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 am not in default, I just want to refinance my loan.

I took my mortgage with Lender A who subsequently transferred servicing to Lender B. I was for 5 years under the impression that Lender A was still my Lender  and the person entitled to enforce the Note. However Lender B now contacted me saying they are the person entitled to enforce the Note, and that Lender A has not had an interest in my mortgage since the day the servicing transferred.
The lien in the public records is with Lender A. Lender A is still listed as the company paying my property taxes. And MERS is the mortgagee as MOM in the Mortgage.

I requested proof that Lender B was the person entitled to enforce the Note and able to discharge my obligation. 

I have now received 3 different "original" or "certified true" copies of the Note. Upon inspection I noticed that they are not identical, but still bear my signature and an indorsement in blank.

They are all "photoshopped" and don't match the copy I received at closing. 

Should I contact legal aid before I refinance?

Thanks,

Jon
Quote 0 0
Nomods
I hate to say it but with MERS in your involvement you will never get a clear title proving your ownership. This another reason many have cloud title being MERS involvement to your property transaction. Everyone will always be a renter under MERS supervision
Quote 0 0
Having MERS on the mortgage is an unfortunate fact, but something I can't do anything about.
What is of greater significance though is that Lender B presented fabricated Notes with my signature as proof of their claim to be the person entitled to enforce the Note. 
Quote 0 0
Forgery of a promissory note is a crime of third degree in NJ where i live, yet you think I should do nothing?





Quote 0 0
Cabinetmaniac
Jon wrote:
Forgery of a promissory note is a crime of third degree in NJ where i live, yet you think I should do nothing?



You would have the burden of proving the forgery. Perhaps you can if they provided three different copies which vary enough.

If you can get your Prosecutor to bring charges then the court can demand the bank present the original to the court. They could also escrow your payments until the note holder is determined.

More than likely the bank will present the original note to the court and they will attempt to explain away the other copies as errors.

If you actually want to refinance with a different bank then the new bank would insist upon receiving the original note from the institutional custodian.




Quote 0 0
Cabinetmaniac
Quote:
If you can get your Prosecutor to bring charges then the court can demand the bank present the original to the court. They could also escrow your payments until the note holder is determined.
Quote:

Good luck with that! 


I never said it was likely. I also told him he would bear the burden of proving the forgery.
Quote 0 0
jon novak wrote:
I am not in default, I just want to refinance my loan.

I took my mortgage with Lender A who subsequently transferred servicing to Lender B. I was for 5 years under the impression that Lender A was still my Lender  and the person entitled to enforce the Note. However Lender B now contacted me saying they are the person entitled to enforce the Note, and that Lender A has not had an interest in my mortgage since the day the servicing transferred.
The lien in the public records is with Lender A. Lender A is still listed as the company paying my property taxes. And MERS is the mortgagee as MOM in the Mortgage.

I requested proof that Lender B was the person entitled to enforce the Note and able to discharge my obligation. 

I have now received 3 different "original" or "certified true" copies of the Note. Upon inspection I noticed that they are not identical, but still bear my signature and an indorsement in blank.

They are all "photoshopped" and don't match the copy I received at closing. 

Should I contact legal aid before I refinance?

Thanks,

Jon


Four years ago we were in the same situation. We could not refinance because my lender had multiple or perhaps triple pledged or pledged it an unknown number of times. We are still in litigation but our situation is a bit different as our lender was shut down for fraud and then filed for bankruptcy. It is admitted in plea agreements that they multiple pledged notes so we have that. Still we have spent a fortune in legal fees and still four years later we have no resolution. We continue to fight but it takes a toll. It is a criminal enterprise we are fighting and it is industry wide. I have no idea if fighting this makes sense. When we get to the end of the lawsuit perhaps I'll have a better feel for whether it was worth it. In the meantime our home continues to deteriorate (we have hail damage of about $25K and can't get the insurance check cashed). But in my opinion we have no choice but to fight it. Our country and the rule of law is at stake. I live in one of the worst states in the country for illegal foreclosures and we have made up our minds that if we lose we are going public with our story so that others in the state understand that you have no property rights in this state.

