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
Nancy
A new decision handed down yesterday by the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial District discusses the mischief with endorsements: [i]Fannie Mae v. Trahey, C.A. No. 12CA010209, 2013-Ohio-3071 (Ohio App. 9th Dist., July 15, 2013)[/b] http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2013/2013-ohio-3071.pdf In prior posts on The Forum, it was pointed out that banks often used an imaged copy of the note in lieu of a copy of the original. The copy of the note imaged from closing usually lacked an endorsement. Banks sometimes Photoshopped an endorsement on the unendorsed copy to fool the courts. When the original note was examined it would often have different endorsements because of this mischief. The Fannie Mae v. Trahey decision proves it! 
Quote 0 0
bankbuster
I have been fighting foreclosure since early 2010. The first complaint filed in court, had a "true and accurate copy of the original note". This copy did not have an allonge/indorsement attached to the note, nor did it have any evidence of ever being attached (staple holes, paste, or tape marks) to the "true and accurate copy of the original note". Through discovery, my counsel requested copies of the Plaintiff's evidence, which contained "another" true and accurate copy of the original, only this copy miraculously had a stamped allonge/indorsement on the a separate sheet of paper.  

After deposing the Plaintiff in the first case filed against me, my counsel secured for the record several interesting facts. 
Under sworn testimony, the bank's representative said that the note provided in the complaint was the true and accurate copy of the original "except for the allonge/indorsement". There was plenty of room on the note to add the allonge/indorsement, which was missing at the time of the original complaint being filed with the court. A bench trial was set, and opposing counsel dismissed the case.

A second case was filed, and this time the allonge/indorsement was included in this complaint. Depositions were taken, and the bank representative had no answer as to why there was no indorsement with the original complaint, and then to complicate matters (for opposing counsel), there were barcode numbers present on one of these "true and accurate original copies", yet they were absent on "other true and accurate copies of the original". This is a case being litigated in Ohio.

My question to the forum is, how damning is this evidence to the plaintiff and their counsel, and why doesn't the judge jump on this for the FRAUD it is??? 
Quote 0 0
texas
Are you in a court of equity or a court of law?
Quote 0 0
bankbuster
Good question. I'm not sure but it's a court of common pleas general trial division. What difference would it make?
Quote 0 0
texas
Two contracts, one contract based on equity and one contract based on law. Big difference! Dependent upon argument.
Quote 0 0
bankbuster
And this means what, when considering the mentioned documentation filed by opposing counsel?
Quote 0 0
Veal
FYI

First read the following BK AZ opinion, In re: Anthony Tarantola:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=371479132559087873&q=in+re+anthony+tarantola&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5

followed by:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15361136993781279940&q=in+re+anthony+tarantola&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5





Quote 0 0
Nedley
Quote:
Are you in a court of equity or a court of law?

This is an exceptionally ignorant question!

In almost every state, the distinction between courts of equity and courts at law has been eliminated. A notable exception is Delaware, which continues to have separate courts of Chancery.

In most states, a single trial court wields both law and equity jurisdiction. Even in Delaware, mortgages are now handled by the Superior Court rather than the Chancery Court. Some states have separate courts for domestic relations (divorce used to be considered an equitable action), but even this is uncommon.

For the most part, states have adopted judicial systems that vest minor matters in certain inferior courts, such as justice courts, justices of the peace, town courts, etc., with more significant matters handled by trial courts with greater authority.

This is not to say that the distinction between matters at law and matters in equity have been eliminated. The trial courts now tend to wield both law and equity jurisdiction. Courts of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania and Ohio are trial courts with both law and equity jurisdiction.

The question is idiotic for a second reason. In almost every mortgage foreclosure action in a judicial foreclosure state, the action consists of two counts, one a count at law for default under the promissory note and a second count at equity for foreclosure under the mortgage. Thus, every foreclosure sounds in both law and equity.

An exception exists when the defendant has had the liability under the note extinguished in bankruptcy. Under this circumstance, the lender proceeds on a foreclosure only under the mortgage (a single count).
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...