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
Ginger
I just saw a statement in a response from the servicer's attorney that says the MERS assignment to the plaintiff servicer was "memorialized" on a certain date. What the heck does that mean? The date it was allegedly  memorialized was three days before the complaint was filed and well after the intent to accelerate was sent by certified mail, from a different servicer. The MERS assignment was recorded one day after the complaint was filed.

Is this a standard term used in complaints? Or is it more of the hidden language and acts of the securitization scheme?


Quote 0 0
This appears to be the verbiage being used.  They are trying to counteract the fact that the assignment did not occur within the parameters detailing in the Pooling & Servicing Agreement.  This way they can argue that there was a clear understanding that the loan was to be transferred pursuant to the terms of the PSA and the assignment of mortgage memorializes that understanding.  
Quote 0 0
Moose
Yes, it's common, Ginger.  This is their "get out of jail free" card when it comes to forgery and fabricated "evidence." It purports to document a date that something occurred when the actual contemporaneous evidence can't be found (or doesn't exist).

This isn't legal advice but I would suggest these be challenged as hearsay.

Moose


Quote 0 0
Texas
Like Moose, no legal advice here.

Memorialization of an event, I agree that backdating the file notice would most likely be an attempt to provide appearance of legality to substantiate timely filing of a suit.

Herein I see another factor, memorialization of the event. The event would have been the negotiation of the mortgage note. Since the mortgage note was negotiated, such note would need to be a negotiable instrument under governance of UCC Article 3 or the state's equivalence. A number of factors are missing, but will address as being a Private Label Security and also a GSE Security.

Both, Private Label and the GSE's securitization process requires true sales of the mortgage note, there needs to be intervening indorer's/indorsee's on the face of the note (or a proper executed allonge), if such indorer/indorsee are not identified then MERS would not be able to maintain an agency relationship, and as such the filing of an assignment to memorialize the current event would not meet legal standards as the preceding memorization of note negotiation is missing. Consider, Condition Precedent. To explain to higher degree, you need to read http://www.scribd.com/doc/63649919/Amicus-Curiae-Mortgage-Notes. Many additional writings that explain can be found at http://www.scribd.com/alviec.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...