Washington State SB6199 | Heh, Lookie Here (Felony For False Swearing) - Market Ticker

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Washington State SB6199 | Heh, Lookie Here (Felony For False Swearing) – Market Ticker

Washington State SB6199 | Heh, Lookie Here (Felony For False Swearing) – Market Ticker

via Market-Ticker

23 (ii) A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection. A violation of this subsection (7)(a)(ii) is a class C felony as provided in RCW 28 9A.20.020 and 9A.20.021.

Full Text Below:

[ipaper docId=78164671 access_key=key-pnkcyfnw5zy5fvkgmc2 height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8690 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

One Response to “Washington State SB6199 | Heh, Lookie Here (Felony For False Swearing) – Market Ticker”

  1. Eileen says:

    The law does not mention false swearing. It says the trustee must have in his possession proof that the beneficiary is the holder, and that a declaration from the beneficiary shall suffice for that purpose. Therefore, the felony would be if the trustee sold the property without the proper declaration. The grantor could take the trustee to court to challenge the truthfulness of the declaration, but the declaration is going to be taken at face value if not challenged by the grantor. This law is not about false swearing, it is about the trustee having the declaration before the sale. They were already required to have that, and the way they do it is for some clerk who has no firsthand knowledge to make a declaration, and they are in compliance with the statute, or so they think. The felony adds teeth to the statute, but they can always get around it with a declaration, even if the declaration does not meet the qualifications of firsthand testimony. The grantor has always had the right to challenge the sufficiency of the declaration.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives