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 understand why MERS was added as a defendant.  I have 3 questions...

1.  How does an attorney represent the Plaintiff and prepair an assignment of mortgage for MERs who is a defendant?    Wouldn't that mean they also are representing the defendant in some capacity?  Conflict of interest? 

2.  As a defendant can you serve discovery on another defendant????

3.  How successful is the argument the plaintiff assigned the Mortgage to himself?
Quote 0 0
    Very often, the correspondent lenders did  80-20 loans, ie 80% on the
first and 20% on the second. MERS was made the Nominee on both mortgages. Very often, the second Note was sold to a different investor than
the first Note.
     In a foreclosure on the first, the second Note holder must be named as
a defendant so he/she/it can defend its interest in the property. Mers is the
registered agent for service of process on the second Note holder so it must
be listed as a defendant so it can forward the Summons & Complaint on to
the current second Note holder.
      Mers by its own admission, never owned the Note so it has no standing
to assign the Note. Whenever you see something like that, you know right
away you are dealing with mortgage fraud. The mortgage follows the Note.
The Note does not follow the mortgage.
      Very often what one sees, is that the mortgage got assigned to one
entity, while the Note got assigned to a completely different entity. This
is called bifurcation and it means the Note is no longer secured by the
mortgage. An unsecured Note can be wiped out in Ch 7 Bankruptcy if the
Homestead exemption is large enough to cover the value of the property
(which is the case in Florida and Texas).
Quote 0 0
If you look a bit closer, you might find further problems on your MERS assignment. I checked mine, and sure enough, the plaintiff's attorney executed the assignment for MERS as "certifying officer." I couldn't figure out how or why MERS would legally set itself up to be sued. Here's what Judge Schack (NY) had to say about it:

May 12, 2010

New York Judge Arthur Schack has dismissed another foreclosure case, this time with prejudice, as a result of an illegal MERS assignment which was “executed” by an attorney in the office of counsel for the Plaintiff, finding that the alleged assignment violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct as doing so was a conflict of interest.

The Plaintiff was US Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the SG Mortgage Securities Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-FRE2. The original lender was Fremont Investment and Loan. The purported Assigment of Mortgage (which did not assign the Note at all) was executed by a New York attorney as “Assistant Secretary and Vice-President” of MERS. As this attorney, signing for the assignor, listed her business address as that of the law office of the Plaintiff’s counsel (Steven J. Baum P.C.), which represented the assignee US Bank as Trustee, the Court found this to be a conflict of interest in violation of 22 NYCRR sec. 1200.0 Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Schack dismissed US Bank’s foreclosure action with prejudice and cancelled the Lis Pendens.

We know that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of these MERS assignments which have been executed by paralegals and others from the law offices of the Plaintiff’s foreclosure counsel as alleged “Vice Presidents” or “Assistant Secretarys” of MERS. This decision indicates that all such purported assignments are most likely illegal, void, and that any foreclosure action based on such an assignment should be dismissed with prejudice.

Quote 0 0

I'm not that lucky, the law firm produced the document but Litton Loan had Marti Noriega sign it. 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...