Linda Green is/was an employee of DocX a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services located in Alpharetta, Georgia. Her signature was forged on key sensitive documents relating to county land records.
Below is a document that Shapiro & Fishman filed as a CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE.
What about the Satisfactions? In DOCX’s website they said:
“DOCX has built its solid reputation at not only managing large assignment projects, but satisfactions as well“.
Exactly how many documents were signed by Green’s name as VP for MERS between these dates?
Who do we contact to make this a nationwide recall alert like the recent “egg recall” containing salmonella?
Exactly who is being notified if there is any title issues on your homes?
Has there been a recall notice sent to County Recorders on this issue?
Are there more VP’s of MERS who had no authority to execute documents?
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Minute Entry
Hearing Information:
Debtor: ANDREW C BAILEY Case Number: 2:09-bk-06979-RTBP Chapter: 11 Date / Time / Room: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 09, 2010 10:00 AM 7TH FLOOR #701 Bankruptcy Judge: SARAH SHARER CURLEY Courtroom Clerk: WANDA GARBERICK Reporter / ECR: ANDAMO PURVIS
Matter:
ADV: 2-09-01728
ANDREW C. BAILEY vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA THE BAN
HEARING RE Motion to Dismiss Complaint Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss, With Prejudice, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint To Determine The Validity, Priority or Extent Of a Lien or Other Interest in Real Property and Petition For Injunctive Relief filed by KYLE S. HIRSCH of BRYAN CAVE LLP on behalf of BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING R / M #: 50 / 0
Appearances:
ANDREW C BAILEY
KYLE S. HIRSCH, ATTORNEY FOR THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA THE BANK
Proceedings:
Mr. Hirsch goes over the background of the complaints that have been filed, and notes that this is the fourth amended complaint with no basis. Mr. Bailey gives his statements to the court on the note.
COURT: THE COURT FINDS THAT AT THIS TIME MR. BAILEY HAS NO SUPPORT FOR HIS CLAIMS. MR. HIRSCH IS DIRECTED TO GET THE ORIGINAL CUSTODIAL FILE FROM NEW YORK FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW. HE SHOULD ALSO GET AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE INDIVIDUAL GETTING THE FILE, THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE 2006. IT IS ORDERED CONTINUING THIS HEARING TO JANUARY 13, 2011 AT 10:00 A.M.
Case 2:09-ap-01728-SSC Doc 61 Filed 11/09/10 Entered 11/09/10 15:07:05
Linda Green
Lender Processing Services
Shapiro & Fishman
Action Date: August 26, 2010 Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
On August 11, 2010, the Florida foreclosure mill law firm of Shapiro & Fishman (S&F) filed a “corrective” mortgage assignment (copy available in the “Pleadings” section herein). According to S & F, this “corrective” assignment was necessary because previous assignments filed by S & F were signed by Linda Green “who at that time did not have signing authority on behalf of MERS.” The day before, on August 10, 2010, the Florida Attorney General’s office issued a press release identifying S & F as one of the Florida law firms under investigation for unfair & deceptive trade practices involving improper documentation used to speed foreclosure proceedings. When Linda Green signed the prior assignments as a MERS officer, she was actually employed by Lender Processing Services in its Alpharetta, Georgia offices. Lender Processing Services decides which law firms get assigned foreclosure cases by the banks in hundreds of thousands of cases. Lender Processing Services hires the law firms and provides these firms with the documents they might need – using its own employees to sign the documents – without authority from MERS. The “corrective” assignment was signed by Kathy Smith and Joseph Kaminski who were identified as Assistant Secretaries of MERS, as nominee for American Brokers Conduit ( a company in bankruptcy since 2007). Smith & Kaminski are not actually employed by MERS or by American Brokers Conduit – so S&H may need another “corrective assignment.” The original assignment was dated October 17, 2008 – over two weeks AFTER the Lis Pendens was filed, but the “corrective” assignment attempts to solve the obvious lack of standing by a provision that states that the actual delivery of the documents took place on an unspecified date “and that such delivery of documents had occurred before default and before the filing to the lis pendens…” Courts and homeowners can expect a few more corrections from Shapiro & Fishman.
Recent Comments