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
A NY Observer
In his ruling in US Bank NA v Urias, Suffolk County NY Supreme Court Justice William B. REBOLINI has further trimmed the sails of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems in New York using this language:

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the plaintiff may lack standing to sue.  A plaintiff seeking foreclosure must demonstrate that it was the owner of the note and the mortgage at the time it commenced the action (Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546 [2nd Dept., 2003]; Aurora Loan Servs. v. Grant, 17 Misc 3d 1102[A] [Kings County Sup. Ct., 2007]).  Any purported assignment of a note or mortgage made by an entity lacking an ownership interest therein passes no title to the assignee (LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. Lamy, 12 Misc 3d 1191[A] [Suffolk County Sup. Ct., 2006]).  Even assuming that MERS, as nominee for Axiom Financial Services, was authorized to assign the mortgage to the plaintiff, it does not appear that it was the owner of the note; if it was not, it would have lacked the authority to assign the note to the plaintiff, and absent an effective transfer of the note, the assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff would be a nullity (see, Kluge v Fugarzy, 145 AD2d 537 [2nd Dept., 1988]).

See the full text decision at:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2009mar/51000918720081sciv.pdf

U.S. Bank NA v Urias et al, Index No. 9187 / 2008, Suffolk County Sup. Ct., 2009], March 9, 2009.

The noose further tightens on MERS in New York!
Quote 0 0
A NY Observer
Substantially identical language appears in a separate ruling by acting Justice Jerry GARGUILO, also of the Suffolk County Supreme Court in U.S. Bank NA v Smith, Index No 19211 / 2008, [Suffolk County Sup. Ct., 2009], March 11, 2009.  See:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2009mar/51001921120081sciv.pdf


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Quote 0 0
A NY Observer
It seems that Suffolk Justice Jeffrey Arlen SPINNER employed similar reasoning and language in his decision in the case Fremont Investment and Loan v Gramse, Index No. 2008 / 19019, [Suffolk County Sup. Ct., 2009], February 27, 2009.  This decision may be found at:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2009mar/51001901920081sciv.pdf


It appears that the Suffolk bench is now uniformly DENYING foreclosures when the plaintiff presents a fabrcated assignment purporting to convery an interest that MERS NEVER ACTUALLY OWNS.

Perhaps other Forum participants can help identify other similar decisions and can identify the earliest decision employing this reasonsing.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...