SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART XXXVI SUFFOLK COUNTY
PRESENT:
HON. PAUL J. BAISLEY, JR., J.S.C.
GMAC v. JOSEPH A. REMKUS
The note itself reflects that it was executed and delivered by the mortgagor to E*Trade. MERS is not mentioned in the note and is given no rights therein. Accordingly, the court is unable to discern from the submissions a factual or legal basis for MERS’ purported assignment of‘the underlying note to plaintiff. Moreover, even if the purported assignment were valid in all respects, plaintiffs submissions establish that at the time of the commencement of this action plaintiff was not the owner of the mortgage and note sued upon.
The Court notes that the questionable validity of the purported assignment is further reflected by the fact that it appears to have been executed on behalf of MERS by the same person, Jeffrey Stephan, who executed the “affidavit of merit” on behalf of the plaintiff in this action.
In light of the foregoing, the motion to appoint a referee is denied.
Proposed ex-parte order marked “not signed.”
Dated: July 28, 2008
–
Contiune reading the NY Case below…I have others similar
[ipaper docId=37996746 access_key=key-279npgf582mdsw8wg1g9 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
One question, why are the Notaries that signed and sealed these documents on behalf of the Robo-Signers not being investigated? They actually take an oath and have state issued commissions and face very serious penalties for fraud.
PJ: Because the notaries aren’t declaring anything, they’re simply certifying that the person, or Robo-Signer, is who they say they are, and swears so. It’s not the job of the Notary to validate the truth of the statements, just the proper establishment and confirmation of the identity of the person making the statement.