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
William A. Roper, Jr.
The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fourth District handed down a rather unfortunate decision today which is yet another instructive case, illustrating rather starkly precisely WHY one doesn't want to simply flail away at assignment forgery.  Sometimes, as in this case, it is better to embrace the forged assignment, at least in the alternative.

Instead, Appellant Jacquline Harvey expends all of her energy attacking the very document which ought to have defeated the plaintiff had the proper argument been made and developed.

The case involves one of the special DOCX assignment forgeries executed by Korell HARP and Tywanna THOMAS.

And although Harvey was perceptive enough to have noted and argued that HARP and THOMAS were found to have been executing other instruments asserting various other authority, this fell far short of the evidence needed to establish fraud and, moreover, failed to implicate the plaintiff's holdership of the note, which in many jurisdictions is sufficient, when shown to have preceded filing of the suit, to establish the plaintiff's right to judgment.

But there was an easier and more certain path.  This suit was commenced on April 6, 2009.  The forged DOCX assignment was dated April 16, 2011, but is shown to have a "effective date of March 31, 2009".

Antedating the effective date of an assignment has been shown to be ineffective almost everywhere.  And even if the court had found otherwise, this would have been a very robust basis for appeal!

Simply accepting the forged assignment at face value, the assignment seems to prove that the plaintiff lacked ownership of the note and mortgage at the date of commencement of suit.  And standing is measured from commencement!

Unfortunately, defendants and particularly pro se litigants, such as Ms. Jaqueline Harvey, have become so mesmerized with trying to prove fraud and misconduct that they overlook the obvious. 

Lognstanding Forum particpants will recall that in late 2007 and early 2008, I chronicled here at the Forum the dismissal of upwards of 400 cases in teh Ohio Federal Courts.  The Ohio Federal Courts cleared the dockets of foreclosure cases filed with facts substantially similar to those in the Harvey case.

That is, the plaintiff filed suit and only afterward forged an assignment which purported to convey the interest of the originating Lender to the foreclosing entity.

In these cases, the borrowers were not only unrepresented, but most NEVER EVEN ANSWERED the suit.  The Federal Court looked past the rather conspicuous, yet unproven, fact of the forgery.  Instead, the court merely focused on the date of the assignment.  Since the assignments pled into evidence by the plaintiff showed on their face that the plaintiff acquired its interest in the note and mortgage after commencement, the Courts dismissed these cases en mass.
 
This was the central issue in the Dowd, Boyko, Rose, O'Malley and Holshuh decisions.

Now, borrowers have become fascinated with proving that the forged assignment is, in fact a forgery, and that the court should disregard the assignment.  The borrowers are fascinated that the assignment is fored by a notorious Georgia document forgery mill known as DOCX.  When invited to disregard the assignment, the Court can then simply look to the note and indorsement.

There is a time and a place to deliberately attack the assignment forgery.  That is in a second refiled action after the dismissal of the original case!  And this needs to be done with thoughtful discovery to include the deposition of the key persons involved in the criminal activity.

Had Ms. Jacqueline Harvey employed this strategy, her case probably would have been dismissed either by the trial court OR on appeal and she would now be relitigating with ALL of the additional information about the character of the DOCX forgeries available to her for her defense.

Instead, she focused upon the WRONG ARGUMENT, overlooked the obvious and now has lost her home in a case where a WIN was not only possible, but OBVIOUS!

I have previously pointed out that the GOAL is NOT to tell reveal to the court the TRUE facts of the case.  Where a plaintiff pleads FALSE EVIDENCE that eviscerates its own case, WHY NOT SIMPLY USE THAT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF?

The case is:
Harvey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 4D10-674 (Fla. App. 4th Dist., June 29, 2011)
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/June%202011/06-29-11/4D10-674.rhg.pdf
Quote 0 0
Texas
excerpt from opinion

"Deutsche Bank filed a two-count foreclosure complaint against Harvey on April 6, 2009: Count I (to reestablish the lost note); Count II (foreclosure). Deutsche alleged that on March 4, 2005, Harvey executed and delivered to American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. (AHMAI), a promissory note in the principal amount of $228,000.00 and a purchase money mortgage, securing payment of the note.Deutsche attached to the complaint a “substantial” copy of the note and a copy of the mortgage, showing AHMAI as the lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the nominal mortgagee. The copy of the note payable to AHMAI is indorsed in blank, and the indorsement is signed b y Vaughn Johnson, assistant secretary, AHMAI...

On September 30, 2009, Deutsche filed an affidavit of lost note."


At least in another part, the court told what was wrong. And again, I have to agree with Roper, darn it.

Quote 0 0
Angelo
Bill

A couple of questions come to mind:

If mrs. Harvey had accepted the assignment and not faught the fraud, and the case was dismissed with out prejudice, would the fraud argument have then been waived since it wasn't presented in the first motion to dismiss?

And, if she had accepted the assignment as good and the case was refiled wouldn't that assignment be prima facie evidence that the mortgage was now held by the note holder?

I know every jurisdiction is different, and the rules of civil procedure change from place to place, but is fraud an affimative defense that if not plead in the answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss, isn't it waived?
Quote 0 0
Bill

Quote:

If mrs. Harvey had accepted the assignment and not faught the fraud, and the case was dismissed with out prejudice, would the fraud argument have then been waived since it wasn't presented in the first motion to dismiss?



There would not be an argument of fraud to waive because the case was dismissed.


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Angelo said:
If mrs. Harvey had accepted the assignment and not faught the fraud, and the case was dismissed with out prejudice, would the fraud argument have then been waived since it wasn't presented in the first motion to dismiss?

And, if she had accepted the assignment as good and the case was refiled wouldn't that assignment be prima facie evidence that the mortgage was now held by the note holder?

I know every jurisdiction is different, and the rules of civil procedure change from place to place, but is fraud an affimative defense that if not plead in the answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss, isn't it waived?


Angelo:

These are GREAT questions and actually touch upon a detail about which I failed to elaborate.

First, in most in most jurisdictions, the rules permit the parties to argue "in the alternative".  That is, one can take a position that the facts are either A OR B.

Second, particularly for the purposes of arguing in the alternative, one can usually ask the court to consider the consequences of accepting the plaintiff's evidence without actually admitting it to be true.

So the argument ends up going something like this:

"In the alternative, consider the implications of the assignment proffered by the plaintiff in evidence.  This assignment filed by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank on October 29, 2009, is dated April 16, 2009, and purports to assign both the note and the mortgage from grantor MERS to plaintiff Deutsche Bank effective March 31, 2009.  This suit was commenced by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank by the filing of its complaint on April 6, 2009.  Accepting without admitting the validity of this assignment, the Plaintiff acquired its interest in the alleged note and mortgage some ten days after the suit was commenced.

Nor can the indication of a retroactive effective date save such an assignment and give it effect.  In order for a deed, mortgage, assignment or other grant of interests in real property to be effective in florida, the instrument must be executed in accordance with the statute of frauds and actually delivered to the grantee.

Completion of the execution of such instrument is of no legal or binding effect absent actual delivery of such instrument.

ADD FL CITATION HERE!  (NOTE:  This is William A. Roper, Jr. simply ASSERTING that there WILL BE valid Florida cases showing that conveyance under the statute of frauds requires delivery, which is the rule almost everywhere!)

The issue of retroactive assignments has been addressed by appellate courts in other jurisdictions.  Two New York appellat courts found that such retroactive assignments cannot be effective to convey a mortgage prior to the actual execution date of the instrument, absent proof of actual delivery:
If an assignment is in writing, "the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated" (LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn., 59 AD3d at 912).  While recognizing that in some circumstances parties to an agreement may bind themselves retroactively, "the fiction of retroactivity . . . should not be applied to affect adversely the rights of third persons" (Debreceni v Outlet Co., 784 F2d 13, 20; see also 2 Lord, Williston on Contracts § 6:61, at 893 [4th ed]).  Thus, a retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment (see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn., 59 AD3d at 912).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, No. 2008-02775, 2009 NY Slip Op 7624; 69 A.D.3d 204; 887 N.Y.S.2d 615; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7502 (NY Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2009).

*

However, if it is in writing, the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated (see Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d at 938).

Here, the written assignment submitted by plaintiff was indisputably written subsequent to the commencement of this action and the record contains no other proof demonstrating that there was a physical delivery of the mortgage prior to bringing the foreclosure action (see id.).  In fact, the language in the amended complaint indicating that the assignment to plaintiff had not yet occurred would clearly contradict any assertion to the contrary.
Lasalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. Ahearn, No. 505597, 2009 NY Slip Op 1388; 59 A.D.3d 911; 875 N.Y.S.2d 595; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1365 (NY Sup. Ct. App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2009)
Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Court addressed this precise issue and found that antedated assignments were ineffective:
Nor may a postforeclosure assignment be treated as a pre-foreclosure assignment simply by declaring an "effective date" that precedes the notice of sale and foreclosure, as did Option One's assignment of the LaRace mortgage to Wells Fargo.  Because an assignment of a mortgage is a transfer of legal title, it becomes effective with respect to the power of sale only on the transfer; it cannot become effective before the transfer.  See In re Schwartz, supra at 269. 
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40, 2011 Mass. LEXIS 5 (Mass. 2011).

*

 

I want to emphasize that the argument articulated above is strictly extemporaneous and composed by myself (a non-lawyer, lay, pro se litigant).  I only spent about fifteen minutes stitching it together.  It can be vastly improved upon by thoughtful judicious research and discussion with competent attorneys specializing in foreclosure defense. 

 

One should definately cite cases from the jurisdiction where the property is located.  While well reasoned appellate cases from other states can add greatly to the persuasiveness of an argument, these are NOT going to be authoritative in another jurisdiction.

 

*

 

It strikes me that we probably need a thread on retroactive assignments! 

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Angelo:

While elaborating on the argument, I have still failed to fully address to key elements of your query.

Again, I want to caution that I am extemporizing WITHOUT RESEARCH.  And, as you know, I am NOT an attorney and cannot give you legal advice.

This having been said, generally when a matter is dismissed and then subsequently retried, the second suit is a whole new proceeding and is subject to independent arguments and proof.  If a party failed to make arguments in the previous proceeding, the party is usually not precluded from picking up and making those arguments the  second time around.

In fact, both sides have some latitude to shift their arguments, though this latitude is not unlimited.

*

While failure to make an argument might be a waiver in the first proceeding, the argument is rarely waived in the second proceeding UNLESS some other argument constrains its introduction.  That is, the introduction of the omitted argument would not usually be precluded by waiver, but might be precluded by judicial admission OR by judicial estopel.

In most places, even judicial admissions are limited to a single proceeding and do NOT carry over into the next proceeding.  That is, even if a party admits certain allegation in either his or her answer or in requests for admissions, usually these admissions would be washed away by the dismissal and each side would generally start with a relatively clean slate.

So the reason to argue in the alternative is usually NOT to guard against having the argument held against you in another proceeding, but rather to avoid having it held against you in the present proceeding.

If a party takes an unequivical position in his or her pleadings, NOT in the alternative, the matter is usually treated as judicially admitted.  By contrast, if the party argues the matter in the alternative, then no judicial admission is made.

*

The exception then arises under circumstances giving rise to judicial estoppel, which I have discussed in another thread.  Generally, where a party takes an unequivical position in one proceeding and, particularly, where the party swears to something and benefits from the decision (even a partial decision), the party cannot usually take a contrary position in another later proceeding.

*

So if the defendant (a) argues in the alternative, (b) asks the court to accept (for the sake of argument) the validity of the assignment, and (c) doesn't swear to anything in respect of the assignment forgery, the defendant could use the forged assignment to defeat the plaintiff in the first proceeding and still attack and defeat the assignment in a later proceeding, in most places.

As I have seen Moose sometimes say in years past, "your mileage may vary".

DO THE RESEARCH!  READ THE RULES.  READ THE CASES ON THE RULES.  READ THE RULES AGAIN.  ASK A LAWYER.  (BUT DON'T SIMPLY BELIEVE THE LAWYER.  CHALLENGE HIM TO SHOW YOU THE STATUTE OR THE CASES WHICH SUPPORT HIS IMPRESSION.)  
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
This ancient post reflects just how long we have been tracking the issue of retroactive assignments here at MS Fraud:

Saratoga NY Supreme Court Justice Dismisses Foreclosure Due To Lack of Plaintiff Standing (07/07/08 at 01:24 PM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2824151


Quote 0 0
Mr. Roper

Can u please contact me @ choctawexpress@aol.com I have a few questions to ask.

Thank you
Quote 0 0

The assignments I received from Bank of America and GMAC Mortgage in response to QWR's were not dated at all.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
Dianne said:

The assignments I received from Bank of America and GMAC Mortgage in response to QWR's were not dated at all. 


Are you referring to assignments of mortgage or deed of trust OR to the indorsement of the promissory note?

Assignments would be almost universally dated and are probably required to be dated under a state's statute of frauds.  Indorsements are almost universally undated and are not required to be dated under the UCC.
Quote 0 0
On GMAC they have an assignment on the last page of the Promissory Note:

Pay to the order of without recourse


_____________________    Some lady's signature with no date .    And of course something over her name was copied after being "whited" out to hide who they paid to the order of.


On the Bank of America Promissory Note, a seperate allonge is attached, even though there was room on the back for endorsements.   The Allonge is dated August 17, 2006 with assignment from the mortgage broker on day of closing to HSBC Mortgage.   That information is set off in an outlined box.

Then at the bottom of the page (outside of that dated box), there is Pay to the order of Countrywide Bank, N.A. without recourse by HSBC Mortgage.... that one is not dated.


Quote 0 0
On the Bank of American Promissory Note, I forgot to mention that on the last page where my husband and I signed, before an Allonge was created by whomever .....

It says:   Pay to the order of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. National Association Organized and signed by an Assistant VP with the original mortgage broker.   Then the Wells Fargo part is lined through and there's a big Cancelled stamp on top of the endorsement.
Quote 0 0

Quote:
Dianne said:

On GMAC they have an assignment on the last page of the Promissory Note:


Dianne:

You are confusing assignments and indorsements.  You need to go back and review prior posts which discuss these concepts.  The indorsement of a negotiable instrument is controlled by Article III of the UCC.

When you indorse and depost a check, do you date the indorsement?

An indorsement appearing on a separate page affixed to the instrument appears on an allonge.

A mortgage assignment is usually controlled by the statute of fruads and the real property laws of a jurisdiction.  

Quote:
It says: Pay to the order of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. National Association Organized and signed by an Assistant VP with the original mortgage broker. Then the Wells Fargo part is lined through and there's a big Cancelled stamp on top of the endorsement.


This would seem to create an interesting fact issue and might possibly call into question the validity of the negotiation.

The precise factual circumstances leading up to the production of this document is important.  The alteration or purported cancellation of an indorsement might be a real problem for the purported mortgage investor.  But unless you have actually seen the original instrument, it would be naive to suppose that the copies you are looking at are actually consistent with the original.

Why don't you have your attorney contact me about this.
Quote 0 0
I have a court date Nov 16th, how do i fight my assignment? see attached. My case was filed Oct 8th 2008 and the assignment was recorded Oct 23 2008. I have researched all Deutsche bank case's in my county and found that they only attach assignments to a case if the defendant  objects. and all of the Deutsche assignments are recorded after the original complaint of foreclosure, but dated the day or two before the complaint was filed. My question is if they had the assignment before they filed the foreclosure complaint, why did they not enter it as evidence in the complaint. I think the assignment are fabricated on a as needed basis.

Appreciate your help
Dallas Storey




William A. Roper, Jr. wrote:
The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fourth District handed down a rather unfortunate decision today which is yet another instructive case, illustrating rather starkly precisely WHY one doesn't want to simply flail away at assignment forgery.  Sometimes, as in this case, it is better to embrace the forged assignment, at least in the alternative.

Instead, Appellant Jacquline Harvey expends all of her energy attacking the very document which ought to have defeated the plaintiff had the proper argument been made and developed.

The case involves one of the special DOCX assignment forgeries executed by Korell HARP and Tywanna THOMAS.

And although Harvey was perceptive enough to have noted and argued that HARP and THOMAS were found to have been executing other instruments asserting various other authority, this fell far short of the evidence needed to establish fraud and, moreover, failed to implicate the plaintiff's holdership of the note, which in many jurisdictions is sufficient, when shown to have preceded filing of the suit, to establish the plaintiff's right to judgment.

But there was an easier and more certain path.  This suit was commenced on April 6, 2009.  The forged DOCX assignment was dated April 16, 2011, but is shown to have a "effective date of March 31, 2009".

Antedating the effective date of an assignment has been shown to be ineffective almost everywhere.  And even if the court had found otherwise, this would have been a very robust basis for appeal!

Simply accepting the forged assignment at face value, the assignment seems to prove that the plaintiff lacked ownership of the note and mortgage at the date of commencement of suit.  And standing is measured from commencement!

Unfortunately, defendants and particularly pro se litigants, such as Ms. Jaqueline Harvey, have become so mesmerized with trying to prove fraud and misconduct that they overlook the obvious. 

Lognstanding Forum particpants will recall that in late 2007 and early 2008, I chronicled here at the Forum the dismissal of upwards of 400 cases in teh Ohio Federal Courts.  The Ohio Federal Courts cleared the dockets of foreclosure cases filed with facts substantially similar to those in the Harvey case.

That is, the plaintiff filed suit and only afterward forged an assignment which purported to convey the interest of the originating Lender to the foreclosing entity.

In these cases, the borrowers were not only unrepresented, but most NEVER EVEN ANSWERED the suit.  The Federal Court looked past the rather conspicuous, yet unproven, fact of the forgery.  Instead, the court merely focused on the date of the assignment.  Since the assignments pled into evidence by the plaintiff showed on their face that the plaintiff acquired its interest in the note and mortgage after commencement, the Courts dismissed these cases en mass.
 
This was the central issue in the Dowd, Boyko, Rose, O'Malley and Holshuh decisions.

Now, borrowers have become fascinated with proving that the forged assignment is, in fact a forgery, and that the court should disregard the assignment.  The borrowers are fascinated that the assignment is fored by a notorious Georgia document forgery mill known as DOCX.  When invited to disregard the assignment, the Court can then simply look to the note and indorsement.

There is a time and a place to deliberately attack the assignment forgery.  That is in a second refiled action after the dismissal of the original case!  And this needs to be done with thoughtful discovery to include the deposition of the key persons involved in the criminal activity.

Had Ms. Jacqueline Harvey employed this strategy, her case probably would have been dismissed either by the trial court OR on appeal and she would now be relitigating with ALL of the additional information about the character of the DOCX forgeries available to her for her defense.

Instead, she focused upon the WRONG ARGUMENT, overlooked the obvious and now has lost her home in a case where a WIN was not only possible, but OBVIOUS!

I have previously pointed out that the GOAL is NOT to tell reveal to the court the TRUE facts of the case.  Where a plaintiff pleads FALSE EVIDENCE that eviscerates its own case, WHY NOT SIMPLY USE THAT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF?

The case is:

Harvey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 4D10-674 (Fla. App. 4th Dist., June 29, 2011)
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/June%202011/06-29-11/4D10-674.rhg.pdf
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
The following threads might help.

1. "personal knowledge, hearsay, conclusory averments and the best evidence rule;

2. On the origins of the business records exception to the hearsay rule;

3. Glarum has the banks running scared.


Quote 0 0
Nancy

Quote:
It strikes me that we probably need a thread on retroactive assignments!

 

Did Mr. Roper ever create another thread on retroactive assignments?

Quote 0 0
Can the Chase assign a note before it acquired, August 25, 2008 through a purchase such as the case of Chase and WaMu through FDIC on September 25, 2008?
Quote 0 0
Pete
Quote:
Can the Chase assign a note before it acquired, August 25, 2008 through a purchase such as the case of Chase and WaMu through FDIC on September 25, 2008?

Bear in mind that essentially all "assignments" recorded and used in foreclosure cases are forgeries fabricated solely for the purpose of foreclosure.

But sometimes servicers get themselves caught in the switches in their forgeries. This can create some unique opportunities to win.

You need to read a lot of Mr. Roper's old threads to really understand these issues. But a key idea that you need to immediately appreciate is that in most places the only really important thing is for the plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure to be the holder of the borrower's note through negotiation. Equitable rights to the mortgage follow the note. Assignment usually doesn't matter.

Lenders usually forge an assignment to create a piece of plausible evidence to use against the borrower in court. They can still usually win by obtaining the original indorsed note. When Florida began requiring the original note to be filed, this pretty much gets the lender to the goal line on standing, even without the assignment.

Attacks on the assignment are usually more robust in other places where the lenders are lazy and never bother to obtain the original note from the vault.

It is very easy to become confused about just what was really being assigned. Ownership and holdership of the note are distinct concepts. Servicing wherein the servicer acts as agent for the mortgage investor is still another different concept.

When Chase acquired WAMU, it mostly didn't acquire ownership of very many mortgages. It mostly acquired mortgage servicing rights to mortgages that had been sold into securitizations years earlier. WAMU was the servicer, but was neither the owner nor the holder of the notes.

Thus, when you ask about an assignment of the note predating or post-dating WAMU's failure, you are really muddling several different ideas. This is not to say that you cannot use the dates of acquisition as a basis to attack an assignment. But you need to immediately get out of your head that notes and mortgages were actually transferred when Chase acquired WAMU. Chase got a handful of mortgages, but billions and billions in servicing rights to mortgages long since sold. Assignments which appear to show otherwise are all simply forgeries!
Quote 0 0
Veal
FYI: see recent posting by  TheEquitableOne  JPMC v Butler

From the Decision:

"This case is troubling because various counsel for CHASE falsely claimed for almost

two years, from January 20, 2010 until December 2011, that CHASE was the owner of the

mortgage and note. Ultimately, in late 2011, after the subject mortgage had been satisfied,

plaintiff CHASE's counsel admitted, in opposition to defendant BUTLER's October 26,

JP Morgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v Butler (2013 NY Slip Op 51050(U)) Page 3 of 24

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_51050.htm 7/5/2013

2011 order to show cause, that plaintiff CHASE did not own the BUTLER mortgage and

note, but only the servicing rights to it. CHASE's counsel, in its opposition papers,

submitted an affidavit, dated December 9, 2011, from Greg De Castro, "Director-

Servicing Management" of FANNIE MAE, claiming that FANNIE MAE acquired from

WAMU the BUTLER Mortgage and Note and "Chase is the servicer of the loan." Further,

Mr. De Castro makes the ludicrous claim, in violation of New York law, that "[a]s Fannie

Mae's servicer, CHASE has authority to commence a foreclosure action on the Loan and

to receive and/or collect the proceeds from the sale of the Property."

Quote 0 0
Sam
One of the very first things any borrower needs to do is get to the ground truth as to the identity of the owner of the note and mortgage. There are several old threads that discuss how to do this. At a very minimum, a borrower should use the MERS, Fannie and Freddie Lookup Tools available online.

Carful scrutiny of other notices and documents yields further clues.

Borrowers should always avoid the "Loan Securitization Audit" scams promoted at several websites. These scams will "sell" the borrower for $1,500 to $2,500 information that is available from numerous online sources for free.
Quote 0 0
Mr. Roper, or other: Do you have case law showing that falsifying dates on deeds, assignments, acknowledgments, etc. constitutes "forgery" in either civil or criminal context, with or without the showing of intent to defraud or harm another?
Quote 0 0
Dave
Quote:
Mr. Roper, or other: Do you have case law showing that falsifying dates on deeds, assignments, acknowledgments, etc. constitutes "forgery" in either civil or criminal context, with or without the showing of intent to defraud or harm another?

I don't think Mr. Roper posts here any more.

I think that that you do not need any cases. There is black letter law in Texas defining "forgery". See Tex. Pen. Code 32.21:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.32.htm#32.21
Quote 0 0
Kohler
JJ also post link to this from New to the forum. 
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...