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
Looking In Florida Show full post »

dave wrote:
Quote:
From one mortgager in particular I am seeing mortages that lack the legal requirements for recording in Florida.

 
chris,
 
your really are quite the moron.  everyone on this message board seems to know more about pretty much any topic than you.  this post series was started by a question from a florida borrower.  the question is shown above.
 
you are so busy writing and trying to impress everyone that you dont seem to bother to read what anyone else is posting.
 
arizona law is totally irrelevant to the question posted.  it is florida law that is important.
 
have you forgotten to take your medication?  smart people are distinguishable because they listen.  not because they talk or write.
 
since you never seem to read, you seem incapable of learning.  you need help.  but not help of the sort that anyone at this message board can provide.  why dont you go and tell your therapist or your parole officer about the problems you are having and ask for a referral.  maybe with the correct medication or professional help, you might one day become productive and able to make a useful contribution to an intelligent discussion.

I have to admit that when someone posts insults and strawman arguments I don't bother trying to communicate with that person. There is a lot more to it than the legal requirements for recording and you are going to have to read between the lines.

Quote 0 0
Bill
I'd also like to add, you commonly hear of "Unclean Hands" as a defense in foreclosure.  Unclean hands ALSO applies to DEFENDANTS trying to find a way to CHEAT THE LENDER out of a mortgage that they knowingly executed with a note.

I wish you the best of luck with this argument.
Quote 0 0
Bill wrote:

Jay wrote:
I think each of you has missed one important point regarding the issue of an invalid notarization of the mortgage. If I'm not mistaken, FL rules of evidence would not allow the document in a court of law if it were objected to. It certainly isn't self-authenticating, nor is there anyone to provide witness to the validity of the document at that point. IMHO, it certainly is an issue worth further inquiry.


Judges have VERY BROAD DISCRETION in regards to what is evidence.  This is always a common theme on appeals.  Foreclosure takes place in a court of EQUITY.  While the law is very ridged, equity will allow the judge to fashion a remedy outside the ridged statutes to keep a WRONG from happening.  Enjoying a home then going to court and trying to claim the mortgage is no good because of an improper notary execution or no notary is harming the lender.  You knew you signed a mortgage that is why received the money for the home.  If you were going to argue this before ANY judge I think you would lose all credibility and be on the fast track to have your home sold.

I challenge you an Christopher to find some cases where a mortgage was NOT VALID because of a notary. 


First: Cristopher is not an idiot. Over the last twenty years I have, on numerous occasions, Shepardized foreign caselaw only to find it cited in Florida, thus providing me with an otherwise overlooked source of authority.

Secondly, because you seem to miss the point completely, it is not to invalidate the mortgage. The issue is to deny jurisdiction to the court to proceed with the action.

I do not like engaging in personal attacks as many on this string seem inclined to do. You almost got one.
Quote 0 0
Bill wrote:

Jay wrote:
I think each of you has missed one important point regarding the issue of an invalid notarization of the mortgage. If I'm not mistaken, FL rules of evidence would not allow the document in a court of law if it were objected to. It certainly isn't self-authenticating, nor is there anyone to provide witness to the validity of the document at that point. IMHO, it certainly is an issue worth further inquiry.


Judges have VERY BROAD DISCRETION in regards to what is evidence.  This is always a common theme on appeals.  Foreclosure takes place in a court of EQUITY.  While the law is very ridged, equity will allow the judge to fashion a remedy outside the ridged statutes to keep a WRONG from happening.  Enjoying a home then going to court and trying to claim the mortgage is no good because of an improper notary execution or no notary is harming the lender.  You knew you signed a mortgage that is why received the money for the home.  If you were going to argue this before ANY judge I think you would lose all credibility and be on the fast track to have your home sold.

I challenge you an Christopher to find some cases where a mortgage was NOT VALID because of a notary. 


Bill,

I apologize, my ire was directed at Dave, not you.
Quote 0 0
Here, the mortgage was invalid as against the trustee and as to existing creditors of the mortgagor.  (If someone had come along and purchased the note from the bank, it might become valid in equity.)



http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/9th-circuit-invalidates-mortgage-for-failure-to-properly-acknowledge-and-notary-misconduct.pdf
Quote 0 0

Bill wrote:
I'd also like to add, you commonly hear of "Unclean Hands" as a defense in foreclosure.  Unclean hands ALSO applies to DEFENDANTS trying to find a way to CHEAT THE LENDER out of a mortgage that they knowingly executed with a note.

I wish you the best of luck with this argument.

That is true, especially if you agree to allow a legally dead bankrupt entity to extend you your own credit.

Quote 0 0
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the mortgage granted by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant on September 19, 1986 in the sum of $148,614.57 as to that real property described therein as Lot 1, Piazza Trenta, as shown in Plat Book 49, page 5, in Lake County, Indiana, is hereby voided as to the Debtors-in-Possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17999428259663801567&q=Baldin+v.+Calumet+National+Bank,+135+B.R.+586.&hl=en&as_sdt=3,50
Quote 0 0
This looks interesting.
http://msfraud.org/LAW/lawarticles/Defective-Real-Estate-Documents-What-Are-the-Consequences.pdf
Quote 0 0
Moose
christopherjoseph wrote:
<snip>

There is a lot more to it than the legal requirements for recording and you are going to have to read between the lines.



There is no such thing as reading between the lines in the law. Intent and meaning can be defined by courts, but a laymen who reads between the lines is headed for disaster.

Moose

Quote 0 0
Moose
christopherjoseph wrote:

The judge and deputy clerk ran out of the courtroom and retired because of this. The home owner is still in his home.

Nonsense.  The "document" you presented is nothing more than an unsigned motion. Show the actual case cite and the final ruling of the court.


Moose


Quote 0 0
Bill
Christopher,

As usual you are trying to TWIST court decisions to fit your THEORY of facts.  Just because a case has the word "mortgage" in it does not mean it applies to a loan on a home.  Both of the cases you posted are in a bankruptcy setting where the trustee is attempting to sell assets and keep the money rather than have the money go to the mortgagee. 

These cases apply to CHATTEL MORTGAGES NOT REAL PROPERTY/REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES.  A quick Google search will explain the difference to you. 

In a bankruptcy setting constructive and actual notice are important and determine if the trustee can avoid a lien.  Decisions of a bankruptcy court are not binding on a foreclosure in a state court nor do the cases you posted apply.

The bottom line from the Indiana case you posted:

Quote:

It has always been the law of Indiana that even if a mortgage is improperly recorded, or has not been recorded, it is valid between the parties. In re Dunn, 109 B.R. 865, 873 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1988).


Quote 0 0
Moose wrote:
christopherjoseph wrote:

The judge and deputy clerk ran out of the courtroom and retired because of this. The home owner is still in his home.

Nonsense.  The "document" you presented is nothing more than an unsigned motion. Show the actual case cite and the final ruling of the court.


Moose




It's not nonsense, it happened, however it is true the situation is not over. You have enough info to look up the case docket yourself. There are two cases.

 

Quote 0 0
Bill wrote:

Quote:

It has always been the law of Indiana that even if a mortgage is improperly recorded, or has not been recorded, it is valid between the parties. In re Dunn, 109 B.R. 865, 873 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1988).



You should have posted the paragraph that immediately followed that:
However, because the express language of § 544(a)(3) grants the trustee (or the debtor-in-possession) the rights of a bona fide purchaser of real property, even where such purchaser does not actually exist, any transfer of real property not properly perfected as to a bona fide purchaser as of the petition date is of no effect against the debtor-in-possession.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17999428259663801567&q=Baldin+v.+Calumet+National+Bank,+135+B.R.+586.&hl=en&as_sdt=3,50
Quote 0 0
George Burns
What does Indiana law have to do with a Florida case as posited by the original poster?

What does this lastest link to a Bankruptcy case in Indiana ha ve to with a state court first mortgage foreclosure case in Florida?
Quote 0 0
Moose
christopherjoseph wrote:
Moose wrote:
christopherjoseph wrote:

The judge and deputy clerk ran out of the courtroom and retired because of this. The home owner is still in his home.

Nonsense.  The "document" you presented is nothing more than an unsigned motion. Show the actual case cite and the final ruling of the court.


Moose




It's not nonsense, it happened, however it is true the situation is not over. You have enough info to look up the case docket yourself. There are two cases.


There's only one case where Citi is the defendant:

                                                                       
Case Number:S-1100-CV-201002846
Title:SAFAR vs CITIMORTGAGE INC

Current status is open. Which means the motion you purported to be the ruling of the court was either not really filed or the court did not agree and issue it as an order.

The online site does not allow viewing documents - can you post the most recent order:

03/31/2011 ORDER: Court Order/Ruling

Moose







Quote 0 0
Bill
George Burns wrote:
What does Indiana law have to do with a Florida case as posited by the original poster?

What does this lastest link to a Bankruptcy case in Indiana ha ve to with a state court first mortgage foreclosure case in Florida?


I asked that in my post George, but he just ignores what he has no response to and rambles on some more. 


Quote 0 0
Moose wrote:
christopherjoseph wrote:
Moose wrote:
christopherjoseph wrote:

The judge and deputy clerk ran out of the courtroom and retired because of this. The home owner is still in his home.


Nonsense.  The "document" you presented is nothing more than an unsigned motion. Show the actual case cite and the final ruling of the court.




Moose




It's not nonsense, it happened, however it is true the situation is not over. You have enough info to look up the case docket yourself. There are two cases.


There's only one case where Citi is the defendant:










Case Number:S-1100-CV-201002846
Title:SAFAR vs CITIMORTGAGE INC


Current status is open. Which means the motion you purported to be the ruling of the court was either not really filed or the court did not agree and issue it as an order.

The online site does not allow viewing documents - can you post the most recent order:

03/31/2011 ORDER: Court Order/Ruling

Moose








I said it's not over. Sometimes cases don't work that way because the banks are in the pocket of the judge. That doesn't mean they won't eventually be winners, but if it is a winner, they try to bury it. I posted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff. If you look up the name you will see another case, an unlawful detainer has been filed recently. Safar has an attorney.  I talked to the attorney recently because he is also my attorney, but I am not from AZ. He says this is a test case. If I am being too cryptic, it's because I don't know the people who post here. I am just trying to share some info. Take it or leave it.
Quote 0 0

Bill wrote:
George Burns wrote:
What does Indiana law have to do with a Florida case as posited by the original poster?

What does this lastest link to a Bankruptcy case in Indiana ha ve to with a state court first mortgage foreclosure case in Florida?


I asked that in my post George, but he just ignores what he has no response to and rambles on some more. 

If the law of FL requires a mortgage or deed of trust to be acknowledged properly, before it can be considered recorded, and it is not properly acknowledged, then the mortgage is void pursuant to Title 12, 544(a)(3) in bankruptcy, because the trustee is considered a purchaser for value, as long as the same party named on the mortgage or deed of trust as lender, is desiring to lift the stay. 

I didn't say I am perfect, nor is an imperfection in the notarization a magic bullet. I just said it can be a powerful defense. You have to use it how you see fit. That's all I was trying to say. I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe me but only a fool would not check it out to see if it would help them.

The guy I previously mentioned, who had no idea what a robo-signer was, before i talked to him, that had his confirmation of sale suspended the day of the hearing, because he overnighted a notary complaint concerning a faulty acknowledgment on an assignment, by Mark Bischof, later found 2 more screw ups. This was after I told him that I were him I check the record with a fine toothed comb. One was an affidavit signed by deposed robo-signer Erica-Johnson Seck. When he asks, I tell him what I would do if I were in his shoes.

Not only that, the same affidavit was filed in the bankruptcy court. His bankruptcy had been dismissed due to that affidavit amongst other things. The affidavit was improperly acknowledged according to TX law. He wrote the notary, requesting a copy of the transaction, and the green card came back that the address has changed. The thing is, that will get a notary decommission and I suspect, lead to the affidavit being striken from the record.

You guys are way smarter than me, quit busting my chops and figure it out.
Quote 0 0
dave
Quote:
You guys are way smarter than me . . .


finally christopherjoseph posted something truthful, correct and relevant.
Quote 0 0

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/851/851.F2d.502.88-1093.html

Quote 0 0
George Burns
Finally something relevant and useful.

I knew that you would eventually stumble across something. I guess if you throw enough at the wall, eventually some must stick.
Quote 0 0
You can stuff your cigar up your a...



Then follow that up with an improperly acknowledged assignment of mortgage and you have yourself a buttplug in bankruptcy in the majority of states.
Quote 0 0
George Burns
There you go again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I thought that you would, at the least, have read and understood the case you cited/linked. It was the mortgage deed that was defective (it had only 1 signature). Nothing was wrong with the assignment itself.
Quote 0 0
I never said there was an invalid assignment of mortgage relevant to that case. What gave you that idea?
Quote 0 0
While we agree that a right of first refusal is merely a contract right and not a deed of conveyance, we do not agree that the acknowledgment requirement found in the recording statutes is limited to deeds of conveyance. Phipps' argument is based on Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. ("A.R.S.") sections 33-401(B) 401*401 and 33-412(A). These sections specify that deeds or conveyances of real property must be duly acknowledged and will be void as to subsequent purchasers unless properly acknowledged.



http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14268108910288636670&q=phipps+cw+leasing,+inc&hl=en&as_sdt=4,3&as_vis=1



 


http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/clear-title-may-not-derive-from-a-fraud.pdf


 


1. Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).


In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as


much plain:


"Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged


instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide


purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal


title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief." (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted).


This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where


the Court stated:


"It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the


foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there


has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties." (Emphasis added).

Quote 0 0
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/06/15/nysc-deutsche-bank-v-seidlin-voluntarily-discontinue-due-to-the-assignment-of-the-mortgage-being-incorrectly-andor-incompletely-acknowledged-%e2%80%9d/
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Your posting of the discussion of the SEIDLIN decision shown at another site (StopforeclosureFraud) simply underscores your poor reading comprehension and your inability to distinguish important from unimportant cases.

In SEIDLIN, the plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss the case because it was permeated with fraud, but using the pretext that there was a minor problem with the authentication of the assignment.  The plaintiff wanted to dismiss because it was UNWILLING to submit the new affirmation required of attorneys in ALL cases.

The defendant sought to have the dismissal shown as with prejudice, due to the fraud

The court sided with the plaintiff and allowed for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

The SEIDLIN case teaches us:
(a) The importance of supporting allegations of fraud with evidence of that fraud,
(b) That voluntary dismissals are almost universally approved by the court and usually entered without prejudice,
(c) That you lack the judgment and perception to distinguish useful cases or to make ANY other valuable contributions to the discussion at this Forum.
Your prior vulger posts to the Forum are NOT appreciated.  Why don't you take your idiotic and juvenile show somewhere else.
Quote 0 0

Sorry, I didn't know it was your forum.

Quote 0 0
Looking In Florida wrote:
As I stated earlier, I don't think the notaries were trying to violate the law. The problem comes in with these particular lenders acknowledgement section for the notary. The notaries did not record the mortgages. The lenders or title companies did that. I see no reason to go after a notary who did nothing wrong and merely followed instructions on the mortgage. On the mortages I have seen, the notaries are not robo-signers. They are local notaries hired by the borrowers or lender to notarize the mortgage. They are not employees of the lender or servicer. I was merely curious about the chain issue in Florida. I have noticed this issue on mortgages from two of the larger sub-prime lenders. I think that sometimes defects or discovered issues, should be held close. If you wait, quite often the lender will unkowingly introduce something that can scew up their case, once you come forward with your discovery. If you toss it out there at the very beginning, they know what to avoid when they fabricate evidence.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...