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'm in BK and my objection to Servicer's proof of claim gets filed today.  When people read it, things are likely to start moving right along.

In my case, note submitted by Servicer shows an indorsement from Lender on an allonge that misidentifies "THAT CERTAIN NOTE:" - their language, emphasis theirs - so that gives me a note that has no holders...

Since Lender's negotiation to Bank fails, Bank becomes a UCC 301 nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder to enforce - e.g. a transferee.  Per the official comments to the UCC, a transferee can't negotiate the note, but Bank went ahead and indorsed it in blank and purportedly shipped it off to Freddie.

Since Freddie's transferor (Bank) was itself a transferee, Freddie derives NO rights because again, per the UCC commentary "nevertheless the transferee is a person entitled to enforce if the transferor was a holder at the time of transfer".

If I can get a federal judge to agree with my interpretation of the plain language of the statutes and blast Servicer out of court, then my next step needs to be a quiet title action in state court, using the federal court's denial of Servicer's claim to support my case.

Everything I hear about my BK judge says just being heard is going to be a challenge.

The second attack I have in my case is the MERS to Freddie assignment.  It stinks in half a dozen ways.  Assignor and Assignee are the same law firm.  The notary is too.  Plus there's the hultman deposition out there that lets me attack law firm's position as "MERS Assistant Secretary".  Recent schack attacks in New York give me hope that NH courts might care about conflict of interest pursuant to our local rules 1.7.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the person in the robe, wish me luck...

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
I certainly hope you have done your homework and have your "i"s dotted and your "t"s crossed.

I am somewhat alarmed by the tone of your post, because usually one doesn't plead ALL of the various facts and details in an ordinary pleading.  There are advantages to keeping things a little more murky, where permitted by the Rules.

I am UNFAMILIAR with Bankruptcy Rules and cannot make any meaningful suggestions as to stragegy or content.  I would approach such a filing by obtaining the pleadings of those who have already had some success in similar situations.

HOPEFULLY, you are represented by an attorney who has assisted you in your objection.  IF NOT, and if you are not up against a FILING DEADLINE, I would encourage you to obtain an attorney rather than fighting this in Bankruptcy Court pro se.  Even if you are up against a deadline, you might try to talk to an attorney and consider a motion for enlargement of time to respond under Rule 6(b) or the Bankruptcy equivalent.

Courts are often very receptive to enlargements to allow a party to obtain legal representation.

Once you file your objection, you are telegraphing some portion of what you KNOW about the creditor's false pleadings.  You need to include enough to inform the court and preserve your rights, but not so much as to take the opposition to school and give them an opportunity to correct and alter their filings. 
Quote 0 0
I've had an attorney all along.  You are correct in that we're keeping things murky as well - a simple UCC based objection and nothing will be said about the assignment whatsoever except as required to preserve a claim. 

My attorney has clear instructions from me to walk the right lines between res judicata and claim preclusion while getting the judge to slow down and look at what we have to say.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...