TONIGHT! Aggregation and Assignments on the Neil Garfield Show

Are Assignments Based Upon Aggregated Pools Real?

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

East-West: Charles Marshall California Attorney co-hosts the discussion

 

The bottom line is that the courts are not accepting denials of assertions or allegations by the foreclosing party. The courts are requiring the homeowner to file an affirmative defense rather than simply denying everything in the complaint. This forces the burden of proof and burden of persuasion onto the homeowner to come up with facts supporting their denial. These facts are within the sole care, custody and control of the party initiating foreclosure.

Through the magic of writing things down on paper anyone can make anything seem like it might be real. Of course in the legal system it goes further than that. If it is written there are many assumptions and presumptions that arise simply because a piece of paper was produced with some writing on it. But nobody ever intended such writing to be used in lieu of facts that are contrary to the truth.

The first place you see this scheme in operation is in the supposed aggregation of loans. The truth is that the DATA for the loans was aggregated, which only means that information ABOUT the supposed loans was taken from several spreadsheets and combined into one.

This is done all the time when a PROPOSED deal is in the works. The aggregation of the data is known as a pro forma presentation — with all parties knowing that it isn’t real, but here is what it might look like if we really did it.

The banks have elevated pro forma spreadsheets into the illusion of actual deals. The reason nobody has ever come up with a money trail showing that the aggregation took place and was sold to a trust is that no such money trail exists.

The truth is that no actual aggregation took place and there was no sale to the trust. In fact probing the trusts, there is never a time that the trust is actually created by entrusting money or property to the named Trustee. Without that there is no Trust because nothing is held “in trust.”

The money from investors is never held by the Trustee. The loan debt is never owned by the Trustee or the Trust. There is no sale. And that is because the Broker Dealers funded the loans in the first place using the money of investors.

So there was nobody to pay for purchase of the underlying debt except the investors and the banks certainly were not going to pay for the underlying debt by handing the investors a check or wire transfer.

How did they do it? Through the illusion of Assignments and endorsements by entities and people who have no ownership interests or other rights to the underlying debt. Even servicing relies upon authority from a trust that does not exist and which neither owns the paper nor the underlying debt.

Let’s go back to the beginning. For ANY deal to be legally binding you need the following elements:

  1. An offer of terms by A to B.
  2. Acceptance of those exact terms by B.
  3. Now you have an agreement but not a contract (yet).
  4. Memorialization of the contract in writing.
  5. The contract is not enforceable until the parties sign
  6. The Closing: Reciprocal consideration is exchanged.
  7. Now you have an enforceable contract.

The only thing we get with assignments and endorsements on supposed “allonges” is #4 — Memorialization in Writing. There is no evidence or even assertion that any of the other things happened. Hence the foreclosing party is using an unenforceable false memorialization of a transaction (transfer of loan paper and no transfer of the underlying debt) that never occurred in order to create the illusion of a foreclosure by a real party in interest.

This is all basic Black Letter law. Yet the courts have routinely ignored several very specific laws governing loans, notes, mortgages and assignments and endorsements. Judges have routinely assumed and even presumed that the paper memorialization was all they needed. The door to moral decay and hazard was opened wide. And we all experienced the shock of seeing our economy nearly turn on its belly.

Now Congress is in the process of rolling back the safeguards so that the investment banks can return to business as usual — transforming the role of banks from being financial intermediaries into some multi-headed hybrid creature that can steal money and homes. The banks can do this by using ordinary deposits by its customers, or by soliciting new deposits with the false promise that the money is actually going into a Trust where a big name bank like US Bank will watch over it.

How do you stop it? By litigating on the strategy and narrative that there is no meat in the sandwich, no deal that ever occurred in real life and no authorized intermediary whose claim is solely based upon the existence of a nonexistent trust and nonexistent transactions in which the underlying debt was bought and sold.

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo: FOIA Request Reveals Servicer’s “Justification” For Fraud In Obtaining Limited Power Of Attorney From FDIC

This FOIA response from the FDIC dated June 29, 2017 contains a request to renew CIT Bank, N.A.’s “Limited Power of Attorney” from the FDIC regarding the failed IndyMac Bank, fsb and IndyMac Federal Bank, fsb. The “Justification” for CIT Bank’s request states as follows:

                                                                                  Justification

We have undertaken a thorough review of our books, records, and existing loan files for all Group 2 loans and believe we have completed assignments into the appropriate entity for both portfolios where appropriate, available, and where such a need for an assignment is known. However, in our mortgage servicing activities, we continue to be faced with legal and technical challenges, such as borrower bankruptcies and enjoined proceedings, requiring we recreate a chain of title based on factors that cannot be identified in advance without obtaining an updated title report on every loan serviced. It is cost prohibitive to obtain an updated loan level title report for each loan we are servicing, which, again, would be the only way to ensure a clean chain of title through all prior transfers.

Absent a renewed power of attorney, to avoid the risk of jeopardizing our lien position and to enable the bank to transfer title when regularly permissible we would be obliged to approach the FDIC for each instance requiring a signature on an assignment or other instrument of transfer or conveyance where, despite having exercised considerable efforts, we find at the commencement of collection or bankruptcy activities that we do not have a recorded assignment into the appropriate entity.”

(See: FDIC FOIA Response – IndyMac LPOA Servicer Request 2017  )

The document then states,

FOIA Snip - fdic

Though this document needs no further explanation, I’ll take the liberty to simplify: The only way this servicer believes it can ensure a “clean chain of title” is to obtain an updated title report for each loan it services. However, that costs too much money. CIT Bank is basically saying, “So with your permission FDIC, and knowing as much as we do, we’re going to recreate the chains of title by executing assignments and endorsing notes for all these loans to which we have no ‘clean’ chain of title as your attorney-in-fact.”

This also begs the question. If you don’t have a clean chain of title in your servicing records, and won’t invest in a title report to determine who owns the loans you service, who are you sending the money to?

From Investigator Bill Paatalo’s blog on http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

Bill.bpia@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

9th Circuit: Assignment in Breach of PSA is Voidable not Void. Here is why they are wrong

The thousands of trial court and appellate decisions that have hung their hat on illegal assignments being “voidable” demonstrates either a lack of understanding of common law business trusts or an adherence to a faulty doctrine in which homeowners pay the price for fraudulent bank activities.

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.
—————-

see Turner v Wells Fargo

Some of the problems might be in the presentation of evidence, failures to object and failure to move to strike evidence or testimony. But most of it deals with the inability of lawyers and the Courts to pierce the veil of uncertainty and complexity with which the banks have covered their fraudulent tracks.

Here are the reasons the assignment might be void. No self-serving newly invented doctrine can overcome the failure of an illegal assignment.

  1. Common Law Trusts are almost always formed under New York State law that allows unregistered trusts to be created for business purposes. Any act in contravention of the express provisions of the trust instrument (usually the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) is void, not voidable. It cannot be revived through ratification — especially when there is nobody around to change the trust instrument, thus ratifying the void act.
  2. Many if not most assignments are fabricated for foreclosure and either nonexistent or backdated to avoid the fact that the assignment is void when it is fabricated — years after the so-called trust was described in a trust instrument that is rarely complete because no mortgage loan schedule at the time of the drafting of what is in most cases an incomplete trust instrument.
  3. Assignments are clearly void and not entitled to any presumptions under the UCC if they are dated after the loan was declared in default (albeit by a party who had no right to declare a default much less enforce the debt or obtain a forced sale of homestead and other residential properties) schedule existed at the time of the drafting of the trust instrument. The application of UCC presumptions after the alleged date of default is simply wrong.
  4. The fact that an instrument COULD be ratified does not mean that it WAS ratified. What is before the court is an illegal act that has not been ratified. The possibility that the parties to the trust instrument (trustor, trustee, beneficiaries) could change the instrument to allow the illegal act AND apply it retroactively is merely speculative — and against all legal doctrine and common sense. These courts are ruling on the possibility of a nonexistent act that without analysis of the trust instrument, is declared to be possibly subject to “ratification.”
  5. Assuming the trust even exists on paper does not mean that it ever entered into an actual transaction in which it acquired the “loan” which means the debt, note and mortgage.
  6. Any “waiver” or “ratification” would result in the loss of REMIC status under the terms of the Internal Revenue Code. No rational beneficiary would ratify the act of accepting even a performing loan after the cutoff period. To do so would change the nature of the trust from a REMIC vehicle entitled to pass through tax treatment. Hence even if the beneficiaries were entitled to change, alter, amend or modify the trust instrument they would be firing a tax bullet into their own heads.  Every penny received by a beneficiary would be then be taxed as ordinary income including return of principal.
  7. No rational beneficiary would be willing to change the trust instrument from accepting only properly underwritten performing loans to loans already declared in default.
  8. No Trustee, or beneficiary has the power to change the terms of the trust or to ratify an illegal act.
  9. In fact the trust instrument specifically prohibits the trustee and beneficiaries from knowing or even asking about the status of loans in the trust. Under what reasonable scenario could anyone even know that they were getting a non-performing loan outside the 90 day cutoff period.
  10. The very act of introducing the possibility of ratification where none exists under the trust instrument is the adjudication of rights of senior investors who are not present in court nor given notice of its proceeding. Such decisions are precedent for other defenses and claims in which the trust instrument could be changed to the detriment of the beneficiaries.

Falling Into the Traps Set By the Banks

For the past 15 years there has been a huge chasm between what a document says and what actually occurred. In foreclosure settings, the conscious decision has been made to ignore the Truth and proceed on the falsehoods promulgated by the banks. This arises from the “national security” fear that if the banks are not allowed to continue their fraudulent behavior, the entire financial system will collapse taking the entire society down with it. This myth is promulgated by the Banks, who supply the government with people to regulate the banks. Even as a theory it is untested, and unsupported by any real evidence. Unfortunately for Americans, too many people believe it.

Listen to the last Last Neil Garfield Show at http://tobtr.com/s/9673161

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.
—————-
We are constantly analyzing the documentation that is produced by the banks or their surrogates. But we are failing our clients when we say that something actually occurred just because a piece of paper says it occurred.
 *
“Prepared by” is just a hearsay statement that the document was prepared by the entity identified after those words. It does not mean that the document was in fact prepared by that entity — usually a title or closing agent — nor does it necessarily mean that the identified entity actually even handled the document.
 *
Too often, and virtually the rule, is that facially valid documents are telling the truth about what occurred. In the present context of “lending” the facially valid documents relied upon by foreclosing parties are usually fabricated, forged, robosigned and prepared by entities who create and maintain the records upon which the foreclosure proceeds — separate and apart from the alleged “Trust” or other “owner” and separate and apart from the party identified as the servicer but who actually do nothing except lend its name for use in a foreclosure.
 *
We don’t want to be saying (and therefore admitting) that the title or closing agent DID prepare the document — but rather admit the obvious: that the document says that they prepared it. It is the same with other documents.
 *
We don’t want to say that an assignment was made; in our reports we say that the document labeled “assignment” says there was an assignment. It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that basic references are truthful when in fact they are not. We do a disservice to our customers if we submit a report that plays right into the hands of the banks. It also misdirects the lawyer or pro se litigant into failing to object to the references within a facially valid document because then those defenses are probably waived.
 *
But looking at the “prepared by” and “return to” instructions on an instrument may give you another lead to a witness who is unwilling to lie about the the alleged transaction.
 *
The closing agent or escrow agent may be willing to state that they received money, as they were instructed, and that they dispersed the money as instructed. They might be willing to admit that they did not prepare the documents but rather received them from a source that also might not have prepared them. And they might be willing to admit that they have no knowledge of from whence the money came for the alleged “closing.” Thus their testimony could be that they can provide no foundation to the assertion that a loan was made by the named mortgagee or beneficiary.
 *
A facially valid document, particularly if it is recorded in the public records, normally carries with it a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to suggest that the document was fabricated, forged, robosigned or that there are other indications that the document is just a self-serving fabrication. But the admission of such a document into evidence should be the start of the argument not the end.
 *
Once the document is admitted into evidence, hopefully over the timely objection of foreclosure defense counsel (lack of foundation), the statements within the documents are hearsay unless the hearsay objection is waived. Those statements, without foundation testimony cannot be used as foundation for other testimony about the authority of the “servicer”, the “trustee,” or anyone else posing as owner or servicer of the DEBT.
 *
A simplified example: A warranty deed executed by John Doe, executed with the formalities required by statute is a facially valid instrument. The recipient Jane Roe received title ownership of the property according to the provisions stated on the face of the deed. If the deed is then recorded in the County records, it establishes notice to all the world that Jane Roe is the owner of the property described in the deed.
 *
But if John Doe never owned the property then the deed conveys nothing. It is a wild deed. It can be ignored by the world and everyone else. It can be removed from chain of title generally by a quiet title action (lawsuit in local jurisdiction) or simply an affidavit saying that John Doe mistakenly executed the deed describing the wrong property or whatever situation arose to cause the recording of a false deed in the chain of title to someone else’s property.
 *
But if Jane Roe insists that she does own the property described in the false deed and acts on that assertion, that is where things get messy. If Jane Roe files a quiet title or other lawsuit and presents the facially valid warranty deed from John Doe, the deed will be admitted into evidence, probably over the objections of the real property owner. It is admitted to prove only that the document exists in the county records and NOT to prove that the truthfulness of representations on the deed (“Grantor is full seized and owner of the property”), which is still the burden of proof for Jane Roe. There is also generally a representation as to the payment of good and valuable consideration, which we will presume Jane Roe never paid and obviously can’t prove. And THAT is where Jane Roe’s case should fail.
 *
The mistake made by pro se litigants and lawyers defending foreclosures is that they don’t go back to these basics. The original note and mortgage may indeed have been signed by the present homeowner. But the representations concerning payment of good and valuable consideration by the party named as mortgagee (or beneficiary under the deed of trust) are untrue as to most of the original “transactions” and therefore all succeeding documentation purporting to “sell’ grant bargain and deed” the note and mortgage to another party. Even where the originator does fund the initial “loan” (a small minority of originated documentation) the assignments are mysteriously missing any actual payment and therefore there can be no proof of payment of good and valuable consideration.
 *
In plain language, the fact that the homeowner owes SOMEBODY doesn’t mean that they owe just ANYBODY.
 *
For the past 15 years there has been a huge chasm between what a document says and what actually occurred. In foreclosure settings, the conscious decision has been made to ignore the Truth and proceed on the falsehoods promulgated by the banks. This arises from the “national security” fear that if the banks are not allowed to continue their fraudulent behavior, the entire financial system will collapse taking the entire society down with it. This myth is promulgated by the Banks, who supply the government with people to regulate the banks. Even as a theory it is untested, and unsupported by any real evidence.
 *
It is this policy of presumptive national security that has sacrificed the lives of 20 million people thus far.
 *
Questionable Documents: Investigation and Discovery Required
 *
NOTE: Analytical reports on title or securitization are not evidence without foundation testimony and/or affidavit, as the court permits. Our analytic summaries represent our observation and opinion as to issues regarding Chain of Title, Authenticity, Forgery, Fabrication or Robo-signing. Actions to be considered include sending a Qualified Written Request (QWR) under RESPA, Debt Validation Letter (DVL) under FDCPA, letters/complaints to State Attorney General and Consumer Financial Protections Board, and legal claims and defenses as to Legal Standing.

Documents You Might Not Have Asked For Could be Key to Case

One of the interesting things that nobody is talking about yet is the fact that the “business records” are either not complete or the foreclosing party is producing documents that serve its purpose when it knows that it holds documents that would negate the very proposition they are proffering in court.

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.
—————-

One of the interesting things that nobody is talking about yet is the fact that the “business records” are either not complete or the foreclosing party is producing documents that serve its purpose when it knows that it holds documents that would negate the very proposition they are proffering in court. Certainly a void assignment fills that bill.

*

Business records that are incomplete are objectionable because they are not complete. It undermines the trustworthiness of the party proffering the use of those so-called business records. It requires much more foundation to admit partial business records. Or at least it should require it. But judges are not likely to be very receptive UNLESS you asked for these documents in discovery. That could tip the other way for you, of course, because you are tipping your hat on your trial strategy. But this might be an opportunity to bar the use of their business records altogether.
*
So here is something more important, I think. NOBODY ever sells a mortgage loan with just an assignment. Not now, not ever. People are saying that these loans are sold without documentation and that IS the way it looks sometimes. But we all know that the banks are masters of illusion.
*
They have previously entered into purchase and assumption agreements that provide for the “purchaser” to underwrite a loan before it is made and THEN the “purchaser” will “purchase it” in some scenarios, but in most scenarios there is no purchase because there was no loan from the “assignor” to the maker of the instrument.If there were no purchase and assumption agreements many household name originators wouldn’t exist. Sometimes actual banks served in the role of originators. It is all the same. None of them were on the hook for the risk of loss and THAT is the true test of a real party in interest. Bank regulators were either asleep or paid off to look the other way when they looked at the purchase and sale agreements which were a covenant to violate federal and state lending laws.

*

The “purchaser” is really a conduit for investor funds that have been laundered six times before they got to the closing table. But regardless of how many items it is laundered it still comes down to the same thing — the Payee on the note never made the loan. Someone else did, using money from an unidentified and perhaps unidentifiable group of investors/victims.

*

The only REAL reasons why a bank would not demand all the actions, documents, representations and warranties (warrants) is that it already knows what you are getting and you have already performed the due diligence in another transaction cycle. These are things that could be pursued in discovery, but you must assume that what I am saying is true if you are going to fight for them. And you must commit to being very aggressive in fighting for them.

*

The banks will say “we complied” when they give you nothing. You should have an expert affidavit that says the banking industry doesn’t work that way. They always perform due diligence unless they control the entire transaction cycle — in which case they still have documents to give you showing they controlled the transaction cycle.

*

Here is the normal track for the sale of a mortgage loan:

Take this quote from one of many websites that “assist” in the sale of mortgage loans:

“If you’re like us, you can’t really start your due diligence until you reference your MLSA (Mortgage Loan Sale Agreement) and check over to see what representations (reps) and warrants are contractually included or not. It’s a given that you must know your note seller as this is absolutely a relationship based business. Remember that collateral comes post closing, so you can’t just trust everyone without some sort of verification. Sure you can have safeguards like a Bailee letter, exceptions reports, Power of Attorney’s (so you can create your own assignments and allonges as opposed to waiting for the note seller to create them), and even escrow accounts, but at the end of the day know who you’re dealing with. It’s also important to know the cure periods and terms with any buyback scenarios or missing collateral. Back in 2007 contracts looked much different than today when there were plenty of reps and warranties. Today it’s mostly buyer beware with few reps and warranties at all. If you are ever in need of document retrieval, I highly recommend trying Orion Financial.”

New York Judge Orders Release of Hidden Documents

This is just the beginning of what I have been predicting for 10 years. When the public finds out that the government itself is addicted to the false scheme of securitization — and that this has led to abandonment of policies and rules of law that have continued to depress the U.S. economy — the “movements” of Sanders and Trump will look like garden parties.

The mortgage loan schedules, assignments, and endorsements are all pure fabrication, illusion smoke and mirrors. This is why 10 years ago the banks were denying the existence of the trusts. They created a void between the investors and their money on the one hand and the homeowners and their homes on the other. They stepped into the void acting as principals when they were in fact rogue intermediaries.

“In the discovery battle in these suits, the government’s pleas for secrecy were so extreme that it asked for, and received, “attorneys’ eyes only” status for the documents in question. This meant that not even the plaintiffs were entitled to see the raw papers. This designation is usually reserved for cases involving national security or proprietary business secrets.”

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

—————-
*
Matt Taibbi is one of the few journalists in existence who has actually taken the time to gain some real understanding of the financial crisis that was revealed in 2008-2009. I would only add that this is like the tobacco litigation where the states became addicted to revenue from the tobacco companies in order to pay their “fines.”
 *
There are many reasons why the Bush and Obama administrations moved to “save” the TBTF banks at the expense of the rule of law and on the back of homeowners who were lured into unworkable debt masquerading as mortgage debt.
 *
And the outcome of this leadership by example is that the mortgages are treated as valid encumbrances, the mortgage bonds are treated as viable assets on the balance sheets of banks, and the one source that could save the economy — consumers — is being cutoff from any form of relief.
 *
This is like the Fortune 500 companies who have decided that their stock is their product, and the higher their stock price the better they are doing — even if it means that they artificially inflating their stock price by purchasing the stock at high levels with company funds. It’s like oil companies who continue to value the oil in the ground as though they were going to suck it all out and make a profit when we all know that oil is largely going to be left intact and not subject to sale or use. The bubble is here and this decision by a federal judge forces the hand of the Obama administration to lift the veil of secrecy on the pact between the TBTF banks and the U.S. government.
 *
THE SIMPLE TRUTH: The “Trusts” were nothing but names on paper. And the paper allegedly issued by the “Trusts” was as worthless as the Trusts themselves. The investors advanced money under the belief that it would mean their money was going through a “pass-through” entity to be managed by the Trust; but the money never went to the trusts and the trusts never acquired any assets from any source, leaving the trusts at best “inchoate” and at worst nonexistent depending upon the state.
 *
The mortgage loan schedules, assignments, and endorsements are all pure fabrication, illusion smoke and mirrors. This is why 10 years ago the banks were denying the existence of the trusts.
 *
They created a void between the investors and their money on the one hand and the homeowners and their homes on the other. They stepped into the void acting as principals when they were in fact rogue intermediaries.
 *
And to cover their tracks they funded loans with money they stole from investors, thus stealing the money and the debt, while at the same time defrauding the borrower and the courts with false claims of ownership leading to the pinnacle of their scheme — a forced sale of property that in fact they had no interest in, based upon a loan that they never funded or acquired. Getting to that auction is the first legal document in the whole fabricated illegal chain of documentation — and it gives them the right to use that foreclosure sale as proof that everything that went before the sale was true and valid. It wasn’t.
 *
GET A CONSULT
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

Revisiting the Boyco Decision in 2007

Probably the most important comments from judge Boyco relate to the fact that (1) these cases are about money for the banks (or whoever is claiming to be the successor to an originator who may or may not have actually loaned money to the homeowner) and (2) these cases are about forfeiture as it relates to the homeowner. Forfeiture is an extreme remedy in which the courts should pay special attention to the requirements of standing and other jurisdictional issues, as well as rulings in discovery, motion practice and at trial. My comment is that nearly all the Judges have relied upon the former assumption: that the case for money automatically leads to forfeiture even if the requirements are not met.

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

—————-

see Ohio – Judge Boyko Decision 2007

Hat tip to Bill Paatalo

Sometimes it is a good idea to look at older decisions that occurred before millions of foreclosures were concluded against the homeowner in which the homeowner forfeited ownership and possession of their homestead under at best, questionable circumstances. The argument from the banks has been consistent: this is the way we have been doing things so now it is law. Federal Judge Boyco stops them at the gate.

Here are some of the relevant comments by Judge Boyco when he dismissed a series of cases. He clearly understood that there was something inherently wrong with the position of the “banks” and trusts and servicers and therefore something inherently wrong and defective about allowing foreclosures when the initiator of the foreclosure showed no real interest in the alleged transaction.

Probably the most important comments from judge Boyco relate to the fact that (1) these cases are about money for the banks (or whoever is claiming to be the successor to an originator who may or may not have actually loaned money to the homeowner) and (2) these cases are about forfeiture as it relates to the homeowner. Forfeiture is an extreme remedy in which the courts should pay special attention to the requirements fo standing and other jurisdictional issues, as well as rulings in discovery, motion practice and at trial. My comment is that nearly all the Judges have relied upon the former assumption: that the case for money automatically leads to forfeiture even if the requirements are not met.

To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the plaintiff must show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the defendant. (Emphasis added). Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472.

In each of the above-captioned Complaints, the named Plaintiff alleges it is the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage. However, the attached Note and Mortgage identify the mortgagee and promisee as the original lending institution — one other than the named Plaintiff.

none of the Assignments show the named Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights, title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as of the date of the Foreclosure Complaint. The Assignments, in every instance, express a present intent to convey all rights, title and interest in the Mortgage and the accompanying Note to the Plaintiff named in the caption of the Foreclosure Complaint upon receipt of sufficient consideration on the date the Assignment was signed and notarized. Further, the Assignment documents are all prepared by counsel for the named Plaintiffs. These proffered documents belie Plaintiffs’ assertion they own the Note and Mortgage by means of a purchase which pre-dated the Complaint by days, months or years.

“The provision should not be misunderstood or distorted. It is intended to prevent forfeiture when determination of the

proper party to sue is difficult or when an understandable mistake has been made. … It is, in cases of this sort, intended to insure against forfeiture and injustice …” Plaintiff-Lenders do not allege mistake or that a party cannot be identified. Nor will Plaintiff-Lenders suffer forfeiture or injustice by the dismissal of these defective complaints otherwise than on the merits.

since the unique nature of real property requires contracts and transactions concerning real property to be in writing. R.C. § 1335.04. Ohio law holds that when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements of R.C. § 5301.25. Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400 (interpreting the former statute, G.C. § 8543). “Thus, with regards to real property, before an entity assigned an interest in that property would be entitled to receive a distribution from the sale of the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with Ohio law.” In re Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) (citing Pinney v. Merchants’ National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1

the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate.

The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: “Fluidity of the market” — “X” dollars, “contractual arrangements between institutions and counsel” — “X” dollars, “purchasing mortgages in bulk and securitizing” — “X” dollars, “rush to file, slow to record after judgment” — “X” dollars, “the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court” — “Priceless.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
%d bloggers like this: