The point is not the identity of the “holder” of the note. The point is the identity of the party who owns and maintains an unpaid loan account receivable that is due from you to that party. The problem with asking for the identity of the holder of the note is that there is a legal presumption that arises from the mere allegation of delivery of possession of the promissory note.
(1) it was delivered by somebody who was authorized to make the delivery,(2) that the delivery came from someone who owned the note or had authority from the owner,(3) that it was accompanied by a grant of authority to enforce the promissory note and(4) that the new possessor accepted the delivery as the new holder in due course or new “holder.” Current American jurisprudence has magnified these presumptions as though they were on steroids.
POSSESSION IS ALWAYS “CONSTRUCTIVE”*In fact, when you get into the discovery phase of litigation, the assignee or endorsee or apparent bearer will NOT affirm its receipt or ownership or even interest in the loan account, note or mortgage and will NOT affirm or corroborate that they ever physically received any note or any original papers from the transction conducted with a homeowner.*They will also deflect inquiries abot whether they have any records regarding the loan account.*They will direct all inquiries to the “servicer” without saying that they own the loan account and without saying they appointed the servicer.*IMAGINE: Someone sues you for injuring them and you ask them to show you their injuries. Their answer is “No, and that information is private and proprietary and subject to trade secret restrictions. But my friend here will tell you all about it.” THAT is what is going on in foreclosures and the banks have been selling that BS for 25 years.
Or, they will challenge the ability of any suing party to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that US Bank knew anything about the deal, the transfer, or any of the legal actions taken by the “servicer”, or “trustee” on deed of trust or lawyer. It is all a game.
But it’s possible that you could correct your statement in two ways. First, you could ask whether the designated creditor is a holder and due course, and if not, ask which legal elements of a legal holder in due course are absent. And/or you can ask for the identity fo the creditor who owns and maintains an unpaid loan account receivable due from you.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Next move, digital currency…no control of even your bank accounts.
This is instructive to me – but damage already done for millions of homeowners. The problem in courts, over and over again, is that there is NO precedent law. No matter how hard attorneys (and pro se) argue – cases just tossed. And note they will always bad mouth. They love sarcastic remarks. More important why does the government still allow? Now the FTX crypto scheme – bigger than Madoff – not as big as the “mortgage” financial crisis. How does the government not regulate? I suspect we have no regulators at all. Everyone sleeping.
Papergate.
15 years later. And the Ponzi Fraud continues.
See the problem yet ????
Folks go back and study in addition other articles Neil has educated us on – an excellent example from his older posts is: https://livinglies.me/2009/10/14/judge-long-principal-must-be-disclosed/
So what I am dealing with, we know Washington Mutual Bank placed the loan into its Ginnie Mae MBS and that was done with UCC3 procedure and the Note was endorsed in blank and relinquished to Ginnie Mae. We know that on Jul 31, 2006 the servicing rights were sold to Wells Fargo. Wells was forced to provide the Note to the OCC that show only two endorsement and neither Ginnie Mae or Wells were listed on the Note as only WAMU was endorsed from the originator of the loan.
Understanding that all Ginnie pooled loan are done in a standard procedure which Ginnie cannot purchase the loan debt but is the owner of the Note making it owner of the loan without the ability to collect monies from the homeowners due to the fact they not paid a value for the debt. Both Wells and Ginnie have admitted to not owning the debt but is saying that the other owns it, when in fact neither is the owner of the debt!
The foreclosure mill firm created the Assignment of Deed of Trust on Oct 22, 2009 saying MERS was the acting for beneficiary under DOT but there is not a beneficiary as WAMU stopped existing on Sept 25, 2008, not JPMorgan, Wells or Ginnie purchased the loan debt, as all have written to me they did not purchase it. The lien at the county and this transferring of title with MERS is between members of the electronic register, however WAMU had stopped existing over a year ago when the ROBO signed assignment was created. Plus on file at the local register there is a Power of Attorney due to the fact the originator did not provide the required titling to WAMU!