MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE
BEWARE! JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE LIST DOESN’T MAKE YOU A WINNER
SEE Known or suspected robo-signers with links[1]
SEE robosigners-signatures samples[1]
SEE List of 420 Robosigners(2)
EDITOR’S NOTE: There are a lot of “services” out there that are now able to provide you with pretty reliable information as to whether one or more of the signors on your mortgage or foreclosure documents is a known robo-signer. OR YOU CAN LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF RIGHT HERE. SEE THE THE ABOVE LINKS.
But the issue is EVIDENCE not information. That someone has signed multiple documents with multiple signatures for multiple “employers” is information, not evidence. You will and should be thrown out of court if you think that identifying the use of a robo signer will win you your case. If it were otherwise you wouldn’t have a defense at all because it would mean that an allegation is as good as proof. And most negative impact cases are decided on the allegation that the borrower didn’t make the payments so who cares about all these technical deficiencies? The fact that the payment might not be due, or that it had already been made by the servicer or that the party claiming to collect it is improper doesn’t get a chance to be heard.
Information provides context and might be admitted as corroboration of real evidence once you have established your foundation for introducing evidence into the court proceeding. To that extent a list of robo signors might be helpful and it might not. Paying for the list will get you nothing more than another ding in your wallet since the list is right here for free.
The issue in YOUR case is whether you have one or more documents that were not properly executed and whether the execution constitutes a forgery, a fabrication, or lack of authority. The clever lawyer will force the burden onto the would-be forecloser to offer witnesses that can testify and prove the authenticity of the document, the signature and its contents. In most cases, that issue slips by and the burden shifts to the homeowner for failure to lodge an appropriate objection.
Remember also that a document can be admitted into evidence as proof of its existence, as proof of the matters recited or both.
So let’s look at what you REALLY need to do. If you think you have a robo-signor on your hands there are actually several possibilities, which is why most people are getting thrown out of court, surprised they lost their case and blaming the Judge for corruption when all he did was apply the rules of evidence. The possibilities are as follows:
- The signature is the signature of the person whose name is stamped or typed or written beside the signature.
- The signature is NOT the signature of the person whose name is stamped or typed or written beside the signature.
- The signature was forged.
- The signature was not forged — the person simply used different signatures for different purposes.
- The signature was placed there with permission from the named person on whose behalf the document was signed.
- The signature was placed there without permission from the named person on whose behalf the document was signed.
- The person whose name is stamped, typed or written beside the signature was authorized to sign the document.
- The person whose name is stamped, typed or written beside the signature was NOT authorized to sign the document.
- A valid document (corporate resolution, power of attorney etc.) exists authenticating the authority of the person whose name appears next to the signature.
- A valid document (corporate resolution, power of attorney etc.) does not exist authenticating the authority of the person whose name appears next to the signature.
- A witness exists who can authenticate the authorizing documents for signature on the document that you are objecting to.
- No witness exists who can authenticate the authorizing documents on the document that you are objecting to.
Unless you know how to deal with all these possibilities, the Judge has no where to go but to say that what you have presented is interesting but it is not evidence. This is accomplished through discovery — investigation, deposition, interrogatories, requests to produce and requests for admission and being very persistent about getting real answers to real questions.
The COMBO and an Expert Witness Declaration will get you part of the way, but you need to know how to present your side of the case in an intelligible manner and quickly because the Judge is not going to give you hours to figure out how to show that the document you are challenging is not valid. Remember that failure to record or even failure to execute properly for recording does not, in and of itself invalidate a document.
Check with a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located before you use this information or the services that people want to sell you. Many of those services provide information that might be valuable but only in terms of making further inquiry.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, fabrication, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, forgery, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, robo, Robo-Signing, robosigning, securitization, SURROGATE SIGNERS, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND |
Now that your house is free and clear make yourself a bankrupt remote entity. File yourself a trust and put it in there so that if they attach to you, they can not attach to your home. This can be done now that you won your suit.
ok – Indymac opens up a whole other can of worms as you’ve already discovered. nevertheless – it would seem that cautious congratulations are in order for what you’ve accomplished so far.
tnharry,
The original lender was IndyMac Bank. I obtained evidence that IndyMac sold the note back in 2004, allegedly to Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac has never made a claim of ownership of the note. OneWest posed as the lender, like it usually does, got an order authorizing sale, even after I gave the court proof of OneWest’s fraud, obtain my property at a trustee sale with a fraudulent credit bid, stripping $100,000 in equity and leaving a $48,000 deficiency, then flipped it to Freddie Mac for $10. I sued them, for some reason neither OneWest or Freddie Mac responded to the complaint and I got a default and quiet title. It was a total absolute miracle. No explanation for why it happened this way. But I’ll take it anyway I can get it.
I think they are scrambling now because I’m suing them in federal court for money damages, but it’s too late. They can’t undo what they’ve done and the state court has denied their rule 60 motion and hopefully will deny their motion to reconsider, which will be the final nail in the coffin.
@Marilyn Lane,
I found the recent article from Neils site. I have read it. I can use this.
Thank you!
and i just re-read that you say you’ve already proven Onewest’s ownership is fraud…it sounds like you may have already won…
It sounds like Onewest was the original obligee on the note. If that’s an incorrect assumption, then ignore everything else I say. There’s been previous discussion that, given that most notes didn’t actually make it into the trusts, the original obligee may be the proper and only entity to enforce. In your situation (especially given the lack of endorsement or allonge out of their name) that entity would seem to be Onewest.
tnharry,
Oh, and statue of limitation on promissory notes in Colorado is six years.
tnharry,
Well, actually, there isn’t any conclusive evidence of anyone who can put forward a legitimate claim of ownership of the note, so far anyway. So what I was asking was based on the claims by OneWest and Freddie Mac that they owned the note. The evidence I have shows neither of them have any ownership rights. The trail would end with some trust that Freddie Mac supposedly put the note into when it converted it into a security product. As of now, only OneWest has made a claim of ownership, which we’ve proven was fraud. Freddie Mac has never made such a claim in over two years now.
The issue of getting the note out of the picture is a new issue that I’m just starting to grapple with. I am suing OneWest in federal court for damages and one of my settlement items will be that I want all the original documents back. That would certainly solve the issue. But if that’s not possible i’m looking at other ways to possibly deal with it.
i re-read your posts to try to find more specific information but don’t see anything to help me. why would the original obligee on the note forge an endorsement in blank? who is the original obligee on the note? by the way, have you looked at your relevant statute of limitation for suits on a note? are you getting close?
tnharry,
I think you’re right about that, BUT, in this case, what if it was the obligee that executed the forged endorsement?
@carie – i don’t think he’s talking about that at all. he said he successfully quieted title. the home is free and clear, but there’s an unsecured debt out there now. and that’s one hole in the “unsecured debt” theory you have – even if the home is clear, the unsecured creditor could sue, get a judgment, and then record that judgment in the register’s office. suddenly the home is collateral and subject to sale/foreclosure.
they still have to prove standing, etc. and manage to prove a debt to get a judgment though, so there’s still defenses to be made
i wouldn’t think a forged endorsement, even if you could prove it was forged, would invalidate anything more than the endorsement. logically, the obligee would have been the victim of an endorsement forged, so terminating their rights under the note wouldn’t make sense.
A “debt” does not a mortgage make. Make them prove an actual MORTGAGE…not some alleged “debt”… There is a difference.
Tony
I’m not asking this because I have to defend my case anymore. It’s just about completely run its course in state court and I managed to win quiet title to my property.
OneWest and Freddie Mac tried to have the judgment set aside but the judge denied their Rule 60 Motion. Now they have filed a motion to reconsider and produced the original note again, but this time it has an endorsement in blank on it, something that was never seen before now. Nowhere in the record is there a copy with an endorsement stamp on the note, not in over two years now. It’s so stupid because it provides absolutely no defense for the banks. It seems the more I defeat them the dumber they get.
For them to produce this and make such a big deal out of it is very damning for OneWest and Freddie Mac because it now appears they have submitted a forged endorsement. There are a host of other reasons to dismiss their motion to reconsider as well. All their arguments are groundless and frivolous as usual. I fully expect the judge will deny their motion to reconsider as well.
The note they have produced would no doubt be an original copy. They produced it over two years ago in the non judicial action they prosecuted against me. Everyone said they could never produce an original but they did. At the time it was devastating.
But all that horror is over and I’m simply wondering now if anyone has any case law or Colorado statutes that would substantiate a claim that a forged endorsement on a promissory note would render that note unenforceable. Even though I’ve essentially won against the bank, my home is no longer security against the debt, the debt is still there. If this is a forgery, which it certainly appears to be, then I could attack the note and try to render it void.
@in search of Justice
Refer back to Neil’s website on Mass Court (somewhere between Oct 20 and 23 and you will see on the 23rd I put in a post about there are no statute of limitations on some fraud READ It See If you fit in that catagory
Thank you Tony! Your information is MUCH appreciated.
BMcDonald,
1. Ask where the “note came from. If they say from “collateral file” or “loan file” as Pat try to tell you it came from, then you have them where want them.
“Loan File” means not original, but merely COPY of a purported note. Check FASB or FDIC definition of these words you will be shocked in what you find.
2. Was the loan securitized? If so then it will show even more that they do not have the original documents. As anything sold in the secondary market is not a QFC (qualified financial contract meaning the loan document) but merely a NON QFC merely servicing rights (unsecured debt collection) that were purchased.
FINAL AND MOST IMPORTANT: JURISDICTION
Does this “company” even have control over the res? (property in question) Many people want to claim fraud but instead should be showing court lacks jurisdiction in the matter all together.
Also this running into bankruptcy court about property rights are wrong. Unless you are making the banks prove there claim (meaning you force them to come into court) any other issue should be in the federal district court. For the bankruptcy court was made by the legislative branch and can not rule on property rights, unless both parties consent.
Bankruptcy court does not have article 3 powers, and if any lawyer on here try’s to say they do they are lying and you should run from that lawyer quickly. The US Supreme Court said this recently itself.
Stern V. Marshall 131 S. Ct. 2594; 180 L. Ed. 2d 475
“Article III, § 1, of the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The same section provides that the judges of those constitutional courts “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” and “receive for their Services[ ] a Compensation[ ] [that] shall not be diminished” during their tenure….
As its text and our precedent confirm, Article III is “an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances” that “both defines the power and protects the independence of the Judicial Branch.” Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S., at 58, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 73 L. Ed. 2d 598 (plurality opinion). Under “the basic [**494] concept of separation of powers . . . that flow[s] from the scheme of a tripartite government” adopted in the Constitution, “the ‘judicial Power of the United States’ . . . can no more be shared” with another branch than “the Chief Executive, for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 704, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974) (quoting U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1)..
Article III protects liberty not only through its role in implementing the separation of powers, but also by specifying the defining characteristics of Article III judges. The colonists had been subjected to judicial abuses at the hand of the Crown, and the Framers knew the main reasons why: because the King of Great Britain “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The Declaration of Independence. The Framers undertook in Article III to protect citizens subject to the judicial power of the new Federal Government from a repeat of those abuses. By appointing judges to serve without term limits, and restricting the ability of the other branches to remove judges or diminish their salaries, the Framers sought to ensure that each judicial decision would be rendered, not with an eye toward currying favor with Congress or the Executive, but rather with the “[c]lear heads . . . and honest hearts” deemed “essential to good judges.” 1 Works of James Wilson 363 (J. Andrews ed. 1896).”
I know I just probably dropped a bomb shell but I know it was needed to be written. So before you listen to anyone on here who acts like they are lawyer or who works at one, study for yourself and seek the truth. A lot of people on here do not have you best interest at heart.
carie
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
A NOTE IS DIFFERENT THAN A MORTGAGE.
A FRAUDULENT AT ORIGINATION FALSE DEFAULT “DEBT” DOES NOT A “MORTGAGE” MAKE.
TARP Inspector General footnote 35:
“Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”
.
Pat
Oh yeah — Info??? Got it.
You can revoke your power of attorney at any time and that will give the federal reserve the right to take back all of the money that the bank borrowed with your signature.
Pat,
Good advise — get to BK court.
As to your comment —- “The lender has likely provided you a copy of an original Note, which would be evidence of the original debt.”
And, regarding subprime “refinances” —- there can be no NOTE to original “debt” (the refinance) — because the subprime “refinance” was never a valid mortgage with a valid note to begin with.
Gomes only applies to antiquated law in non-judicial states — and, it was very poorly plead. Never plead fraud — as should have been — given the NOTE was invalid to begin with.
Judicial states will kill it. . .
NY being a lien state , Astoria Federal S & L admitted that they never owned my two condos cause the void ab initio judgments signed in NYSC when the case was under Federal jurisdiction did not give them title, and that FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND CORONET TITLE HAD TO STEP IN AND INDEMNIFY THE FORGED DEEDS THEY INSURED..
Fideltiy National Title and Coronet Title refused to indemnify and instead paid a bribe to Judge Alice Schlesinger to rule against the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
Why are corrupt Title companies still operating in our country?
BMcDonald,
Here is what you face…..
1. The lender has likely provided you a copy of an original Note, which would be evidence of the original debt.
2. When they provided the follow up Note with the Blank Endorsement, that likely came from the actual loan file. (Some here are going to claim that the endorsement was done later, and after the court filing of the first Note and that this is fraud. Good luck trying to argue that point. To argue fraud, you must do so with specificity, names, places, timeframes, etc. You haven’t the info to make that fly.)
3. The squiggle means nothing under CA law. Nor that the endorsement stamp was different than others you have seen. I have all sorts of varied stamps, by the same lender.
4. Unless you are in BK Court, and the judge is someone like Buford, the Court will likely apply recent rulings like Gomes v Countrywide whereby the Court ruled that 2924 is exhaustive. There is no requirement to prove the Note, MERS is legitimate in CA, etc.
I have a supposed signed and notarized power of attorney for the trustee to foreclose on my property. Ocwen’s Scott Anderson is the alleged VP and Lauren Gold is the notary from FL who supposedly witnessed his presence and signature. In my possession I have 5 -6 different scribbles, called signatures for Scott Anderson. The way we are handling this is to ask for a W-2, 1099, etc…to prove his employment and authority to foreclose. Also, I have an application from the Florida Notary Commission, with the original application for Lauren Gold and the notary signature on the power of attorney is clearly different than on her application to be a notary….plus New Century who was supposed to fund the loan (questions about funding) went bankrupt in 2007, time frame of my loan (2 weeks after) and the loans were sold to Ellington of CT and the servicing contract did not continue with Ocwen. We are still digging and it gets more interesting each day. Anyone have advice as to where to go next and strategy?
If anyone would like the whole document that explains what I wrote below then please email me at jfernald1@maine.rr.com.
I also have all of the exhibits to back everything up and a couple of steps to take to help fight back, including templates and the FBI mortgage fraud case review of 2010
When looking at the definition of a “Mortgage Note” it is obvious that it is
a “Security Instrument”. It is a promise to pay made by the maker
of that “Note”. When looking at a copy of a “Deed of Trust” such as the template of a Tennessee “Deed of Trust” form that is on freddiemac.com website, it is very obvious that this document is also a
“Security Instrument”.
It is a template that is used for MOST government purchased
loans. You will note that the words “Security Instrument” are
mentioned no less than 90 times in that document. Is there ANY
doubt it is a “Security”? When at the closing, the “borrower” is led
to believe that the “Mortgage Note” that he signs is a document that
binds him to make repayment of “money” that the “lender” is
loaning him to purchase the property he is acquiring. Is there
disclosure to the “borrower” to the effect that the “lender” is not
really loaning any of their money to the “borrower” and therefore
is taking no risk whatsoever in the transaction? Is it disclosed to
the “borrower” that according to FEDERAL LAW, banks are not
allowed to loan credit and are also not allowed to loan their own or
their depositor’s money? If that is the case, then how could this
transaction possibly take place? Where does the money come
from? Is there really any money to be loaned? The answer to this
last question is a resounding NO! Most people are not aware that
there has been no lawful money since the bankruptcy of the United
States in 1933.
Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 7310)
was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property
and gold was seized by the government as collateral in the
bankruptcy of the United States. Most people today would think
they have money in their hand when they pull something out of
their pocket and look at the paper that is circulated by the banks
that they have been told is “money”. In reality they are looking at a
“Federal Reserve Note” which is stated right on the face of the piece
of paper we have come to know as “money”. It is NOT really
“money”, it is debt, a promise to pay made by the United States!
There are very strict regulations about what can and cannot be done with “Securities”. There are very strict regulations that apply to the reproduction or “copying” of “Securities”:
The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102‐550, in Section
411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color
illustrations of U.S. currency provided:
The illustration is of a size less than three‐fourths or more than one and one‐
ch part of the item illustrated half, in linear dimension, of ea
The illustration is one‐sided
All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic
medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the
illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are
destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use
Other Obligations and Securities
Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and
securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non‐fraudulent
purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less
than three‐quarters or greater than one‐and‐one‐half times the size, in linear
dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and
plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the
purpose for which they were made.
Title 18 USC § 472 Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to
pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps
in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered
obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Title 18 USC § 473 Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities
Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged,
counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the
intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Title 18 USC § 474 Plates, stones, or analog, digital, or electronic
images for counterfeiting obligations or securities
Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records,
receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody, or
possession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security
o
f the United States is guilty of a class B felony.
Are these regulations always adhered to by the “lender” when
they have possession of these “original” SECURITIES and make
reproductions of them before they are “sold to investors? How
much has been in the media in the past 2 years about people
demanding to see the “wet ink signature Note” when there is a
foreclosure action initiated against them? You hear it all the time.
Why is that such a big issue? Shouldn’t the “lender” be able to just
bring the “Note” and the “Deed of Trust” or similar “Security
Instrument” to the Court and show that they have the original
documents and are the “holder in due course” and therefore have a
legal right to foreclose? To foreclose they must have BOTH the
“Mortgage Note” and “Deed of Trust” or other similar “Security
Instrument” ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in their possession at the time
the foreclosure action is initiated. Furthermore, IS there a real
honest to goodness obligation to be collected on?
Why is it that there is such a problem with “lost Mortgage Notes”
as is claimed by numerous lenders that are trying to foreclose
today? How could it be that there could be so many “lost”
documents all of a sudden? Could it be that the documents weren’t
really lost at all, but were actually turned into a source of revenue
that was never disclosed as being a part of the transaction? To
believe that so many “original” documents could be legitimately
“lost” in such a short period of time stretches the credibility of such
claims beyond belief. Could this be the reason that MERS (Mortage
Electronic Registration Systems) was formed in the 1990’s as a way
to supposedly “transfer ownership of a mortgage” without having
to have the “original documents” that would be required to be
presented to the various county recorders? Could it be they KNEW
THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR
RECORDING and had to devise a system to get around that
requirement? When the foreclosure action is filed in the court the
attorney for the purported “party of interest”, usually the “lender”
who is foreclosing, files a “COPY” of the “Deed of Trust” or similar
“Investment Security” with the Complaint to begin foreclosure
proceedings. Is that “COPY” of the “Security Instrument” within the
“regulations” of Federal Law under 18 U.S.C. § 474? Is it usually the
same size or very nearly the same size as the original document?
Yes it is and without question it is a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY! Who
was it that produced that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? Who was
involved in taking that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court to file
the foreclosure action? Who is it that is now legally in possession
of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? Has everyone from the original
“lender” down to the Clerk of the Court where the foreclosure is
now being litigated been in possession or is currently in possession
of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? What about the Trustees who are
involved in the process of selling foreclosed properties in non
judicial states? What about the fact that there is no judicial
proceeding in those states where the documentation purported to
be legal and proper to bring a foreclosure action can be verified
without expensive litigation by the alleged “borrower”? All the
trustee has to do is send a letter to the alleged “borrower” stating
they are in default and can sell their property at public auction. It
is just ASSUMED that they have the “ORIGINAL” documents in their
possession as required by law. In reality, in almost every situation,
they do NOT!!! They are using a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY as the
basis to foreclose on a property that was paid for by the person
who signed the “Mortgage Note” at the closing table that was
converted to money by the bank. When it is demanded they
produce the actual “original signed documents” they almost always
refuse to do so and ask the Court to “take their word for it” that
they have BOTH of the original documents which are absolutely
required to be in their possession to begin foreclosure actions.
Almost every time the people that are being foreclosed on are able
to convince the Court (in judicial foreclosures) to demand that
those “original documents” be produced in Court by the Plaintiff,
the foreclosure action stops and it is obvious why that happens!
THEY DON’T HAVE THE “ORIGINAL” DOCUMENTS. They have,
instead, submitted a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court as their
“proof of claim” to attempt to unjustly enrich themselves through a
blatantly fraudulent foreclosure action. One often cited example of
this was the decision handed down by U. S. Federal District Court
Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Ohio, who on October 31, 2007
dismissed 14 foreclosure actions at one time with scathing
footnote comments about the actions of the Plaintiffs and their
attorneys. See (Exhibit “E”). Not long after that came the dismissal
of 26 foreclosure cases in Ohio by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
M. Rose who referenced the Boyko ruling in his decision.
If that is the
case, then the Fraud that has been discussed here falls under the
RICO statutes of Federal Law. Didn’t they eventually take down the
mob for Racketeering under RICO statutes years ago? Is it time to
take down the “NEW MOB” with RICO once again?
The bank just produced an alleged original Note with an endorsement in blank stamp. The copy they submitted to the court to do the foreclosure had no endorsement at all on it. Two years later, now they are claiming this one to be the original true and correct copy. The endorsement stamp does not have the name of the signer or their title on it and the signature is just a squiggle, illegible. The endorsement stamp doesn’t look like any other ones I’ve seen from this bank which all have the singers name printed under it and their title. I’m wondering, if they cannot prove this is an valid endorsement, whether it voids the note.
Hi,
I am dealing with the same thing. DOT was suppose to be signed using only my name. Now that my home was sold to a private investor, and is now a rental propety, I finally really secrutinized my DOT, and found that spouses signature was forged throughout the DOT. My signature was NOT notarized, only the last page of the LIBOR index is notarized. I am blown away. I have a power of attorney, but was told that the bank declined my poa, and only I would sign, and I did!
My spouses section was left blank.
Is it too late for me to get my house back? Or is the entire thing done and over?
Also, Is there ANYTHING on file (court docs), that has JPM Chase stating that they are NOT the successor in interest of the WAMU loans? Because my Ch 7 (filed in 09, but due to court error, it was discharged this yr 2011), states that they are the secured creditor,
and so does a substituion of title. However, my notice of trustee sale shows the orignal lender as the beneficiary.
At the time of closing, the DOT states that this non existing entity is the beneficiary. Within the same month a letter states the loan will be transferred to another non existing entity, and to make payments to this non existing entity. WOW!
Again, Is it too late to move forward? Can this entire deed be voided?
Is it likely to be voided in California? Hmmmm
I could just kick myself! I might still be in my home.
Explain the circumstances of the “forged endorsement”.
Does anyone know if a forged endorsement renders the note void or unenforceable? If it does, I need cases to site, statues, Colorado case would be the best.