Fla 2d DCA: HELOC Instrument Not Self-Authenticating Article 3 Note

Just because an instrument is not self-authenticating doesn’t mean it can’t be authenticated. Here the Plaintiff could not authenticate the note without the legal presumption of self-authentication and all the legal presumptions that follow.  And that is the point here. They came to court without evidence and in this case the court turned them away.

Florida courts, along with courts around the country, are gradually inching their way to the application of existing law, thus eroding the dominant premise that if the Plaintiff is a bank, they should win, regardless of law.

GET A CONSULT

FREE RESEARCH: Go to our home page and enter subject in search bar.

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released.

Let us help you plan and draft your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

REGISTRATION FORM: You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions. The consult is important to determine how we may be of assistance in the drafting and filing of documents in court or complaints directed to law enforcement.

Purchase audio seminar now — Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

=====================

see HELOC Not Negotiable Instrument and Therefore Not Self Authenticating

This decision is neither novel nor complicated. A note can be admitted into evidence as self-authenticating without extrinsic evidence (parol evidence) IF it is a negotiable instrument under the State adoption of the UCC as State Law.

The inquiry as to whether a promissory note is a negotiable instrument is simple:

  • Does the body of the note claim to memorialize an unconditional promise
  • to pay a fixed amount
  • (editor’s addition) to an identified Payee? [This part is assumed since the status of the “lender” depends upon how and why it came into possession of the note.]

A note memorializing a line of credit is. by definition, not a fixed amount. Case closed, the “lender” lost and it was affirmed in this decision. There was no other choice.

The only reason why this became an issue was because counsel for the homeowner timely raised a clearly worded objection to the note as not being a negotiable instrument and therefore not being self-authenticating. And without the note, the mortgage, which is not a negotiable instrument, is meaningless anyway.

This left the foreclosing party with the requirement that they prove their case with real evidence and not be allowed to avoid that burden of proof using legal presumptions arising from the facial validity of  a negotiable instrument.

The typical response from the foreclosing party essentially boils down to this: “Come on Judge we all know the note was signed, we all know the payments stopped, we all know that the loan is in default. Why should we clog up the court system using legal technicalities.”

What is important about this case is the court’s position on that “argument” (to ignore the law and just get on with it). “This distinction is not esoteric legalese. Florida law is clear that a “negotiable instrument” is “an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order.”§ 673.1041(1), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added).”

So THAT means that if the trial court is acting properly it will apply the laws of the state and THAT requires the court to rule based upon the UCC and cases involving
negotiable instruments.

But none of that invalidated the note or mortgage, nor should it. THAT is where it gets interesting. By denying the note as a self authenticating instrument the court was merely requiring the foreclosing party to proffer actual evidence regarding the terms of the note, including the manner in which it was acquired and how the foreclosing party is an injured party — a presumption that is no longer present when the note is denied admission into evidence as a self authenticating negotiable instrument.

The foreclosing party was unable to produce any testimony or exhibits demonstrating the prima facie case. Why? Because they are not and never were a creditor nor are they agent or representative of the actual party to whom the subject underlying DEBT was owed.

 

Florida law requires the authentication of a document prior to its admission into evidence. See § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2012) (“Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.”); Mills v. Baker, 664 So. 2d 1054, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see, e.g., DiSalvo v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 115 So. 3d 438, 439-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that unauthenticated default letters from lender could not be considered in mortgage foreclosure summary judgment). Proffered evidence is authenticated when its proponent introduces sufficient evidence “to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” § 90.901; Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 1000 (Fla. 2006) (“While section 90.901 requires the authentication or identification of a document prior to its admission into evidence, the requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document in question is what its proponent claims.”).

There are a number of recognized exceptions to the authentication requirement. One, as relevant here, relates to commercial paper under the Uniform Commercial Code, codified in chapters 678 to 680 of the Florida Statutes. “Commercial papers and signatures thereon and documents relating to them [are self-authenticating], to the extent provided in the Uniform Commercial Code.” § 90.902(8); see, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n for BAFC 2007-4 v. Roseman, 214 So. 3d 728, 733 (Fla 4th DCA 2017) (reversing the trial court’s denial of the admission of the original note in part because the note was self-authenticating); Hidden Ridge Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. Onewest Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 1266, 1269 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (stating that because the endorsed note was self-authenticating as a commercial paper, extrinsic evidence of authenticity was not required as a condition precedent…

We cannot bicker with the proposition that “for over a century . . . the Florida Supreme Court has held [promissory notes secured by a mortgage] are negotiable instruments. And every District Court of Appeal in Florida has affirmed this principle.” HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D305, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 7, 2018) (citation omitted). That is as far as we can travel with Third Federal.

The HELOC note is not a self-authenticating negotiable instrument. By its own terms, the note established a “credit limit” of up to $40,000 from which the Koulouvarises could “request an advance . . . at any time.” Further, the note provided that “[a]ll advances and other obligations . . . will reduce your available credit.” The HELOC note was not an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money. Rather, it established “[t]he maximum amount of borrowing power extended to a borrower by a given lender, to be drawn upon by the borrower as needed.” See Line of Credit, Black’s Law Dictionary, 949 (8th ed. 1999).

This distinction is not esoteric legalese. Florida law is clear that a “negotiable instrument” is “an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order.”§ 673.1041(1), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added).

Fla 4th DCA Slams Door on “another Ditech loan” in foreclosure claims

The trial court erred (i.e., it was wrong) when it accepted unfounded hearsay testimony over Defendant’s timely objections.

Kudos to Mark Stopa, Esq.

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

Spencer v Ditech involving Everhome

We are seeing a paradigm shift reflecting changes in consensus of appellate courts. Contrary to thousands of decisions over the years, the courts are now applying the laws and rules of evidence in court proceedings and motions for summary judgment. I spy a suspicious attitude towards the banks and servicers that is long overdue.

Just because the bank or servicer says a fact is true doesn’t make it so. Applied to homeowners that would mean if they said they made a payment it would be automatically true. The informal rule allowing representations to be made in court and then treating it as evidence seems to be finally coming to an end.

Here we have the usual musical chairs of companies claiming to be servicers and in this case claiming that they sent a notice of default. The denial by the homeowner that they received the notice of default has nearly always been taken with a grain of salt, thus giving an insurmountable edge to the servicer or bank who filed the action.

The fact that the servicer had no way to prove the notice of default had been sent combined with the denial, in the pleadings, that the notice of default ahd ever been received should, under existing law, be sufficient to involuntarily dismissing the foreclosure lawsuit.

The  foreclosure complaint said they had complied with all conditions precedent. BUT then they had to prove it. They could not prove it. The trial judge allowed testimony and exhibits that were patently without foundation, testimony that was obviously without foundation and which fell apart in cross examination.

And THIS TIME the 4th DCA said it had enough of the ‘refiling” of cases after banks and servicers lost the first round of litigation to the homeowner. The 4th DCA specifically instructed that the case could NOT be refiled. In short, the case was over. However it is possible, although highly unlikely, that the banks will come up with a whole new string of fabricated documents providing the basis by a new lawsuit by a new foreclosing party.

As you will see, hearsay and personal knowledge was the basis of this opinion from the appellate court. Pressed for how the witness came into knowledge she acknowledged that it came from other co-workers. Textbook hearsay.

Interesting quotes from case:

EverHome, Ditech’s predecessor in interest, failed to establish as a condition precedent to filing suit that the Spencers were given notice of default as required by paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

EverHome filed a foreclosure complaint against the Spencers. EverHome alleged that it was the servicer of the loan and the holder of the note. EverHome also alleged generally that all conditions precedent to the acceleration of the note and mortgage and the filing of the foreclosure suit had been fulfilled.

In addition to the default letter itself, Ms. Knight’s testimony was the only evidence that EverHome provided to show that the letter had been sent to the Spencers. Throughout Ms. Knight’s testimony, Spencer repeatedly objected based on hearsay, arguing that Ms. Knight lacked personal knowledge to testify about EverHome’s routine business practices because she was not an employee of EverHome. The court overruled Spencer’s objections, and Ms. Knight testified that pursuant to EverHome’s procedure and policy, once a letter is generated it is mailed. But she explained that her knowledge of these procedures and policies was based on “training.” And when pressed, she admitted that this “training” consisted of informally discussing EverHome’s policies and procedures with coworkers who currently worked for Ditech but had previously worked for EverHome.

Ms. Knight admitted that no such discussions about this loan or any other loan had taken place prior to 2014, when the service transfer occurred—years after the default letter, dated June 17, 2010, had been generated by EverHome.

Testimony regarding a company’s routine business practices may establish a rebuttable presumption that the default letter was mailed. Id. (citing § 90.406, Fla. Stat. (2014) ). But the witness must have personal knowledge of the company’s general mailing practice—meaning that the witness must be employed by the entity drafting the letters and must have firsthand knowledge of the company’s routine practice for mailing letters. See id.; Edmonds, 215 So.3d at 630; see also CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Hoskinson, 200 So.3d 191, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to establish mailing based on routine business practices where witness testified that she had personally observed coworkers generate breach letters and deliver them to the mail room to be collected by the postal service). Here, Ms. Knight admitted that she was never employed by EverHome and did not have firsthand knowledge of EverHome’s mailing practices as of the date the default letter was generated. Therefore, her testimony was insufficient to establish that the default letter was mailed.

 

Discovery in Foreclosure Actions

Discovery is more complex than lay people realize. There is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in court. Our paralegal, Connie Lasco, saw the problems and forwarded the request for service to me for comment.

Here is an example of my comments to one homeowner who is defending her home pro se. She is asking us to do a motion to compel — based upon her filing of a request for production.

We do provide those services. But there were certain prerequisites that were unknown to her. My response should assist lawyers and pro se litigants in considering the discovery demands and the the usual “answers” from the banks and servicers.

Let us help you plan your discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

Discovery is a process by which one party can ask the other anything related to the case. Anything that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is allowed to be asked or demanded. If you don’t get it, you can ask the court to compel the answer or production. If you still don’t get it, you can ask the court for sanctions that might include striking the pleadings of the opposing side. BEWARE: Trial orders often contain discovery cutoff dates and instructions on how to preserve objections, or else they are waived.

Hawaii is one of the many jurisdictions that require “meet and confer” before allowing a motion to compel to be heard.  that means that the proponent of the discovery requests calls the opposing attorney and schedules a telephone conference in which the parties meet and confer regarding objections that were raised and answers that were insufficient.

I always recommend that a careful and complete Journal be started and maintained with respect to all contact with opposing counsel. You may need assistance from us in reviewing your demand for discovery, reviewing the response, and suggesting the specific questions you will ask of opposing counsel. You should also have an understanding as to why you are saying that response was inadequate or the objection  was inappropriate. You should treat the “meet and confer” as having the same priority as a prospective hearing on a motion to compel.
The usual procedure in discovery is as follows:
  1.  Initial discovery should basically track the pleadings. In a judicial state that means seeking discovery that allegedly supports the allegations in the foreclosure complaint and seeking discovery that supports the denials and affirmative defenses (and possibly counterclaim). In a nonjudicial (“Power of Sale”) state it means the same thing but in reverse — the complaint in those states is filed by the homeowner instead of the bank and it is the bank that serves answers and affirmative defenses to the claim of the homeowner, as alleged in the complaint.
  2. Initially a package of discovery is served upon the opposing party.
  3.  This includes interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.
  4.  You have only served a request for production
  5.   Interrogatories and requests for admission generally ask for responses as to factual events and possibly legal “contention.”
  6.  The request for production should generally track the interrogatories and requests for admission. In most foreclosure cases the responses on all three discovery tools are generally inconsistent with one another. This is a double-edged sword. Opposing counsel and the client seeking foreclosure will intentionally provide inconsistent answers in order to obfuscate the real answers. But the homeowner can use the inconsistent answers as the basis for a motion to compel.
  7.  A motion to compel responses to a request for production without including interrogatories and requests for admission opens the door for arguments from opposing counsel that might otherwise be closed.
  8.  It is extremely important and often overlooked that the homeowner and propounding discovery demands uses language that could be interpreted as an admission against interest. This is why I have repeatedly recommended that all discovery demands be carefully reviewed. As one example, homeowner should avoid assuming that any document, assertion or allegation from the foreclosing party  is authentic, valid or true. It is better to say “transaction” then to refer to a “mortgage” or “loan” or “note.”

Vulture Firms: The Last Step in a Chain of Illegal Paper, with the Debt Long Gone

The key element of the paper strategy has been to create the illusion of transfers of assets, thus supporting the erroneous narrative that with all those parties purchasing the loans, a lot of due diligence MUST have been done and therefore the screaming defense of homeowners (attacking ownership) is nothing but a dilatory stall tactic.

What is consistently missed, even by people who are completely fed up with the banks and regulatory agencies that have given a wink and nod at plainly fraudulent practices, is that the only “asset” is the paper, and that the debt itself has never moved. In a true securitization the debt would indeed be transferred. But all claims of securitization of debt that are based upon CLAIMS of ownership rather than the ownership itself are groundless. Thus neither Vulture Firms nor any of their predecessors ever owned the debt.

This is why we have lawyers go to law schools. Such convoluted schemes are not easily deciphered without experts and lawyers. Lawyers understand the distinction between the debt, the note and the mortgage. But lawyers forget and lay people never knew about the distinction. It isn’t technical. It is all about keeping transactions on paper honest.

And right now nearly all of the hundreds of millions of documents are being used around the world to foreclose, or support the sale of the paper note and mortgage and derivatives based upon the value of those millions of documents containing false recitations and inferences of fact.

So borrowers, whether their payments (to the wrong party) are “current” or not, like the one in the story found in the link below are stuck in the very place that legislators and regulators have said could never happen in a legal mortgage lending situation: no knowledge about the identity of the obligee of the debt. Foreclosure defense lawyers who win cases punch holes in the foreclosure case simply by knowing they are not dealing with anyone who owns the debt nor anyone who is representing the obligee in the underlying debt (i.e., the real world).

Let us help you plan your discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip Eric Mains and Bill Paatalo

see Vulture Firms Must Clean Up the Mess

So people ask me the obvious question, to wit: “If the paper didn’t transfer the debt because the seller, assignor or endorser never owned the debt, where is the debt now?”

The answer is simpler than you might imagine. The only two parties are the obligor (the person who took the money) and the obligee (the person who gave the money). The current obligee (owner of the debt) in most instances is a group of investors who are beneficiaries of multiple paper trusts that have never existed nor been active. THAT is why you never see any assertion that the debt has been purchased.

No money has exchanged hands in any of the transfers except in the case of vulture firms who pay fractions of a cent on the dollar for the paper. They don’t buy the debt because the seller of the paper doesn’t own the debt.

The one simple law school issue taught repeatedly in several classes — Contracts, Bills and Notes etc. — is that the debt arises no from paper but from action. There is no debt if there is no money exchanged between the parties claiming to be part of the transaction.

The debt arises by operation of law without  and even despite the existence or nonexistence of any written instruments — virtually all of which are subject to hearsay objections and lacking in factual foundation, to wit: an actual transaction in the real world in which reciprocal consideration was exchanged between the obligor and the obligee.

If the written instrument recites or assumes that the parties to the instrument are in fact identical to the parties to the real world transaction, then the parties to the debt would be identical to the parties on the written instrument. So keep this in your bonnet while you are planning defense strategy: at some point, usually at origination, a debt was created, separate and distinct from the recitals on the note and mortgage.

If the written instrument recites or assumes that the parties to the instrument are in fact identical to the parties to the debt, but the recital or assumption is untrue. Assumptions and presumptions are based upon one singular doctrine — they are used for judicial economy only where the the presumption clearly is true and where no contest to the presumption is introduced by the defense.

If the defense asserts and gives some argument or evidence that is inconsistent with the presumed “fact,” then the burden shifts back to the party who claimed the benefit of the presumption — i.e. they must prove the real world transaction that was being presumed. There is no prejudice to forcing such a party to prove the fact that they wished to be presumed — unless they were lying to begin with.

 

FDIC “endorsements” of Note or “Assignments of Mortgage”

The FDIC does not want to get into the middle of a court battle over the validity of ownership claims etc. Most endorsements and assignments occurring while the estate of a failed bank is in receivership are of dubious validity and often outright fraud. Chase for example claims ownership of loans when it suits them but denies ownership — or any liability arising out of the loan ads service practices — when it would place Chase in a bad position.

Let us help you plan your case narrative and strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar. Webinar scheduled for Tomorrow at 1PM EST. You’ll understand this article a lot better when you learn a thing or two about the rules and laws of EVIDENCE.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Here are my instructions  to our paralegals who do there search for our TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) on a case involving the failed bank, BankUnited and the treatment of “loans” claimed to be within the estate of the failed bank. You can pretty much use this wherever the FDIC was involved.

1. Go to FDIC.gov
2. At bottom of page in small letters in FOIA — Freedom of Information Act
3. Then go to reading room
4. Look up BankUnited — find Purchase and Assumption Agreement by whatever bank took over the assets. You might find other documents of interest.

There are two types of note endorsements from FDIC receiverships

1. Execution of endorsement by actual FDIC person with authority — that would be the person who is the FDIC receiver for that particular Bank failure. This is rare if not unheard of. Technically the FDIC owns the estate of the failed bank but does not actually run it. It keep the people in place until it finds a bank to takeover the estate of the failed bank. SO you could have some hybrid, theoretically (I have never seen it) where a person who was working for the failed bank at the time of the receivership executes a document with approval from the FDIC receiver. So you would be looking for whether the endorsement was executed by an employee of thee failed bank while the failed bank was owned in receivership and with approval from the FDIC receiver. This is something that could be included in a report stating that there is no document or other evidence presented, thus far, indicating the endorsement was by someone with authority — and that research of the signatory indicates he/she was employed by whoever (someone else) indicating that there is at the very least an inconsistency between the execution of the endorsement and the employment record of the person who signed.

2. Execution by way of a power of attorney executed supposedly by the FDIC receiver. While some of these are real most are not. The actual person signing is an employee of say, Chase Bank, who claims to be agent for either the failed bank or the FDIC receivership estate. What is missing is a copy of the power of attorney. we are left with just the claim under circumstances where industry practice is to fabricate and forge documentation in order to push through a fraudulent foreclosure.

NOTE: The transfer of the estate of the failed bank does NOT mean that the loans were transferred. In the case of BankUnited it was securitizing the “loans” at a time that either predated the closing (i.e., upon application of the borrower) or the claim of securitization (a lie by the way) originates contemporaneously with the alleged closing of the loan. That means that the failed bank was deriving its income off of fees generated by originations and in some cases (I don’t think BankUnited was a servicer) retaining the servicing rights but not the ownership. AND THAT means that at the time of the failure of the bank it had few, if any, assets that were loans receivable. AND THAT means that their endorsement could be fake for lack of authority (see above) or simply void because at the time of the endorsement they didn’t own the loan.

The illusion of “ownership” is created by the self-serving execution of an endorsement where the courts often presume that the endorsement was real and authorized. THAT presumption leads to another assumption: that the endorser owned the debt and that a transaction took place in which the loan was actually purchased for value, making the endorsement EVIDENCE that the transaction took place. It is circular logic but it is working in the courts for the banks. Our job is to show that the endorsement and the ownership are, at the very least, suspect.

Keep in mind that the original “lender” (the originator) might not have have loaned any money to the borrower, but rather took credit for making the loan without objection from the parties who actually funded the loan. Under common law and the UCC the only party that owns the debt is the one who funded the loan. The endorsements and assignments contribute to the illusion that the originator was in fact the lender. Paper instruments are potentially evidence of a transaction in which money exchanged hands. All paper instruments are hearsay but many can be admitted under exceptions to the hearsay rule. The paper instrument should never be confused with the actual monetary transaction. If there was no transaction, then the paper instrument is a nullity as it refers to a nonexistent transaction.

Ghostwriter: Fabricating Original Wet Blue Ink Signatures — the Underlying Fraud Behind Nearly all Foreclosures

Want to know how they popped up with an “original” note that looked like the original?

“Our machines have been in government installations worldwide for over 60 years. The Ghostwriter T550 has been a popular machine. It offers the ability to sign signatures or short phrases on letters, awards, forms, and other correspondence. You are also able to enlarge or reduce the size of the signature to fit the signing area of the document. As with all Ghostwriter machines, security is a priority. Signatures are not stored in the machine but on a removable device. Machines are also equipped with passcode entry.”

Let us help you plan your narrative and strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK

Electronic Signature

AutoPen Sales – signature machine

I thought it was obvious but after speaking to a number of lawyers I have discovered that they and their clients are not aware of the technology used to produce fabricated “original” documents.

Start off with the extensive study performed by Katherine Ann Porter (now running for Congress in California) at the University of Iowa which concluded that at least 40% of all notes were destroyed immediately after execution. There is no reasonable explanation for this behavior except that the banks thought they could come up with a reproduction of the original that was so life-like that it would be taken as the original document — even by the borrower.

Later investigations showed that as many as 99% of all notes were destroyed, lost or sequestered without regard to who or what owned the notes or the debt.

In 2008 I advised all readers to not admit that they were being shown the original note in court. The narrative is that they could not possibly know whether the signature was original or a reproduction (nor how many times the “original” had been reproduced for transactional purposes).

Here is the main point: nearly all promissory notes being used in residential mortgage foreclosures are fabrications with the borrower’s signature forged by mechanical devices that can not only mimic the signature, and the flow of the handwriting, but also create depth of impressions because these mechanical means employ the use of an actual pen.

Even experts can be mislead — especially if they are only using a copy of the “original.”

Practice Pointer: Discovery question; Please describe the conditions under which a mechanical device was used to reproduce documents and/or signatures relating to the subject alleged loan documents.

What and Who is a Creditor?

Practically everyone thinks they know what is a creditor even if they cannot identify who is the creditor. The reason that this is important is that the lawyers for the banks have created a divergence of the money trial and the paper trail. One is worth every cent claimed and the other is worth nothing, but for the repeated acceptance of a claim as proof in and of itself that a real transaction is referenced in the paper trail. In most cases, it isn’t.

Let us help you plan your narrative and strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

The problem is very real when you look at it through a semantic lens.

*

What is a creditor? In court it has come to mean anyone with a claim. What it does not automatically mean is that the so-called creditor owns the debt. In normal situations before claims of securitization, ownership of the debt was presumed to be underlying the claim for money and thus the term creditor and owner of the debt were used interchangeably. That is what the TBTF banks were counting on and that is what they got.

*

The “creditor” in foreclosures is just a party holding paper. If the paper is fabricated or otherwise does not represent an actual transaction in real life it should be struck since the paper doesn’t prove anything. A note is evidence of the debt. It is not the debt. That is why we have the merger doctrine to prevent double liability. But the merger doctrine only operates if the Payee on the note and the owner of the debt are the same.

*

If the party seeking the foreclosure cannot produce the proof that the Payee and debt owner are the same, then the note lacks foundation and would be disallowed as evidence. The mortgage being incident to the note would therefore secure nothing and would be equally invalid and subject to being removed from the country records. More than a decade of experience shows that you won’t get anywhere at trial with his knowledge UNLESS you have conducted proper discovery and pursued it through motions to compel.

*

But what we are left with is entirely counter-intuitive. You end up with a debt owner with no paperwork and the homeowner having two liabilities — one in the form of a debt that arises by operation of law when the debt owner advanced money and the homeowner received it — and one in the form of a potential liability in the form of a note that has no reference point in the real world, but if acquired by value in good faith and with no knowledge of the borrower’s defenses, can nonetheless be enforced leaving the maker (homeowner) to seek remedies from other parties who tricked him. {See Holder in Due Course}

*

This type of analysis is not well received by courts who come to each situation with a bias toward what they perceive to be “the bank” who wouldn’t be in court if they were not the owner of the debt. But as we have seen in most instances “the bank” is not appearing on its own behalf but merely as a representative of what is most often a nonexistent common law trust. If there is any bank involved at all it must be the underwriter of “securities” that were issued under the name of an alleged REMIC Trust.

Nonetheless we see the courts referring to the case at U.S. Bank adv the homeowner instead of saying XYZ Trust adv the homeowner for the simple reason that in practice styling the case refers to the first name that appears on the pleadings. So invariably the case is referred to as “U.S. Bank. adv John Smith.”

*

This continually reinforces the erroneous presumption that this is a case of a financial institution versus the homeowner; in fact, however, it is a case of an unlicensed unregistered private entity (the alleged REMIC Trust) outside the world of banking or finance whose existence as a trust entity is problematic at best, especially if the subject loan was never purchased by the Trust (acting  through the Trustee).

*

Without the debt being entrusted to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust there is no trust. The existence of an assignment, absent evidence of purchase, merely means that the alleged Trust has “ownership” of the paper, not the debt. But in practice owning the paper raises a presumption of ownership of the debt — which is why so much effort must be made toward preventing the application of the presumption through objections to foundation that are themselves founded on prior discovery showing the failure or refusal to provide proof of ownership and in fact, proof the paper chain being congruent with the money trial.

*

Hence the claim of creditor status may be true as to the paper but untrue as to the debt or any other monetary transaction in the real world.

%d bloggers like this: