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

Internet resources for investigating robosigning or surrogate signing:

So you have a “known robo-signer” and you present that to the Judge. You win, right? NO!

Just as you don’t want the courts to allow foreclosure by innuendo and mere representations by counsel in court, you will be held to the same, if not greater standard of proof. You are essentially alleging perjury, misrepresentation or fraud. That requires more than a mere reference to the fact that the person’s name appears elsewhere and has been shown elsewhere to be a forgery or fabrication without knowledge of the contents of the document, whether it is an affidavit of indebtedness, Declaration in support of Motion to Lift Stay, or a Substitution of Trustee.

Your burden is to show that in YOUR CASE the document was not signed by the person whose signature apparently appears on the document. You get an affidavit from the company on whose behalf of the document was signed if it was some originator that had 6 employees and no capital to loan on is own and it now broke. You can get those. I have seen them. The affidavit needs to say they never heard of that person and that they never worked for XXX Funding, the “lender” on the documents. Maybe you can even get them to say that they were the “lender” in name only because they were in reality a nominee for some undisclosed  third party and they the money for the closing came from some source they didn’t even know.

You get multiple signatures from other documents on record supposedly signed by the same person. You get the real signature on their own mortgage document. That is why we re about to launch a major investigation into the employees of these companies on whose behalf the documents were supposedly signed and get the information on the actual job description of the person. Maybe you can find that the notary was not present when the document was signed or that the notary’s signature was forged. Maybe you can find the notary’s notebook in which records must be kept for every signature notarized.

Robosigning: This is not exactly the way it sounds. It is actually referred to in more sophisticated circles as “surrogate signing.” These claims were handled dismissively by most judges until the last year when upon scrutiny it became apparent that people were signing the names of other people, notaries were attesting to the signature without ever seeing the person, notary signatures were being affixed to documents where the notary never even signed, and notaries were attesting tot he authority of the person who signed a document when they had no idea whether the person had such authority. In California it is illegal for the notary to attest to authority of the signor if it is to be used in another state.

Without research and analysis you won’t know if there are factual breaks in the chain of title caused by surrogate or robosigning. If you are going to make the claim of perjury or fraud you need to be specific about what was a lie and how you know it is a lie. That is why it is so important to be informed in advance when you know that the “lender” is going to take action against you, get educated, get a COMBO report on title and securitization, get a FORENSIC ANALYSIS, get a LOAN LEVEL ACCOUNTING, get the attorney workbook, get the DVD. Lately judges have been finding ways to hear evidence on title issues because they are starting to realize that the pretender lenders are rushing foreclosures through using false affidavits of indebtedness, false declarations and robosigned “verified complaints. GET A LAWYER.

32 Responses

  1. – Note is unsecured and dot is thus unenforceable. Reference to ‘homeowner-friendly’ cases in
    multiple jurisdictions. One of the lead law firms in the AZ MDL litigation, a law firm which may actually lay claim to real research, espouses a view that once bifurcated, a note and dot may not be re-joined; in other words, bifurcation is ‘permanently’ fatal.
    Say US Bank as Trustee (for some trust the note never made it into, but just say) holds the note. MERS-read-member-employee assigns the note and dot to itself – say Aurora Loan Services, LLC. By its own admission, MERS may not assign a note (see MERS manual p. 63 and MERS v. Nebraska Dept of Finance and Industry – MERS’ appeal brief – scribd, et al). If anything, it is only the dot which is assigned by such an assignment. This means US Bank as Trustee holds the note while ALS holds the dot = they are bifurcated. The link above provides a link to MERS’ manual p. 63.
    While the NB case and MERS’ manual illustrate MERS inability (and by its own admissions) to “assign” the negotiable instruments such as these notes are alleged to be, it is only the note and dot which are signed by the borrower. It’s only these documents, then, (I think) which should actually be considered by courts when determining who MERS is and isn’t, and neither of these documents authorize MERS-read-member-employee to ‘assign’ notes. A MERS-read-member-employee assignment which alleges to assign the note as well as the deed of trust is a “false instrument” and the recordation of false instruments is prohibited by all states’ laws.

  2. To all nonjudicial victims

    First there was Ibanez, and then there was……Horvath in Virginia.

    The case of Horvath v BNY issued in May by the fourth circuit restates that the mortgage follows the note, so the assignment is irrelevant! Worse, the decision states in so many words that a promissory note in Virginia endorsed in blank is enforceable by a thief!

    Abandon hope all ye who enter old virginie…..I have

  3. Joane—no “loans” in the “pool”—ever.

  4. If you send a QWR to the servicer, they will just send a letter back saying something like–“Your request is beyond the scope of a QWR”—or something like that…if you can find a good foreclosure defense attorney—go for it…but I haven’t found any…they are all making it up and figuring it out as they go along—thanks to an unprecedented situation.

  5. On the lawyer issue–you are right. There are very few lawyers out there who are doing foreclosure defense. Many of them do not know anything about FC defense anyway. Where I live, and you are a lawyer, you know which side your bread is buttered on. You had better stay within the boundaries of the good ole boy system, or the judges won’t like you. Heavens to Betsy! Very little representation available of good quality, never mind reasonably priced.

  6. Thank you Carie. My plan is to send a QWR to my new servicer on Monday. I have a real estate mortgage, with a Power of Sale. If this is unsecured debt, could I get a lawyer to fight a foreclosure?

  7. Yes, Joane, we have been and are being LIED to over and over—and the LAWYERS won’t even admit the truth when it is staring them in the face…oooooooo, ’cause then they might not make as much money because they can’t “string us along”…

    It’s like I’ve been saying—it’s all unsecured debt—and all the fake paperwork and BS that has been going on is just a MASSIVE attempt to cover up the FACT that it’s all unsecured debt…and steal houses…because the homeowners don’t know what the hell is going on. The trusts are empty, they’ve always BEEN empty—due to the FRAUD of false default and then collection rights sold over and over.

  8. @Marie….I agree! No Lawyers, No Lawyers, No LAWYERS! So many people trying and begging for lawyers! Don’t you think the banks and Wall Street knew this would happen. Basically said, “The homeowners can’t afford a lawyers so we can steal their home and they may know we are stealing them but they can’t afford to hire a lawyer! And then they LAUGH! LOUDLY!

  9. Anonymous,

    Not sure what you mean. Neal says there’s gold in the Substitution of Trustee. What if an employee of a “Reconveyance Company signs on behalf of MERS a substitution to her own company? Then, 5 days later, executes an assignment to a bank? The employee is a known signer for 22 other banks that she did not work for. Her signature is genuine and notarized. There are no variations or evidence of others signing in her place. Where is the gold here under California law?

    Comments anyone?

  10. I just now noticed that all the information I got from Citi Mortgage (my last loan servicer), had the mini miranda on it. It was unusually small print, but it was on everything. I think I spent 5 years making mortgage payments to a DEBT COLLECTOR! When my loan transferred to Carrington, it was already in default. Which means that Carrington is trying to say they transferred my loan into a “new” Trust while is was 4 months in default. If I was an investor, I wouldn’t want the so called “Trustee” putting delinquent loans in my pool. Is this correct?

  11. Needcase

    Thanks for your helpful response. I have a funky acknowledgement as well but I don’t know if it’s a significant issue in my “sad state.”

  12. Neidermeyer

    I am in rural Virginia. Knee jerk conservative. Called all the boot camp grads: “don’t go there.”

    Lawyers want the low hanging fruit just like all the monkeys. Every other lawyer told mr setting aside even this smelly foreclosure would not happen

    Realistically in foreclosure the homeowner is on his own.

  13. so much hypocrisy and misplaced anger. the last 3 words on Neil’s post – “Get a Lawyer”. what would you do without me to complain about? i’m giving the same advice as Neil and getting crapped on

  14. davidw,

    Go BACK — go back — what happened before you even did the refinance ? GO BACK.

  15. So what if I have a Substitution of Trustee from Cal Western from a real employee there who’s signature checks out and is properly notarized?

    In my case, it appears the bank saw a hole in the chain of title and filled it by having the bank’s new trustee record an assignment.

    In California, what is the defense when there apparently is no pseudo signature?

  16. And, tn—as for getting “legal advice”—one that I talked to literally said to me, “The banks have more money than God—you’re wasting your time”.

    No wonder people are killing themselves.

  17. bring it on…all the parties…alll the husband and wife ceo partnerships…all the offshore deals…conduits…underwriters…forward selling…boooking the deal at year’s end…before closing…to beef up books…the stack of papers is so high it would spill out of the windows of my home…. if you want a model case study i’ve got it…. it is absurd the process to win bleak at best… and the ranting and raving and investigating till the cows come home is not worth the time it takes to sort out the hipocrasy. life has become a stranglehold of junk debt, that is what my american dreams spell out for me over the past two and a half years of litigating this cota shit there’s not enought umph in the game its ripped us apart at home and im just going to stop at that. being brave, intelligent, and poor due to this mess doesn’t really matter to anyone else but family…so much rhetoric such a lengthy choice defending this-this house- that’s all it is cause there’s nothing left in the marriage, and its destroyed any semblence of anything that i thought could be possible for me and my family. yikes….like deer in the headlights.

  18. tnharry,

    No one giving legal advise here — they are merely trying to alert to the fraud — that is coming at them in every direction.

    The “party” will be over — matter of time. Best advise — keep it going – to battle the time.

  19. Should I send the QWR letter to the new Servicer? Its Carrington Mortgage. I’ve read allot of articles about the guy that owns Carrington. He kinda stays in trouble. He owns Carrington but he also owns a bunch of Hedge funds. In fact, the first letter I got from them, showed Wells Fargo as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust Series, which he owns. I don’t know where the heck Wells Fargo came into this as my new creditor. CIT is the name on my “Note”.



  21. Joane—since we are all broke thanks to the banksters we have to try whatever we can—you’ve got nothing to lose—go for it—I’m glad I did.

  22. i’m glad it worked for you, so far at least. the cease & desist letter doesn’t really make them stop though. they “validate” the debt by confirming the amount and status with their client and send another form letter to you. then they resume the foreclosure. in fact, many jurisdictions have held the FDCPA doesn’t even apply to non-judicial foreclosure. call bullshit on me if you want, but you and others don’t seem to care for it when I do the same to you. too much bad advice is being spread around here.

    @joanne – send the letter. it may slow down, but will not stop the foreclosure. don’t sit on your laurels based on legal advice you’ve gotten here and elsewhere from people not qualified (or allowed by law) to give it

  23. wow – that last paragraph of the post advertised 5 different LL products. nice one Neil.

  24. BULLSHIT, tn—mind your own business–the letter worked for me.

  25. @joanne – that letter isn’t guaranteed to actually get them to cease & desist and could get you in trouble if you do the telephone recording part of it. talk to an atty. get good advice. most will do the initial consultation for free.

  26. Joanne—

    You could try sending a CEASE AND DESIST letter—since they are probably just a debt collector on unsecured debt that they are collecting on behalf of default debt buyer…what have you got to lose?

    Let them know you are on to the fraud…then tell them to BACK OFF.

    I’m NOT an attorney, but you can send this if you like—certified:

    (sample cease and desist letter):




    Re: servicer/bank name & account number)

    Dear _______________,


    You are hereby notified under provisions of FDCPA–Fair Debt Collections Practices Act—that your services are no longer desired.

    1) You and your organization must CEASE AND DESIST all attempts to collect the above ALLEGED debt. Failure to comply with this law will result in my immediately filing a complaint with the federal trade Commission and this State’s Attorney General’s office. I will pursue all criminal and civil claims against you and your company.

    2)I am disputing the validity of this debt under the terms of the FDCPA, section 809, a-c.

    3) I am also quite concerned regarding the “threat” of “foreclosure” that you have been sending in writing to me—which is in direct violation of FDCPA, section 807.

    4) Let this letter also serve as your warning that I may possibly utilize telephone recording devices in order to document any telephone conversations that we may have in the future.

    5) Furthermore, if any negative information is placed on my credit reports by your agency after receipt of this notice, this will cause me to file suit against you and your organization, both personally and corporately, to seek any and all legal remedies available to me by law.
    In conclusion, since it is my policy to neither recognize nor deal with collection agencies, i intend to settle this account with the ORIGINAL CREDITOR…as is my right.

    Have a nice day.


  27. I got behind on my mortgage because I had lost my job. Financially it is really hard to come up with the Money to pay for all the research of title and securitization and loan accounting etc. Is there anyway to do any of this myself?

  28. Marie: In the state of Washington if a conveyance (any written instrument filed against your property affecting title) is filed on behalf of a corporation it must comply with the standards established in RCW 64.08.070 (long form) or RCW 43.44.100(2) (short form). You can Google these statutes and read them for yourself. The short form looks like this:
    “I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that (name of person) is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the (type of authority, e.g., officer, trustee, etc.) of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument was executed) to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.” Id.
    What will be significantly missing if the notary mistakenly uses a personal form are those items stated under oath WHICH ARE REQUIRED. The classic case law on this point is Ben Holt Industries v. Milne, 36 Wn. App. 468, 675 P.2d 1256 (Jan. 16, 1984). Ben Holt quoted Yukon Inv. Co. v. Crescent Meat Co., 140 Wash. 136, 248 P. 377 (1926):
    “The form used in this case…lacks four essential elements of the statutory form for corporations: (1) fails to show that the person signing the mortgage was known to the notary to be an officer of the corporation which executed the mortgage; (2) that he acknowledged the same to be the free and voluntary act of the corporation; (3) that he was authorized to execute it on behalf of the corporation; and (4) that the seal affixed was the corporate seal. Yukon, at 139. [Corporate seal is no longer required].
    “A similar result was reached in Bank of Commerce v. Kelpine Prods. Corp., 167 Wash. 592, 10 P.2d 238 (1932), a case concerning a defectively acknowledged chattel mortgage. The absence of elements 2 and 3 above invalidated the acknowledgment and the instrument. Ben Holt, above, at 472.
    Notably missing from an Appointment of Successor Trustee or Notice of Trustee’s Sale acknowledgement which employs an improper form is anything about the authenticity of the instrument itself. The Ben Holt court addressed the substance of elements (1), (2) and (3) above:
    “It is because those elements relate to the validity of the instrument that they are required to be stated in the acknowledgment. The “substantial compliance” required by YUKON and KELPINE PRODUCTS dictates that the elements be in writing, affixed to the instrument * * * In this fact situation, it is because there is not an effective acknowledgment that the statute of frauds comes into play.” Ben Holt, above, at 472,473.
    Yes, it’s tough to find a good lawyer – and even tougher to get them to properly plead your case. Livinglies may be able to help in this regard – or you may want to search for cases filed in your area, read the results and see who the lawyer(s) were. In Washington you can search cases under any criteria (e.g. the name of the party foreclosing or just “trustee’s sale”) at
    Good luck.

  29. Anybody know of a lawyer in Atlanta that knows what time it is?

  30. Marie ,

    What State and county? Sounds like my problem in a (non foreclosure) real estate matter … no lawyers in town want it (too complicated) and nothing but corn for 200 miles in every direction. Getting a lawyer to show up will cost me 6 hours in fees just for drive time…..

  31. NeedCase

    What does proper corporate acknowledgment look like exactly?

    Re this posting I will repeat: in sone rural venues like mine, there are NO LAWYERS to be had. There are millions of Foreclosures to prove this. Do you really suppose mr Garfield that all those millions just walked away? Nah. They couldn’t find or afford a lawyer.

    I have Ahmsi assigning my mortgage to a trust with Linda green doing the honors. Don’t you suppose I would challenge this if I could? No lawyers mr Garfield. No lawyers. No lawyers. No lawyers

  32. This is very good news! Williams v. Athletic Field emerged September 15 from the Washington Supreme Court. View it at
    The decision may at first glance appear to be bad news – for those trying to avoid a mechanics lien – it is pure honey for Washington real property owners. If any of the documents filed against your property were filed on behalf of a corporation, now the Supreme Court confirms that proper Corporate Acknowledgement IS required on such conveyances. The court found that there is an ambiguity in the LIEN statutes – saying in one place that proper corporate acknowledgement is required, yet showing a sample lien that appears to say that it is not. But the court contrasted this with Washington statutes on real property deeds. Sale deeds are exempted outright since the samples provided in statutes show no description of the signature and acknowledgement. “These sample deeds do not contain blanks for a signature by the grantor or a notary; they merely suggest adequate language for particular types of transfers. In contrast, the sample form in RCW 60.04.091(2) purports to be complete, including a signature line for both the lien claimant and a notary.” Footnote 1, Page 11. This was where the court found ambiguity in the lien statute – AND DECLARED THAT NONE EXISTS IN THE REAL PROPERTY CONVEYANCE STATUTES.

    Thus the Supreme Court has now spoken regarding real property conveyances: the statutes are plain and unambiguous: “RCW 64.04.020 states that every deed shall be acknowledged.” (Footnote 1, Page 11); and RCW 64.08.070 or 42.44.100(2) spell out – also with no ambiguity – that proper Corporate Acknowledgement is required.

    Also encouraging is the Court’s considering the spirit of the law to evaluate the situation. They note on Page 4: “AFI argued that the lien was not frivolous because LienData’s employee’s signature fulfilled the requirements of RCW 60.04.091(2) and because AFI was, in fact, owed money by the Williamses. Starren’s supporting declaration alleged that Hubbard was a fulltime, salaried employee of AFI while AFI worked on the Williamses’ property and that AFI completed 90 percent of the work described in the estimate, plus additional tasks costing $50,000.” Id. The Court obviously considered the simple facts, and that what is right should not be trumped by technicalities UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE (using “strict construction”): “Here, there is no dispute in Williams or Hos that the claimants provided lienable services and claimed their liens against the appropriate property. Rather, the dispute is about whether the form of lien is proper. The claimants are therefore parties “intended to be protected” by the statute, RCW 60.04.900, and we will liberally construe the statute to protect them.” Page 15.

    The Court is looking to the simple fact of whether these people are actually owed money! In the case of most foreclosing entities these days, however, they are not, and their fraudulent paperwork is not designed to bring justice, but unjust enrichment. The Deed of Trust statutes were never intended to encompass a construction that liberal (suborning theft). The court’s noted in this case, “There is no suggestion that AFI or Hos acted fraudulently in filing its claim of lien.” Page 16. In most foreclosure cases there is not only suggestion but proof that the forecloser acted fraudulently in their efforts to foreclose the property.

    Page 18-19 must also not be read too quickly – it’s not saying that robo-signing is OK; quite the contrary. Unlike the lien statute that is to be liberally construed, the Real Estate Statute of Frauds is to be very strictly construed: “Every deed shall be in writing, signed by the party bound thereby, and acknowledged by the party before some person authorized by *this act to take acknowledgments of deeds.” RCW 64.04.020 [Revisers Note to statute – that asterisk – specifically references notary requirements]. That means that not only must every deed be properly acknowledged, but it must be signed by the party themselves. If an agent is to be permitted to sign (see Page 19), at the very minimum this would require absolute proof of chain of authority from the party bound to that signer. This combined with the recent discovery of California’s prohibition on notaries certifying the representative status of signers for use out-of-state would seem to doom virtually every document notarized in California and filed in Washington on behalf of a corporation:


    § 1189(2)(c) On documents to be filed in another state or jurisdiction of the United States, a California notary public may complete any acknowledgment form as may be required in that other state or jurisdiction on a document, provided the form does not require the notary to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: