HSBC Bank USA v Hagerman | NYSC – HSBC Sues itself, Two Different Notes

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

HSBC Bank USA v Hagerman | NYSC – HSBC Sues itself, Two Different Notes

HSBC Bank USA v Hagerman | NYSC – HSBC Sues itself, Two Different Notes

Anyone notice HSBC is suing HSBC??

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND DCM PART 3

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee
for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Pass
Through Certificates, Series 2007-8
3476 Stateview Blvd.
F. Mill, SC 29715
Plaintiff

against

ROBERT HAGERMAN,
ANNMARIE HAGERMAN, a/k/a ANMARIE HAGERMAN,
AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK,
AMERICAN GENERAL HOME EQUITY,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF WOODVALE ESTATES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
HSBC BANK USA, N.A.,
JOLEEN ARCHUL,
LEAF FUNDING INC. a/a/o FIVE POINT CAPITAL,
NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU,
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU,
RBS CITIZENS, N.A.,
VICTORY STATE BANK,
JOHN DOE (Said name being fictitious, it being the intention
of plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being
foreclosed herein, and any parties, Corporations or entities, if any,
having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises),
Defendants

EXCERPT:

In order to support this new motion for summary judgment the defendant’s attorney
reviewed the land records maintained by the Richmond County Clerk. The Richmond County
Clerk’s office has a different New York Balloon Note on file. This note is also dated “January
29th, 2007 Huntington, NY” and it listed the property location as “47 Carol Court, Staten Island,
New York 10309.” But, unlike the note originally submitted in opposition to the defendant’s
cross-motion for summary judgment this note does not bear an “ORIGINAL” stamp on its face.
Furthermore, the designation of “exhibit c” is not typed on the document, but instead it is
stamped on the face of the document. Like the note previously submitted to this court the
interest rate is set at 6.5%, but the monthly payment is now listed as $5,303.06. On the signature
lines, the balloon note is first executed by “Anmarie Hagerman a/k/a Annmarie Hagerman” and
then the second line is executed by Robert Hagerman. But there is another difference with the
note on file with the Richmond County Clerk. This note is purportedly witnessed by an illegible
signature, without being notarized.

In an affidavit, the moving defendant avers that she and her husband executed only one
note at the closing. And that the note, as well as the other documents executed at that time, were
witnessed by Wayne Prucha.

[…]

While this court concedes that there are two separate notes purportedly executed by
AnnMarie Hagerman, the defendant has not come forward with any evidence that proves that
either of the signatures are forgeries as a matter of law.6 In addition, it is clear that discovery is
not complete. Consequently, summary judgment on the issue of the purported forgery of the
AnnMarie Hagerman’s signature is premature and the motion is denied.

[..]

Down Load PDF of This Case

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8711 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

Leave a Reply

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

Archives