LPOA: Creating the Illusion of Something Out of Nothing

A common practice employed by the banks and leave foreclosure mills that represent the banks is to use an instrument purporting to transfer an asset as the foundation for the truth of the matter asserted: that is, that the asset exists. This practice has been heavily litigated over hundreds of years. The simple answer is that a document of transfer does not create any greater rights in the hands of the transferee (assignee or endorsed) than that which existed in the hands of the transferor (grantor).
In the realm of foreclosure, this practice applies to several documents that are used by lawyers employed by the foreclosure mills who are employed by regional law firm who are employed by central law firms or in-house counsel for the banks. They issue assignments of mortgage that leverage human nature. The act of assignment of the mortgage lien implies that the lien exists and that the grantor owned it. This is rarely the case, but a legal presumption arises from the face of the document, particularly when it is introduced into evidence without objection from the homeowner.
Another example is the usual undated stamped endorsement in blank that is attached to an alleged allonge. The party who placed that stamp on the document or the separate page attached to the document is never identified. The signature that appears may be the actual signature of a human. But that human had no part in the execution of a transfer or endorsement of the promissory note.
In the other example, a power of attorney or limited power of attorney is used to create fictitious rights for a company that has been designated as a “servicer.” Most popular is the limited power of attorney but the same analysis applies regardless of whether it is a limited power of attorney or a power of attorney.  The following is a response I gave to a client with respect to his recent receipt of a limited power of attorney that, in my opinion, was fabricated for the occasion.
The limited power of attorney identifies and corroborates several things we are saying. First of all, note that the document allows for actions that “can only be executed and delivered by such attorney-in-fact if such documents are required or permitted under the terms of the related servicing agreements.” This means that your demand for the servicing agreements is essential to corroborate their claim that they are authorized to act on behalf of US Bank.
I note that the reference to an agreement regarding servicing is plural. Hence, you should be asking for all agreements that affect the limited power of attorney or the servicing of the alleged unpaid loan account. I make this point because I am aware of various different agreements that may not be labeled as servicing agreements but which are designed to limit the actions and liabilities arising from the actions of the company that is designated as a “servicer,” regardless of whether it is performing any servicing functions.
Secondly, I direct your attention to paragraph (C) in the first paragraph, which states that “no power is granted hereunder to take any action that would be either adverse to the interests of or be in the individual name or capacity of US Bank.” This is an interesting statement. I think this statement provides the foundation necessary to demand that US Bank acknowledge and affirm the act or document executed or delivered. How else would any third party know if the action undertaken by SPS might have been adverse to the interests of US Bank? And if it was adverse how would the party know whether the document was valid or void?
Third, this instrument does not comply with customs and practices in the industry. Such an instrument would contain a warranty that US Bank is the owner of the referenced loans, which means that it is the owner of an unpaid loan account (and the unpaid loan accounts include an unpaid loan account due from you). Instead, there is a vague reference to loans “held by the grantor.” And there is a further reference to the fact that “these loans are secured by collateral.” But there is no identification of who owns the collateral rights or even the rights to receive payments as asserted in the promissory note.
Please note that the note is not the debt. The note is evidence of the debt, which is merged into the note if there was a transaction in which the maker of the note became indebted to the payee under the note. In many cases, this element is not present, although the illusion of a loan transaction between the maker and the payee is always present.
Lastly, the instrument does not conform to the industry’s customs and practices or best practices. On page 3, there is plenty of room for signatures that appear on the following page. Instead, the end of the page contains the following direction: “SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS.” this indicates the presence of a practice in which a template is used. It is perfectly legal if in fact, the parties who are shown on the “signature page” signed this particular document. Based upon my prior experience, this is not the case. Instead, as is frequently done with assignments of mortgage and alleged “allonge” instruments, the image of the signatures has been affixed on a separate page to avoid the obvious appearance of misalignment in the primary document.
It would behoove you to locate the individuals whose names were used. I believe this is a Robo-signed, forged document that was fabricated to create the illusion that US Bank owned any right, title or interest to any payment, debt, unpaid loan account, note or mortgage.
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 14 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.

2 Responses

  1. “It would behoove you to locate the individuals whose names were used. I believe this is a Robo-signed, forged document that was fabricated to create the illusion that US Bank owned any right, title or interest to any payment, debt, unpaid loan account, note or mortgage.”

    Did that . . . the ‘individual’ whose name was forged and counterfeited in this case admitted having no knowledge of her name being used and never authorized use of her name or identity; and in fact, admitted (executive at Fannie Mae) that she left PHH in 2006 as its ‘Director’ took all her corporate seals and stamps to Fannie Mae and denied PHH’s right to use her name or reproduced ‘signature’ (digital reproduction).

    The foreclosure mill actually presented (personal hand over) to a federal judge this same forged, counterfeit paper – claiming it was original, wet-ink, endorsed note – this was knowing and intentional subornation of perjury to a federal judge – does this not constitute a federal crime in this country? And oh, the mill attorney who personally and knowingly handed a forged paper to a federal judge is now a ‘trial attorney’ for the US Dept of Justice (trustee) in the same federal court.

    These issues were all objected to, opposed, challenged, etc., but no evidentiary hearings were ‘allowed.’

    Thanks for article Neil, as always!

  2. Wells Fargo Bank was accepting payment on 1.3 million Fed Gov loans that were a part of Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) Ginnie MBS at some point Ginnie Mae seized this portfolio as the FDIC was shopping the bank for sale.

    It was Ginnie business to check on the health of the bank, but in seizing these assets either before or after the bank failed Ginnie who cannot buy or sale any loans, is never owned a debt even possessing the blank endorsed Notes!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: