Where’s the note, who’s the holder: Enforcement of the promissory note secured by real estate

shell_game1I have been writing about the missing note theory for almost two years now and it appears that the great minds in the legal profession and of our courts have decided to really dive into this fascinating subject. The results have been nothing short of awesome and the banks should be very scared about the potential implications that this has and will have on initiating “illegal foreclosures.”

A hat tip to foreclosure fighter and consumer advocate lawyer from Florida, April Charney for sending this great legal analysis of the missing note theory to me via email.

By: HON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORD
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

And: (FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERS
LANGLEY & BANACK
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS


AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTUTUTE

APRIL 3, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C.

WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER

INTRODUCTION

In an era where a very large portion of mortgage obligations have been securitized, by assignment to a trust indenture trustee, with the resulting pool of assets being then sold as mortgage backed securities, foreclosure becomes an interesting exercise, particularly where judicial process is involved.

We are all familiar with the securitization process. The steps, if not the process, is simple.

A borrower goes to a mortgage lender. The lender finances the purchase of real estate. The borrower signs a note and mortgage or deed of trust. The original lender sells the note and assigns the mortgage to an entity that securitizes the note by combining the note with hundreds or thousands of similar obligation to create a package of mortgage backed securities, which are then sold to investors.

Unfortunately, unless you represent borrowers, the vast flow of notes into the maw of the securitization industry meant that a lot of mistakes were made. When the borrower defaults, the party seeking to enforce the obligation and foreclose on the underlying collateral sometimes cannot find the note.

A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed. The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.

UCC SECTION 3-309

If the issue were as simple as a missing note, UCC §3-309 would provide a simple solution. A person entitled to enforce an instrument which has been lost, destroyed or stolen may enforce the instrument. If the court is concerned that some third party may show up and attempt to enforce the instrument against the payee, it may order adequate protection. But, and however, a person seeking to enforce a missing instrument must be a person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person must prove the instrument’s terms and that person’s right to enforce the instrument. §3-309 (a)(1) & (b).

WHO’S THE HOLDER

Enforcement of a note always requires that the person seeking to collect show that it is the holder. A holder is an entity that has acquired the note either as the original pay or or transfer by endorsement of order paper or physical possession of bearer paper. These requirements are set out in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in every state, including Louisiana, and in the District of Columbia. Even in bankruptcy proceedings, State substantive law controls the rights of note and lien holders, as the Supreme Court pointed out almost forty (40) years ago in United States v. Butner, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979).

However, as Judge Bufford has recently illustrated,20in one of the cases discussed below, in the bankruptcy and other federal courts, procedure is governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Civil Procedure. And, procedure may just have an impact on the issue of “who,” because, if the holder is unknown, pleading and standing issues arise.

BRIEF REVIEW OF UCC PROVISIONS

Article 3 governs negotiable instruments – it defines what a negotiable instrument is and defines how ownership of those pieces of paper is transferred. For the precise definition, see § 3-104(a) (“an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest . . . .”) The instrument may be either payable to order or bearer and payable on demand or at a definite time, with or without interest.

Ordinary negotiable instruments include notes and drafts (a check is a draft drawn on a bank). See § 3-104(e).

Negotiable paper is transferred from the original payor by negotiation. §3-301. “Order paper” must be endorsed; bearer paper need only be delivered. §3-305. However, in either case, for the note to be enforced, the person who asserts the status of the holder must be in possession of the instrument. See UCC § 1-201 (20) and comments.

The original and subsequent transferees are referred to as holders. Holders who take with no notice of defect or default are called “holders in due course,” and take free of many defenses. See §§ 3-305(b).

The UCC says that a payment to a party “entitled to enforce the instrument” is sufficient to extinguish the obligation of the person obligated on the instrument. Clearly, then, only a holder – a person in possession of a note endorsed to it or a holder of bearer paper – may seek satisfaction or enforce rights in collateral such as real estate.

NOTE: Those of us who went through the bank and savings and loan collapse of the 1980’s are familiar with these problems. The FDIC/FSLIC/RTC sold millions of notes secured and unsecured, in bulk transactions. Some notes could not be found and enforcement sometimes became a problem. Of course, sometimes we are forced to repeat history. For a recent FDIC case, see Liberty Savings Bank v. Redus, 2009 WL 41857 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), January 8, 2009.

THE RULES

Judge Bufford addressed the rules issue this past year. See In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C. D. Cal. 2008). First, there are the pleading problems that arise when the holder of the note is unknown. Typically, the issue will arise in a motion for relief from stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.

According F.R.Civ. Pro. 17, “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” This rule is incorporated into the rules governing bankruptcy procedure in several ways. As Judge Bufford has pointed out, for example, in a motion for relief from stay, filed under F.R.Bankr.Pro. 4001 is a contested matter, governed by F. R. Bankr. P. 9014, which makes F.R. Bankr. Pro. 7017 applicable to such motions. F.R. Bankr. P. 7017 is, of course, a restatement of F. R. Civ. P. 17. In re Hwang, 396 B.R. at 766. The real party in interest in a federal action to enforce a note, whether in bankruptcy court or federal district court, is the owner of a note. (In securitization transactions, this would be the trustee for the “certificate holders.”) When the actual holder of the note is unknown, it is impossible – not difficult but impossible – to plead a cause of action in a federal court (unless the movant simply lies about the ownership of the note). Unless the name of the actual note holder can be stated, the very pleadings are defective.

STANDING

Often, the servicing agent for the loan will appear to enforce the note. Assume that the servicing agent states that it is the authorized agent of the note holder, which is “Trust Number 99.” The servicing agent is certainly a party in interest, since a party in interest in a bankruptcy court is a very broad term or concept. See, e.g., Greer v. O’Dell, 305 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2002). However, the servicing agent may not have standing: “Federal Courts have only the power authorized by Article III of the Constitutions and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. … [A] plaintiff must have Constitutional standing in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction.” In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 3d 650, 653 (S.D. Ohio, 2007) (citations omitted).

But, the servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the holder of the note has standing to enforce the note. See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at 8.

The servicing agent may have standing if acting as an agent for the holder, assuming that the agent can both show agency status and that the principle is the holder. See, e.g., In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) at 520.

A BRIEF ASIDE: WHO IS MERS?

For those of you who are not familiar with the entity known as MERS, a frequent participant in these foreclosure proceedings:

MERS is the “Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. “MERS is a mortgage banking ‘utility’ that registers mortgage loans in a book entry system so that … real estate loans can be bought, sold and securitized, just like Wall Street’s book entry utility for stocks and bonds is the Depository Trust and Clearinghouse.” Bastian, “Foreclosure Forms”, State. Bar of Texas 17th Annual Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, March 9-10, 2007, Dallas, Texas. MERS is enormous. It originates thousands of loans daily and is the mortgagee of record for at least 40 million mortgages and other security documents. Id.

MERS acts as agent for the owner of the note. Its authority to act should be shown by an agency agreement. Of course, if the owner is unknown, MERS cannot show that it is an authorized agent of the owner.

RULES OF EVIDENCE – A PRACTICAL PROBLEM

This structure also possesses practical evidentiary problems where the party asserting a right to foreclose must be able to show a default. Once again, Judge Bufford has addressed this issue. At In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19. Judge Bufford made a finding that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent. All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records. The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 517-20. The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default. That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.

FORECLOSURE OR RELIEF FROM STAY

In a foreclosure proceeding in a judicial foreclosure state, or a request for injunctive relief in a non-judicial foreclosure state, or in a motion for relief proceeding in a bankruptcy court, the courts are dealing with and writing about the problems very frequently.

In many if not almost all cases, the party seeking to exercise the rights of the creditor will be a servicing company. Servicing companies will be asserting the rights of their alleged principal, the note holder, which is, again, often going to be a trustee for a securitization package. The mortgage holder or beneficiary under the deed of trust will, again, very often be MERS.

Even before reaching the practical problem of debt and default, mentioned above, the moving party must show that it holds the note or (1) that it is an agent of the holder and that (2) the holder remains the holder. In addition, the owner of the note, if different from the holder, must join in the motion.

Some states, like Texas, have passed statutes that allow servicing companies to act in foreclosure proceedings as a statutorily recognized agent of the noteholder. See, e.g., Tex. Prop. Code §51.0001. However, that statute refers to the servicer as the last entity to whom the debtor has been instructed to make payments. This status is certainly open to challenge. The statute certainly provides nothing more than prima facie evidence of the ability of the servicer to act. If challenged, the servicing agent must show that the last entity to communicate instructions to the debtor is still the holder of the note. See, e.g., HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Valentin, 2l N.Y. Misc. 3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.), Nov. 3, 2008. In addition, such a statute does not control in federal court where Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and 19 (and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7017 and 7019) apply.

SOME RECENT CASE LAW

These=2 cases are arranged by state, for no particular reason.

Massachusetts

In re Schwartz, 366 B.R.265 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007)

Schwartz concerns a Motion for Relief to pursue an eviction. Movant asserted that the property had been foreclosed upon prior to the date of the bankruptcy petition. The pro se debtor asserted that the Movant was required to show that it had authority to conduct the sale. Movant, and “the party which appears to be the current mortgagee…” provided documents for the court to review, but did not ask for an evidentiary hearing. Judge Rosenthal sifted through the documents and found that the Movant and the current mortgagee had failed to prove that the foreclosure was properly conducted.

Specifically, Judge Rosenthal found that there was no evidence of a proper assignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure. However, at footnote 5, Id. at 268, the Court also finds that there is no evidence that the note itself was assigned and no evidence as to who the current holder might be.

Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company (In re Nosek), 286 Br. 374 (Bankr D Mass. 2008).

Almost a year to the day after Schwartz was signed, Judge Rosenthal issued a second opinion. This is an opinion on an order to show cause. Judge20Rosenthal specifically found that, although the note and mortgage involved in the case had been transferred from the originator to another party within five days of closing, during the five years in which the chapter 13 proceeding was pending, the note and mortgage and associated claims had been prosecuted by Ameriquest which has represented itself to be the holder of the note and the mortgage. Not until September of 2007 did Ameriquest notify the Court that it was merely the servicer. In fact, only after the chapter 13 bankruptcy had been pending for about three years was there even an assignment of the servicing rights. Id. at 378.

Because these misrepresentations were not simple mistakes: as the Court has noted on more than one occasion, those parties who do not hold the note of mortgage do not service the mortgage do not have standing to pursue motions for leave or other actions arising form the mortgage obligation. Id at 380.

As a result, the Court sanctioned the local law firm that had been prosecuting the claim $25,000. It sanctioned a partner at that firm an additional $25,000. Then the Court sanctioned the national law firm involved $100,000 and ultimately sanctioned Wells Fargo $250,000. Id. at 382-386.

In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).

Like Judge Rosenthal, Judge Feeney has attacked the problem of standing and authority head on. She has also held that standing must be established before either a claim can be allowed or a motion for relief be granted.

Ohio

In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 2d (S.D. Ohio 2007).

Perhaps the District Court’s orders in the foreclosure cases in Ohio have received the most press of any of these opinions. Relying almost exclusively on standing, the Judge Rose has determined that a foreclosing party must show standing. “[I]n a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time that the complaint was filed.” Id. at 653.

Judge Rose instructed the parties involved that the willful failure of the movants to comply with the general orders of the Court would in the future result in immediate dismissal of foreclos ure actions.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Steele, 2008 WL 111227 (S.D. Ohio) January 8, 2008.

In Steele, Judge Abel followed the lead of Judge Rose and found that Deutsche Bank had filed evidence in support of its motion for default judgment indicating that MERS was the mortgage holder. There was not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Deutsche Bank was the owner and holder of the note as of that date. Following In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 456586, the Court held that summary judgment would be denied “until such time as Deutsche Bank was able to offer evidence showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed.” 2008 WL 111227 at 2. Deutsche Bank was given twenty-one days to comply. Id.

Illinois

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cook, 2009 WL 35286 (N.D. Ill. January 6, 2009).

Not all federal district judges are as concerned with the issues surrounding the transfer of notes and mortgages. Cook is a very pro lender case and, in an order granting a motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Cook had shown no “countervailing evidence to create a genuine issue of facts.” Id. at 3. In fact, a review of the evidence submitted by U.S. Bank showed only that it was the alleged trustee of the securitization pool. U.S. Bank relied exclusively on the “pooling and serving agreement” to show that it was the holder of the note. Id.

Under UCC Article 3, the evidence presented in Cook was clearly insufficient.

New York

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin, 21 Misc. 3D 1124(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.) November 3, 2008. In Valentin, the New York court found that, even though given an opportunity to, HSBC did not show the ownership of debt and mortgage. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the “notice of pendency” against the property was cancelled.

Note that the Valentin case does not involve some sort of ambush. The Court gave every HSBC every opportunity to cure the defects the Court perceived in the pleadings.

