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
w
Please help to decipher the following and if time permits to explain the steps necessary to extract a defense/response to the following:

        'Additionally, the First Amended Complaint specifically alleged, “Prior to the filing of this action,

Plaintiff acquired the right to enforce the Note and Mortgage from the party entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage[;]”

and

“[t]he Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage

or

is the party entitled to enforce the subject Note consistent with Chapter 673 of the Florida Statutes.”'
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Its a long winded way of saying they are entitled to enforce and they became so prior to filing the action.
Quote 0 0
Texas
FriDoomed

Not what it says.

"Plaintiff acquired the right to enforce the Note and Mortgage from the party entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage[;]"

Here it says the Plaintiff is a an agent for the party entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage.

"[t]he Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage"

Here it says the Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage.

As the mortgage is only an incident to the Note, there appears from the statements above that they party entitled to enforce the note is in dispute.

How they managed to bring in the Mortgage to claims only for the Note (UCC3) is unique.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
I didn't say anything about the phrase "from a party entitled to enforce" [*] because that could equally well mean "from a holder".

I stand by my translation.

[*] for some reason, I no longer have visibility to the thread while writing a reply...
Quote 0 0
w
Here is the link to the entire brief in question:

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/abreauanswe.pdf

ps it does seem that they are trying to use the mortgage as away to get their 'standing' in place of the note. (this is my assumption and would like comment and an action plan if it is the case) -- thanks for the input ---

ps i have copies of the Appelle's brief and their supplemental too---

pss the appeallate courts decision: "Affirmed" that is all they wrote "Affirmed" no comment no nothing????
Quote 0 0
w
FnDoom: "Its a long winded way of saying they are entitled to enforce and they became so prior to filing the action."

but, is this legally sufficient when in florida they are required to state that they owners of both the note and mortgage?

thanks.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
For practical purposes the court will construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and if it can construe two things the court will choose the argument that most benefits the plaintiff.

For practical purposes you answer that 1) No default to the holder exists and 2) You deny BANK is properly in possession of the note or the mortgage and 3) You deny BANK is a person entitled to enforce per whatever passes for UCC 3-301 in your neck of the woods.

Then you fight like hell to keep those things out of evidence per Roper's "Personal knowledge" posts...

Am I the only one having issues with the forums REPLY page?
Quote 0 0
Texas
Nope
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...