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
I am in the discover phase in a foreclosure.

I found out:
1) The original mortgage does not exist.
2) An investor was sold an interest 1 month after I closed, but the original mortgage company has the note and as always had the note.
3) There are no assignments.
4) The original mortgage company filed the foreclosure and say they own the mortgage.
5) In BK, 3 yrs ago, the original mortgage company said they are only the servicer.

Any thoughts on this?  My att. thinks that they can not proceed becuase they never delivered the note to the investor.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
My overall reaction is that the plaintiff is probably making false averments in its discovery responses.  Regrettably, this hardly seems unusual.

I find the assertion that the original mortgage does not exist to be rather incredible and unlikely, though this seems to me unlikely to be of any great legal consequence, since the mortgage was no doubt recorded.

I find it extremely unlikely and usual that the originator would have continued to own the promissory note.  Very few lenders "portfolio" mortgages and those which do are almost exclusively depository institutions, usually savings banks or savings and loans.  Almost all loans retained for portfolio are adjustable rather than fixed rate mortgages.  If your loan is a fixed rate mortgage and was originated by other than a savings and loan or a savings bank, the assertion that the original lender continued to own the loan is likely to be untrue.

The assertion that there are no assignments is probably also untrue.  This loan probably was sold and an assignment probably was executed, but the assignment was never recorded.

It seems most likely that the original lender probably sold the loan within thirty to sixty days after inception (closing), but that the original lender might have been required to repurchase this loan.  Loans are commonly sold by originators with certain representations and warranties.  The seller usually represents that the loan conforms to the mortgage investor's program and underwriting guidelines and that the loan is free of fraud.  If this is later found to be untrue, the mortgage investor can require the originator to repurchase the loan at par.  This might explain how the original lender might have actually come to own the loan.

The servicer may also simply be lying on behalf of the mortgage investor and falsely asserting that it is the owner to effect the foreclosure.

You need to further explore these themes in extensive discovery.  If you can prove that the plaintiff is making false representations (particularly in sworn interrogatories), this could be a very powerful basis for seeking to have the foreclosure dismissed! 
Quote 0 0
Thanks for the thoughts Mr. Roper. 

My attorney agrees with you and has said this is very unusual, but they swore to it in the interrogs.  The bank is WF and they said the investor is FHLB-MPS, no other info regarding the investor, also they very clearly state that the note has been in their cust. doc. vault since it closed up until last week when it was sent to the foreclosure att.

You assumed wrong though, the mortgage was never recorded, they are seeking to record as part of the foreclosure, however, they did certify to the fact, even so far as using fake book and page numbers, in the motion for stay relief in the BK, which was obvioulsy granted becuase thet foreclosed. I did not know at that point that is was unrecorded.  Although, after the stay relief was granted I did go onto recieve a discharge in 13, minus payin them any more money.  

Vincent 
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...