This forgery case may open the legal flood gates for duped homeowners who “thought” they knew what they were signing based on the professional advice of their mortgage, real estate or foreclosure so-called professional.
In all honesty, I feel that this case proves that forgery can occur even when the signature on the document is authentic. Forgery by trickery!
A recent opinion in the case of The People v. Paul Stephen Martinez (California Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) seems to prove this very important legal defense for the millions of borrowers who were baited and switched during the course of their mortgage or real estate transaction.
People vs. Paul Stephen Martinez – Court Document
There was no evidence that Michiel’s signature on the La Villa trust deed was not genuine. Michiel admitted that it looked like hers. She also admitted that defendant had had her sign a number of documents. Nevertheless, a forgery conviction can be based on a document with a genuine signature. “[F]orgery is committed when a defendant, by fraud or trickery, causes another to execute a . . . document where the signer is unaware, by reason of such trickery, that he is executing a document of that nature.” (People v. Parker (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 664, 672.)
Wow! You may want to read that again folks!
The words that really get me excited are, “[F]orgery is committed when a defendant, by fraud or trickery, causes another to execute a . . . document where the signer is unaware, by reason of such trickery, that he is executing a document of that nature.”
The facts are that this method of operation (selling by trickery) in selling mortgages and real estate was the preferred method by many brokers in the Golden State.
Yes, many borrowers would have a basic understanding of the mortgage product they were being sold, but when it came down to “ALL” the terms and quirks of the loan, that stuff was purposely left out and these ugly secrets buried somewhere deep in the loan and real estate documents that only a trained professional would be able to understand.
That was the whole point, right?
Now, they are using these same methods in foreclosure prevention and loan modification scams.
Please read more from The People Vs. Martinez . This says it all!
There was no evidence that Michiel’s signature on the La Villa trust deed was not genuine. Michiel admitted that it looked like hers. She also admitted that defendant had had her sign a number of documents. Nevertheless, a forgery conviction can be based on a document with a genuine signature. “[F]orgery is committed when a defendant, by fraud or trickery, causes another to execute a . . . document where the signer is unaware, by reason of such trickery, that he is executing a document of that nature.” (People v.Parker (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 664, 672.)
B. Conviction on Multiple Counts.
On our own motion, we questioned whether defendant could properly be convicted on two counts of forgery.
Both counts charged defendant with forgery under Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d). That subdivision, as relevant here, applies to “[e]very person who, with the intent to defraud, falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits, utters, publishes, passes or attempts or offers to pass, as true and genuine, any of the [specified] items, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited . . . .” Thus, it is violated each time a person makes and/or passes a forged item, no matter how many forged signatures are on the item.
Our research has revealed only one California case on point — People v. Dole (1898) 122 Cal. 486. There, the information alleged that the defendant altered a check, forged multiple endorsements on it, and then passed it to the State Loan & Trust Company. On appeal, the defendant argued that the information was defective because Our holding is limited to multiple convictions under Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d).
Penal Code section 470, subdivision (a) applies to “[e]very person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the [specified] items . . . .” Similarly, Penal Code section 470, subdivision (b) applies to “[e]very person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another . . . .” Thus, it is at least arguable that these subdivisions are violated each time a person makes and/or passes a forged signature, even if only a single document is involved.
12 charged more than one offense.
4 The court responded: “The intent to defraud is the essential element of the crime of forgery, and the whole series of acts charged against defendant is alleged to have been done with the single intent to defraud the State Loan and Trust Company. But one offense, therefore, was charged . . . .” (Dole, at p. 489.)
Comments on this entry are closed.