 2, Your Honor. The original complaint asserts

25 that the plaintiff is the holder of the note and

1 mortgage as of the filing of the complaint. It also,

2 however, in Count II states they've lost the note and

3 they need to reestablish it. That's Count II. Now, we

4 filed in this complaint --

5 THE COURT: Well, that's no problem. Being the

6 holder of the note doesn't mean you're physically

7 holding it. It means you own it. You may have lost

8 it, but --

9Def. Lawyer I understand that.

10 THE COURT: So what else do you have?

11 Def. Lawyer The problem here, as you'll see

12 behind tab 1, is an assignment of mortgage. The

13 assignment of mortgage was made after the filing of the

14 complaint by five days. So the question becomes: Does

15 Wells Fargo have standing to bring this action? And we

16 assert that they do not. And we filed an affirmative

17 defense setting forth that they do not have standing.

18 They responded -- first of all, our answer is

19 behind tab 3. And if the Court will look at the second

20 affirmative defense, which we, again, allege that the

21 note and mortgage was not assigned to plaintiff until

22 after the commencement of the action. And an equitable

23 interest in the mortgage was not transferred to the

24 plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action

25 because physical possession of the promissory note was

1 not delivered to plaintiff as the term is defined in

2 671.201(15) and used in 673.203(11) of the Florida

3 statutes. And so it was at issue. And the response we

4 received, first of all, was a reply, which is filed

5 behind 4. It's just a general denial.

6 And then there's the supplemental affidavit that

7 appears to address this issue. And I would direct the

8 Court's attention to paragraph 6 of the affidavit,

9 appearing behind tab 5. Now, this is saying in the

10 last sentence (as read): "Furthermore, plaintiff was

11 in possession of the original note at the time the

12 instant case was initiated as evidenced by plaintiff

13 filing of the original note and mortgage with the Court

14 on September 22." Well, we know that's not true

15 because the judicial admission of the plaintiff is they

16 didn't have the note when they filed this.

17 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. You're making a

18 mountain out of a molehill. All the assignment was was

19 an assignment of the interest in the note of the --

20 from the assignor to the assignee of the interest in

21 the note. Possession, they may have had possession of


23 14Def. Lawyer: Well, the point is though that they

24 had to have their assignment in place prior to filing

25 the complaint.

1 THE COURT: No, they don't. You can be a holder

2 without possession. You can be a holder without an

3 assignment. You can be a holder without either one of

4 those things.

5 Def. Lawyer In equity if there was -- intend to

6 be transferred, I agree with you.

7 THE COURT: Later you gather in the loose ends.

8 You get an assignment, if you can. And you actually

9 try to find the physical note, if you can. But if you

10 can't, you file an affidavit of lost note. But that

11 doesn't make anything less than the equitable holder,

12 the one who has the right to proceed with the lawsuit.

13Def. Lawyer: Right. And we put an issue whether

14 or not they were, in fact, an equity holder. That's

15 not what their complaint says. They're complaint says

16 they were the holder of the complaint. So the only

17 issue presented by the complaint is: Was this

18 plaintiff the holder of the note as it alleged?

19 THE COURT: Well, the affidavit indicates they

20 were.

2114Def. Lawyer: They  indicate that they became the holder of the note when

23 they took the assignment. But they don't really speak

24 to the -- the complaint doesn't speak to this equitable

25 notion. I grant the Court, absolutely, if they can

1 demonstrate that the parties agree, the original

2 mortgagee, in this case Mortgage One, agreed to

3 transfer ownership of the note and mortgage to Wells

4 Fargo then -- and they can document that and

5 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that that

6 is, in fact, true, then they satisfactorily met their

7 burden of establishing equitable ownership. The

8 complaint does not put that before the Court.

9 THE COURT: We're beyond the complaint. We're in

10 a motion for summary judgment, affidavits filed by the

11 plaintiff.

12 ef. Lawyer Right. I think the issues presented

13 to the Court are delineated by the complaint. And the

14 complaint does not allege this equitable -- this claim

15 of equitable ownership.

16 MS. CONTE: Your Honor, if I may interject,

17 paragraph 6 of our complaint does read: The plaintiff

18 is a legal and/or equitable owner and holder of the

19 note and mortgage."

20 THE COURT: What else?

file:///W|/OCuinneagain/100811WFB.txt[9/8/2010 9:15:15 AM]

2114Def. Lawyer: In my conclusion, I think that we

22 have a material issue of fact and one other fact.

23 THE COURT: What?

24 Def. Lawyer I requested in document production

25 any evidence, any documents that supported the cause of

1 action of the complaint, and they objected to it based

2 on the fact that it was not relevant. And so

3 apparently now they're relying on some sort of

4 agreement or something.

5 THE COURT: Well, it's too late to have a hearing

6 on your motion to produce. The Court's going to

7 overrule your objection or to grant their motion for

8 summary judgment, whichever way you want to look at it.

9 I guess we're here on the motion for summary judgment,

10 so the Court will grant the motion for summary

11 judgment.

12 Def. Lawyer All right.

13 THE COURT: Good seeing you again.

14Def. Lawyer.  Good seeing you. Thank you.

15 Thank you, Counselor.

16 MS. CONTE: Thank you, Counselor.

17 (The hearing concluded at 10:41 a.m.)

Quote 0 0
This is a winning Hearing . Judgment was vacated - See how Defendant lawyer uses case laws to re-enforce his arguments. I think the written Motion is haft of the case. The argument in front of the Judge is half of the winning requirements. Chose your lawyers carefully, make sure he knows all case laws concerning your case. E-mail him ALL case law in your state related to your situation. If you are prose , collect and learn case laws by heart so you can use them in written Motions and at oral Hearings to win .

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...