Judge Schack Watch out – Deutsche Bank is coming back. They have now caused an assignment of mortgage to be recorded! DBNT vs. FRANCIS

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Judge Schack Watch out – Deutsche Bank is coming back. They have now caused an assignment of mortgage to be recorded! DBNT vs. FRANCIS

Judge Schack Watch out – Deutsche Bank is coming back. They have now caused an assignment of mortgage to be recorded! DBNT vs. FRANCIS

UPDATE: Case is showing up as Settled: Loan Modified on 3/15/2012 – Thanks J for this info!

Wonder how this panned out? This after he dismissed the case with Prejudice!

What does Dismissed with Prejudice mean? Unfortunately not much. You see after New York Supreme Court Judge Schack dismissed Deutsche Bank’s case against Walter Francis with Prejudice for the inability to demonstrate it owns the mortgage or the note and for an unrecorded mortgage assignment back on March 25, 2011, on December 30, 2011 Deutsche Bank filed the unrecorded assignment of mortgage on what appears to be 9 months later. The assignment is EXECUTED by Denise Bailey who I’m almost certain Judge Schack knows quite well.

Does anyone have the latest info on this case? H/T to Dan H for this info below.

[ipaper docId=101664896 access_key=key-1iahzvhzmdpusqgaxx21 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8610 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

4 Responses to “Judge Schack Watch out – Deutsche Bank is coming back. They have now caused an assignment of mortgage to be recorded! DBNT vs. FRANCIS”

  1. Charles Reed says:

    All of this is not to complicated but MERS has got people thinking that they are this registry company that supersedes state requirement in that you have to have a finance interest in the property (endorse Note where you purchase the loan) and be in title as the “holder in due course”, which is the owner that paid for the Note.

    This matter is simple for the lender, as they only need to present to the court the Note and if they did purchase the Note take and have the assignment recorded.

    However what it seem is that there is a gap in ownership and MERS is trying to fill that gap by invoking this nominee for Fremont who was bankrupt and was this subprime lender who I bet sold this loan as it was probably placed in some securities and the Note cannot be shown because it was blank endorsed or is lost and Deutsche does not have a bill of sale.

    How do you claim to be the owner of something and cannot produce a cancel check or wired fund showing you purchase a $100K-$400K house?

    MERS should not be on any of the contract first as they were not this law firm advising borrowers what there duty was to be in this transaction, as MERS cannot by law do what a lender can do and cannot step in the shoe of the lenders as some nominee when in fact they cannot collect payments as they are not a lender.

    MERS in its paperless electronic system which they never see the actual documents and the data is imputed by someone other than a MERS employee because MERS does not have any employees. It the lender who is alleged to have enter the information into MERS and also the lender who does a Transfer Beneficial Right in the MERS system, but where this needs to be recorded is at the local land recording office.

    Now what could have happen like what is happening with Ginnie Mae is that the lenders who have place loans into pool have signed endorse Notes in Blank in the event the lender has financial troubles which Fremont did have just as IndyMac, Washington Mutual and Countrywide had were the first two are now defunct bank and to avoid bankruptcy BOA purchase Countrywide.

    However what not realized by the public is that when the Blank Notes are relinquish to the pool holder who become the instant owner of the Notes according to UCC 3 once physical possession is had. The reason the Note are signed in Blank is so that if the lender goes bankrupt the court can seize these loan as assets of Fremont, IndyMac or Washington Mutual because they have already conveyed to the Trust of the pools the Notes.

    If the Note were sold, what needed to happen was a simultaneous signing of the security instrument (mortgage, deed of trust, security deed) must be done because after the closing the past owner has not financial interest in the Note and does not have the authority to sign after the closing. The purchaser does not have to record the instrument right away as long as it is before there is some other transaction such as a Notice of Default.

    What being done in this case is that Deutsche Bank cannot produce a Note in court that endorsed to them legally and is the reason these clown want to do an administrative foreclosure to avoid a judge making them produce some type of bill of sale.

    It must be understood that it was nothing the borrower did to have this windfall, but because the mortgage industry wanted to slice these loan up they took the risk of separating the Notes from the debt that not a debt without the Note and the Note is nothing without owning the debt!

  2. Susan Batista says:

    It appears that on page (4) someones name was whited out on the signature that ends with ____________________2009.
    I think it is fabricated.

  3. Susan Batista says:

    It appears that on page (4) someones name was whited out on the signature line that ends with ____________________2009.
    I think it is fabricated.

  4. Tim Bryant says:

    Notice that the assignment is an “unexecuted” (undated) copy.

    Also notice that the address of MERS, is the same address of Fremont Investment. An assignment must have the address of the assignor, who in this case is MERS, not Fremont. It also states that this is MERS principal place of business, which it isn’t. It also states that MERS exists under the laws of NY, not Delaware.

    The notarization is invalid as the notary’s commission expired before the instrument was recorded. This makes the notary “functus officio”. This literally means “his duty is done”. After March 28, 2011, the notary had no authority under the document.

    Also notice that the assignment is not “for value”. A $1 purchase of $445K contract is not “for value”, but is actually a “devise” (gift).

    This is an invalid assignment of an illusory sale. Judge Schack ought to have a field day with this when he finds out.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives