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
Ran across April Charney's 2007 case whereby she pled in an amended complaint that both parties on the mortgage need to be given separate notices according to Paragraph 22 on the mortgage. I'm sure that's true, but I have overlooked for sometime. True ?   
Quote 0 0
    Paragraph 22 of a Fannie Mae mortgage, "the conditions precedent" defense has led to some
Summary Judgments for the defendant in Florida, but it is always "without prejudice" so the plaintiff
will just correct their error and refile.

    The real defense in a Fannie Mae mortgage is paragraph 20, where they give themselves permission
to sell the Note multiple times. This is the origin of the "Ponzi scheme" where the same Note is sold
multiple times on the secondary market to multiple different investors. The originals are destroyed to
hide the crime of "counterfeiting".

    The servicers buy the "servicing rights" for 2 to 3 % of the face amount of the Note, which in real
speak, is the right to foreclose, (even though they do not own the obligation).

    As many have discovered, the entity named on the Note & mortgage is not the true lender, but
rather a "bank ruptcy remote strawman" which lent nothing but its name. The true lender remains
hidden from the investors who buy the "Ponzi Notes". This is so they have no recourse against the
true originator which got paid multiple times on the same Note.

     For the servicers, its pure gravy, since they get to "steal a house" for almost no money down.
it appears that the true originators place about 20% of the proceeds of the Ponzi Note sales with
the servicers, so they can make payments for awhile to the investors out of their own money. The
Ponzi scam collapsed in Sept 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Bros. after the investors stopped
'buying in" to the pyramid. Without new investors, the whole scheme collapsed.

     The servicers will often create a "phony trust" into which they will claim to deposit the "phony
Note". They will give themselves a phony power of attorney to verify the complaint and create a
phony MERS assignment of the mortgage into the phony Trust. Often they will say the phony Trust
was created in 2006 and the phony Mers assignment took place in 2009. This is impossible because
of IRS reg 860 which requires all Notes be placed in the REMIC trust within 3 months of origination.
Thus you can catch them in a lie at the very beginning of the case.

      As Mr. Garfield has said, "follow the money trail, not the phony paper work trail" to find the
true lender. What it means is that the lien was never perfected in the name of the true lender
so no foreclosure should be possible. These facts also open up the possibility of a Quiet Title
action against the "phony mortgagee" which never lent anything and has no right to maintain
a lien against the property.
Quote 0 0
Casper
Quote:
Ran across April Charney's 2007 case whereby she pled in an amended complaint that both parties on the mortgage need to be given separate notices according to Paragraph 22 on the mortgage. I'm sure that's true, but I have overlooked for sometime. True ?

April Charney is a generally honest and well intentioned, but very mediocre Florida lawyer. What distinguishes April Charney and makes her noteworthy and quoteable is that she works for legal aid and handled an enormous caseload of foreclosure defense cases (before the defense foreclosure mills ever emerged) and April's passion for borrowers whom she cares deeply about. No experienced lawyer would ever approach her for advice.

April has been very successful at helping borrowers avoid default and drawing foreclosure cases out for much longer periods of time, keeping borrowers in their homes. But as far as anyone has been able to tell, she has never actually won a single foreclosure case despite respresenting thousands of borrowers.

Almost everyone would agree that Mr. Roper, a non-lawyer, has forgotten more about mortgage law than April ever knew.

To your question about notice, several points need to be carefully distinguished.

First, Paragraph 22 of almost any state's uniform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac security instrument is usually the first non-standard paragraph. Almost all the previous numbered paragraphs are virtually identical in all states. This is the paragraph were things start to change. So right off the bat, Paragraph 22 is going to say and mean different things in different places. Beware and read the wording for your state carefully!

Still Paragraph 22 is usually about acceleration.

Paragraph 22 needs to be read in conjunction with Paragraph 15, a uniform Paragraph. In Florida, this paragraph currently reads:

Quote:
"15.         Notices. All notices given by Borrower or Lender in connection with this Security Instrument must be in writing. Any notice to Borrower in connection with this Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower’s notice address if sent by other means. Notice to any one Borrower shall constitute notice to all Borrowers unless Applicable Law expressly requires otherwise. The notice address shall be the Property Address unless Borrower has designated a substitute notice address by notice to Lender. Borrower shall promptly notify Lender of Borrower’s change of address. If Lender specifies a procedure for reporting Borrower’s change of address, then Borrower shall only report a change of address through that specified procedure. There may be only one designated notice address under this Security Instrument at any one time. Any notice to Lender shall be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail to Lender’s address stated herein unless Lender has designated another address by notice to Borrower. Any notice in connection with this Security Instrument shall not be deemed to have been given to Lender until actually received by Lender. If any notice required by this Security Instrument is also required under Applicable Law, the Applicable Law requirement will satisfy the corresponding requirement under this Security Instrument."


Thus, the express language of Paragraph 15 CONTRADICTS Ms. Charney's assertion EXCEPT to any extent that "Applicable Law expressly requires otherwise". I am not particularly familiar with Florida law. Perhaps there is some statutory provision or case law in Florida requiring a notice to each borrower. Paragraph 15 says it is not required.

Realize that since Paragraph 15 is contractual, most courts are going to enforce it, but this is not the case with respect to either Constitutional notices under the due process clause or statutory notices. So where there is a notice required by statute, the statutory language is going to trump Paragraph 15. In a few states, like Texas, courts have carved out special notice requirements. In Texas, a Lender must send both a notice of intent to accelerate, as well as a notice of acceleration, but I know of no cases that trump the language appearing in Paragraph 15 about giving notice to each borrower.

There is nothing wrong with throwing this argument out in cases where the fact situation might give a borrower some colorable defense. Failing to make the argument would probably waive the issue. This would seem to me to be particularly true in respect of notices to borrowers who are divorced and one has left the household or where one borrower is dead, etc. There are some common sense reasons why a notice to one might not be effective, despite what Para 15 says. Even in those places especially hostile to borrowers, like Florida, courts take notice issues seriously. Probate and domestic relations statutes and court created exceptions to notice waivers may afford some leverage in these special fact situations.

Also, realize that the effects of the waiver may vary as to notice of different things. Sufficient notice under Paragraph 15 may be enough for a notice of default, notice of grievance (Para 20) or notice of acceleration (Para 22), but is never going to trump the court service rules for a summons or citation. So think about every required notice, whether statutory or contractual, through the prism of the Constitution, statutes, cases and contract language.

Maybe someone can furnish some useful cases. My guess is that like so many other things that April Charney says, she really doesn't much know what she is talking about. The good news is that there is minimal harm in including the argument. But except in special cases, I doubt it is going anywhere. Best of luck!

Let me also share a suggestion that Mr. Roper made when I first asked him about foreclosure several years ago. He told me to read both my note and mortgage about five times and then to re-read both as I prepared every filing. This was good advice, even for an attorney. I am still in my house. Do not take your eyes off the ball.

Also, read the posts by Mr. Roper about Conditions Precedent. These are very good!
Quote 0 0
Texas
Also should read the savings clause usually #16 and #20 the the sell of the note "or" interest in the note (along with this security instrument).
Quote 0 0
Carlos
Quote:
Paragraph 22 of a Fannie Mae mortgage, "the conditions precedent" defense has led to some
Summary Judgments for the defendant in Florida, but it is always "without prejudice" so the plaintiff
will just correct their error and refile.

The real defense in a Fannie Mae mortgage is paragraph 20, where they give themselves permission
to sell the Note multiple times. This is the origin of the "Ponzi scheme" where the same Note is sold
multiple times on the secondary market to multiple different investors. The originals are destroyed to
hide the crime of "counterfeiting".

The servicers buy the "servicing rights" for 2 to 3 % of the face amount of the Note, which in real
speak, is the right to foreclose, (even though they do not own the obligation).

As many have discovered, the entity named on the Note & mortgage is not the true lender, but
rather a "bank ruptcy remote strawman" which lent nothing but its name. The true lender remains
hidden from the investors who buy the "Ponzi Notes". This is so they have no recourse against the
true originator which got paid multiple times on the same Note.

For the servicers, its pure gravy, since they get to "steal a house" for almost no money down.
it appears that the true originators place about 20% of the proceeds of the Ponzi Note sales with
the servicers, so they can make payments for awhile to the investors out of their own money. The
Ponzi scam collapsed in Sept 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Bros. after the investors stopped
'buying in" to the pyramid. Without new investors, the whole scheme collapsed.

The servicers will often create a "phony trust" into which they will claim to deposit the "phony
Note". They will give themselves a phony power of attorney to verify the complaint and create a
phony MERS assignment of the mortgage into the phony Trust. Often they will say the phony Trust
was created in 2006 and the phony Mers assignment took place in 2009. This is impossible because
of IRS reg 860 which requires all Notes be placed in the REMIC trust within 3 months of origination.
Thus you can catch them in a lie at the very beginning of the case.

As Mr. Garfield has said, "follow the money trail, not the phony paper work trail" to find the
true lender. What it means is that the lien was never perfected in the name of the true lender
so no foreclosure should be possible. These facts also open up the possibility of a Quiet Title
action against the "phony mortgagee" which never lent anything and has no right to maintain
a lien against the property.

Mike H. is a scam artist who preys upon distressed borrowers. Neil Garfield is also a swindler who pretends to help borrowers through the "Living Lies" site, while actually peddling useless scam products, such as the mortgage securitization audits which have been identified to be completely useless to borrowers engaged in foreclosure litigation.

Why sound your warning, Texas? Are you getting soft?
Quote 0 0
Larry
Quote:
April Charney is a generally honest and well intentioned, but very mediocre Florida lawyer. What distinguishes April Charney and makes her noteworthy and quoteable is that she works for legal aid and handled an enormous caseload of foreclosure defense cases (before the defense foreclosure mills ever emerged) and April's passion for borrowers whom she cares deeply about. No experienced lawyer would ever approach her for advice.

You are far too kind. April Charney is a complete idiot!
Quote 0 0
Texas
I would not say that Larry.
Quote 0 0
Glenn
Quote:
I would not say that Larry.

Texas is right. April Charney could be better described as an incomplete idiot.
Quote 0 0
Alan
Quote:
First, Paragraph 22 of almost any state's uniform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac security instrument is usually the first non-standard paragraph. Almost all the previous numbered paragraphs are virtually identical in all states. This is the paragraph were things start to change. So right off the bat, Paragraph 22 is going to say and mean different things in different places. Beware and read the wording for your state carefully!

Still Paragraph 22 is usually about acceleration.

Paragraph 22 needs to be read in conjunction with Paragraph 15, a uniform Paragraph. In Florida, this paragraph currently reads:


Quote:
Quote:
"15. Notices. All notices given by Borrower or Lender in connection with this Security Instrument must be in writing. Any notice to Borrower in connection with this Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower’s notice address if sent by other means. Notice to any one Borrower shall constitute notice to all Borrowers unless Applicable Law expressly requires otherwise. The notice address shall be the Property Address unless Borrower has designated a substitute notice address by notice to Lender. Borrower shall promptly notify Lender of Borrower’s change of address. If Lender specifies a procedure for reporting Borrower’s change of address, then Borrower shall only report a change of address through that specified procedure. There may be only one designated notice address under this Security Instrument at any one time. Any notice to Lender shall be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail to Lender’s address stated herein unless Lender has designated another address by notice to Borrower. Any notice in connection with this Security Instrument shall not be deemed to have been given to Lender until actually received by Lender. If any notice required by this Security Instrument is also required under Applicable Law, the Applicable Law requirement will satisfy the corresponding requirement under this Security Instrument."



Thus, the express language of Paragraph 15 CONTRADICTS Ms. Charney's assertion EXCEPT to any extent that "Applicable Law expressly requires otherwise". I am not particularly familiar with Florida law. Perhaps there is some statutory provision or case law in Florida requiring a notice to each borrower. Paragraph 15 says it is not required.


The wording of the standard instruments for all states can be found from this Freddie Mac page:

http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/unifsecurity.html
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...