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
Hi everyone!!

I need your help with something. I was never served with papers from my bank. I remember it was a Saturday, my husband and I went to the Publix to do some food shopping. We came home, put the groceries away and my husband went out the front door to get the mail and the foreclosure papers were laying on my front lawn. We never really go out the front door, we go through the garage....anyway, I immediately called my attorney, as he told me to do. I told him about going out and the papers laying on the front lawn. He filed papers stating that we were never served and we were not waiving our right to be served. So, I have been emailing him the past month or so asking what happened with that. I saw that the banks are supposed to serve us within 120 days or the case has to be thrown out.

So, today he calls me, two weeks before my docket sounding and tells me he looked at my file and they are saying they served my husband at 3:25pm that Saturday. Had he told me sooner it is possible I might have still had the receipt, but now?? I looked through my bank statements and it shows we went to Publix on 1/25 and my husband used his debit card, but now I don't have the receipt any longer and the bank statement is not showing a time.

Anyone have any suggestions or comments? Does someone have to sign for the papers? Give a description of the person they served? If he had told me this earlier, I am pretty sure I could have shown we were at the Publix during the time they say we were served, but now?? Grrrrrrrr, I am so annoyed right now.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

First of all, this is NOT legal advice.  To obtain legal advice applicable to your jurisdiction, you really need to discuss your case with a licensed lawyer for your jurisdiction.

Having said this, issues relating to service of process can really be treacherous.  This is so, because state laws and court rules pertaining to service tend to place a reliance on the so-called affidavit of service, a sworn statement executed by an affidavit server as to who he served and under what circumstances.  If the affidavit STATES under oath that you were properly served, you would usually have to rebut this in some way.

Also, while personal service upon the defendant is favored, there are usually provisions in the service laws relating to acceptable alternatives to personal service, including, in some places, leaving the papers with an adult person at the defendant's home and/or place of employment, posting the process on the subject property, publishing notice in a newspaper, etc.

So leaving the process at the subject property MIGHT be acceptable service in your jurisdiction.  And even if it wasn't proper, if the affidavit STATES that you were properly served, then you are going to have to overcome a possibly perjured affidavit by other evidence.

Here, it becomes even more slippery.  Generally, your Constitutional due process entitlement or due course of law protection may be limited to an assurance that you have NOTICE of the proceeding and an opportunity to appear and defend the suit.  Under the circumstances you describe, you DO seem to be aware of the suit and many judges will be impatient and unimpressed by arguments that the defects in the service should delay an adjudication of the case.

One final difficulty, is that very often court rules provide that if you come into court complaining of a service defect before the court has acted on your case, that IF the court finds service defective you are then deemed to have been served at the date of the hearing or some brief period thereafter.  So showing this defect in service probably serves as more of a speedbump than a roadblock to suit.


Please understand that I am NOT an attorney.  Another contributor, Moose, is singularly well informed and may have some other different insights and suggestions for you!
Quote 0 0
Thanks for the reply Mr. Roper. My attorney stated that they could not leave it on the lawn, that it had to be handed to me, my husband, or someone over the age of 18. If they cannot find you, they can publish it in the newspaper, though I'm sure they would have to prove they did so. I know that is something being investigated now is people saying they were never served or them doing sewer service.

I am trying to get a hold of my bank now to see if I can get more detailed information on the transaction at the grocery store. I'm going to contact the store too to see if they keep hard drives of the cameras', though I think they might only keep them for 6 months. That is why I wish he would have told me this sooner. The papers came in January.

How funny would that be if I could get the camera video of him in the store at the time the server states he served us....LOL I'm on the hunt....wish me luck!!
Quote 0 0
go to publix and ask if they can pull up the receipt. they usually can if you have your bank statement. they can trace the sale. I have had them do it for other reasons. they can trace the transaction number.

Quote 0 0
The problem is the papers were left on my lawn on 1/23/2010, a Saturday. I called my attorney right away and told him what had occured. He filed papers that we were not served and were not waiving our right to be served. Since that time I have not heard anything, till yesterday, when he called around 4pm and left a message that they are claiming they served my husband on 1/23 @ 3:25pm, which was a Saturday. Since it has been so long my memory of what occured that day are fading. I do remember that the papers were found on my front lawn by my husband....normally we do not use the front door, unless we are checking the mail. We go through the garage, plus I have a big dog who will push past me and go after who ever is on the block at the time. He is a lab, but 100 pounds and strong as an ox.

So, last night (tired & now freaking out, just a bit) I started looking through my bank statements, because we always use our debit cards. My husband uses it even for small amounts, which drives me crazy, but anyway, looking through my bank statement I figured would be a sure fire way of figuring out where we were that day. Usually on Saturday we go out and 99% of the time we stop at the grocery store to buy dinner for Sunday and some stuff for the week. Sure enough my statement showed a charge on my husbands debit card from Publix supermarket. The receipt of course is long gone, I usually keep receipts for about a month, sometimes two, but not 10 months....

It was not till today I started looking through my emails & chats. Normally on a weekday I would have multiple chats to my friends saying what was going on that day...etc...but it was a Saturday so there was not much to go by. What I did find was chats from Friday telling my friend that I was sick, very sick, like need to go to the Doctor sick. I also found the email I sent my attorney stating that I was home when the papers were served, as I was sick. That Sunday was the Vikings/Saints game and I remember now my husband making me a kielbasi sandwhich that day, he brought in one of the snack trays and everything. Could not eat it cause I was not feeling well, but his intent was good. Found that in one of my chats from that Monday...LOL

So, I did not go to the grocery store that day, but my husband did. I called the store and they said they only keep receipts for like 6 months and video even less time. He called the bank and they called back and said the purchase was made at 1.5 after the process server said he served him.

So today I called my attorneys office to tell them that I was mistaken last night, I was actually home the whole time. So the young lady who I spoke with said the process server said my husband answered the door and he gave him his papers and mine. Being unsure what information they need to have I ask her.... well do they have a signature? A description on what my husband looks like? She says no...

So basically they can go to your home (or even do a drive by and throw the papers out like a newspaper) and say they served Mr. Smith and gave him Mrs. Smith's papers too, and they need no evidence at all of service. As long as they say who they served and the time and manner of the service. Of course on a Saturday many people are not working and the chance of most people responding regardless of if they were served or not is in their favor. My home is not worth much (now) and he probably figured there was not a chance in hell I could afford an no big deal.

It is a he said, she said sort of thing, but they are still filing the lack of service of process. From what I gather the server will say he did, we will say he did not and we will both have to go to the court. Yeah....that should go real well.

So now you all know my story... 

If this server goes missing, (like Jimmy Hoffa style) I don't know nothing....LOL!!

I am not sure I can contain my anger much longer!! <joke> 
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

You certainly have every right to be very angry about the abusive service.  And I am very glad to hear that you have a lawyer involved.

If you are in Florida, it seems very plausible that NOTHING much is going to happen for a while.  The level of court congestion associated with the crush of foreclosure activity colliding with the recent public disclosures regarding forgery, perjury and other fraud is going to lead to a LOT of delays.

And the revelations already emerging from published depositions makes your claims of defective service much more persuasive. 

I would caution you, however, against posting too many particulars about your situation and case on a public forum such as this one.  While venting is therapeutic, and there are others here with helpful insights, you need to take special care that things that you post do NOT undermine your case.  And posting too many details can have that effect.

If you need a trustworthy friend to tell about these outrages, get a dog.  While there is no privilege in your communications with the dog, you may rely upon the dog not to disclose what you tell him.

If you want to obtain the help of others without injuring your case, be sparing and general in the details.  Or syndicate the fact situations across more than one screen name and situation.


One other encouraging note:  I would EXPECT that ultimately most of the foreclosure mill lawyers engaged in the most criminal behavior will be disbarred.  And even those who avoid disbarment may find, like the Stern firm, that they are removed from the approved attorneys lists of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  NONE of the major servicers is going to want to continue to use the firms which are demonstrated to have engaged in illegal behavior.  This is NOT the case because the banks are any less blameworthy.  To the contrary, they are up to their eyebrows in the fraud.  But the banks will simply shift firms and PRETEND to clean up their outrages.

This will take TIME.  

There will also be a FLIGHT out of these firms by the younger lawyers.  Those that leave quickly may very well succeed in keeping their bar licenses.  Those that remain with the foreclosure mills until the bitter end will mostly lose their licenses and face possible criminal charges.

This is going to result in significant DELAYS in foreclosure even if the banks are agressively pressing foreward.  The mills were already stagggering under the volume of these cases and the number of lawyers available to do the work is about to SHRINK!


Keep your head about you.  Hold your cards a little closer to your vest.  Tell your troubles to your dog.  And let your lawyer guide you as to the service issue.  
Quote 0 0

Yes, good advice Mr. Roper....Thanks =)

Quote 0 0
Our entire justice system is based on the quaint notion that lawyers and their employees, like process servers, are telling the truth.  Here’s a big secret…….THEY’RE NOT ALL TELLING THE TRUTH.

The depositions from David Sterns’ employees describe disturbing, systemic failures and abuses of the system and reports rolling in from all over the state of flawed Service of Process and no notice of hearings and proceedings are very disturbing.  Process servers are not delivering proper service on Defendants and some of the foreclosure mills in some cases are not sending notices of hearings and other pleadings to defendants.  Any defense practitioner can cite any number of cases where they are not receiving hearing notices and pleadings….and if it’s happening when  a Defendant is represented by counsel, what do you think is happening to unrepresented people?  Let me sketch this out on a chart….

No Service of Process = No Due Process

No Service of Process = The Homeowner Still Owns The Home

Homeowner Ownership Claims = Massive Title Insurance Claims

Massive Title Insurance = Insolvency of the Title Insurance Market

Just wait until the smaller local press picks up on these issues and starts advising the minority members of the community about their Constitutional Right to Due Process. (The minority communities are going to be hardest hit by abuses by the process servers and the trash out companies.)  It’s going to be hard to explain how Rosita Diaz got served on January 1, 2009 in Miami Dade when she just happened to be in Puerto Rico at the time.  Process in some cases is just thrown on doorsteps or tossed at strangers….but we know that in too many cases, the process servers have abused the process.  Forget about Robo Signers, Sewer Servers are where the real title claims are going to come from and you cannot just ignore those issues.

Attached below is an example of claims of no service based on a local attorney who I know well.  I am certain that this attorney has absolute confidence and belief in his client’s claims and we are going to see many more such claims going forward.  Remember, there are no statues of limitations on No Service of Process claims and that any Final Judgments or Titles to property based on fraudulent service of process is void.  I expect that we’re going to hear wild stories and see quite a bit of documentation that will show just how out of control and flawed the process servers have become in the middle of this foreclosure chaos…..


Quote 0 0

ProcessServiceFraudGate- The Next Chapter in ForeclosureFraudGate.

October 23rd, 2010 · No Comments · Foreclosure

It’s so nice to know that RobosignerGate is over. You’ve seen the press reports, right?  Bank of America has completed their review, they’re confident that nothing is wrong and now they’re ready to move forward with throwing Americans back onto the streets again. Next, the American title industry has gotten together and they’re hammering out the details on a conspiracy that will attempt to resolve all the serious title claims that this fiasco has caused.  Next, the attorneys general from all states are meeting to force a settlement and resolution of Fraudclosuregate.  Make no mistake people, what you are  seeing is the biggest government sponsored economic conspiracy the world has ever seen.  Don’t believe me?  Read the Wall Street Journal article here.

Fannie and Freddie own half of all the mortgages in this country.  Fannie and Freddie demand that we ignore the real problems presented by Fraudclosuregate and move along.  Ignore individual rights, ignore court laws and procedure…..get this property in the hands of the banks NOW!  Needless to say there are so many problems presented by these proposed fixes, but I do believe that the highest levels of government at the local, state and federal level are all actively conspiring to “fix” fraudclosuregate and get us moving along.  They are working feverishly to ensure no penalties or consequence are even discussed….and they’re going to work hard to make sure none are actually leveled.


I’ve been posting about this for some time, and now the mainstream press has picked up on it….Read Story Here. Our entire foreclosure process, and now a significant portion of the title to real property in this country now rests on the shoulders of largely unregulated, unpoliced and until now, unnoticed subset of the foreclosure mill/foreclosure cockroach community.  The Private Process Servers.  Who are process servers?  In Florida, a Plaintiff must personally hand an original summons issued by the court, along with the lawsuit to every defendant in a foreclosure case.  The Sheriff appoints private parties to serve these lawsuits on these people, but any knucklehead can become a process server.  The requirements are to become a process server are defined in Florida Statutes, but here’s the bombshell.


What is bad service?  Not actually serving the defendant in the case, but lying to the court and saying the person was served.  You see, a process server must file with the court an Affidavit of Service, an original document where he swears to the court, “On February 1, 2o10 at 4:10 pm, I personally served Matthew Weidner with a copy of the lawsuit and summons at his home at 1229 Central, St. Petersburg 33705.  Weidner was 5 feet 2 inches tall, black and weighed about 200 pounds.”  The problem is Matthew Weidner is white, 6 foot 1, weighs 165 and on February 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm he was on a flight bound for California….that service could never have happened so the process server lied.  The big, big, big problem with service such as this example is…..


Let that sink in and think about it.  VOID.  Not Voidable, but VOID AB INITIO or invalid from the outset.  How many tens of thousands of titles to real property across this country are affected by this problem?  Impossible to say at this point in time, but anecdotally, I see far too many cases of flawed service than we should ever permit.  Elderly people, illiterate people, minorities that couldn’t avoid service or leave their homes even if they wanted to.  And yet, the numbers of Affidavits of Diligent Search and Inquiry and Constructive Service in foreclosure cases is HUGE.  No one was supervising the process servers.  The lowly process server who got paid the same $25 if he was serving (or not serving) a foreclosure complaint on a $50,000 mortgage or a $5,000,000 mortgage.  And now the fate of our entire title insurance industry and in fact our entire economy rests on the truth and veracity of the Affidavits of Service of Process that have been filed by these unregulated, unsupervised process servers.

Have a look at just two initial reports that were produced which provide some insight into this problem.  How in God’s name have courts permitted this many summons to be lost?  How in God’s name have we allowed so many foreclosure lawsuits to proceed based on constructive service?  There are no legitimate answers to these questions.  But then read the very lax requirements that are in place for process servers in this state.


Copy of LostSummonsReport


Now, just have a look at the signatures on these Affidavits of Service.





Here is just a sampling of what we’re talking about….stay tuned we’re pulling info day and night.  To all of you who are out there working in the process service industry and who read this, please pay attention.  We know what you have done and are continuing to do.  I also know that some of you were not aware what you were doing was wrong and that you got sucked into this.  As discussed,  come in now, come forward now and be part of the solution.  You cannot hide from this.  All the documents are filed in courts and the abuses and fraud will be there for all to see….FOREVER. Remember, if you come in now, you may get immunity from prosecution for all the crimes you’ve committed…..and seriously, why would you want to proctect those above you who pocketed all the money and put you at risk?  Just call me or call law enforcement directly.  Let’s work together to start making this right.

For press looking for the next story, this is it and this is bigger and much worse than anything else out there.  If they won’t come forward, go out and find them….It is so easy and the wrongdoing so plain to see.

Quote 0 0
Hi Ann,

I sent you a email.
Quote 0 0
Florida Appeal Court : La Salle Bank v. Parker - Judgment reversed - Insufficient process service



July Term 2011









No. 4D10-482

[August 10, 2011]


Appellee LaSalle Bank (“LaSalle”) filed a complaint to foreclose on a

note and mortgage o n February 12, 2009. LaSalle unsuccessfully

attempted to personally serve Parker. LaSalle then filed an affidavit of

constructive service with an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry from

Scott Harris, a process server, showing that personal service could not be

made despite a diligent search and inquiry to determine the whereabouts

of Parker. LaSalle constructively served Parker by publishing notice of

action in the newspaper two weeks in a row, on May 27, 2009, and June

3, 2009.

A default and final judgment of foreclosure was entered in LaSalle’s

favor, and a public sale was scheduled for December 1, 2009. On

December 22, 2009, Parker filed an emergency motion to quash service

of process. After a n evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the

emergency motion to quash, stating that service was proper. We

determine that LaSalle did not conduct a sufficient diligent search and

inquiry to support constructive service of process and reverse the trial

court’s decision.

Parker argues that LaSalle’s affidavit of constructive service is

insufficient to demonstrate due diligence because the affidavit of diligent

search and inquiry was insufficient to demonstrate reasonable and

conscientious efforts to actually locate Parker. LaSalle primarily relies on

Reina v. Barnett Bank, 766 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) to support its


arguments. In Reina, the bank attempted to serve Reina with a

complaint to foreclose a mortgage. The property was vacant when the

bank attempted service. An affidavit was filed to show that diligent

search for Reina occurred. The affidavit stated service by the sheriff was

attempted, and a return of no service was received. The affidavit

provided that the bank attempted to locate Reina through the post office,

mortgage service records, telephone directories, and speaking to former

neighbors. Notice was then published in the newspaper two weeks in a

row. A default and summary judgment were entered when Reina failed

to file an answer. Ten months later, Reina served a motion to quash

service of process and to vacate the judgment. Id. at 291. Reina argued

that the bank knew at all times of his whereabouts because of his

checking account. The court determined that the bank’s “constructive

service was not so defective that it amounted to no notice at all.” Even

though the bank did not exhaust all options to inquire about Reina’s

whereabouts, at most the judgment was voidable. Id. at 292. Since

Reina had waited several months to file his motion to vacate, the court

held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to


This case is more akin to Demars v. Village of Sandalwood Lakes

Homeowners Association, 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In that

case, a homeowners association filed suit to foreclose o n a lien for

unpaid assessments and obtained judgment. The association attempted

personal service twice at the homeowner’s residence. A tenant at the

residence did not know how to contact the homeowner. To establish a

diligent search for constructive service, the association’s attorney called a

mortgage holder a n d th e power company. Neither would divulge

information over the phone, and the association’s attorney did not follow

up with a letter. The court held the association’s search did not meet the

standards of reasonable diligence because the attorney for the

association did not follow up on any of his inquiries. Therefore, the

constructive service was defective, rendering the judgment of foreclosure


In this case, the record reflects only one return of service. According

to the affidavit of diligent search and inquiry, Harris next searched credit

information, directory assistance, motor vehicle records, the post office,

property tax records, national death records, and prison records to try

and locate Parker. However, the affidavit shows the search for Parker

was less than diligent. Regarding efforts to locate Parker at her last

known address (the subject property) is a statement that “Process Server

stated: Tenant occupied.” No indication exists as to when the process

server went to the premises or how h e determined it was “tenant


occupied.” Further, no indication exists that the process server inquired

of the tenant the whereabouts of Parker. Under the section of the

affidavit titled “Inquiry of Neighbors at Last Known Address,” it merely

states: “Unable to contact neighbors,” with no statement as to who made

attempt, or on what dates or any description of any attempt made.

Under the section “Freedom of Information Act Inquiry Made to US Postal

Service,” it says “Requested change of address or boxholder information

[at property address] on 2/19/09. Upon receipt of their response, will

promptly revert,” with no follow-up of any information received from the

post office.

“[P]roof of a few attempts at service of process are insufficient to prove

diligent search.” Demars, 625 So. 2d at 1221. In this case, personal

service was attempted only once. As in Demars, the affidavit of diligent

search filed in this case displays a pattern of failure to follow up on

inquiries and leads that could have revealed Parker’s location. Therefore,

we find LaSalle’s search did not meet the standards of reasonable

diligence. Further, this case is distinguishable from Reina in that Parker

was diligent in pursuing the motion to quash. Parker’s trial counsel filed

a special limited appearance to attack the service of process fourteen

days after entry of final judgment and filed an emergency motion to

quash six days later. Therefore, we reverse, finding the final judgment

entered in this case voidable, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA005370.

Matthew D. Vales of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, LLC, Orlando, for


Katherine J. Pauls Walke of Van Ness Law Firm, P.A., Deerfield

Beach, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Quote 0 0
  OMG Ann!! LOL Did I really say all this? Right down to what football game was playing. 

Anyway, my motion to quash service was granted. 

I got your call, will try to get back to you soon. Hope you're doing good Ann. 
Quote 0 0
Good news Magaret that your motion to quash is granted. I'm ok. Click on my name and send me an e-mail.

Quote 0 0

Service of Process – Make The Banks Do It Right

One of the most basic elements of any lawsuit, including a foreclosure lawsuit, is a plaintiff’s obligation to effectuate service of process on a defendant. Service of process is a fundamental tenant of a defendant’s right to due process, as it ensures a defendant knows about a lawsuit and is given an opportunity to defend.

Florida Statutes govern the manner in which service of process must be effectuated. There are many different statutes, and many of them are quite technical, but the most common method of service is set forth in Florida Statute 48.031(1). If you don’t remember anything else about service of process, remember this:

Service of process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents.

This one sentence sets forth at least three ways in which a defendant can challenge the manner in which service of process is effectuated (in a typical situation). Specifically:

  • The process server cannot merely hand-deliver the Summons/Complaint – he/she must also inform the defendant of their contents. (See below for how I utilized this requirement in a pending foreclosure case.)
  • The process server cannot give the Summons/Complaint to a child – the person to whom the paperwork is given must be 15 or older.
  • If the process server does not serve the defendant personally, then the paperwork must be given to someone who resides at the home where that defendant resides. Service on an overnight guest of the defendant is insufficient. Likewise, if a husband and wife are not living together, then service on one spouse does not constitute service on the other. If the lawsuit is a foreclosure lawsuit, and the property is a rental property, service on the tenants at the property does not constitute valid service against the homeowner.

These requirements sound quite basic, but process servers screw them up all of the time. To illustrate, I had a hearing scheduled for tomorrow in a foreclosure lawsuit on a Motion to Quash Service. My argument was that service should be quashed because the process server did not inform the defendant of the content of the documents when he effectuated service. I wasn’t denying my client received the Summons/Complaint, but that’s not enough – the process server was required to inform my client of the contents.

I can only presume the plaintiff’s lawyer realized my motion was well-taken, because he just cancelled the hearing. Bear in mind – it doesn’t matter that this homeowner was behind on mortgage payments or had been personally served – the fact that the process server failed to inform him of the contents of the documents invalidates the service.

There are many cases regarding these propositions of law. For a flavor, check out Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc. v. Mendoza, 400 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (service quashed where defendant was not informed of contents), and Johnston v. Halliday, 516 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (service quashed where the defendant’s son did not reside with her and was under 15 years of age).

I raise this issue, of course, because this is yet another argument that homeowners can raise when defending a foreclosure case.

The banks have done many things wrong in recent years. Let’s at least make them effectuate service of process the right way.

Mark Stopa
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...