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.