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
FlaProSe
Another slap on the hand from Florida court to banksters.

Summary judgment reversed.

Lindsey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., Case No. 1D12-2406 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 27, 2013) 

http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/02-27-2013/12-2406.pdf

It is becoming more difficult for banksters to get SJ in Florida; that's why they're using trials as a new tactic.

"The copy of the note and mortgage attached to the complaint named Option One as the lender and mortgagee. Wells Fargo subsequently filed the original note with the court along with an Assignment of Mortgage dated April 10, 2009, showing the transfer of the mortgage from Option One to Wells Fargo effective March 26, 2009. The Assignment of Mortgage did not purport to transfer the note, and the original note filed with the court did not include a special endorsement to Wells Fargo or a blank endorsement."
Quote 0 0
Abe
Quote:
Another slap on the hand from Florida court to banksters. Summary judgment reversed. http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/02-27-2013/12-2406.pdf It is becoming more difficult for banksters to get SJ in Florida; that's why they're using trials as a new tactic.
Why not put the style of the decision and even the case number and date of the decision in your post to make this case more readily discoverable when browsing post or searching the Forum: [i]Lindsey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., Case No. 1D12-2406 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 27, 2013)[/b] http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/02-27-2013/12-2406.pdf Why do you describe this as a slap on the hand? What is it that you think the Court ought to have done? Clearly, the defendant didn't even plead the defense correctly and is somewhat fortunate that the court decided correctly despite the defective pleadings and legally erroneous applellant's brief.  
Quote 0 0
Felix
Perhaps this is yet another decision that rather starkly shows the error in presenting standing as an affirmative defense. In Lindsey, the standing defense seems to have been (again) erroneously presented as an affirmative defense rather than a regular defense, thereby waiving the burden of proof. The court very charitably pointed out that Lindsey had also denied the plaintiff's right of enforcement as a regular defense. Since the plaintiff had the burden of proof in respect of the essential elements of its own cause of action, the summary judgment was reversed. Since the defendant and appellant erroneously pleaded standing as an affirmative defense waiving the burden of proof, the court seems to have reasoned that the appellant wasn't entitled to a dismissal! If the defendant had followed Mr. Roper's suggestions and pleaded standing as a regular defense and held the plaintiff to its burden of proof, then the defendant also would have been entitled to a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the case is remanded, giving the plaintiff yet another chance to prove its standing. You reap what you sew!
Quote 0 0
Isaac
Quote:
Another slap on the hand from Florida court to banksters.

Summary judgment reversed.

Lindsey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., Case No. 1D12-2406 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 27, 2013)

http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/02-27-2013/12-2406.pdf

It is becoming more difficult for banksters to get SJ in Florida; that's why they're using trials as a new tactic.

"The copy of the note and mortgage attached to the complaint named Option One as the lender and mortgagee. Wells Fargo subsequently filed the original note with the court along with an Assignment of Mortgage dated April 10, 2009, showing the transfer of the mortgage from Option One to Wells Fargo effective March 26, 2009. The Assignment of Mortgage did not purport to transfer the note, and the original note filed with the court did not include a special endorsement to Wells Fargo or a blank endorsement."


There seems to be some sort of new mischief by the Forum site administrator. Now, the administrator seems to be altering posts after they are made.

In this thread, the harm seems minimal. After FlaProSe posted a link to the Lindsey opinion WITHOUT SHOWING THE STYLE OF THE CASE, others suggested that the style and date of the decision be included. The original post was also criticized for lacking any thoughtful analysis.

Then, suddenly, without any identifying explanation of the alteration of the original post, the style of the case was added (apparently from the second post) and a quote from the decision which hadn't appeared in the original post seems to have been added, as well.

Alterations of posts within threads, without any identification of the changes or when they were made, seems to be just one more reason for honest seniors to abandon the Forum. The administrator seems unwilling to allow this to be an honest venue for discussion and instead is going to not only delete various posts, but will also alter and edit posts made by various participants to change content and meaning.

This is really disgraceful!

While there was minimal harm in the alterations in this instance -- adding the style of the case was what was suggested -- it appears as though the alterations were intended to make FlaProSe, a buffoon who has been attacking other Forum participants, look better and to make it appear as if his original post was actually useful when the useful information was supplied by others.

When the Forum administrator elects to use authority to alter the content of Forum discussions by changing people's posts, it is probably time to decide that this Forum has ceased to serve any useful purpose at all.

Swindlers and scam artists are allowed to use this site to victimize borrowers with no intervention whatsoever. But when honest visitors critique the posts of the dishonest, like FlaProSe, their posts are altered. How disgusting.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...