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

We’re Gonna Have a Foreclosure Trial, Simple Thing…..Right?

So here’s the thing. A foreclosure trial should be a simple matter. An easy case for a big shot foreclosure firm….right? Let’s take a hypothetical example. The Plaintiff (or some version of the Plaintiff…we’ll get to that later) filed the Original Note years ago. They’ve got an Original, wet ink note that was taken out with American Broker’s Conduit in 2007. The note file with the court in 2009 is endorsed in blank so any old person can come in court, file the lawsuit and throw my client out into the street…..right?

Well, hold on there Nellie. Slow down a bit. Let me take you for a little trip down the rabbit hole. First a little date to keep in mind. American Home Mortgage filed for bankruptcy in August 2007, just a few days after my loan was closed. According to pleadings filed in court, shortly after the filing 6,500 people were fired all across the country. So a first question I have is just how did my little ole loan get endorsed by some employee of AHMSI in the few short days between when it closed and when AHMSI filed bankruptcy? (More on that later too.) You know how things are when the ship is sinking….I’d imagine everyone knew the ship was going down so were all these folks really Johnnie on the Spot and really dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s? I mean while the building was on fire and everyone was running up and down the hallway screaming, was my particular girl sitting there calmly endorsing away millions of dollars in promissory notes?(Stamp, sign; Stamp, sign; Stamp, sign) I just don’t picture that and, as I’ll get to later, this probably was not happening.

AHMSI and CA case details – GOOD ref-2

AHMSI-1

American Home Mortgage bankruptcy questions and court filing

AHMSI-2

Next, I started carefully examining all these bankruptcy filings and litigation cases related to the AHMSI bankruptcy and it seems there’s real questions about whether and when and what parts of loans of these bankrupt companies actually were transferred out. You see the loans were like pigs that were sent off to slaughterhouses. Pieces and parts were chopped up and sent off to different places…the loans themselves were sold off to one group of investors (who knows if they were double sold?), then the rights to service or collect the payments on the loans were either retained by related entities, or those rights were sold off to other companies. In subsequent lawsuits filed in federal bankruptcy court all sort of allegations are made about the improper transfer of these parts of the pig.

Another key part of this case comes in the name of the Plaintiff that sued my client to foreclose, American Home Mortgage Servicing. Well, when they first filed the suit in 2009, I didn’t like the way the name was all loose and not pled in a proper legal fashion, so I demanded they give me the details that our pleading rules require….tell me what state of incorporation, tell me you’re in good standing, tell me there are no other competing entities….and well, here we are three years later and it seems like those questions I raised right at the beginning were well founded and justified. You see, as the litigation shows, there were in fact two versions of AHMSI, pre-bankruptcy and the fire-sale rising from the ashes, post bankruptcy. I challenged capacity and it seems that challenge was well-taken at the time….but that was never disclosed to me or the court in my case. (More on that later)

Me being a curious type, I sent detailed, painstaking discovery pointed at AHMSI asking all kinds of questions, the who, what, when, where and hows of every aspect of this loan and the litigation…and guess what responses I got? NOTHING. Not a single question answered. And how did they pull this trick off? Well, they went behind my back and told the court in an ex-parte motion that the loan had sold and that AHMSI now had nothing to do with this loan. I objected but the court denied my objection, letting AHMSI slither away not answering a single damn question. For two years now, I’ve kept pointing back to the fact that I was denied those questions, filing motions to compel, trying to take depositions, but the new plaintiff’s attorneys (same as the old plaintiff’s attorneys) scream that the old plaintiff isn’t their client and they cannot be made to answer any questions. They maintained this position until right up at the eve of trial when they told the court they were going to call their former client as a witness in order to answer questions and get in information they need in order to prove their case.

Well, along comes another interesting thing about this case. You see, the Plaintiff’s attorney files a “Notice of Non-Reliance on Assignment”. You see, AHMSI had apparently contracted with a company LPS or DOCS, LLC to generate the documents it needs to foreclose. Now AHMSI and LPS Docs are in a good old fashioned legal war, AHMSI is suing LPS accusing its old friend of doing shady things as part of its document creation operation. Nothing like a little fratricide to spice my case up a little bit. Now, I’m not sure what a “Notice of Non-Reliance” is…I checked the rule books and there’s no mention of such a motion in all of legal history, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing out on something new and exciting so I filed a “Notice of Reliance on Assignment”. You see, I wanted to bring to the court’s attention the fact that the Plaintiff had produced a document , filed it with the court and were now trying to run away from it like a frat boy runs away from a girl with….well, you fill in the blank.

READ THIS DOCUMENT VERY CAREFULLY

Well, the “Notice of Non-Reliance” brings us to another interesting point in this little saga called, “The Importance of Being Earnest”. You see, the Florida Bar issued an ethics opinion which dealt with exactly the kind of situation presented here. How do I know this is the situation. Well, I just received documents that were sealed as part of the Nevada Attorney General’s Lawsuit against Lender Processing Service. In this lawsuit is a document that explains exactly how LPS employees are supposed to forge the signatures of other employees, but they don’t call it forgery, they call it “Surrogate Signing”. The explain it in great detail…really, you just gotta read it here, complete with a picture perfect example of Linda Greene’s signature that everyone is supposed to copy. It’s just mind blowing that they would make all this so clear and write it down as policy….apparently no one considered that this was called forgery and that if the signature was notarized it was notary fraud. You see, I in fact have a Linda Greene signature in my case. Now, as I read the Bar ethics opinion along with the just-released Nevada lawsuit, I believe my opposing counsel has an obligation to bring this directly to the court for consideration….after which I believe the court would have no choice but to dismiss the case and potentially sanction those parties involved. But that hasn’t happened yet. I’ve asked my friend, the attorney on the other side just when she might make this meeting, but all my pestering emails just get ignored.

Which brings us back to another interesting subject, the promissory note at issue in this case. I have well founded reason to believe the note at issue in this case was not in fact endorsed by the person whose name appears on the face of the document. How? Well, remember the whole picture of the building burning and people running around on fire because 6,500 people are about to get fired in the days just after my loan closed? That’s certainly part of it, but there’s more. Much, much more. The other side knows it and I know it, but they are stuck in some kind of a dangerously delusional world where they think the judge ain’t gonna care about the pleadings I have filed. Maybe they’re right, maybe the judge will just ignore all of this.

Now, here’s the thing. I can’t just stand up in court and blather on like I can here and make this case. In court, I can’t just stand up and start making all these wild, accusatory statements and expect the judge to take them into consideration. Even if the judge wanted to , our rules of procedure require me to go through a painstaking process to make sure the evidence is properly presented and before the court. And so while it’s just taken me bit over an hour to tell parts of this story here, preparing then presenting this story in court will take many, many, many hours. Collecting the evidence, organizing the evidence, then getting it into a form for the court to consider over the screaming objections of my opponents. This truly sets up as a battle royale. Will justice prevail? You just never know until the very last minute.

Quote 0 0
Bruce
I wish you the best of luck. I hope the arrogance of the bank does them in. They must think we all live the the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Quote 0 0
Bill
Mr. Roper always cautioned about attacking an assignment that may SUPPORT your arguments.  

Quote:
 You see, I wanted to bring to the court’s attention the fact that the Plaintiff had produced a document , filed it with the court and were now trying to run away from it like a frat boy runs away from a girl with….well, you fill in the blank.

This is also an important point:

Quote:
Now, here’s the thing. I can’t just stand up in court and blather on like I can here and make this case. In court, I can’t just stand up and start making all these wild, accusatory statements and expect the judge to take them into consideration. Even if the judge wanted to , our rules of procedure require me to go through a painstaking process to make sure the evidence is properly presented and before the court.

 You will often see posters ask the swindlers like Mike H. to post cases.  This is the reason why.  You have to properly support your arguments with cases and support your accusations with FACTS or the judge isn't going to consider it.  "Because Mike H. said it's correct" just isn't going to get any mileage with the court.    


Quote 0 0
arrgy
You are absolutely correct. I looked at many of foreclosure complaints. And almost all of them have the same general B.S. language in it. Mine said:

"And all notices required of this mortgage have been given to the Borrower."

Oh really? That is something to attack, my Bank never gave me proper notice that I had an FHA loan, or that I needed to have the face to face meeting, or that my note and mortgage were assigned to a new lender. My complaint never said that the Lender met the FHA pre-foreclosure requirements, etc.

I doubt if most people even read their foreclosure complaint.

Quote 0 0
Hi All

Google   Sand Canyon Corporation for a definitive answer to the whole mess.

Option One= Sand Canyon Corp = AHMSI

All assignments from these companies are FRAUD.

Best regards
Acesfull
Quote 0 0
Bill
arrgy wrote:
You are absolutely correct. I looked at many of foreclosure complaints. And almost all of them have the same general B.S. language in it. Mine said:

"And all notices required of this mortgage have been given to the Borrower."

Oh really? That is something to attack, my Bank never gave me proper notice that I had an FHA loan, or that I needed to have the face to face meeting, or that my note and mortgage were assigned to a new lender. My complaint never said that the Lender met the FHA pre-foreclosure requirements, etc.

I doubt if most people even read their foreclosure complaint.


It appears you do not understand the rules in your jurisdiction.  While there are ALWAYS nuances from state to state, generally they did what was required.

A simple reading of the rules in your jurisdiction will show that they are only required to make a generally aver that all conditions precedence have been met.  You must specifically DENY any deficiencies.  

Here is an example from Florida:

Quote:

RULE 1.120. PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS 
(a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court. The initial pleading served on 
behalf of a minor party shall specifically aver the age of the minor party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party, the capacity of any party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader‘s knowledge.

(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with such particularity as the circumstances may permit. Malice, intent, 01.05.12 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Page 20 of 161knowledge, mental attitude, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally. 

(c) Conditions Precedent. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity 

You statement shows you are NOT familiar with your local rules.  If you do not read and understand the rules you have NO hope of prevailing.  
Quote 0 0
Bill
acesfull wrote:
Hi All

Google   Sand Canyon Corporation for a definitive answer to the whole mess.

Option One= Sand Canyon Corp = AHMSI

All assignments from these companies are FRAUD.

Best regards
Acesfull

There is NO way to make a general statement that ALL assignments are fraudulent and without effect.  Unless fraud or a lack of authority is PROVEN with admissible evidence, you are not going to be in a position to challenge their validity.  

Even if a lack of authority is shown, there is nothing stopping an entity from ratifying an assignment giving it full force.

You should NEVER make assumptions.   
Quote 0 0
Bill
Bill wrote:
arrgy wrote:
You are absolutely correct. I looked at many of foreclosure complaints. And almost all of them have the same general B.S. language in it. Mine said:

"And all notices required of this mortgage have been given to the Borrower."

Oh really? That is something to attack, my Bank never gave me proper notice that I had an FHA loan, or that I needed to have the face to face meeting, or that my note and mortgage were assigned to a new lender. My complaint never said that the Lender met the FHA pre-foreclosure requirements, etc.

I doubt if most people even read their foreclosure complaint.


It appears you do not understand the rules in your jurisdiction.  While there are ALWAYS nuances from state to state, generally they did what was required.

A simple reading of the rules in your jurisdiction will show that they are only required to make a generally aver that all conditions precedence have been met.  You must specifically DENY any deficiencies.  

Here is an example from Florida:

Quote:

RULE 1.120. PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS 
(a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court. The initial pleading served on 
behalf of a minor party shall specifically aver the age of the minor party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party, the capacity of any party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader‘s knowledge.

(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with such particularity as the circumstances may permit. Malice, intent, 01.05.12 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Page 20 of 161knowledge, mental attitude, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally. 

(c) Conditions Precedent. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity 

You statement shows you are NOT familiar with your local rules.  If you do not read and understand the rules you have NO hope of prevailing.  


The furnishing of a final contractor's affidavit to the owner is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action to enforce a mechanic's lien. See, Holding Electric, Inc. v. Roberts,530 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1988). It follows that the defense of nonperformance of this conditionprecedent must be pled "specifically and with particularity" or it is deemed waived. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(c); Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; Hodusa Corp. v. Abray Construction Co., 546 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). This court has previously held that pleading the defense of failure to give the contractor's affidavit is not accomplished by simply denying the allegation that "all 774*774 conditions precedent under Chapter 713 have been satisfied."Prestige Development Group, Inc. v. Russell, 612 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

In the case sub judice, Paulk alleged compliance with section 713.06(3)(d), as well as satisfaction of all conditions precedent. As such, it was incumbent upon Peyton, under rule 1.120(c), to plead specifically and with particularity any nonperformance of this conditionprecedent. Peyton's averment of "without knowledge" did not satisfy the standard prescribed in rule 1.120(c). Consequently, Peyton waived compliance with this condition. Prestige; Davie Westview Developers, Inc. v. Bob-Lin, Inc., 533 So.2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. denied,545 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 1989) (failure to plead specifically and with particularity nonperformance of furnishing of contractor's affidavit constitutes a waiver).

Quote 0 0
arrgy
You misunderstood what I wrote, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I know those general statements are always placed in complaints. My state has the same exact wording of civil procedure. The point I was making, was exactly what you said, that it is your responsibility as the defense to show that these conditions were not met.
Quote 0 0

Fannie is a Fraud and Pinellas County Judges Predicted This Years Ago….CASE NO 5595

Some Key Excerpts From The Now Sure to Be Worldly Famous Case No. 5595. I just got off the phone with Nye and he’s quite amazed at all this…amazed that it took the world so long to wake up to what he’s been screaming about for years.

Like every other whistleblower or advocate who has ever stood up for consumers and the Rule of Law, Nye has been attacked, persecuted, bullied, and yes, attacked again.

Nye has always been a tireless champion for honesty, integrity and the Rule of Law. Just last week, Nye provided to me the Smoking Gun I needed in a case that I’m taking to trial next week. He shared with me an affidavit of fraud that is mind blowing.

I’m so glad that this American hero is finally getting the credit he deserves.

I find it most interesting, but not at all surprising, that Pinellas County judges are featured prominently in this report. Think about it, there are untold tens of thousands of judges all across this country that have presided over millions of foreclosure cases, but a good judge long, long ago in Pinellas County first warned that all of this was going to come back to bite us all in the end. Some of the best foreclosure scholarship in the entire nation comes out of the thoughtful jurisprudence of Pinellas County. These judges are tough as nails, and even after all these years and all these motions years after years, they grab each file, and carefully examine each motion and each case, then rule as if each case was the most important one on their crammed docket.

Now, some keys from the report. Keep in mind here that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The thing that people won’t get is how those in power keep wanting to ignore all of this…to keep kicking the cow chip down the field. But sooner or later the cow chip breaks apart on your foot.

And now from the report:

Two Florida trial courts recently have criticized MERS for false pleadings in
foreclosure proceedings. Mr. Lavalle apparently approached judges in two Florida counties with sufficient information to prompt the judges to call extraordinary hearings.

In MERS v. Cabrera, the judge started an extraordinary show cause hearing
regarding nine foreclosure cases by reading portions of inquiries from Mr. Lavalle and his mother, Ms. Pew.47 MERS counsel was forced to concede that the complaints contained inaccurate allegations regarding its interests in promissory notes.48 The complaints allege that MERS is the “holder and owner” of promissory notes when neither is true. This allegation hides
the relationships of the parties who will benefit from the foreclosure and masks a serious legal issue. The judge was troubled that MERS changed its stance after filing “thousands and thousands of cases” stating that it owns the note.49

A second judge (who took the time to observe the hearing) criticized MERS for routinely filing lost note affidavits and counts to reform the promissory notes. It appears the notes are not lost but lawyers or servicers find it easier and quicker to claim the notes cannot be found. The judge pointed out the inconsistency of the affidavit to the MERS complaint, asking:
Where is it at the time it is lost in all of these myriad hundreds of cases which alleged that it’s inour possession at the time it was
lost or destroyed?5o

The judge accused MERS of filing “false affidavits” and questioned whether foreclosures should be allowed to go forward. 51 MERS’ attorney made the concession that “My understanding is lost
note affidavits and lost note counts are routinely filed by mortgagees and note holders … ,,52 He acknowledged the practice should be “modified.,,53

In an order of dismissal dated September 28,2005, the court dismissed four
foreclosures as a “sham and/or frivolous pleading,” but dismissed them without prejudice so that the true owners and holders of the notes could file their own foreclosure actions.54

The court also criticized MERS’ practice of certifying servicers’ employees as
certifying officers, saying: “[t]he use of designating employees of the servicer as officers of MERS in order to circumvent the ‘technical’ requirement of law is transparent.,,55 He called thepractice a “charade.,,56

A judge in the Pinellas County, Florida, circuit court issued an order dismissing
20 MERS foreclosures for essentially the same reasons. Judge Logan noted the false allegations, stating:

“The standard allegation in the Complaint alleged that … ‘Plaintiff
now owns and holds a mortgage note and mortgage … ‘ The Court
never found that allegation which is contained in all of the MERS
Complaints to be supported by a review of the documents within
the Court file. ,,

Fannie Mae does not authorize attorneys to represent that MERS holds or owns promissory notes. The Servicing Guide states “MERS will have no beneficial interest in the mortgage, even if it is named as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument.

We conclude that foreclosure attorneys in Florida are routinely filing false
pleadings and affidavits regarding the plaintiffs – MERS or servicers – interest in the proceedings and regarding lost, missing or destroyed promissory notes. The practice could be occurring elsewhere. It is axiomatic that the practice is improper and should be stopped. Fannie Mae has not authorized this unlawful conduct. As a result of the MERS hearings in Florida,
Fannie Mae recognizes the issue and is taking action to correct it.

It is axiomatic that the practice of submitting false pleadings and affidavits is unlawful. With his complaint, Mr. Lavalle has identified an issue that Fannie Mae needs to address promptly. For some time, the Legal Department has been working on a proposal for a new computer system to communicate better with and control attorneys working on Fannie Mae litigated matters. As a result of the Florida cases, the Legal Department is formulating a more immediate solution for the issues raised in those cases, including a directive to attorneys and Servicers in Florida directing corrective action.

Mr. Lavalle’s claim that large numbers of foreclosures – tens of billions of dollars worth – could be unwound as a result of this misconduct likely overstates the risk to Fannie Mae.

Courts are unlikely to unwind foreclosures unless borrowers can demonstrate that the foreclosure would not have gone forward with the correct pleadings, which is a difficult burden for most borrowers to meet. Even the Florida judges who were very angry about the false pleadings ordered that the foreclosures could go forward with correct pleadings and the proper plaintiff.

Civil lawsuits would have a similar burden; the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate damages arising from the false statements. Mr. Lavalle has not presented evidence that the borrowers were improperly placed in default. Nevertheless, the issues Mr. Lavalle raises should be addressed promptly in order to mitigate the risk of exposure to lawsuits and some degree of
liability.

Prior to the creation of MERS, the borrower could look to the land records to
follow the chain of servicers. If a mortgage is registered with MERS, however, MERS is the mortgagee of record. Fannie Mae does not require lenders to register mortgages they sell or service for Fannie Mae with MERS.

Mr. Lavalle questions whether Fannie Mae has adequate
procedures in place to keep track of 15 million promissory notes that it has in its possession or is held for its account. 155 Mr. Lavalle claims that the endorsement-in-blank policy leads to trillions of dollars of missing or lost negotiable paper. Mr. Lavalle bases his claim that the problem is
widespread by extrapolating from routine filing of lost note affidavits in Florida foreclosure proceedings. 157 He acknowledges that every entity operating in the secondary mortgage market has the same policy.158 According to his calculations, about $6 trillion worth of bearer paper exists due to this practice. 159

Since these notes are negotiable instruments, Mr. Lavalle contends
borrowers face dire consequences from their mishandling. 160 A holder in due course, for instance, can recover even when the maker has defenses or has paid the note in full.

80495799-Confidential-Report

Quote 0 0
All these folks committing fraud from the employee who falsified someone's signature, to the attorneys who knowingly patch it up need to be prosecuted.

If there is no consequences for their actions it will continue.  Where is the incentive to stop?

Quote 0 0
anon
you probably should know that in Florida the supreme court ruled for MERS and has not to my knowledge reversed that decision. So while the Mers v. Cabrera decision was significant the Florida Supreme court ruled that MERS had standing to foreclose. 
I do not know the name of the case but I am sure it can be looked up. I believe it was in 2008. 
Quote 0 0
Bill
anon wrote:
you probably should know that in Florida the supreme court ruled for MERS and has not to my knowledge reversed that decision. So while the Mers v. Cabrera decision was significant the Florida Supreme court ruled that MERS had standing to foreclose. 
I do not know the name of the case but I am sure it can be looked up. I believe it was in 2008. 

 2009 MERS Rules of Membership under Rule 8, Section 1) (c) on page 25.

Quote:
(c)         In the State of Florida, the authority to conduct foreclosures in the name of MERS granted to a Member’s Certifying Officers under Paragraph Three of the Member’s MERS Corporate Resolution is revoked. Effective June 1, 2006, the Member shall be sanctioned $10,000.00 per violation for commencing a foreclosure in Florida in the name of MERS.
Quote 0 0
Hi All

Hi Ann--- Read Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kansas. 528 Supreme Court of Kansas,2009)

In concluding that MERS was not a proper party to the litigation in issue, the court ruled:  IF MERS IS ONLY THE MORTGAGEE,WITHOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE MORTGAGE INSTRUMENT,IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ENFORECABLE RIGHT.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...