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
Michael
If the plaintiff's lawyer says the original note is with a document custodian, then who is the owner/holder in possession of the original note? When and how does that person transfer the right to enforce to the plaintiff/servicer if the note remains with a document custodian and the UCC requires possession of the note before filing a lawsuit?

The plaintiff/servicer claims it is the holder, but several months after the case began, the plaintiff's parent company became the servicer and sent notice that a Fannie Mae trust owns it. The servicer's QWR reply before suing showed FNMA as the "investor." Can the security interest transfer through MERS to the plaintiff/servicer from both FNMA the investor and FNMA the trust while the note is secured in a vault?

I am confused, so I would appreciate anyone who might want to help me understand.



Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
In a perfect world, the Note would be in possession of a document custodian because that's how the trusts are designed to operate.  The document custodian is basically an agent of the holder.  The UCC is tricky. 

There is nothing in the UCC that requires possession of the Note before filing a suit.

Saying that a Fannie Mae trust owns the note, and FNMA being listed as an investor is consistent.   When is comes to MERS assignments they have problems all their own.

Quote 0 0
Michael
So I am misunderstanding this. I thought the UCC terms of negotiation (possession) was the crux of standing to sue. I realize standing is a constitutional issue, but without possessing the note, either physically or constructively, it isn't even possible to have standing to sue. Where do I have this wrong? Or did I just word my post incorrectly in saying the UCC requires possession.

Thanks for your help.



Quote 0 0
Texas
Fridoomed said: "There is nothing in the UCC that requires possession of the Note before filing a suit."

Under UCC, one would need rights to the note before filing suit under the note.

If suit under the note is an action to foreclose, then same party would also need to be able to show a right to enforce the "Power of Sale" noted in the security instrument (Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Security Deed, etc)


Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
This is my third try at replying to this thread.  I seem to be stuck in captcha hell and disallowed to post for the next N seconds...

Michael, I wanted to emphasize that you are basically correct in your thinking that the UCC requires something.  Texas correctly boils it down to rights.   Unless you are in NY, the UCC identifies that person under section 3-301.   The language of the UCC is what it is, and not necessarily what it is not.   The UCC is strictly interpreted and enforced.  Each word in the UCC has a definition sourced from the code itself at 3-103, or the official comments to the UCC, or black's, or case law.  Case law is generally the easiest authority to understand because the written decisions explain their implementation of the code.

As Texas pointed out, you need rights to the note.  Those rights need not come from "negotiation".  They could come from a valid "transfer", and "possession" does not necessarily prove a valid transfer, or that any rights exist.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...