 
Quote 0 0
Thank you for all the input, I appreciate all angles as it makes me get a better understanding of the issues involved.

I realise I have a problem though. I live my life by moral standards and a conviction that the laws of the land are made to be followed. If my Lender would just tell me that there is a problem with the documentation of the loan, I would accept that and work with them if they showed that their intent was honest. In this case they have forged my signature on 3 separate documents and presented them to me as legally binding obligations for a loan I am starting to doubt they have any claim to, and it makes me furious to the core of my being. The level headed thing would be to just keep going along and play the game by their rules, and I have tried, but after a while I start losing sleep at night because I know what is happening is wrong.

I must say they have done a great job. My wife can not tell the documents apart, but I work in computer graphics and it is my day job to analyze images. The numbers 3, 5 and 7 through out the documents have slighty different shapes and different baseline in each document. Now why would they go through the trouble of creating these documents if they already had a valid claim?

The main concern of mine is that if I refinance now, the current lien on my property will not be properly discharged. My current Lender/Servicer is offering a “Lender to Lender” refinance and they tell me that the “current note will be recorded along with the mortage with the county recorder as proof of the discharge.” Well, if the “current” note is not the “original” note, will the discharge be valid?

N.J.S.A 12A:3-602 states “an instrument is paid to the extent payment is made by or on behalf of a party obligated to pay the instrument, and to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.” If my current Lender/Servicer is not in possession of the original Note, and thus not the person entitled to enforce the note, there can be no discharge of the obligation.

So my dilemma is do I bite the bullet now and possibly end up in a mess if I want to sell my house in the future, or do I try to solve this problem now where I dont have a pending sale hanging over my shoulders.

I don't see the point some are making that I currently don’t have a problem, but if I take any kind of action I “create” a problem. I do not have any plans to stop making my mortgage payments but I need, for the sake of my sleep, a good reasoning for doing it.

Robert, although I’m neither an idiot nor out of my mind, I thank you for pointing out the section in the mortgage about the legal fees being added to the loan balance. Further, the proof of the forgery are the 3 different notes that was sent to me that do not match the copy I received at closing. For educational purposes, I hope you can explain a little further why I don't have a civil cause of action.

Eric, why do you think the 3 different notes is just a red herring? If I ask a Lender for evidence of a certain thing, and that Lender provides a forged document in place of a copy of the original document, how could i NOT call into question they are the correct Lender or Servicor to pay. Can you explain? I really want to understand your argument.


Many thanks to everybody
Quote 0 0
Clay
Quote:
Eric, why do you think the 3 different notes is just a red herring? If I ask a Lender for evidence of a certain thing, and that Lender provides a forged document in place of a copy of the original document, how could i NOT call into question they are the correct Lender or Servicor to pay. Can you explain? I really want to understand your argument.


While I cannot speak for Eric, pretty much all of the regulars understand the real underlying dynamic.

This can be readily seen from both a careful reading of various depositions, but also from what Mr. Roper had been warning us about all along.  It is also reflected in the state attorney generals' settlement and the Justice Department's unwillingness to proceed with prosecutions.

Despite everything you have been reading at various web sites created by scam artists, there never has been any systemic problem with the indorsement and negotiation of the notes.  These were all properly indorsed and delivered precisely as the securitization agreements required all along.

However, what was regularly imaged in the originator's document imaging system was an unindorsed copy of the note.  Rather then obtain the original instruments from the vaults of the institutional custodian to make a copy prior to filing suit, instead the lenders have routinely furnished the unindorsed copy from the bank's imaging system which was more readily available (instantly) and convenient.

In most instances, this worked just fine.  In fact, in the vast preponderance of cases, the foreclosure was unopposed, so it never mattered.  The lenders would use the unindorsed copy of the note, together with a quickly forged assignment to obtain judgment.

