Pretender Signers: How Appearances Can Be Deceiving

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

Sign up for our 2 day live CLE seminar in Phoenix with Neil Garfield, Dan Edstrom, Jon Lindemen, Beth Findsen, and Jim Macklin presenting. Go to www.luminaq.com. It’s a rare opportunity to meet and hear the entire livinglies-LUMINAQ team in person.

GREAT MEMBERS TELECONFERENCE YESTERDAY. HERE’S A QUESTION WE DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO ANSWER:

Q: I have a question I just got a copy of my note showing the assignments the problem is none of the individuals making the assignments work for the bank: example
Flagstone Lending Group Sadie Young as Vice President (is not a vice president for flagstone) signs over to Vicky Alexander Authorized Secretary for JP Morgan Chase NA no one can find such a employee.
A: This is an example of how the scam is continuing. The pretender lenders would have no need to resort to fraud if the mortgages and notes were valid and enforceable and if the lender was not a pretender. The mere fact that they used a robo-signer instead of having the documents properly executed and notarized for recording corroborates the claim that they are not the creditor, not the authorized agent of the creditor and not entitled to enforce the note nor to use the mortgage or deed of trust as a vehicle for initiating foreclosure, the sale of the house or making a non-cash credit bid.
In this case your intuition is just following common sense. If the person signing is shown on the document as a vice-president of Flagstone the originating lender (which happens more often than not) then the pretender lender has succeeded in creating the appearance of a valid document. If you have discovered that the person signing was not an employee of Flagstone at the time that the document was signed, then the illusion is destroyed and the signature of the Flagstone by Sadie Young as VP is an untrue statement.
If the signature of Sadie Young proves to be the signature of a person that was not an employee of Flagstone it follows that they could not have been vice president of a company that did not employ them. Any notary used would be a fraudulent notary and frequently would subject the notary to criminal or civil prosecution. But most importantly, the document is proved a nullity once you prove that the person was not an employee. You might even find that Sadie didn’t sign, but that someone else signed Sadie’s name.
You get this information through discovery, which means you need to file a lawsuit in a non-judicial state alleging that the assignment is fraudulent, to wit: the signer represented that she was Sadie (possibly t rue) and that she was a vice-president (untrue). Thus the assignment is void. Any action taken based upon the assignment is equally void — including a declaration of default, notice of sale or the filing of a foreclosure lawsuit.
While you are in discovery you might want to check out the circumstances of the “transaction.” You will most likely find that no money exchanged hands for the “assignment”, that Flagstone had nothing to assign because the loan was in actuality funded by a third party, and that therefore the note and mortgage or deed of trust were unenforceable because they describe a transaction that did not occur.
Also, look for lawsuits by the investors over the same “trust” that your loan is claimed to be an asset. The lawsuit by the investor-lender may allege that the mortgages are invalid and unenforceable and were not qualified to be assigned into the trust as per the terms of the PSA. See the next article in the blog as to why. The allegation by the investors might be used as an admission against interest by the real lender and knock the pretender lender out of the court-room. Check with a licensed lawyer in your jurisdiction before taking action on any of the items discussed in this article.

 

8 Responses

  1. […] View the original article here Tags:Appearances, Deceiving, PRETENDER, Signers. This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 at 5:57 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. You can . « “Phantom” Trustees: Tools of Wall Street Leave a comment Name (required) […]

  2. Assignment of collection rights — that is all — Refinance??? Not likely a valid refinance in more than a decade.

  3. Saveamericaone – You said nothing here of substance – nothing Say it agin – what ? Assignments – transferor is collateralized down to 60% in some cases – more than Fannie or GSE …..and MI Robust market caught them off guard . .but thats a timing issue no crime >

    What are you sayng –

  4. M.Soliman,

    I wish you could break this down in lay person terms PLEASE

  5. How can you prove fraud for the investors?

    The Agreements in effect clearly state the monies will be skimmed off the top.

    Or were they?

    That’s right of a particular group of MEMBERS of the Private Financial Exchange, the Agreements (all) were not created at the time of sale and were an inducement.

    Excellent.

  6. Appearances Can Be Deceiving and if you listen to the noise — the spin — you’ll miss the point.

    The Assignment is a critical element of the ponzi-money laundering, and intent of the PRETENDER LENDERS (Intent of the SERVICER) already in agreement with the TRUSTEE under the RECONSTITUTED SERVICING AGREEMENT.

    The ‘mortgage’ recorded with intent of default to be placed back under the authority of the agreements of the reconstituted servicing agreement.

    Including mortgages at the time recorded Wells Fargo Bank NA ‘LENDER’ were recorded at the time of refinance, for example, to be looked at only if a default event occurred!.

  7. The mortgage is not the subject of the foreclosure.
    The creditor is not a lender per say.
    The loan orgination created two receivables .
    The common stock is the subject of the foreclosure
    The common stock is known to have been charged off and written to zero.The debt collector represents no particular asset – get it! The debt collector is doing a repossession .These robo signitures represent that parties obligation and has nothing to do with your collateral . . get it.

    YOU CANNOT FORGE AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT TO A PHANTOM ASSET . Its all done for the sake of reporting purposes and closing a file – get It ?

    Look up the accounting rules for defining a Clean-up calls.

    An entity, which may be a transferor, that services transferred assets may hold a clean-up call to purchase remaining transferred assets when the amount of outstanding assets falls to a specified level at which the cost of servicing those assets becomes burdensome in relation to the benefits of servicing.

    Provided that such a clean-up call results in the entity neither retaining nor transferring substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership and . . . .

    the transferee cannot sell the assets, it precludes Derecognition only to the extent of the amount of the assets that is subject to the REPO or call option.

    YOU’RE FOCUSED ON FORECLOSURE – THEY ARE NOT .

    SO THE LAST AUDIT I DID I FOUND A DEAD FLY, A PIECE OF A CHEESE SANDWICH, AN OLD SOCK WITH A HOLE IN IT….

    .A foreclosure defense is a frivolous action against an ambiguous complaint.

    Aghhh….Oh Noooooo….stop him someone ……He’s trying to help …please stop him ……write your congressional cateror , Al’s Auto Parts or Dept of Fish and Game – Call Charlie Sheen , your local hair salon ….please . Let’s march and make signs …sing songs – remember Buddy Hollie and that Nelson dude – – – jump like you got the runs …anything !

    But please – he’s going to save some homes if we don’t stop him …..Phil G- Man Kimbo Cory and the people of the great state of RI Keep up the good work.

    expert.witness@live.com

  8. If you were told to skip a few payments to earn the right to a modification . . . you better get familiar with GAAP and what was really done.

    It’s called Clean-up call. An entity, which may be a transferor, that services transferred assets may hold a clean-up call to purchase remaining transferred assets when the amount of outstanding assets falls to a specified level at which the cost of servicing those assets becomes burdensome in relation to the benefits of servicing.

    Provided that such a clean-up call results in the entity neither retaining nor transferring substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership and the transferee cannot sell the assets, it precludes Derecognition only to the extent of the amount of the assets that is subject to the REPO or call option.

    Fraud by inducement

    expert.witness@live.com

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: