Uniform Electronic Transactions Act | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act"

Signature Scanner “Forgetaboutit”, Meet A “Unique” Robo-Signer!

Signature Scanner “Forgetaboutit”, Meet A “Unique” Robo-Signer!


Highlights:

  • Uses a real pen
  • Yes, It crosses all T’s and Dots all I’s
  • Resulting product looks like it was processed by an actual human
  • Unlike a human…it makes NO mistakes!

Check it out below:

NOTE: Not saying this is an actual machine used, for demonstration only of amazing technology today!

Here is the work of Robo-Scanners “signing” Satisfaction of Mortgages/ Discharges below…no different!

Only that the above uses a “real pen” that a real human can use.

I also included MERS exec. sigs at the end…

[ipaper docId=42947649 access_key=key-1khopfb5zy15wihne1na height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

LORRAINE v. MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. | Electronically Stored Information “ESI”

LORRAINE v. MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. | Electronically Stored Information “ESI”


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JACK R. LORRAINE AND, :
BEVERLY MACK :

Plaintiffs :
:
v. :        CIVIL ACTION NO. PWG-06-1893
:
MARKEL AMERICAN :
INSURANCE COMPANY :

Defendants

Excerpt:

Thus, when a lawyer analyzes the admissibility of electronic evidence, he or she should
consider whether it would unfairly prejudice the party against whom it is offered, confuse or mislead
the jury, unduly delay the trial of the case, or interject collateral matters into the case . If a lawyer is
offering electronic evidence, particularly computer animations, that may draw a Rule 403 objection,
he or she must be prepared to demonstrate why any prejudice is not unfair, when measured against the
probative value of the evidence. In this case, counsel did not address whether Rule 403 was implicated
with respect to the electronic evidence attached to their summary judgment memoranda.

Conclusion

In this case the failure of counsel collectively to establish the authenticity of their exhibits,
resolve potential hearsay issues, comply with the original writing rule, and demonstrate the absence
of unfair prejudice rendered their exhibits inadmissible, resulting in the dismissal, without prejudice,
of their cross motions for summary judgment. The discussion above highlights the fact that there are
five distinct but interrelated evidentiary issues that govern whether electronic evidence will be
admitted into evidence at trial or accepted as an exhibit in summary judgment practice. Although each
of these rules may not apply to every exhibit offered, as was the case here, each still must be
considered in evaluating how to secure the admissibility of electronic evidence to support claims and
defenses. Because it can be expected that electronic evidence will constitute much, if not most, of the
evidence used in future motions practice or at trial, counsel should know how to get it right on the first
try. The Court hopes that the explanation provided in this memorandum order will assist in that
endeavor.63

May 4, 2007

/S/
PAUL W. GRIMM
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[ipaper docId=42055149 access_key=key-ny71zs8lak1m06d9kgo height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA)

Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA)


DinSFLA Here: Now if we just put these time frames such as ‘1999’ with all that is happening today we arrive to some answers…Don’t we?

Electronic communications make it possible to conduct old transactions in new forms.  Some of the oldest kinds of transactions governed by law are transactions in real estate:  for example, sales, leases and mortgages.  In the Middle Ages transactions in real estate were conducted symbolically, without paper or signatures.  Writing, printing and more universal literacy brought paper deeds, mortgages and leases, memorialized by words on paper with manual signatures.   These were filed in public records to establish who had rightful title to any piece of land.  Several centuries have gone by since that initial migration to the then-new technology of paper documents and manual signatures.  A new technology of computers, software to run them, and electronic communications has come to replace paper.  The law of real property must now make a transition to accommodate the new technology.  The efficiency of real estate markets makes this imminently necessary.

This long dependence on paper, however, casts up certain barriers to using electronic communications to carry on real estate transactions.  The law of the states of the United States has many “statute of fraud” requirements that inhibit the use of electronic communications.  Statute of fraud requirements put total and express reliance upon paper documents and manual signatures to make transactions enforceable.  No paper, no enforcement.  These same requirements have also made it more difficult to develop electronic analogues to transactions in paper that are equally enforceable.

The first step to remedy the problem took place in 1999 when the Uniform Law Commissioners promulgated the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).  This act adjusted statute of fraud provisions to include electronic “records” and “signatures” for the memorialization of all kinds of transactions, including basic transactions in real estate.  It is possible to have sale contracts, mortgage instruments (in whatever form a jurisdiction uses) and promissory notes memorialized in electronic form with electronic signatures that will now be treated the equal of the same paper documents with manual signatures.  This is the result of the widespread enactment of UETA and of the subsequent enactment of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign) by Congress.

Real estate documents must be recorded on public records to be effective.  Recording takes place in most states in a county office devoted to keeping these records.  Recording protects current interests in real estate by clarifying who holds those interests.  The chain of title leading to the current title-holder, meaning the historic record of documents relating to transactions for a specific piece of real estate, establishes the marketability of that piece of real estate by the current owner of interests in it.  The real estate records establish this chain of title.  State law governs these local recording offices, and there are requirements in the law of every state relating to the originality and authenticity of paper documents that are presented for recording.  UETA included optional provisions dealing with governmental authority, including that of local governments, to accept and utilize electronic records.  However, not all states adopted these optional provisions, and confusion still persisted whether these provisions, coupled with the rest of UETA, authorized recordation of electronic records.

The Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA) removes any doubt with regard to the ability of a local recording office to accept and otherwise process electronic documents and signatures for recording.  Further, there must be an orderly conversion of every recording office in the United States for electronic recording to become accepted universally.  That will be a complex process, but it needs a starting point in the law.  URPERA, promulgated by the Uniform Law Commissioners in 2004, provides that essential start.

The act does three fairly simple things that will have monumental effect.  First, it establishes that any requirement for originality, for a paper document or for a writing manually signed before it may be recorded, is satisfied by an electronic document and signature.  This is essentially an express extension of the principles of UETA and E-Sign to the specific requirements for recording documents relating to real estate transactions in any state.  Second, it establishes what standards a recording office must follow and what it must do to make electronic recording effective.  For example, the office must comply with standards set by the board established in a state to set them.  It must set up a system for searching and retrieving electronic documents.  There are a minimum group of requirements established in URPERA.  Third, URPERA establishes the board that sets statewide standards and requires it to set uniform standards that must be implemented in every recording office.

These may be simple steps in the law, but the entire process of implementing electronic recording of electronic real estate documents will be complex from state to state.  Inserting URPERA in the law of a state requires careful scrutiny of its real estate law.  If paper documents are effective, for example, when they are time-stamped when delivered to a recording office, when should electronic documents that may be delivered electronically when an office is closed be considered effective?  Answers to questions like this one will take some work and some complex decisions as URPERA is considered for enactment in any state.

Notwithstanding this need for careful effort, it is important to make the start on electronic recording of real estate documents.  Real estate transactions involve billions of dollars in the United States.  The efficiency of real estate markets depends upon the adoption of technology to make them faster and more competitive.  After UETA and E-Sign, the key is URPERA.  Every state needs to consider it as soon as possible.

More info…ElectronicRecording.org

RELATED ARTICLE:

Electronic Property Document Recording (ERDS)

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



Posted in deed of trust, heloc, mortgage, note, Real EstateComments (1)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments