Judge Monaco and the Fantastic Floating Allonges: Cashing Someone Else’s Check

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEE HERRERA DECISION CLICK HERE

Judge Monaco and the Fantastic Floating Allonges

by Mike Wasylik – http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/
Some foreclosure plaintiffs are trying to cash someone else’s checks.
Some foreclosure plaintiffs are trying to cash checks that don’t belong to them, and forging evidence along the way to help them do it. And here’s the sneaky trick they use to get it done.

Without it, the banking industry couldn’t exist: the Uniform Commercial Code, the law that tells banks how to handle checks and who gets to cash them. Before you cash your next check, take a look at the front. That part that says “Pay to the order of:” is pretty clear—it means that person, hopefully you, has the right to get money in exchange for that check. But that’s not the only important part.

Flip it over and write your name.
Somewhere on that check, usually the back, you signed that check, too. Maybe you just put your name, maybe you wrote “For deposit only.” Maybe you wrote “Pay to the order of…” and someone else’s name. All those markings are known as “indorsements” (sometimes spelled “endorsements”) and they instruct the person you give that check to, what they need to do with it. Just a signature? They can give you cash. Deposit only? Cash into your bank account. Pay to the order of someone else? Only that person now has the right to cash it.

But the check doesn’t stop there. Unless you’ve presented that check to the bank it was drawn on—where the original maker of the check has an account—the bank or person you present it to has to then cash it themselves. Your indorsement to them, or if to no one, “in blank,” allows them to go ahead and present it to the next bank up the line. But they have to indorse it, too. Eventually the check makes its way back to the bank on which its drawn, gets paid off and canceled. And if the check runs out of room for the indorsements necessary to get there, you can attach a separate piece of paper to provide room for more. This additional paper is called an “allonge,” and it’s the way a lot of foreclosure plaintiffs are trying to cash checks made out to someone else.

Your home loan is the biggest check you’ve ever written.
Most people don’t realize, when they borrow money for a home, that they’re writing the biggest check they might ever see in their lives. Because the promissory note that gives the terms of the loan is just like a check—it’s a promise, signed by you, to pay a specific named party a specific amount of money. And unless there’s an indorsement on the note that says otherwise, only the bank named in the note can demand payment.

A recent case out of Collier County, Florida, along with another case I witnessed just a month later, shows that these huge checks borrowers wrote on their home loans are getting cashed illegally by many banks. In the Faulk case, reported by Professor Adam Levitin, and by Yves Smith, the mysterious “fourth page” of the note, containing the indorsement, hadn’t been filed with the court, but instead has floating around separate from the note and in possession of plaintiff’s counsel. And this apparently was just fine with Collier County Judge Monaco, who signed off on an order essentially approving that state of affairs..
Full story at http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/

Judge Monaco and the Fantastic Floating Allonges by Mike Wasylik – http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/ Some foreclosure plaintiffs are trying to cash someone else’s checks. Some foreclosure plaintiffs are trying to cash checks that don’t belong to them, and forging evidence along the way to help them do it. And here’s the sneaky trick they use to get it done. Without it, the banking industry couldn’t exist: the Uniform Commercial Code, the law that tells banks how to handle checks and who gets to cash them. Before you cash your next check, take a look at the front. That part that says “Pay to the order of:” is pretty clear—it means that person, hopefully you, has the right to get money in exchange for that check. But that’s not the only important part. Flip it over and write your name. Somewhere on that check, usually the back, you signed that check, too. Maybe you just put your name, maybe you wrote “For deposit only.” Maybe you wrote “Pay to the order of…” and someone else’s name. All those markings are known as “indorsements” (sometimes spelled “endorsements”) and they instruct the person you give that check to, what they need to do with it. Just a signature? They can give you cash. Deposit only? Cash into your bank account. Pay to the order of someone else? Only that person now has the right to cash it. But the check doesn’t stop there. Unless you’ve presented that check to the bank it was drawn on—where the original maker of the check has an account—the bank or person you present it to has to then cash it themselves. Your indorsement to them, or if to no one, “in blank,” allows them to go ahead and present it to the next bank up the line. But they have to indorse it, too. Eventually the check makes its way back to the bank on which its drawn, gets paid off and canceled. And if the check runs out of room for the indorsements necessary to get there, you can attach a separate piece of paper to provide room for more. This additional paper is called an “allonge,” and it’s the way a lot of foreclosure plaintiffs are trying to cash checks made out to someone else. Your home loan is the biggest check you’ve ever written. Most people don’t realize, when they borrow money for a home, that they’re writing the biggest check they might ever see in their lives. Because the promissory note that gives the terms of the loan is just like a check—it’s a promise, signed by you, to pay a specific named party a specific amount of money. And unless there’s an indorsement on the note that says otherwise, only the bank named in the note can demand payment. A recent case out of Collier County, Florida, along with another case I witnessed just a month later, shows that these huge checks borrowers wrote on their home loans are getting cashed illegally by many banks. In the Faulk case, reported by Professor Adam Levitin, and by Yves Smith, the mysterious “fourth page” of the note, containing the indorsement, hadn’t been filed with the court, but instead has floating around separate from the note and in possession of plaintiff’s counsel. And this apparently was just fine with Collier County Judge Monaco, who signed off on an order essentially approving that state of affairs.. Full story at http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/

ocean11@the-beach.net
Ann

15 Responses

  1. Hi Neil,

    Todd and I are in Orange County and it is flipping NUTS out here, we talked to some local LE who told us that it is totally corrupt out here, check it out.

    Commissioner Glenn Mondo protects Aurora Loan Services and railroads homeowners pt 2

  2. oops, I meant to say the “fake loan” was never transferred to a trust…

  3. @ tn:

    My IndyMac servicer says in an email to me that: “Your loan is in such and such securitization trust which is owned by Deutsche and we are the servicer…”

    Question: Because the trust is not only empty but was never even transferred to a securitization trust, isn’t this email documentation a blatant lie and a potential “smoking gun” for me if I need it?”

  4. @tn:
    No, because the builder/previous owner is being paid not by the bank’s money, but rather by the asset given to them by the borrower. Of course, I see what you’re saying–where the money comes from makes no difference to the builder/previous owner. But it does make a difference to the so-called borrower

    What I’m saying is this–through accounting entries, the bank essentially passes on the value of the borrower’s note to the builder/previous owner. That is, the bank is paying the builder/previous owner not with money the bank had prior to the borrower entering the picture, but with the value of the asset the borrower gave them in the “loan” transaction. This state of affairs begs the question–why can’t the borrower just use the promissory note to pay the builder/previous owner directly? After all, that’s all the bank is doing. Why is a middleman–in this case, the bank–necessary? If a bank can deposit a note, why can’t the builder/previous owner? Why is the bank’s involvement necessary? Short answer–it isn’t.

  5. @zur – but it’s not make believe – the construction company or the prior owner of the home walked away with actual money. so the lender did advance real money. isn’t that where the whole “lending their credit” arguments fall apart?

  6. This is the entire problem in a nutshell–the promissory notes we sign ARE checks to the pretender lenders. The pretender lenders treat the notes as a check from us to them for the purposes of bookkeeping. That is to say, we sign a note, THE PRETENDER LENDER DEPOSITS IT, then writes us a bogus “funding check,” and the pretender lender’s books are balanced. End of story–the “funding check” is in the amount of the promissory note, the pretender lender’s books are magically balanced because they don’t actually loan money. That’s why they’re called “pretender lenders,” after all–because they are LITERALLY pretending to lend us money.

    However, no actual cash or anything with inherent value changes hands. It’s all plain old white copy paper and/or binary code in a digital database. That is, the bank does not give “borrowers” cash, gold, or any such thing in exchange for the promissory note. We give them a piece of paper (the note) and they give the seller a piece of paper (the “funding check”). However, the piece of paper (the note) we give the pretender lenders is worth many times the face value printed on it, in interest and/or sale on the “secondary market.” That is, the note is worth that TO THE PRETENDER LENDER while it is only debt to the “borrower.”

    In my opinion, THIS is the bottom line and the basis for the entire debt fraud scheme we’ve been sucked into. In other words, if we could all just admit what all pretender lenders know to be true, i.e., that they are literally PRETENDING to lend money–not actually lending money–we could get on the right track. Read Wright Patman’s “Primer on Money” and/or the Federal Reserve’s “Modern Money Mechanics.” All of the above is openly admitted, but we are trained to believe that actual loans have been given and that the pretender lenders have actually lent their own funds at great risk. It’s just not true.

  7. Can someone explain something to me: other sites say that an indorsement in blank by the original lender means the note becomes negotiable and only has to be delivered to affect a a new owner entitled to enforce. Some say possessing the original note indorsed in blank makes that party the owner, even if a non-bank criminal somehow possesses it.

    Which is correct? Is an indorsement required each time the note changes hands, or does the original indorsement cover all?

  8. Phil Johnston because it is already affecting the judges retirement program. Prices under the current configuration are tanking. Both commercial and Residential.

    The Judge must understand that people businesses etc… were and are being financially drained by over inflated mortgages rents leases etc….

    The only way to remedy this is to apply the law and punish the alleged Criminals.

    We the American people are the scapegoats for the alleged criminal banksters.

    NEVER AGAIN

  9. Under California Law:
    the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204. See In re Rickie Walker case.

    MERS acts solely as a Nominee for Lehman, and under California Law a “nominee” inherently lacks the right to enforce or assign, the Note or real property ownership rights.
    “In Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438., Cisco could not enforce the land sale contract because he was not a party to it, the court, at pages 583-584, said: “The word ‘nominee’ in its commonly accepted meaning connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or ownership of the rights of the person nominating him.”
    Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528]

    In addition to MERS’ inherit lack of authority, MERS is not a party to the Note and the Note fails to use the words (Lender’s name on the Note) or (Lender’s name on the Note) Nomine.
    “The purpose of the document in question here was to offer an obligation to Harold L. Shaw alone and not to his nominee or any other person whomsoever.”
    Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648]
    – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1958.

    Therefore, without an endorsement on the Note and an assignment directly from Lehman, assignments by MERS; the substitution of the Trustee; and trustee sale are unlawful and void. Without a legal endorsement of the Note from original lender to perfect the transfer, assignment of the Note is void, per Ca. Com. Codes §§ 3106, 3109, 3201, 3203, and 3204. There is no case law or code that exempts the requirement for endorsement.

    “The assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt was a nullity in law.” (Polhemus v. Trainer, 30 Cal. 685; Peters v. Jamestown Box Co., 5 Cal. 334; Hyde v. Mangan, 88 Cal. 319; Jones on Pledges, secs. 418, 419; Van Ewan v. Stanchfield, 13 Minn. 75.)
    “A lien is not assignable unless by the express language of the statute.”
    (Jones on Liens, sec. 982; Wingard v. Banning, 39 Cal. 343; Ruggles v. Walker, 34 Vt. 468; Wing v. Griffin, 1 Smith, E.D. 162; Holly v. Hungerford, 8 Pick. 73; Daubigny v. Duval, 5 Tenn. 604.)
    CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, DAVIS, BELAU & CO. V. NATIONAL SUR. CO., 139 CAL 223, 224 (1903)

  10. how can A judge have an unbiased opinion in A foreclosure case when the decision could affect their retirement plan

  11. When you go to the website, be sure also to review the article on the $83 pen saving a home from foreclosure. In that fascinating story, the Note was filed by the banksters with the Court; it had a blue-ink signature. Turns out the debtor had been ordered by the Notary to sign the Note in Black Ink as it “photocopies better.” Confronted with a forged blue-ink Note, the bank folded. Moral: blue-ink documents are easily forged, when you have an “auto-pen” scanning and digital-print machine (only $6,000 and you, too, can go into business manufacturing “Notes.”).

  12. Intriguing article. Great intro into reality…how things really work.
    Keep up the good work.

  13. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  14. Well here we are…. in sunny California…… Aurora v. Morell Pt. 1.

    04 JULY 2011

    KingCast/Mortgage Movies is going to California, the Levee may break in an Orange County Aurora foreclosure case:

    Hey hey what can I do, I got myself a nominal lender and they won’t be true…..

    Well at least that’s what the Courts in New York and Wisconsin are saying. Aurora v. Weisbaum, 2011 NY Slip Op 4184; 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4108 (May 17, 2011)

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/07/kingcastmortgage-movies-is-going-to.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp9yBLVFjoA

    Stay tuned. Of course if you don’t hear back from us later today you better get a posse together ‘cos we are just a few miles from the situs of the Richard Fine, Esq. debacle.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: