Certifying Officers | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "certifying officers"

A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY

A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY


False Statements

Limited Purpose Corporate Officers

Action Date: August 31, 2011
Location: TALLAHASSEE, FL

A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY

There has been widespread, well-documented abuse of corporate officer titles by banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies on mortgage-related documents. Individuals who are not corporate officers have been directed to sign as if they were corporate officers, particularly on documents used as evidence in mortgage foreclosure cases.

These individuals most often lack education, experience and training that would otherwise qualify them to be a corporate officer.

These individuals often list addresses directly underneath their signatures where they are not and never have been physically located.

In many cases, a designee of the board of directors authorizes such signing by issuing a corporate resolution authorizing this very limited use of the corporate officer title.

In many cases, a corporate resolution is also used to authorize non-employees (individuals employed by other corporations) to sign as officers of banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies.

The individuals signing as corporate officers are not disclosed as corporate officers on corporations’ annual filings with the state Division of Corporations.

The individuals signing as corporate officers are not disclosed as corporate officers to insurance companies that issue Director & Officer policies or other insurance policies.

In the mortgage industry, MERS (the Mortgage Electronic Registration System) allows corporate officers of its members to sign as corporate officers of MERS.

The Limited Purpose Corporate Officers often sign as MERS officers. EXAMPLE: Linda Green, a former employee of a mortgage servicing company, Lender Processing Services, signed thousands of mortgage documents as a corporate officer of American Home Mortgage, American Brokers Conduit, American Home Mortgage Acceptance, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Judges, county recorders, homeowners, home buyers, title insurers and others have given undeserved credence to mortgage documents that have been signed by these Limited Purpose Corporate Officers, not knowing that an individual signing as an officer of a bank or mortgage company was not, in fact, even a clerical employee of that bank or mortgage company.

It is the determination of the Attorney General that such use of Limited Purpose Corporate Officer titles on mortgage documents is an Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice and must cease immediately.

All individuals signing mortgage-related documents:

1. must sign their own names using a full signature (not a check mark, initials or other symbol);

2. must set forth immediately underneath their signature the name of their actual employer and the address of their employer where they were located when they signed the document;

3. no corporate officer title may be used unless such officer is an officer for all purposes.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Facing criticism, MERS cuts role in foreclosures

Facing criticism, MERS cuts role in foreclosures


(Reuters) -

MERS, the electronic mortgage registry that faces multiple investigations for its role in thousands of problematic foreclosure cases, changed its rules to lower its profile in court-supervised foreclosures.

MERS, a unit of Merscorp Inc. of Reston, Virginia, owns the computerized registry, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Mortgage loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and several of the largest U.S. banks established MERS in 1995 to circumvent the costly and cumbersome process of transferring ownership of mortgages and recording the changes with county clerks.

In rule changes announced to MERS members on July 21, the company forbade members to file any more foreclosure actions in MERS’s name.

It also required mortgage servicers to obtain mortgage assignments and record them with county clerks before beginning foreclosures.

[REUTERS]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BULLETIN | Effective 7/22/2011 Certifying Officer must execute the assignment of the Security Instrument from MERS before initiating foreclosure proceedings

BULLETIN | Effective 7/22/2011 Certifying Officer must execute the assignment of the Security Instrument from MERS before initiating foreclosure proceedings


Not so sure this is really up to the MERSCORP and MERS directors to approve this because this involves certain laws and also involving trusts etc…? Exactly how long ago did these loans close? How about the now DEFUNCT lenders?

Since they made up their own Law, they can change the Law when ever they want?

Excerpts from the bulletin..

Changes and clarifications to Rule 8 of the Rules of Membership (“Rules”) have been approved by the MERSCORP and MERS Boards of Directors and are effective as of July 22, 2011.

Effective July 22, 2011:
• No foreclosure proceeding may be initiated, and no Proof of Claim or Motion for Relief from Stay (Legal Proceedings) in a bankruptcy may be filed, in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)
• The Certifying Officer must execute the assignment of the Security Instrument from MERS before initiating foreclosure proceedings or filing Legal Proceedings and promptly send the assignment of the Security Instrument for recording in the applicable public land records

[ipaper docId=60825267 access_key=key-2j55h78k4is0m55iy04q height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Freddie Mac Tells Servicers NOT To Foreclose In MERS

Freddie Mac Tells Servicers NOT To Foreclose In MERS


Effective April 1, servicers managing Freddie Mac loans will no longer be allowed to foreclose on properties in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).

Freddi Mac’s announcement  states

We have updated the Guide to eliminate the option for the foreclosure counsel or trustee to conduct a
foreclosure in the name of MERS. Effective for Mortgages registered with MERS that are referred to
foreclosure on or after April 1, 2011, Servicers must prepare an assignment of the Security Instrument
from MERS to the Servicer and instruct the foreclosure counsel or trustee to foreclose in the Servicer’s
name and take title in Freddie Mac’s name.

As required in Section 66.17, Foreclosing in the Servicer’s Name, Servicers must record the prepared
assignment where required by State law. State mandated recording fees are not reimbursable by Freddie
Mac, are not considered part of the Freddie Mac allowable attorney fees and must not be billed to the
Borrower.

Servicers should refer to updated Section 66.17 and Section 66.54, Vesting the Title and Avoiding
Transfer Taxes, for additional information.


[ipaper docId=51478894 access_key=key-uycf5vbb5ste8n2go4r height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

MERS Tells Servicers to Stop Foreclosing in Their Name

MERS Tells Servicers to Stop Foreclosing in Their Name


excerpt:

MERS is providing the following guidance to all Members to strengthen business practices, and minimize reputation, legal and compliance risk to MERS and its Members. In recent months legal challenges have arisen regarding alleged inadequacies and improprieties in the foreclosure process including allegations of insufficient or incorrect supporting documentation and challenges to the legal capacity of parties’ right to foreclose. MERS is committed to reevaluate and strengthen its systems and procedures to protect against these types of legal challenges. Consistent with this approach we have enhanced the Corporate Resolution Management System (CRMS) and instituted related policies and procedures designed to strengthen MERS’ business practices and limit compliance risks. To comply with this guidance, MERS Members should implement the following practices, effective immediately.

continue below…

[ipaper docId=49212713 access_key=key-2126bz3ngo6l300m1bh8 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

[VIDEO] Highlights of Maine Attorney Thomas Cox: “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis” Pt 2

[VIDEO] Highlights of Maine Attorney Thomas Cox: “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis” Pt 2


Thomas A. Cox is a retired bank lawyer in Portland, Maine who serves as the Volunteer Program Coordinator for the Maine Attorney’s Saving Homes (MASH) program. He represents homeowners in foreclosure, and assists and consults with other volunteer lawyers in providing pro bono legal services to these Maine homeowners.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

[VIDEO TRUTH] ATTY VANESSA G. FLUKER “WHY YOU WON’T GET A MODIFICATION”

[VIDEO TRUTH] ATTY VANESSA G. FLUKER “WHY YOU WON’T GET A MODIFICATION”


Another Super Tremendous Job! Listen to her carefully for those of you who may not be aware of the secrets behind the modification game. She tells exactly how it’s playing out.

“Moratorium Now”

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (7)

[VIDEO] POWERFUL FORECLOSURE TESTIMONY: Sandra Hines Tells House of Reps What Many Feel

[VIDEO] POWERFUL FORECLOSURE TESTIMONY: Sandra Hines Tells House of Reps What Many Feel


SANDRA HINES the voice of foreclosed America! Sandra is a Detroit resident who lost her home that was in her family for 37 years to foreclosure.

Watch this in it’s entirety! It gets explosive and will leave you either in tears or leave you wanting more!

“I came to tell the

Story of The People”

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (5)

[VIDEO] WITNESSES “MERS DECEPTION”: Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis PT 2

[VIDEO] WITNESSES “MERS DECEPTION”: Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis PT 2


United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on: “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis” Pt 2

Witness List

Panel I

Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senate
D-RI

Panel II

James A. Kowalski, Jr.
Law Offices of James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL
Jacksonville, FL

Vanessa G. Fluker
Vanessa G. Fluker, Esq., PLLC
Detroit, MI

Thomas A. Cox
Volunteer Program Coordinator
Main Attorneys Saving Homes Project
Portland, ME

Tom Deutsch
Executive Director
American Securitization Forum
New York, NY

Sandra Hines
Former Homeowner
Detroit, MI

Christopher L. Peterson
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs/Professor of Law
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

[NYSC] Judge Finds Issues With “NOTE AMOUNTS”, Robo Signer “ROGER STOTTS” Affidavit: ONEWEST v. GARCIA

[NYSC] Judge Finds Issues With “NOTE AMOUNTS”, Robo Signer “ROGER STOTTS” Affidavit: ONEWEST v. GARCIA


Any issues with “Defendant MERS VP Roger Stotts” signing an affidavit for “Plaintiff ONEWEST”?? See image below :)

ONEWEST BANK, FSB AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO INDYMAC‘ BANK, FSB
Plaintiff,

-against-

JESUS GARCIA,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR INDYMAC
BANK, FSB,

Excerpt:

Plaintiffs failure to provide a note or notes reflecting the amount it claims is due from
defendant-mortgagor precludes the Court from granting the relief requested. It is well settled that in
order to make a prima facie case in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show the existence of the
note and mortgage and that it is the owner of same. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miffer, 18 AD3d 527
(2d Dept 2005); MERS v Coakfey, 41 AD3d 674 (2d Dept 2007); Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 (2d
Dept 1988). The note provided here reflects only partial proof of the amount allegedly owed.

Additionally, with regard to the proof necessary on a motion for default in general, CPLR
321 5(f) requires that the applicant “shall file … proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and
the amount due by affidavit …” Neither the affirmation of Jason E. Brooks nor the affidavit of Roger
Stotts satisfies that requirement. Such failure is particularly striking in view of the confusion present
here by virtue of allegations which are inconsistent with documents, and documents which are
submitted without explanation.

Continue below… Make sure you see the image down below as well…

[ipaper docId=44765302 access_key=key-7x1tgf95t71omaqahds height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

CT AG Blumenthal Reply To Objections “Robo-Signer, Improper Documents” BONY v. STENHOUSE

CT AG Blumenthal Reply To Objections “Robo-Signer, Improper Documents” BONY v. STENHOUSE


SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD

———————————

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
v.

ROBERT STENHOUSE


REPLY TO OBJECTION TO STATE’S MOTION FOR
ORDERS TO ADDRESS IMPROPER DOCUMENTS

EXCERPT:

A court cannot award a foreclosing plaintiff relief unless that plaintiff comes to the court with “clean hands.” Here, there are no facts from which the court can conclude that the plaintiff acted with clean hands because the only facts before the court are that the plaintiff was aware in February of 2010 that its employees were routinely executing foreclosure affidavits without personal knowledge and outside the presence of a notary and that it was not until eight months later in October 2010 –

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=44668795 access_key=key-ks28l55dvm15scg5tk height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Testimony of Christopher L. Peterson “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis

Testimony of Christopher L. Peterson “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis


United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on: “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis”

Written Testimony of
Christopher L. Peterson

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law
University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law
Salt Lake City, Utah
December 2, 2010
10:00 a.m.

It is an honor to appear today before this Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on our national foreclosure crisis. My name is Christopher Peterson and I am the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and a Professor of Law at the University of Utah where I teach contract and commercial law classes. I commend you, Chairman Conyers, Representative Smith, and other members of the Committee for organizing these hearings and for providing an opportunity to discuss this important and timely national issue.

The foreclosure crisis is an extremely complex problem. With so many fundamental changes, opportunities for moral hazard, agency cost problems, consumer abuses, and impending lawsuits, it is easy to lose track of some of the basic legal and business practice problems that departed from past traditions and helped bring us to our present situation. In particular, it is somewhat perplexing that relatively little attention has been paid to the one company that has been a party in more problematic mortgage loans than any other institution. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly known as MERS, is a corporation registered in Delaware and headquartered in Reston, Virginia.1 MERS operates a computer database that includes some information on servicing and ownership rights of mortgage loans.2 Originators, servicers, and other financial institutions pay membership dues and per?transaction fees to MERS in exchange for the right to use and access MERS records.3 In addition to operating its computer database, MERS also pretends to own mortgage loans in order to help its members avoid paying fees to county governments.

My testimony is largely derived from two scholarly articles I have written on this topic which I invite the committee to review for further information.4 My prepared statement today will: (1) discuss the Origin and Business Practices of MERS; (2) explore the problematic legal foundation of MERS; (3) suggest that MERS is a deceptive and anti?democratic institution designed to deprive county governments of revenue; (4) explain how MERS is undermining mortgage loan and land title record keeping; (5) argue that MERS was a contributing factor in the foreclosure crisis and has made resolving foreclosures more difficult; and (6) propose some solutions for the committee to consider.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=44593708 access_key=key-dv4sxki208xgndowe5a height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

F. DANA WINSLOW NYS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis

F. DANA WINSLOW NYS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis


F. DANA WINSLOW
NYS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

Before the House of Representatives
DECEMBER 2,2010
ON
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
FORECLOSED JUSTICE:
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
Hon. F. Dana Winslow
December 2, 2010

Excerpts:

3.2.4 Robo·signing. Questionable validity of signatures on assignments and affidavits
attesting to ownership of the Note and Mortgage. Examples:

3.2.4.1 Signed by: “Duly Authorized Officer,” “Authorized Signer,” “Attomey·in·
Fact” or “Authorized Agent.” What do these titles mean? What is the function
afthe person signing the documents, and what is the basis of their personal
knowledge?

3.2.4.2 Same person signs several documents, in several different capacities: e.g.,
“Vice President of [Assignor Mortgagee)” is also the “Assistant Secretary of
the Servicer” for the Plaintiff Mortgagee, and an employee of the law firm
bringing the foreclosure action.

3.2.5 Validity of notary stamps on assignments.

3.2.5.1 Assignment documents notarized several months after the assignment was
purportedly effected.

3.2.5.2 Notarized in blank – name of the person whose signature was purportedly
witnessed is omitted.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=44593776 access_key=key-22jxp4fylf9hwpn3g9yu height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Testimony of James A. Kowalski, Jr., Esquire “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis

Testimony of James A. Kowalski, Jr., Esquire “Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis


Written Testimony of
James A. Kowalski, Jr., Esquire

Law Offices of James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL
Jacksonville, FL

Before the
Committee On The Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis

Excerpt:

The focus on speed is part of the business model for the servicers. As those of us
who have litigated these cases for years now, and as all of us now know as a result of the
robo-signing scandals, most of the servicers use “Signing Officers” – rows of individuals
who sit before reams of documents prepared by others, with not even a modest wink at
the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and who sign the documents only to
have the document transported across the business campus to rows of notaries, who attest
to the signatures without ever complying with the basics of their state’s notary laws.

Some of the mill firms now employ their own “Signing OffIcers” – individuals
who will sign Assignments of Mortgage on behalf of the owners of the pool, supposedly
authorized by the servicer pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which
applies to the particular securitized trust. The documents are prepared entirely by the
servicer.

On occasion, the law fIrm employees also sign the AffIdavits in support of
motions for summary judgment fIled by the law fIrms – here, the lawyer’s offIce staff
becomes the material witness for the lawyer’s client.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=44593724 access_key=key-r8depdmlv6a3blz9a5u height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Potential Liabilities for the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and its Affiliates

Potential Liabilities for the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and its Affiliates


By John Lux

Introduction

This article discusses some of the legal aspects of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or “MERS” with regard to its potential legal liabilities and how these liabilities may affect related public companies.

We maintain that the potential legal liabilities faced by these companies are very large and may seriously injure their stock prices. We believe that the affiliates of MERS may be held liable for MERS violations based on various legal theories, including conspiracy, and if the courts pierce the corporate veil of MERS.

A list of some of the companies that may be affected is found at the end of this analysis.

MERS

MERS is a private non-stock Delaware member corporation that operates an electronic registry to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans in the United States. MERS acts as a so-called “straw man.” MERS clouds land records as the purported owner of mortgages transferred by lenders, investors and loan servicers. MERS maintains that it eliminates the need to file assignments in the county land records with the purpose of lowering costs for lenders. This naturally reduces county recording revenues from real estate transfers.

Legal Issues Faced by MERS

Not Qualified to do Business in Most States

MERS is not qualified to business in most of the states in which it operates. The problem here is that MERS has allowed itself to be the plaintiff in many hundreds of thousands of mortgage foreclosures in states where it is not qualified to do business and therefore has no standing to sue. Most, 95% or more of these cases, were uncontested and therefore resulted in the loss of the defendants home after a telephone hearing that lasted a few minutes.

Self-Appointment of Officers


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Battle of The Unauthorized Fraudulent Signature: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. JP MORGAN, Ga: Court of Appeals 2010

Battle of The Unauthorized Fraudulent Signature: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. JP MORGAN, Ga: Court of Appeals 2010


DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A.

A10A1509.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Decided: November 19, 2010.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N. A. commenced this action against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company f/k/a Banker’s Trust Company after the two banks conducted competing foreclosure sales of certain real property in DeKalb County. JP Morgan’s claim of title to the property was predicated on a 2004 security deed, while Deutsche Bank’s claim of title was predicated on a 2001 security deed. The case turned on the legal effect of a notarized warranty deed recorded in 2003 and on whether JP Morgan was a bona fide purchaser for value based upon the warranty deed. The trial court granted summary judgment to JP Morgan, concluding that JP Morgan’s interest in the property was superior to and not subject to any interest held by Deutsche Bank. We conclude that the uncontroverted evidence shows that the 2003 warranty deed was not a forgery, but was signed by someone fraudulently assuming authority, and that JP Morgan was a bona fide purchaser for value entitled to take the property free of any outstanding security interest held by Deutsche Bank. Thus, we affirm.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, warrant judgment as a matter of law. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Consumer Solutions Fin. Svc. v. Heritage Bank, 300 Ga. App. 272 (684 SE2d 682) (2009). See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c); Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991). Guided by these principles, we turn to the record in the present case.

This case involves a dispute over the tract of real property located at 275 Haas Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30316 in DeKalb County (the “Property”). The Property was conveyed to Rebecca Diaz by warranty deed recorded in September 2001. On the same date, Diaz executed and recorded a security deed encumbering the Property in favor of People’s Choice Home Loan, Inc. (the “2001 Security Deed”). IndyMac Bank, F. S. B. acquired the 2001 Security Deed by assignment.

In July 2003, a notarized warranty deed from “Indy Mac Bank, F. S. B.” to Diaz was recorded which purported to reconvey the Property to Diaz in fee simple (the “Warranty Deed”). The Warranty Deed was executed by an individual named Pamela Whales, who identified herself as an Assistant Vice President of IndyMac. The Warranty Deed was attested by two witnesses, one of whom was a notary public.

The Property subsequently was deeded to various parties but ultimately to an owner who, in April 2004, executed and recorded a security deed encumbering the Property in favor of OneWorld Mortgage Corporation (the “2004 Security Deed”). Washington Mutual Bank F. A. acquired the 2004 Security Deed by assignment.

In June 2004, IndyMac assigned the 2001 Security Deed to Deutsche Bank. That same month, Deutsche Bank foreclosed upon the Property pursuant to the power of sale provision contained in the 2001 Security Deed. Deutsche Bank was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale.

In December 2005, Washington Mutual also foreclosed upon the Property pursuant to the power of sale provision contained in the 2004 Security Deed. Washington Mutual was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, Washington Mutual was closed by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, and JP Morgan succeeded to Washington Mutual’s interest in the Property under the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement.

Following the competing foreclosure sales, JP Morgan brought this action against Deutsche Bank for declaratory relief and attorney fees, alleging that its interest in the Property was superior to and not subject to any interest held by Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank answered and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that its interest in the Property was superior to and not subject to any interest held by JP Morgan.

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment claims. JP Morgan argued that the 2001 Security Deed upon which Deutsche Bank predicated its interest in the Property had been canceled by the Warranty Deed as a matter of law. Alternatively, JP Morgan argued that the uncontroverted evidence showed that it qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value such that it was protected against any outstanding security interest in the Property held by Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank strongly disputed these arguments, contending that the Warranty Deed was facially irregular, had been forged, and failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for cancellation of a security deed. The trial court granted summary judgment to JP Morgan and denied it to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank now appeals the trial court’s grant of JP Morgan’s motion for summary judgment.[1]

1. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of JP Morgan because the uncontroverted evidence shows that JP Morgan was afforded the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value, not subject to any outstanding security interest in the Property held by Deutsche Bank.

“To qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, a party must have neither actual nor constructive notice of the matter at issue.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rolan v. Glass, 305 Ga. App. 217, 218 (1) (699 SE2d 428) (2010). “Notice sufficient to excite attention and put a party on inquiry shall be notice of everything to which it is afterwards found that such inquiry might have led.” (Citation and footnote omitted.) Whiten v. Murray, 267 Ga. App. 417, 421 (2) (599 SE2d 346) (2004). “A purchaser of land is charged with constructive notice of the contents of a recorded instrument within its chain of title.” (Citation and footnote omitted.) VATACS Group v. HomeSide Lending, (2005). Furthermore, the grantee of a security interest in land and subsequent purchasers are entitled to rely upon a warranty deed that is regular on its face and duly recorded in ascertaining the chain of title. See Mabra v. Deutsche Bank & Trust Co. Americas, 277 Ga. App. 764, 767 (2) (627 SE2d 849) (2006), overruled in part on other grounds by Brock v. Yale Mtg. Corp., ___ Ga. ___ (2) (Case No. S10A0950, decided Oct. 4, 2010). 276 Ga. App. 386, 391 (2) (623 SE2d 534)

On motion for summary judgment, JP Morgan argued that it was entitled to protection as a good faith purchaser because the notarized, recorded Warranty Deed purported to transfer the Property back to Diaz, thereby extinguishing the 2001 Security Deed, and there was no reason to suspect a defect in the Warranty Deed calling into question the chain of title. In contrast, Deutsche Bank argued that JP Morgan was not entitled to such protection because the Warranty Deed was facially irregular in that it misidentified the grantor and failed to comply with OCGA § 14-5-7 (b).

We agree with JP Morgan and reject the arguments raised by Deutsche Bank. The Warranty Deed was regular on its face and duly recorded. See OCGA § 44-5-30 (“A deed to lands must be in writing, signed by the maker, and attested by at least two witnesses.”). See also OCGA § 44-2-21 (a) (4), (b) (one of two required attesting witnesses may be a notary public). Also, the Warranty Deed on its face was executed in a manner that conformed with OCGA § 14-5-7 (b), which provides:

Instruments executed by a corporation releasing a security agreement, when signed by one officer of the corporation or by an individual designated by the officers of the corporation by proper resolution, without the necessity of the corporation’s seal being attached, shall be conclusive evidence that said officer signing is duly authorized to execute and deliver the same.

The Warranty Deed appeared to be executed by an assistant vice president of IndyMac, and thus by an “officer of the corporation.” Moreover, the only interest that IndyMac held in the Property prior to execution of the Warranty Deed was its security interest arising from the 2001 Security Deed, and reconveyance of the Property by way of a warranty deed was a proper way to release that security interest. See Clements v. Weaver, 301 Ga. App. 430, 434 (2) (687 SE2d 602) (2009) (grantor of quitclaim deed estopped from asserting any interest in property conveyed); Southeast Timberlands v. Haiseal Timber, 224 Ga. App. 98, 102 (479 SE2d 443) (1996) (physical precedently only). The Warranty Deed, therefore, facially complied with OCGA § 14-5-7 (b) and would appear to anyone searching the county records to serve as “conclusive evidence” that execution of the deed had been authorized by IndyMac.

(a) In opposing summary judgment, Deutsche Bank argued that the Warranty Deed was facially irregular because it improperly identified the grantor as “Indy Mac Bank, F. S. B.” rather than “IndyMac Bank, F. S. B.” But “a mere misnomer of a corporation in a written instrument . . . is not material or vital in its consequences, if the identity of the corporation intended is clear or can be ascertained by proof.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Hawkins v. Turner, 166 Ga. App. 50, 51-52 (1) (303 SE2d 164) (1983). It cannot be said that the mere placement of an additional space in the corporate name (i.e., “Indy Mac” versus “IndyMac”) made the identity of the corporation unclear. As such, the misnomer did not render the Warranty Deed irregular on its face.

(b) Deutsche Bank also argued that the Warranty Deed failed to comply with OCGA § 14-5-7 (b) because the phrase “when signed by one officer of the corporation” should be construed as requiring the signature of the corporate president or vice president. “The cardinal rule of statutory construction requires that we look to the intention of the legislature. And in so doing, the literal meaning of the statute prevails unless such a construction would produce unreasonable or absurd consequences not contemplated by the legislature.” Johnson v. State, 267 Ga. 77, 78 (475 SE2d 595) (1996). The words of OCGA § 14-5-7 (b) are unambiguous and do not lead to an unreasonable or absurd result if taken literally: any officer of the corporation has authority to sign the instrument releasing the security interest. There is no basis from the language of the statute to limit that authority to a subset of corporate officers such as a president or vice president.

It is clear that the legislature knew how to specify such a limitation when it chose to do so. In OCGA § 14-5-7 (a),[2] the legislature imposed a limitation on the specific types of corporate officers who could execute instruments for real estate conveyances other than those releasing security agreements. Consequently, we must presume that the legislature’s failure to include similar limiting language in OCGA § 14-5-7 (b) “was a matter of considered choice.” Transp. Ins. Co. v. El Chico Restaurants, 271 Ga. 774, 776 (524 SE2d 486) (1999).

Deutsche Bank further argued that the Warranty Deed failed to comply with OCGA § 14-5-7 (b) because the statute should be construed as requiring the instrument to expressly state that it was “releasing a security agreement,” and the Warranty Deed did not contain such express language. But nothing in the plain language of OCGA § 14-5-7 (b) imposes an express language requirement, “and the judicial branch is not empowered to engraft such a [requirement] on to what the legislature has enacted.” (Citation omitted.) Kaminer v. Canas, 282 Ga. 830, 835 (1) (653 SE2d 691) (2007).

(c) Given the facial regularity of the recorded Warranty Deed, there was no reason to suspect that it might be defective in some manner or that there might be a problem in the chain of title resulting from the deed. Nothing in the Warranty Deed would have excited attention or put a party on inquiry that the 2001 Security Deed might remain in full force and effect. Accordingly, the original grantee of the 2004 Security Deed (OneWorld Mortgage Corporation) was entitled to rely upon the facially regular Warranty Deed and was afforded the protection of a bona fide purchaser of the Property, entitled to take the Property free of the 2001 Security Deed. See generally Farris v. Nationsbanc Mtg. Corp., 268 Ga. 769, 771 (2) (493 SE2d 143) (1997) (“A bona fide purchaser for value is protected against outstanding interests in land of which the purchaser has no notice.”). Because OneWorld Mortgage Corporation had the status of a bona fide purchaser, subsequent holders of the 2004 Security Deed were likewise afforded that status, including Washington Mutual (now JP Morgan). See OCGA § 23-1-19 (“If one without notice sells to one with notice, the latter shall be protected[.]”; Murray v. Johnson, 222 Ga. 788, 789 (3) (152 SE2d 739) (1966); Thompson v. Randall, 173 Ga. 696, 701 (161 SE 377) (1931). Consequently, summary judgment was appropriate to JP Morgan on the issue of its status as a bona fide purchaser for value.

2. In opposing summary judgment, Deutsche Bank contended that even if JP Morgan qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value, there was a genuine issue of material fact over whether the Warranty Deed constituted a forgery, and thus over whether JP Morgan acquired good title to the Property. JP Morgan responded that the uncontroverted evidence showed that the Warranty Deed did not constitute a common law forgery, which occurs when someone signs another person’s name, since the Warranty Deed was signed by a person using her own name but who fraudulently assumed authority to act on behalf of IndyMac. JP Morgan further maintained that its status as a bona fide purchaser for value protected it against any fraud (rather than forgery) that might have been involved in the execution of the Warranty Deed.

The dispute between the parties centered on the assertions contained in the affidavit of Yolanda Farrow, which was filed by Deutsche Bank in opposition to summary judgment (the “Farrow Affidavit”). Farrow averred that she was a records keeper formerly employed by IndyMac and currently employed at IndyMac’s successor bank. Farrow further averred that her office maintained the IndyMac personnel records in an electronic database; that she had personal knowledge of the maintenance and upkeep of those records; and that she had personally researched and examined the records database for the person identified in the Warranty Deed as Pamela Whales, Assistant Vice President. Based upon her review of the records database, Farrow opined that to the best of her knowledge and belief, no one by that name was an employee or agent of IndyMac when the Warranty Deed was executed. Deutsche Bank maintained that the Farrow Affidavit served as circumstantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact over whether the Warranty Deed was a forgery.

[W]e have . . . long recognized that a forged deed is a nullity and vests no title in a grantee. As such, even a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of a forgery cannot acquire good title from a grantee in a forged deed, or those holding under such a grantee, because the grantee has no title to convey.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brock, ___ Ga. at ___ (2). See also Second Refuge Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ v. Lollar, 282 Ga. 721, 726-727 (3) (653 SE2d 462 (2007). In contrast, a bona fide purchaser is protected against fraud in the execution or cancellation of a security deed of which he or she is without notice. See Murray, 222 Ga. at 789 (4).

We conclude that the Farrow Affidavit filed by Deutsche Bank was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Warranty Deed was a forgery.

A recorded deed shall be admitted in evidence in any court without further proof unless the maker of the deed, one of his heirs, or the opposite party in the action files an affidavit that the deed is a forgery to the best of his knowledge and belief. Upon the filing of the affidavit, the genuineness of the alleged deed shall become an issue to be determined in the action.

OCGA § 44-2-23. While “forgery” is not defined in the statute, we have previously noted that the general principles espoused in the statute were “taken from the common law.” McArthur v. Morrison, 107 Ga. 796, 797 (34 SE 205)Intl. Indem. Co. v. Bakco Acceptance, 172 Ga. App. 28, 32 (2) (322 SE2d 78)Barron v. State, 12 Ga. App. 342, 348 (77 SE 214)Gilbert v. United States, 370 U. S. 650, 655-658 (II) (82 SC 1399, 8 LE2d 750) (1962) (discussing the common law of forgery); People v. Cunningham, 813 NE2d 891, 894-895 (N. Y. 2004) (same). On the other hand, (1899). Furthermore, we favor the construction of a statute in a manner that is in conformity with the common law, rather than in derogation of it. See (1984). Under the common law, a forgery occurs where one person signs the name of another person while holding out that signature to be the actual signature of the other person. See (1913) (“[T]o constitute forgery, the writing must purport to be the writing of another party than the person making it.“) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also

[w]here one executes an instrument purporting on its face to be executed by him as the agent of the principal, he is not guilty of forgery, although he has in fact no authority from such principal to execute the same. This is not the false making of the instrument, but merely a false and fraudulent assumption of authority.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ga. Cas. & Surety Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 210 F. Supp. 644, 656-657 (N. D. Ga. 1962), aff’d, Seaboard Surety Co. v. Ga. Cas. & Surety Co., 327 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1964) (applying Georgia law). This common law distinction between forgery and a fraudulent assumption of authority has been discussed and applied in several Georgia cases. See Morgan v. State, 77 Ga. App. 164, 165 (48 SE2d 115) (1948); Samples v. Milton County Bank, 34 Ga. App. 248, 250 (1) (129 SE 170) (1925); Barron, 12 Ga. App. at 347-350.

In the present case, the Farrow Affidavit merely asserted that Whales, the individual who signed the Warranty Deed, was not an employee or agent of IndyMac. It is undisputed that the individual signing the Warranty Deed was in fact Whales. Hence, the Farrow Affidavit alleged a fraudulent assumption of authority by Whales, not a forgery, under the common law. See Georgia Cas. & Surety Co., 210 F. Supp. at 656-657; Morgan, 77 Ga. App. at 165; Samples, 34 Ga. App. at 250 (1); Barron, 12 Ga. App. at 347-350.

Arguing for a contrary conclusion, Deutsche Bank maintained that the cases applying the Georgia common law of forgery which have addressed the doctrine of a “fraudulent assumption of authority” have involved an admitted agent with some authority to act on behalf of its principle, but who exceeded that authority. Deutsche Bank asserted that the present case is thus distinguishable, since the Farrow Affidavit reflected that Whales had no authority to act as an agent of IndyMac in any capacity or under any circumstances.

We are unpersuaded. Nothing in the language or reasoning of the cases applying the doctrine of fraudulent assumption of authority suggests that the doctrine should be limited in the manner espoused by Deutsche Bank. See Georgia Cas. & Surety Co., 210 F. Supp. at 656-657;Morgan, 77 Ga. App. at 165; Samples, 34 Ga. App. at 250 (1); Barron, 12 Ga. App. at 347-350. Indeed, in Georgia Cas. & Surety Co., 210 F. Supp. at 652, 656-657, the district court did not hesitate to apply the doctrine, even though the court found that the individuals who had executed the corporate documents were “purely intruders” with “no contract of employment existing nor even in contemplation,” who lacked any authority whatsoever to act on behalf of the corporation as officers or otherwise.

For these reasons, the trial court correctly rejected Deutsche Bank’s contention that there was evidence that the Warranty Deed had been forged. Because the Farrow Affidavit at best showed a fraudulent assumption of authority by Whales as signatory to the Warranty Deed, JP Morgan, as a bona fide purchaser, was protected against the fraudulent actions alleged by Deutsche Bank. See Murray, 222 Ga. at 789 (4).

3. In opposing summary judgment, Deutsche Bank also maintained that the Warranty Deed could not cause the 2001 Security Deed to be canceled because the Warranty Deed failed to comply with the requirements of OCGA § 44-14-67 (b) (2). That statute provides in pertinent part:

(b) In the case of a deed to secure debt which applies to real property, in order to authorize the clerk of superior court to show the original instrument as canceled of record, there shall be presented for recording:

. . .

(2) A conveyance from the record holder of the security deed, which conveyance is in the form of a quitclaim deed or other form of deed suitable for recording and which refers to the original security deed[.]

According to Deutsche Bank, the Warranty Deed did not authorize the clerk of the superior court to cancel the 2001 Security Deed because the Warranty Deed made no express reference to the 2001 Security Deed, as required by this statute. As such, Deutsche Bank argued that, as a matter of law, the Warranty Deed could not effectuate the cancellation of the 2001 Security Deed and thereby extinguish Deutsche Bank’s interest in the Property.

Deutsche Bank’s argument was predicated on the false assumption that OCGA § 44-14-67 (b) provides the exclusive means for the cancellation or extinguishment of a security deed. But as previously noted, a bona fide purchaser for value is entitled to take property free of any outstanding security interest of which the purchaser had no actual or constructive notice. See Farris, 268 Ga. at 771 (2). And it would produce an anomalous result to interpret Georgia’s recording statutes, including OCGA § 44-14-67 (b), in a manner that would defeat the interests of a bona fide purchaser for value. See Lionheart Legend v. Northwest Bank Minn. Nat. Assn., 253 Ga. App. 663, 667 (560 SE2d 120) (2002) (noting that Georgia’s recording acts are intended to protect bona fide purchasers for value). It follows that because JP Morgan was a bona fide purchaser for value, it was entitled to take the Property free of the 2001 Security Deed, separate and apart from the procedures for cancellation by the clerk of the superior court set forth in OCGA § 44-14-67.

For these combined reasons, the trial court correctly concluded that the uncontroverted evidence of record showed that JP Morgan’s interest in the Property was superior to and not subject to any interest held by Deutsche Bank. The trial court, therefore, committed no error in granting summary judgment in favor of JP Morgan on its claim for a declaratory judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Blackwell, and Dillard, JJ., concur.

[1] Deutsche Bank does not appeal the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment.

[2] OCGA § 14-5-7 (a) provides:

Instruments executed by a corporation conveying an interest in real property, when signed by the president or vice-president and attested or countersigned by the secretary or an assistant secretary or the cashier or assistant cashier of the corporation, shall be conclusive evidence that the president or vice-president of the corporation executing the document does in fact occupy the official position indicated; that the signature of such officer subscribed thereto is genuine; and that the execution of the document on behalf of the corporation has been duly authorized. Any corporation may by proper resolution authorize the execution of such instruments by other officers of the corporation.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

[VIDEO] MERSCORP CEO “There are 20,000 (robo-signers) of those nationwide”

[VIDEO] MERSCORP CEO “There are 20,000 (robo-signers) of those nationwide”


Senator Merkley: How many folks have you designated as certifying officers essentially, temporarily made them members of your company? In order to execute this process?

Mr. Arnold: Well it’s not temporary… its limited… their limited to  7 specific items that they can do for MERS…ahh there are TWENTY THOUSAND (20,000) of those nationwide.

Mr. Merkely: I’m sorry I’m out of time but it’s creating a legal confusion and that’s an issue and I’m sorry. Thank you all very much.

“7 VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS” that may involve trillions of dollars worth of real estate that are executed by any one of these 20,000 robo-signers… But if you read on this image below …it’s well over “7 Specific Documents” more like ANY & ALL!

Actual excerpt from a MERS Agreement of Signing Authority.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (6)

False Statements: R.K. Arnold, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

False Statements: R.K. Arnold, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems


False Statements

R.K. Arnold
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

Action Date: November 18, 2010
Location: WASHINGTON, DC

As the many problems (frauds) are exposed regarding documents used by mortgage-backed trusts in foreclosures, some revelations stand out. Literally millions of foreclosures by mortgage-backed trusts hinge on a Mortgage Assignment signed by an officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) showing that the mortgage in question was transferred to the trust by MERS. The “MERS officer” who signs the Mortgage Assignment is actually most often an employee of a mortgage servicing company that is paid by the trust.

MERS itself has only 50 employees and they are not involved in signing mortgage assignments to trusts. These servicing company employees sign as officers of MERS “as nominee for” a particular mortgage company or bank. They are not employees of the mortgage companies or employees of the original named lender, but their titles on the Mortgage Assignment belie this and typically read: “Linda Green, Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit.”

MERS president R.K. Arnold testified in Senate testimony earlier this week that there are over 20,000 MERS “certifying officers.” To become a MERS certifying officer, a mortgage servicing company employee need only complete an online form and pay $25.00. Because of the concealment of the actual employer on the Mortgage Assignments, it is easy enough for Courts, and homeowners, to believe that they are examining a document prepared by the lender that sold the mortgage to the trust, when, in fact, the signer was a servicing company clerk paid by the trust itself.

The representative of the GRANTOR is, in truth, a paid employee of the GRANTEE. In hundreds of thousands of cases, the authority is, therefore, misrepresented. It is now also coming to light that in tens of thousands of cases, the individuals signing these forms did not even sign their own names. The documents were made to look official because other mortgage servicing company employees signed as witnesses and then all four “signatures” were notarized by yet another mortgage servicing company employee. The titles were false, the signatures were forged, the “witnessing” was a lie, as was the notarization. Despite all of these false statements, the BIGGEST LIE on these documents is that the trust acquired the mortgage on the date stated plainly on the Mortgage Assignment. In truth, no such transfers ever took place as represented by these MERS certifying officers (or their stand-in forgers). The date chosen almost always corresponds not to an actual transfer, but to the date roughly corresponding to the time the loan went into default. The Mortgage Assignment was prepared only to provide “proof” that the trust owned the mortgage. Until courts require Trusts to come forward with actual proof that they acquired the mortgages in question, specifying whom they paid and how much they paid for each such trust-owned mortgage, the actual owner of these mortgages will never be known.

In response to the exposure of the widespread fraud in the securitization process, the American Bankers Association issued a statement essentially saying that Mortgage Assignments were unnecessary. Investors and regulators were told, however, that the trusts owned the mortgages and notes in each pool of mortgages and that valid Assignments of Mortgages had been obtained. Where the proof of ownership put forth by the trusts is a sworn statement by a MERS “certifying officer” who had no knowledge whatsoever of the transactions involved and did not even review documents related to the transactions, such proof of ownership should be deemed worthless by the Courts. Other litigants are not allowed to manufacture their own evidence and offer it as proof at trial – there should be no exception for mortgage-backed trusts.

In particular, where the “MERS Certifying Officer” is actually an employee of the law firm hired to handle the foreclosure, such documents should be stricken and sanctioned. “MERS Certifying Officers” should be the next group required to testify before Congress. Here are the statistics for one Florida county, Palm Beach County, regarding the number of Mortgage Assignments filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems: January, 2009: 1,164; February, 2009: February, 2009: 1,230; March, 2009: March, 2009: 1,113. An examination of just one day’s (March 31, 2009) filed Mortgage Assignments reveals that the signers of these Assignments are the very same mortgage servicing company employees who signed the “no-actual knowledge” Affidavits that triggered the national scrutiny: Jeffrey Stephan from Ally, Erica Johnson-Seck from IndyMac, Crystal Moore from Nationwide Title Clearing, Liquenda Allotey from Lender Processing Services, Denise Bailey from Litton Loan Services, Noriko Colston, Krystal Hall, and other well-known professional signers from the mortgage servicing industry. The most frequent signers from that particular day were two lawyers, associates in the law firm representing the trusts, who signed as Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (7)

Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory by Christopher L. Peterson

Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory by Christopher L. Peterson


.

.

.

.

.

Christopher Lewis Peterson

University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Journal, Forthcoming

Abstract:

Hundreds of thousands of home foreclosure lawsuits have focused judicial scrutiny on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”). This Article updates and expands upon an earlier piece by exploring the implications of state Supreme Court decisions holding that MERS is not a mortgagee in security agreements that list it as such. In particular this Article looks at: (1) the consequences on land title records of recording mortgages in the name of a purported mortgagee that is not actually mortgagee as a matter of law; (2) whether a security agreement that fails to name an actual mortgagee can successfully convey a property interest; and (3) whether county governments may be entitled to reimbursement of recording fees avoided through the use of false statements associated with the MERS system. This Article concludes with a discussion of steps needed to rebuild trustworthy real property ownership records.

[ipaper docId=39287904 access_key=key-t9fm5292wmd8fg9fz88 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bifurcate, Christopher Peterson, deed of trust, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

MERS Signing Agreements /Corporate Resolutions Signed Using Stamps

MERS Signing Agreements /Corporate Resolutions Signed Using Stamps


The various signatures and time frames below.

Notice the handwritten signatures have turned to stamps.

Question: What happens if these stamps go lost or stolen?

Please hit email a tip located above this page  if you have any of these handy.

VP/SECRETARY/ TREASURER WILLIAM C. HULTMAN

.

VICE PRESIDENT SHARON HORSTKAMP

.

Enter the STAMP

These two Corporate Documents were located in two separate states thousands of miles across from each other .

.

Related:

MERS 101

.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, Christopher Peterson, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., robo signers, William C. HultmanComments (2)

ARE MERS’ SIGNATURES ON DOCUMENTS REAL or SCANNED DUPLICATES?

ARE MERS’ SIGNATURES ON DOCUMENTS REAL or SCANNED DUPLICATES?


The following documents appear to be either stamped in or scanned in but in no way signed by any human on this earth.

This also backs up Angela Nolan deposition where she states:

Let me explain the process. This is an electronic signature, so there’s certain states that allow electronic signatures. And I believe I sent you documentation on that where we sign our name, it’s scanned into a database, then the  signatures are applied electronically.

So here is some of the examples…. and do not ask me to get ALL that are there because I will need an entire year to gather them all.

Take a look at the notary signatures.

[ipaper docId=39054613 access_key=key-5xbs2g1rvbx90ab02hv height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bogus, citimortgage, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, wells fargoComments (4)

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)


RESTON, Va. – (Business Wire) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Chief Executive Officer R.K. Arnold today issued the following statement regarding the organization and clarifying certain aspects of its operations:

“MERS is one important component of the complex infrastructure of America’s housing finance system. Billions of dollars of mortgage money flow through the financial system every year. It takes many, often-unseen mechanical processes to properly get those funds into the hands of qualified homebuyers.

Technology designed to reduce paperwork has a very positive effect on families and communities. They may not see it, but these things save money and time, creating reliability and stability in the system. That’s important to keep the mortgage funds flowing to the consumers who need it.

With millions of Americans facing foreclosure, every element of the housing finance system is under tremendous strain. What we’re seeing now is that the foreclosure process itself was not designed to withstand the extraordinary volume of foreclosures that the mortgage industry and local governments must now handle.

MERS helps the mortgage finance process work better. The MERS process of tracking mortgages and holding title provides clarity, transparency and efficiency to the housing finance system. We are committed to continually ensuring that everyone who has responsibilities in the mortgage and foreclosure process follows local and state laws, as well as our own training and rules.”

Facts about MERS

(NOTE TO EDITORS: The following is attributed to MERS Communications Manager Karmela Lejarde)

FACT: Courts have ruled in favor of MERS in many lawsuits, upholding MERS legal interest as the mortgagee and the right to foreclose.

This legal right springs from two important facts:

1) MERS holds legal title to a mortgage as an agent for the owner of the loan
2) MERS can become the holder of the promissory note when the owner of the loan chooses to make MERS the holder of the note with the right to enforce if the mortgage loan goes into default.

MERS does not authorize anyone to represent it in a foreclosure unless both the mortgage and the note are in MERS possession. In some cases where courts have found against MERS, those cases have hinged on other procedural defects or improper presentation of MERS’s legal interests and rights. Citations can be found at the end of this document.*

FACT: MERS does not create a defect in the mortgage or deed of trust

Claims that MERS disrupts or creates a defect in the mortgage or deed of trust are not supported by fact or legal precedents. This is often used as a tactic by lawyers to delay or prevent the foreclosure. The mortgage lien is granted to MERS by the borrower and the seller and that is what makes MERS the mortgagee. The role of mortgagee is legal and binding and confers to MERS certain legal rights and responsibilities.

FACT: The trail of ownership does not change because of MERS

MERS does not remove, omit, or otherwise fail to report land ownership information from public records. Parties are put on notice that MERS is the mortgagee and notifications by third parties can be sent to MERS. Mortgages and deeds of trust still get recorded in the land records.

The MERS System tracks the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership. No legal interests are transferred on the MERS System, including servicing and ownership. In fact, MERS is the only publicly available comprehensive source for note ownership.

While this information is tracked through the MERS System, the paperwork still exists to prove actual legal transfers still occurred. No mortgage ownership documents have disappeared because loans were registered on the MERS System. These documents exist now as they have before MERS was created. The only pieces of paper that have been eliminated are assignments between servicing companies because such assignments become unnecessary when MERS holds the mortgage lien for the owner of the note.

FACT: MERS did not cause mortgage securitization

MERS was created as a means to keep better track of the mortgage servicing and beneficial rights as loans were getting bought and sold at a high rate during the late 1990s.

At the height of the housing market, low interest rates prompted some homeowners to refinance once, twice, even three times in the space of months. Banks were originating loans at more than double their usual rate. Assignments – the document that names the holder of the legal title to the lien – primarily between servicing companies, were piling up in county land record offices, awaiting recording. Many times the loans were getting refinanced before the assignments could get recorded on the old loan. The delay prevented lien releases from getting recorded in a timely manner, leaving clouds on title.

MERS was created to provide clarity, transparency and efficiency by tracking the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests. It was not created to enable faster securitization. MERS is the only publicly available source of comprehensive information for the servicing and ownership of the more than 64 million loans registered on the system. The Mortgage Identification Number (MIN), created by MERS, is similar in function to a motor vehicle VIN, which keeps track of these loans. Without MERS the current mortgage crisis would be even worse.

FACT: Lenders cannot “hide” behind MERS

MERS is the only comprehensive, publicly available source of the servicing and ownership of more than 64 million loans in the United States. If a homeowner needs to identify the servicer or investor of their loan, and it is registered in MERS, they can be helped through the MERS website or via toll-free number at 888-679-6377.

FACT: MERS fully complies with recording statutes

The purpose of recording laws is to show that a lien exists, which protects the mortgagee and any bona fide purchasers. When MERS is the mortgagee, the mortgage or deed of trust is recorded, and all recording fees are paid.

*NOTABLE LEGAL VICTORIES:

a. IN RE Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Litigation, a multi-district litigation case in federal court in Arizona who issued a favorable opinion, stating that “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”

b. IN RE Tucker (9/20/2010) where a Missouri bankruptcy judge found that the language of the deed of trust clearly authorizes MERS to act on behalf of the lender in serving as the legal title holder.

c. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Bellistri, 2010 WL 2720802 (E.D. Mo. 2010), where the court held that Bellistri’s failure to provide notice to MERS violated MERS’ constitutional due process rights.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Karmela Lejarde, 703-772-7156


Copyright © 2010 Business Wire. All rights reserved.

RELATED LINKS:

MERS 101

.

NO. THERE’S NO LIFE AT MERS

.

MUST READ |E-Discovery…Electronic Registration Systems WORST NIGHTMARE!

.

ALTER EGO DOCTRINE: ‘Pierce the Corporate Veil’

R.K. ARNOLD Pres. & CEO Of MERS (Photo Credit) Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., R.K. Arnold, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

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

Archives