Business records from Prior Servicer Admissible BUT….

see http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=86924d58-6984-40cd-8fd8-f4081f34fbe8

In an article the banks are celebrating a success for their shell game or “musical chairs”(see above link). The appellate court reversed the trial court who through out the business records of the prior servicer.

BUT, the court pointed out that the robo-witness was also employed by the prior servicer and could therefore speak from personal knowledge about record keeping of the prior servicer. This doesn’t happen very often. SO when the foreclosing party tries to bring in the prior records the point needs to be made that the records are not admissible and the case is not authoritative IF the robo-witness was never employed by the prior servicer.

The conclusion from this decision is actually good for borrowers. The whole purpose of slipping in a new servicer, trustee or agent is to put layers in to protect the real parties from liability for wrongful foreclosures.I think the decision means that the testimony from a representative of the prior servicer IS required if the main witness from the “current servicer” did not work for the prior servicer.

As a practice note for lawyers, you should not be lured into this argument as the beginning and end of the issue. The main issue remains — did the prior servicer or the Plaintiff for that matter, ever have any authority to act as servicer and if so, from whom? That issue comes back to standing — i.e., whether the Trust that is asserted as owning the loan ever purchased the loan and if not, then the Trust is representing the interests of a creditor other than the trust. If so, who is that?

And that returns us to the issue of possessor, holder and holder in due course. If they are not willing to assert that the Trust purchased the loan (which may be inferred by failing to allege holder in due course status) then they are admitting in their pleading that the trust does not own the loan which is conflict with their position in judicial foreclosures that the trust owns the loan, note or mortgage.

26 Responses

  1. Correct typo: if they _can_

    Not YES WE CAN, which was OBAMAS MOTTO in his CAMPAIGN, to do what can only br described to be DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE for his CRIMINAL FRIENDS.

  2. If they cwn find the way to destroy the face of their victims & make them look not credible than the witness will never come forward.

    If the witness won’t back down, they want them dead & unidentifiable.

    That way the MARK they intended to use to permanently stigmatize their victim can’t be used to identufy them.

    The BIG CLUB is one evil fungus on the face of humanity.

  3. Certainly the judges would love to pretend those records existed because by doing so, they can change the identity of that original U.S. TREASURY EMPLOYEE who robbed the safe.

    It’s CORPORATE EXTORTION, & the CORPORATE SPY NETWORK of wantoned FELONS is GANG STALKING by IDENTITY THEFT from CYBERSPACE.

  4. What precisely gives SERVICERS the legal right to call FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT business records?

    By doing so with PROCLIVITY, they’re incestuosly incriminating themselves

  5. Illicit and Illegal reverse transaction .

    Who is the original creditor?
    Who is the proper party to file a SOM?

    Reconveyance or Bust

    Many Blessings to All

  6. TARP. …

    They lost their investments by congressional enactment under the
    ” Troubled Asset Relief Program” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against Purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensable parties to claims that include,,,, .
    The Purchasers, The Registrant against the TITLE HOLDER and
    CONSUMER HOUSEHOLD.

    One can not Reap the Benefits from a Fraud.. …..
    Even if they Change the Names and Parties….
    They were All working as agents of one another at all times relavent .

  7. 👍🏼 greg

  8. force the employment contracts into evidence to see if the employment period and the document dates have a gap

  9. Statement of
    Financial Accounting
    Standards No. 140
    FAS140 Status Page
    FAS140 Summary
    Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial
    Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities
    (a replacement of FASB Statement No. 125)
    September 2000

    http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1218220124871&acceptedDisclaimer=true

  10. And don’t forget about TALF, which was huge. Troubled Asset Loan Facility. It was like a pawn shop- bank turns over their garbage assets, gets 95% of face, but has no intention of ever coming back to redeem collateral. maybe because the value was 10-15 % of face, and the FED gave them 95%.

  11. I know that Maiden Lane I. II, and III held most of the Bear Stearns and alot of Lehman commercial loans. These 3 holding entities were later auctioned for a fraction of face value.
    NPV-
    Can u chime in on the workings of TARP requireme ts and subsequent paper chain?

  12. SC- when TARP covered/ reimbursed the “toxic assets” (MBS) it was my hunch that the banks/servicers/investment banks/ etc assigned rights to those same toxic assets.
    What do you have?

  13. Greg. .
    GAAP FAS 140 and SFAS 140-3.

    Actions pursuant to FIERRA, USC 1833a

    Now…lets talk about TARP and the defendants loss of its investment.

  14. This type of thing has been going on here for a very long time. The real estate investors including reps from banks bidding on the real property that has gone into foreclosure.

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/11/25/feds-secretly-bugged-courthouse-grounds-to-eavesdrop-on-private-conversations-motion-says/

  15. you all need to read all , pages and rules as of 2000. these rules were in affect as all these crap happen, wasn’t changed until 2009

    Statement of
    Financial Accounting
    Standards No. 140
    FAS140 Status Page
    FAS140 Summary
    Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial
    Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities
    (a replacement of FASB Statement No. 125)
    September 2000

  16. Transfers to Qualifying SPEs, including Securitizations ………………………………. 171−199

  17. Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
    Have A Safe & Blessed Holiday Weekend!

  18. Prior servicer is not the creditor.
    Employee is not testifying about the accounting of the creditor.

    Smoke, smoke, and more smoke.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  19. Its all about knowing how evidence codes applicable to discovery works and we can help you at all phases of your litigation, at
    Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585.
    Ask for Sara or Steve when you call today.
    Happy Thanksgiving to all.

  20. Yes, there is something moving out there. I have it on good authority that the big banks are on their way out. The authority is not of this world.

  21. Bide your time
    As my father used to say
    They hang themselves with their own rope no need to plant more trees.

  22. I need your assistance please: need an attorney that understands the mortgage fraud prevalent in the State of MD RegardsJames Formanek410-652-4356

  23. YEAH The GIANT Shell Game ……… CFPB is another Layer of the VAST Con Job that the US Government / Fed Reserve and the STATES have once again perpetrated against The People of the WORLD. DOJ, FDIC, FBI and the Office of Loretta Lynch and CFPB have lots to explain. This Video is ESPECIALLY for CFPB and Justice Department ……… https://vimeo.com/146907243

  24. When my Banking Records show Current and their records show computer generated records from prior servicers showing a default in the tens of thousands of dollars.
    YOU GET DISCOVERY of All Accounting Records!
    YOU GET A TITLE ABSTRACT!

    I Have No Use for Liers or Thieves!!!

    The investors did NOT get the Notes Period!
    See KEMP VS COUNTRYWIDE

    NO TRUSTS ! NO STANDING!

    Many Blessings to All, Investor, Grantor, Warrantor of Title,

  25. Back to the same issues in the beginning of this nightmare–standing and holder in due course. But none of this matters if you cannot get full discovery. The lawyers on the servicer/bank’s side know this and the judge know it, too. No discovery and the homeowner/borrower loses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: