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

EDITOR’S COMMENT: I’d like to see the expression of someone who sits on a Bar grievance committee that meets out discipline to lawyers, when they read this. In any situation, until the mortgage meltdown, if a lawyer signed documents and then presented them as his client’s “evidence” he would be subject to severe discipline if not disbarment. But as long as we have trillions of dollars at stake, nobody at the Bar associations is saying anything. Here we have, courtesy of, part of the transcript in which the lawyer testifies rather arrogantly, that “sure” he signed the documents, so what? No, he didn’t ever speak to anyone about doing it, no he never obtained permission or instructions,  he just did it. 

The bottom line is that as long as we delay applying the law as it was written and followed for hundreds of years concerning property rights, contract rights, lending and attorney misconduct, the foreclosures will continue, the housing mess will get larger, and the economy will continue to sag under the weight of 80 million mortgage transactions that in any other setting would be called grand theft. And as long as we continue to hear that correction and restoration of the wealth taken from investor-lenders and homeowners would be unfair to those who were not defrauded, we will continue to be subjected to Alice in Wonderland policies.


Full Deposition Transcript of ROY DIAZ Shareholder of Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. Law Firm


Q. So through that corporate authority as
Exhibit 4 to this deposition, MERS assented to the terms
Of this assignment of mortgage?

A. Through me.

Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of
This assignment of mortgage.

A. The one in this case, yes.

Q. And no one else.

A. Correct

Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS
acting solely as a nominee for America’s Wholesale
Lender; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for
America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. By reviewing documentation.

Q. What documentation?

A. I don’t specifically recall what I reviewed
In this case to see that, to determine that, but I would
have reviewed either the mortgage or I would have
reviewed other documentation that would have established
that to me.

Q. So in this case you don’t remember a single
Document that you looked at that would establish the
Nominee status of MERS for America’s Wholesale Lenders;
Is that correct?

A. I don’t

Q. Did someone at America’s Wholesale Lender
Tell you that MERS was acting as the nominee?

A. No.

Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were
Acting as Nominee for America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. NO.

Q. Was America’s Wholesale Lender in existence
On May 19, 2010?

A. don’t now.

Q. Did you check that before signing this
assignment of mortgage?

A. No.


Q. Now, you’ve said you review the MERS
Website and you’ve seen documents like this, like
Composite Exhibit 6. Any reason why you wouldn’t review
the documents contained in Exhibit 6 before executing the
assignment of mortgage?

A. It’s not necessary.

Q. Why not?

A. Because it’s not. Because I decided it’s

Q. You as vice president of MERS?

A. In every possible capacity as it relates to
This case.

Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage
after being retained as counsel for the plaintiff?

A. After my law firm was retained?

Q. (Nods head.)

A. Is that the question?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be
Used as evidence in your case, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. It’s a sure.

Q. Is that a yes o a no?

A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a

Q. Okay. So…

A. It’s a yes.

Q. It’s a yes.

17 Responses

  1. Test post

    no links

  2. Even if

    the tide has turned

    Text problems

  3. to Zoe:
    A client (here: the Servicer) retains the Firm; you do not retain individual employees of the Firm, although you could “request” that one person that you are familiar and comfortable with doe your work.

    Attorneys are not Officers of MERS. That is against MERS regulations. Only bank entities that are members of MERS can receive appointments from MERS. And even that little charade is under constant attack in multiple courts.

    If your document is signed by the attorney that is doing the foreclosing, then be sure to deny the Document in the Pleadings and plead responsively a Special Defense that the document is void, fabricated in anticipation of litigation, and bears an invalid signature. you get great traction from those claims, if properly pled.

  4. it’s obvious that those so called attorneys and assignees for the banks know that they can get away with just about anything they did or will do. They have made a mockery of the judicial system and to my disbelieve they made mockery of our judges. How come the judges don’t sanction these fools and fine them for their fraudulent activities and lack of responsibility to the law. Unless the judges take control over their court rooms and site those who have committed fraud and signed falls documents in this housing crisis nothing will change, and what we need is a change. An over haul of the entire system is needed now more then ever.

  5. to E Tolle:
    in general answer to your question(s), postulate the following. You operate a personal business as “Eddie’s Grocery.” You sell on credit and the customers issue IOU’s or “Notes.” Now you incorporate and are “Eddie’s Grocery, Inc.” Does the customer no longer owe you the money on the Note for the groceries you sold?

    As to the other issue, Countrywide never “operated an offshoot” called AWL. You cannot transact corporate business in the name of a fictitious entity. And you certainly cannot sue and collect in the name of a fictitious entity, or in someone else’s identity. Remember, CW did what they did because none of the funds actually came from CW; it was never their money in the first place. CW was nothing more than a fee-origination lender, using other people’s money (usually from some warehouse lender). Nothing they did was legit.

  6. jan van eck, I’ll agree it’s obvious that I’m missing a chunk, I’ve been told that on more than one occasion 🙂

    But help me out here, because it’s obvious that I’m missing something….

    We know that CW operated an offshoot called AWL since the 1990’s. And it would appear that they did this fraudulently, as it would appear that they called themselves a corporation, when there’s no evidence anywhere that they were.

    So, I just did a quick search of NY state dept. of corps website. AWL, Inc showed up, with it’s initial filing on 12/16/2008. How could any corporation that only started out that late in the game claim ownership of millions of loans originated proir to their corporate formation?

    I’m confused….

  7. to E. Tolle:
    You are missing a chunk. AWL is a NY corporation that has its own business. It seems that COuntrywide came along and appropriated their name and used it on Notes, describing AWL as the Lender. Well, if they do that, then they do so at their peril; in effect, to the extent that what they claim they did is actually what they did (and who knows, it is all murky), then Countrywide gifted the claim of the holder of the Note to AWL by describing AWL as the Lender on the Note. So, in a nutshell, if you are the Obligor on a Note that says you owe AWL, then they are your Lender, and Countrywide has painted themselves out of the picture. So you go to AWL and make your peace, which should be easy enough to do. Presumably a lot easier than dealing with Countrywide on a Note that does not even have their name on it.

  8. Is the FIRM retained by the servicer or a specific attorney from that firm?

    Would it not be a conflict of interest if one attorney signed the MERS AOM and a different attorney from the same law firm filed the case?

    A NY judge came down hard of one attorney for ethics violation/conflict of interest in one case, but I’m not sure if he was the only attorney involved for all transactions related to the foreclosure.

  9. jan van eck,

    Since this group has obviously stepped into the “shoes” of the defunct originating lender, how is their claim any stronger than any other pretend lender?

    It seems to me that a person in possession of an AWL note, would owe no one anything, as they were taken in by a non-entity originator. What am I missing here?

  10. Dahotruth – the conclusion that “Americas Wholesale Lender” is not a corporation is not correct. There is such a corporation, in the mortgage business, it is a NY Corp. and it has nothing to do with Countrywide. If your Note says it is with AWL then you actually owe your loan to this outfit. Contact them and they will be happy to assist you in dealing with the matter. Very nice people, actually. It is black-letter law that an outfit like Countrywide cannot transact business in the name of some assumed trade-name, especially when it belongs to another entity.

  11. does anyone know the terminolgy to use in a discovery request of a lender…to find out what value they have carried our loan on there books, when the loan was charged off, and how they have classified our loan?

    why i ask? i think the lender is stating a much higher value for the property…say $500,000 on there books, when the Fair market value is only $300,000 and I want to know this info.

  12. Can’t someone report this attorney to the Bar?
    It seems like a clear case of Fraud!

  13. Actually, “America’s Wholesale Lender” is not an company or entity….its just a dba for Countrywide….more obfuscation.

  14. Unbelievable! They seem to be quite confident that they can do what they want and there won’t be any consequences.

  15. Jan van Eck- good detective work, if more people would simply “call up and check with the persons involved in their or other suspicious complaints,we could get more information quicker. How many other lenders, trusts, originators are being named in complaints but have no idea that they are? Probably alot.

  16. Even more interesting, Smith-Hiatt-Diaz has never been hired by Americas Wholesale Lender to represent them in the first place, and the Corporation is completely in the dark about this (I checked with them).

    So you have two frauds: (1) a law firm claims to represent a corporation yet is without authority t do so, never having been retained or even spoken to, apparently; (2) the lawyer in the law firm then asserts that he personally can undertake signing acts on behalf of the agent of AWL when he has no authority to do so.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: