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
Hello to all.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge in this area will be able to respond.

In conversations with another foreclosure "victim" the UCC came up. Specifically Article 3-106, which states:

(a)  Except as provided in this section, for the purposes of Section 3-104(a), a promise or order is unconditional unless it states (i) an express condition to payment, (ii) that the promise or order is subject to or governed by another record, or (iii) that rights or obligations with respect to the promise or order are stated in another record.  A reference to another record does not of itself make the promise or order conditional.

A link to such is provided here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-106


It reasons in my mind that the alleged note and mortgage involved in suit are no longer the same "contract." They have been sold, traded, collectivised, pooled, had shares sold, etc. In short they have been securitized. In that process new agreements have been made by new and different parties - I should also add this has been done unilaterally - and there are new contracts and agreements, and new governing documents, in relation to the aforementioned alleged note and mortgage.

Consider the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that governs the alleged trust my alleged instruments are now in. That alleged trust contains instruments from numerous different jurisdictions, each with its own laws relating to instruments - different sates with mortgages, deed of trust, etc, and also judicial AND nonjudicial foreclosure procedures.

Is not the PSA a new governing document, and one in which I am not a party?

Also, in reviewing a website with information about the alleged trust my alleged instruments are allegedly contained in (geeze, I'll be glad when this is over, if  for no other than I will be able to have normal conversations using normal words and expressions) I note that the payment structure in the alleged trust allots all princilpal payments to the highest tranches first. Each lower tranch has payments allotted to it only when the higher tranch is paid in full.

So there has been no principal reduction whatsoever to my alleged instruments. Not exactly what I signed on to.

How does that relate to the UCC? How about fraud? If my payments aren't being applied to my alleged instruments, yet they outlined clearly that they would be, isn't that some sort of fraud?

I'm sure I have other questions, but honestly this is new information and I'm still in process of assimilating and getting my mind around it.

Quote 0 0
 
Article 3 does apply to any "Secured" note that is subject to filing within your state and county.  Most all notes are, it is being used in my case for adjustments against Litton Loan for over payments, of interest  and late fee's that are exempted from payment if payments are not accepted! 
Quote 0 0
The pooling and servicing agreement does not negate the original mortgage and note contracts you signed. If they argue differently, they have violated the terms and conditions of the contract and are in breach of contract.
 
If in fact they do argue, you have a "Third Party Torturous interference" claim as well as a breach of contract with the "Owner" of the note or mortgage.  Companies. Like Litton Loan have played fast and free with trying to confuse courts and people it has rights under the "Original Contract" when in fact they do not have any right to alter or change the original contracts, thus companies like Litton Loan began the "Manufactured Forclosure" process that has several steps, that include failing to accept your payments, credit them on a timely basis, charge you late and interest fee's, and then force place insurance on you all to keep you in a "Default Status" so they may claim you did not make "Timely Payments" per the contract. 
 
I have used a CPA that is well known for forensic accounting, in our experts report, Article 3 is used for redress against Litton Loan in my suit. 
Quote 0 0
Hi Folks,

I've found interesting reading in a case in MA...While it started in BK court its now a civil suit. This civil suit explains more of what was discussed in the adversary in bk court but also outside the bk court to include exactly what your asking for  I think.

I just downloaded a bunch of new docs for this case but not sure if it'll let me attach...If not I can be reached at jewels63366@yahoo.com

Thanks,

Kathy


Quote 0 0
And, whereas I did grant the right to the mortgage company to sell my note & Mortgage, I never granted them any right to disassemble it and the act of doing so voids the note. It's MY note. I created it. I want it back as it was when it left me. Or I don't want it at all. It's kinda like loaning someone your car and getting it back after they've run it in the demolition derby. Who knows who's going to come back later swearing, and producing whatever documents, saying I still owe them?
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Has anyone read, or become familiar with the changes in Article 9 of the UCC, and how those changes might affect a parties perfection, or lack thereof, in a note?

As best I can tell it looks like the best way to perfect a claim is by filing a UCC 1 Financing Statement.

Is that step frequently taken, ever taken, never taken, by plaintiffs in foreclosure suits?

Quote 0 0
nye Lavalle
Search John Murray AND UCC
Quote 0 0
http://www.firstam.com/listshortcut.cfm?id=3340


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...