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
If any one has a copy of a note endorsed by Christopher Melody Shipper without recourse Ownit Mortgage Solutions, Inc. A California Corporation. I would greatly appreciate a copy of it. I would like to compare the signatures.

If you are in foreclosure and your note is filed with the courts. You can obtain a copy of it there.

I have tried to find this character for some time now, with no luck. He doesn't appear to exist anywhere. I tried to google, facebook, etc.... Nothing.

My note has a squiggle mark as a signature just like all of the bogus assignments going around in the court system.

Thank You in advance.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper Jr.
I do not have access to any instruments executed by your Christopher Melody SHIPPER.  But it appears to me that there are indications within public records of at least these Chris SHIPPERs or Christopher SHIPPERs:

o Chris M. SHIPPER (b Apr 1972), of Des Moines, Polk County, IA
o Christopher M. SHIPPER (b Apr 1985), of Wrightsville, York County, PA
o Christopher SHIPPER, of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, PA
o Christopher SHIPPER, of Lincoln, Placer County, CA
o Christopher SHIPPER, of Reno, Washoe County, NV

The Christopher SHIPPER shown in Philadelphia might be the same individual shown in Wrightsville, PA.  The Christopher SHIPPER shown in Reno, NV, might be the same individual shown in Lincoln, althought this is speculative.

It appears likely that the Christopher SHIPPER shown in Lincoln is the individual shown within Placer County Deed records as Christopher James SHIPPER.  This probably excludes him if the middle name you have given is correct.

If the likely or purported date of indorsement was more than a couple of years old, the second record would seem to reflect a person too young to have been the subject of your search.

Where was the mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument executed and where was the original lender physically located?  This should give some insight into where the person executing an indorsement might be reasonably found.

Local land and mortgage records, court records, voter registration records, notary records, corporate records, motor vehicle records and license databases are other possible sources information about location and identity. 

Perhaps some other message board partipants can help you locate this person with these additional clues.
Quote 0 0
Mr. Roper,

Thank you for your response. You have no idea how much I appreciate it.

The mortgage was executed in Florida. The Lender "Was" located in Ca.

I also noticed that you asked for a date on the indorsement, well there is no date. Just a squiggle for a signature. I also need to mention that there are four pages in reference to the note and the third page (on back) is indorsed and then in black marker it says cancel across the signature, then on the last page (on back) it is indorsed again. The two squiggles for a signature don't even match.

I know for a fact that the Plaintiff's attorney signed the Assignment of Mortgage. I am just wondering if they are also involved in the Note. Because they claimed that the Note was lost or destroyed. All of a sudden after the Motion to Dismiss was filed, they some how found the note??????

I want to nail them to the wall for this. These Foreclosure Mills are getting away with murder here.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Ownit Mortgage Solutions, Inc., was a California corporation with domestic corporate charter filed on November 27, 1989.  The CA entity number was "C1653301".

This firm ceased doing mortgage business on December 5, 2006, and filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition on December 28, 2006 (California Central District).  A Chapter 11 liquidation plan was approved by the Court on January 16, 2008.

The California Secretary of State's Office shows that the firm's registered agent resigned on September 25, 2007, and the corporate charter is shown to be suspended.

Sometimes employees are identified amongst creditors of bankrupt entities and the name of Mr. Christopher SHIPPER might therefore be found amongst the bankruptcy filings of Ownit.  The would be available through PACER. 

Ownit is shown in various filings to alternatively be based in Woodland Hills or Agoura Hills, California, both near to one another in Los Angeles County, Northwest of Los Angeles.

Ownit purportedly had about 700 employees at the time it went out of business.  It generated many of its loans through a network of correspondent loan brokers.

If a loan was closed in the name of another entity, its indorsement should have coincided with its sale to Ownit, probably at the location of the originator.  If closed in Ownit's name as Lender, then an officer of Ownit should have endorsed the promissory note in blank before its sale into a mortgage trust.  This would have most likely taken place at the corporate headquarters in California. 

Indorsement of the promissory note in blank makes it a "bearer instrument" negotiable by the holder.  For this reason, the promissory note would have been treated with singular security and would have been shipped via Federal Express, Overnight mail, or registered mail, with delivery tracking.  It would have been initially sent to the warehousing lender funding the loan.  It would have been pledged as security for the warehousing loan and been kept in the vaults of the warehousing lender or its custodial institution until sale to the mortgage trust.  Thereafter, it would have been delivered to the custodial institution for the mortgage trust.  The indorsement, properly executed, should have been made within days of the execution of the promissory note.   
Quote 0 0
Mr. Roper,

Everything you said is 100% correct. As a matter of fact; the pool of mortgages that mine is in, is also included in the BK and is listed as unliquified. I have a link to every BK document in reference to Ownit. I also have a motion to where Ownit was granted permission to destroy files, notes, deeds, applications, etc......

I did look for Christopher Shipper in the Bk. No luck there either.

The loan was closed with Ownit. Merrill is intwined with all of this too. I also have the assignment and assumption agreement to where the pool was assigned from one Merrill Lynch entity to another Merrill Lynch entity.
Quote 0 0
They found the note because they knew all along where it was,in the trustee's vault. its the same refrain check the loan psa. Is there an endorsement on the note: "pay without recourse' ? Typically what was sold was certificates representing the note.

Quote 0 0
This is how it reads:

Pay To The Order Of
Without Recaouse
Ownit Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
A California Corporation

Christopher Melody, Shipper

See my problem is that I don't think that Ownit signed the note. I am trying to find Mr. Shipper. Something smells fishy to me....

Quote 0 0
You guys are not going to like me any more. I am so, so sorry. I have to let you know that it was brought to my attention that I should be looking for Christopher Melody. Shipper is his title because of the comma after Melody.

Especially, Mr. Roper. Because you tried to help me and did some searching around.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Posted by cmc
I also noticed that you asked for a date on the indorsement, well there is no date.

I was asking about the date of execution of the promissory note and mortgage.  The indorsement of a promissory note, like the indorsement of a check, is usually unsigned.  In fact, it is the very same provisions of the UCC which cover checks and promissory notes, both of which are negotiable instruments under the law.  There is nothing inherently unusual about the lack of a date on the indorsement.

But it also follows that an undated indorsement is no evidence as to the date that the purported execution and delivery took place.

No apology is necessary for your misinterpretation of the indicia relating to Christopher MELODY and his title.

But the indicated title raises yet another different issue as to whether Mr. MELODY had the actual authority to execute an indorsement on behalf of Ownit.

Typically, only officers of a corporation are vested with the authority to act on a corporation's behalf in excecuting instruments, though in many places a corporation may, by resolution, vest such authority in others and can even delegate the authority to designate appropriate parties.  Most often, a person is vested with at least a title such as Vice President, Assistant Vice President, Assistant Treasurer or Assistant Secretary in order to vest the actual and apparent authority to act on the corporation's behalf.

Think of it this way:  If you had made out a check in the corporation's name and left in in the care of an employee in payment of amounts due, could any employee endorse the check over to another?

Negotiation of a negotiable instrument requires valid indorsement and physical delivery of the instrument to the transferee.


Because very few non-depository mortgage lenders are lending their own funds, the closed loans are immediately pledged as security for repayment of the warehousing line of credit by a secured lender advancing the funds for closing.  Terms of the warehousing agreement would have required the indorsement and delivery of the promissory note, probably within 72 hours of the loan closing.

As pointed out by anon, the promissory note was probably never actually lost.  The foreclosure mills are so lazy and sloppy that they rarely bother to even locate the promissory note, which can usually be readily found within the custody of the institutional custodian acting on behalf of the mortgage trustee.

Accordingly, the lost note affidavit was probably false and perjured on its face.  This is something that you might want to explore further through discovery.  The use of false and perjured evidence is a matter that might be used as an equitable defense if you plead the "clean hands doctrine".


It should be noted that Ownit had several regional offices.  It is possible that the closing agent, usually the title company, could have forwarded the promissory note to a regional office rather than the corporate headquarters.  A person in such a regional office could have also endorsed the note and forwarded it via overnight mail to the custodial institution acting on behalf of the warehousing lender.  For most lenders, it would tend to be more common for the promissory notes to be forwarded to the corporate office for quality control, consolidation and forwarding to the warehousing lender.

I raised the question about the date of execution and mention the possiblity of regional offices to better fix both the probable date and location of any valid execution of the indorsement.

It seems to me that it is unlikely that the promissory note wasn't contemporaneously endorsed prior to its forwarding to the warehousing lender unless either the warehousing lender was very sloppy or if the loan was closed only days before the failure (and they hadn't gotten around to indorsement yet).  More likely, the note was actually indorsed, but they were taking shortcuts (like using a clerical level person without benefit of a corporate resolution) to execute the indorsements.

If your loan was still shown as a asset of the bankrupt estate, this would seem to suggest that the loan was executed very near the meltdown.  Since the mortgage originators tended to securitize and sell all of their loan production, the loan would have continued to have been owned by Ownit until such securitization, though it would have probably been pledged to the warehousing lender.

What do the bankruptcy documents show happened to the remaining loans owned by the bankrupt estate?  And is the warehousing lender identified within these filings? 

Are there any schedules showing amounts owed to employees and/or former employees?  This would be where I would look for a record of a Christopher MELODY.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
In searching for a comparable promissory note executed in favor of Ownit, I would highly recommend to you rely upon self-help through data mining of online data in judicial foreclosure states in those few jurisdictions where the full docket information and corresponding images are archived online.

For example, I checked Summit County, Ohio, records, one such jurisdiction and immediately found three foreclosures in which Ownit is shown to be a party.  See generally:

Take a look at cases:  CV-2005-09-5564,CV-2006-11-7239, and CV-2007-03-2315.

Unfortunately, these cases were not helpful, as in two of the three cases, the plaintiff seems to have pled an unindosed copy of the promissory note and in the third case the plaintiff seems to have succeeded in obtaining a summary judgment without pleading the promissory note at all!

This is hardly unusual.  Most mortgage foreclosure cases are undefended and the borrower rarely has effective counsel.  The courts are busy and if the defendant doesn't show up and call attention to the missing instrument or the missing indorsement, the court is rarely going to notice.

Summit County has become more vigilant since the Boyko et all Federal Court dismissals.

In searching, bear in mind that a suit on an Ownit note may very well be brought in the name of (a) the mortgage investor, (b) the mortgage servicer, and/or (c) MERS, which may not include Ownit in the parties or the indexing.  You might therefore have better success first searching the land records for an assignment out of Ownit and then look for a foreclosure filing in the name of the assignee.  Very often, the assignment is forged immediately prior to or even after the commencement of the suit.

(You may find other Ownit instruments subject to Summit County foreclosures by starting at the registry of deeds.)

You will probably have to look at scores of complaints on Ownit notes to find even a couple that show indorsements at all.  This does not necessarily mean that the actual promissory notes were all unendorsed.  Rather, it reflects the fact that the foreclosure mills routinely will file a pleading based upon a photocopy of a copy of the original unendorsed note without bothering to obtain the original from the institutional custodian.

This, incidentally, leads to another interesting possibility that you need to also bear in mind and that is the possibility that the endorsement shown might not appear on the original promissory note at all.  IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SEEN THE ORIGINAL, THE DOCUMENT PLED MIGHT VERY WELL SIMPLY CONTAIN A COPY OF AN UNDATED INDORSEMENT SUPERIMPOSED ON THE COPY OF THE NOTE TAKEN FROM THE LOAN FILES.

If you haven't already nailed down some of the facts through discovery, you really need to do so.  Otherwise, the plaintiff will later simply produce the REAL promissory note which might contain another very real indorsement.  If you can show that the plaintiff is pleading false evidence you might get a dismissal.  But if you haven't gotten the plaintiff to swear to the evidence, they are goign to claim that this was an "innocent mistake" (as if Photoshopping an indorsement onto a copy might actually be accidentally undertaken). 
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
William A.,

Aren't they all innocent mistakes, accidentally undertaken? Surely the millions of foreclosures in the past several years are simply an odd coincidence and confluence of innocent mistakes, accidentally undertaken.

On a more serious note the paucity of cases available online is a real problem for many. Boots on the ground research is onerous. My own such research has been met with resistance from clerks in several different counties.

An approach that begins with online land records, in hopes of finding questionable assignments, is a good place to start - as you've already suggested.

Quote 0 0
Hi--hoping somebody can clarify for me.

If an endorsement on note is a stamped signature is that valid?
Are there any federal laws on this?

An attorney said a stamped signature endorsement of a note is valid in Ca.
Just trying to verify and also to see if any federal laws might not allow such a signature.

I also learned from this lawyer that endorsements on notes do not have to be notarized.

Any insight is appreciated.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.


There is no requirement in the UCC that indorsements be either dated or notarized.  When thinking about indorsements, think about the indorsement of a regular bank check.  It is the same provision of the UCC which applies.

I do not think that you are going to find any Federal law which would dictate a real signature versus an inked facsimile impression.  If anything, the state laws enabling use of facsimile (Fax) transmissions has liberalized rather than tightened provisions regarding the necessity of original signatures.

I would not want to quarrel with a California attorney about this.  Though I do not know the California law in this area, his guidance sounds correct.  If in doubt, ask another California lawyer.

But I would also clarify that there very well may be a distinction between an inked imprint signature affixed by the person having authority to act and an inked imprint signature affixed by someone else.  And a key might very well be whether the person affixing the signature is acting under the express direction of the person with actual authority.

For example, if I tired of signing my name throughout the day and obtained a rubber stamp showing my signature and affixed the signature myself, then I am pretty clearly personally assenting to the indorsement.  If I personally inspect the promissory notes and then direct my secretary to affix my signature with the rubber stamp on my behalf, then I am still personnaly assenting though delegating the drudgery.  By contrast, if I am the person with the authority to execute the indorsements, but someone in the loan shipping department is stamping my name to indorsements on notes I have never laid eyes on, then a rather key question might be whether the corporate resolution which authorized my signature also authorized me to delegate my duties to someone else (and if so, then why doesn't that person just sign their own name?).

State laws and cases, as well as the unique facts of the case, may very well determine that in one or more of these situations the facsimile signature is not in fact valid.  Though I would be inclined to think that this would be because of failure to assent rather than the defect in the method of signature.  But you will really have to work to obtain sufficient facts through discovery to make a compelling argument!

Also, bear in mind that the arguments relating to the defect in the signature may be available to the entity harmed by a wrongful indorsement.  But if the indorsement was defective but reflected an authorized transaction, it might be cured by ratification.  How such ratification effects standing which must be present at commencement of suit is cloudy.


It is probably worth noting that in ancient times a gentleman not only signed but also "sealed" documents with his personal seal containing his coat of arms.  In some places, sealing a document can give a contract effect even without consideration (which is normally required for every contract).  Even in those days, the sealing might be delegated to a trusted servant, but a keeper of a seal would be a person of exceptional trustworthiness.

In thinking about the use of facsimile signatures, focus on what it means to sign -- to grant one's assent -- rather than the means employed.  Obviously, an original signature has the advantage that it is personal, though there are many instances where leaders have authorized others to sign on their behalf.  In such an instance, the person ought to sign the principal's name and then indicate "by [signer's name]".  The legal effect of such a signature varies.
Quote 0 0

I have some news. I don't think that I can put a whole lot out here just in case someone is watching.

I've done so much research in the past couple of days. And it may be worth it.

I am getting (in a few days) a copy of the note from a consulting firm that is working with the trustee in BK. He said that they have all of the mortgage files. So if they have the original note and it is not indorsed than one "Lucky" Foreclosure Mill Law Firm may go down.

Also, if I find that they have the original note, than how can my county have the original note filed with the courts?????

I will let you know how this plays out..... I just "CAN'T" wait. I check my emails every second waiting.....

Quote 0 0
The Equitable One

You will find your mortgage, or deed of trust, with your counties recorder or land records office. But not your promissory note.

Recording of notes is not required by any law or statute in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. P-notes are negotiable instruments, as defined in UCC 3-104. Negotiation, or transfer, is defined in UCC 3-201 and requires endorsement and delivery. A person entitled to enforce an instrument is defined in UCC 3-301.

A mortgage, or deed of trust, is a security instrument. These are governed by state law which require that contracts for land be written, and also be recorded.* Who owns land is considered to be of such importance that they have to in writing and they have to be recorded.

Among the many problems we are faced with as a result of the sloppy, inaccurate, incomplete, and in many cases fraudulent documentation used in foreclosures is clear title to land. For hundreds of years the system in place worked. The question of "who owns it" was pretty easy to answer. That is no longer the case. A forged and/or fabricated document is a legal nullity and has no effect. When foreclosures are based on such documents "who owns it" becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible, to answer or prove. Title insurance companies are catching on to this and in some cases refusing to issue policies. Realtors are also becoming aware and are not contracting to sell properties with such title defects. Judge Long, in US Bank v Ibanez, wrote in depth and eloquently in re the title issues and defects being created.

*This varies from state to state, with some states allowing a bit of wiggle room in the recordation. I've seen nothing that allows any wiggle room in regard to the execution of land contracts. Buy or sell real estate - gotta write it down.

Quote 0 0
In BK adversary proceedings now, servicer in care of trust 2008-1 trust just found my not after many months looking!!

Note Instrument between me the maker and the payee MLN appears legit my lower says!!

MLN (A) filed bankruptcy month later, made payments to GMAC new servicer, till  last servicer Nationstar.

Note was indorsed pay to the order of: Residential Funding (B) without recourse from MLN (A) Nationstar (C) executes a Mortgage assignment trough MERS after my initidal defoult on the loan, from MLN to the Trust signed by the Nationstar VP  and notarized by a Nationstar  notary with same address. (facts)

My question is my note instrument has been floating a round like a deck of cards, i have been told that a person that has it is the Holder in Dues course! because is a note to berer in blank!

I am told that the note has been solicited from the defunct in BK MLN seized documents!!

How can a lost possible stolen and now dishonored note be worth anything in the hands of anyone whom may have obtained as part a a subterfuge scheme?

Please help!!

Thank You,


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...