A Document labeled “Assignment of Mortgage” Does Not Prove the Sale of the “Loan”

Too many lawyers and pro se litigants look at the title to a document and don’t know what else to do with it. They accept as true that a document is what is stated. That is one of the many trapdoors the banks have laid for us.

Listen to the Last Neil Garfield Show at http://tobtr.com/s/9673161

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
The “title” to a document is a statement of fact that may or may not be true. The title used is for the convenience of the party who drafted it. In our analysis we do not assume or accept that any  document is what is stated as the title or anywhere else in the document.
The fact that a document is entitled “Assignment of Mortgage” does not mean that in reality there is either a valid mortgage or that a valid debt, note or mortgage was sold in any transaction.
Nor does the existence of the document mean that the signatures are authentic and authorized or even that the named entities or signatories actually exist as legal “‘persons.'”
The admission of such a document into evidence normally proves only that the document exists. While the existence of the document might raise assumptions or even legal presumptions, the document itself is not proof of any statements of fact or issues referred to in the wording of the document.
Such statements would normally be regarded or should be regarded as hearsay and excluded from evidence unless someone with personal knowledge, under oath, had personal knowledge for their five sense and recalled events that were tied to the execution of the document.

Objections must be timely raised or the objection is waived. Hence, if opposing counsel refers to wording in the document, that wording is hearsay but must be barred by (a) an objection at the moment the wording is the subject of a question to a witness and (b) the court sustaining the objection in the absence of a proper foundation for the admission of what is or ought to be recognized as excluded hearsay evidence.

Click here to Reply or Forward

15 Responses

  1. Sarasota County has refused to allow me to record my rescission. What recourse do I have? They told me that it was an “illegal” document.

  2. Michael — that is why things have to be changed. Aware that courts are appeasing the banks. Regulation is bad. What is your contact info? Can you provide?

  3. Hate to burst your bubble but Nj appellate will rule for bank regardless of what defenses you have. I went all the way to Supreme Court and lost

  4. I’m going to have to reply to emails using my computer instead of this device I’m currently using …sorry to anyone who I replied to .. I will send another reply from a computer asap …. Thank You

  5. AnonymousNJ, I emailed you but your response came back encrypted.

  6. You can email me at ….. taskforce4us@verizon.net

    Thank you for any help that might explain what happened here .. If Fannie Mae doesn’t own my loan, despite what their website says and what the MERS website says, then that explains why they didn’t file the foreclosure in their own name? Wells Fargo is trying to steal my house.

  7. AnonymousNJ — I need to get in touch with you. Please provide your email. Washington Mutual was a junk debt buyer from Freddie/Fannie. Fannie does not have your loan. They got rid of it when you refinanced. Please provide your email address.

  8. My attorney filed the brief today, NJ Appellate Division, seeking to have the court reverse the trial court and to have it sent back for dismissal. The trial court rejected my timely TILA Rescission stating a multitude of reasons why, including that my rescission letter never mentioned that I was offering “Tender” , that nobody has any way of knowing if I had really mailed the letter because there is no proof that it was mailed (At the time I mailed it back in 2007 I did not use certified mail, but I have proof that I was current on my payments thru June 2007 when I mailed the rescission letter on July 1, 2007 … I submitted the copy of my letter into the record ..and also submitted a copy of the servicer Wells Fargo reply letter that they sent back to me in August 2007 stating that they are aware of a problem by way of my communication with them and they are here to help their customers , etc., etc. …they never mentioned the word “rescission” in their reply to me ..but I asserted that since I was current on payments when I rescinded ..that their reply was indeed in response to my rescission letter …they ignored the rescission and on Sept. 25, 2007 they filed a foreclosure complaint … since the loan was a table-funded loan ..the pretender lender was Commerce Bank for the refinance of my home in Oct. 2004 …they endorsed the note prior to closing “pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” … nobody told us and we thought Commerce Bank was our lendDr because their name was on the Mortgage as “the lender” …and they signed the note too …but after the fact we realised that they had also added “pay to the order of WaMu” …. Later the closing agent would inform us that we would not be sending our payments to Commerce ..she informed us that we would be sending them to WaMu” … This is the same lady who also had us signing closing documents and then took all of the papers and left the room ..saying she was going to make copies for us …well of course we didnt know what we had signed and what was to be given to us …she may have had us sign an acknowledgment saying we had received our right to cancel notices ..but of course we never received any in our closing g documents ..and we didn’t know at the time that we should have. ..our heads were spinning as she was flipping thru papers shouting out “sign here …sign here ..and here …and over there” …

    And then she disappeared with everything we had just signed ..took all of those documents out of our presence …she probably removed the right to cancel notice and never gave them back to us ..because to this day we have never seen them ..and Wells Fargo has never produced them…

    Well the Judge prosecuted their foreclosure case for them ..the lawyer for Wells Fargo never had to say a word ..the entire long transcript is filled with him attacking me from the bench, trying to trip me up and spin the issues while he attempted to destroy the TILA Rescission ..he would jump from issue to issue …asking me one second if I have the 200,000 dollars with me to tender back to them (the servicer mind you) then he would get frustrated when I reminded him that it was now the year 2016 and the rescission happened in 2007 ..and they had 20 days to comply or take action , but they failed to do so ..they are in non-compliance with a federal statute that only allowed them 20 days ..the foreclosure complaint was filed using void instruments by a party who doesn’t even own the loan ..they are a servicer ..the last known owner was Washington Mutual and they went out of business in 2008 ..this plaintiff has fabricated and forged an Assignment of Mortgage to themselves to make it appear that they own the loan ..but both the Fannie Mae website and their customer service agent on the telephone tell me that Fannie Mae owns the loan … The MERS website also says that Fannie Mae owns it … why is it when we look at the foreclosures filed in this courthouse during the same time period as mine, do we see that Fannie Mae is named as the Plaintiff in 20 other cases at the time mine was filed …yet Wells Fargo is in court saying they have an Assignment ..fabricated and forged …a note that is a downloaded copy from a computer image ..that was missing the endorsement in blank from the last known HIDC Washington Mutual Bank … Why is there a mysterious AmTrust Bank of Ohio named as the first mortgages on our homeowners policy? …it all points to the fact that our note was lost a long time ago …it went into the MBS swamp …never to be seen again. Fannie Mae knows the truth ..that’s why they let Wells Fargo have the foreclosure ..let Wells Fargo have the “free house” …all they hard to do was fabricate a few documents and get the Judge to sign the order.

    Well thats exactly what the nasty little judge did ..with the scowl on his face that grew nastier whenever I used the phrase “unanimous Supreme Court of the United States” …yeah, you said that already ..he would scowl back at me … Alright .. I would say …he would then mimic me and say “alright” ….it’s all on the record ..he detested the TILA Rescission ..it made him visibly sick looking every time I mentioned it or the Supreme Court …

    So now today it was officially Appealled …the brief is now in …

    Wells Fargo has 30 days to respond … Jan 23, 2017

    We then get 30 days to reply .. Feb 23, 2017

    And then it’s game on … Let’s all hope and pray that I get a fair panel of Appellate judges who have integrity and honor for the rule of law , and a desire to see that justice prevails.

  9. Disgusted1 – that is a very good question that i I hope someone will answer. If the plaintiff claims he owns the loan and forecloses why would he then bid on his “own” property at auction?

  10. Same goes for Wachovia .. How does one compel the Plantiff to prove purchase of notes ? Let alone how much they paid..

  11. Can someone explain why the Plantiff is bidding on foreclosed property at Judicial auctions ? When they already claiming ownership in court ?

    I heard it’s a fake bid to make it an REO ? Is this BS true ?

  12. A thought provoking article as always. But typically, foreclosing entities get around these types of objections with the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and with ratification of any “robosigned” signatures, among other things. There is a lot that can be written on how THOSE concepts are not always properly followed in the courts, but ultimately, going in to court and raising these issues alone won’t go far enough, IMHO.

  13. This is my Whistlblower case and Szymoniak Qui tam lawsuit. Wells Fargo Bank is guilty of this with at least 104,000 Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) FHA, VA & USDA loans. The loans were either originated or purchase by WaMu and place into their created Ginnie Mae MBS.

    WaMu relinquish the blank endorsed Notes to Ginnie Mae and unlike other lender that Notes actually don’t physically leave the originator, so that the shell game can be played. However only the originator of a loan can approach the court and call a loan due without having to provide proof of a purchase because they are the originator on the Note. WaMu died on Sept 25, 2008 and did not and could not approach the court on the 1.3 million as its not in possession of the blank Notes and they no longer exist.

    So as I and Szymoniak have accused Wells & MERS is “Forging” Assignment of Trust as if Wells purchase the debt when in fact they confess and did not and could not purchase the debt. Ginnie also admitted they did not purchase the debt. No one could act for WaMu after Sept 25, 2008!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: