A Lawsuit against the County Recorders for the Bold and Brave Homeowners who want to see a real change

There are very few County recorders who would deny that the quality of title has been at least diluted and diminished by fabricated documents. Many would say and have said that title is now corrupt as a result of the extensive cover-up engineered and manufactured by investment banks who are acting through multiple layers of intermediaries.
*
First, to state the obvious, there is no statutory duty to perform an investigation to determine whether facially valid documents should be allowed to be recorded in public records. And that is why the banks are getting away with this aspect of their amazing fraud. All previous actions seeking to hold county recorders accountable for failing to conduct an administrative investigation of hearing are missing a key component: citing to any statute or even common law duty for such state or county agencies that even allows, much mandates such investigations. They have been turned down by the courts, just as they should have been.
*
However, there are two possible actions that could be filed in either state or Federal court. One that is more available than you might think is that corruption for private gain is common in some recording offices. If that is the case a lawsuit against the individuals seeking damages might be successful. But proving that lawsuit and collecting on any judgment is somewhat problematic.
*
The other one seeks a court order commanding the county recorder to do its job. It is based on the duty to examine the documents offered for recording to see whether it is facially valid and to get a legal opinion of the examiner does not know — instead of just filing it.
*
As the keeper of official public records, the County Recorder is charged with assuring that that only properly executed documents that comply with state statutes get recorded. And as the public agency charged with assuring continuity of title so that confidence is maintained in the marketplace, they also have a common law duty to assure that the title recording system is not being used or weaponized for illegal purposes. That’s two duties.
*
They are breaching both duties. A lawsuit brought against any one County Recorder would be a test case for the rest and would produce a definite reaction in county recording offices across the nation. The Plaintiff would need to have standing. So that would mean a person who lives in that county and who has property or had property that was the subject of a fabricated document filing. Although I can see the logic of also filing for damages and injunction against the law firms, “servicers” and “REMIC Trustees” asking for damages, you would be bringing in the big guns in litigation — so that might not be the right tactical move.
*
Note that the focus would be not on the substantive validity of the documents used to exemplify the breach of duty. The focus would be on whether the apparent facial validity was actually facially valid. This requires some highly focused analysis, much of which I have highlighted in my blog articles.
*
The main documents that should be attacked are any instrument labeled assignment of mortgage or power of attorney. In brief, the analysis would go as follows:
*
  1. If there is no warranty of title then the recorder should be asking why it is being filed. This is done all the time with virtually all other recorded documents.
  2. If there is no consideration recited, then the recorder should ask the same question: why was this filed. The recorder has every right and duty to ask that question since there are various recording and tamp fees that attach to the transfer of interests in land.
  3. If the consideration recites $1 in cash and “other valuable consideration” the recorder has a right and duty to ask for a description of the other consideration. Since the law says that any transfer of an assignment of the mortgage without the debt is a legal nullity, then it is incumbent upon the recorder to inquire whether the other valuable consideration was in any way related to the value and transfer of the underlying obligation. This goes to both questions: whether the document should be recorded and if so whether the parties are paying the proper recording fees and stamps.
  4. If the grantor of the document entitled “Assignment of Mortgage” has not previously been the grantee of a previously executed facially valid transfer of the mortgage and underlying obligation, the recorder has the administrative duty to reject the instrument, or, to put it another way, the recorder has no power or right to record it.
  5. If the grantor under the alleged transfer document has not been sufficiently described to assure the recorder that it is a legal “person”, then the recorder has the administrative duty to reject the instrument, or, to put it another way, the recorder has no power or right to record it. For examples: “ABC” without any indication of whether ABC is a natural person, corporation, or any other legal entity. “ABC Bank, solely as trustee of XYZ Trust” without any description of the trust name as being associated with a legally organized trust organized and existing under the jurisdiction of some U.S. State or territory.
  6. If the grantee under the alleged transfer document has not been sufficiently described to assure the recorder that it is a legal “person”, then the recorder has the administrative duty to reject the instrument, or, to put it another way, the recorder has no power or right to record it. For examples: “ABC” without any indication of whether ABC is a natural person, corporation, or any other legal entity. “ABC Bank, solely as trustee of XYZ Trust” without any description of the trust name as being associated with a legally organized trust organized and existing under the jurisdiction of some U.S. State or territory. [NOTE: many such trust names have made it all the way through litigation without any allegation, assertion, or proof that the trust name is the name of a legally organized trust that owns the underlying obligation that is the subject of foreclosure.]
  7. If the instrument is signed by an authorized signor there is some room to question the authenticity of the signature but the question has not really been decided. Still, the recorder should make note that an “authorized signor” was used or a VP of MERS was used when the public domain clearly reflects no actual interest in the mortgage, note or debt of anyone.
  8. If the instrument contains the signature of someone whose signature is apparently — or possibly — stamped (or placed on the document through electronic or mechanical means), the recorder is probably under a legal obligation (legal duty) to ask for acknowledgment from the person whose signature appears that the signature is actually their own, that they signed it and that their intent was to make the transfer described in the assignment. The basis for this allegation is a myriad of depositions and affidavits in the public domain in which the name of the apparent signer shows up in a disclaimer that they never signed the document or never knew what was in the document or even if they knew what was in it and whether they had any authority to create the legal transfer of something so valuable as an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  9. If the instrument contains the signature of a signer who is executing on behalf of a company other than the grantor described in the assignment then the authority of that company must be clearly obvious from the face of the instrument in order to be facially valid. In most instances, there is only a label attached like “servicer” or “attorney in fact.” If the power of attorney or servicing agreement is not attached or already in public records the instrument is not facially valid and the recorder has no power or right to record the instrument and has the duty to reject it. [NOTE: much of the fabrication of documents in connection with foreclosures is centered around one single overriding principle, to wit: the creation of the illusion of a property right. By reciting the grant of a power of attorney to a party without a warranty of title regarding the subject property or asset, the grant is a facially invalid and legal nullity].
  10. If the grantor is named but the signing party is a company claiming to be a servicer without any on-record document attesting to that role, and the grantee is named but a company is named claiming to be a servicer without any on-record document attesting to that role, then the document is facially invalid for multiple reasons. The reality might be that the document is merely creating an illusion by having the same party assign to itself –– in the hope that the homeowner, the lawyer and the judge won’t notice that the document is meaningless.
*
A separate lawsuit filed against the county recorder’s office with real allegations based upon real facts and reciting real duties and real breaches of duties might yield some surprising results, including the agreement of the county recorder that your claim is correct. They might have been waiting for a court order commanding them to do the job set forth in the statute. In any event, a motion for stay of the foreclosure proceedings might (a) awaken the presiding judge in the foreclosure action and (b) create a reason why the foreclosure cannot legally proceed.
*
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 TO DONATE

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.

5 Responses

  1. Judges are enables to the giant economic fraud , not arbiters. Its a biggest theft of all civil rights

    Same with Recorders who have no idea who send them Assignments.

    Same with Title Insurance companies who lie in your face.

    We need to start taking ALL of them into a Court with only Jury Trails, no judges

  2. Poppy and Java are correct. Representation is false. Courts? No one challenges representation. Including the judge – even when contested.

  3. Nope. I’ve argued with them face to face many times. They always tell me that they have not obligated to follow and confirm “4 CORNERS”. Then tell me to take it up with the court. Who if course couldn’t care less and tells me I’m a 3rd party to AOM and cannot motion or object.
    What a Nice Circle Jerk the Public Parasites have there.

  4. I agree with this…ended up with a restraining order from the court, by vehemently contesting bold-faced breaches of procedural rules, extensions beyond time frames established under the Rules of Civil Procedure, no verification of parties…(one party was not an attorney, anywhere in the United States), not filing proper substitutions, NO possession of proper paperwork at the time of filing, etc….all I can think of right now. One judge, for an emergency injunction, outright refused to look at the verification of service. Then had a private conversation with the wrong attorney, in his chambers. None of these complaints are/were about assignments…Go after their bond.

  5. What about fraudulent Limited Powers of Attorney? Are recorders obligated to examine?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: