The West Coast Foreclosure Show: Fraudulent Indorsements in Non-Judicial Foreclosures

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The West Coast Radio Show with Charles Marshall

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Attorney Charles Marshall and Investigator Bill Paatalo will examine the indorsement of notes in non-judicial foreclosures. Judges are increasingly discounting fraudulent endorsement that appear out of nowhere, seemingly to “perfect” the right to foreclose.

Judgments are often based on erroneous conclusions especially when the Bank fails to prove the chain of title back to the original lender, who is often defunct. If the entity that endorsed the note didn’t exist when the note was indorsed- it is void.

Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Burke, 117 F. Supp. 3d 953 , a 2015 Texas case where the judge refuses to allow Duetche one more chance, ruling “the banks request for a do-over is denied.”

 

“​From the very beginning of trial, Deutsche Bank’s counsel was on notice that if it wanted to introduce its version of the Note indorsed in blank, some proof of authentication would be necessary. Deutsche Bank never offered such proof at trial.​….​”
Deutsche Bank asked to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.”  Deutsche Bank offered no authority or excuse is offered for this “breathtakingly” late request. Even assuming such evidence existed, Deutsche Bank did not pretend that it is “newly discovered”, nor that the bank was excusably ignorant about it until after trial despite using due diligence to discover it (see 11 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE § 2808 (2012)).
Deutsche Bank made a misrepresentation of the trial record claiming that it introduced
into evidence the Burke note indorsed in blank by the original lender (IndyMac Bank), thereby establishing its right to foreclose as holder of the Note. This claim is baseless, because, as the trial transcript made clear, the only version of the Note successfully introduced by Deutsche Bank at trial contained no indorsement of any kind.  Like so many other cases, it is probable that Deutsche Bank’s attorneys would have simply forged an endorsement on the note and claimed they accidentally filed the wrong version of the note due to a clerical error.  Most judges would have probably allowed Deutsche another go.
“After four years of litigation, including court-ordered mediation and trial on the merits,
the time for such a deus ex machina maneuver has long since passed. The Burkes are entitled to the finality of judgment that our judicial process is intended to provide. The bank’s request for a do-over is denied.”  Shout out to Houston Magistrate Stephen William Smith for applying the law.

To Contact Charles Marshall:

Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall
 To contact Investigator Bill Paatalo:

Investigator Bill Paatalo at the

BP Investigative Agency

Email: info.bpia@gmail.com

Office: 406-328-4075

 

3 Responses

  1. The complaint note in my case had no indorsement. The indorsement showed up a year later for summary judgment undated 7 years after the loan closed. The judges in New Jersey had no problem with this. Also fraudulent assignment over 3 years after closing. Judges had no problem with this. No power of attorney from deutsche to Ocwen also judges had no problem with it either.

  2. Our home was non-judicially foreclosed with a copy of blank endorsed Note without any date on it and also violations in the PSA. The town accepted some affidavits to record foreclosure deed. What could we do? The house is now put on sale by a real estate agent.

  3. In NC they can foreclose with a blank endorsement on the Note without a date on the stamp. It’s unbelievable to me. They also don’t even have to provide the Deed of Trust. Non judicial of course.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: