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
So how do we get around the pesky fraud details?? How about letting the statute of limitations on Fraud run out?!!!!
Quote 0 0
syl wrote:
So how do we get around the pesky fraud details?? How about letting the statute of limitations on Fraud run out?!!!!


sly none of this is legal advice and I'm not a lawyer. In some states the clock starts ticking when the fraud is officially discovered; not suspected. In many other states there is a date of offense deadline. Variations are more complex concerning the field of mortgage fraud. Additionally once you make a formal complaint (lawsuit or other official notice) if the alleged perpetrator begins a stonewalling session after being officially notified the deadline problem often becomes theirs. Overall it's a grim (often seemingly unfair) situation in a vast number of states clogged up by both frivolous plaintiff lawsuits and expensive, unscrupulous, stall-and-stonewall defense attorneys like the infamous Robert J. Davis used by Collin County Texas.

 

This site may be helpful but do not consider it as **current** applicable or absolute: http://www.statuteoflimitations.net/fraud.html

 

Variations and stipulations on this slippery topic are abundant. I hate to leave you with this advice because many who come here to MSF simply can’t afford a lawyer but YOU DO NEED A SPECIALIZED MORTGAGE ATTORNEY on this one.

 

Ed Cage  |  ecagetx@gmail.com   

* There are two statutes of limitations

governing when an action

alleging fraud may be brought in

New York. Under CPLR Sections

203(f) and 213(8), if a plaintiff alleges

that the defendant committed actual

fraud, then the statute of limitations

is six (6) years from the date of the

fraud, or two (2) years from discovery

of the fraud, whichever is later.


Quote 0 0
Here is the latest development with some very interesting comments:

Quote 0 0
Its time
According to the attorneys I have talked to, the statute of limitations does not begin where a coverup is involved, also, racketeering laws make the statute of limitations far more questionable.
Apparently, where an attorney is involved in covering up a clients mortgage fraud activities, I read that that attorney is now considered an accessory to the crime and as I read it, the statute of limitations does not begin to tick so long as a coverup has concealed the corpus delicti .
Apparently, there is no client attorney privilege in mortgage fraud, in terms of (pre-prosecution coverup).
Anyone know anything about this?

Quote 0 0
Its time
An attorney told me that evidence of a fraud is NOT actionable knowledge of it, where a cover up has made it impossible to, for example, provide the DA with what he needs. For example, a person, a victim of ID theft, whose wife's ex husband shows up as the owner of her husband of many years home on mailings to his house that was never outside his family,  these mailings derived from databases that get their data from home loans.
This guys lawyer is a very connected lawyer, and is committing a cover up in very sophisticated ways..
I am no lawyer, and I cannot know if what I have been told by lawyers is accurate., but apparently the concealing of the crime itself is a crime of equal magnitude, and creates a never ending statue of limitations.

Quote 0 0

Its time wrote:
According to the attorneys I have talked to, the statute of limitations does not begin where a coverup is involved, also, racketeering laws make the statute of limitations far more questionable.
Apparently, where an attorney is involved in covering up a clients mortgage fraud activities, I read that that attorney is now considered an accessory to the crime and as I read it, the statute of limitations does not begin to tick so long as a coverup has concealed the corpus delicti .
Apparently, there is no client attorney privilege in mortgage fraud, in terms of (pre-prosecution coverup).
Anyone know anything about this?


Its time:
Excellent post and questions - This makes sense and I pray it's got some supporting law or case records. On my way to church now but I think this is a subject we all need to explore. Help from William Roper would be appreciated and is hereby solicited.

Ed Cage   |  ecagetx@gmail.com
Quote 0 0
Sandy
Perhaps another element to the feet dragging is something I discovered in my state's real estate law: If recorded documents contain errors, but these errors are not contested within five years from the recording date, then all documents are deemed wholly correct and binding. It seems that even fake signatures and notarization would be binding.

I am finding that many recording regulations were simply not written with any remote imagination that the likes of MERS and the admitted mortgage fraud would cloud the process (and the title to property). For instance, my state says if a homeowner is unsure where to send a payment, then he or she can rely on the name and address of the entity stated in the current recorded mortgage.

   
Quote 0 0

Sandy wrote:
Perhaps another element to the feet dragging is something I discovered in my state's real estate law: If recorded documents contain errors, but these errors are not contested within five years from the recording date, then all documents are deemed wholly correct and binding. It seems that even fake signatures and notarization would be binding.

I am finding that many recording regulations were simply not written with any remote imagination that the likes of MERS and the admitted mortgage fraud would cloud the process (and the title to property). For instance, my state says if a homeowner is unsure where to send a payment, then he or she can rely on the name and address of the entity stated in the current recorded mortgage.

   


Sandy good point and keep it coming. But remember individual STATE laws rule.

Ed Cage
Quote 0 0
Sandy
Exactly, Ed. I apologize for not making it clearer that I was referring to my state only.  Thanks for clarifying.

It is important to know our own state laws, even if we have an attorney. 

Read your state law for yourself. More than once.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Its time said:
According to the attorneys I have talked to, the statute of limitations does not begin where a coverup is involved, also, racketeering laws make the statute of limitations far more questionable.

Apparently, where an attorney is involved in covering up a clients mortgage fraud activities, I read that that attorney is now considered an accessory to the crime and as I read it, the statute of limitations does not begin to tick so long as a coverup has concealed the corpus delicti .

Apparently, there is no client attorney privilege in mortgage fraud, in terms of (pre-prosecution coverup).

Anyone know anything about this?


First, I do NOT want to be second guessing the legal advice you are actually receiving from qualified and experienced attorneys within your jurisdiction.  But I also want to caution that your post makes this sound WAY TOO EASY.

As has been pointed out by others, many jurisdictions have a so-called "discovery rule" which provides for the tolling of limitations periods with respect to certain kinds of claims, particularly fraud, where information necessary to pursue the claim is concealed.

But usually, in most places, the discovery rule does NOT automatically toll limitations from the date of the discovery of the cause of action.  Rather, more often, limitations is tolled from the date of discovery OR when the victim OUGHT TO HAVE DISCOVERED the fraud.  That is, the law usually imposes some duty on persons to use at least ordinary diligence in making inquiries and seeking to uncover false, misleading and fraudulent representations.  A borrower who simply sticks his or her head in the sand and IGNORES conspicuous evidence of fraud may be entitled to no tolling at all.

This can create a rather bizarre and perverse defense to claims of fraud after the limitations period has run.  The person or entity engaging in the fraudulent or other tortious conduct can claim that the fraud was so brazen and easily discovered that no tolling is possible.  The argument basically would be that the fraud was so open and widely known that ANY PERSON of reasonable and ordinary diligence would have DISCOVERED the fraud almost immediately.

In fact, many borrowers totally implode their own cases by admissions that they knew of the fraud at origination, but felt trapped or boxed in and acquiesced to the fraud.  In these cases, the perpetrator can claim both waiver by the borrower AND that no discovery rule tolling should apply.

Those perpetrators who engaged in the very most egregious fraud may therefore be entitled to the greatest measure of protection.  The Lender who literally defrauded EVERYONE and whose officers and employees were (for example) criminally charge can claim with more than a little merit that only a lazy fool in total denial wouldn't have known of their fraud. 

By contrast, a single isolated instance of fraud perpetrated by the most seemingly upright and trustworthy might more reasonably have remained undiscovered.

*

In the end, the application of the discovery rule is going to be dependent both upon the unique facts of the case, as well as statutes and cases of a particular jurisdiction.

*

You also seem to be possibly confusing criminal and civil fraud.  While these may both be present in a case, they are actually separate concepts.  Some frauds are criminal.  Many frauds are criminally actionable.  In most jurisdictions, there is probably a separate statute of limitations that applies to each.


While it might prove to be satisfying to see a perpetrator prosecuted, this will NOT typically result in recovery of losses for the fraud, EXCEPT where civil restitution is ordered as a criminal penalty.

By contrast, those seeking to recover damages for fraud, will typically need to bring a civil action.  And if the fraud arose out of the same transaction as a mortgage foreclosure, the fraud might have to be brought as a counterclaim.  Otherwise, the claim of fraud might be waived.

The topic of mandatory and optional counterclaims is a complex area and something that a borrower defendant should discuss with their attorney.

Simply because limitations have been tolled it does NOT follow that aclaim is still valid.  There might have been a duty to raise the issue as a counterclaim, waiver and a res judicata bar, separate from the limitations.

*

The assertion that an attorney cannot claim privilege as to the attorney's participation in a fraud, your statement seems to me to be a gross oversimplification.

Attorney-client privilege it a fairly robust concept in most jurisdictions and isn't usually going to be set aside lightly.  The U.S. Justice Department has repeatedly confronted claims of attorney-client privilege in its investigations of servicer-foreclosure mill law firm fraud in a Bankruptcy setting.  Although the Justice Department has several tiems prevailed in overcoming discovery objections, very often these cases have lasted a couple of years.  The Justice Department has almost unlimited resources.  The borrower will become financially exhausted very quickly.
 
Even when the borrower is legally RIGHT, getting to the correct result may be costly, delayed and even unattainable.
 
Moreover, one must distinguish in those frauds in which the attorney is actually culpable and those frauds which were perpetrated by the lender-servicer, etc., which came to the attorney's attention after the fact.  While the attorney-client privilege might be readily pierced in respect of the first catagory -- collusive frauds which include the attorney -- the latter category are probably entitled to privilege.
 
Even when the attorney has engaged in criminal behavior, very often this must be PROVEN in order to pierce the privilege.  And the PROOF may be in the withheld communications or documents.  With an honest and impartial judge, the Court can order the production of documents for an in camera inspection by the court.  But this requires not only judicial integrity, but even a measure of activism.  The material produced for an in camera inspection may be voluminous and going through the material to find evidence of attorney collusion may be very time consuming.
 
Courts, particularly state courts in jurisdictions with heavy foreclosure dockets, are usually NOT looking for ways to add to the burden of hearing and deciding case.  If you think that you are going to get a Florida Court to order an in camera inspection of documents, even if this is what is legally required for due process, all I can say is "Good luck with that!".
 
I think that a pro se litigant is going to find this almost impossible.  And getting discovery by piercing attorney-client privilege seems to me to be something to be hoped for mostly in U.S. Bankruptcy Court or in Kings County, NY, where the bench seems to have totally caught on to the fraud and is looking for ways to punish the perpetrators!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Failing To Seek Discovery

I want to add one additional caution about the discovery rule as it pertains to frauds during the conduct of a court proceeding.

Suppose that the plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure engages in perjury, forgery, evidence fabrication and other fraud, which initially goes undetected.

Further suppose that the fraud claims were somehow NOT within a category of mandatory counterclaims which had been waived.

Finally, let us suppose that the defendant failed to engage in aggressive discovery to uncover the true facts in the case.

IF the borrower-defendant later, belatedly, discovers fraud within materials filed with the court, one question about the application of the discovery rule might be whether these frauds MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED through thorough and diligent discovery.  Where discovery was conducted and the plaintiff compounded the frauds by various false answers and discovery abuse, the borrower-defendant might be OK.

But where a borrower-defendant failed to conduct discovery, a court might find that the borrower-defendant wasn't diligent in seekign to discover the fraud.
Quote 0 0
where does that leave all those homeowners whom currently have summary judgments against them based on fraudulent documents but where the bank hasn't proceeded yet, the so called "foreclosure limbo".  Should they hope that the case will die a slow quiet death because all the fraud is now in the open and there are consequences to their actions or should they fight a loud fight?  The article which I originally posted seems to imply that there may be no consequences if the banks strategically take their time.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
syl said:
where does that leave all those homeowners whom currently have summary judgments against them based on fraudulent documents but where the bank hasn't proceeded yet, the so called "foreclosure limbo". Should they hope that the case will die a slow quiet death because all the fraud is now in the open and there are consequences to their actions or should they fight a loud fight? The article which I originally posted seems to imply that there may be no consequences if the banks strategically take their time.

 
syl:
 
ANY homeowner who has had a summary judgment taken against them has ALREADY LOST THEIR CASE!  If the plaintiff DELAYS in proceeding to a foreclosure sale or in ejecting the borrower from the property, this shoudl NEVER be a reason to be lulled into some sense of complacency.
 
If a borrower has a VALID REASON to have the judgment set aside (and even if merely UNCERTAIN), the borrower NEEDS TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY RIGHT AWAY.
 
FAILING TO DO THIS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN THE JUDGMENT BECOMING FINAL, UNAPPEALABLE, AND UNALTERABLE.
 
There are several VALID REASONS for a Lender to WAIT.  In some jurisdictions, the borrower has a statutory right of redemption.  In those places, the Lender really CANNOT sell the property for full value until the redemption period has run.
 
In other places, the delay may be associated with chaos in law firm implosion.  THIS IS NOT A REASON TO BE COMPLACENT.
 
The market for foreclosed properties is also largely saturated.  The mortgage investor may be simply WAITING until market conditions improve.
 
Selling the property and ejecting the borrower has several possible disadvantages for the mortgage investor.  First, once the mortgage investor is holding the deed, the mortgage investor can be held responsible for taxes, homeowners association dues, and maintenance expenses of the property.  (While the Lender may be stuck with these anyway, when the property is in the investor's name, the liability is clearer and more direct.)
 
Moreover, vacant properties can be subject to vandalism and other damage.  Sometimes, leaving the borrower in the property for a little while makes economic sense.
 
A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS SIMPLY A TYPE OF USUALLY FINAL JUDGMENT WHICH MUST BE TIMELY APPEALED.  WAITING TO CHALLENGE SUCH A JUDGMENT IS ALMOST ALWAYS A HORRIBLE IDEA.  WHILE BORROWERS MIGHT STILL HAVE SOME VALID FRAUD CLAIMS AGAINST AN ORIGINATOR, ALMOST ALL OF THE ORIGINATORS WERE THINLY CAPITALIZED AND NOW OUT OF BUSINESS.  HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE CAN AND WILL ASSERT IMMUINTY TO CLAIMS OF FRAUD IN ORIGINATION.
 
IF ANYONE THINKS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LATER HAVE A VALID FRAUD CLAIM IN RESPECT OF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALREADY DECIDED, THEY ARE PROBABLY DELUSIONAL! 
Quote 0 0
Its time
My situation is different. My wife's (now divorced in Sept 2010 after 16 years of marriage) ex husband (divorced in early 1993) committed ID theft upon both my wife and me. He used her ID. altering it various ways, as indicated on her credit report, and various database background searches. He had her DOB as mine, as his, and he had is DOB with minor changes. He had her living at a false address out of state. She had 2 false social sec numbers and at least one false DOB on her credit report.
I began getting mailings top him in late 2005 at my house (inherited from my parents - who built it new decades ago) saying he was the owner of my house.
I had vanished on the databases I searched, He was living as man and wife at my house wit my wife.
The companies who mailed their ads told me the obtained their mailing list from the Experian Home Owners Database, which Experian told me was obtained from either the courthouse records or mortgages. I have no mortgage.
I just received another mailing to him as owner of my house in mid April 2011 after over year of beginning to receive the mailing directed at me.
This guys lawyer is extremely powerful, in ways I can not even speak.
My wife had a breakdown and divorced me!
I tried to obtain the evidence against him via discovery on her. My motions, objections etc VANISHED from the Judges clerks, and never were ruled upon. An UNSEEN HAND was operating to undermine my simple right to discovery..
My first attorney, whom I gave a many hundred page file on her ex, and told him I wanted to get discovery on my wife,and all accounts in her name as they were part of the marriage's property, 'lost' the file then withdrew, I filled an objection to his withdrawal, which was never ruled upon, and he somehow had a clerk enter a Ruling from the Judge, apparently backdated by many weeks, entered on the Superior court computer on a SATURDAY! I was told that does not eve happen).
My wife was driven mentally ill, and was lead to believe by her attorney and her 2 sons (by her ex) that this somehow nothing.
After being pro se  for a year an a half desperately trying to get my motions and objections either heard, or rejected by the judge, I ended up in the hospital with heart failure (from the chronic uncontrolled sever hyper tension that was the result of this sociopaths actions).
Somehow, my wife's attorney found out I was in the hospital and filed for a trial.
I had weeks until court.
I filed a motion to postpone trial, but got no response.
I was able to retain an attorney for the sole purpose of 1)presenting the judge with the documentation on my wife's ex, and asking the judge to instruct her to pursue prosecution, if the judge determined the documents warranted such, 2( correct the language in the settlement agreement so it reflected my having inherited my house, and it not somehow was a marital asset that I was 'keeping'.
My new attorney followed through, but not with a glitch that she addressed and remedied later..
I saw my file, she saw my docket (which the mediator we had almost a year earlier told me could only be of 'organized crime'. (the agreement we reached, her lawyer refused to include the correct language regarding my maintaining my title to my inherited house, versus me 'keeping my house'!
My credit report indicated a false soc sec number, so I filled a police report so I could file a report with the credit agencies. The detective asked me who I may think could have done this, I told him about my wife's ex.
I told him about the appearance of mortgage fraud, and how I believed this guy was apparently operating some kind of an ID theft/ financial fraud racket from his business, using my wife as a 'straw man', and that he has had years to cover up his tracks because of an UNSEEN HAND withing the court system.
A few weeks ago, I received another mailing to him as the owner of my house. I filled a police report on him for ID theft.
His attorney has been running interference for hims for decades, child support fraud, etc.
My ex wife was told by the judge at our final 'hearing' that her ex husband had done 'terrible things to you both, and that he would appear to have violated his oath of office, and that she must cooperate with the me to a have him prosecuted. 
She has been some intimated ( in a congenial kind of way) by her lawyer, and her two adult sons ( by him) that non of this is true.
I am told she is suffering from some type of PTSD, denial, ' a 'mental block'. An attorney told me she was the 'Manchurian wife' that her ex had somehow apparently programmed her during their marriage, or least he exploited the damage he caused during their marriage
All this to cover up a mortgage fraud (racket)
The detective seems very un motivated to pursue this. No surprises. .
How ever her ex concealed the loans not the issue.
My house is worth about 1/2 what I could have sold it for in 2006.
I cannot convince my ex wife to file a police report for ID theft on her ex.and put fraud alerts on her credit reports
She is somehow convinced that somehow this is unreal.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.






William A. Roper, Jr. wrote:
Failing To Seek Discovery

I want to add one additional caution about the discovery rule as it pertains to frauds during the conduct of a court proceeding.

Suppose that the plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure engages in perjury, forgery, evidence fabrication and other fraud, which initially goes undetected.

Further suppose that the fraud claims were somehow NOT within a category of mandatory counterclaims which had been waived.

Finally, let us suppose that the defendant failed to engage in aggressive discovery to uncover the true facts in the case.

IF the borrower-defendant later, belatedly, discovers fraud within materials filed with the court, one question about the application of the discovery rule might be whether these frauds MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED through thorough and diligent discovery.  Where discovery was conducted and the plaintiff compounded the frauds by various false answers and discovery abuse, the borrower-defendant might be OK.

But where a borrower-defendant failed to conduct discovery, a court might find that the borrower-defendant wasn't diligent in seekign to discover the fraud.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Its time said:
I began getting mailings top him in late 2005 at my house (inherited from my parents - who built it new decades ago) saying he was the owner of my house.


It seems as though you are trying to tell us that you first became aware of the fraud in 2005.  Six years have now elapsed.

So the questions as to civil limitations would seem to be the length of the civil limitations period in your jurisdiction and precisely when you learned of the fraud or SHOULD HAVE LEARNED OF IT from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person.

*

What I mostly garnered from your post is that you have had a frustrating several years, but have known about this fraud for some time.

While there may have been mulitple crimes and mulitple torts, there would tend to be a limitations period for each.

It is UNCLEAR to me from your post precisely WHAT crimes or torts you think were committed and WHEN.

The jumble about various lost or misplaced pleadings and filings seems very likely to almost totally impeach your credibility.  ADDING those details, EVEN IF TRUE presents an unproven conspiracy so daunting that it becomes very difficult to take you seriously

You need to SIMPLIFY and FOCUS your story.  And you need to try to distinguish actionable torts from matters which may not be actionable.

Perhaps there is some cause of action there for ruining your marriage.  IF it is viable, then there is probably some plaintiff's lawyer who will litigate the case on contingency.  If it is NOT viable, then no one will take the case except for $$$.

*

You seem to describe various possible crimes and/or torts of alarming scope and complexity, but without ANY meaningful evidence in support of your theories AT ALL.  Moreover, to the extent that matters have already been litigated to finality, these matters or those closely associated and arising out of the SAME facts may now be barred by res judicata

*

You impassioned desire to get your ex-wife to file a criminal complaint in respect of harm purported to have been done by the ex-husband seems particularly poorly focused.  I find it rather unsurprising that she feels threatened and intimidated or that her concern about her relationship with he sons by the prior marriage is a source of more than a little concern.

*

It seems to me that you need to do more than a little critical thinking and to try to write down with some clarity and specificity precise what you believe the civil causes of action were, are and might be, the evidence you have readily available in support of such causes of action and the identifiable injury or harm arising out of such cause of action.

Then you need to do the SAME with respect to the crimes that you believe were commited, identifying specifically what you think the ex-husband (or others) did which was criminal.

Understanding the threshold of proof required to actually WIN any civil or criminal case is also very important.

Then you need to assess which possible causes of action remain viable (if ANY), what you might hope to gain by pursuing them and what it would cost you.

*

Finally, I would caution you that you really need to tone down the paranoia and the suspicion of the motivations and actions of ALL OTHERS.  I am NOT an attorney.  But IF I WAS AN ATTORNEY and you came to me with a tale about how you had been wronged not only by the ex-husband, but by prior attorneys within your employ, by the Court and various other public officials, quite frankly I would probably assume you are NUTS.  But even if I believed you had been WRONGED,  I would also have to assess the wisdom and desirability of taking on the entire community and legal establishment, if, indeed, you WERE correct and everyone actually WAS plotting against you.

In short, in your description of your experiences recounted above, I find that in relating your tale, through your hyperbole, assumptions and general paranoia, you are your own worst witness and worst enemy

Based upon the description I find it unsurprising that you have difficulty finding someone to represent you.  And based upon the poor focus and incoherence of the tale, I find it unsurprising that you have failed in your pro se efforts.

This site is actually about mortgage servicing fraud.  Throughout your account, there was NOTHING within the tale other than frustration which seemed to be related to our theme or topic.

Best of luck to you! 
Quote 0 0
Its time
 We began getting mail for him at the house in 2005. Nothing of a criminal nature beyond that of harassment was evident.
It took a long time to put it all together, because my wife was being 'told' I was being 'paranoid'
The divorce judge told her to have him prosecuted after he reviewed the documents.
Its very simple:.
Corpus Delicti!
.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Its time said:

We began getting mail for him at the house in 2005.  Nothing of a criminal nature beyond that of harassment was evident.

It took a long time to put it all together, because my wife was being 'told' I was being 'paranoid'.


Its time:

It is unclear to me whether limitations periods are tolled in respect of criminal penalties for fraud in any case.  Look to the laws of your jurisdiction.

From what you have posted, it STILL does NOT appear that you have "put it all together".  What you seem to have is a large accumulation of mostly incoherent speculation and suspicion and little proof.

Moreover, it seems to me that your posts might be more appropriate on a True Crime message board or maybe you can write a novel.  This site is about mortgage servicing fraud.  It is NOT about hostile domestic relations situations, identity theft and credit reporting issues.

Its probably time to move on!  Best of luck to you!!
Quote 0 0
Good subject syl.
And two **superb** posts in a row dealing with this highly pertinent subject by William Roper. (See posts #10 and #11 above)

Ed Cage  |  ecagetx@gmail.com
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...