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
Wendy
There is a terrific new decision out of the 4th DCA in Florida involving endorsement of the note:

Dixon v. Equity Express Lending Group, No. 4D12-1381 (June 5, 2013)
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/June%202013/06-05-13/4D12-1381.op.pdf

There are several really interesting things about this decision.

First, it shows that Mr. Roper's analysis about the distinction between owner and holder has always been correct. In this case, Equity Express claimed to be the owner of a note endorsed in favor of another entity. The court found that Equity Express didn't have a right of enforcement because it wasn't the holder. Wow! Does that sound familiar? Read Mr. Roper's old posts.

Second, in this case, Equity Express tries to explain that the reason for the anomalous endorsement was that the loan was negotiated as security for a warehousing loan. Search the Forum to find Mr. Roper's discussion about the role of warehousing lending.

The thing that is really amazing is that Mr. Roper was explaining how to win foreclosure cases here at the Forum for about five years, but finally left when he discovered that the site was promoting and defending swindlers. Now the Forum site administrator immediately deletes any new posts that contain truthful information helpful to borrowers and promotes only those posts which promote various scams.
Quote 0 0
Mike H
Wendy,
    The plaintiff lacked standing because it was not the OWNER of the Note. It was only the
HOLDER of the Note.
     Florida Supreme Court form 1.944 for "in rem" foreclosure actions, indicates that the plaintiff
must be the OWNER & HOLDER OF THE NOTE & MORTGAGE. IE, IT MUST BE BOTH OWNER & HOLDER.
     To me, this makes sense because the OWNER might have hypothecated the Note to a third
party and not be in possession of it. In a situation like that, the owner of the Note could not
foreclose on the Note because then the Note owner would be collecting twice on the Note, once
from the entity to whom it hypothecated the Note, and again from the borrower.
      In the case cited, it appears the Note was sold to a third party and then the third party
hypothecated it back to the second party but kept ownership of it. In that case, neither the
third party nor the second party could foreclose the Note since neither one could claim to be
the OWNER & HOLDER as required by the Florida Supreme Court.
Quote 0 0
Blog
Wendy,

If Mr. Roper is so great why don't you join his blog?  Why do you continue to post here about him?  Don't you have a mind of your own?  Or don't you think the owner of this blog has a right to delete posts?  This is strange the constant beat about Mr. Roper like he was some kind of legal god. 

Please spare us the lecture, we don't need it and don't want it. Any moron could follow what happened in this case and speak intelligently about the issues not just Mr. Roper.  Get a brain and write your own posts and leave Mr. Roper out of it.
Quote 0 0
unreg_banned
Ok Blog -- what is ur take then, ......
Quote 0 0
texas
His take, appears it was so stated.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...