It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed. The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.
UCC SECTION 3-309
Where’s the note, who’s the holder: Enforcement of the promissory note secured by real estate
external linky
New York-based attorney Susan Chana Lask has filed a federal class action complaint on behalf of tens of thousands of New York State homeowners who lost their homes to an alleged foreclosure fraud orchestrated for years by a New York “foreclosure mill” attorney and major mortgage companies. The case is filed in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, entitled “Connie Campbell against Steven Baum, MERSCORP Inc., et al.”, Case #10CV3800. It alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that homeowners paid inflated foreclosure and other fees fictionalized by Baum who profited from the scheme since 2005
I have received a number of reports that “outsource providers” are servicing the foreclosers by creating color copies of documents and submitting them as originals. One report is that the “original” was examined at the courthouse and found to be a printout from a very good color printer. It’s a neat trick and one that has probably worked many hundreds if not thousands of times.
This is in addition to the simple ABC’s of chain of title where these service providers create documents signed in one place, witnessed in another place and notarized in another place purporting to transfer a note, mortgage or obligation. You can usually tell that these were not created on the dates they purportedly show they were executed, if nothing else than by noticing dates or breaks in the chain of title. If Joe Smith owns the note and Mike Jones signs an assignment to Mary Simpson, there is a break in the chain of title. Get it?
It involved something called an "assignment of mortgage," the document that certifies who owns the property and is thus entitled to foreclose on it. Especially these days, the assignment is key evidence in a foreclosure case: With so many loans having been bought, sold, securitized, and traded, establishing who owns the mortgage is hardly a trivial matter. It frequently requires months of sleuthing in order to untangle the web of banks, brokers, and investors, among others. By law, a firm must execute (complete, sign, and notarize) an assignment before attempting to seize somebody's home.
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Agit8dChop
if your post was directed at me the op i will ask some open ended questions to get you thinking
if there was fraud by the lender and the borrower who gets prosicuted?
if the borrower has to follow the letter of the law or get forclosed on does the lender
if a third company that was set up to make it easyer to foreclose on fraudulent loans and they did not comply with the existing laws of tittle transfer and correct legal trust tittle relationship then should they win a court case to foreclose?
does the average person deserve a bail out because the banks have had one
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by SevenThunders
please share the information around to all people that are in need of cheering up or are struggling all i want is for the message to get out there is something possably good happening with the court outcomes lately
people are being treated fairly
it does no one any good to foreclose on the whole of america
except the scums that designed the system
spread the word for the people
xploder
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by grimreaper797
i think most people that have morals would pay what they could afford even without having to because they signed a contract
but when the banks choose forecloure rather than refinance eveytime then why not protect yourself from loss
you lose any calateral you had in the house
they sell it fast and its on the market for more the next day
for more than they payed you for it
and you still owe the bank
what is fair here that wont crash the system?
xploder
america is families in houses not banks with empty houses