U.S. Bank N.A. v Friedman | NYSC - Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note on the date this case was commenced, it does not have standing to maintain this action

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

U.S. Bank N.A. v Friedman | NYSC – Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note on the date this case was commenced, it does not have standing to maintain this action

U.S. Bank N.A. v Friedman | NYSC – Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note on the date this case was commenced, it does not have standing to maintain this action

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
—————————————————————–)(
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS
TRUSTEE FOR MAS TR ADJUSTABLE RA TE
MORTGAGES TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1,
Plaintiff,

-against-

LEONARD FRIEDMAN, KARYN FRIEDMAN,
NATIONAL CITY BANK, and “JOHN DOE#l”
through “JOHN DOE#lO” the last ten names
being fictitious and unknown to the Plaintiff, the
person or parties intended being the person or parties,
if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon
the mortgaged premises described in the complaint,
Defendants.
——————————————————————)

LOEHR, J.
Index No.: 032128/11
In this foreclosure action, the Court, in a Decision and Order dated June 28, 2013, having
granted the Plaintiff summary judgment as to the execution and delivery of the Note and
Mortgage and the Defendants’ default thereunder, but have denied summary judgment on the
issue of Plaintiffs standing- specifically, when the Original Note, indorsed by the original
lender, had been delivered to Plaintiff1
– the matter was tried before me on February 28, 2014,
and the Plaintiff called as its sole witness, Rashad Blanchard, an employee of Ocwen, which
subsequently became the servicer of this loan. Mr. Blanchard testified that Plaintiff had
possession of the original indorsed Note based on: 1) his having examined it approximately 30
days ago and 2) that the original indorsed Note had been delivered to Plaintiff on April 16, 2007
based on the records of the original servicer, Well Fargo Bank. As Plaintiff failed to lay a proper
foundation for the admission of the Well Fargo Bank records, they are inadmissible hearsay
(Unifund CCR Partners v Youngman, 89 AD3d 1377, 1377-78 [4th Dept 2011]; Palisades
Collection, LLC v Kedik, 67 AD3d 1329 [4th Dept 2009]; accord JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. v
Rads Group, Inc., 88 AD3d 766 [2d Dept 2011]) and all that has been established is that Plaintiff
had possession of the original indorsed Note some 30 days ago – long after this case was
commenced. Thus, Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note on the date this case
was commenced, it does not have standing to maintain this action and the Complaint is dismissed
on that basis.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Dated: New City, New York
March 21, 2014

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
780 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN A. KOLBER, ESQ.
Attorneys for the Borrowers
134 Rt. 59, Suite A
Suffern, NY 10901

1 With respect to standing, where, as here, a defendant has put standing in issue, the
plaintiff must prove its standing, that is that it had been assigned the mortgage and note prior to
the commencement of the foreclosure (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Haller (100
AD3d 680, 682 [2d Dept 2012]). A valid assignment can be effectuated by a written assignment
of the mortgage and note executed by one with authority, or by indorsement and delivery of the
note – the mortgage following the note by operation of law (Bank of New York v Silverberg, 86
AD3d 274 [2d Dept 2011]; US. Bank, NA. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752 [2d Dept 2009]).
Here, the documents show that MERS purported to assign the Note and Mortgage on
behalf of ABC to Plaintiff on August 1 7, 2011. As MERS had no apparent authority to assign the
Note, this assignment assigned nothing (Bank of New York v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274 [2d Dept
274 [2d Dept 2011]; Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Weisblum (85 AD3d 95 [2d Dept 2011]).
Plaintiff, however, does not now rely on this written assignment but on an assignment by
delivery of the Note under an undated indorsement prior to the commencement of the case. In
support thereof, Plaintiff has submitted the Note, indorsed by an officer of ABC, and the
Affidavit of an Assistant Vice President of American Home who avers, “based on the books and
records of Plaintiff and [American Home],” that the indorsed Note had been delivered to Plaintiff
“since on or before January 16, 2007.” These records have not been submitted nor an explanation
why, if they did, Plaintiff felt the need to do a written assignment in 2011.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Haller (100 AD3d 680, 682 [2d Dept 2102])
now requires more stringent proof where a plaintiff is trying to prove standing by delivery of the
note under an undated indorsement, particularly where the plaintiff’s conduct has been
inconsistent with such asserted prior assignment. Thus, in Haller, where the plaintiff was
asserting standing by virtue of a note delivered under an undated indorsement, the Second
Department said:
“Here, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in support of its motion did not
demonstrate that the note was physically delivered to it prior to the comrnencernent of the
action. The affidavit from the plaintiffs servicing agent did not give any factual details of
a physical delivery of the note and, thus failed to establish that the plaintiff had physical
possession of the note prior to commencing this action.”

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. US Bank Natl. Assoc. v Ciccarelli | NYSC – plaintiff failed to establish the validity of the assignment by submitting evidence showing that the note was either physically delivered to MERS or assigned to MERS by Mortgagelt SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK I.AS. PART 34 –...
  2. US BANK NATL. ASSN. v. Nicholson | NYSC – Carrie S. Patridge affidavit does not say that the plaintiff was the holder of the note when the action was commenced 2013 NY Slip Op 33022(U) US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS...
  3. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haque | NYSC “PSA …such agreement does not establish that IndyMac assigned the note to plaintiff Deutsche Bank” Decided on June 20, 2012 Supreme Court, Queens County  ...
  4. Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. v. Shaffer | Ohio Appeals Court – BONY failed to establish it held either the note or mortgage as of the date it filed the complaint, it lacked standing…Assignment recorded 2-Weeks after complaint IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY,...
  5. FCDB NCPL 2008-1 Trust v Pelaez | NYSC – MERS Assigning Note Fail, Affidavit Fail…failed to establish that the allonge is “so firmly affixed” to the note “as to become part thereof” (UCC 3-202[2] NEW YORK SUPREME COURT – QUEENS COUNTY FCDB NCPL 2008-1...

This post was written by:

- who has written 6886 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

2 Responses to “U.S. Bank N.A. v Friedman | NYSC – Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note on the date this case was commenced, it does not have standing to maintain this action”

  1. Charles Reed says:

    Did Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) originate or buy any FHA or VA loan prior to Sept 25, 2008 but especially before Jul 31, 2006 in New York when Wells Fargo took over the mortgage servicing of the WaMu FHA & VA loans?

    MERS assigned the loan over to Wells Fargo when in fact they could not do so after Sept 25, 2008 because WaMu was declared a “failed bank” and cannot have any further dealing with MERS as they are no longer a bank.

    Now there is the issue as to ownership anyway when FHA & VA loans are placed into the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) of Ginnie Mae as the loans must be endorsed in blank and relinquished to Ginnie Mae for the underlying collateral for the investor who are being sold the MBS.

    According to UCC 3 the blank Note become the property of the physical possessor and in this case that Ginnie Mae who Wells Fargo is acting as the mortgage servicer and custodian of record. However as with UCC 9 the blank Notes were not purchase by Ginnie Mae so they have no financial interest in the loans, and cannot act as the owner.

    So that bring up how in fact the monthly payments are even collected and delivered to the “investors”? Ginnie Mae cannot collect the payment nor is WaMu in possession of the Note for itself, because it have relinquished the Note.

    However the lenders and Ginnie Mae are trying to be slick and keep possession be acting as the custodian, which they are still in possession of. However we know for a fact that the loans were placed into the Ginnie Mae MBS, so there is a paper trail detailing what went on.

    But what has exposed the entire scheme is Wells Fargo taking over the mortgage servicing and custodian of records and WaMu being seized and shut down! The is a nuclear bomb going off, because the sign of a blank endorsed Note without a purchase occurring is not reversible because they is not a holder of the Note and debt at the same time, and the debt holder just died without holding the Note/contract.

    So now MERS step in and assigns the Note to a party that got “No Standing” and this is why during the settlement of the Independent (wink wink) Foreclosure Review Board that it was removed from the paid outs as every single FHA & VA loan that was a WaMu loan was illegally foreclosed, just as this court has determine that Qcwen could not do what they did.

    I have the feeling that these loan Wells Fargo wanted to ship to Qcwen were WaMu loan that they been caught illegally foreclosing on!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] U.S. Bank N.A. v Friedman | NYSC – Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note…. Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleTumblrGoogle+ Derrick Brown [...]


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
RR Compliance Consulting Inc was established to provide training and support services to the Loss Mitigation Consulting Community.  There is a huge void in the market for this training since those who are truly practicing in the field have neither the time nor interest in providing this training.
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives