This is NOT legal advice. Moose has given you good counsel. You need a lawyer.
That being said:
Law relating to promissory notes in every state is covered by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). You may find the provisions of the Ohio implementation of the UCC generally within Title 13 of the Ohio Revised Code. See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/13 .
Quote: Lets say you are in court for foreclosure. You have been brought to court by Company "B" who claims to be the holder of your note and mortgage. Their alleged assignment of mortgage is dated March 2, 2006. There is no assignment of the note, just an alleged copy of the original with the name of Company "A" as the owner.
Read the provisions very carefully. Read the cases in your state for a more complete understanding of the Ohio UCC.
You will find that promissory notes are negotiale instruments and negotiable instruments are NOT assigned. They are negotiated.
Negotiation is expressly defined within the Ohio UCC:
1303.21 Negotiation - UCC 3-201.This is statutory. Negotiation of a negotiable instrument -- a promissory note payable to an identifiable person (or entity) -- payable to Company "A" requires that the original note be endorsed either in favor of the transferee or endorsed in blank or to bearer. And negotiation also requires delivery of the promissory note.
(A) “Negotiation” means a voluntary or involuntary transfer of possession of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who by the transfer becomes the holder of the instrument.
(B) Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder. If an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.
Effective Date: 08-19-1994
Therefore, a COPY of a promissory note which lacks an endorsement IS EVIDENCE that the ownership of the promissory note remains vested in Company A.
Possession of an UNENDORSED COPY of the promissory note would also appear to be NO EVIDENCE of delivery.
Now what weight would a document from the current Loan Servicer have that states that on June 23, 2006 they are the servicer of the debt for creditor Company "C"?
This would seem to me to be NO EVIDENCE and NO PROOF as to either ownership or holdership of the promissory note by Company "C".
Is that evidence that can be used to show proof that Company "B" does not own the note or mortgage? Thank you.
A document showing that an entity is servicing the debt for "C" would seem to undermine the evidence that "B" is the owner. The absence of an endorsement on the promissory note itself PROVES that no entity other than "A" can be the owner.
Bear in mind that typically an owner OR a holder can enforce the promissory note. The discussion above shows why ONLY "A" can be the owner.
By definition only the entity having actual custody of the original promissory note can be the holder. Possession of a COPY of the promissory note would NOT make an entity the holder. While entities often produce affidavits asserting or avering that a particular entity is the owner and/or the holder it would seem to me that only production of the note is conclusive proof as to holdership.
The fact that the evidence seems muddled would seem to me to undermine their case. If an affidavit stated that "B" was the owner and the holder and one can show as a matter of law that "B" CANNOT possibly be the owner due to the lack of an endorsement then this would seem to me to rather critically impreach the credibility of the affiant's otherwise unsubstantiated assertion that "B" is also the holder. That is if the plaintiff asserts that the affidavit is sworn evidence from a credible witness and one key assertion can be proventobe FALSE, why should one trust the other averment?
You really also need to use discovery to get the critical fact of the case.