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
Howdy,

Still being quiet.  Not posting under my name.

Does anyone have some Article 3 6-3-603 case files?

Would appreciate assistance with this. 

Looking to strengthen my case.

Thanks
Quote 0 0
Moose
"Case files?"

That's like asking for a vehicle.

Plane, train, truck, automobile, bicycle, skateboard??

You'll have to be a lot more specific.

Moose

Quote 0 0
MSFraud Admin
From http://www.msfraud.org/Stories.html
‘They Won’t Accept Our Payment.’
 
Supplement:  Every state has what is called the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code).  Although the citation may differ from each state, the meaning is the same.  The following is for the state of California.  Consult an attorney for more information.

3603.  (a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

            (b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or  accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates. 

          (c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged.  If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

 Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.html 

Quote 0 0
Moose
FYI - the UCC doesn't apply to real property issues.

Moose
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Moose-

     I think you might be mistaken on the applicability. The UCC has to do with contracts in general, and the mortgage loan is strictly a contract...

     So, I think what anonomoose is asking is if a payment is made and returned what happens. The answer varies state-to state. In mine, it just means that no adverse action can be taken as a result of that payment being returned, and both parties go forward as if it had been tendered... although it still remains due and owing.  


     Also, sometimes, if a payment is received after some have been returned, they forgo the right to collect the payment(s) that were previously returned.
    

     In other states that amount is never owed again. They refused payment, and are never entitled to receive that amount from you again...

     Check your state's laws.

JB
Quote 0 0
Joe B & Moose,

I appreciate the discussion.  I agree with Joe B regarding the application to notes.  Article 3 does apply.

What I am looking for is cases, across the country that Article 3 6-3-603 may have been used.  I had payments held and later returned.  The usual manufactured default and foreclaosure.  I am at a sensitive point and can't say too much. 

I have been researching for quite some time and I've been unable to locate any case that this has been used.

Just looking for help.

Thanks!
Quote 0 0
Joe B
A-O-M-

     OK, I thought I had read properly. I cannot cite case law, and I am not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV). However, the fact that they took your payment, and then returned it doesn't mean you didn't tender it. However, a couple of questions:

1. Can you prove you made the payment?
2. Can you show how long they held it, and prove it?
3. Did they accept any payments after they returned the ones you mention?
4. Were you in default, or had they notified you that you were in default prior to returning payments?
5. Did they charge you late fees for these returned payments?

     If you were not in default, and if you can prove you made the payments, and they returned them, you have a good case for a manufactured default. Moreover, if they accepted a payment after refusing the other ones, you MAY have the opportunity to not owe them for the ones they returned... This depends on the state laws in your state!!

     If they returned your payments, and then charged late fees, you can certainly show that they did this only to enrich themselves with "additional servicing compensation" allowed under the pooling and servicing agreement.

     However, you don't really need case law, you just need to show that the payments were made, and they refused them for no reason, other than to create the default. Of course, be able to prove it goes without saying. You will also need to defend against any lies they concoct!

     What else can we do to help?

JB
Quote 0 0
Joe B,

1. Can you prove you made the payment?
2. Can you show how long they held it, and prove it?
3. Did they accept any payments after they returned the ones you mention?
4. Were you in default, or had they notified you that you were in default prior to returning payments?
5. Did they charge you late fees for these returned payments?


1.  Yes, I have a letter stating they returned them.
2.  Yes,  I have the envelope.
3.  yes, manufactured default and foreclosed.  Forebearance agrrement.
4.  I had been making intermittant payments.  The two returned brought me current.  $200,000 equity.
5.  Yes and the billing was much more than it should have been.

This is why I'm looking for cases.  I'm well along the learning curve.  Looking to see if I can use Article 3 6-3-603 to my advantage somehow. 

Thanks!
Quote 0 0
Joe B
A-O-M-

     Yeah, the article supports your concerns rather nicely. I don't think you are going to find case law around it though, and even more remotely finding case law on this board.

     The fact that you were paying intermittently is going to present a problem for you; there is no escaping that. They are going to say you were in default, and that is why they refused payment. This is going to be rather sticky for you frankly!

     However, I would just build your case around what you have, and present it to the judge. I am not sure what else there is to show frankly. Either he or she believes you or not...

Good luck

JB
Quote 0 0

Article 3 of the UCC, is being used in my case, it was cited in our Experts Report, and being used for damages, as well.

Quote 0 0
Moose
I was referring to the cases where people believe they can somehow use the UCC to eliminate their mortgage.

Again, it does not apply to real property issues - ONLY to the negotiable instruments that may be involved.  Deeds are not negotiable instruments. A mortgage may secure a promissory note, but it is only the negitable (transferrable) note that is affected by the UCC.

Far too many people lump all of the above into the same pile and pickup snippets of stuff about the UCC then wonder why an attorney isn't agreeing with them.

Moose



Quote 0 0
Write a reply...