What is surprising about this case is that there was any appeal. The trial court had no choice but to dismiss the foreclosure claim.
- A copy of the note without an indorsement was attached to the complaint. This leads to the presumption that the indorsement was attached after the complaint was filed. Standing must be proven to ex isa at the time the suit was filed.
- The robo-witness could have testified as to the date the indorsement was affixed but he said he didn’t know.
- The robo-witness was unable to testify that the default letter had been sent.
- It didn’t help that the foreclosure case had been brought before by two different parties and then dismissed.
- Attorneys attempted to admit into evidence an unsigned Pooling and Servicing Agreement that could not be authenticated and was merely “a copy of a printout obtained from the SEC website”. This is an example of how court’s are rejecting the SEC website as a government document subject to judicial notice or even introduction into evidence without competent testimony providing the foundation for introducing the PSA for a fake trust.
Let us analyze your case and give you ammunition for the court battle: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
see Wells Fargo, as trustee v Madl
Note that the style of the case shows that Wells Fargo was never the Plaintiff. The purported or implied trust was the named Plaintiff. But as Wells Fargo explained in its own article, the Trust is not the Plaintiff and neither are the certificate holders the Plaintiff because their certificates most often expressly state that the holder of the certificate does NOT have any right, title or interest in the “underlying” loans.
In fact if you read it carefully you will see that no trust is actually named or mentioned. AND the failure of the “trust instrument” (the PSA) shows that the trust was never created and never existed. An unsigned, incomplete document downloaded from a site (SEC.gov) that anyone can access to upload documents is not evidence.
Filed under: boarding process, burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, CASES, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, hearsay, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Servicer, Trail Objections, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: Deutsch Bank, Impact Funding, PSA, robo-witness, SEC website, Wells Fargo Bank |
@cookndrive
Will the bank then say, lis pendens is to slander the title as the case has no merit in winning? What if the property is sold with a case not dismissed in the court?
@Rhody: file a file stamped copy of the lis pendens with the docket number in the property records after having filed the original with the court clerk. That will show up in a title search.
Foreclosure attorneys just coming into the lawsuit with wholly inadequate documents which are also false and forged. Time for the judge to sanction them and refer them to the Attorney General for prosecution.
Could anyone please tell us while doing a title search on a property, a prospective could find out of a pending case litigating illegal foreclosure on that property? The bank is selling the house after a non-judicial foreclosure to a third party even though there is a case not dismissed. What recourse do we have if the house is sold? Could we still pursue the pending case against the bank and the servicer?
We were challenging foreclosure as there were violations in the PSA and the judge denied bansk’s request to dismissed the case