Banks and Foreclosure Mills Exploit Confusion About Assignments of Mortgage and Endorsements of Notes

so far, the banks have been exceedingly successful, causing the foreclosure of millions of homes by people who don’t own and never wanted to own the obligation. The out-of-pocket expense of paying the homeowner to execute documents was long ago reimbursed in full by the sale of securities as the other leg of the single transaction doctrine.

There is no loss. Yet there is foreclosure. 

The assignment of a mortgage MUST be accompanied by the transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation —- or else it is a legal nullity. This is true in all U.S. jurisdictions.

Some jurisdictions try to work around this requirement by presuming the transfer occurred because they treat the promissory note as a title document for the underlying obligation and the endorsement of the note as a transfer of title to the underlying debt. This is a legal error.

The endorsement of a note is not a legal nullity even though the obligation was neither purchased nor sold at the time of endorsement.

But the endorsement of the note carries the presumption, not a conclusive finding, that the authority to enforce it was intended. But the intention is not the same as an event in the real world. Either it happened or it didn’t. So the banks try to narrow the focus on the transfer of the note.

*
If they were to focus on the transfer of the mortgage, it would easier to attack since there was no purchase and sale of the underlying obligation.
*
This is why we have seen so many cases back in the early foreclosure crisis we had multiple fabricated forged assignments of mortgage that were abandoned at trial by the foreclosure mill.
*
But by keeping the focus on the note, where the transfer does not require a transfer of the obligation, they escape the easy attack.
*
By claiming a presumption that the transfer of the underlying obligation has been purchased and sold for value, they appear to at least initially escape the requirements of Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commerical Code and judicial doctrine that declares a transfer of a mortgage without the underlying obligation is a legal nullity.
*
The code and doctrine emanating from the same principle: nobody wants a foreclosure to occur that might result in the claimant receiving a windfall instead of restitution for an unpaid debt.
*
And so far, that strategy has been exceedingly successful, causing the foreclosure of millions of homes by people who don’t own and never wanted to own the obligation. The out-of-pocket expense of paying the homeowner to execute documents was long ago reimbursed in full by the sale of securities as the other leg of the single transaction doctrine.
*
There is no loss to be claimed because there is no account to be claimed — except for the fabricated payment history that is falsely presented as the business record of a company claiming to be a servicer, but who performs no servicing functions.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

One Response

  1. This is true Neil. The mortgage is what is recorded. But, title is so destroyed that it allows the fraud to continue without question. It allows continuance of “no loan” — not by modification or refinance – or even foreclosure. Until title is mandated to be stricter and all corrected, a big problem remains. County recorders take recordings from anyone. This is a state issue. MERS is destructive. I do not have — but I know it is destructive.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: