It is universally accepted that a mortgage or deed of trust may not enforced except by the owner of the actual debt. The debt exists regardless of whether it is in writing or not. While a promissory note might be enforced by a party who does not own the debt (Article 3 UCC), forfeiture of a homestead requires that the mortgage be enforced by the actual debt owner (Article 9 UCC), or someone who can prove the identity of the debt owner and delegation of authority from the debt owner to the party enforcing the mortgage or deed of trust.
A facially invalid document is neither void nor unenforceable, but it does require more proof to enforce than a facially valid document.
If you received the money or payments were made on your behalf, you owe the money simply because of the act of receiving or benefiting from a money transfer.
The debt is normally “merged” (see Case Analysis) into the promissory note if the Payee on the note and the owner of the debt are the same person or entity. If the Payee and Debt Owner are not the same entity the debt still exists even if there is no written instrument that reflects the transaction between the person or entity who advanced their own funds and the person(s) usually designated as “borrowers.”
But the terms of payback can only be determined by reference to extrinsic evidence because the operative note does not name the Debt Owner nor does it show on its face any specific reference of authority on the face of the note to represent the Debt Owner. If essential terms or provisions can only be ascertained through external evidence (“Parole Evidence”) then the instrument is not facially valid.
For these reasons and others, we believe the Case Analysis will reveal that both the note and the recorded encumbrance are not facially valid. The fact that an instrument is not facially valid does not mean it cannot be enforced. It simply means that no factual or legal presumptions can be applied to the instruments. In turn, that means that if someone wants to enforce the note or mortgage or deed of trust, they must allege and prove the origination of the debt by proving the elements of a monetary transaction, the identity of the Debt Owner and explicit authority of the party enforcing the debt, together with the authenticity and validity of the note and instrument of encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust).
For strategic recommendations as to how to use this information, please Order the Case Analysis which looks at BOTH recorded documentation (which is the subject of the TERA) and court documents, correspondence, statements, notices etc. that were not recorded in county records.
==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forgery, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, standing | Tagged: enforceable, facially invalid, facially valid, prima facie case |
Typhus Epidemic (!!!) Worsens in Los Angeles since October 2018…
Millions fraudlosures committed by banksters and their bought judgesters. caused enormous damages to our Country…
homeless, broken families, enormous drug addictions and even worse…
Homelessness created by banksters and judgesters cause outbreaks of dangerous deceases at rapid speed in ALL States – and officials keep quiet about it!
Now banksters with all their stolen in Courts billions have to walk on the same streets where robbed by judges Americans now live…
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Typhus-Epidemic-Worsens-in-Los-Angeles-505166301.html
A veteran Los Angeles City Hall official is one of the latest victims of an epidemic of the infectious disease typhus that continues to worsen across LA County.
For months, LA County public health officials have said typhus is mainly hitting the homeless population.
But Deputy City Attorney Liz Greenwood, a veteran prosecutor, tells NBC4 she was diagnosed with typhus in November, after experiencing high fevers and excruciating headaches.
“It felt like somebody was driving railroad stakes through my eyes and out the back of my neck,” Greenwood told the I-Team. “Who gets typhus? It’s a medieval disease that’s caused by trash.”
Got it. Thank you.
Attn: Anon my email is blackstarborn@yahoo.com
Charles Reed — please provide your email contact. There is more to what you state and it does not just involve Ginnie. Assignments do not disclose the true collateral holder. They are “fronts.”
Java is correct — unsecured. And I have said this over and over. Why? Any loans in any of the these so called Financial Crisis “trusts” were already declared in default before they claimed conveyance to the trustee to empty shell trusts by refinance (90%) of the loans, and some new purchases (Prior owner trace). .
And, what did one official in the know say to me: “How do you know these loans were not really previously in default?”
Believe me — they know all. We are talking “trillions” of dollars of “debt.” No one will disclose the truth or try to correct it – a political suicide. .
As to facially invalid docs — not enough. Must ask WHY????????? Not enough to just prove facially invalid. Only a temporary solution.
As I submitted an SEC Whistleblower case Feb 10, 2012, that Wells Fargo Bank could not foreclose on the Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) Ginnie Mae MBS pooled loans after Sept 25, 2008, when the bank was seized and declared a “failed bank”! Ever before the bank was seized the blank endorsed Notes were physically transferred to Ginnie as Wells the custodian of records on Jul 31, 2006, took out of the legal control of the Notes as Ginnie was the owner of the Notes but not the debt because they could not through US Congress purchase the debt.
So Ginnie is not the originator of the loans and does not purchase the debt, while not being able to sell the debt. Wells send to an outside attorney to forge the Assignment of Deed of Trust to firms like Kozeny & McCubbin that lost the Holm v Wells Freddie Mac, where ownership of the debt could not be proved.
Wells claims they were working for Ginnie who they call the “investor”, however as Ginnie admits it is not an investor and does not originate, buy or sell any mortgage loans. Wells gets the Assignment transferred to them making it look as if they purchased the debt, however, as the Ginnie pooled loans are placed into the MBS with the process of UCC3, that forever and a day stop the lender from acting on the Note.
The loan is only removed from the MBS when the loan is paid off, as the MBS is based on the interest rate and term set when the loan is originated. Wells illegally gets in “title” conduct a foreclosure and takes those funds and VA Guaranty Fund insurance claim funds keeping a portion and sending the rest to Ginnie not to actually purchase the mortgage loan debt, but to purchase the draws that WaMu made against the MBS. WaMu is on the hook for the debt to the Ginnie MBS investors!
Wells needed to provide proof of purchase under UCC9 to call the debt due, as the link is broken of ownership between MERS members, because WaMu stops existing on Sept 25, 2008, and JPMorgan Bank cannot purchase the loans as Ginnie owner of the Notes!
Before Sept 25, 2008, WaMu at best had an unsecured debt without being able to ever recover the blank Notes. It simply with WaMu because there no maybe WaMu is entitled as they don’t exist. WaMu simply lost all $140 billion in Ginnie loans.
They are UNSECURED debt. And they should not be able to fraudclose.
What’s so hard to understand. It’s So simple.