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
YANKEE
WONDERING IF THE OHIO CASES BEING DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING WILL EVENTUALLY GO THE SAME ROUTE AS THE MERS SITUATION IN FLORIDA. NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE SAME ENVIORMENT
Quote 0 0
BISHOP
In the Florida cases there were no briefs filed on behalf of the defendant home owners. There, the Appellate Court failed to distinguish between standing and capacity and failed to completely address the limitations of a District Court to consider jurisdiction.

The Florida cases were state court proceedings. The Ohio cases are federal court cases.

In the Ohio cases, the District Judges issued Orders to Show Cause. When the Plaintiffs did not submit proof of ownership of the notes "when the cases were filed," the Attorneys filed Motions to Dismiss and supplemented their Motions with citations to case law. The District Judges then granted the Motions to Dismiss "without prejudice" allowing for the plaintiffs to subsequently clean up their paper trail. The dismissal without prejudice allows for the plaintiffs to bring additional motions either to join additional plaintiffs or to reconsider based on fabricated evidence that the plaintiffs might compile.

Since the time to file an appeal with the Appellate Court has come and gone, and, no appeal has been filed to my knowledge, there is little chance that a Florida scenario will occur in the appellate court.
Quote 0 0
YANKEE
THANKS BISHOP
TRYING TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT IS OVERWHELMING AT TIMES

Quote 0 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by YANKEE
WONDERING IF THE OHIO CASES BEING DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING WILL EVENTUALLY GO THE SAME ROUTE AS THE MERS SITUATION IN FLORIDA. NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE SAME ENVIORMENT


Bishop has given you a very good answer.  But permit me to further elaborate.  The Florida MERS cases realted to MERS' standing to sue as nominee for the real party in interest.  The cases were initially DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in District Court in at least two counties.  This meant that the plaintiff was NOT entitled to REFILE and that their only remedy was BY APPEAL.

In a number of those cases, the Florida District Judges dismissed the cases sua sponte, even though the defendant was unrepresented and HAD NOT ANSWERED.  In taking the appeal, MERS also seems to have SETTLED most of those cases where the defendant was well represented and/or the defendants had the STRONGEST CASES.  MERS then proceeded with the appeal ONLY against those with WEAK defensive cases and who were UNREPRESENTED.

In one of the Florida MERS appellate cases, NO APPELLEE BRIEF WAS FILED AT ALL.  By contrast, MERS showed up well represented by a leading national law firm.  Other monolithic mortgage investors and servicers appeared, as well.  This was a David versus Goliath struggle.  David didn't even SHOW UP!

MERS then WON.

One other thing is noteworthy about the MERS appeals.  These appeals were won on UNDISPUTED, but FALSE FACTS.  When a plaintiff makes a pleading alleging various FALSE FACTS by averment and supported by FALSE AFFIDAVITS, these facts will be TAKEN AS TRUE BY THE COURT, UNLESS the defendant PROVES these facts to be UNTRUE, by affidavit or discovery.

When the Defendant FAILS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER, the FALSE FACTS are taken as TRUE by the trial court and are already ESTABLISHED AS TRUE when the case is taken on appeal.  The appellate court is primarily concerned with MATTERS OF LAW.

While I believe that the Florida MERS appellate cases were WRONGLY DECIDED, the court reached its decision based upon FALSELY ESTABLISHED FACTS.  The appellate court RELIED UPON THE RECORD, but the RECORD WAS LACKING.

*

While MERS trumpets that it WON the Florida MERS cases, a little noticed fact is that FNMA PROHIBITED ANY FURTHER FORECLOSURES IN MERS' NAME NATIONALLY IN DECEMBER 2006.  In the course of the MERS litigation, it appears that MERS' largest shareholder -- Fannie Mae -- ascertained that MERS' position as plaintiff was UNTENABLE.  Consequently, quietly and without fanfare, FNMA simply PROHIBITED MERS from suing in its own name for ANY mortgages owned or guaranteed by FNMA.

The general counsel at Freddie Mac still hasn't figured this out and Freddie Mac's continuing exposure is therefore ENORMOUS!

*

By contrast, in the Ohio Federal cases, the dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE means that the plaintiff can simply REFILE the case.  APPEALING would be FAR MORE EXPENSIVE.

But there is another reason that the plaintiff is NOT appealing in the Ohio cases.  It is READILY APPARENT that the plaintiffs pleaded fabricated evidence in support of their complaints!  Further inquiry into the fabricated evidence might result in a dismissal WITH PREJUDICE and possible sanctions and/or disciplinary action agains tthe paintiffs and their attorneys.

It is for this reason that the plaintiffs are NOT refiling these cases in Federal Court.  The Federal Court filings have all but DRIED UP!  These cases are being refiled in Ohio STATE COURTS, which are NOT giving these cases similar scrutiny and are UNLIKELY TO NOTICE the prior pleading of fabricated evidence.

The Ohio Federal Court decisions are based upon very sound, well established national law.  These rulings are unlikely to be disturbed.  THe plaintiffs have simply shifted their cases to a new and less attentive forum!  
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...