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
I have seen indorsements signed by:

Vice President
Accounts Manager
Closing Specialist
Untitled Signers.

Does the UCC provide for who can actually sign or can anyone who works for the company that holds the note sign?
Quote 0 0
Looking as Well
I'd like to add one more:


On an allonge, endorsed in blank.
Quote 0 0
Looking In Florida
I have also seen a few where the same person has signed for two different companies on the same insturment.

The first indorsement would actually name a payee(?).

The second indorsement would be in blank.

The same person would have signed for both of them.
Quote 0 0
The UCC is replete with rules about indorsements and there is lots of case law out there about who can indorse, who can rubber stamp, responsibilities of the owner of the stamp, etc.

There is also a presumption that unless a signature is denied its validity is assumed and you can't just say "I deny that signature" without some reasonable basis for the denial.

Here is the relevant UCC:  Go there and use your browser's search feature (CTRL/F) to search on the term "indorse" and just skip through to get a good overview.  Likewise "signature".

Then if something peaks your interest, for example § 3-204.  INDORSEMENT. you can go to and do some queries of 3-204 and find cases that cite that part of the UCC... 

querying using rather unique phrases from the text of the statute is often helpful as well because judges quote often quote them verbatim when they're relevant.

Quote 0 0
And I forgot to answer the question... The answer is:  No.  There is nothing in the UCC that provides a requirement for a specific job title to apply an indorsement.

Bear in mind that the UCC applies to negotiable instruments which includes both $100,000,000.00 promissory notes as well as the $34 check mom writes at the grocery store.

Quote 0 0

Check 21 Act; Truncation! Why does Walmart i.e. only scan the check and return?
UCC applies until truncated for collection by paying bank.

Quote 0 0
Ya.  My point was that UCC article 3 applies to a huge variety of instruments and used mom as the example of why there are no provisions specifying a role or job title to indorse.

Quote 0 0
You might not be able to do anything about the signatures, but you can compel some discovery about them ... At least in Florida...

Taken from:  IN RE BALDERRAMA, Bankr. Court, MD Florida 2011

Because the trustee has raised issues concerning the authenticity of and authority to endorse the note and allonge, the Court will overrule Deutsche Bank's objection and compel its response to interrogatory number 5, seeking the names and addresses of "each person whose signature appears on any endorsements on the Note or any allonge." The Court similarly will overrule Deutsche Bank's objections and compel its response to requests for production numbers 7 and 30. These requests seek documents and information related to Deutsche Bank's purchase of the note and the authority of the individual who signed the endorsement. The inquiries are relevant to whether Deutsche Bank is the holder of a properly endorsed note.

Quote 0 0
     A more fundamental question to ask is this, "Is this Note a negotiable instrument or not?" If not, it can not be transferred by simply endorsing the
the signature page or the back of the Note. IT MUST BE FORMALLY ASSIGNED WITH WITNESSES, NOTARIZATION AND A SPECIFIC ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ASSIGNED. UCC does not apply to non-negotiable instruments.
     So, how do you determine if it is a negotiable instrument or not? I'M GLAD
YOU ASKED! If it is an adjustable rate Note, contains late payment charges,
and a prepayment penalty rider, quess what, IT IS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT SO UCC DOES NOT APPLY!
      Many defendants are being snookered by clever plaintiff lawyers who
are claiming a certain Note is a negotiable instrument when it is not. Judges
will allow a judgment on a simple blank endorsement if no one protests and
Quote 0 0
Mike H

Where do I find this information about adjustable rate notes not being negotiable instruments?  Is it a UCC section?
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Angelo said:

Where do I find this information about adjustable rate notes not being negotiable instruments? Is it a UCC section?

Mike H. called our attention to this interesting argument within the message thread "Alteration of Instruments":

Mike cited SunTrust v. Roberts, No. 09-CI-019041 (Uniform Case No. "522009CA019041XXCICI"), Pasco County Circuit Court, Florida, an ongoing case.  But the pleadings therein mention a couple of other more interesting cases:
GMAC v. Honest Air Conditioning & Heating, No. 2D05-3583, 933 So. 2d 34 (Fl. App. 2nd Dist. 2006)

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Christopher J. Chesney, et al., Case No. 51-2009-CA-6509-WS/G (6th Jud. Cir. Pasco. Cty. 02/22/2010 Stanley R. Mills, Judge).

Alina found the link to Chesney.
In more direct answer to your query, the argument is generally founded upon the definition of negotiable instrument in UCC §3-104:

I am not persuaded that this argument is valid under the UCC or that the Florida cases are rightly decided, particularly in respect of adjustable rate notes, but it is far from a specious argument.  It seems to me that the argument is most potent where the standard FNMA/FHLMC uniform instrument is bastardized by the addition of additional subprime riders, and particularly the pre-payment rider.
For someone that has a plain vanilla fixed rate note on the standard FNMA/FHLMC uniform instrument, it is unlikely that this argument is going to be valid.  I am somewhat doubtful that it would be valid in respect of a standard FNMA/FHLMC adjustable rate mortgage.
But if one has a note from a subprime lender, it should be carefully scrutinized and compared with the standard FNMA/FHLMC uniform language.  The subprime Lenders added some additional language and particularly in the pre-payment rider which very well MIGHT involve a sufficient separate undertaking as to impair negotiability!
IF the argument is properly presented and argued and found to be valid by the Courts, it would eviscerate the standard plaintiff arguments that the instrument had been negotiated to a hold by indorsement and delivery OR that the plaintiff was a transferee.
Basically, the argument is that the instrument isn't a negotiable instrument AT ALL.  That would pull the instrument out from under the UCC.  And it might force the plaintiff to show its entitlement to enforce solely in respect of a valid assignment.
Since so many of the assignments have been (a) incomplete instruments, (b) altered after execution, (c) forged, and/or executed by a person or entityt without ownership or authority, this presents a rather daunting challenge.
As mentioned in the prior thread, this topic probably deserves its own thread!
Quote 0 0

Is case law that involves the ucc binding in all states since the ucc was adpoted by all 50 states?  Or is it only binding if it comes from the state that issued the opinion? 

Quote 0 0
Also, how would a Pre-Payment Rider or a Floor-Rate rider bastardize the instrument and effect its negotiability?  Would they(riders) also have to endorsed and delivered to make the note whole?

Very interesting argument, because if true, this could change the ladscape of most plaintiff's argument that the mortgage follows the note.
Furthermore, if MERS can't assign the note, they will have a major problem getting it a defaulted loan endorsed now. 
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Angelo said:

Is case law that involves the ucc binding in all states since the ucc was adpoted by all 50 states? Or is it only binding if it comes from the state that issued the opinion?


I would usually avoid the use of binding in respect of most court decisions EXCEPT where the rule is particularly clearly enunciated and set forth by the supreme judicial court of a jurisdiction.

The better words are usually "authoritative" and "instructive" (or "informative" and possibly even "persuasive").

Whether a decision of a particular court is authoritative depends on the law of that jurisdiction and even on the pronouncement of a court making the decision.  In some places, some appellate decisions are identified as "not for publication" and these unpublished cases sometimes cannot be cited as authority even within that jurisdiction, though exceptions sometimes apply.

In some places, like New York State and Pennsylvania, trial court decisions are sometimes published, and may inform the decisions of other trial courts but are usually not authoritative or binding upon other trial courts.  If one sees a trial court decision posted on Scribd, it is usually, at best merely informative.  It certainly MIGHT get a defendant past the threshold that a particular theory or argument is bizarre or irregular, but another different judge is usually free to decide differently, even on identical facts.

Some states divide their appellate courts into districts or circuits.  A decision might be binding within the inferior courts within that district or circuit and instructive elsewhere.  In other states, appellate courts have statewide jurisdiction and panels sitting to decide cases anywhere in the state are authorititive everywhere, though problems are presented when different appellate panels disagree in cases touching the same question.

The state court decisions of another state are rarely authorititive or binding on courts in other states EXCEPT where a court in one state may need to apply the law of another jurisdiction to decide an issue within a matter being adjudicated. 

For example, within a foreclosure case, the promissory note is usually controlled by the law of the place of execution.  The mortgage or deed of trust is usually controlled by the law of the place where the property is located.  And the negotiation of the promissory note would usually be controlled by the law of the place negotiated (delivered).  So a court sitting in Florida to decide a foreclosure of a promissory note actually executed in New Jersey and delivered in New York secured by a Florida property might need to apply the laws of FL, NJ and NY to the various aspects of the case.  When applying the laws of the other places, the court decisions of those places would be authoritative.

By contrast, if you are litigating in New York and no aspect of the case touches Florida, a Florida UCC decision would be merely instructive, informative or possibly persuasive, but would NOT be authoritative or binding.

Hope this helps!

Quote 0 0
Just doing some quick research and Don't think that this argument will fly in my state.  Our version of the UCC is different from some others.

Section 3--104. Form   of   Negotiable  Instruments;  "Draft";  "Check";
                    "Certificate of Deposit"; "Note".
    (1) Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this Article must
         (a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and
         (b) contain an unconditional  promise  or  order  to  pay  a  sum
             certain  in  money and no other promise, order, obligation or
             power given by the maker or drawer except  as  authorized  by
             this Article; and
         (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and
         (d) be payable to order or to bearer.
    (2) A writing which complies with the requirements of this section is
         (a) a "draft" ("bill of exchange") if it is an order;
         (b) a  "check"  if  it  is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on
         (c) a "certificate of deposit" if it is an  acknowledgment  by  a
             bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it;
         (d) a  "note"  if  it  is  a  promise other than a certificate of
    (3) As used in other Articles of this Act,  and  as  the  context  may
  require, the terms "draft", "check", "certificate of deposit" and "note"
  may refer to instruments which are not negotiable within this Article as
  well as to instruments which are so negotiable.

Section 3--106. Sum Certain.
    (1) The sum payable is a sum certain even though it is to be paid
         (a) with a stated rate of interest or by stated installments; or
         (b) with  stated  different  rates  of  interest before and after
             default or a specified date
; or
         (c) with a stated discount or addition if paid  before  or  after
             the date fixed for payment; or
         (d) with exchange or less exchange, whether at a fixed rate or at
             the current rate; or
         (e) with  costs  of  collection or an attorney's fee or both upon
    (2) For the purposes of subsection one of this section "a stated  rate
  of  interest"  shall  also  include  a  rate  of interest that cannot be
  calculated by looking only  to  the  instrument  but  which  is  readily
  ascertainable  by  a reference in the instrument to a published statute,
  regulation, rule of court, generally accepted  commercial  or  financial
  index,  compendium  of  interest  rates,  or  announced  rate of a named
  financial institution.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall validate any term which is otherwise

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Angelo said:
Very interesting argument, because if true, this could change the ladscape of most plaintiff's argument that the mortgage follows the note.
Furthermore, if MERS can't assign the note, they will have a major problem getting it a defaulted loan endorsed now.


I am unpersuaded that this will affect a particularly large volume of promissory notes, even if courts began embracing the argument.

The Fannie and Freddie standard uniform instruments are pretty mainstream.  Note that certain covenants appear in the note and others appear within the mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument.

The mortgages, deeds of trust and other mortgage security instruments have often included various riders.  Use of riders with respect to note was traditionally far less common.

The note was traditionally kept fairly Spartan.  The mortgage is much more lengthy.

But the entire subprime industry was pretty careless in a number of ways.  And it may very well be that is adding various oppressive language that some particular provision(s) may prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back precluding a finding that an instrument is negotiable under the UCC. 
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Angelo said:
Just doing some quick research and Don't think that this argument will fly in my state. Our version of the UCC is different from some others.

As you can see the UCC is not quite as uniform as many might believe!  There remain nuances both in statute and in case law from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Quote 0 0

Yup, nice try

Quote 0 0
Looking In Florida

Thanks for the input. It is nice to get other opinions and ideas. It really helps.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
In regard to Mike H., please see the new thread:

"About Mike H."

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...