In short, the proffer of a document signed not by the grantor or assignor but by a person with limited authority and no knowledge, on behalf of a company claiming to be attorney in fact is an empty self-serving document that provides escape hatches in the event a court actually looks at the document. It is as empty as the Trusts themselves that never operated nor did they purchase any loans.
Get a consult! 202-838-6345
If you had a promissory note that was payable to someone else, you would need to get it endorsed by the Payee to yourself in order to negotiate it. No bank, large or small, would accept the note as collateral for a loan without several conditions being satisfied:
- The maker of the note would be required to verify that the debt and the fact that it is not in dispute or default. This is standard practice in the banking industry.
- The Payee on the note would be required to endorse it without qualification to you. Like a check, in which you endorse it over to someone else, you would say “Pay to the order of John Smith.”
- The bank would need to see and probably keep the original promissory note in its vault.
- The credit-worthiness of the maker would be verified by the bank.
- Your credit worthiness would be verified by the bank.
Now imagine that instead of an endorsement from the payee on the note, you instead presented the bank with an endorsement signed by you as attorney in fact for the payee. So if the note was payable to John Jones, you are asking the bank to accept your own signature instead of John Jones because you are the authorized as an agent of John Jones. No bank would accept such an endorsement without the above-stated requirements PLUS the following:
- An explanation as to why John Jones didn’t execute the endorsement himself. So in plain language, why did John Jones need an agent to endorse the note or perform anything else in relation to the note? These are the rules of the road in the banking and lending industry. The transaction must be, beyond all reasonable doubt, completely credible. If the bank sniffs trouble, they will not lend you money using the note as collateral. Why should they?
- A properly executed Power of Attorney naming you as attorney in fact (i.e., agent for John Jones).
- If John Jones is actually a legal entity like a corporation or trust, then it would need a resolution from the Board of Directors or parties to the Trust appointing you as attorney in fact with specific powers to that completely cover the proposed authority to endorse the promissory note..
- Verification from the John Jones Corporation that the Power of Attorney is still in full force and effect.
My point is that we should apply the same rules to the banks as they apply to themselves. If they wouldn’t accept the power of attorney or they were not satisfied that the attorney in fact was really authorized and they were not convinced that the loan or note or mortgage was actually owned by any of the parties in the paper chain, why should they not be required to conform to the same rules of the road as standard industry practices which are in reality nothing more than commons sense?
What we are seeing in thousands of cases, is the use of so-called Powers of Attorney that in fact are self serving fabrications, in which Chase (for example) is endorsing the note to itself as assignee on behalf of WAMU (for example) as attorney in fact. A close examination shows that this is a “Chase endorses to Chase” situation without any actual transaction and nothing else. There is no Power of Attorney attached to the endorsement and the later fabrication of authority from the FDIC or WAMU serves no purpose on loans that had already been sold by WAMU and no effect on endorsements purportedly executed before the “Power of Attorney” was executed. There is no corporate resolution appointing Chase. The document is worthless. I recently had a case where Chase was not involved but US Bank as the supposed Plaintiff relied upon a Power of Attorney executed by Chase.
This is a game to the banks and real life to everyone else. My experience is that when such documents are challenged, the “bank” generally loses. In two cases involving US Bank and Chase, the “Plaintiff” produced at trial a Power of Attorney from Chase. And there were other documents where the party supposedly assigning, endorsing etc. were executed by a person who had no such authority, with no corporate resolution and no other evidence that would tend to show the document was trustworthy. We won both cases and the Judge in each case tore apart the case represented by the false Plaintiff, US Bank, “as trustee.”
The devil is in the details — but so is victory in the courtroom.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Attorney in fact, Chase, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, Power of Attorney, securitization, US BANK, WAMU |
IN WASHINGTON STATE
RCW 2.44.030 Production of authority to act.
i. The court, or a judge, may, on motion of either party, and on showing reasonable grounds therefor, require the attorney for the adverse party, or for any one of several adverse parties, to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and until he does so, may stay all proceedings by him on behalf of the party for whom he assumes to appear. Bank authorization of authority to act on its behalf requires a board resolution signed by five bank officers with authority to execute said resolution. [Emphasis added.]
If you had a promissory note that was payable to someone else, you would need to get it endorsed by the Payee to yourself in order to negotiate it. No bank, large or small, would accept the note as collateral for a loan without several conditions being satisfied:
The maker of the note would be required to verify that the debt and the fact that it is not in dispute or default. This is standard practice in the banking industry.
The Payee on the note would be required to endorse it without qualification to you. Like a check, in which you endorse it over to someone else, you would say “Pay to the order of John Smith.”
The bank would need to see and probably keep the original promissory note in its vault.
The credit-worthiness of the maker would be verified by the bank.
Your credit worthiness would be verified by the bank.
The above make commonsense in equity. Under what statute does this fall in? Please mention this as well.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.
FAKED FORGED FRAUDULENT PAPERS …….. And lots of ADULTERATED Computer Records as well …… Believe It …… Maybe I just had a Bad Dream ????? Funny how all those TOXIC ZOMBIE Red Flag, Phantom, Ghost, Wildcat, Paper, Dirt Deals and Unrecorded LAND SWINDLES all PRECEEDED the so called Broken Chains of Title and Daisy Chained, Flipped, Fake Paper, Fake Servicers SCHEMES …… The Good Old Real Estate / Land Swindlers / Banksters OMG ………… https://lootednation.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/beware-of-the-gangster-bankster-ranchero-racketeers/
confirmation of Yvanova
Foreclosed Homeowners Now Have Standing to Sue
Blog Construction Law Blog
Gordon & Rees LLP
Amy Kuo Alexander
USA September 22 2016
A unanimous state Supreme Court ruling affords foreclosed upon borrowers standing to bring suit by showing that there has been an invasion of his/her legally protected interests. In 2006, homeowner Tsvetana Yvanova borrowed money and executed a deed of trust on a residential property. The lender and beneficiary of the trust deed, New Century, filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and was liquidated in 2008. Yvanova claimed that the trust deed was illegally assigned to a bank in 2011, after New Century dissolved, and that the deed was improperly assigned to an investment trust. Yvanova’s home was sold at an auction in 2012. Yvanova’s suit is but one in the many similar suits challenging the validity of transactions by lenders following the collapse of the housing market.
The Supreme Court ruling in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp, et al. focuses narrowly on the issue of standing. This case establishes that a homeowner has standing to bring suit, however, in order to prevail, the homeowner/borrower would still need to show that any assignment was void, or in other words, that there was some injury to the homeowner/borrower. In essence, wrongful foreclosure plaintiffs can now ensure that their grievances are heard.
We requested attorney in fact documents in discovery from ocwen claiming they were servicer for deutsche trustee. They didn’t produce it and judges still ruled in their favor. They found affidavit from servicer to be good. Although the affidavit said trust was owner no mention of deutsche. Criminal justice system Nj
Yesterday in court at Stamford , CT
CitiMortgage had filed a FORECLOSURE action ( there was a tree damage claim ongoing) and I filed a Counterclaim because they took $350K, authorized $150K of insurance funds, demo without repair, and started foreclosure action then flipped to Bsnk of NY.
The Note suddenly appeared in court. I did not have an opportunity to examine it, but my lawyer did and the only signature I could see was Mine (2002)
MERS
Aurora
Flipped to Citi in 2004
When I used your format to get transfer info, was denied and Frachette ( lawyer orchestrating and defending Hunt Leibert- foreclosure law firm, and Citi, and Bank of NY)
Said the lender was SASCO, but refused to provide transfer info.
In court, the Note suddenly appeared, if it was the original or not….
The judge was concerned about the transfers, but started with the transfer from Coti, did not ask where the Note was for 10 years( unsigned), and so Hunt Leibert went into a room in front of all to provide a transfer document from Citi, to Hunt, I think, so Hunt could hand it to the lawyer, thus producing a transfer chain.
No one asked how the Lawyer had it in his possession.
The judge vacated the Motion, but told them to refine, smiled at Hunt Leibert, laughter with the same jubilation about moving things forward like winning the lottery, and they are re-filing, to attempt to make me sign another illegal loan.
I pointed out this behavior, when MY lawyer suggested I get my insurance money and fix my house with Citi controlling the funds, with a pending balloon note leading to another foreclosure guarantee clause, only to fix my house, add more funds, and have them take it all away again in 9 months.
I offered that the house must be mine.
After continuing to replay this event, is it at all legal to have any agreement signed only by one party? Since this paper only had one signature, isn’t it automatically void?
How much would it cost to have you as an expert witness?
The Bank kept telling everyone what the Rules are, and my lawyer is really not reacting or able to get up to speed. He can litigate and has some local clout, but 7 years have gone by in my life since a tree fell on my house, and no one is Doing anything.