Max Gardner’s Top 65 Tips for Spotting Fake Documents

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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


Source: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/max-gardners-top-tips-for-fake-mortgage-documents

1.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.

2.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.

3.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.

4.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed, dated or assigned in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory governing rules of Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

5.     The assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by a legal entity that was no longer in existence on the date the document was executed.

6.     The assignment of the mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by an entity whose name is different than the entity named in the original document (i.e., National City Bank Corporation in lieu of ABC Corporation as a division of National City Bank).

7.     The assignment was executed by a party pursuant to a Power of Attorney but no Power of Attorney is attached to the instrument or filed with the instrument or otherwise recorded with local land registry.

8.     The mortgage note is allegedly transferred in a single document along with the Mortgage or Deed of Trust (i.e., “Assignment of the Note and Mortgage”).  You cannot “assign” a mortgage note.  You can only “negotiate” a mortgage note under Article 3 of the UCC.

9.     The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the assignor.

10.    The assignment is notarized by a notary in Dakota County, Minnesota.

11.    The assignment is notarized by a notary in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

12.    The assignment is notarized by a notary in Duval County, Florida.

13.    The assignment is executed by an officer or secretary of MERS.

14.    The assignment is notarized by a secretary or paralegal employed by the attorney for the mortgage servicer.

15.    The assignment is executed or notarized by an employee of MR Default Services, Promiss Solutions LLC, National Default Exchange, LP, LOGS Financial Services, or some similar third-party.

16.    The endorsement on the note is actually on an allonge affixed to the note.  In most states, an allonge cannot be used if there is a sufficient amount of room at the “foot” or the “bottom” of the original note for the endorsement.

17.    The allonge is not “permanently” affixed to the original note.  The term permanent excludes the use of staples and tape and as a result you must use a sold fastener such as glue.  Allonges are commonly referred to “in the business” as “tear-off fraud papers.”

18.    The note proffered in evidence is not the original but a copy of the “certified copy” provided to the debtors at the closing.

19.    The note is endorsed in blank with no transfer and delivery receipts.  It is fine to endorse a note in blank, in which case it becomes “bearer” paper under the UCC.  However, in order to prove a true sale from the Sponsor to the Depositor you must have written delivery and transfer receipts and proof of pay outs and pay in transactions.

20.    The note proffered in evidence is not endorsed at the foot of the note or on an affixed allonge.

21.    The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust post-dates the filing of the court pleading.

22.    The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust is executed after the filing of the court pleadings but claims to be “legally effective” before the filing.  For example, the deed of trust is assigned on June 1, 2009, with an effective date of May 1, 2007.

23.    The parties who executed the assignment and who notarized the signature are in fact the same parties.

24.    The signor states that he or she is an “agent” for the executing entity.

25.    The signor states that he or she is an “attorney in fact” for the executing entity.

26.    The signor states that he or she is an employee of the executing entity but claims to have custody and control of the records of the entity.

27.    The signor of the document makes statements about the status of the mortgage debt based on his or her review of the “records of the plaintiff” or the “records of the moving party.”

28.    The proponent of the original note files an Affidavit of Lost Note.

29.    The signor claims that the allegations in the court pleading are correct but the assignment of the mortgage and/or delivery and transfer of the note occurs after the law suit or the motion for relief from stay was filed.

30.    One or more of the operative documents in the case is signed by one of the attorneys for the mortgage servicer.

31.    The default payment history filed in the case is prepared by the attorney for the mortgage servicer or a member of his or her staff.

32.    The affidavit filed in support of legal fees is not signed by an attorney with the firm involved in the case.

33.    The name of one or more of the signors is stamped on the document.

34.    The document is a form with standard “fill-in-the-blanks” for names and amounts.

35.    The signature of one or more parties on the document is not legible and looks like something a three year old might have done.

36.    The document is dated and signed years before the document is actually filed with the register of real estate documents or deeds or mortgages.

37.    The proffered document has the word C O P Y stamped on or embedded in the document.

38.    The document is executed by a notary in Denton County, Texas.

39.    The document is executed by a notary in Collin County, Texas.

40.    The document includes a legend “Hold for” a named law firm after recording.

41.    The document was drafted by a law firm representing the mortgage servicer in the pending case.

42.    The document includes any type of bar code that was not added by the local register or filing clerk for such instruments.

43.    The document includes a reference to an “instrument number.”

44.    The document includes a reference to a “form number.”

45.    The document does not include any reference to a Master Document Custodian.

46.    The document is not authenticated by any officer or authorized agent of a Master Document Custodian.

47.    The paragraph numbers on the document are not consistent (the last paragraph on page one is 7 and the first paragraph on page two starts with number 9).

48.    The endorsement of the note is not at the “foot” or “bottom” of the last page of the note.  For example, a few states allow an endorsement on the back of the last page of the note but the majority requires it at the foot of the note.

49.    The document purports to assign the mortgage or the deed of trust to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the Trust was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  This type of registration is normally referred to as a “shelf registration.”

50.    The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the date the Trust provides for the origination date of instruments in the Trust.  The Prospectus, the Prospectus Supplement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will clearly state that the pool of notes includes those originated between date X and date Y.

51.    The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust after the cut-off date for the creating of such instruments for the Trust.

52.    The origination date on the mortgage note is not within the origination and cut-off dates provided for the by terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

53.    The “Affidavit of a Lost Note” is not filed by the Master Document Custodian for the Trust but by the Servicer or some other third-party.

54.    The document is signed by a “bank officer” without any designation of the office held by the said officer.

55.    The affidavit includes the following language on the bottom of each page:  “This is an attempt to collect a debt.  Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”

56.    The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media supervisor” for the proponent.

57.    The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media coordinator” for the proponent.

58.    The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “legal coordinator” for the movant.

59.    The date of the signature on the document and the date the signature was notarized are not the same.

60.    The parties who signed the assignment and who notarized the signature are located in different states or counties.

61.    The transferor and the transferee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

62.    The assignor and the assignee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

63.    The signor of the document states that he or she is acting “solely as nominee” for some other party.

64.    The document refers to a power of attorney but no power of attorney is attached.

65.    The document bears the following legend:  “This is not a certified copy.”

 

10 Responses

  1. I already knew they were crooks! I am trying my best to reach N.Garfield because I think I found a GA attorney who get’s it. Especially after the partner at the foreclosure firm admitted he drafted (fabricated) the assignment. He said Citi Res could not foreclose without it. He emailed me a list of other GA foreclosure firms that did the same thing. So now he’s pointing the finger at others. This is criminal fraud and I’m hoping the GA attorney can file Quiet Title to the property. Oh..DB also admitted they didn’t own the property and I will have to sue Citi Res and the foreclosure firm. Any help, call me at 404-604-4261 or email niki.griggs@yahoo.com or invstigators@yahoo.com. Alexander

  2. Regarding point number 8, how do you think the courts would view a single document to endorse and assign executed by a now-defunct originator on the day before (refinance closed 11/3/04; allonge dated 11/2/2004) the mortagage note was signed?

    Reads: “For value received, I hereby transfer, endorse and assign to (blank) Ihe within Note and Deed of Trust.securing the same, so far as the same pertains to said Nole. without recourse.” Aames Funding Corporation, DBA Aames Home Loan.

    This is the only endorsement or assignment of the note and mortgage that were alledgely sent to a trust/MBS with a closing date 6 weeks after origination. I am awaiting production of the mortgage loan schedule and title documents (to see if the originator was the lender at all). If the originator never possessed the document after closing, and they were sent directly to Ocwen, does that affect the originators ability to endorse the note at all?
    Any comments or suggestions appreciated.

  3. @neidermeyer – know your question was directed at ms, but courts must rely on attachments, not what is plead. That’s the law. We just saw this affirmed in a case here – least I think it was here. If they’re truly out of time, I would think you are entitled to summary judgment because the submitted note doesn’t support the relief sought. (The note presented might represent someone else’s rights but not theirs, but I wouldn’t necessarily go there.) They have demonstrated no injury to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. Wish I had known this 4 years ago.
    I made lots of mistakes and learned some things the hard way. I should have been the one asking for sj instead of being on the defensive from day one. I can’t remember if sj is an adjudication on the merits or not, but I think so. If so, they can’t come back at you.

  4. A deed from Adam to Martha is effective upon its delivery to
    Martha, and not until then. That’s a fact. The only thing at all arguable is does this delivery mandate apply to a deed of trust.
    MERS claimed to be the beneficiary in the deeds of trust, but MERS
    never took delivery of one single deed of trust and I don’t know why it wouldn’t. “MERS” doesn’t take delivery of anything, or even do anything except provide a database and appoint anyone it feels like as a pretend officer to do things they couldn’t otherwise and in reality do. It is a shell entity with a computer system used by its members for a fee. It’s a clandestine club, at best, whose members either with intent or as a result attempt to avoid any number of legal requirements. That’s a racket, isn’t it? Any time a member relied on anything at all as to Mers, it was as to the bankster’s employee’s alleged status as an officer of MERS by the appt from William Hultman (all 25, 000 of them).
    The lack of delivery and possession might be a proper avenue of attack as to deeds of trust.
    Mers has no interest in notes to even have to argue about. Every self-assignment done by a mers’ member which purports to assign the note is a false document. Such an assignment is contractually and legally impossible. You just can’t ‘assign’ an interest you don’t have and to pretend to do so to the (significant) detriment of another crosses the line and becomes criminal imo.

    By all appearances, none of the intermediaries on the note ever
    took possession, either, of the note on the note’s alleged way to
    securitization. They didn’t have time, they just didn’t, for any
    of those “formalities” otherwise known as law. I doubt any money
    every changed hands, either. Someone funded the loan, whether it
    were the party named on the note or someone else. The next (or
    first, depending on your view of this funding issue) time the note
    ever saw any money change hands after its origination was likely from the investors, with no payment by anyone along the road, in stark contrast to the provisions of the UCC. No money = no interest. No possession = no interest.
    If Dee bought a note from joann, but Dee never gave Joann any
    money nor took possession but then sold the note she hadn’t paid
    for to cubed2, I think under the UCC, there has been no transfer
    between Dee and Joann, so no transfer from Joann to cubed2.
    There just wasn’t time between origination and securitization for
    those people to have done what had to be done: pay for-take
    possession-endorse-deliver, pay for-take-possession-endorse-deliver- and so on. (And none of this considers the constant flux of money, any promised yields in light of that constant flux, and their self-created need to get that part – the promised yield – “nailed down”, although that may be at the heart of why laws weren’t followed). I, for instance, once lost around 150k for the flux of that money, and I was just a very small fry. Any business plan to get loans securitized in a NY minute (pun intended) had to consider that fluctuation and meeting deadlines on commitments. Remember, these loans were moved around in huge blocks. Multimillion blocks. Missing any commitment dates would be a very big deal. So did they just record alleged “transfers” of notes in MERS’ database and call it a done deal? Sure looks like it.
    All these notes had to be paid for and physically transferred and
    possessed by everyone in the chain, at least that’s my
    understanding of the UCC.
    We think of MERS as a computer database, a private registry for
    deeds of trust. I think it’s worse than that. I think they
    skipped all the laws, including the UCC, by only (allegedly)
    registering these alleged transfers of notes in MERS’ database, which could appropriately be called a private set of books, but
    significantly, one which has no basis in fact or law. What I’m
    suggesting is there was no endorsement of the note along the way
    by design, (we know they weren’t endorsed – I’m just saying it was
    not an accident – the ‘shortcuts’ were part of the plan, their
    reliance being the blank endorsement, but I think that plan fails
    for lack of possession and payment) and we know there was no
    assignment of the deed of trust and most likely no possession, either.
    A million to one there was no (required) delivery and possession
    along the way of either the note or deed of trust or any alleged assignment of the deeds of trust. There was probably no payment, either. No money changing hands = no interest created or at least no right to enforce. No possession = no transfer. Now a promise to pay for the note might transfer interest IF the note is physically delivered. I don’t know, although it’s important imo – just know you can’t enforce a note you haven’t paid for. Promises to pay don’t cut it for enforcement.
    After closing, where did the debt and collateral instruments go? If any of them went right to the trust custodian (or were destroyed), then surely there was no possession by anyone whose endorseable or assignable interests were dependant on that possession.
    There is a reason there were ‘intermediaries’ having to do with bankruptcy-remoteness, which is not my thing. If someone could put the two together, if these arguments hold water – these arguments along with WHY the intermediaries were necessary, maybe we’d have a shot at arguments and need to know clearances judges could only find reasonable, and in fact indispensable to adjudications.
    We’ll probably never know, but is the reason they needed those TARP funds because their little private registry either failed in ‘system-integrity’, in which there could be ‘accidents’, or for lack of recordation of the collateral instruments, sanctioned the ‘selling’ of one note or its payment stream to multiple trusts?

  5. MSoliman ,

    What would you say about #18 and #19 being mutually exclusive … many of us have endorsed in blank non-original notes .. How would you attack the validity of the note and endorsement as the “bank” will no doubt claim the original was “lost” and that the note is indeed valid. In my case they allege the note was endorsed in blank on the back of the last page and they would submit it into evidence but instead they submitted a copy with no endorsement and no longer have the opportunity to submit “better” docs.

  6. TENTATIVE RULING
    ISSUED BY JUDGE MARGARET M. MANN
    Debtor: KEVIN JAY CARTER
    Number: 10-10257-LT13
    Hearing: 02:00 PM Tuesday, January 10, 2012
    Motion: STATUS CONFERENCE ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ONE WEST BANK,
    RANDALL MILLER AND CHRISTOPHER HOO SHOULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT TO
    EXPLAIN WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OR SANCTIONED (fr. 12/13/11)
    Continued to February 21, 2012 at 2:00 pending status report on loan modification sought by
    Janet Carter in her Chapter 13 case

  7. Request for Help in Locating 2 Signatures from Collin County, TX which is a CW/BOA doc processing center for fraudulent assignments.
    Ruth Davies

    Thanks my second rule 120 hearing is Thurs jan 12 Colorado

  8. CLARIFICATION – The alliance amongst lender and commercial member bank then negotiates a sale by assignment to the securities registrations sponsor. This is a judicious consideration viewed in light of the irregularity in the contractual relationships between a “defacto” originator funding source and it’s affiliated SPEs.

    M.SOLIMAN
    expert.witness@live.com

  9. Its late in this state of understanding. Its very late in the game to be at this level of comprehension . This is not good…not good.

    I stand ready to conference in anyone here who desires too, for purposes of education and clarity in claims brought against proprieties and the title owners .

    But this is discouraging …

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    1. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.
    COLLATERAL TRANSFERS FROM SPONSOR AS DEPOSITOR TO DEPOSITORY…ALL LESS THAN ARMS ** DEFACTO**

    2. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.
    MSOLIMAN – WHY SHORT TERM YIELDS CONVERTED TO LONG TERM BOND

    3. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.
    MSOLIMAN-DO NOT NEED UNDER A DE-FACTO … PARTIES ALL LESS THAN ARMS

    4. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed, dated or assigned in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory governing rules of Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
    MSOLIMAN-SEE MLAA FOR PURPOSE OF AVOIDANCE

    5. The assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by a legal entity that was no longer in existence on the date the document was executed.
    -GOOD POINT – NO LAW SAYS THE ORIGINAL PARTIES INTENT DOES NOT PREVAIL

    6. The assignment of the mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by an entity whose name is different than the entity named in the original document (i.e., National City Bank Corporation in lieu of ABC Corporation as a division of National City Bank). MSOLIMAN- SEE INTERPARTIES AGREEMENTS AND BINDING REP AND WARRANTS AMONG LESS THAN ARMS JOINT VENTURE

    7. The assignment was executed by a party pursuant to a Power of Attorney but no Power of Attorney is attached to the instrument or filed with the instrument or otherwise recorded with local land registry.
    M SOLIMAN- POA IS HELD INTERNALLY WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION (WEAK BUT STANDS)
    8. The mortgage note is allegedly transferred in a single document along with the Mortgage or Deed of Trust (i.e., “Assignment of the Note and Mortgage”). You cannot “assign” a mortgage note. You can only “negotiate” a mortgage note under Article 3 of the UCC.

    MSOLIMAN-RECOGNIZED -BASIS IN ASSETS …THE NOTE IS NOTIONAL AND STARTING AT ZERO YOU GOT NOTHING TO LOSE.COME ON – IS THIS WHAT YOUR BELIEVING COUNSEL ?

    9. The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the assignor. WTF (FED…ETC)

    10. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Dakota County, Minnesota.

    11. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

    12. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Duval County, Florida.

    13. The assignment is executed by an officer or secretary of MSOLIMAN-MERS.WHY? WHY IS MERS SURVIVING -START WITH A JOINDER CONSIDERATION , NEXT YOU AND MERS FILE CLAIMS AND PURSUE DECLARATORY RELIEF —ONLY WAY YOU’LL BEAT IT

    14. The assignment is notarized by a secretary or paralegal employed by the attorney for the mortgage servicer.
    MSOLIMAN-PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO ASSIGN WITH THE INTRICACIES AND NUANCES OF THE INSTRUMENT TRANSFERRING HOLDING A PREFERENTIAL UNDERSTANDING FOR INTENT .

    15. The assignment is executed or notarized by an employee of MR Default Services, Promiss Solutions LLC, National Default Exchange, LP, LOGS Financial Services, or some similar third-party.
    MSOLIMAN-LET IT GO BROTHER

    16. The endorsement on the note is actually on an allonge affixed to the note. In most states, an allonge cannot be used if there is a sufficient amount of room at the “foot” or the “bottom” of the original note for the endorsement.
    MSOLIMAN-CORRECT – HUGE

    17. The allonge is not “permanently” affixed to the original note. The term permanent excludes the use of staples and tape and as a result you must use a sold fastener such as glue. Allonges are commonly referred to “in the business” as “tear-off fraud papers.”
    MSOLIMAN-NOT TRUE- ITS ACCEPTED FOR PURPOSE OF TENDER AND NOTE IS A LNG TERM CAPITAL INVESTMENT

    18. The note proffered in evidence is not the original but a copy of the “certified copy” provided to the debtors at the closing.
    MSOLIMAN-ORIGINAL MUST BE DESTROYED IN A TENDER -CANCELLED CHECK BUBBA

    19. The note is endorsed in blank with no transfer and delivery receipts. It is fine to endorse a note in blank, in which case it becomes “bearer” paper under the UCC. However, in order to prove a true sale from the Sponsor to the Depositor you must have written delivery and transfer receipts and proof of pay outs and pay in transactions.

    MSOLIMAN – NOTES ARE NOT BEARER AND IF THEY WERE THEY BEAR ONTO ONE IN THE SAME. FORMALITY OVER SUBSTANCE

    20. The note proffered in evidence is not endorsed at the foot of the note or on an affixed allonge.
    M.SOLIMAN -NO NOTE NO NOTE CANNOT REGISTER SECURITIES AND HOLD OUT A NOTE

    – OKAY …THIS IS NOT GOOD AS FOR UNDERSTANDING ….NOT GOOD THIS LATE IN GAME .

    MSOLIMAN

  10. Request for Help in Locating 2 Signatures from Collin County, TX which is a CW/BOA doc processing center for fraudulent assignments.

    1. Mark Bishop: need a copy of his signature
    2. Sandra Williams: need a copy of her signature

    thanks…post them or a link…or send me an email…or send them to Neil…thanks for the help….Brian in Virginia

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: