2d DCA Adds Insult to Injury on Statute of Limitations

Message to homeowners: Heads I win, tails you lose. Between Bartram and Desylvester the recurrent theme emerges as doctrine: If the homeowner wins a case the skids are greased for the bank to win the next round. The winner is treated as the party who SHOULD have lost and the loser is treated as the party who SHOULD have won. This fight is far from over.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
“Following the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bartram v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly S493, 2016 WL 6538647 (Fla. Nov. 3, 2016), courts were left to interpret how Bartram would affect lenders’ reliance on breach letters issued more than five years prior to a foreclosure proceeding initiated after the dismissal of a prior action. Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal answered this very question in its opinion in Desylvester v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al., which indicates that lenders need not send a new breach letter in subsequent foreclosure actions filed after the dismissal of a prior foreclosure if the borrower has failed to cure the initial default.
 *
In Desylvester, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the entry of final judgment of foreclosure in favor where the bank initiated a successive mortgage foreclosure action premised on the same date of default alleged in a prior foreclosure action, including “all subsequent payments due thereafter.” Consistent with the Bartram decision, the Court’s opinion confirms that, following the dismissal of a prior foreclosure action, a mortgagee is not barred from filing a subsequent action premised on a “separate and distinct” date of default––including a borrower’s continuing state of default––under the same note and mortgage.”
 *
An ounce of truth and a lot of craziness. I think Bartram stands for the proposition that the statute of limitations does bar actions for payments due before the beginning of the current statutory period. As I suspected we have the Florida Supreme Court thinking they fixed a problem by legislating from the bench — returning the parties back to their original positions except for payments barred by the statute of limitations.
 *
The second DCA has muddied the waters further in Desylvester v Bank of New York Mellon. The courts are continuing to search and twist looking for a hook on which they can hang their preconceived notion of how the case should turn out — i.e., for the banks. Dozens of SCOTUS decisions say these courts (not just in Florida) are getting it wrong and overstepping constitutional boundaries resulting in unfair consequences. This fight is not over.
 *
The 2d DCA here stretches the problematic view of the Florida Supreme Court in Bartram v US Bank. A default letter was sent for an alleged default that is now barred by the SOL. I suppose it might be logical to say that the creditor could still file a foreclosure action for the payments that are not barred by the SOL. But this court goes further and says that the original default letter can still be used as the basis of the new foreclosure action.
 *
The court is skipping over obvious ramifications of the Bartram decision whether you think that decision was right or wrong. If the parties are returned to their original position except for the payments barred by SOL, then the homeowner still has a right to a default letter that spells out the real number, as amended by application of the SOL, that is required to reinstate, and the disclosure of how that number was computed. Removing that requirement is removing (1) a basic element of the alleged “contract” (i.e., the mortgage instrument, paragraph 22 in most such instruments) and (2) the application of statutory laws governing the conditions precedent to filing foreclosure.
 *
The 2d DCA opinion is plainly wrong and wrongful. Again pushing aside the notions that foreclosure is an action in equity that should only be used as a last resort, the Court has essentially stripped the homeowner of basic protections provided by statute and provided by law. The Bartram decision was bad enough. The 2d DCA decision is basically reloading the gun for what is at best a questionable party to foreclose, placing the homeowner on his/her knees and cocking the gun for the bank or servicer — neither of whom have any right to even be in court.. Under Desylvester the losing party in the first foreclosure is treated as the winner and the winning party is treated as the loser.
*
All of which prompts the the larger essential question: With the courts undermining due process at every turn in ruling for the banks under a political theory that the fall of the big banks will bring down the world order, how is anyone left going to trust in our institutions? And assuming the current polls and trends continue, what will be left of our society that will be worth saving?

16 Responses

  1. David Belanger, a company called ACS founded eRX eRording Network back in 2003. The seem ti have gone belly up (ACS). Their stock symbol is no longer listed on the NYSE. Their url now goes to…XEROX.com. Here’s their puff piece press release about eRX:
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/acs-launches-erx-creating-a-paperless-recording-environment-for-lenders-title-companies-and-counties-nationwide-74688572.html

  2. You cannot find a lawyer to sue another lawyer for mishandling a case either. Good luck with that!

  3. If the story ever got out that the nations’ mortgage debt has been paid by TARP and theft of investor funds, nobody would pay these criminals a dime. As long as the ruse continues and people are continually thrown out of their homes by corrupt judges holding bank stocks, nothing will change.

  4. Poppy – would love to trade notes on New Century mess…
    thanks
    greg@wavnet.com

  5. nothing is better to beat a trial judge in the head to follow the law than using the best and proper controlling citations from the appropriate appellate or supreme court jurisdictions to tie their hands… and if the counsel employed misses that – the homeowner should also sue their counsel for failure to prosecute their case to the utmost of their ability… any questions?

  6. It is looking like the “foreclosure crisis” is a full government conspiracy against the homeowners who could be relieved of their property (have their houses foreclosed upon), or an attack to eliminate as much of the middle class as possible. What they plan to do to people whose homes are paid for, I do not know. The government is surely covering up something, in league with the banks/lenders. I am not sure what that could be, but it must be a major, shaming crime that would bump all the Washington, DC politicians and local judiciary out of office and power at the very least.

  7. iwantmynpv, they said my copy must be a forged one, judge said probity is, i told judge what makes her a expert on that, because my expert said my signature is the same signature as of the person that the stamp signature, plus showed her 10 others like mine. but she still said it could not be real, i said why would you say that your honor, lets see all banks have payed in the 10’s of billions on forged doc, they admitted to. hum not one homeowner has ever payed 1 penny. hum

    so lets just follow the law, our laws. not the benches laws. she said we are done for the day. have not hurd anything for months.

    she was not happy. hahaaaahaahahh

  8. iwantmynpv, first, if you read what i put. the assignment was placed on record, in august of 2012, gmac went bk in may of 2012, but the assignment was sign, by someone acting for gmac mortgage corporation, that no longer existed. they went away in 2006.

    so tell me how could any one, even mers themselves have any authority to assign the mortgage out of mers, in august of 2012. ???

    there is only 1 assignment, on record. and by the way i do have a copy of the note endorsed with real signature, and dated as of closing date, sign / dated/ not a stamp. and they show up with same copy of note, not endored, in blank, but have no idea when it was stamp that way, but said to judge it must of been before the bk. hahahah

    i have all secretary of states , from Delaware to every state in country stating , certifying, that the trust is not real, and has never been registered in any state. even were they reported it sec, that it was a register legal operating Delaware stationary trust. Delaware sos said no way, that is a lie. and am still in home and fighting them , to prove it up.

  9. The courts all around this country, are re-writing the law from the bench. They are working way beyond their authority. Personally, I am finding the State Courts are the worst. I am in Round 6 (2 in Federal Court, dismissed—3 in State Court dismissed) of the same action in the Superior Court in North Carolina from a Magistrate who has zero legal expertise. Even at the beginning, the party hearing the case has no notion of UCC, lending, securitization, ….parties can be anyone who “say” they are legitimate. No validation of anything, then you are forced to pay for an appeal, or remove the case….the costs emotionally, literally start to climb. I am in year 10 and these “morons” keep allowing this. No end in sight! Exhausting

    PS: I have some of the most comprehensive and detailed paperwork evidencing the counterfeit affidavits, and fraudulent transfers. We have Judges orders from Federal Court in Delaware too …A New Century case and the judges here are dismissing and overriding this information, as if it doesn’t matter. It is spelled out and concise…Wearing me out!

    Keep Fighting Folks, So Important!!!!!!!

  10. David, that is why the Trustee accepts mortgage assignments in blank, and pursuant to any number of documents… they have the right to step in the shoes of the loan originator, depositor, sponsor or any other intermediary. Second, if the mortgage transfers automatically with the physical delivery of the promissory note, why is this relevant? The note is going to be stamp endorsed in blank, and the guy suing you is going to claim physical possession of the note as a prima facie showing of standing.

    Moreover, what trends and polls is the editor talking about? please post the specific polls that show America will be no be worth saving?

  11. It’s bad enough that the entrenched courts always refer to the foreclosing party as “the bank”, but I’m confused as to why everyone else does it too.
    Neil, in this case as in the Bartram case and most foreclosure actions, the foreclosing party is not a “bank”. You know this better than most, but still refuse, for some reason, to identify them as what they really are:
    “Trustees”! And even that identity should be challenged.

  12. anyone know about these people or company.

    eRX Erecording Partners Network.

    how could this company put this assignment on our property, if this company is not and never has been a company authorized to do business in mass. specially to affect the property owner rights.

    any one ?

  13. totally agree, usedkarguy.

    look at what i ask my lawyer to do, and he said. why would i do that?

    peter, and the reason is simple, if no one had the authority to assign said mortgage and also had no other or any authority to put it on our record in
    august of 2012. then all is a moot point right. assignment go off, as fraud, and i can get that off our record in a few days, as i did with last fraud gmac mortgage lien, just last week.

    I NEED THE FOLLOWING PLEASE. because of the fraud you know and i have proven to you,many times. i would like the following to be done.

    1/ COPY OF ALL GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION. CERTIFIED OFFICERS, FROM 2010 TO THE PRESENT. dont know how this is going to be done, as gmac mortgage corporation, went out of business in 2006. and gmac went bk in 2012.

    2/ AND THE CORPORATE RESOLUTIONS FOR ALL CERTIFIED OFFICERS, FROM THAT DATE. NOV 1, 2010 TILL THE PRESENT. again dont know how they can have this info either.

    2a/ the reason is clear, no one had the authority to put that assignment on our records, in august 2012. no one. from gmac, gmac mortgage corp,dead, gmac mortgage ,llc, dead as of 2009, and all other gmac entity gone in may 2012, bk.

    3. For all future assignments and the execution of other documents in the name of MERS, Members must use a MERS Certifying Officer who has been appointed under our new certifying officer process, which, after November 1, 2010, uses a new form of corporate resolution. Under our new process, all Certifying Officers are also being tested and appointed under the enhanced CRMS. Only Certifying Officers appointed under the new form of corporate resolution, tested, and transitioned onto CRMS after November 1, 2010 should execute assignments.

    Sharon Horstkamp
    Senior Vice President, Chief Legal and Legislative Officer and Corporate Secretary
    Sharon McGann Horstkamp serves as Senior Vice President, Chief Legal and Legislative Officer, and Corporate Secretary for MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.

    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Officers

    Sharon Horstkamp
    Corporate Secretary
    Sharon McGann Horstkamp serves as Corporate Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

    JUST SOMETHING I SENT TO SOS,REGISTRY OF DEEDS, TO SEE WHO PLACED THE ASSIGNMENT ON MY RECORDS. AS OF AUGUST 2012. MERS SAY THEY DID NOT, GMAC COULD NOT DO IT , OCWEN COULD NOT DO IT, TRUST COULD NOT DO IT,

    SO I WAS ASKING WHO. AND AFTER SAYING I WOULD GET A COURT ORDER TO MAKE THEM TELL ME, THEY DID TELL ME. AND IT WAS NO ONE IN CHAIN OF TITLE.

    TOP OF ASSIGNMENT. INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES, BUT THEY DID NOT PLACE IT ON MY RECORD EITHER.

    THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS SAID THE FOLLOWING COMPANY PLACED THE ASSIGNMENT ON OUR RECORDS. eRX Erecording Partners Network.??????? WHO IS THIS.??????? SO ANYONE JUST CAN PUT A ASSIGNMENT ON MY RECORDS. WITH SHOWING ANY AUTHORITY FROM HOLDER OF NOTE/MORTGAGE TO HAVE IT PLACED ON MY RECORDS. REALLY…………

    From:
    Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:30 AM
    To:
    Subject: fraudulent assignment.

    From
    Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:39 AM
    To:
    Subject: Re: Follow Up

    Commonwealth Electronic Recording System
    Getting Started
    Before submitting a document for electronic recording to any of the Secretary of State’s Registries of Deeds Districts, the person or entity wishing to submit documents electronically (also referred to as an “E-file Submitter”) must file the following:

    An executed original copy of a Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) with each Registry of Deeds to which documents are to be filed electronically, and
    Payment Processor Account on File Form (PDF) to identify your payment information.
    The Memorandum of Understanding asks each submitter to certify that they are eligible to submit documents electronically and itemizes their responsibilities in the electronic recording process. More importantly, the memorandum identifies the technical specifications as they relate to each Registry of Deeds, processing schedules and hours of operation as they pertain to electronic recording, payment options, document codes and recording fees.

    Additionally, each E-file Submitter must establish an account on file with our payment processor. Your account can specify either a credit card or electronic check payment preference. This account will provide you with an account identification number and allows you to preset your payment preferences, contact and billing information so it is not requested of you each time you file.

    Finally, each E-file Submitter will be provided with a workstation configuration guide to assist you with the minimum workstation configuration and the software components required by the electronic recording application. The guide provides a step-by-step explanation regarding browser configuration settings are also documented and are required to support the overall functionality of the CERS web-based interface.

    I WANT A COPY OF , eRX Erecording Partners Network

    An executed original copy of a Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) with each Registry of Deeds to which documents are to be filed electronically, and
    Payment Processor Account on File Form (PDF) to identify your payment information.
    FOR , The document you reference was e-recorded online through a third party vendor, eRX Erecording Partners Network. As such, we do not have the payment information. ( how could that be, that they filed what was suppose to be filed before allowing anyone just put assignments on record)

    Thank you.

    NOW, mers did not cause the assignment to be done up. was told that by mers themselves, and it is against the mers rules . they have no knowledge to any assignments being done . was told by mersholdings.

    GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,WENT OUT OF BUSINESS IN 2006, THEY COULD NOT GIVE ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ANYONE

    . eRX Erecording Partners Network, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORTGAGE, OR NOTE OR HOLDERS OF THEM!

    the company that did the recording of the assignment. was.

    . and
    does not have anything to do with the mortgage holders, so were is the power of attorney that was given to them, from said holder of mortgage??

    so as i said to you, sir. your office allows anyone to attach assignments to homeowners property here in mass, without any proof that they can, put that assignment on the property. just as long as , all i are dotted, and t’s crossed, just put the fraud assignment on a person’s property. nice.

    and put the cost of fighting that fraud , right on the homeowner, THAT YOU WERE TO PROTECT FROM SUCH FRAUD. SHOW ME WERE YOU DON’T BELIEVE YOUR OFFICE HAS
    A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERS RIGHT FROM THIS FRAUD.

    so as to what you sent me, WERE DO YOU VERIFY ALL THAT IS NEEDED, BEFORE THAT FRAUD ASSIGNMENT IS TO BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY OWNERS RECORD?????

    Part II; MGL Chapter 183
    Section 54B: Mortgage discharge, release, assignment, foreclosure, etc.; execution before officer entitled to acknowledge instruments; effect

    Section 54B. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, (1) a discharge of mortgage; (2) a release, partial release or assignment of mortgage; (3) an instrument of subordination, non-disturbance, recognition, or attornment by the holder of a mortgage; (4) any instrument for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage and conveying the title resulting therefrom, including but not limited to notices, deeds, affidavits, certificates, votes, assignments of bids, confirmatory instruments and agreements of sale; or (5) a power of attorney given for that purpose or for the purpose of servicing a mortgage, and in either case, any instrument executed by the attorney-in-fact pursuant to such power, if executed before a notary public, justice of the peace or other officer entitled by law to acknowledge instruments, whether executed within or without the commonwealth, by a person purporting to hold the position of president, vice president, treasurer, clerk, secretary, cashier, loan representative, principal, investment, mortgage or other officer, agent, asset manager, or other similar office or position, including assistant to any such office or position, of the entity holding such mortgage, or otherwise purporting to be an authorized signatory for such entity, or acting under such power of attorney on behalf of such entity, acting in its own capacity or as a general partner or co-venturer of the entity holding such mortgage, shall be binding upon such entity and shall be entitled to be recorded, and no vote of the entity affirming such authority shall be required to permit recording.

    From:
    Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:36 AM
    To:
    Subject: DO I NEED TO GET A COURT ORDER

    DO I HAVE TO GET A COURT ORDER TO GET MY QUESTION ANSWERED ?

    From:
    Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 9:38 AM
    To: DOCREQUEST,.MERSINC.ORG
    Subject: Re: YOU HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD

    MORE INFO ,

    LETTER SENT TO MASS SOS AND MASS AND AG.
    AGAIN TO FURTHER ASSIST YOU , BELOW UNDER OATH,AND ALSO DECLARED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, IS ALL ASSETS OF GMAC MORTGAGE,LLC. GOING BACK FROM 2010 TO 2012 TIME OF FILING.
    AS YOU WILL SEE, AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL PAGES, AS I HAVE. THERE IS NO MENTION OF MY MORTGAGE, OR NOTE. SO IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MERS/ OR THIS FRAUD ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, WILLIAM LONG, TO BE ABLE TO PUT A ASSIGNMENT OF MY MORTGAGE IN AUGUST OF 2012, AT THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE. IMPOSSIBLE. IT IS FRAUD.
    NO COMPANY, OR LEGAL ENTITY CAN ASSIGN A ASSET , THEY DO NOT OWN. AT TIME OF ASSIGNMENT. THAT IS FRAUD.
    AGAIN SEE IF YOU CAN FIND MORTGAGE NUMBER, 0589117308, OR EVEN MORTGAGE MIN NUMBER 1000375-0589117308-3. YOU WILL NOT FIND IT AS A ASSET , IN ANY AND ALL SCHEDULES.
    SO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OFFICE OF REGISTRY , IS AND HAS HELP IN THIS FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY.
    DAVID A BELANGER
    POA, 978-618-3105
    I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING ON THIS ISSUE. ASAP WITH THE AG AND SECRETARY OF STATE.
    THANK YOU
    Chief Financial Officer 7/3/2012 / s / James Whitlinger I, James
    declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing summary and schedules, consisting of 622 sheets , and that they are true and correct ,
    concealing property, ASSETS.
    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK In re: GMAC Mortgage, LLC UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Case No. 12-12032 (MG) DECLARATION CONCERNING DEBTOR’S SCHEDULES Date Filed 07/03/12 Entered
    ______________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________ James Whitlinger Chief Financial Officer 7/3/2012 / s / James Whitlinger I, James Whitlinger, Chief Financial Officer of the corporation named as debtor in this case, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing summary and schedules, consisting of 622 sheets , and that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————– Penalty for making a false statement or concealing property: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both. 18 U.S.C.§§ 152 and 3571. 12-12020-mg Doc 685 Filed 07/03/12 Entered 07/

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW …
    Southern District of New York, New York In re: GMAC Mortgage, LLC UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Case No. 12-12032 (MG) B6 Summary (Official Form 6 – Summary) (12/07)

    From
    Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:27 AM
    To: MERSWF,.WELLSFARGO.COM
    Subject: Fw: MERS MIN NUMBER 1000375-0589117308-3,

    also sent to attorney general of state of mass, and secretary of state of mass, fbi, and us attorney generals office for investigation on the fraud, you committed.

    because in august of 2012, no one in this country, would of had the authority to assign or do anything with my mortgage at mers, or any where else. all gmac mortgage was bk dead. and gmac mortgage corp was dead in 2006, gmac mortgage llc, was dead in 2009. and no gmac entity at time of fileing with bk court had my mortgage as a asset, not having my mortgage as a asset , that was reported to the bk court. mean no one from gmac mortgage could have authority to give anyone to assign my mortgage out of mers. FRAUD

    From:
    Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:10 AM
    To: DOCREQUEST,.MERSINC.ORG
    Subject: MERS MIN NUMBER 1000375-0589117308-3,

    I want a discharge of this mortgage and assignment that is fraud, that your company and employee placed on my record in 2012,
    because as of 2006, and 2009 no gmac mortgage corporation or gmac mortgage llc, was still a active company , they were dead, non
    real company,gone bk, or out of business. so you would not have any authority from a dead company to assign anything. FRAUD

    so no one would be able to legally assign,have any such authority to assign, any mortgage from these company. period.

    From:
    Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:06 AM
    To: DOCREQUEST, MERSINC.ORG
    Subject: Re: MORE INFO AS TO YOU HAVING COMMITTED FRAUD

    IT CAN NOT BE MORE CLEAR, THAT THE ASSIGNMENT IS FRAUD, VOID. BY MERS RULES SAY SO. AND MUCH MORE.

    SO MERS, LETS LOOK AT THE FRAUD , YOUR COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN , YOUR MEMBER RULES, AS OF TIME OF THE ALLEGED SALE OF MY MORTGAGE, MERS MIN NUMBER 1000375-0589117308-3,

    GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, AS OF 27 FEB,2006- SOLD , MY ALLEGED MORTGAGE TO A NON-MEMBER OF MERSCORP,MERSHOLDINGS,MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. NON OF YOUR FRAUD COMPANYS.

    SO AGAIN- YOUR COMPANY COMMITTED FRAUD, BY SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY YOUR COMPANY, OR ACTING ON YOUR COMPANY BEHAFT, TO ASSIGN MY MORTGAGE , 6YRS AFTER THE COMAPNY WAS DEAD, GIVING NO ONE AUTHORITY OR RIGHTS TO ASSIGN SOMEONE MORTGAGE, OUT OF THAT COMPANYS DEAD FILE. ANY AUTHORITY THAT MIGHT OF BEEN GIVIN IN 2005 FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORP TO MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC, AND FOR MERS TO ACT AS NOMINEE FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION. WAS DEAD AS OF 2006, EVEN BEFORE THE COMPANY ( GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.) WENT DEAD, THE COMPANY SOLD, ALL RIGHTS TITLE,INTEREST IN MY ALLEGED MORTGAGE. TO A NON-MEMEBER OF MERS,MERSCORP,MERSCORPHOLDINGS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.

    (a) Any Member that sells, transfers, or otherwise disposes of all or substantially all of its
    assets MEANING MORTGAGES, to any entity that is not a member of MERS, ( HERE THE BIG ONE ). WHY YOU MAY ASK
    IS THAT GMAC MORTAGE CORPORATION DID SELL ALL MORTGAGES, TO A ( NON MEMEBER OF MERS) IN THE NAME OF February 27, 2006, among ( Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.) shall be treated as having withdrawn from
    membership in MERS as of the effective time of such disposition of assets or combination with
    such entity unless the acquiring entity signs a Membership Agreement with MERS and as such
    shall be bound by the Rules of Membership and Procedures of MERS.

    February 27, 2006, among Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.NEVER WAS A MEMBER OF MERSCORP, MERS,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC, MERSHOLDING.

    (EXECUTION COPY,) MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT This is a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement(the “Agreement”) dated as of February 27, 2006 by and between GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, having an office at 100 Witmer Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 (the “Seller”) and Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and having an office at 8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 (the “Purchaser”). The Seller agrees to sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Seller certain mortgage loans on a servicing-retained basis as described herein (the “Mortgage Loans”). The following terms are defined as follows: Aggregate Principal Balance (as of the Cut-Off Date): $550,003,046.49 (after deduction of scheduled principal payments due on or before the Cut-Off Date, whether or not collected, but without deduction of prepayments that may have been made but not reported to the Seller as of the close of business on such date). Closing Date: February 27, 2006,

    RULE 1
    MEMBERSHIP
    Section 1. MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERS”) shall make the services of its mortgage
    electronic registration system (the “MERS® System”) A COMPUTER SYSTEM. available to any Member of MERS. A Member is defined as an organization or natural person who has signed a Membership
    Agreement and is not more than 60 days past due as to the payment of any fees due and owing to
    MERS.

    MERS® System
    mortgage
    electronic registration system
    does not
    have adequate space, data processing capacity or other operational capability AGAIN A COMPUTER SYSTEM. at that time to
    permit the inclusion of additional Members without impairing the ability of the MERS® System
    to provide services for existing Members;

    Section 5. An applicant whose application to become a Member has been approved
    by MERS shall be considered a Member after signing and delivering to MERS a Member
    Agreement as approved by the Board of Directors of MERS and paying the initial MERS
    membership fee.

    From:
    Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:28 PM
    To: DOCREQUEST,MERSINC.ORG
    Subject: YOU HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD

    THIS IS REF. MERS MINS NUMBER- 1000375-0589117308-3. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN SENT TO THE MASS SECRETARY OF STATES, AND MASS ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS WELL AS THE DOJ OFFICE, JUST TO START.

    THE ATTACHMENTS, ABOVE ARE THE MORTGAGE AND THE SECOND FRAUD MORTGAGE THAT WAS PLACED ON OUR RECORD, AND AS OF 2 WEEKS AGO , YOU DID DISCHARGE THAT OTHER FRAUD MORTGAGE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THE OTHER ATTACHMENT IS THE FRAUD ASSIGNMENT YOUR COMPANY DID. IN 2012.

    NUMBER 1/
    THE ASSIGNMENT YOUR OFFICE CAUSED TO BE PUT ON MY LAND RECORDS, IS A FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT BY YOUR OFFICE AND COMPANY AND BY ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES ACTING AS A ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AND ALSO ACTING TO BE NOMINEE FOR A DEFUNKED / DEAD/NON- EXISTENT LEGAL OPERATING ENTITY. I.E.
    GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION. WAS DEAD AS OF 2006, NO LONGER EXISTED .

    NUMBER 2/
    MERS, MERSCORP/MERSHOLDINGS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM,INC. OR WHAT EVER NAME YOU WANT TO USE, COULD NOT
    LEGALLY HAVE ANY TYPE OF AUTHORITY FROM THIS DEAD COMPANY, IN 2012 TO LEGALLY ASSIGN A MORTGAGE TO ANYONE. AS ANY AND ALL GMAC ENTITY/RESCAP ENTITY WERE IN FULL BLOWN BK AS OF MAY 2012. AND AS YOU MAY KNOW IN BK THEY, ALL GMAC MORTGAGE HAD TO SUPPY THE COURTS WITH ALL ASSET THEY OWN. ALL MORTGAGE THEY OWN, INCLUDING NOTE TO ALL MORTGAGES. AND THEY DID SUPPLY THE BK COURT WITH THAT.
    AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL 1000’S OF PAGES OF ASSETS THEY SAY THEY OWN AT THE TIME OF FILLING IN BK COURT, AND THE ASSETS HAD TO GO BACK, AT LEASE 2 YRS PRIOR TO THE PRESENT. THAT WOULD MEAN MAY OF 2010 TO MAY 2012, THEY DID.

    NUMBER 3 /
    YOUR EMPLOYEE, WILLIAM LONG, ACTING AS A NOMINEE FOR A DEAD COMPANY, IS FUNNY, YOUR COMPANY ACTING AS NOMINEE FOR A DEAD COMPANY IS EVEN MORE FUNNY . SPECIALLY AS THAT COMPANY WAS DEAD AS OF 2006. AND YOUR COMPANY AND EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING AS THAT DEAD COMPANY WAS STILL ALIVE AND WELL. IN AUGUST OF 2012, 4 MONTHS INTO BK. OF ALL GMAC.

    NUMBER 4/
    SO NO MATTER HOW YOUR COMPANY WANTS TO SPIN THIS ASSIGNMENT, YOUR COMPANY COULD NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF AUTHORITY THAT COULD BE GIVEN TO YOU OR THIS EMPLOYEE OF YOUR COMPANY WILLIAM LONG, TO ACT FOR OR DO ANYTHING AS A NOMINEE FOR, AS THIS COMPANY AND ALL GMAC COMPANY WERE DEAD. IN BK. SPECIALLY GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, THE COMPANY YOU SAY YOU WERE ACTING AS NOMINEE FOR. AGAIN THIS COMPANY WAS DEAD, AND COULD NOT IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE , GIVE YOUR COMPANY OR EMPLOYEE THE RIGHTS TO DO THIS ASSIGNMENT.

    NUMBER 5/
    IF YOU NEED MORE ASSISTANT YOU CAN GO LOOK FOR YOUR SELF. AT
    https://www.kccllc.net/rescap/document/list/3218

    AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE MORTGAGE ANY WHERES IN THERE ASSETS. OH
    YOU WILL NOT SEE GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION. IT WAS DEAD ALREADY IN 2006.

    NUMBER 6/
    SO PLEASE SUPPLY ME WITH ANY TYPE OF AUTHORITY YOU WERE GIVEN IN AUGUST 2012 FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, TO HAVE THIS MORTGAGE ASSIGN TO ANYONE. AGAIN ALL YOU CAN DO IS ACT AS NOMINEE AND DO ONLY WHAT THE OWNER OF THE ASSET WANTED DONE. AGAIN THIS COMPANY WAS DEAD IN 2006. WAS NOT A LEGAL OPERATING COMPANY.

    NUMBER 7/
    AS TO WHAT I WANT DONE. I WANT THE FRAUD ASSIGNMENT THAT YOUR COMPANY AND EMPLOYEE PLACED ON MY LAND RECORDS, ASAP. YOU WILL ALSO STATE IN THAT RELEASE THAT THE ASSIGNMENT WAS FRAUDULENTLY PUT ON MY RECORDS,

    THANK YOU
    DAVID A BELANGER
    POA, ESTATE OF WILLIAMA MARSHALL SR.
    JOANNA L BELANGER .
    1-978-618-3105

    From:
    Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 1:42 PM
    To:
    Subject: MORE INFO Fw: INFO NEEDED PLEASE

    MASSACUSSETTES, Borrower Has Legal Standing To Challenge Mortgage Assignments In Certain Cases

    In a question of first impression in the First Circuit, the court considered whether borrowers have standing to challenge a MERS-initiated mortgage assignment even though a borrower is not a party to it. Overruling a significant number of cases around the country, the panel held that borrowers do have legal standing to challenge assignments as “invalid, ineffective, or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had no authority to make an assignment to a particular assignee).” Judge Seylaadopted some common-sense reasoning, noting that under Massachusetts’ non-judicial foreclosure system, borrowers would be effectively left without a remedy to challenge a faulty foreclosure without giving them standing to contest a defective mortgage assignment.

    From:
    Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 1:14 PM
    To:
    Subject: INFO NEEDED PLEASE

    I NEED TO KNOW, WHO PAID FOR THE ASSIGNMENT TO BE PLACED ON MY RECORD, WHO WAS BILLED FOR PLACING THAT ASSIGNMENT ON MY RECORD, I NEED THE COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS. AND A COPY OF THE BILL , THAT WOULD SHOW WHO PAID FOR THAT ASSIGNMENT BEING PLACED ON MY RECORD.

    I WILL TELL YOU THIS , AS TO I HAVE ALREADY BEEN SENT, A LETTER FROM MERS, THAT THEY DID NOT CAUSE THAT ASSIGNMENT TO BE PUT ON, AND ALSO WELLS FARGO SAID THEY DID NOT CAUSE THAT ASSIGNMENT TO BE PUT ON. AND GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, HAS BEEN OUT OF BUSINESS FROM 2006 TILL PRESENT. SO WHO DID IT AND PAID YOUR OFFICE TO BE PUT ON MY RECORD, FRAUDULENTLY.

    A COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT IS ATTACH.

    DAVID A BELANGER
    POA , WILLIAM A MARSHALL SR,
    JOANNA LYNN BELANGER
    1 978-618-3105

  14. What it is going to take is a lawyer like yourself, and Mr. Navalle, Bill Black, Adam Levitin, Mr. Gardner, and any other lawyers who know the banks and lenders are not legitimate holders, taking the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court about the securitization fail. It is going to have to be done as a class action for all homeowners whose loans were securitized, as that seems to be where the failure occurs, no matter what else is different about the loans. The settlements with the government so far have been about common issues, why not a class action case? It is going to have to be without regard for all the money an individual lawyer could make representing the wealthier homeowners who could afford to fight case by case, and about looking after the interests of ALL homeowners. Disgorgement needs to happen, homes need to be restored to rightful owners, the banks could compensate innocent third parties too who bought the foreclosed houses from them. We can all talk until doomsday, but the thing needs to be called what it is – the judiciary, the government, and all parties in the chain took advantage of the homeowners and have been aiding and abetting racketeering against the INNOCENT homeowners.

  15. How does this proceed to the USSC? SOL should resolve there. In the meantime, these FL decisions hang my jaw for lack of logic. I was denied SOL judgment, but no reasoning was given. It clearly is after term. If the law is to be interpreted as above, why even have an SOL statute at all? The intent of the SOL clearly is to not allow this very behavior.

  16. No victory (determined to be a windfall before you step foot in the courthouse) for any homeowner, only for the banks and their attorneys.
    We’re pissing into a cold wind hoping a judge will take the homeowners’ side on any issues presented short of murder and kidnapping (and they’d probably get away with that, too).

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: