What does “Own the mortgage” mean?”

This is what enables the banks to get away with their scam while avoiding criminal prosecution. What does that mean when they say they “own the mortgage”?

Does it mean that they own the piece of paper?
Does it mean they own the liens strictly because they received an assignment?
Does it mean they own the underlying obligation because the assignment implies that?
Does it mean that they own the underlying obligation because they paid value for it?
Does it mean they warrant the existence of the underlying obligation (unpaid loan account)?
Does it mean that they are claiming ownership of the alleged unpaid loan account?
Does it mean they are claiming ownership of the right to enforce it without legal ownership?
There are more such questions. That is why we have lawyers and that is how pro se litigants lose cases without understanding why.
All the answers to such questions are presumed to be answered the moment someone fabricates and presents a document that conforms to statutory requirements, regardless of whether the document is or is not a legal instrument that memorializes a legal transaction enforceable.
In the beginning, it does not matter that it was fabricated, forged, robosigned, with false information edited. All things recited in the document are presumed to be true simply because it is deemed presented by a credible source.
I would argue that neither the foreclosure mill nor the alleged servicer is a credible source. Still, that has not produced any favorable results in the early stages of litigation. It does present a winning combination at trial and sometimes in motion practice.
The foreclosure mill is merely acting according to a well-defined script prepared by lawyers in New York and Chicago. Nobody in the foreclosure mill knows anything about the document or the transaction they are trying to “enforce” (i.e., fake). So that is not a credible source.
The CFPB investigation has revealed the alleged servicer to be something other than a company performing the functions customarily associated with a “Servicer.”
FINTECH companies perform those functions, and are now classified as “servicers” by the CFPB as of May 2022. So the “servicer” knows nothing about the document or the transaction as a result of any business undertaken by that company.
The named “servicer” is neither competent nor credible since its sole function is to produce one outcome in litigation: foreclosure. And yet, every document signed and presented in court is executed by an employee or independent contractor hired by the company who is named to be the “servicer” but who is not the servicer. In any other civil or criminal proceeding, the documents and testimony would be deemed inadmissible if challenged.
So these presumptions allowed by statute do not apply because there is no proper foundation for presuming that the document’s source or information is credible or competent. But Judges are allowing it. Why? Because few people ever object and without objection, you can get a ham sandwich into evidence.
Under these conditions, I think that the procedure for challenging this situation would be a Motion to Strike the Exhibit attached to a foreclosure lawsuit or a direct challenge to the exhibit in a nonjudicial proceeding in which the homeowner is seeking a TRO.
Ordinarily, you will want to combine a subpoena for deposition duces tecum with your motion or challenge.
Make them identify the document’s source, who has possession, and why they have a right to possess it. And make the servicer warrant or acknowledge that it is receiving, processing, depositing money received from homeowners and then making distributions to creditors. They can’t do that because it isn’t happening.

The problem here is not just that lawyers have it wrong. The problem is that homeowners are contributing to their own problems by using and admitting labels that don’t apply. If your blue car is sitting outside and you admit in court that it is green, then for all legal purposes, it is green. Don’t blame the court for that. Judges do not have the time, inclination or mandate to go outside and see of the car is really green.

This also contributes to the crisis in getting lawyers to take the case and win it. If the gravamen of your request is to have the lawyer get out of the “loan.” He accepts your admission that it is a loan and that it is nearly impossible to “get out it.” If you admit that you are “in default,” you also admit that you owe the money and have not paid it.
In criminal law, this is the equivalent of saying to the court, “Yes I did it, but let me go free anyway because I don’t want to pay a fine or go to jail.” The Judge has a job of enforcing the law not disregarding it.
Don’t assume that ANY of the answers to the above questions are being truly represented, and don’t make it easy for the judge to assume the answers exist. That is how I win cases for homeowners and how dozens of law firms became wealthy, beating cases seeking foreclosures.
Part of why lawyers have been chased out of the marketplace is because homeowners will frequently cave in defending the most important asset they will ever own. They agree to stupid modifications with companies that are neither lenders nor servicers.
And they agree to terms that virtually guarantee that foreclosure will occur later. Meanwhile, they insist on calling the transaction a loan, calling their own behavior a default, and believing that their decision not to make s scheduled payment is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. And that is because they insist that someone is losing money because of that “missed” payment. None of that is true.
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.

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting 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. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for 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 CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)


But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

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.

4 Responses

  1. In non-judicial states the deed of trust (DOT) in creates a lien that only the party that owed a debt has the power over the DOT. It not like if a party not physically present it cannot act on the document so there never a situation here the bank cannot act on its interest.

    However, what happen is the in some cases is that the servicer without the permission of the bank as in after Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) failed you had another bank act as if they had the authority to act on the DOT and do a non-judicial foreclosure when in fact it was after Sept 25, 2008, and WAMU stopped existing and the loan were not sold to JPMorgan Bank because the Mortgage Note was the property of Ginnie Mae would not authorized to originate or purchase the mortgage loan.

    Because the Note gone through the UCC3 procedure and the Notes are endorsed in blank and the originator not calling the loan due, then the UCC9 requirement must be used simply to provide the court proof of payment, which in the case of the Fed Gov Backed mortgage loans that over 95% are Ginnie pooled and requires that UCC3 is used so you know for a fact that after Sept 25, 2008, WAMU is not calling the loan due, and non-judicial foreclosure is not available because they debt was not purchase.

    If WAMU not calling the debt due is there a debt owed which is something the court should have determined in each and every case, knowing the requirements of Ginnie Mae pooling. Ginnie set up the program to take away ownership from the issuer/lender until the issuer/lender repays they investor of the MBS the monies that was borrowed against the securities!

    I found the way to identify all the 1.3 million victims of this scheme and have most of all the names and the pools the loans were and are still in.

  2. Quote: – “Judges do not have the time, inclination or mandate to go outside and see if the car is really green.” Well, if this is so, the judge should NOT be a judge. Judges have an obligation to uphold the law, apply the scales of justice, and check the color of the car. They do not. To state they have no time or inclination is violation of law.
    Also, to add to your questions – did the transaction assume the property title? The answer is yes as to crisis “loans.” All is just debt collection on loans that were never funded and simply reinstated by each transaction WITH property title acquired.
    Part of the problem is the “non-judicial” states in which the claimed “lender” owns title the property until the homeowner pays in full. Most of the bad case law for foreclosure started from non-judicial states. In judicial states, the homeowner owns property title – until there is claimed default. But the claimed default (non-disclosed to you) occurred BEFORE the transaction occurred. It is the judicial states that are not following the law. Non-Judicial states give away rights anyway. Time to toss the non-judicial states precedent law, and change the judicial states. Hopefully, non-judicial states will then eliminate no rights from the onset. This is a political process.

  3. Just as a point of Record.

    I have the debt collector lowlife attorney stating in Court That US BANK NA Trustee has been putting out Escrow payments for 5 years on the mortgage they own.

    A. US Bank NA Trustee was only substituted as Plaintiff 2 years ago.
    B. In my possession a letter from US BANK NA Trustee that have no responsibility in any Fraudclosure actions, as they do not and have never owned mortgage.

    Any one besides Neil, want to guess how the Clown in the Robe decided ????
    If I only would have paid an attorney $20,000 maybe he could have presented the same exact proof that I did.

  4. The Clowns in the robes , who you Neil protect, do not care !!!!

    You continue to blame pro-se and/or always say they need attorneys, even when these attorneys refuse to take these Fraudclosure cases across this Fallen Republic.

    I have come to conclusion, that in my opinion that you must be controlled opposition.


    Javagold. Has had Enough.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: