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
My note is rubber stamped by Joan M Mills. I have found other notes with the exact same stamp on the internet. Is there anything to this? Has anyone else seen this on their notes? Is it legal to rubber stamp an important document like this? Click image for larger version - Name: Joan_M_Mills.jpg, Views: 41, Size: 84.42 KB
Quote 0 0
Bwssr wrote:
My note is rubber stamped by Joan M Mills. I have found other notes with the exact same stamp on the internet. Is there anything to this? Has anyone else seen this on their notes? Is it legal to rubber stamp an important document like this?
Quote 0 0
What's you point? All I see in your message is what I posted.
Quote 0 0
      It looks like a "blank endorsement", the kind they use to transfer a "negotiable instrument".
      My research here in Florida, shows that most of the time, the Notes
are not "negotiable instruments" because they contain "late fees" and they
require one to look outside the "four corners" of the Note, to the Security
Instrument, in order to calculate the balance owed.
      That being said, if the Note is part of a larger contract which includes
the Security Instrument, it can not "lawfully" be transferred without a
"special endorsement" on the Note, and a valid "assignment" of the underlying mortgage, in order for the plaintiff to have Standing to foreclose.
      If it is not "negotiable", than whoever takes it is not a "holder in
due course" and you can raise any defense against the transferee, you
could have raised against the originator, such as a "fraudulent, inflated
appraisal" (among others like no license, violation of truth in lending by
putting a phony lender on the loan documents, failing to perfect the lien
in the name of the "true lender" etc) Check out Livinglies web site for a
better explanation of this "phony lender on the loan documents concept".
Mr. Garfield believes you need to "follow the money" in order to find out
who the true lender is. If the entity on the loan documents is not the true
lender, then the lien was "never perfected" and this could be a valid defense.
    Example, xyz corporation went out of business five years before the
loan was originated and no longer had a license. The true originator does
not want their name on the loan documents, because they are planning
to sell the Note multiple times on the secondary market. The originator
does not want the investors coming after them when the investors realize
they've been defrauded. This is why the "truth in lending act" is so important in preventing fraud. If the real lender is not on the loan documents, it is highly probable the "borrower" was used as a "stooge"
to carry out a "heist" against the funds of a pension company. Mr. Garfield
truly sees the "big picture" which most regulators do not see.
Quote 0 0
arrgy
A few questions.

If the note is non-negotiable.

Does that mean it falls under Contract Law?

Does that mean under Contract Law the debtor (homeowner) must be contacted that the note was transferred?

What specifically would you be looking for on the stamp on the note. Are you specifically looking for the words "special endorsment"?
Quote 0 0
tried to post a n answer and it didnt.  see this link     http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/?utm_source=Matt+Weidner+Law+Blog&utm_campaign=2bb24e7d04-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Quote 0 0
to Arrgy,
   Special endorsement means it goes to a specific entity as opposed to
being left "blank" which makes it "bearer" paper.
   As far as contract law, obviously, the Note is part of the contract, which
includes the mortgage. If the Note requires referring to the mortgage in order to calculate the balance owed, than it is not negotiable. Both parts must be transferred together and whoever takes it is not a "holder in due course",immune to the defenses of the maker (borrower). With so many fraudulent inflated appraisals, this last point is important because it allows the defendant to raise this defense which he/she couldn't if the Note was
negotiable and the holder was a "holder in due course" ie an innocent
third party who bought the Note not knowing of the fraud. 
    By trying to pass off the Note as "negotiable", the servicers are trying
to avoid the necessity of a valid assignment of the mortgage and prevent
the defendant from raising his/her best defenses.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...