Is the Note Endorsed, Indorsed or Allonged? Probably none of the above…

If you have been served a Foreclosure Complaint or have been foreclosed on in the past, DON’T GIVE UP!

Chances are, because of the Nature of Securitization, that your foreclosure is being prepared and executed by the WRONG PARTY IN INTEREST.

Get a Mortgage Audit to find out the real FACTS, and not the purported allegations that the Plaintiff’s attorney is attempting to pass off to the Court as the truth.

IF A MORTGAGE HAS EVER CHANGED HANDS, BEEN SOLD OR TRANSFERRED IF MUST BE RECORDED IN THE LOCAL COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TO BE VALID.

Thats right, a mortgage cannot be assigned electronically, or even back-dated or assigned after the fact.

Quite simply, a Mortgage is never sold, it’s the Promissory Note that is sold, for valuable consideration, and this Note must be endorsed like a Cashier’s Check being cashed a bank. The endorsement must be “paid to the order” of the party, or company, that is buying it, and then and ONLY THEN, can they record a Mortgage Assignment in the local county records.

The Assignment of Mortgage is merely Public Record of the changing of hands of a Promissory Note, the debt, and without such a Record there can be NO FORECLOSURE or repossession of someones home, whether or not there is evidence of a Default.

Got It? :p It’s actually not very complicated at all.

Advertisements

The Photocopied Allonge: The new trick of Pretender Lenders

Never underestimate the savviness of the Pretender Lenders and their Counsel Cohorts. They have a new trick up their sleeve: The Allonge on the back of a photocopied original Note.

The Allonge, a French word for extra piece of paper, is used as an extension to lawfully Negotiating an instrument when they run out of room to endorse on the back of the original instrument.

Pretender Lenders are now submitting the copy of the original Note with a photocopy of the Allonge (showing an intimidating Endorsement to the Plaintiff) as a trick to fool Judges into granting summary judgment. At first glance, this appears to fulfill Prima Facie evidence criteria to grant Summary Judgments or lift Bankruptcy stays. However, WE NEED TO FIGHT THIS TRICK because it is just a slight of hand.

The properly negotiated Note will have either an Endorsement in Blank (if it went to MERS) or it will be Endorsed multiple times to multiple entities involved in the securitization process. The Allonge should only be used if there is no room on the back of the original Note. The Allonge itself appears to be evidence that the Note was securitized or Negotiated multiple times, if done lawfully. Of course, most Notes are “lost or destroyed” in this process because Plaintiffs know they cannot provide tangible Discovery evidence if the Court Compels them to due so.

So Plaintiff’s Attorneys are attempting to skirt around UCC code and Discovery Due Process by creating an Alonge for their client, whom are trying to secure Constitutional Standing, by simply photocopying the Alonge to the back of the original Note. Simple and brilliant. But a Copy is just a Copy. Convince the Judge that a Copy of an Allonge is not sufficient to prove the Note was negotiated in Due Course, and file a Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to Produce the Original Note, with the Endorsements on reverse, and if the original Note is chalk full of Endorsements – then ONLY THEN can a Court accept the Allonge as Prima Facie evidence.

If the Pretender Lender can produce a photocopied Note with the Allonge photocopied to the back as Exibit A, then the homeowners should be able to submit their own photo copied Checks Paid in Full with no endorsement as proof the Debt was paid.

Inside the Foreclosure Fight – my advice to Attorney Ryan

Atty Ryan

See:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/ohio-slam-dunk-by-judge-morgenstern-clarren-us-bank-trustee-and-ocwen-crash-and-burn/in_re_wells_bankruptcy_oh_nd_decision_22_jun_2009/

The questions pertaining to case law on Trusts/Remic standing as legal entities is no different than most “standing” related cases. Neil’s said many times that these Pension Hedge Funds who are the true “holders” in due course WILL NOT come forward therefore the bulk of your questions regarding detailed case law about securitization cannot be addressed. They simply won’t be compelled to produce real evidence if they don’t implicate themselves by attaching to the lawsuit as a party in interest.

When you ask about the Judge granting standing using the Note and Assignments, you need to be more clear.
1. Is the Note in the name of the same party acting as Plaintiff?
2. Was the Mortgage properly assigned and before the file went to foreclosure?
3. Was Power of Attorney filed allowing Plaintiff to act on behalf of Pretender Lender?
4. Was the Note properly negotiated according to UCC Code? (Owning the Note is different than holding and vice versa)
5. An assignment of Mortgage is not an assignment of the Note regardless of what the Plaintiff states in their Material Statements and Admissions.

Raise all these questions to get a hearing and avoid Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment must only occur when no issue of material fact exists.