How to Fight Those “Declarations” from False Claimants in Foreclosures

Posted on August 7, 2020 by Neil Garfield

The bottom line is that the loan account was extinguished contemporaneously with the origination or acquisition of the account. There is no loan account claimed as an asset of any company.

The records  of the self-proclaimed servicer are not records of the loan account or the establishment of the loan account on the books of any company. Therefore they are not records of the creditor.

Besides being fabricated those records are irrelevant and inadmissible without foundation testimony and proof that the loan account has been established on the books of some creditor and even then, even that is irrelevant unless that creditor was the named Plaintiff or beneficiary on a deed of trust.

All of this is completely counterintuitive to lawyers and homeowners — but not to investment bankers who continue to profit from each foreclosure without paying one cent to reduce the claimed obligation supposedly due from the homeowner.  And they do this all without ever appearing as a party in court.

Nice work if you can get it.

So here is something I drafted recently in response to a memorandum in opposition to the homeowners’ motion to strike the declarations of the “plaintiff”.

Counsel for the named plaintiff is engaging in procedural and substantive strategies of evasion.
*
While the action is clearly filed for the benefit of “certificate holders,” counsel continues to refer to the plaintiff as Bank of New York Mellon.
Counsel steadfastly refuses to identify the certificates or the holders.
*
In addition, counsel implies a representative capacity on behalf of the “certificate holders” in which the Bank of New York Mellon supposedly has the authority to represent them. As defendant has previously demonstrated to the court, Bank of New York Mellon has consistently rejected any allegation or implication that it served in a representative or fiduciary relationship with certificate holders both in this particular series and in other securitization schemes.
*
Counsel for the named plaintiff supposedly appears on the behalf of unidentified holders of unidentified certificates. Or counsel for the named plaintiff is claiming a fictitious representative capacity in which it represents Bank of New York Mellon. But as previously stated by defendant, opposing counsel has no agreement for legal representation between itself and Bank of New York Mellon.
*
Instead, it has been retained by a party who is a self-proclaimed “servicer” – Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., and counsel for the named plaintiff asserts that SPS is the “attorney-in-fact” for Bank of New York Mellon.
*
However counsel for the named plaintiff has never alleged nor demonstrated that Bank of New York Mellon has ever been party to a transaction in the real world in which it paid value for the underlying debt in exchange for conveyance of ownership of that debt. Accordingly even if SPS is the attorney-in-fact for Bank of New York Mellon, such an assertion is both irrelevant and a distraction from the fact that there is no creditor present in this lawsuit.
*
The truth of the matter is that opposing counsel represents neither Bank of New York Mellon nor the certificate holders. Its sole relationship and contact is with SPS, owned by the real player in this action, Credit Suisse — who seeks only profit from the sale of homestead property since the loan account and the underlying debt were retired in the parallel securitization process.
*
There is no such debt or loan account and therefore there can be no owner. And if there is no owner of the debt or account then there is no creditor, lender or successor lender. SPS may have some agency with Bank of New York Mellon but that does not create the rights they seek to enforce.
*
Counsel for the named plaintiff asserts “the declaration was clearly executed by a person with “personal knowledge” as required by the foreclosure order.” This is not a true statement. Counsel is being disingenuous with the court.
*
The declaration was executed by somebody identified as a “document control officer.” The declaration says nothing else about any personal knowledge acquired by the signatory. In fact it does not even define “Document control officer.”
*
The declaration itself does not establish the foundation for testimony about the subject loan despite the characterization advanced by opposing counsel. The statement in the declaration is that “SPS holds and maintains all of the business records relating to the servicing of this loan.” There is no statement or allegation or any other evidence in the court file, nor could there be, that the records of SPS include entries that establish the subject debt, note and mortgage as an asset of any entity. That is because no such entity exists and no such loan account presently exists.
*
Opposing counsel disingenuously attempts to distract the court by focusing on the familiarity with the record-keeping practices and record-keeping systems of SPS. Such familiarity is irrelevant if the records are not those of the creditor. This is irrelevant if SPS is not an authorized agent of the party who has paid value for the debt in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the debt. No such allegation or evidence exists except through the use of presumptions related to documents that are not even facially valid.
*
Accordingly the opposition filed by opposing counsel is simply another step in the attempt to distract the court from the simple fact that no loan account has ever been established nor has the ownership of such an account been established. Opposing counsel has relied upon innuendo, implication and self-serving inferences to establish facts that do not exist in the real world.
*
The declaration of opposing counsel is false. Neither the attorney nor the law firm represents the Bank of New York Mellon. In addition, the attorney falsely alleges “personal knowledge” without specifying how that knowledge was obtained. Like all other documents in this case, the creation of this document is meant to create an illusion based upon a cursory glance at the document rather than an analysis of it.
*
The declarations in this case do not survive any credible analysis.
Similarly, the creation and execution of a “limited power of attorney” on March 5, 2020, after the lawsuit was filed and after the motion for summary judgment was filed, is another disingenuous effort to distract the court. The execution of the power of attorney, even if it was valid, is irrelevant if the grantor had nothing to grant. There has yet to be any reference, allegation, exhibit or evidence submitted establishing the identity of any entity that maintains the subject loan account as an asset on its financial statements.
*
In conclusion, any reasonable attentive analysis of the documents submitted by opposing counsel reveals the absence of any allegation that counsel represents any party on whose behalf this action was filed, according to the complaint and subsequent filings. Taken individually or collectively, the documents are a smokescreen for the pursuit of profit of a third party (Credit Suisse) rather than restitution for an unpaid debt that no longer exists. 
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial 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:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. 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 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.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: boarding process, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, investment banking, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

The missing second witness —Attacking the Business Records of A Servicer: Start with the fact that the company is self-proclaimed servicer with no proof of authority and then pivot to the absence of records establishing the debt as an asset.

Posted on July 29, 2020 by Neil Garfield

Excellent article written by attorneys at Blank Rome on the issue of Business Record exceptions to the hearsay rule. The hearsay rule is simple. It excludes from evidence any statement that is uttered out of court — whether that statement is in writing or was made orally.

see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/florida-supreme-court-resolves-conflict-20649/

So here is what it looks like in a typical old-fashioned foreclosure trial.

The witness testifies that he or she is the records custodian of a bank. He/she says she has the records of the homeowner/borrower from the bank and he/she testifies that he/she knows from his/her own personal knowledge that those records were made at or near  the time of every transaction between the borrower and the bank.

The witness testifies that he/she has the actual records with handwritten entries showing the establishment of the loan as an asset through purchase of the promissory note in a transaction in which the borrower received money or in which money was paid on behalf of the borrower.

The written record is admitted into evidence as proof of two matters asserted: (1) establishment of the debt or underlying obligation and (2) the borrower’s payment history.

The witness goes on to testify that he/she holds in his/her hand the original promissory note and mortgage executed by the borrower and that is ahs been under lock and key, under his/her supervision since the time of origination of the loan.

The note and mortgage are accepted into evidence as proof of the terms of repayment and the establishment of a lien.

The Judge compares the obligation (promise to pay) as set forth on the note with the payment history and arrives at a factual conclusion as to whether the homeowner is in breach of the agreement and renders a final judgment for the bank, assuming the homeowner has not made payments that were promised by the homeowner to the bank.

Now let’s look at the modern day nontraditional foreclosure. First of all nobody from the bank or “lender” makes any appearance.

My point is that a foundation objection should be made and preserved if this is the case.

If a witness is a person other than the employee or officer of the named claimant or plaintiff in the foreclosure case, he/she cannot testify about records, payment history or anything else relating to the foreclosure claim without someone else first testifying that the witness is authorized to do so and that the company for whom the witness works maintains the records that establish the debt as owned by the claimant and that said company is in fact the servicer of the account.

That second witness must be an authorized employee or officer of the named claimant/plaintiff. In plain language if BONY/Mellon is named as trustee of a trust, and that they are filing on behalf of certificate holders of the trust, no evidence should be admitted without first establishing the foundation for the inferences that the foreclosure mill wishes to raise.

And frankly the court should on its own reject any attempt to work around this requirement. But as a practical matter, the way it is currently working, if you don’t object continuously to the absence of such foundation then you will be treated as having waived the issue and with that, you will effectively be treated as though you had waived your defenses.

So if securitization was real, the witness would come in and say that they are the authorized representative of BONY Mellon and that they are the trust officer in charge of record keeping for BONY Mellon in relation to this named trust and the certificate holder.

The witness would produce the trust agreement authorizing BONY/Mellon to act as trustee and a certificate indenture in which the holders of the certificates have been granted ownership shares of a pool of mortgages owned by the trust and which explicitly grant to BONY/Mellon the right to represent the certificate holders in connection with the enforcement of loans owned by teht rust for their benefit. The witness would establish that the certificate holders are beneficiaries.

The bank trustee witness would produce business records of BONY/Mellon that show the transaction in which the loans were established, having acquired same from the originator in a specific transaction in which value was paid for ownership of the debt, note and mortgage.

Or, the witness would testify that pursuant to some agreement, BONY/Mellon had outsourced functions to some other company that is acting as servicer. And the witness would testify that the servicer was operating in compliance with the servicing agreement by tendering the required payments in the certificate indenture to BONY/Mellon as trustee who in turn makes payments to the certificate holders.

You will never see such testimony because none of these things happen in what is loosely described as “Securitization.” Certificate holders own nothing but an unsecured IOU from an investment bank doing business under the name of a nonexistent trust. No servicer even has access to any information, data or entries on any record establishing the debt as an asset of anyone. In fact, no “servicer” knows or pays any money to anyone in a transaction that would even imply they are working for the owner of the debt. That is where aggressive discovery will tip the scales.

In reality the “records” submitted by the servicer are proffered as the payment history but there is never any direct testimony that the payment history constitutes business records of the claimant. That is because they are not business records of the claimant. They are only reports issued for the purpose of foreclosure. And that is not allowed. Such reports are not admissible in evidence and if excluded, the case fails.

In one form or another, every case I have won for homeowners and every case I know that was won for a homeowner has turned on the absence of foundation for the evidence sought to be admitted into evidence — without which no legal presumptions can arise or be used in the case against the homeowner.

Bottom Line: In virtually all foreclosure cases there is an absence of the required second witness because there is no such witness — i.e., a person with personal knowledge that the facts assumed or presumed are true.

Here are some important quotes from the above cited article:

On July 2, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court issued its written opinion[i] in Jackson v. Household Finance Corporation, III, 236 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) to resolve a conflict with a case decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Maslak v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Specifically, the issue concerned whether the predicates were met for admissions of records into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule during the course of a bench trial in a residential foreclosure case. The Florida Supreme Court held that the proper predicate for admission can be laid by a qualified witness testifying to the foundation elements of the exception set forth in Section 90.803(6) of the Florida Evidence Code.

a party has three options to lay the foundation to meet that exception: (1) offering testimony of a records custodian, (2) presenting a certification that or declaration that the elements have been established, or (3) obtaining a stipulation of admissibility. If the party elects to present testimony, the applicable case law explains that it does not need to be the person who created the business records. The witness may be any qualified person with knowledge of each of the elements.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial 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:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. 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 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.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

 

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, hearsay, legal standing, Mortgage, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Banks Changing the Laws of Evidence

Posted on December 6, 2016 by Neil Garfield

The arrogance of the banks is subsumed in the decisions of courts. That the writer of an instrument would attempt to literally write language into an instrument that contradicts the laws of evidence is arrogant; but the fact that judges are accepting it because it appears in black and white, is abdication of the judicial function.

“That is exactly what has been happening, and it is getting even worse. The servicer lawyers are not submitting any evidence at all or responding to homeowner objections and the court is taking statements of counsel as presumptively conclusive.” — Dan Edstrom, Senior Forensic Analyst

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
From Bill Paatalo, who continues his unending analysis to corroborate the narrative that the banks and servicers are defrauding investors, homeowners and the courts.
 *
The offending language directly contradicts the hearsay and best evidence rule when applied to homeowners who are not party to the instrument and are even barred from introducing elements of the trust instrument (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) to support their trial objections and cross examination of robo-witnesses. Provisions like the one quoted below are used extensively to allow complete strangers to intervene while brandishing only a photocopy of unknown origin and authenticity.
 *
Note that this Agreement merely specifies that the parties intend to do something — not that the loans are hereby conveyed, transferred, assigned or endorsed. This is because the loans do not yet exist.
 *
Note also that the the first signature page of the document is signed by someone purporting to be from WAMU but no signature is shown for Countrywide. This is corroboration that incomplete and partial documents are field regularly with the SEC without review. The second signature page, which could have been attached at any time, is the reverse.
 *
Note also the reference to the MLS (Mortgage Loan Schedule). I have seen no MLS that conforms to this language even though the documents usually specify all the elements contained in these definitions. On Exhibit 12, entitled Mortgage Loan Schedule, there is nothing listed. Sometimes we see a reference to a third party who keeps a “binder” containing the MLS. IN no case that I have seen, has an original filing with the SEC ever contained a Mortgage Loan Schedule — except where the prospectus contains an acknowledgement that the MLS is false and is shown only by way of example what the MLS should look like.
 *
Here is what Bill Paatalo wrote:
Here’s that lovely language again. What is also interesting is Section 6.04 states that the MERS ID must be changed to investor “1003646” and this belongs to BofA as Trustee/Custodian for WaMu/WMMSC (attached.) I’ve never seen this ID, nor have I ever seen assignments to WMMSC as contemplated in this agreement.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1350322/000127727706000190/mastermlpsa.pdf
SECTION 28. Reproduction of Documents.
This Agreement and all documents relating thereto, including, without limitation, (a) consents, waivers and modifications which may hereafter be executed, (b) documents received by any party at the closing, and (c) financial statements, certificates and other information previously or hereafter furnished, may be reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, micro-card, miniature photographic or other similar process.   The parties agree that any such reproduction shall be admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether or not the original is in existence and whether or not such reproduction was made by a party in the regular course of business, and that any enlargement, facsimile or further reproduction of such reproduction shall likewise be admissible in evidence.

— Bill Paatalo

Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838
Absarokee, MT 59001
Office: (406) 328-4075

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

What is Evidence or Proof of the Existence of the REAL Loan?

Posted on November 7, 2014 by Neil Garfield

For additional information or assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

————————————

It is a complicated answer. The following is NOT a comprehensive answer which would the length of a treatise.

see also Fla 4th DCA Beauchamp v Bank of New York Mellon, J Shahood reversed — Beauchamp v BONY-Mellon

The Beauchamp case brings to the forefront the issue of redemptive rights which has long been ignored. In short the 4th DCA decided that the redemptive rights are important. They decided that evidence of actual losses or damages must be established without relying on inadmissible hearsay. This is where the rubber meets the road. In order to do so the Plaintiff foreclosing party is open in discovery at the very least to showing actual proof of payment and proof of loss of the actual owner of the debt and/or holder in due course. Presumptions won’t do them any good unless the homeowner’s attorney fails to object.

Thus the real transaction with real money, in a real purchase of the loan must be established by the foreclosing party. That is part of their prima facie case. And these are liquidated contract damages — not subject to anything other than mathematical calculation of net loss. I doubt if the appellate court meant to empower the judge to “estimate” or enter a finding that is “good enough.” The homeowner, like the AMGAR program, has every right to pay off the net debt once it is established and thus prevent the sale of the home. In turn the homeowner is entitled to the recovery of the original note and mortgage or deed of trust.

Be careful because it is evidently a normal practice, contrary to current case law, for the foreclosing party in non judicial states to publish and record a self serving statement of standing in the form of a substitution of trustee. That substitution of trustee must be nullified or else the rest of the theories advanced by the homeowner might be deemed irrelevant.

The interesting thing on remand is what happens when the foreclosing party cannot show proof of payment (proof of actual transaction ) and tries to get the judge to assume that the loss is the amount on the note. If that were the case the 4th DCA would not have remanded for further proceedings to determine damages so that the borrower’s redemption rights could be established. Without a completely transparent introduction of testimony and BEST evidence of original transaction documents, there is no proof of damages and the foreclosure judgment must be vacated.

In loan transactions there usually is no actual written contract that says the creditor will loan money and the debtor will pay it back. So common law and statutory law must make certain assumptions about the loan contract — which still must exist in order for the note or mortgage to be enforced. This is till basic contract law — the elements of which are offer, acceptance and consideration each to the other. The stumbling block for most judges is that the presence of money at the table is automatically construed as consideration for the contract that is sought to be enforced.

In olden times there was no problem in using this heuristic approach to loan contracts, because nobody thought of some third party funding the loan WITHOUT a note and mortgage made out in favor of the actual creditor. But Wall Street found a way to do it and conceal it.

The actual debt — i.e., the duty to pay — arises by operation of law when the debtor receives the money. It is presumed to be a loan and not a gift. The paperwork is intended to provide disclosures and terms and evidence upon which both parties can rely. In this context before Wall Street saw the vulnerability, there was no problem in using the words “debt”, “note”, “mortgage” and “loan” interchangeably — because they all essentially meant the same thing.

The genius of the Wall Street scheme is that their lawyers saw the possibilities in this informal system. The borrower could not claim lack of consideration when he received the money and thus the debt was presumed. And with enough layers of deception, non-disclosure and outright lies, neither the borrower nor even the closing agent actually realized that the money was coming from Party A but the paperwork was directed to Party B. Nobody realized that there was a debt created by operation of law PLUS another debt that might be presumed by virtue of signing a note and mortgage. Obviously the borrower was kept in the dark that for every $1 of “loan” he was exposing himself to $2 in liability.

If the creditor named as payee and mortgagee was not the source of the funds then there is no underlying debt. The rules of evidence are designed to help the court get tot eh truth of the matter asserted. The truth is that the holder of the paper is NOT the party who was the creditor at “closing.” The closing was fictitious. It really is that simple. And it is the reason for the snowstorm of fabricated, forged and robosigned documents to cover up the essential fact that there is not one shred of consideration in the origination or transfer of many loans.

Each assignment, endorsement, power of attorney or other document purporting to transfer control or ownership over the loan documents is corroboration of the lack of consideration. Working backwards from the Trust or whoever is claiming the right to enforce, you will see that they are alleging “holder” status but they fail to identify and prove their right to enforce on behalf of the holder in due course or owner of the debt (i.e., the creditor).

Close examination of the PSA shows that they never planned to have the Trust actually acquire the loans — because of the lack of any language showing how payment is being made to acquire the loans within the cutoff period. THAT was the point. By doing that the broker dealers were able to divert the proceeds of sale of Mortgage Backed Securities to their own use. And when you look at their pleading they never state they are a holder in due course. Why not? If they did, there would be no allowable defenses from the borrower. But if they alleged that they would need to come forward with evidence that the Trust purchased the debt for value, in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses — elements present in every PSA but never named as “holder in due course.”

Since the good faith and lack of knowledge of borrower’s defenses is probably not in hot dispute, that leaves only one element — payment. The logical question is why would the assignor or endorser transfer a valuable debt without payment? The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no underlying debt — there is paper but the power of that paper is at very best highly speculative. “Underlying debt” means that the alleged borrower does not owe any money to the party named as payee on the note.
Traveling down the line, seeking for evidence of payment, you don’t find it. Even the originator does not get “paid” for the loan but assigns or endorses the paperwork anyway. No reasonable business explanation can be found for this free transfer of the paper except that the participants knew full well that the paper was worthless. And THAT in turn is presumptive proof that there was a lack of consideration for the paperwork — meaning that the debt was owed to an outside party who was never in privity with the “originator.”
If someone has possession of a note, it is an original and it complies with local statutes as to form and content, the note is accepted as evidence of the debt, and the terms of repayment. The person who signed the note is at risk of a judgment against him only if he defaults or the note falls into the hands of a holder indue course. Of course if the note IS evidence of a loan that WAS funded by the named payee, that is a different story. But looking a little further up the line, you will eventually find that one or more alleged transfers of the paperwork did not involve payment. And the reason is the same as the above. In the end, the money came from illegal diversion of investor funds that were intended to be deposited with a REMIC Trust.

If the signer of the note denies that the transaction was complete — i.e., there was no consideration and therefore there is no enforceable contract, then the burden switches back to the “holder” of the note to step into the shoes of the original lender to prove that the loan actually occurred, the original lender was the creditor and the signer was the debtor.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 58 Comments »

Using the Best Evidence Rule As You Follow the Money

Posted on May 12, 2014 by Neil Garfield

The Best Evidence Rule in Florida and Federal Courts Applied to Notes, Mortgages and Assignments

The problem with foreclosure litigation is that the homeowner is dealing with rebuttable presumptions about the testimony and the documents admitted into evidence. They are admitted into evidence because there is no timely objection from the homeowner or the foreclosure defense attorney.

The note, mortgage and assignment are presumed to be valid instruments if they conform to the requirements of law as to form and content. In that case they are facially valid. That means there is a rebuttable presumption that there was a valid underlying transaction. Therefore. as a matter of law, the paper presented is not just facially valid but also presumptive evidence that the transaction existed. This gets tricky in application and is one of the many reasons why lawyers should study up on courtroom procedures, evidence and objections.

On the note, the underlying transaction is the debt. The debt exists not because of the note, but because Party A put money into the hands of Party B who accepted it. The debt arises regardless of whether or not a note was executed. The note is evidence of the debt and it is presumptive evidence that there was an underlying transaction in the amount of the note. The underlying transaction is therefore the payee putting money into the hands of the homeowner, who is the payor.

On the mortgage, the underlying transaction is still the debt and the existence of the note, because a valid mortgage does not exist except if it is based upon an instrument in writing. The mortgage is not presumptive evidence of the existence of the underlying transaction (the actual loan of money from Party A to Party B). Under normal circumstances the existence of a properly executed mortgage would corroborate the evidence supplied by the note.

On the assignment, the underlying transaction is a payment of money from Assignee to the Assignor. The assignment itself might be accepted by the court as presumptive evidence that such an underlying transaction exists (in the absence of an objection). If a proper objection is raised, the presumption vanishes.

So what is a proper objection under these circumstances? Remember if you fail to raise the objection then the burden of proving the transaction did not happen falls on the homeowner. The objective here is to hold the bank’s feet to the fire and make them prove their case. And the reason for this is not to exercise your vocal chords. It is to show that the underlying transaction between the parties stated in the document proffered by the bank never took place. And the reason you are doing that is because those transactions in fact, never occurred.

The hearsay rule is an appropriate objection because the document is being used to establish the truth of the matter implied — i.e., that there was an underlying transaction. But the better objection,in my opinion, is that the existence of the underlying transaction be subject to (1) lack of foundation and (2) best evidence. They are related in this instance.

Under the rules of evidence, the note, mortgage and assignment are secondary documents that imply that a transaction took place but do not show facts to verify that the transaction actually occurred. Hence, the BEST EVIDENCE of the underlying transaction is the canceled check or wire transfer receipt showing the payment and implied acceptance of the money used to fund the loan or purchase the mortgage. Anything less than that is not admissible evidence — unless the objection is overlooked or waived. It would therefore be true that the debt from the homeowner allegedly owed to the payee on the note (and mortgage) or the assignee on the assignment is not supported by foundation in the usual circumstances.

Special note here: I have seen in reported cases that it DOES occur that litigants, including banks, have doctored up copies of wire transfer receipts. Thus any effort to introduce the copy would be met by your objection on the basis of best evidence and the argument, if applicable, that the failure to disclose the document prior to trial deprived you of your ability to confirm the authenticity of the document. Verification is possible but he banks, Federal reserve etc., will not make it easy on you so a court order will be helpful.

Normally the corporate representative of the servicer is the witness. It will usually be established on voir dire or cross examination that the witness neither had access to nor ever personally viewed any records of the actual transaction and in fact never even saw the secondary evidence (the note, mortgage and assignment) until a few days before trial. Thus no testimony will be elicited, in the ordinary course of things, that the transaction took place (i.e., an ACTUAL transaction in which money from the payee was loaned to the homeowner or money from the Assignee was paid to the Assignor). Hence no foundation exists for any testimony or any document that the debt exists or that the loan was actually sold for consideration and then assigned.

This is not a technical matter. If I agree to pay you $100 for your toaster oven, I can’t demand the appliance until I have paid it. If that was the agreement, then the underlying transaction is the payment of money. The evidence — the best evidence — of the payment is a canceled check or wire transfer receipt. The exceptions to the best evidence rule do not seem to apply and there is no adequate explanation for why anything other than direct primary evidence of the transaction itself should be admitted.

In searching the internet I found that a lawyer in West palm beach wrote a pretty good article on the subject although he was concentrating on the use of the best evidence rule in connection with duplicates. see http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-the-best-evidence-rule-in-florida for the article by Mark R. Osherow, Esq.

Here are some excerpts from that article.

===================

The best evidence rule, set forth in Fla. R. Evid.’90.952 and Fed. Rules Evid. 1001, provides that, where a writing is offered in evidence, a copy or other secondary evidence of its content will not be received in place of the original document unless an adequate explanation is offered for the absence of the original. Fla. R. Evid. ‘90.9520-90.958; Fed. Rules Evid. 1002-1008….
Public records authentication is provided for by section 90.955 and Rule 1005. Under section 90.956 and Rule 1006 voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot be conveniently examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary or calculation. Of course, admissibility of a summary depends upon the admissibility of the underlying documents. In order to use a summary, timely written notice is required with proof filed in court. Adverse parties must have sufficient time to investigate and inspect underlying records and summaries….
Fla. R. Evid. Section 90.957. Section 90.958 and Rule 1008 set forth the situations where the court determines admissibility and where the jury determines factual issues such as the existence of a document, its content, and the contents accuracy.
The best evidence rule arose during the days when a copy was usually made by a clerk or, worse, a party to the lawsuit. Courts generally assumed that, if the original was not produced, there was a good chance of either a scrivener’s error or fraud.
… there is always a danger of a party questioning a document, so it is important to remember that, unless you have a stipulation to the contrary, or your document fits one of the exceptions listed in the statute, you must be ready to produce originals of any documents involved in your case or to produce evidence of why you cannot.

Filed under: AMGAR, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GTC | Honor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, Servicer, STATUTES | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: