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


The Anatomy of Mortgage Fraud: MERS's Smoking Gun, Part I

by Prof. L. Randall Way


"The real mystery is why these trustees cannot produce the notes. I think we have finally found the smoking gun."


Quote 0 0

Quote 0 0
Also here on HuffPost should anyone like to post comment:

Anatomy of Mortgage Fraud, Part II: The Mother of All Frauds

Quote 0 0
    There is nothing new under the sun. In the 1920's Wall Street would issue
"watered stock" to investors, ie stock shares that were not backed by any
real assets. Gullible investors would buy these shares and wind up with a
portfolio of worthless stock. This is what caused the Crash of 1929 and the
deflation ot the 30's.
    The Glass Siegal Act was put in place to prevent this but it was repealed around 1999, the separation between commercial banks and investment banks was removed. This allowed the banks to engage in issuing "watered CDO bonds" which were worth much less than face value.
    They did this by using the same Notes in multiple "note pools" and selling
those "counterfeit Notes" to multiple investors. This is why so many unqualified people got loans. The lenders made their money by selling the
same Note multiple times to different investors. They could care less if the
borrower made his/her payments. They set up reserve accounts with the
servicers with part of the proceeds so they could make monthly payments
to the investors. As long as they could find new investors to buy into the
program, they could keep this Ponzi scheme working.
      The scheme came unraveled in 2008 when some investors caught on
to the scam and stopped buying in. Also, most of the Notes were rediculously
above the value of the real estate being mortgaged as backing for the Notes.
With so many counterfeit Notes floating around, the chances that the original
note is the one being presented in the foreclosure action is probably at best
50%. This means the homeowner has a good defense if he/she can prove the
Note being presented is a forgery or a counterfeit.
Quote 0 0
Maybe this will start some interesting comments.
Anatomy of a Mortgage Note to Wall Street via MERS and a Transferable Record.
What happened to the Bailee's Letters and Document Custodian transfer receipts.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
The author of the document posted by "Texas" seems to write as if he purports to have some knowledge of commerical law or actual practice of negotiation of promissory notes, but gives his total ignorance away almost immediately by confusing the terms holder and holder in due course, as well as purporting that failure to fill in the name of an intermediate holder might somehow preclude that holder from ownership of the instrument.

The author also gives away his ignorance in asserting that the first negotiation of the instrument is a saleThis is almsot never the case.  The first negotiation is usually the delivery of the instrument without sale to the warehousing lender advancing the mortgage company the funds to make the loan.

Hopefully, not too many people will lose their homes following the unschooled and rather ignarant pronouncements of this blowhard.  I wouldn't let this fellow carry my hat into a court room!

Let us stick with some folks who actually understand commerical law and mortgages, such as Christopher PETERSON, Esq.
Quote 0 0
What the author of the "Anatomy of a Mortgage Note" and any number of other sources fails to recognize is the UCC can be contracted around; parties may create their own agreements that don't recognize or follow the UCC standard.

Quote 0 0

841 F.2d 592

96 A.L.R.Fed. 895, 5 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1392

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff Appellant-Cross- Appellee, v.

Joseph M. RAULT, Jr., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee-Cross-


No. 86-3774.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 5,1988.

Commercial custom does not apply where the U.C.C. provides otherwise.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...