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
Bob G
I had recently posted elsewhere why I believe that in most cases, original notes do not exist, having been destroyed after scanning by the closing agents. 

Here's Fannie Mae's description of the process:


The originals are converted to e-notes. The e-notes are then sold and delivered to Fannie. Apparently, Fannie uses sophisticated technologies to be able to produce what would appear to the naked eye to be the original note.  So when you are presented with what appears to be "an original note retrieved from a custodial vault," chances are that it is not.

One really needs to have a forensic analysis performed on the note, to include "yellow dots analysis" and a search for your fingerprints on the note.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Bob:

I think that you are confusing and conflating an actual eNote intiative, which involves the borrower executing the instrument through a digital signature, with the substitution of a scanned, digital copy of the actual instrument.

The eNote initiative has NOT been widely embraced.

If you carefully read the document you link, it does NOT describe a process for scanning in original instruments which are thereafter destroyed.  It instead describes a process involving attachment of digital signatures.

The U.S. military has moved to a system of digital signatures of soldiers' Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) and Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs).  Digital signatures are affixed through the use of the soldiers military ID card which includes a smart chip (CAC) together with the soldier's PIN for that CAC.  I am well familiar with this system.  If a borrower was digitally signing the Note, the borrower would be aware of it.  I have never heard from a borrower who digitally signed such an eNote.

While MERS' registration system for mortgages has garnered a very significant share of mortgage originations (though this now seems to be DECREASING), it is my impression that the eNote initiative remains in its infancy.  Frankly, I think that MERS will FAIL before eNote use ever becomes widespread.
Quote 0 0
Bill
William,
   What happens when MERS fails?   Could they possibly assign their interest (so they say) in the mortgages to different entities?  Does a new kind of MERS system fixing the currently problems arise from the ashes like the Phoenix?  There is just too much money on the line for the bankers for me to believe that they are just going to let it die with no plan on how to keep committing their frauds.  From my reading the whole point of MERS was to become bankruptcy remote.  What would cause it to fail?
Quote 0 0
Bob G
William,

I'll have to check into this a little more. I could very well be wrong here. I will call Fannie tomorrow and see what the deal is.

Also, note that last year alone, BAC and WF each sold $180B+ mortgage loans to Fannie.  If each was for approx. $180K, that's 1 million loan files.  So let's say that they sold about 4MM-5MM loans to Fannie and Freddie over the last 6 years.  Somebody must have an extremely large loan vault to keep all these original paper files/loan docs.

By the way, I finished reading Angela Nolan's deposition. She says that the originals in the loan file go out to FC attys when requested. But I'm not convinced that what she thinks are original loan docs are actually original loan docs as you and I would understand that term. Curiously, she did not bring sale and assignment docs to the deposition. Apparently there was some dispute as to whether these were subject to a protective order. But the defendant's counsel still wants them.

I believe that you've posited that very few people get a free house, perhaps 1 out of 100.  Nevertheless, that would still be tens of thousands of homeowners. Why would the banks allow this to happen if they had the original docs and had a good chain of title?

That's the problem, you see.  If everything is as buttoned up tight as Ms. Nolan states in her deposition, how can these tens of thousands of homeowners get their houses for free?  Doesn't quite make sense does it?
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Bob G. said:
Also, note that last year alone, BAC and WF each sold $180B+ mortgage loans to Fannie.  If each was for approx. $180K, that's 1 million loan files.  So let's say that they sold about 4MM-5MM loans to Fannie and Freddie over the last 6 years.  Somebody must have an extremely large loan vault to keep all these original paper files/loan docs.


Bob, the FNMA loan volumes are unquestionably enormous.  But simply because FNMA says that eNote delivery is acceptable, it does NOT follow that eNote delivery is common.  Ask around and see if you can find ANYONE who digitally signed their note.  I simply cannot find anyone.  I witnessed a JPMorgan Chase closing last week.  Everything was signed manually.

Quote:
Bob G. said:
She says that the originals in the loan file go out to FC attys when requested.


But she doesn't say how often this actually HAPPENS.  And the deposing attorneys did not ask her that question.

Quote:
Bob G. said:
I believe that you've posited that very few people get a free house, perhaps 1 out of 100.  Nevertheless, that would still be tens of thousands of homeowners.


I have posited that there are fewer than a few dozen who have received free houses to date nationally.  There is a larger number, possibly in the low thousands who may have received a modification or workout on very favorable terms, the precise nature of which are unknown due to the confidentiality provisions of these settlements.

The 1 out of 100 figure would be the portion of the borrowers who have answered and interposed a meaningful defense.

To date, very few of these cases have been resolved in favor of the home owner.  But the tide is certainly turning!

Those who fail to answer in a judicial foreclosure state are going to continue to LOSE.  And those who LOST by default are going to have a singularly difficult time overturning the judicial order of foreclosure, even where forgery, perjury and fraud could be proven.

By contrast, I believe that a very large portion of the non-judicial foreclosures already entered may involve a VOID DEED which can and may yet still be defeated by an action to quiet title or similar action to challenge the validity of the conveyance by a trustee who was improperly appointed.

In the judicial foreclosure states, there are probably four groups of defendant borrowers.  First, there is the group which might be in default, but for which the judicial foreclosure suit has not yet been filed.  Based upon my paradigm, IF the foreclosure mills can clean up their act, these foreclosures can proceed in most places fairly seamlessly.

The second group is those foreclosures already underway, but not yet resolved.  In these cases, the pleading of perjured affidavits and forged assignments may yet result in a free house, IF THE BORROWER IS WELL REPRESENTED and pleads the case well.  I think that a very large number of these could result in free houses for those who litigate skillfully.  At a minimum, these litigants can probably tie the foreclosure up, possibly for years!

The third group is those foreclosures which resulted in a relatively recent judgment, but for which the period to have the judgment set aside has NOT expired.  These can also be broken down into subgroups, to include those cases in which a default was obtained, those in which the plaintiff prevailed at summary judgment and those cases where the plaintiff won at trial.

The latter subgroup is minuscule.  These cases almost NEVER go to trial.  And if the defendant survives summary judgment, the plaintiff is usually looking to settle.

The problem for those who have lost by default is two-fold.  First, defaults can be very difficult to set aside EXCEPT where there are easily proven service/notice problems.  But a second problem arises because so many courts grant default without ANY evidentiary showing at all.  That is, the plaintiff may PREPARE a forged assignment and even record it, as well as prepare a perjured affidavit.  But in my experience the usual practice is that these are NOT PLEADED INTO EVIDENCE in support of a default judgment unless expressly requested by the court.

For this reason, the default cannot be said to have been foundationed on forged or perjured evidence, because the judgment is actually based upon NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.  But failure to plead evidence isn't usually a valid basis to set aside a default judgment.  Uggh.

Of those who contested their cases and lost at summary judgment, there will be many who had perjured and forged evidence used against them.  But PROVING the perjury or forgery is still problematic.  And the defendant seeking to set aside the judgment will bear the burden of proof.

The last group is those against whom judgments have been taken, where the time to appeal and the time to vacate the judgment for perjury, forgery, evidence fabrication or other fraud has passed.  This group will probably find itslef without remedy, at least in respect of their lost title.

But the latter groups might still have a valid cause of action for fraud against the foreclosure mill law firms!

Quote:
Bob G. said:
That's the problem, you see.  If everything is as buttoned up tight as Ms. Nolan states in her deposition, how can these tens of thousands of homeowners get their houses for free?  Doesn't quite make sense does it?
     

I think that things are going to be found to be buttoned up very nicely for the institutional custodians.  They are going to be able to validly maintain that they furnished the original note whenever it was actually sought by the servicer.

But it will turn out that the mortgage servicers and the the foreclosure mills simply didn't bother and PREFERRED to simply fabricate whatever evidence was needed rather than REQUESTING the production of these originals.

GO BACK AND READ THE FNMA AND FHLMC WRITTEN GUIDANCE TO THE SERVICERS.  IT RECOMMENDS THAT THE SERVICERS USE THE IMAGED COPY OF THE INSTRUMENTS IN THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE.  But the plaintiff then AVER to the court that the copy pleaded into evidence is a true and exact copy of the ORIGINAL, which it is NOT.

Quote 0 0
t
Another year passes since Mr. Roper again refuted the missing documentation myth in this January 2011 thread and the vacuousness of the Show Me the Note strategy and STILL no evidence that of that ANY of the original notes are missing has appeared!
 
This thread should probably be revived every year until they gather up the swindlers who are preying on distressed borrowers by spreading this nonsense!
Quote 0 0
Bill
There is a HUGE portion of Mr. Roper's threads that should constantly be revived.  The answers to TODAY's questions are the same answers that Mr. Roper gave YEARS ago.  While some are just being accepted by the courts NOW, his legal interpretations are just as strong and relevant TODAY as they were YEARS ago.  A good defense is a good defense.  Good discovery is good discovery.  And most important, a wing-nut theory will cause you to lose your house just as quickly today as it did a few years back.  I have NOT seen anyone refute his posts with case law in the 3 years I've been reading this forum.  Even years after his posts with the law evolving and changing.  Rather than contradict him, the law seems to align with his posts.

By reviving old threads, you really see how FAR AHEAD Mr. Roper was in his interpretations of cases and the law even when compared to ATTORNEYS.  The latest and greatest defenses were discussed years ago.  Many defenses Mr. Roper discussed YEARS ago are just now slowly starting to be used successfully (ie.  the UCC and negotiation of the note.  Failure to plead an endorsed copy of the note, ect..)

I came to this forum knowing nothing about foreclosure defense (pretty much less then nothing because of all the misconceptions I had from other sites). 

He has always been a bright beacon in a sea of mis-information!!!!!!!!!!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...