Fla 4th DCA: The Starting Point is Standing — If You Don’t Have It, There is no Jurisdicition

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

This is not a legal opinion on any case. Consult with an attorney.


see Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo

“The core element concerning to whom the note was payable on the date suit was filed was not proven.”

Bottom Line: You can’t file a lawsuit without standing. Judgment reversed with instructions to enter Judgment for the homeowner. And you can’t cure standing by getting it later. That would be like filing suit for a slip and fall in front of a super market, and once the suit was filed, you then go to the supermarket, get out of your car and proceed to slip and fall. And the second story is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the foreclosing party, not the homeowner.

Many courts are now leaning away from the legal fantasies being promoted by “servicers”, “trustees’ and other parties attempting to “foreclose” on debts that very often are (a) not owned by them (b) they have no authority to represent the owner of the debt (c) the alleged creditor is not showing a default on its books (d) on behalf of a Trust that (1) never operated (b) exists only on paper (c) with no bank account (d) no financial statements (no assets (e) no liabilities (f) no income (g) no expenses.

All this is becoming abundantly clear. The prior assumptions that allowed for some crossover between a holder and a holder in due course are giving way to another look, starting from the beginning. In this case there was no endorsement on the note at all. The Appellate court said that ended the inquiry. There was no lawsuit, it should have been dismissed and now judgment, entered by the Judge in West Palm beach is reversed with instructions to enter judgment for the Defendant homeowner.

In my opinion the courts are now being presented with the correct arguments and facts that leave them in a position where if they allowed these kinds of action they would be setting a precedent making it legal to steal.

And my question remains: IF THERE REALLY WAS A REAL TRANSACTION WHERE SOMEONE FUNDED THE LOAN AND SOMEONE ELSE BOUGHT THE NOTE THEN WHY DON’T THEY ALLEGE THAT THEY ARE HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE? If they alleged HDC status all they would need to prove is payment. No “borrower” defenses would apply. If they don’t have HDC status then on whose behalf is the foreclosure actually being filed, since the investors are getting paid anyway? I think the answer is that the servicer is converting a tenuous claim for volunteer payments on behalf of the borrower to investors who don’t know what loans they own; the real claim is that the servicer wants to “recover” servicer advances that it paid out of third party funds. These servicers are reaping windfalls every time they get a foreclosure sale.

This Court quotes approvingly from the UCC: “… the transferee cannot acquire the right of a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.” And goes on to quote the statute “a person who is party to fraud or illegality affecting the instrument is not permitted to wash the instrument clean by passing into the hands of a holder in due course and then repurchasing it.” see § 673.2031

The court concludes that there is no negotiation of the note until an endorsement appears — which read in conjunction with the rest of the opinion means that the endorsement must be by someone who is either a holder in due course or a party representing a party who is a holder in due course. If no holder in due course exists, then there is no way to construe the instrument as a negotiable instrument and there is no way to construe the instrument as having been negotiated under the UCC. And THAT means they must prove every aspect of the transaction (starting with origination) without relying on the suspect instruments.

See also 4th DCA — Standing is “Foreclosure 101” Peoples v. SAMI II Trust

40 Responses

  1. What is the operation of law they’re bringing suits upon?

    Copies entered into evidence is evidence of BANK FRAUD when it involves COPIES OF BANK DRAFTS.

    They can’t recollect on copies of checks that we never signed in the first place & that’s their problem.

    What they’re collecting on is unknown & why they’re identity is being hidden behind their own fraudulence.

    What underlies innumerable transactions of unknown origin by unknown parties is mass criminality.

  2. How the supposed debt was created & where it was derived is encyclical to there being JUST CAUSE to bring the INFAMOUS SUITS.

    There is no LAW IN EQUITY for the ISSUANCE of CREDIT.

    Especially not when the CREDIT was issued fraudulently.

    You can’t be every party to one issue whether you say you’re invested or not.

    That’s why BANK PRESIDENTS the likes of DAVE CLARK from FIRST MIDWEST BANK, writing off their own BANK MALFEASANCE by signing off on everything in WITHOUT RECOURSE ALLONGES, purporting they own something they don’t, need to go to prison for UTTERING their own BANK MALFEASANCE “upon the courts.”

  3. Let’s spell it out in BLACK & WHITE.

    They don’t have possession of the SECURITY.

    Therefore, the debt they claim “someone is owed” was created by COUNTERFEITING innumerable things they refuse to disclose.

    They will not even disclose their TRUE IDENTITY.

    So what we have here is DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

  4. That is quite the contradiction of words to say the HOMEOWNER is someone other than the TITLE HOLDER OF RECORD.

  5. Moreover, I never gve my permission to no one to SOLICIT ILLICIT SALES in my name, behind my back.

  6. Not without the TRUSTEES AGREEMENT David.


  8. Who is “THE BORROWER?”

    That is the $60+ TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.


  9. Mortgage Pools is laughable.

    We never said they could do that.

    If the “LOAN OFFICER” said we’re packaging up you’re titles with DRUG LORDS who want you dead would you say yes or no to that?

    That’s why the evil doers never said nothing.

  10. Now, pull out, or up, your mortgage or deed of trust. Find the following language:

    “BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to mortgage, grant and convey the Property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record.”

    borrower covenantsOver several years I’ve looked at more mortgages than I care to admit. Given a choice between knowing any of this stuff and having a lit cigar stuck up my nose I’d opt for the latter. I used to get paid to start fires without matches. I’d rather be doing that still. The last five (5) years are not what I had planned. Yet I am here.

    Did you see the part that contractually obligates the borrower to “defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands?” Maybe, you don’t need to assert standing to challenge the validity of an assignment after all? To this layman it looks to be “Contract Law 101.” And even better it is found in a seminal document; the mortgage or DOT.

    Since reading my own again several months ago (you can’t EVER read your own documents, your own pleadings, motions and other papers, the pleadings, motions and other papers of adverse party, or the rules [Read the Rules. Read the Rules. Read ReadTheRulesthe Rules] too many times), and noticing that language, I’ve reviewed several hundred more mortgages and DOTs. Thus far I’ve found the language in every one I’ve reviewed. I hesitate to say it is universal, but I’m hopeful.

    Every example I’ve seen has always started with “BORROWER COVENANTS” in all caps (that makes it a bit easier to find). I’ve seen it in different places, on different pages, but thus far it has been in every one I’ve reviewed.

    woman-courtroomImagine this conversation.

    Homeowner: Your Honor, I dispute the validity of the assignment.

    Court: You’re a non-party to the assignment. You don’t have standing to challenge it.

    Homeowner: I’m not asserting standing to challenge the assignment, Your Honor. I’m contractually obligated to defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands.

    Court: Are you trying to get a free house?

    Homeowner: No, Your Honor. My contractual obligation, expressed in the mortgage on page X, par. Y, is to protect the interests of the holder/owner/investor/real party in interest. It appears that is not the party before this court.

    Court: Well, I don’t think that is what it means.

    Homeowner: It looks pretty unambiguous to me, Your Honor. Even if it is ambiguous, Your Honor, the doctrine of “contra proferentem” is applicable; ambiguities are to be construed unfavorably to the drafter. I didn’t draft the mortgage…

    From this point, fulfilling a contractual obligation to protect the interests of the proper party, connecting the dots that lead to the PSA, a CLP, and NY EPTL may become considerably easier.

    * Disclaimer: This is research and personal experience expressed and shared for the purpose of thought and conversation. Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice or practicing law. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.

    Thank you Glenn Augenstein for a terrific post.



    Bankruptcy proceedings could delay or reduce distributions on the certificates. The transfer of the mortgage loans from the seller to the depositor is intended by the parties to be and has been documented as a sale. However, if the seller were to become bankrupt, a trustee in bankruptcy could attempt to recharacterize the sale of the mortgage loans as a loan secured by the mortgage loans or to consolidate the mortgage loans with the assets of the seller. Any such attempt could result in a delay in or reduction of collections on the mortgage loans available to make payments on the certificates.

  12. Issuing Entity

    The depositor will establish a trust with respect to the GMACM Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1 on the closing date pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. The pooling and servicing agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York. On the closing date, the depositor will deposit into the trust a pool of mortgage loans that in the aggregate will constitute a mortgage pool, secured by one to four family residential properties with terms to maturity of not more than 30 years. All of the mortgage loans will have been purchased by the depositor from the seller pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase agreement, dated as of the closing date, between the seller and the depositor.

    The pooling and servicing agreement provides that the depositor assigns to the trustee for the benefit of the certificateholders without recourse all the right, title and interest of the depositor in and to the mortgage loans. Furthermore, the pooling and servicing agreement states that, although it is intended that the conveyance by the depositor to the trustee of the mortgage loans be construed as a sale, the conveyance of the mortgage loans shall also be deemed to be a grant by the depositor to the trustee of a security interest in the mortgage loans and related collateral.

    Some capitalized terms used in this prospectus supplement have the meanings given under “Description of the Certificates—Glossary of Terms” or in the prospectus under “Glossary.” The offering of the certificates described in this prospectus supplement is a “Designated Seller Transaction” as that term is used in the prospectus.

  13. Consumer Protection Laws
    Numerous federal and state consumer protection laws impose requirements applicable to the origination of loans, including the Truth in Lending Act, as implemented by Regulation Z, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as implemented by Regulation B, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, as implemented by Regulation X, the Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and related statutes. These laws can impose specific statutory liabilities upon creditors who fail to comply with their provisions. In some cases, this liability may affect an assignee’s ability to enforce the related loan. In particular, the originator’s failure to comply with certain requirements of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act, as implemented by Regulation Z, could subject both originators and assignees of such obligations to monetary penalties and could result in obligors rescinding the mortgage loans against either the originators or assignees. In addition, some of the mortgage loans may be subject to special rules, disclosure requirements and other provisions that are applicable to Homeownership Act Loans as discussed under “—The Mortgage Loans—Homeownership Act and Similar State Laws.”
    If the transferor of a consumer credit contract is also the seller of goods that give rise to the transaction, and, in certain cases, related lenders and assignees, the “Holder-in-Due-Course” rule of the Federal Trade Commission is intended to defeat the ability of the transferor to transfer the contract free of notice of claims by the debtor thereunder. The effect of this rule is to subject the assignee of the contract to all claims and defenses that the debtor could assert against the seller of goods. Liability under this rule is limited to amounts paid under a contract; however, the borrower also may be able to assert the rule to set off remaining amounts due as a defense against a claim brought against the borrower.

    Non-Recordation of Assignments; Possession of Mortgages

    The seller will not be required to record assignments of the mortgages to the trustee in the real property records of the states in which the related mortgaged properties are located.

    Other than with respect to the mortgage loans recorded in the name of MERS,

    GMACM will retain record title to the mortgages on behalf of the trustee and the certificateholders.

    Although the recordation of the assignments of the mortgages in favor of the trustee is not necessary to effect a transfer of the mortgage loans to the trustee, if GMACM were to sell, assign, pledge, satisfy or discharge any mortgage loan prior to the recording, if any, of the related assignment in favor of the trustee and in some cases even after the recordation of any related assignment, the other parties to the sale, assignment, satisfaction, pledge, or discharge may have rights superior to those of the trustee. In a small number of states, including Florida, in the absence of recordation of the assignments of the mortgages, the transfer to the trustee of the mortgage loans may not be effective against certain creditors or purchasers from the seller or a trustee in bankruptcy thereof. If those other parties, creditors or purchasers have rights to the mortgage loans that are superior to those of the trustee, certificateholders could lose the right to future payments of principal and interest to the extent that those rights are not otherwise enforceable in favor of the trustee under the applicable mortgage documents.

    The trustee will not have physical possession of the mortgage notes related to the mortgage loans in the trust. Instead, GMAC Bank, in its capacity as custodian, will retain possession of the mortgage notes, which may be endorsed in blank and not stamped or otherwise marked to reflect the assignment to the trustee. If a subsequent purchaser were able to take physical possession of the mortgage notes without knowledge of that assignment, the interests of the trustee in the mortgage loans could be defeated. In that event, distributions to certificateholders may be adversely affected.

  15. Advances

    Prior to each distribution date, the servicer is required to make Advances which were due on the mortgage loans on the immediately preceding due date and delinquent on the business day next preceding the related determination date.

    These Advances are required to be made only to the extent they are deemed by the servicer to be recoverable from related late collections, Insurance Proceeds, Liquidation Proceeds or amounts otherwise payable to the holders of the Subordinate Certificates. The purpose of making these Advances is to maintain a regular cash flow to the certificateholders, rather than to guarantee or insure against losses. The servicer will not be required to make any Advances with respect to reductions in the amount of the monthly payments on the mortgage loans due to Debt Service Reductions or the application of the Relief Act or similar legislation or regulations. Any failure by the servicer to make an Advance as required under the pooling and servicing agreement will constitute an event of default thereunder, in which case the trustee, as successor servicer, will be obligated to make any Advance, in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement.

    All Advances will be reimbursable to the servicer on a first priority basis from either (a) late collections, Insurance Proceeds and Liquidation Proceeds from the mortgage loan as to which such unreimbursed Advance was made or (b) as to any Advance that remains unreimbursed in whole or in part following the final liquidation of the related mortgage loan, from any amounts otherwise distributable on any of the Class B Certificates or Class M Certificates; provided, however, that any Advances that were made with respect to delinquencies which ultimately were determined to be Excess Special Hazard Losses, Excess Fraud Losses, Excess Bankruptcy Losses or Extraordinary Losses are reimbursable to the servicer out of any funds in the Custodial Account prior to distributions on any of the certificates and the amount of those losses will be allocated as described in this prospectus supplement. Any servicing fees that have not been paid to the servicer with respect to a liquidated mortgage loan will be paid to the servicer out of Insurance Proceeds and Liquidation Proceeds from that liquidated mortgage loan from amounts otherwise distributable to certificateholders.

    In addition, if the Certificate Principal Balances of the Subordinate Certificates have been reduced to zero, any Advances previously made which are deemed by the servicer to be nonrecoverable

  16. If specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the trust underlying a series of securities may include Agency Securities or private securities. For any series of securities backed by Agency Securities or private securities, the entity that administers the private securities or Agency Securities may be referred to as the manager, if stated in the accompanying prospectus supplement. The private securities in the trust may have been issued previously by the depositor or an affiliate, an unaffiliated financial institution or other entity engaged in the business of mortgage lending or a limited purpose corporation organized for the purpose of, among other things, acquiring and depositing loans into trusts, and selling beneficial interests in those trusts. As specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the Agency Securities or private securities will primarily be similar to securities offered hereunder in their collateral and their cash flows. The primary collateral for both the private securities and the related securities will be the same pool of mortgage loans. Payments on the Agency Securities or private securities will be passed through to holders of the related securities. As to any series of securities, the accompanying prospectus supplement will include a description of any Agency Securities or private securities along with any related credit enhancement, and the trust assets underlying those private securities will be described together with any other trust assets included in the pool relating to that series.
    In addition, as to any series of securities secured by private securities, the private securities may consist of an ownership interest in a structuring entity formed by the depositor for the limited purpose of holding the trust assets relating to the series of securities. This special purpose entity may be organized in the form of a trust, limited partnership or limited liability company, and will be structured in a manner that will insulate the holders of securities from liabilities of the special purpose entity. The provisions governing the special purpose entity will restrict the special purpose entity from engaging in or conducting any business other than the holding of trust assets and any related assets and the issuance of ownership interests in the trust assets and some incidental activities. Any ownership interest in the special purpose entity will evidence an ownership interest in the related trust assets as well as the right to receive specified cash flows derived from the trust assets, as described in the accompanying prospectus supplement.

    The depositor will cause the trust assets constituting each pool to be assigned without recourse to the trustee named in the accompanying prospectus supplement, for the benefit of the holders of all of the securities of a series.

  18. Trial Modification Loans. Some of the loans may be loans where the borrower in the past has failed to pay scheduled monthly payments, and the borrower has entered into a trial modification agreement. Generally, under this arrangement:

    • the borrower agrees to pay a reduced monthly payment for a specified trial period typically lasting 3 to 6 months;

    • if the borrower makes all required monthly payments during the trial period, at the end of the trial period, the original loan terms will be modified to reflect terms stated in the trial modification agreement. The modifications may include a reduced interest rate, the forgiveness of some arrearages, the capitalization of some arrearages, an extension of the maturity, or a provision for a balloon payment at maturity;

  19. Please listen to Dan on Jurisdiction and Affidavit’s.
    See John Davids Error of Resolution on statues.

    And more:

    Dan gives the three most profound US SUPREME COURT RULING ON STANDING DAMAGES


  20. Subjorning perjury is legally ineffectual because lies can’t be made true by subletting the private information of others.

    AIG/INFRAGUARD is violating everyones legal rights by their own unlawful conduciveness.

    Do we know what they’re really selling?

    No, because CONDUITS don’t exist.

    Therefore, neither do they, because CONDUITS hide their CRIME SYNDICATE so they can’t be located or identified.

    What REMICS do is hide them from being outed because DERIVATIVES have no legal existance.

  21. They’re DEFUNCT CREDITORS on their own hallucinogens trying to prove their AGENCIES ever existed by questioning their own ALLEGETORIES.


    They’re behaving like SWAHILI GYPSIES who opened up their fake operations on MAXWELL STREET & this link best describes the reasons why;



  23. It’s MERS FRAUD. The fact that MERS ever entered the picture is what makes FRAUDCLOSURE criminal.

    OBAMA’S pension is invested in VANGUARD who invests in MERS & that is FRAUD IN THE FACTUM to cover up for FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT.

    Nothing of monetary value was ever PROCURED.

    CREDIT is SPECULATION, not money spent, because it was issued fraudulently from it’s inception.

    Nothing makes FRAUD IN THE ISSUANCE & OBTAINING OF CREDIT legal no matter who it is.

    They’re in violation with the FDCPA for trying to collect unlawful debts because they’re DEFUNCT entities who got bailed out for trying to LEGALIZE COUNTERFEITING.


  24. @ Deadly Clear (Sydney)

    The STATUTE OF FRAUDS requires the REMIC to record any interest.


    Please delete the entire posting to this thread on October 20, 2015 at 4:03 pm.

    It was an error to insert the e-mail address where the name was to be inserted (CAUSE: new hard drive/format ).

    Thank you.

  26. @ Javagold

    That fact pattern indicates the predatory servicing practices in order to manufacture a default. See RESPA.

  27. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    In the old days (I sound like my mother now who would have been 100 next year), we didn’t need pre-stamped blank indorsements on notes. If a note and mortgage were sold the seller would indicate the sale to the buyer by signature and the buyer would record the transaction (if he were smart) in the land records office.

    Think about it, when you sell a car you transfer the title it all gets legally recorded in order to issue registrations, and of course taxes. That is by state law… And if it’s not recorded properly and the new owner has an accident, leaves the car on the side of the road, guess who is liable…? Why should property be allowed to float?! It’s about time the judiciary started to grasp the misappropriation of property. Just some of my thoughts, Sydney.

  28. Don’t get me started to on 1099A !!!!

    So much incorrect information and fraud on a little post card.

  29. Here is a question I don’t think I asked these past 5 years here.
    If property is in my name only. And the mortgage is in my spouses name only.
    Does the Servicer have the right to pay my property taxes ?? I was paying then directly to township each quarter. Admittedly I fell behind 6 months. But only to catch a breather which I did pay each quarter to keep me only 6 months in arrears.
    I don’t believe the Servicer had a right to pay those property taxes and then put the balance in spouses mortgage escrow. Which of course put the mortgage , which as in good standing at the time, behind and started the Avalanche towards their final goal of fraudclosures.
    I don’t believe this was fair. Just. Or legal. It’s like me paying your property taxes and then foreclosing on you if you don’t pay me back plus interest.

  30. here is the 1099 tax that my fake trust is saying. got it from ctslink.com its wells fargo trust services site. my trust that is trying to foreclose is call. GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1 . DOESNT EVEN EXSIST IN THEY FILE. BUT UNDER THE BLOOMBERG , THIS IS WHAT SHOW MY MORTGAGE IN. THE TRAUNCH, AND THE CUSIP NUMBER. ITS FOR A HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST.



    GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust

    Series 2006-J1 REMIC

    SERIES EIN: 54-2195437


    9062 Old Annapolis Road

    Columbia, MD 21045

    CLASS: A1

    CUSIP: 36185MEB4








    1/1/13 – 1/24/13 24 102,406.10 0.01695382 0.00 26,763,476.94 106.33973013 9.02722466%

    1/25/13 – 2/24/13 30 118,821.92 0.01573723 0.00 24,841,127.56 98.70163011 11.80655437%

    2/25/13 – 3/24/13 30 105,949.89 0.01403241 0.00 22,149,701.90 88.00774758 11.93687938%

    3/25/13 – 4/24/13 30 98,327.01 0.01302281 0.00 20,554,299.96 81.66871276 12.57966446%

    4/25/13 – 5/24/13 30 90,868.95 0.01203503 0.00 18,993,613.15 75.46761210 13.29839611%

    5/25/13 – 6/24/13 30 83,572.45 0.01106866 0.00 17,452,486.97 69.34423202 14.10776521%

    6/25/13 – 7/24/13 30 76,365.08 0.01011408 0.00 15,878,074.28 63.08859411 14.23202824%

    7/25/13 – 8/24/13 30 72,944.88 0.00966110 0.00 15,220,467.54 60.47571524 15.12257955%

    8/25/13 – 9/24/13 30 71,209.22 0.00943122 0.00 14,827,989.80 58.91627748 16.11274182%

    9/25/13 – 10/24/13 30 69,250.27 0.00917177 0.00 14,432,476.18 57.34477719 16.70008077%

    10/25/13 – 11/24/13 30 68,384.41 0.00905709 0.00 14,269,606.79 56.69764577 16.96856507%

    11/25/13 – 12/24/13 30 67,680.40 0.00896385 0.00 14,131,299.72 56.14810820 16.74424441%

    12/25/13 – 12/31/13 7 15,606.79 0.00885867 0.00 13,962,573.21 55.47770458 3.83687033%

    1,041,387.37 0.00

    Accrual Period Days In




    Daily Qualified Stated

    Interest (per $1000 of

    original principal)


    Accrued ($)

    Daily OID

    (per $1000 of original


    Adjusted Issue Price

    at the Beginning

    of Period ($)

    Adjusted Issue Price

    (per $1000 of original


    Market Discount

    Accrual Ratio

    Qualified Stated Interest

    Paid Or Accrued ($) (1)

    (2) AIP has been adjusted for realized losses reported in the period.

    The above information is provided pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.6049-7. This is important tax information and is being furnished to certain nominees, corporations, and other specified

    persons. This letter is for information only and is not tax advice. The Regulations carry special reporting concerns for both nominees and holders of regular interests and collateralized debt

    obligations. Please consult a tax professional and refer to IRS Publications 1212 and 938 for additional information.

    For each calendar quarter, at least 95% of the assets of the REMIC were represented by each of the following categories:

    (1) Qualifying real property loans under IRC Section 593,

    (2) Assets of a domestic building and loan association as described in IRC Section 7701(a)(19), and

    (3) Real estate assets as defined in IRC Section 856(c)(6)(B).

    © 2015 Microsoft

  31. Fwcow, Because, unfortunately, the IRS is part of the scam. They are in on it. Please see my earlier post.

  32. What so hard to understand when Wells Fargo Bank on Jul 31, 2006 started servicing 1.3 million Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) mostly government loans. The blank Notes were all housing in the mortgage service center building in Milwaukee, that Wells Fargo purchase the building.

    There are no dates to show when the Notes were endorsed, and so on Sept 25, 2008 when WaMu was seized by the OTS and declared a “failed bank” there would never be a time that Wells Fargo could claim ownership of something they never purchase as WaMu no longer existed pass Sept 25.

    Wells has admitted for being the “holder in due course” but tries to act as if Ginnie Mae is the “holder in due course” and they are acting for them which is impossible because Ginnie cannot, does not originate, buy or sell any home mortgage loans!

    I only assume that WaMu did not do much lending in Fl if any, so the attorney don’t get that this exposes the fatal problem with all FHA, VA & USDA loan where 95% of these loans are placed into the Ginnie MBS but non of the loan are actually owned because the blank Notes are transferred without a sell occurring!

  33. If BOA as holder of your asset owes…
    On your behalf?

    Not a tax attorney…But I pay one.
    Perhaps you should to.

  34. Such wins are encouraging we must keep hitting them back

  35. Why in the Hell will nobody answer my question ?
    1. America’s Wholesale Lender, a New York Corporation, never existed.
    2. Never transferred into REMIC.
    3. I sign Investment Security (promissory note) $82,900.
    4. Bank of America believe they own note.
    5. Bank of America own $4,300,000 tax, to IRS, cause never transferred to REMIC.
    6. IRS Form 4490, and IRS 3949-A filed.
    7. Taxes take first lien IRS 3713, IRS paid before and Attorney or Service Company ever paid.
    8. Please answer my question ?

  36. They didn’t build MEMRSwith an exit door.
    So they started forging deeds…heck..why not?
    A slap on the hand fine for forging/submitting/changing the terms of the original contract…that’s why they needed mods,….
    We didn’t need a mod….you had to have a hardship.
    So lets have a deed forging orgy!!!

  37. Good Morning Sunshine.
    Its that easy!!!

  38. None of the notes have endorsements to the trust or all the other intervening entities. Servicers do not have holder in due course authority.

  39. Here’s the problem. You need a very crafty litigator to make this argument stick. We had a careless and incompetent BK attorney who signed away our chances of ever getting our house and property back. The foreclosure mill had him sign a document on our behalf admitting that they had standing. We had been advancing the “no standing” argument pro se with no luck for three years before retaining him. In his office he said yes he understood exactly what we were saying, while pretending to look at our documents, (2 big binders in chronological order that contained a forensic loan audit also). Great! Finally we’ll get somewhere! What we got was our house taken by a third party and our 401k striped. His answer to me when I asked WTF? Why did he do that! His answer to me was “I’m not drinking the kool-aid!” I still cannot believe what happened but it did. I took my complaint to the Attorney Grievance Committee in Maryland – which took me no where – just like everything else we’ve thrown money at since 2009.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: