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
Plaintiff has standing to foreclosure where the note was endorsed in blank. The mortgage follows the note.

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2012/November/November%2014,%202012/2D11-4592.pdf

Moral of the story: In Florida, don't waste your time on the mortgage and its assignment; focus on the note and its endorsements.
Quote 0 0
   That only applies if the Note is a "negotiable instrument". Most modern Notes are not "negotiable
instruments" but rather part of a larger contract which includes the mortgage. Therefore the "non negotiable"  Note needs a "special endorsement" on it, along with a valid "assignment of mortgage"
done concurrently.
    Most of the time, these Notes are counterfeit, color copies and not the original Note, so that is
the "real" defense in many cases. If you look at them under a microscope, you will see the signature
is not in blue ink, soaking the paper fibers, but rather lots of tiny dots from a dot matrix printer.
    Also, if you test it with an "original yellow magic marker", it will not smudge because there is no
blue ink there. Blue ink soaked paper will show a smudge mark.
    Finally, feel for "ridge marks" on the opposite side of the paper where you signed. On a color copy
there are none, whereas on the original Note, they are easily palpable. 
    I would not put much "stock" in this decision, it really proves nothing. It just returns it to the lower
Court for a reexamination of the facts in the case. Go to google scholar and read Holly Hill Acres vs
Charter Bank for a better take on this issue. That is also a 2nd DCA case out of Florida and cuts to
the heart of the "negotiable instrument" issue. If one must look outside the Note, in order to calculate
the balance owed, it is not "negotiable", ie to the Security Instrument, LIbor and the Wall Street
Journal as in most Fannie Mae adjustable rate Notes and many FHA/VA fixed rate notes.
Quote 0 0
FlaProSe
It is well established law in Florida that a promissory note is a negotiable instrument. I understand that you may have a different opinion. Unfortunately, the only opinion that counts is that of the Appellate court. So, you'd better off strategizing around the opinions of the people of have the last word in your case.
Quote 0 0
FlaProSe wrote:
It is well established law in Florida that a promissory note is a negotiable instrument. I understand that you may have a different opinion. Unfortunately, the only opinion that counts is that of the Appellate court. So, you'd better off strategizing around the opinions of the people of have the last word in your case.


I think this person should appeal.  I'm listening in on this radio show tonight and Matt Weidner is going to talk about his appeal.  One issue was negotiability of the note and another whether they had to present evidence that they owned the note. 

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/11/join-me-tonight-8pm-on-wide-awake-news-radio-with-my-special-guest-michael-olenick/

The AHMSI v. Hassell Appeal….It is clear the Mortgage Note is not negotiable….

Quote 0 0
Angelo
I just want to put an end to this junk that Mike H and Matt Weidner keeps spilling around the internet.  Here is NY's UCC, and its provisions which account for all this crap that Mike H is trying to push.

Section 3--104. Form   of   Negotiable  Instruments;  "Draft";  "Check";
                    "Certificate of Deposit"; "Note".
    (1) Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this Article must
         (a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and
         (b) contain an unconditional  promise  or  order  to  pay  a  sum
             certain  in  money and no other promise, order, obligation or
             power given by the maker or drawer except  as  authorized  by
             this Article; and
         (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and
         (d) be payable to order or to bearer.
    (2) A writing which complies with the requirements of this section is
         (a) a "draft" ("bill of exchange") if it is an order;
         (b) a  "check"  if  it  is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on
             demand;
         (c) a "certificate of deposit" if it is an  acknowledgment  by  a
             bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it;
         (d) a  "note"  if  it  is  a  promise other than a certificate of
             deposit.
    (3) As used in other Articles of this Act,  and  as  the  context  may
  require, the terms "draft", "check", "certificate of deposit" and "note"
  may refer to instruments which are not negotiable within this Article as
  well as to instruments which are so negotiable.

Section 3--105. When Promise or Order Unconditional.
    (1) A promise or order otherwise unconditional is not made conditional
  by the fact that the instrument
         (a) is subject to implied or constructive conditions; or
         (b) states  its  consideration, whether performed or promised, or
             the transaction which gave rise to the  instrument,  or  that
             the  promise  or  order  is made or the instrument matures in
             accordance with or "as per" such transaction; or
         (c) refers to  or  states  that  it  arises  out  of  a  separate
             agreement  or refers to a separate agreement for rights as to
             prepayment or acceleration; or
         (d) states that it is drawn under a letter of credit; or
         (e) states that it is secured, whether by  mortgage,  reservation
             of title or otherwise; or
         (f) indicates  a  particular  account  to be debited or any other
             fund or source from which reimbursement is expected; or
         (g) is limited to  payment  out  of  a  particular  fund  or  the
             proceeds  of a particular source, if the instrument is issued
             by a government or governmental agency or unit; or
         (h) is  limited  to  payment  out  of  the  entire  assets  of  a
             partnership,  unincorporated  association, trust or estate by
             or on behalf of which the instrument is issued.
    (2) A promise or order is not unconditional if the instrument
         (a) states that it  is  subject  to  or  governed  by  any  other
             agreement; or
         (b) states that it is to be paid only out of a particular fund or
             source except as provided in this section.

Section 3--106. Sum Certain.
    (1) The sum payable is a sum certain even though it is to be paid
         (a) with a stated rate of interest or by stated installments; or
         (b) with  stated  different  rates  of  interest before and after
             default or a specified date; or
         (c) with a stated discount or addition if paid  before  or  after
             the date fixed for payment; or
         (d) with exchange or less exchange, whether at a fixed rate or at
             the current rate; or
         (e) with  costs  of  collection or an attorney's fee or both upon
             default.
    (2) For the purposes of subsection one of this section "a stated  rate
  of  interest"  shall  also  include  a  rate  of interest that cannot be
  calculated by looking only  to  the  instrument  but  which  is  readily
  ascertainable  by  a reference in the instrument to a published statute,
  regulation, rule of court, generally accepted  commercial  or  financial
  index,  compendium  of  interest  rates,  or  announced  rate of a named
  financial institution.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall validate any term which is otherwise
  illegal.
Quote 0 0
Hank
Quote:
Plaintiff has standing to foreclosure where the note was endorsed in blank. The mortgage follows the note.

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2012/November/November%2014,%202012/2D11-4592.pdf

Moral of the story: In Florida, don't waste your time on the mortgage and its assignment; focus on the note and its endorsements.


Wow!  Isn't that what Mr. Roper has been telling us all along?  It is always about indorsement and delivery.
Quote 0 0
Angelo,
        I am not a New Yorker, but I would look at the case law around Section 3-105 (2) (a).
"A promise or order is not UNCONDITIONAL if the instrument (a) States that it is subject to or
governed by any other agreement."
        The "other" agreement in a Fannie Mae adjustable Note is the "Adjustable Rate Rider" attached
to the mortgage.
        Paragraph 4 (c): Amount (in a standard FHA/VA loan) often states"This amount will be part of a larger monthly payment required by the Security Instrument, that shall be applied to principal, interest
and the other items in the order described in the Security Instrument." One has to refer to the mortgage to figure out what is owed, therefore, it is "governed by any other agreement" and is not negotiable.
        In Florida, we have Florida Supreme Court form 1.944 which is supposed to be used in all "in rem" foreclosure actions. It states in paragraph 3, "Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage."In order to "state a cause of action", this allegation must be made in the Complaint and proved at trial.
        As to Mr. Roper's views on "negotiable instruments" and "endorsements", in my opinion they are
out of date. What he said use to be valid, but is no longer true of mortgages written between 2000
and 2008.
        The servicers avail themselves of Roper's out dated views to win cases against "gullible" pro
ses and uninformed attorneys who don't take the time to research and raise the issue. When ever
I see a "blank endorsement" on a note, and no assignment of the mortgage, I know I'm dealing with
"mortgage servicing fraud" and the Note is most likely a counterfeit, color photocopy. I call them
"Ponzi Notes", since the original was copied and sold multiple times and the original was destroyed
to hide the crime of counterfeiting. Check out the case of Lee Farkas and Taylor Bean Whitacre to
see what I mean. What convicted Farkas was that when the FBI raided Taylor Bean, they found the
originals he had stashed in a vault. When asked why he did, he is reported to have stated it was
common practice in the mortgage business. I believe he at least told the truth at his sentencing
hearing.
Quote 0 0
Cabinetmaniac
 
Mike H wrote:

        In Florida, we have Florida Supreme Court form 1.944 which is supposed to be used in all "in rem" foreclosure actions. It states in paragraph 3, "Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage."In order to "state a cause of action", this allegation must be made in the Complaint and proved at trial.


"FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 1.900. FORMS

(a) Process. The following forms of process, notice of lis pendens, and notice of action are sufficient. Variations from the forms do not void process or notices that are otherwise sufficient."

There are many complaints which do not include "this allegation" which are accepted daily by the courts.




Quote 0 0
     That's because the defendant did not raise the issue. Every time one of my students raised the
issue, the plaintiff had to file an Amended Complaint and my student got to file an answer to the
Amended. Given that many of my students had already defaulted on the original Complaint, this
argument saved them from a "default judgment" being entered.
     We have also used this argument to oppose "summary judgment" motions with great success. An
"in rem" action requires them to allege they "own" and "hold" the mortgage and the Note.
     How they "prove" they "own" and "hold" the mortgage and note is a matter for Trial. But one
must never concede the issue if one wants to "win", ie get the case dismissed w/o prejudice.
Quote 0 0
Mike H. wrote:
     That's because the defendant did not raise the issue. Every time one of my students raised the
issue, the plaintiff had to file an Amended Complaint and my student got to file an answer to the
Amended. Given that many of my students had already defaulted on the original Complaint, this
argument saved them from a "default judgment" being entered.


Mike define who your students are.  Do you teach a class? Are you a professor of law? To me it sounds like you are trying to elevate your status here.  I'm a bit skeptical because the above statements sound very condescending towards "your students". 

Here are the oral arguments in the Matt Weidner case.  Let's hope the judges follow the law. 

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/11/bombshell-stuff-video-playback-of-oral-arguments-before-the-second-district-court-ahmsi-v-hassell/
Quote 0 0
To Sharon and all others who feel the way she does:
    I do not mean to sound "condescending". I simply tell it like it is. I am a certified educator and
I know how to research an issue. I teach pro ses how to defend themselves. I can't do it for them,
but I can teach them how to do it themselves.
    Many pro ses are so broke, they can not afford an attorney and in most cases, the attorneys they
do hire are incompetent or corrupt and do not mount a valid defense. Very often, I get people who
come to me after having paid an attorney for months, and the attorney did nothing for them except
admit everything, even when the person had a valid defense.
    After much research, I have come to the conclusion that most of the mortgages written between
2000 and 2008 had as their purpose to rob America's pension funds by selling the same Notes multiple
times.
    A mortgage Note is similar to cash and it is supposed to be backed up by the real estate that
corresponds to the Note. MERS was used to hold the mortgage/deed of trust, so that the Notes
could be counterfeited and sold multiple times. The buyers of these "Ponzi Notes" were mainly the
nations "pension funds".
     Part of the proceeds of these "Ponzi Note sales" was placed with the servicers, so they could
make monthly payments to the investors for a time, out of their own investments. It was a classic
Ponzi scheme, and the servicers and MERS were an integral part of it. It depended upon new investors being brought in at the base of the "pyramid" so the "older" investors, higher up in the "pyramid" could receive their monthly payments.
     The "system" imploded on 9/11/08 when Lehman Bros. collapsed. The "bailouts" went to the
very criminals who caused the problem in the first place. It enabled these criminals to continue
foreclosing on people using "counterfeit Notes" since in most cases, the originals were destroyed
to hide the crime of "counterfeiting".
      It is my opinion, that the major criminals on Wall Street converted most of the money they
looted from the pension funds, into gold and silver, and shipped it offshore so it could not be traced.
That's why gold went from about $275/oz in 2000, to $1700 /oz today. This run up in gold and silver
is merely the reflection of a giant "money laundering" operation.
      Then to add "icing" to the cake, the servicers get to steal the real estate using counterfeit Notes.
       So America has been robbed of its Gold and silver, and is in the process of losing its land.
The offspring of the pioneers are being reduced to tenants on the land their forefathers were given
by the Creator, exactly as Jefferson predicted would happen if we ever let private corporations,
like the Fed, issue our currency.
       What is needed, is to cancel almost every mortgage that was written between 2000 and 2008,
return the land to its rightful owner and use the US Marines if necessary to track down and return
all the gold and silver that was stolen from the American people. It should not be hard to track it
down. Once it is back in America, we need to restore convertibility to our currency and reform our
banking laws so that this can never happen again.
       Look at where we were in 1962, fifty years ago. Our dollar was backed by gold, our change was
90% silver and most Americans had very little debt. Today, our gold and silver is gone, and most
Americans are up to their neck in debt. We need to rectify this crime that was perpetrated against US. THE FIRST STEP IS TO RECOGNIZE OUR CREATOR, REPENT OF OUR SINS, AND REFORM OUR
GOVERNMENT SO THAT IT REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE SPECIAL INTERESTS.
        LONG LIVE RON PAUL AND THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!
Quote 0 0
Texas
Mike H., your research is off skew.
Quote 0 0
Lyndon

Quote:
Mike H., your research is off skew.


This has to be the understatement of all time.  Mike is either an exceptionally disturbed idiot or he is a clever con man who weaves just enough utter nonsense into his scams so that he can plead insanity when he is criminally prosecuted for his many frauds.  In either case, he knows absolutely nothing useful to a defendant trying to present a viable foreclosure defense.

Quote 0 0
Cabinetmaniac
Lyndon wrote:

Quote:
Mike H., your research is off skew.


This has to be the understatement of all time.  Mike is either an exceptionally disturbed idiot or he is a clever con man who weaves just enough utter nonsense into his scams so that he can plead insanity when he is criminally prosecuted for his many frauds.  In either case, he knows absolutely nothing useful to a defendant trying to present a viable foreclosure defense.



He is not a clever con man so...
Quote 0 0
....
Mike H wrote:
Angelo,<br />        I am not a New Yorker, but I would look at the case law around Section 3-105 (2) (a).<br />\\\\\\\"A promise or order is not UNCONDITIONAL if the instrument (a) States that it is subject to or<br />governed by any other agreement.\\\\\\\"<br />        The \\\\\\\"other\\\\\\\" agreement in a Fannie Mae adjustable Note is the \\\\\\\"Adjustable Rate Rider\\\\\\\" attached<br />to the mortgage.<br />        Paragraph 4 (c): Amount (in a standard FHA/VA loan) often states\\\\\\\"This amount will be part of a larger monthly payment required by the Security Instrument, that shall be applied to principal, interest<br />and the other items in the order described in the Security Instrument.\\\\\\\" One has to refer to the mortgage to figure out what is owed, therefore, it is \\\\\\\"governed by any other agreement\\\\\\\" and is not negotiable.<br />        In Florida, we have Florida Supreme Court form 1.944 which is supposed to be used in all \\\\\\\"in rem\\\\\\\" foreclosure actions. It states in paragraph 3, \\\\\\\"Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage.\\\\\\\"In order to \\\\\\\"state a cause of action\\\\\\\", this allegation must be made in the Complaint and proved at trial.<br />        As to Mr. Roper\\\\\\\'s views on \\\\\\\"negotiable instruments\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\"endorsements\\\\\\\", in my opinion they are<br />out of date. What he said use to be valid, but is no longer true of mortgages written between 2000<br />and 2008.<br />        The servicers avail themselves of Roper\\\\\\\'s out dated views to win cases against \\\\\\\"gullible\\\\\\\" pro<br />ses and uninformed attorneys who don\\\\\\\'t take the time to research and raise the issue. When ever<br />I see a \\\\\\\"blank endorsement\\\\\\\" on a note, and no assignment of the mortgage, I know I\\\\\\\'m dealing with<br />\\\\\\\"mortgage servicing fraud\\\\\\\" and the Note is most likely a counterfeit, color photocopy.

I call them<br />\\\\\\\"Ponzi Notes\\\\\\\", since the original was copied and sold multiple times and the original was destroyed


<br />to hide the crime of counterfeiting. Check out the case of Lee Farkas and Taylor Bean Whitacre to<br />see what I mean. What convicted Farkas was that when the FBI raided Taylor Bean, they found the<br />originals he had stashed in a vault. When asked why he did, he is reported to have stated it was<br />common practice in the mortgage business. I believe he at least told the truth at his sentencing<br />hearing.


Mike\\\\\\\'s theories are always very colorful to put it nicely. Maybe he can explain why a note would be sold multiple times but none of the additional purchasers have EVER filed a suit to collect on the note when they are not being paid? Remember, according to Mike there should be MILLIONS of business with copies of notes they purchases but haven\\\\\\\'t been paid in YEARS.

Not one lawsuit????????????

Your a joke.
Quote 0 0
Nate

Everyone seems to have missed the more important holding in this case, yet another example of where Mr. Roper has correctly articulated the law and the swindlers seek to mislead and deceive borrowers.

First, note that this case is:

Everhome Mortgage Company v. Janssen, Case No. 2D11-4592 (Fla. 2nd DCA November 14, 2012)

The Court held:

Quote:

More fundamentally, however, "[e]ven if [the plaintiff] lacked standing when it filed suit, the final judgment is merely voidable, not void." Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 1021, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). "A voidable judgment may not be set aside under rule 1.540(b)(4)." Id. (citing Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 968 So. 2d 658, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).


Over and over the scam artists falsely tell people that they can still later recover their homes by challenging a final order of foreclosure.

The time to make the standing argument is during the original case.  When a court rules in favor of the plaintiff granting foreclosure and the order becomes final, the only avenue to challenge the order is by timely appeal.

Courts have the inherent power to determine their own jurisdiction (subject only to Constitutional and statutory constraints).  Where a court had the power to hear the case, the standing argument, while jurisdictional in many places, must be raised in order to be valid.  Because the argument is jurisdictional, it can also be raised in many places for the first time on appeal.

But where the plaintiff lacked standing at commencement, the defect is one that makes the final order voidable rather than void.  Mr. Roper covered this in a number of previous posts, many since deleted by the corrupt site administrator.

Pro se gadfly like Dick Davet of Ohio have been arguing for years that they could later overturn a final judgment because they claim the judgment is void ab initio.  This argument has been soundly rejected everywhere.

Swindlers and scam artists, like Garfield and Mike H. just love this argument, because it enables them to string a distressed borrower along for years, soaking the borrower with thousands and thousands of dollars as part of their debt elimination scams

Standing can be a very robust foreclosure defense, when timely presented.  In some places, standing can also be raised for the first time in a timely appeal.

Nowhere can a borrower later recover a house already foreclosed and sold by a post judgment collateral attack on the judgment after either losing the appeal or letting the time lapse to set aside the judgment on appeal.

This post will almost certainly be deleted, because the scam artists DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW that your case is OVER once the judgment has become final and the appeal period has run.  They still want to sell you more swindles.  The false argument that you can get the judgment overturned later by renewed litigation is absolutely essential to their ongoing victimization of the gullible.

Take notice!  If you already lost your house to a foreclosure and the judgment is final (and the appeal period has run), anything you pay these scam artists is a total rip off because you can NEVER, EVER recover your house.  Any representation to the contrary is absolutely actionable FRAUD.  If you paid Mike H. or Garfield even a nickel under these circumstances, you need to visit your D.A. right away and make a criminal complaint!    

Quote 0 0
    If a judgment was entered against you, based on a counterfeit color copy of a Note, then the
judgment was obtained by fraud and I would complain to the local State Attorney that you were
robbed of your property by fraud.
    In my opinion, if this can be proved, the criminals who perpetrated this crime will be required
to pay restitution to the victim.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...