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
Does anyone know or can verify that in NJ the foreclosing bank must include all assignments in the foreclosure?  I was told this may be a pretty new rule.

I know in my case, for a fact that the mortgage was assigned, although it was never recorded in the county, in the foreclosure they say there are no assignments.   

I know it was assigned becuase in my BK they say they are the servicer for FHLB.  COuld this mean that there was an investor only with no assignment?  Or that they lost any assignment?

I guess I need to find an attorney asap. 
Quote 0 0
Here's a link to a recent case in NJ... will also copy and paste article:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?paged=2

FDN SCORES VICTORY AGAIN IN NEW JERSEY: COURT VACATES SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASKS HOW CAN THE PLAINTIFF FORECLOSE ON A MORTGAGE OSTENSIBLY ASSIGNED TO IT (BY MERS) AFTER THE ASSIGNOR HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE MORTGAGE TO ANOTHER ASSIGNEE?

January 18, 2010

January 18, 2010

FDN attorneys Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local NJ counsel Michael Jacobson, Esq. have scored a stunning victory in New Jersey resulting in the reversal of a previously entered summary judgment and where the court made significant findings as to factual issues surrounding what appears to have been a double assignment by MERS first to CitiMortgage and then to IndyMac. Although the 5-page written trial court opinion is unpublished, the decision cites applicable New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure and decisional law applied to the facts of the case.

Plaintiff IndyMac had alleged that it was the current holder of the note and mortgage. In granting the borrower’s Motion to Vacate the previously entered summary judgment, the court determined that the lack of clarity in the assignment history warranted vacatur of the summary judgment. As the Motion to Vacate was granted under Rule 4:50-1(f), the one-year limitation to file such a motion was found not to apply.

The court found that the plaintiff had still not established the assignment history of the mortgage as required by Rule 4:64-1(b)(10), and this was a “substantial factual issue” because the plaintiff is required, at the very least, to provide proof of standing to foreclose by some evidence that it has a “stake in the outcome of the action”. The court also found that whether MERS, as nominee, is not in a position to assign the mortgage is a “substantial issue in and of itself” which the courts in New Jersey have not yet addressed.

The court held that based on the alleged assignment history recited by the plaintiff in its amended complaint for foreclosure, MERS as nominee for IndyMac assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff approximately 20 months AFTER it had already assigned the mortgage to MERS as nominee for CitiMortgage, Inc. The court thus stated: “How the plaintiff can foreclose on a mortgage ostensibly assigned to it after the assignor had already assigned the mortgage to another assignee is certainly a triable issue”.

The opinion is consistent with the plethora of opinions previously issued by the United States Supreme Court and the state courts of New York, Ohio, California, and other jurisdictions which have repeatedly held that it is the burden of the plaintiff, in a foreclosure action, to demonstrate that it has standing to foreclose by providing evidence that it has a stake in the outcome of the foreclosure action.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

I work with an attorney and we have a couple cases in NJ... where in NJ are you?
Quote 0 0
ThreeKs wrote:
Here's a link to a recent case in NJ... will also copy and paste article:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?paged=2

FDN SCORES VICTORY AGAIN IN NEW JERSEY: COURT VACATES SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASKS HOW CAN THE PLAINTIFF FORECLOSE ON A MORTGAGE OSTENSIBLY ASSIGNED TO IT (BY MERS) AFTER THE ASSIGNOR HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE MORTGAGE TO ANOTHER ASSIGNEE?

January 18, 2010

January 18, 2010

FDN attorneys Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local NJ counsel Michael Jacobson, Esq. have scored a stunning victory in New Jersey resulting in the reversal of a previously entered summary judgment and where the court made significant findings as to factual issues surrounding what appears to have been a double assignment by MERS first to CitiMortgage and then to IndyMac. Although the 5-page written trial court opinion is unpublished, the decision cites applicable New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure and decisional law applied to the facts of the case.

Plaintiff IndyMac had alleged that it was the current holder of the note and mortgage. In granting the borrower’s Motion to Vacate the previously entered summary judgment, the court determined that the lack of clarity in the assignment history warranted vacatur of the summary judgment. As the Motion to Vacate was granted under Rule 4:50-1(f), the one-year limitation to file such a motion was found not to apply.

The court found that the plaintiff had still not established the assignment history of the mortgage as required by Rule 4:64-1(b)(10), and this was a “substantial factual issue” because the plaintiff is required, at the very least, to provide proof of standing to foreclose by some evidence that it has a “stake in the outcome of the action”. The court also found that whether MERS, as nominee, is not in a position to assign the mortgage is a “substantial issue in and of itself” which the courts in New Jersey have not yet addressed.

The court held that based on the alleged assignment history recited by the plaintiff in its amended complaint for foreclosure, MERS as nominee for IndyMac assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff approximately 20 months AFTER it had already assigned the mortgage to MERS as nominee for CitiMortgage, Inc. The court thus stated: “How the plaintiff can foreclose on a mortgage ostensibly assigned to it after the assignor had already assigned the mortgage to another assignee is certainly a triable issue”.

The opinion is consistent with the plethora of opinions previously issued by the United States Supreme Court and the state courts of New York, Ohio, California, and other jurisdictions which have repeatedly held that it is the burden of the plaintiff, in a foreclosure action, to demonstrate that it has standing to foreclose by providing evidence that it has a stake in the outcome of the foreclosure action.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

I work with an attorney and we have a couple cases in NJ... where in NJ are you?



Thanks Threek.  I found this law and it says "uncontested foreclosures"  I am going to contest the foreclousre.  See below.

RULE 4:64. FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES, CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION LIENS AND TAX SALE CERTIFICATES

4:64-1. Uncontested Judgment: Foreclosures Other Than In Rem Tax Foreclosures

  • (a) Title Search. Prior to filing an action to foreclose a mortgage, a condominium lien, or a tax lien to which R. 4:64-7 does not apply, the plaintiff shall receive and review a title search of the public record for the purpose of identifying any lienholder or other persons and entities with an interest in the property that is subject to foreclosure and shall annex to the complaint a certification of compliance with the title search requirements of this rule.

  • (b) Contents of Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint. In an action in the Superior Court to foreclose a mortgage, the complaint shall state:

    • (1) the name of the obligor, mortgagor, obligee and mortgagee;

    • (2) the amount of the debt secured by the mortgage;

    • (3) the dates of execution of the debt instrument and the mortgage;

    • (4) the recording date, county recording office, and book and page recording reference of the mortgage securing the debt;

    • (5) whether the mortgage is a purchase money mortgage;

    • (6) a description of the pertinent terms or conditions of the debt instrument or mortgage and the facts establishing the default;

    • (7) the default date;

    • (8) if applicable, the acceleration of the debt’s maturity date;

    • (9) if applicable, any prepayment penalty;

    • (10) if the plaintiff is not the original mortgagee or original nominee mortgagee, the names of the original mortgagee and a recital of all assignments in the chain of title;

    • (11) the names of all parties in interest whose interest is subordinate or affected by the mortgage foreclosure action and, for each party, a description of the nature of the interest, with sufficient particularity to give the court and parties notice of the transaction or occurrence on which the interest is based including recording date of the lien, encumbrance, or instrument creating the interest;

    • (12) a description of the subject property by street address, block and lot as shown on the municipal tax map and a metes and bounds description stating whether the recorded mortgage instrument includes that description; and

    • (13) if applicable, whether the plaintiff has complied with the pre-filing notice requirements of the Fair Foreclosure Act or other notices required by law.

    When a married person who has not executed the mortgage is made a party defendant, the plaintiff shall set out the particular facts relied on to bar the married person’s rights and interest in the subject property, including whether the married person’s rights and interest in the property were acquired before or after the date of the mortgage.

  • (c) Definition of Uncontested Action. An action to foreclose a mortgage or to foreclose a condominium lien for unpaid assessments pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8B-21 shall be deemed uncontested if, as to all defendants,

    • (1) a default has been entered as the result of failure to plead or otherwise defend; or

    • (2) none of the pleadings responsive to the complaint either contest the validity or priority of the mortgage or lien being foreclosed or create an issue with respect to plaintiff's right to foreclose it; or

    • (3) all the contesting pleadings have been stricken or otherwise rendered noncontesting.

    An allegation in an answer that a party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation in the complaint shall not have the effect of a denial but rather of leaving the plaintiff to its proofs, and such an allegation in an answer shall be deemed noncontesting to the allegation of the complaint to which it is responsive.



Quote 0 0
Write a reply...