In the few instances where the defendant noted the absence of a valid indorsement, this was rectified by forging an allonge.  Producing the real original instrument was problematic since the indorsement on the original instrument was inconsistent with the unindorsed copy already plead.  By contrast, the allonge was simply explained as having been inadvertently omitted.

This too worked very well except in a handful of cases where the defendant demanded the production of the original instrument.  It also was problematic in Florida where the Supreme Court ruled several years ago that production of the original was required in all cases.

Even though the lenders had indorsed copies of the notes in their vaults, production of the real originals was problematic, because these were going to prove to be inconsistent with the allonges which had been being forged for years.

For this reason, corrupt servicers and their foreclosure mill law firms routinely also forged original instruments and produced these instead of the actual original notes.

Despite the garbage posted by scam artists like Mike H. and others, there has never been any double pledging and their have never been duplicate claims on the same borrower.  Instead, what has been happening is that the servicer representing the investor which is actually holding the note has been engaged in wholesale criminal forgery as a matter of convenience rather than necessity.

Thus, while the activity is criminal there is no actual injury to the borrower.  The injury is to the public -- to the administration of justice.

Since you haven't been injured by the forgery, you have no valid right of action or claim for damages in respect of this criminal activity.  Moreover, because the banks are now engaged in wholesale housecleaning, it is hard to actually find and identify the perpetrators.  The foreclosure mill attorneys claim attorney client privilege and this is very hard to pierce.

You are at no risk whatsoever of any "double claims" under the notes.  Even if presented with multiple claims the law is quite clear that you can only be held liable once.  If a problem arose with the payoff of the prior lien, it is the lender refinancing the loan and its title insurer which will face the problem and the loss.

Note how quickly the scam artists begin to lash out and attack the folks who actually understand and expose their frauds when the truth is told.  The swindlers all hate Mr. Roper because he is honest and sought to protect distressed borrowers from their scams. 

You need to decide whether you are interested in your own financial self interest or whether you want to embark upon a quest to bring the criminal enterprises to justice.  Under our system of laws, criminal prosecution is vested in prosecutors -- DAs, state attorney generals and U.S. attorneys.  There is no private right of action to prosecute criminal wrongdoing.  There is a private right of action to seek redress of injury through civil litgation.  But even if you could prove the criminality and the precise nature of the mischief, you cannot prove an injury.  Thus, even if you won, you would not be entitled to damages.

The nature of the mischief can create vexing problems for a plaintiff seeking to foreclose.  If faced with foreclosure, raise the issues and do what you can to resist and delay foreclosure.  If you are not faced with adversity, then it is best to walk away from this fight. 

Print this post out and save it, as it will almost surely be deleted.  The site administrator deletes those posts which deprive the criminals advertising and paying for this site for the money they can make from their scams.  That is why there are always several scam artists continuously monitoring this Forum to attack anyone who tells the gullible the truth.
Quote 0 0
"Despite the garbage posted by scam artists like Mike H. and others, there has never been any double pledging and their have never been duplicate claims on the same borrower. Instead, what has been happening is that the servicer representing the investor which is actually holding the note has been engaged in wholesale criminal forgery as a matter of convenience rather than necessity."

A homeowner in the Taylor Bean & Whitaker bankruptcy is on her fourth foreclosure all by different entities and/or adding some, deleting others. 

Read these article.  Notes were multiple pledged including mine.  And the practice was industrywide.

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/06/30/freddie-and-fannie-loans-are-clearly-compromised-many-likely-sold-multiple-times/

Bank of America’s Reply to Objection of Freddie Mac to Motion to Examine Freddie Mac

“On numerous occasions, the Debtor has informed the Court and other parties in interest that one of the biggest challenges in this case will be sorting out the competing claims to cash and other assets that flowed through the Debtor’s accounts prior to the bankruptcy filing.  Indeed, it appears as though many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double-and even triple-pledged to various constituencies”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13gret.html?_r=0

Get Ready, Get Set, Point Fingers

“People familiar with the mortgage machine’s innards say problems were industrywide.”

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...