California

In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)

and

In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)

These two opinions by Judge Bufford have been discussed above. Judge Bufford carefully explores the related issues of standing and ownership under both federal and California law.

Texas

In re Parsley, 384 B.R. 138 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)

and

In re Gilbreath, 395 B.R. 356 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)

These two recent opinions by Judge Jeff Bohm are not really on point, but illustrate another thread of cases running through the issues of motions for relief from stay in bankruptcy court and the sloppiness of loan servicing agencies. Both of these cases involve motions for relief that were not based upon fact but upon mistakes by servicing agencies. Both opinions deal with the issue of sanctions and, put simply, both cases illustrate that Judge Bohm (and perhaps other members of the bankruptcy bench in the Southern District of Texas) are going to be very strict about motions for relief in consumer cases.

SUMMARY

The cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry. These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.

Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues. The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument. The person seeking to enforce the note must show that:

(1) It is the holder of t his note original by transfer, with all necessary rounds;
(2) It had possession of the note before it was lost;
(3) If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be prepared to post a bond;
(4) If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).

Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.

******* Read Moe’s past blog posts on the missing note theory from 2007-present:

Deutsche Bank Foreclosures Tossed Out of Ohio Federal Court – “They Own Nothing!” -  November 13, 2007

Thus, the Judge ruled that in every instance, these submissions create a “conflict” and they “do not satisfy” the burden of demonstrating at the time of filing the complaint that Deutsche Bank was in fact the “legal” note holder.

While the decision is great for homeowners in distress (due to providing a new escape hatch out of foreclosure), it also represents a serious roadblock.  If the toxic mortgage fiasco is to be cleaned up, there must be a simple means of identifying what banks own and what they do not own.  This judgment is an example of the enormous task ahead in sorting out the mortgage mess.

32 More Foreclosures Dismissed for Lack of “Documentation”- November 19, 2007

 In another Ohio ruling on November 14th, State District Judge Kathleen Mc Donald O’Malley dismissed 32 more foreclosures for lack of “documentation”. Read the ruling /files/89778-78388/Deutsche_Bank_Foreclosure_Ruling.pdf”>Deutsche Ruling, we reported on the Judge Boyko decision in which he dismissed 14 Deutsche Bank foreclosures and then was followed up by Judge Rose throwing out another 27 foreclosures the following day for lack of documentation.

This will continue to prove to be a huge issue for securitized trusts to properly prove ownership with the legal documentation of these loans. Now, it appears that some homeowners (and judges) have caught on and it is expected that many more of these cases will be thrown out of courts across America.

Foreclosure Warfare – “It is troubling that the plaintiff has filed this case before it had any interest in it” – December 13, 2007

 “It is troubling that the plaintiff has filed this case before it had any interest in it,” Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Steven E. Martin said in a letter to Wells Fargo’s lawyer.The judge said the foreclosure lawsuit was filed before Wells Fargo owned the mortgage – thus, the suit was premature.

Ohio Homeowner Fights Foreclosure and Lives Payment Free for 11 Years – December 28, 2007

Let the truth be known. Most homeowners do not respond or fight back when they are facing foreclosure. The lender files the notice of default and the court hearing comes and goes without an appearance from the defendant (homeowner). Four to six months later, the trustee’s sale happens on the court steps and the home owner becomes another foreclosure statistic.

However, there are unique cases of people that just won’t lie down and take it. They fight back to protect their property rights and against injustice.

Bring Down the Banks with these Foreclosure Defense Tactics -   July 7. 2008

Like any fight , you must first look at your opponents weaknesses in order to exploit them and utilize these loop holes to your advantage. Over the years lenders and banks got fat and a little lazy in their training habits and fighting tactics. I guess they assumed that they would always rule the land from their hill top estates and glass houses.

Missing Mortgage Notes and Deceptive Mortgage Servicing: Wall Street Shell Game 101 - 

What if you didn’t have to leave and all you had to do was “defend” your property rights by asking a simple question to who you may “think” is your lender. The question, “Mr. Lender, would you be so kind to produce the mortgage note that I signed when I bought the home with my original signature?” Think of it like when you buy and sell a vehicle.

Does Your Lender Have the Right to Foreclose on You? October 15, 2008

In federal court, written proof of who holds the mortgage must be presented at the time the foreclosure is filed. In county common pleas courts, proof must be presented before a judgment is issued. Our past “missing note” and “illegal foreclosure proceedings” blog posts focused in the great State of Ohio and the honorable Federal Court Judges, Boyko, Rose and O’Malley decisions that sent shock waves throughout online legal communities everywhere.


20 Comments

20 Responses to “Where’s the note, who’s the holder: Enforcement of the promissory note secured by real estate”

  1. v. johnson says:

    Where do we find the legal docs needed to file the “Produce the note” legal action against my lender???
    Can we file them ouselves, since I am unemployed and don’t have cash to hire an attorney to do this??
    Please advise.ASAP……
    they had me scheduled for 3/3/09
    Thank You!

  2. william Kennedy says:

    preditory loan with world savings

  3. Steven Sedlmayr says:

    I also would like to find the legal docs for the “Produce the note” legal action so that I can file it in my bankruptcy case for denial of relief of stay. Can you tell me where to download the documents?

  4. Ann Bartels says:

    I have been on to the legal holder of the note for a while, I am certainly feeling quite vindicated at this point. But I do have a question, what if they rushed the Trustee sale thru, can it be overturned? In my house situation, we approached the bank before the sale, and recieved a letter (former wamu loan, Chase exec response team replied) the response said they would indeed work with us, gave a phone number and a name to contact. Left many messages and finally got a telephone call the day the notice of sale was placed on door saying they would be happy to resell us our house if we can provide funding after the trustee sale!!! In searching for information or anyone we could talk to prior, the names numbers and websites were absolutely useless. the sale took place there had been a substitution of trustee filed at one point staing Long Beach Mortgage Company was the current trustee and that wamu would then be the new trustee. This was recorded in the county office, then when the trustee sale took place the names of the beneficiaries and trustees were now Long Beach Mortgage and Deutshce Bank. No mention of Chase and no Substitution of trustee showing Deutsche Bank. The benificiaries bought the property themselves at auction.
    I have to go to court as they are now attempting eviction of us, and while I can show the messed up Sub of Trustee docs, and site the cases on this webpage , at the Unlawful Detainer Hearing, can that judge do anything to help us? Would he have power to invalidate the sale that already took place? If nothing else is he empowered to give us time to get ready to move? We hired an attorney but that retainer was long gone while trying to work out the entire thing, after the fact of the sale , because we honestly thought the bank would honor their letter to us saying they would work with us.

  5. Connie Williams says:

    I know 2 homeowners who have tried the “Produce the Note”, both felt they were losing their homes because of fraud, and to my surprise it works!

  6. Greg says:

    I wonder how long it will be before powerful banking interests manage to change the law to eliminate that loophole.

  7. stephen marettie says:

    I have the note signed in ink. I’m in foreclosure and made all my payments never been late or missed a payment. ten days after filing for the foreclosure someone did an assignment of mortgage and signed it as the vp of mers solely as a nominee for the original lender who is no longer in business. Fraud is Fraud. what do you do now?

  8. bob says:

    get a good lawyer. all of you.

  9. GRACE says:

    Don’t pay the lender another dime unless they can produce the note; if they sue you or attempt to foreclose, file a lis pendens. I stood up to Wells Fargo for over 5 years, refused to pay them…and whomever owned the note…well the statue of limitations has passed i.e. last payment theory ..also on unsecured debts i.e. if note ownership can’t be proven…Just don’t leave your home…and ignore them until they can produce the note..time is almost near as I knew it was coming …the lenders are being forced to face the fire …a day they never believed would come….the critical mass has evolved…and is building steam that may never of come…but thanks to the few brave courts who stepped up to the back…and said …wait a minute…where are the notes?

  10. Miles says:

    I’m currently up to my eye-balls in credit cardt debt and am being sued by one of the card owners.
    Since this all ties and is affecting our mortgage payments; can anything be done with regards to UCC law and the securitization of the card agreement?
    I understand banks and credit card companies can take the security and sell it for up to 9 time the original credit limit there by receiveing payment for the account. This is something I’ve not seen disclosed in an agreement.
    Can this non-disclosure be a grounds for breach of contract under UCC Law?
    Also, is there any credibility to the idea that banks acn neither loan thier depositors money and, cannot loan credit?

    Thanks!

    Miles

  11. You may be interested in a Texas court of appeals opinion I got in a pro bono case today. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisiction to decide possession in a post-foreclosure eviction action by MERS. There was no evidence of MERS’ interest in the property and title must be detemined prior to determining possession. Email me if you want a copy of the opinion. grace@wtwlawfirm.com

  12. shelly says:

    What do I do now? I received a notice hand delivered, “summons on first amended complaint” from a lawyer stating if I fail to file a answer or motion, default judgement may be entered against me. It is in a judicial state and for foreclosure. They say to pay this amount of money and foreclosure will not happen. I have a predatory loan. Whether the foreclosure happens or not they will still continue their antics and suck me dry. Just having them produce the note is one thing but for 5 years I have found fraud every where from this mortgage. From the ARM to the flipping of the loan to not accepting my payments and sending the checks back so they could swindle more, to the escrow. The plaintiffs I have on the document I had no clue existed in my loan. #1. Do I pay them to start at good standing and then go file a motion with the court? #2. Do I file with the court notice to compel? I am using the where is the note -who is the holder, I want the original with my signature on it. I do want to know anyways plus nail these people. I know easier said than done. But what do I do first any one got tips on what to say and how to say? It is Deutsche bank or whoever– but there is a problem there never signed anything with their name on it. My state is NM. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Also maybe an attorney or forensic auditor would be nice. Thanks

  13. Alan Rothman, Esq. says:

    I am looking at those cases where the Bank is acting as a Trustee for a Securitized asset backed receivable LLC. There are limits to the defenses in the Unlawful Detainer setting in California, but you may wish to align with the Landlord-Owner for possible Joint defenses. alanmarkrothman@yahoo.com

  14. [...] a judicial explanation of this issue, the American Bankruptcy Institute has a more intellectual [...]

  15. simon says:

    I would like to know how a borrower can obtain the MERS Milestones Report for the mortgage. Also, how can a borrower get in touch with the Note holder (original lender sold at closing), the servicer Wells Fargo refuses any info about the Note holder – I really need to let the Holder know that it bought a Note that was obtained by fraud and predatory lending practices.

    Wells Fargo is part owner of MERS and look at your mortgages, did you really intend to give every Principal of MERS an interest in your home? MERS is only nominee of Original Lender – once the Lender sold it’s interest (the Note) MERS status as Lenders’ nominee ended.

    What they didn’t tell you is that MERS is agent for the lender, servicer, etc. and etc. – something not disclosed in the Mortgage, and also never made known to you – you didn’t agree to that.

    I need to get in touch with the Note holder, any info is appreciate – please post here.

    Thanks

    Simone Limone

  16. Frank says:

    “The law leaves the wrong doer where it finds it”.

  17. Habel says:

    Does any-one think that maybe the forclosure actualy belongs in Federal Distric and not the state?

    Does any-one think that if there is a counter claim that its best to request a jury? Habel any responce will not be taken as advise, but as thought.

  18. simon l says:

    quoting Frank December 11, 2009 at 11:13 am

    ““The law leaves the wrong doer where it finds it”.”

    Damn right. Equity would not enforce a loan contract that was fraudulently induced and intentionally and deceitfully misrepresented as to value of the consideration and the true parties of interest, with the intention of concealing continually the frauds so as to prevent the obligee from discovering them, thereby not only causing financial damage to the obligee and instant cloud on his real estate title at the execution but also throughout the duration of the loan. Equity would have that the obligee’s claims of non-liability and for damages be tolled from the moment on which he was able to discover the frauds despite the continual and active deceptions. Equity would also have that the obligee be released from liability AND reimbursed for his damages. Third parties who claim an interest (and who were concealed from the obligee) should be reimbursed by the wrongdoers who sold them a defective loan wrought in fraud and deception. Law and Equity should leave the wrongdoers holding their “loss” as just and equitable compensation for their actions!

  19. Gregory says:

    If the homeowner signed only A short Form Deed of Trust and never signed A “Note” can the Beneficiary do a Non Judicial Foreclosure? The homeowner never borrowed any money but the property was used as collateral for another property that the homeowner was purchasing from the lender/Seller. The property is valued at 1,200,000 encumbrance of $350,000. The short form Deed of Trust was in the amount of $330,000. Now the Beneficiary seeks to foreclose and there is No “Note”.

  20. [...] are going to have a judge that gets it. Here are some links to articles I have done in the past: Where’s the note, who’s the holder: Enforcement of the promissory note secured by real e… Ordinary negotiable instruments include notes and drafts (a check is a draft drawn on a bank). See [...]