New York: Forged Deeds Conveys No rights — Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply

Posted on October 19, 2015 by Neil Garfield

For More information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not a legal opinion on any one case. Consult with an attorney before taking any action or making any decisions.

=================================

see http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202739700342/The-Most-Significant-Title-and-Foreclosure-Cases-of-2015?cmp=share_email

In an interesting decision a New York State Court put to rest a misconception about the statute of limitations. It could have far reaching consequences. The premise put forward was that even though the deed was void, the homeowner loses his right to contest it because the statute of limitations bars the action. The Court made it very clear that this would amount to encouraging people to STEAL the property. So even if a subsequent purchaser acquired the property from someone who got a false deed from a thief, the title remains in the original homeowner. It is difficult to imagine how any court in any state could come to a different conclusion.

The question brings up the validity of the statutes that specifically DO allow title to be transferred, whether in foreclosure sales or otherwise. Those statutes, like Florida, say that after one year all you can get is money damages. I think that is vain attempt to clear up title after theft. In the New York case, you not only had a subsequent deed, you also had a mortgage loan that ends up NOT being an encumbrance on the homeowner’s property. So we have a question here: if the foreclosure sale was based upon forged instruments that were void, not voidable, under applicable law, then title should remain in the homeowner. And that has been my point since 2007 when I started the blog. It is obvious that servicers and trustees are claiming rights under nonexistent powers from a nonexistent trust and luring the courts into entering judgments against the borrowers.

There is a real question in my mind as to whether many of those foreclosure sales were void, not voidable, and therefore leaving title in the name of the original homeowner — and thus making the deeds and mortgages subsequent to the foreclosure auction in the category of “wild deeds.”

No statute of limitations bars a claim to set aside a forged deed and subsequent mortgage

October 12, 2015

The New York Court of Appeals had reaffirmed the traditional rule that forged deeds do not convey title. It has clarified that no statute of limitations bars a challenge to a forged deed even if the purported owner has subsequently transferred interests in the land to a subsequent mortgagee who had no notice of the forgery. Faison v. Lewis, 32 N.E.3d 400 (N.Y. 2015). The Court ruled that the third party purchaser is not a “bona fide” purchaser protected by the recording act because a forged deed can never be the basis of a valid transfer even if the third party did not know and could not have known about the forgery. To do otherwise would allow the forger to “steal” property and get away with it.

Filed under: foreclosure |

« »

37 Responses

  1. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on October 22, 2015 at 3:33 pm said:

    HERE BOB, THIS SHOULD EXPLAIN ALLOT. IT SAY ALL,

    You should consider carefully the risk factors beginning on page S-15 in this prospectus supplement.

    Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of the offered certificates or determined that this prospectus supplement or the prospectus is accurate or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

    The Attorney General of the State of New York has not passed on or endorsed the merits of this offering. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful.

    Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. will purchase the Class A and Class R Certificates from the depositor in amounts described in “Method of Distribution” on page S-94 of this prospectus supplement, and will offer these senior underwritten certificates to the public at varying prices to be determined based on the market price at the time of sale. The proceeds to the depositor from the sale of the senior underwritten certificates will be approximately 99.08% of the aggregate certificate principal balance of the senior underwritten certificates plus accrued interest, before deducting expenses payable by the depositor. There is currently no underwriting arrangement for the Class PO and Class IO Certificates.

    SO THE QUESTION IS . IF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVED THIS OFFER. THEN THERE IS NO OFFER. IS THERE, THEN THERE IS NO TRUST.

  2. DwightNJ, on October 20, 2015 at 7:49 am said:

    @ mn .. Thank you, I’ll look into it.

  4. Deborah wynn, on October 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm said:

    Bob
    Thanks but… I got this

  5. The A Man, on October 19, 2015 at 9:57 pm said:

    Bob Hurt you’re funny. Mel Brooks Nazi funny
    A real comedian
    NEVER AGAIN

  6. Deborah wynn, on October 19, 2015 at 9:22 pm said:

    Im not being rude Bob but my case is not what you think it is and i never Said ” show me the note” a judge twisted that and said that but i never said that, the recording is improper,
    Nothing wrong with a devils advocate on here, just dont get frustrated.

  7. Deborah wynn, on October 19, 2015 at 8:45 pm said:

    bob
    Rethink number 4. And number 6.
    And ill have crispy duck – hat tip SC

  8. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on October 19, 2015 at 7:36 pm said:

    here bob got this after I sent them rescission letter, I had to take off all the emails from them to get it to go on here

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
    From: Information
    Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 12:38:15 -pm
    To: David Belanger

    Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been

    Canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. That William a Marshall SR, and

    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC

    Has accepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. There will no

    Further actions taken, NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the

    Rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,

    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE

    Were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper

    Parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.

    ORLANS MORAN PLLC
    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
    E

    My job includes exceptional customer service. If you would like to comment on the service you have received, please email your feedback to

    ——————————————————————————–

    Federal law requires us to advise you that communication with our office could be interpreted as an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

    ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
    This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance.

  9. Hammertime, on October 19, 2015 at 7:33 pm said:

    We need a dead horse icon!

  10. Hammertime, on October 19, 2015 at 7:33 pm said:

    Still 5 yrs behind spinning the bankster fairy tale.

  11. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 4:57 pm said:

    How does it harm you?

  12. Hammertime, on October 19, 2015 at 4:54 pm said:

    If it is BROKEN , FAKE LOAN, COUNTERFEIT, there is no creditor or many that is ur broken, clouded title. Can’t keep arguing nothing’s wrong.

  13. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 4:47 pm said:

    Bob…you and Neil are on a Roll together today.
    Ignore the nay sawyers and don’t let them draw you down to their level.

  14. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 4:34 pm said:

    One uses title to determine creditor……
    Others make false claims and slander title without the Note or Mortgage.

    Title Abstract. & Pleminary Title Policy

    Hand in Hand the Go.

  15. The A Man, on October 19, 2015 at 4:00 pm said:

    Here is another good one by Mr Hurt

    https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/lawmen/0XqUUEcgciM

  16. The A Man, on October 19, 2015 at 3:46 pm said:

    Bob Hurt reminds me of a Mel Brooks Nazi character

  17. The A Man, on October 19, 2015 at 3:45 pm said:

    Bob Hurt is a comedian Hahahaha you make me laugh.

    NEVER AGAIN

  18. Deborah wynn, on October 19, 2015 at 3:25 pm said:

    Bob
    this is why we must show the court with evidence to counter the paperwork submitted if you can( I can) that the paperwork they used to tell the court a fairy story with, can not be relied upon.

  19. Deborah wynn, on October 19, 2015 at 3:16 pm said:

    Hammertime I used fruit of poisonous tree as a concept it’s it but gauche but then I like the good for the goose is good for the gander – if, all things were equal in our courts of law
    I like this part of the doctrine –
    “This doctrine was also used by the European Court of Human Rights in Gäfgen v. Germany. In certain cases continental European countries have similar laws (e.g. in cases of torture), while the doctrine itself is generally not known. Illegally obtained evidence is used by the courts to ensure that the judgment is factually correct, however the person obtaining the illegal evidence typically faces independent consequences.” My point is kinda in reverse the illegal evidence IS the fruit of poisoned tree and entered in the land records ( slander of title)

  20. Hammertime, on October 19, 2015 at 2:08 pm said:

    I agree DW poisoned tree = broken chain of title. That should be starting point not “creditor” technicalities that are important down the road or simultaneously. If u don’t challenge title “creditor” can always “fix” within screwed up fc, court trap.

  21. Hammertime, on October 19, 2015 at 2:05 pm said:

    Bob G good point on foreclosure defense and forgery issue. imo Have to keep in mind difference btw fc defense in general and the procedure of specific state etc. I think that’s key point of Mains complaint posted the other day. We should start calling it fraud or home theft defense. Although fc defense is important if ur in middle of it. Just as non judicial was seen as unconstitutional and there was a need for homeowner bill of rights this could push us to universal fc rights.

  22. mn, on October 19, 2015 at 12:50 pm said:

    Monday 19 October 2015

    DwightNJ…

    I do not know if you checked your mortgage/state laws requiring some
    kind of notice as a condition precedent prior to filing plaintiff a complaint to
    foreclose. Here is a case from neighboring NY that provides an example
    for you to see if such a statute applies in your own state. It is the equivalent
    of a wooden stake into the vampire plaintiff’s fake heart.

    http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2015/2015-ny-slip-op-25337.html

    The case is short and should be readily understood…

    mn

    The condition precedent I reference is not the one found in covenant 22,
    which you have already waived as a defense.

  23. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on October 19, 2015 at 12:44 pm said:

    HEY BOB H, ALSO WENT THROUGH ALL 6 PAGES OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THEY SAY THEY HAVE A CLAIM IN. HUM NOTHING THERE EITHER. WHY.

    Personal Property – Other personal property of any kind not already listed – Foreclosure Litigation
    Description
    Account
    Number
    Property Address
    State
    Property County
    Name Value
    Foreclosure Litigation 1678 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 1904 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3807 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7509 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8015 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8433 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8502 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 9715 MA BRISTOL Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 1107 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 1266 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3187 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3639 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3719 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 4668 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 5101 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7191 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7355 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8314 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8854 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8995 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 9999 MA ESSEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7270 MA FRANKLIN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 0027 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 0042 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 0928 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 1405 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 1906 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 4205 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 4587 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 4800 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 5480 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 6802 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8111 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8603 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8830 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8997 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 9407 MA HAMPDEN Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 1988 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3003 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3091 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 3108 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 4605 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 5427 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 6440 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7070 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7365 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 7437 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Foreclosure Litigation 8214 MA MIDDLESEX Unknown
    Page 45 of 114

  24. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on October 19, 2015 at 12:07 pm said:

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    —————————————————————x
    :
    In re : Chapter 11
    :
    RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, et al., 1 : Case No. 12-12020 (MG)
    :
    :
    : (Jointly Administered)
    Debtors. :
    —————————————————————x
    SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR
    GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC (CASE NO. 12-12032)

    12-12020-mg Doc 550 Filed 06/30/12 Entered 06/30/12 18:20:07 Main Document

    Pg 1 of 1365, SEE THE DATES OF THIS BOB. JUNE OF 2012. NOW REMEMBER THAT DATE PLEASE. NOW THIS ALSO SAY THAT THIS HAS TO BE FOR THE PERIOD 2YRS BEFORE BK DATE, AND AS OF THE DAY THEY FILED. OK. ITS ONLY 1365 PAGES LONG, OF ASSETS.

    NOW I KNOW YOU KNOW YOU CAN ONLY TRANSFER A ASSET, IF YOU OWN THAT ASSET. YOU AGREE ON THAT POINT. RIGHT.

    SO THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT, IN MY RECORD AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS IS AS OF AUGUST 20 , 2012. OK REMEMER THAT DATE.

    NOW HERE IS ALL ASSETS , OF PROPERTY THEY SAY THEY OWN.

    In re: GMAC Mortgage, LLC
    SCHEDULE A – REAL PROPERTY
    Case No. 12-12032 (MG)
    B6A (Official Form 6A) (12/07)
    Except as directed below, list all real property in which the debtor has any legal, equitable, or future interest, including all property owned
    as a co-tenant, community property, or in which the debtor has a life estate. Include any property in which the debtor holds rights and powers
    exercisable for the debtor’s own benefit. If the debtor is married, state whether the husband, wife, both, or the marital community own the
    property by placing an “H,” “W,” “J,” or “C” in the column labeled “HWJC.” If the debtor holds no interest in real property, write “None” under
    “Description and Location of Property.”

    Description and location of property Nature of debtor’s interest in property
    Current value of
    debtor’s interest in
    property, without
    deducting any
    secured claim or
    exemption
    Amount of
    secured claim
    100 N Lotus Avenue
    Chicago, IL 60644
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $0.00 Unknown
    102 Hill Valley Drive
    Winchester, VA 22602
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $86,854.50 Unknown
    106 Mallard Way
    Clinton, MS 39056
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $80,851.47 Unknown
    10706 Brandywine Road
    Clinton, MD 20735
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $78,742.30 Unknown
    108 Lofas Place
    Vallejo, CA 94589
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $75,020.28 Unknown
    10900 Abilene Rd
    Reno, NV 89506
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $110,419.83 Unknown
    11 Kate Travis Road
    Petal, MS 39465
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $29,335.54 Unknown
    11401 Aires Drive
    Amarillo, TX 79108
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $31,031.00 Unknown
    1142 Mckinlay Ct
    Jacksonville, FL 32205
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $33,679.10 Unknown
    115 Cook St
    Simpsonville, SC 29681
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $5,894.92 Unknown
    116 Crystal Ridge Dr Nw
    Milledgeville, GA 31061
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $94,427.13 Unknown
    12 Greenhalgh Dr
    Seekonk, MA 2771
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $282,438.43 Unknown
    12046 Bethwood Ave
    New Port Richey, FL 34654
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $102,252.65 Unknown
    121 Weeks St
    Battle Creek, MI 49015
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $36,833.68 Unknown
    1210 S Ainsworth Avenue
    Tacoma, WA 98405
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $70,636.86 Unknown
    1217 S Sierra Bonita Avenue
    Los Angeles, CA 90019
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $43,052.29 Unknown
    1219 Oahu
    Tikki Island, TX 77554
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $381,459.12 Unknown
    12301 Big Bend Rd
    Riverview, FL 33569
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $3,022.36 Unknown
    1245 Toolik Dr
    North Pole, AK 99705
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $44,315.00 Unknown
    1306 Teto Street
    George West, TX 78022
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $27,858.00 Unknown
    134 Old No 5
    Selmer, TN 38375
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $55,311.68 Unknown
    1366 York St
    Des Moines, IA 50316
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $13,437.23 Unknown
    13717 E Bridges Road
    Elk, WA 99009
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $75,124.06 Unknown
    13887 North Cassia Street
    Rathdrum, ID 83858
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset $34,012.65 Unknown
    14355 Green Vista Drive
    Fontana, CA 92337
    Residential Dwelling
    Repossessed and Foreclosed Asset

    NOW THERE IS 6 PAGES OF PROPERTY LIST, MY PROPERTY IS NOT LISTED ON ALL 6 PAGES. NOPE NOT THERE ASSET.

    SO HOW COULD MERS GET AUTHORITY FROM THEM GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC,. OR ANYONE, IN AUGUST OF 2012. TO ASSIGN MY MORTGAGE TO A NON- EXISTENT TRUST.

    NOW IT WAS STAMP SIGNED, NOT REAL SIGNATURE, AND IT WAS ACTING FOR , A COMPANY THAT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS IN 2006. THAT WOULD BE GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION. THEY SIGN SAYING ACTING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION. OK RIGHT.

  25. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 11:39 am said:

    There are no benificaries in a mortgage. Its a 2 party transaction.
    So I had to start with finding the original creditor….to conclude our business. That would be the party entitle to file a SOM.

    It only got worse from there…

  26. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 11:32 am said:

    Whistles to VA & FHA….
    Certified RM Specialist paid by Title Ins and yours truly LPS.
    Operating under a Vendor – Vendee business relationship.

    All Above Failed You whilst making profits!!!
    And making me a criminal my unauthorized use of my signature..in a business relationship…and that contract misrepresented as a mortgage!

    The Settlements granted me protection on both counts.

    They messed with the Wrong Cookie Jars!

  27. Deborah wynn, on October 19, 2015 at 11:32 am said:

    It started with the original recorded beneficiary
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

  28. Charles Reed, on October 19, 2015 at 11:17 am said:

    No legal action can ever come from an illegal action because the action was illegal. How is there any argument that one that was not assigned the debt because there was never a sale, as with Wells Fargo handling of WaMu Ginnie Mae pooled loan.

    MERS performs these forgeries and records the assignments in local court to place Wells into title as the “holder in due course” where Wells admits they did not purchase the debt and has no proof of sale.

    Nothing changes the fact that Wells Fargo did not purchase the 1.3 million loans it was mortgage servicing for WaMu. So Wells with an act of “theft by deception” next “sale of stolen good” and “false insurance claim” that made against the United States Dept of VA & FHA.

  29. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 11:05 am said:

    When your the investors and a homeowner.
    You are Both ends of the stick!
    You can not pick up one..without the other.

    Keeping the Heat Turned Up! 🌕
    No matter how small your Light…
    LET IT SHINE!

  30. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 10:59 am said:

    I listen to their BS testamoney about their practices .
    They omitted those were their CURRENT standards…but we knew it was not their standard practice prior.

    So as not to further injure innocent parties the AGs slapped them on the hand and a promise they would not do it again.
    That didn’t work out so well …. They continued anyway!

    The test subject
    The poster child
    The BAIT!

  31. louise, on October 19, 2015 at 10:56 am said:

    Forgery all t way through. I have 3 assignments & all of them are forged. Forgery inside t trust as well.

  32. Sheri daniel, on October 19, 2015 at 10:51 am said:

    Thank you.

  33. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 10:42 am said:

    That will teach LPS to use our acknowledgements then turn around and use them against us…..Black Night alright..but there is always Light in the end!

    Unwittingly a rob signer

    And you wonder why I have so many personalities….?
    You could say…. They Created Me !
    But I took my Life Back! And My Assets!

    Many Blessings to All
    NOW GO TAKE A BITE OUT OF CRIME!

  34. Shadowcat, on October 19, 2015 at 10:33 am said:

    That’s It!!! People are waking up!!

    Praise God!

    Now people will listen to you Bob…about Damages.

  35. Bob G., on October 19, 2015 at 10:08 am said:

    The question remains, does a forged mortgage indorsement/allonge transfer or negotiate the mortgage note? Or are we once again left with the “you don’t have standing to challenge the note’s transfer/negotiation” defense.

    You see, at some point, this is going to have to be addressed honestly. If I, as a maker of MY note, sign it and then a forged indorsement/allonge is placed on the note and transferred and/or negotiated on that basis to a third party, that then tries to enforce the note via a foreclosure action, I ought to have standing to challenge the enforcement action on the basis of forgery.

    So what the NY Court of Appeals may have just done with this decision, albeit apparently unwittingly, is open up the floodgates to homeowners to interpose forgery as an affirmative foreclosure defense. The Fifth District Court of Appeals last year held in the Vasquez decision is that robo-signer Bryan Bly’s forged signature on a deed of trust voided its conveyance to Deutsche Bank’s trust.

    So what i would be doing is getting subpoenas out on every person that allegedly had their signature robo-stamped to an indorsement or allonge and bring them in for a deposition.

  36. Elaine in Baltimore, on October 19, 2015 at 10:07 am said:

    “It is difficult to imagine how any court in any state could come to a different conclusion.” Really? Well in the State of Maryland apparently forgeries are ok. I had them, along with two different allonges at two different times, two ‘true test’ copies – just to name a few….none of it made one bit of difference, even at the superior court level. Apparently is was ok with the auditor too – the sale on my house got ratified rather quickly – after a five year struggle.

  37. lms53, on October 19, 2015 at 9:57 am said:

    Neil, the way I see it is the state courts are egging in on so to speak by giving out these certificates of title (another fraudulent document) by our state court to push the foreclosure sale. who is going to stop the state court from pushing the fraud on down the line. Its not just the foreclosures that affect the title. Its any so called “arm length transaction” between the buyer and seller where the seller may have had one of these securitized loans. They are all contaminated!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d