Dagwood

Fraudulent Mortgage Assignment ??? Can you tell?

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,


 


I have a few questions in regards to this Mortgage Assignment and I need someone with the experience to spot possible fraud. I do understand without litigation, discovery, ect ect you cant know with a certainty. What i am trying to understand the form and what information could I search for or you can provide to help with my investigation.


 


This is an assignment is from RMS Mortgage Asset Trust 2012-1 selling or assigning to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H Fund II Trust.


 


My questions relate to the legality and or form of the signatory on the assignment. 


 


 


 RMS Mortgage Asset Trust 2012-1


 By: Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H  Fund II Trust. Attorney in Fact


 


What does this mean ?  


 


Does it mean the signatory is signing for RMS?  


 


or Signing for Wilmington as attorney in fact?  


 


Attorney of Fact for who, RMS or Wilmington?


 


Does the signer have to have some authority for signing for RMS, who is Assigning it to Wilmington?


 


Whats the purpose of the signature below? Why would the signer be signing as Vice President for  Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H  Fund II Trust. 


 


Why would the VP for Wilmington signing by this title? If RMS is selling to Wilmington should the document be signed by  a signatory of  RMS Mortgage Asset Trust 2012-1 


 


What do the experts think. Please Help


 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 this appears to be a legit assignment. You have to check who the officers for each trust are. As for having a case, whether the mortgage is sold is not at issue, but whether they have the note. Unfortunately, California is light on caselaw to defend against foreclosure. Only case as far as assignment documents is

 

In California see Cockerell v. Title Insurance and Trust Company, 267 P.2d 16, 21 (Cal. 1954) ("[t]he burden of proving an assignment falls upon the party asserting rights thereunder"); see also Mission Valley East Incor-porated v. County of Kern, 174 Cal. Rptr. 300, 305 (1981) ("the assignment must describe the subject matter with sufficient particularity to identify the rights assigned"), and Cobb v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabi-lization and Arbitration Board, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741, 745 (2002).

Business records exceptions
Palmer v. Hoffman,
318 U.S. 109; 63 S. Ct. 477 (1943)

"the proponent of the document must demonstrate that the other requirements of Rule 803(6) are satisfied." Cunningham Charter Corp., 2012 WL 1565532, at *3; see also Datamatic Servs., Inc., 909 F.2d at 1033 ("if the source of the information [contained in the business record] is an outsider, Rule 803(6) does not, by itself, permit the admission of the business record" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));

United States v. Borrasi, 639 F.3d 774, 780 (7th Cir. 2011) ("courts may not permit the introduction of hearsay contained within hearsay unless each layer is properly admitted under an exception to Rule 802" (citing Fed. R. Evid. 805)); 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 290 (6th ed.) ("The common law exception for regularly kept records required that . . . [t]he entrant . . . be acting in the regular course of business, and if the information was supplied by another, that person also was required to be acting in the regular course of business.").

A review of Minford's declaration demonstrates that defendants have failed to lay the requisite foundation for admission of Exhibits A through F. Minford does not claim to be knowledgeable in the record keeping procedures of any of the non-defendant entities. Moreover, when asked at his deposition whether he had any information about what records Sherman Originator and LVNV maintain and how Sherman Acquisition keeps its records, Minford responded no or that he did not know. (See Minford Dep. 21:11-18; 31:1-25.) Thus, by his own admission, Minford is not qualified to testify as to the process by which Sherman Originator, LVNV, and Sherman Acquisition created and maintained Exhibits A through D. As to Exhibits E and F, which include a bill of sale signed by representatives of Sherman Originator III and Citibank South Dakota and credit card statements issued by Sears, Minford does not claim to be knowledgeable in the record keeping procedures of either Sherman Originator III or Citibank and admitted under oath that he did not know anything about Citibank's computer system. (Id. 32:13-15.) Based on this record, it is clear that Minford lacks personal knowledge of the procedure used to create and maintain Exhibits A through F, and he is not capable of testifying as a qualified witness under Rule 902(11). See Reese, 666 F.3d at 1017. The court therefore declines to admit Exhibits A through F as records of regularly conducted business activity, and will not consider them in ruling on defendants' motion.[8]
 
Without Exhibits A through F, defendants cannot show an unbroken chain of assignment entitling them to stand in Citibank's shoes and enforce the arbitration provision contained in Webb's credit card agreement. All that is evident from the record is that Citibank sold Webb's account to Sherman Originator III on or about March 30, 2009, and that at the time of the sale, Citibank's records indicated that Webb owed an outstanding balance. (Handy Aff. ¶¶ 6, 8.)[9] Defendants motion to compel arbitration must be denied.[

A cursory review of the literature demonstrates that the possibility of a debt collector attempting to collect a debt that it does not actually own, either through assignment or otherwise, is very real. See, e.g., Peter A. Holland, The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof in Debt Buyer Cases, 6 J. BUS. & TECH. L. 259 (2011); Rick Jurgens & Robert J. Hobbes, The Debt Machine: How the Collection Industry Hounds Consumers and Overwhelms Courts, THE NAT'L CONSUMER LAW CTR.(July 2010), http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/debt-machine.pdf;FED. TRADE COMM'N, REPAIRING A BROKEN SYSTEM: PROTECTING CONSUMERS IN DEBT COLLECTION LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION (2010), http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/debtcollectionreport.pdf

See Mary Spector,
Debts, Defaults and Details: Exploring the Impact of Debt Collection Litigation on
Consumer and Courts, 6 VA. L. & BUS. REV. 257 (2011).

and...

 

Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.,196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011)

 

Also no affidavit that doesn't comply with CCP 2015.5 can be used in california courts, because it involves real property in california any affidavit concerning the note and the deed must have the mandatory language...

Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp., 33 Cal. 4th 601 (Cal. 2004)

 

We can only conclude that an out-of-state declaration which materially deviates from section 2015.5 in this regard cannot be used as

 

evidence.”Kulshrestha supra. 33 Cal. 4th 601 (Cal. 2004).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(this appears to be a legit assignment.)

Ok Fair enough can you answer any of the questions?  why does it appear to be legit to you 

​Please remember I dont ever mean any disrespect and I appreciate any help from all. I 'm only asking questions 

 

PS I am not in foreclosure or any litigation at this time. I do however have some evidence that the signer of this doc has no relationship or authority to sign for RMS.  If you read the assignment the VP is not signing for RMS the seller he signing for the Buyer Wilmington.  

 

How can that be if RMS is selling to Wilmington. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hope that helps disrupt the robosigners disrupt the foreclosure.

 

Here is a case from California court of appeals 2nd district (ventura, LA, orange counties)

 

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B256378.PDF

 

This may help alot it is recent and abrogates the tender rule for foreclosure defense actions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(this appears to be a legit assignment.)

Ok Fair enough can you answer any of the questions?  why does it appear to be legit to you 

​Please remember I dont ever mean any disrespect and I appreciate any help from all. I 'm only asking questions 

 

PS I am not in foreclosure or any litigation at this time. I do however have some evidence that the signer of this doc has no relationship or authority to sign for RMS.  If you read the assignment the VP is not signing for RMS the seller he signing for the Buyer Wilmington.  

 

How can that be if RMS is selling to Wilmington. 

 

It is the whole trustee thing, many of these VP's are VP's in other trusts also. What will really bake your noodle is Wilmington is THE major 401K trust and ironically you may be both an investor in both these trusts, and loaning money to other trusts to buy your deed from them. Classic case of OPM(other peoples money)

 

I am not offended by rough questioning, I was in the military :).

 

What you are doing is cracking the egg open to see who is who. Each one of these trusts has to make SEC fillings for annual and any emergent reasons. in SEC form 12 K they have to list ALL officers of the trusts. This will help smoke out who is able to sign an assignment. Many robosigners and assignment fakers ose the VP title but the fork 12K can be used to show they are not valid officers of the trusts.

 

Sorry for the caselaw dump, I usually give it because people are embarrassed to mention they are in foreclosure. I believe that showing that the assignments are not valid always falls on deaf ears. in my own mortgage situation, no governmental entity would even acknowledge receipt of my complaint.

 

Lets discuss this further, after perusing the SEC filings. maybe we can track it all down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DON'T APOLOGIZE YOU'RE A MACHINE. KEEP IT COMING.


It wasnt that I couldnt find anything on the trust It was to much stuff that I int need . Part of what I'm investigating is date the trust closed. Meaning, in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement it would state when a loan could go into the trust  and when the trust was closed  


 


The assignment or "sale" was 2-3-15. 


 


Another big issue we need to get answered. Did RMS Trust sell this mortgage to Wilmington  Take a good look at the Assignment.


 


It's not signed by any representative of RMS Trust. I just had a protracted 2 year FDCPA  suit with RMS  I know all the players Wilmington VP John Doe was not a representative for RMS. So I am 99.9% certain he hold no position at RMS. But lets look a little deeper.


 


The sale and assign is from RMS to Wilmington yet there is no signature from a RMS or anybody titled from RMS  such as signed By: John Doe, Vice President  RMS Trusts


 


 


The only signature on it is say John Doe VP of Wilmington.  Why you ponder, Im going to see If I can find The P&S Agreement in any of the links you sent 


 


 


PS can everyone see the attachment of the Orig Assignment 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an assignment is from RMS Mortgage Asset Trust 2012-1 selling or assigning to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H Fund II Trust.

 

My questions relate to the legality and or form of the signatory on the assignment. 

 

 

 RMS Mortgage Asset Trust 2012-1

 By: Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H  Fund II Trust. Attorney in Fact

 

What does this mean ?  

It means that you don't know for sure who holds the deed or that it was transferred because no one from RMS signed it.

 

Does it mean the signatory is signing for RMS?  

No, not of they don't work for RMS. 

 

or Signing for Wilmington as attorney in fact?  

The attorney is retained by Wilmington but is only signing for them as a trustee of Primestar (who you may never have heard of?) and not as Wilmington.

 

Attorney of Fact for who, RMS or Wilmington?

For Wilmington but not to be consider Wilmington in this actual case but only as a trustee of Primestar.

 

Does the signer have to have some authority for signing for RMS, who is Assigning it to Wilmington?

Someone else does. No one signed it from RMS.

 

Whats the purpose of the signature below? Why would the signer be signing as Vice President for  Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H  Fund II Trust. 

To shield Wilmington from anything to do with it and to keep it's name out of it, and to just be viewed as a trustee of Primestar, for whatever reason.

 

Why would the VP for Wilmington signing by this title? If RMS is selling to Wilmington should the document be signed by  a signatory of  RMS Mortgage Asset Trust 2012-1 

I would think so. You want to know the title exist and is held by RMS and signed over to someone else who holds it now and you are paying the correct party. Picture it as a vehicle sale and trying to register it at DMV with only the buyers' signature.

 

What do the experts think. Please Help

Definitely no expert, but I don't think you know for sure who holds the deed and that you are paying the correct people for sure. And it may be very hard to actually see the deed and transfer and all signatures without actually being in foreclosure and in discovery, unless they will provide you with the information. I think I would be concerned about who you are paying is the right party and they have the deed and that the deed does in fact exist.

 

This isn't exactly my department so I don't know too much about it. but I think you probably have the same concerns I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that you don't know for sure who holds the deed or that it was transferred because no one from RMS signed it.

No, not of they don't work for RMS. 

The attorney is retained by Wilmington but is only signing for them as a trustee of Primestar (who you may never have heard of?) and not as Wilmington.

For Wilmington but not to be consider Wilmington in this actual case but only as a trustee of Primestar.

Someone else does. No one signed it from RMS.

To shield Wilmington from anything to do with it and to keep it's name out of it, and to just be viewed as a trustee of Primestar, for whatever reason.

I would think so. You want to know the title exist and is held by RMS and signed over to someone else who holds it now and you are paying the correct party. Picture it as a vehicle sale and trying to register it at DMV with only the buyers' signature.

Definitely no expert, but I don't think you know for sure who holds the deed and that you are paying the correct people for sure. And it may be very hard to actually see the deed and transfer and all signatures without actually being in foreclosure and in discovery, unless they will provide you with the information. I think I would be concerned about who you are paying is the right party and they have the deed and that the deed does in fact exist.

 

This isn't exactly my department so I don't know too much about it. but I think you probably have the same concerns I mentioned.

IT'S LIKE YOU ARE READING MY MIND . (Are you?) GREAT ANALYSIS  I HAVE 2 SEPARATE CFPB  CASES GOING. maybe I can get some info but doubtful CFPB seems to do nothing that these servicers are afraid of and dont really give the CFPB anything meaningful as far as info. But I do have other ideas.  

 

Seadragon  may be able to help with Pooling& Servicing and help find the cut of date to add mortgages to the trust 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably think alike. This stuff is not all that different than what we deal with here (although more complex and much higher stakes), It is still just buying and selling (and assigning) and contract law.

 

I think the auto sale and DMV analogy is a good one. I believe there are a lot of deeds where the actual paper no longer exist but is still being paid on, which could make problems that may not show up for 10 - 20 years (or more) depending on the case. I think there are deeds that are being paid on and no longer exist and can't be produced (unless they are recreated (but would be missing buyers original signature). This is problems that were created with the bank bail outs (or sooner). A lot of companies that held deeds went under and there are probably much more houses (and mortgages) than there are actual deeds and paper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dagwood

 

Why would the signer be signing as Vice President for  Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not In It's Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Of Primestar-H  Fund II Trust.

 

 

The vice president signed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably think alike. This stuff is not all that different than what we deal with here (although more complex and much higher stakes), It is still just buying and selling (and assigning) and contract law.

 

I think the auto sale and DMV analogy is a good one. I believe there are a lot of deeds where the actual paper no longer exist but is still being paid on, which could make problems that may not show up for 10 - 20 years (or more) depending on the case. I think there are deeds that are being paid on and no longer exist and can't be produced (unless they are recreated (but would be missing buyers original signature). This is problems that were created with the bank bail outs (or sooner). A lot of companies that held deeds went under and there are probably much more houses (and mortgages) than there are actual deeds and paper. 

did you look at the link I sent you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you look at the link I sent you

 

I started with your thread, but have since read some of your link (it's very interesting). I will read it more soon and see what comes to mind.

 

My concern would not be so much as who has authority to sign for who, or what position they hold, but rather who has the deed and how do I know they have it and I'm paying the right people. Not to dismiss the fact that a signature from RMS is missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dagwood

 

 

Yes. Do you have a thought?

 

Some might say that's a loaded question.  :-)

 

If the VP signed as an "attorney-in-fact", he's not an attorney retained by Wilmington.  He has power of attorney (authority) to sign for Wilmington.

 

Here's an IN case involving Wilmington as Trustee of Primestar-Fund Trust.  I don't know if it helps you, but you might give it a read.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18088064121105909935&q=%22WILMINGTON+SAVINGS+FUND+SOCIETY,+FSB+v.+TY+BOWLING%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started with your thread, but have since read some of your link (it's very interesting). I will read it more soon and see what comes to mind.

 

My concern would not be so much as who has authority to sign for who, or what position they hold, but rather who has the deed and how do I know they have it and I'm paying the right people. Not to dismiss the fact that a signature from RMS is missi

AGREE , I started with validation letter and the qwr. Next step is filing a Ct Banking Commissioner complaint. During the the first 2 steps I was able to come up with at least several  TILA violation in which the admitted to in there response to CFPB .So I will slowly and methodically  preparing for a FED case FCRA FDCPA,..ect .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dagwood

 

 

 

Some might say that's a loaded question.  :-)

 

If the VP signed as an "attorney-in-fact", he's not an attorney retained by Wilmington.  He has power of attorney (authority) to sign for Wilmington.

 

Here's an IN case involving Wilmington as Trustee of Primestar-Fund Trust.  I don't know if it helps you, but you might give it a read.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18088064121105909935&q=%22WILMINGTON+SAVINGS+FUND+SOCIETY,+FSB+v.+TY+BOWLING%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,41

 

Thanks BV keep them coming any info is great . Without seeing the power of attorney we don't know. BUT I keep coming back to the issue no Representative from RMS  signed the assignment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGREE , I started with validation letter and the qwr. Next step is filing a Ct Banking Commissioner complaint. During the the first 2 steps I was able to come up with at least several  TILA violation in which the admitted to in there response to CFPB .So I will slowly and methodically  preparing for a FED case FCRA FDCPA,..ect .

 

I have to read your other stuff to know more. I didn't know all these violations happened or what exactly you are trying to do. I don't think you are in foreclosure. If it were mine I  would want proof of deed and assignment from RMS and it's assignee. Whether or not you trusted the signatures and didn't mind the lack of signature from RMS, you still don't know were the deed is or have proof of who holds it. Kind of like demanding proof of life in a hostage negotiation.  

I'm not sure if this is something you were already asking them for and not receiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Main thing I'd be looking at with any foreclosure complaint is the endorsement. With most of these foreclosures the original mortgagor is not the person suing you. So there's an issue of Standing. If the person suing you is claiming to be the owner and holder of the note, then they must present evidence of that by means of an endorsement on the note or as an allonge attached to the note. If they don't have this, even with an assignment, they don't have standing to sue because they haven't proven they are the rightful owner and holder of the note.

 

In many states like Florida, most appeals courts are ruling in favor of homeowners and there is case law building to help in foreclosure defense on this. I must say you MUST challenge standing at the beginning of your case. This is vital to a good appeal should you lose. But I would definitely cite the case law coming down to give yourself a chance at defeating the fraud orchestrated by some of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Main thing I'd be looking at with any foreclosure complaint is the endorsement. With most of these foreclosures the original mortgagor is not the person suing you. So there's an issue of Standing. If the person suing you is claiming to be the owner and holder of the note, then they must present evidence of that by means of an endorsement on the note or as an allonge attached to the note. If they don't have this, even with an assignment, they don't have standing to sue because they haven't proven they are the rightful owner and holder of the note.

 

In many states like Florida, most appeals courts are ruling in favor of homeowners and there is case law building to help in foreclosure defense on this. I must say you MUST challenge standing at the beginning of your case. This is vital to a good appeal should you lose. But I would definitely cite the case law coming down to give yourself a chance at defeating the fraud orchestrated by some of these.

Howdy,

 

Problem with what is said there, is that judges are not seeing it that way.  Most foreclosure cases are still heard by judges that side with the plaintiff in a matter like this.  Endorsements are faked, documents are created out of thin air, and the homeowner loses his home anyways.  More and more cases are being won by homeowners, but the scale is still way too far tipped in favor of the banks and servicers.  We also have the problem that a lot of people do not appeal because of the cost.  Fighting these companies and their high-dollar attorneys without a lawyer of your own is something that most people are not prepared to do.  We still live in a world today where as many as 9 out of 10 homeowners never even answer a summons when sued for foreclosure.  By and large, banks are still coming out ahead a lot more than they are losing in these cases. 

 

The endorsement is important.  But unless you can show a pattern of behavior that goes beyond your own case, you cannot use RICO, which could be the most powerful weapon in a case like this.  I'd recommend checking into LPS Desktop, Black Knight, and Loansphere.  It's all part of the same mess that caused DocX, which was shut down because of fake endorsements on fake documents being made.  LPS ran that show.  LPS still does the same stuff today, they just do it with one major difference.  Instead of hiring people at minimum wage to sign documents with various names all day, LPS creates the fake document and sends it to the mortgage bank or servicer, so a real person can sign his real name and truthfully say that he works for that servicer.  But it is still a scam, the docs are fake.  An endorsement on a fake document is not worth anything, no matter who signs it, but judges are still not throwing those out like they should be.  I also recommend searching as much as you can about that person that endorsed your documents.  One guy, earlier this year, found more than 60 different handwriting examples all signing the same name as was on his documents from his servicer.  It is fraud, no getting around that.  You just need to know what your state requires for proving fraud, and then make your case.  Another well known case is Cynthia Riley, robo-signer for JP Morgan Chase and WaMu.  She testified by deposition that her signature was made into a rubber stamp, and she had not applied her endorsement to one single document when working for WaMu.  Her name is on thousands of WaMu documents, and she claims under oath that she did not put any of those on paper.  She stopped working for WaMu in 2008, and her "signature" is still being used today on documents.  WaMu does not even exist anymore and they are still using this stamp anyways at JP Morgan Chase.  It is fraud.  We just need to prove it.

 

Yeah, the vice president bit.  Do not believe that the person is actually a vice president of anything.  These companies give fake titles out like candy.  I personally know a musician in California that works in a document center for a mortgage servicer.  He is a document clerk.  He has been given the title "vice president", but only for purposes of signing these fake docs.  He damn sure dont get paid like a vice president would, can tell ya that.  These companies use a 'certificate of incumbency' that is nothing more than a list of all employees which that company has given signing authority to.  It is a simple act of adding new names onto it, it really means nothing.  I've seen these for more than one company, they usually have 4-6 pages of names included.  

 

The assignment?  I'd wager a guess that it is not legit.  Most of these trusts are set up as REMIC trusts.  The IRS has created specific rules for REMIC trusts, because REMICs have tax-free status.  One of those rules is that a REMIC trust cannot buy and sell individual loans at will.  There is a small window of time, like 60 days, for the trust to add loans into the pool.  Once that window closes, the pool is set.  The loan can be removed from the pool if it is found to not qualify to be a part of the pool, but when that happens, the loan is to be repurchased by whoever sold it to that trust in the first place.  If your loan was ever in that trust, which it probably was not, then it could not be bought and sold at will like that, unless the RMS trust is not a REMIC trust.

 

Wheels up, 

 

Stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm not quite as sympathetic as I could be. While I hate to hear of people losing jobs, homes and having personal difficulties, still, at the end of the day, some of the customers who yell loudest about foreclosure documentation, MERS, alleged  robosigning, etc, are severely past due and not only have not paid their mortgage or deed of trust loan in months (or years) but are using stalling tactics. You must consider how this looks to the rest of us who move heaven and earth to make our mortgage or rent payments.

I've worked on files where the consumer is literally years past due and has been tying up the process (if any) with militia style disputes (you didn't really lend me money, it was only credit. Here's a worthless hunk of paper as "payment in full"), other disputes, bankruptcies which get dismissed for lack of performance, frivolous lawsuits.

Of course banks should have all their documentation. And of course they should be able to show payment histories and everything else indicating how the account got to that point. And they should timely respond to all queries and we all know that this does not always happen. But, like I said, 365 days delinquent, 700 days delinquent-in those instances what you've got is a squatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2015 at 10:01 AM, stick&rudder said:

Howdy,

 

Problem with what is said there, is that judges are not seeing it that way.  Most foreclosure cases are still heard by judges that side with the plaintiff in a matter like this.  Endorsements are faked, documents are created out of thin air, and the homeowner loses his home anyways.  More and more cases are being won by homeowners, but the scale is still way too far tipped in favor of the banks and servicers.  We also have the problem that a lot of people do not appeal because of the cost.  Fighting these companies and their high-dollar attorneys without a lawyer of your own is something that most people are not prepared to do.  We still live in a world today where as many as 9 out of 10 homeowners never even answer a summons when sued for foreclosure.  By and large, banks are still coming out ahead a lot more than they are losing in these cases. 

 

The endorsement is important.  But unless you can show a pattern of behavior that goes beyond your own case, you cannot use RICO, which could be the most powerful weapon in a case like this.  I'd recommend checking into LPS Desktop, Black Knight, and Loansphere.  It's all part of the same mess that caused DocX, which was shut down because of fake endorsements on fake documents being made.  LPS ran that show.  LPS still does the same stuff today, they just do it with one major difference.  Instead of hiring people at minimum wage to sign documents with various names all day, LPS creates the fake document and sends it to the mortgage bank or servicer, so a real person can sign his real name and truthfully say that he works for that servicer.  But it is still a scam, the docs are fake.  An endorsement on a fake document is not worth anything, no matter who signs it, but judges are still not throwing those out like they should be.  I also recommend searching as much as you can about that person that endorsed your documents.  One guy, earlier this year, found more than 60 different handwriting examples all signing the same name as was on his documents from his servicer.  It is fraud, no getting around that.  You just need to know what your state requires for proving fraud, and then make your case.  Another well known case is Cynthia Riley, robo-signer for JP Morgan Chase and WaMu.  She testified by deposition that her signature was made into a rubber stamp, and she had not applied her endorsement to one single document when working for WaMu.  Her name is on thousands of WaMu documents, and she claims under oath that she did not put any of those on paper.  She stopped working for WaMu in 2008, and her "signature" is still being used today on documents.  WaMu does not even exist anymore and they are still using this stamp anyways at JP Morgan Chase.  It is fraud.  We just need to prove it.

 

Yeah, the vice president bit.  Do not believe that the person is actually a vice president of anything.  These companies give fake titles out like candy.  I personally know a musician in California that works in a document center for a mortgage servicer.  He is a document clerk.  He has been given the title "vice president", but only for purposes of signing these fake docs.  He damn sure dont get paid like a vice president would, can tell ya that.  These companies use a 'certificate of incumbency' that is nothing more than a list of all employees which that company has given signing authority to.  It is a simple act of adding new names onto it, it really means nothing.  I've seen these for more than one company, they usually have 4-6 pages of names included.  

 

The assignment?  I'd wager a guess that it is not legit.  Most of these trusts are set up as REMIC trusts.  The IRS has created specific rules for REMIC trusts, because REMICs have tax-free status.  One of those rules is that a REMIC trust cannot buy and sell individual loans at will.  There is a small window of time, like 60 days, for the trust to add loans into the pool.  Once that window closes, the pool is set.  The loan can be removed from the pool if it is found to not qualify to be a part of the pool, but when that happens, the loan is to be repurchased by whoever sold it to that trust in the first place.  If your loan was ever in that trust, which it probably was not, then it could not be bought and sold at will like that, unless the RMS trust is not a REMIC trust.

 

Wheels up, 

 

Stick

The courts are more and more recognizing the problems Mortgages have had. One site you can check out is foreclosuredefensenationwide.com 

He seems to be having great success in appeals courts especially with reversing problem cases and ruling in favor of homeowners/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2015 at 11:34 AM, Dagwood said:

Yes. Do you have a thought?

I have a US bank illegal placed assignment after removal of first assignment to trust/trustee, servicer Nationstar assigned POA to US Bank (on whose behalf) and then US bank as trustee for NRZ assigned to wilmington savings society fund dba christiana fund, not it is entire capacity but as trustee for Pretium Mortgage acquisition trust, attorney in fact. No one of them have ever been a part of my loan and attached an allonge six months after US bank file foreclosure complaint using wilmington and pretium as stated beneficial interests the judge dismissed summary judgement and we now have a hearing next april, any suggestions as to how to proceed with this charade???  thx for your input, appreciate it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.