65 Reasons Your Foreclosure May Be Illegal – HELP For Modifications & Short Sales
The following is not legal advice and all readers should use this as information only and seek professional guidance based on their own unique circumstances.
I discovered this information by reading a friends blog and felt it was too important not to pass on.
When you are frustrated with what you inherently know is illegal or improper behavior on the part of the servicer, you may need to push back.
Remember, we the tax payers own most of the mortgage debt through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have a responsibility to make sure that losses are minimized and if we must use the courts, or information contained herein to push for justice and a rightful modification or short sale, than so be it.
FORECLOSURE SELF-DEFENSE COMPLETE GUIDE TO ROBO-SIGNERS by Foreclosure Self Defense
What is a robo-signer?
Robo-signers are mortgage lending company employees who prepared and signed off on foreclosures without reviewing them, as the law requires. Jeffrey Stephan, the GMAC employee who was the first identified as a robo-signer, has acknowledged in sworn deposition that he prepared 400 such foreclosures a day.
The discovery of robo-signers could simply be the tip of the iceberg. If so, more revelations could only increase the pressure on large banks. Their potential exposure to losses could skyrocket. What’s the significance? The “robo-signing of affidavits and Assignments of Mortgage and all other mortgage foreclosure documents served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure. If it turns out that robo-signers did indeed signoff on loans without review, they committed fraud by claiming knowledge of a financial matter of which they had no personal knowledge. It could also mean that some people are wrongly being evicted from their houses.
From underwriting fraudulent mortgages; to shuffling it through the mortgage securitization chain without following proper legal procedures like the simple act of passing along paperwork; to concealing or doctoring basic facts when securitizing the mortgages and selling them to investors, large lenders and their partners on Wall Street could face hundreds of billions of dollars in losses by being forced to buy back faulty mortgages, some of which have already defaulted, from misled investors. Investors bought mortgage-linked securities with the promise that the underlying mortgages conformed to basic underwriting standards, and that proper procedures were followed in the chain of securitization and a tax-exempt status. Steep losses on those investments and the discovery of potentially fraudulent activity are pushing investors to force banks to buy them back.
With all of the press robo-signing has gotten, it is a bit surprising that everyone is having such a hard time concluding whether these practices effect non-judicial foreclosures. The topic has not gotten the treatment it deserves, I will try to help. The following are by no means a complete list, but are the most clear LEGAL reasons (setting aside pure moral questions and the U.S. Constitution) that the Robo-Signer Controversy will entitle hundreds of thousands of homeowners wrongfully foreclosed and evicted to sue in non-judicial foreclosure states.
Briefly, Robo Signers are illegal because fraud cannot be the basis of clear title, trustee’s deeds following Robo Signed sales are void as a matter of law, notarization is a recording requirement for many of the documents, which we also know was often botched, and most importantly because robo signed falsifications ARE meant for use in court, including unlawful detainers and bankruptcy matters. Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud(including a bona fide purchaser for value). In the case of a fraudulent transaction the law is well settled. Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase.
Consequently, the fact that purchaser acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief. It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties. Hence, if forged Robo Signed signatures are used to obtain the foreclosure, it CERTAINLY makes a difference in non-judicial foreclosure states as well as judicial states.
Any apparent sale based on Robo Signed documents is void – without any legal effect – like Monopoly Money. In turn, the law requires that the beneficiary execute and notarize and record a substitution for a valid substitution of trustee to take effect. Thus, if the Assignment of Deed of Trust/Mortgage is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the substitution of trustee is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the Notice of Default is Robo-Signed, the sale is void. These documents are not recordable without good notarization.
The reason these documents are notarized in the first place is because otherwise they will not be accepted by the County recorder. Moreover, a notary who helps commit real estate fraud is liable. Once the document is recorded, however, it is entitled to a “presumption of validity”, which is what spurned the falsification trend in the first place. Therefore, the notarization of a false signature not only constitutes fraud, but is every bit intended as part of a larger conspiracy to commit fraud on the court.
The documents are intended for court proceedings. A necessary purpose for these documents, AFTER the non-judicial foreclosure, is the eviction of the rightful owners afterward. While the foreclosures are non-judicial, evictions afterwards still are conducted in court, although the process moves quickly and is mostly a “rubber stamping” by skeptical judges. However, as demonstrated below, once these documents make it into court, the bank officers and lawyers become guilty of FELONIES: The Doctrine of Unclean Hands provides: plaintiff’s misconduct in the matter before the court makes his hands “unclean” and he may not hold with them the pristine remedy of injunctive relief.
The unclean hands rule requires that the Plaintiff not cheat, and behave fairly. The plaintiff must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he or she will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of the claim. Whether the doctrine applies is a question of fact.
Robo Signed Documents Are Intended for Use in Bankruptcy Court Matters. One majorly overlooked facet is the extremely active bankruptcy court proceedings, where, just as in judicial foreclosure states, the banks must prove “standing” to proceed with a foreclosure. If they are not signed by persons with the requisite knowledge, affidavits submitted in bankruptcy court proceedings such as objections to a plan and Relief from Stays are perjured. The documents in support are often falsified evidence.
Conclusion: Verified eviction complaints, perjured motions for summary judgment, and all other eviction paperwork after robo signed non judicial foreclosures are illegal and void. The paperwork itself is void. The sale is void. But the only way to clean up the hundreds of thousands of effected titles is through litigation, because even now the banks will simply not do the right thing. And that’s why robo signers count in non-judicial foreclosure states.
Victims of robo signers in may seek declaratory relief and damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees for Unfair Business practices, as well as claims for slander of title; abuse of process, civil theft, and variety of other civil remedies.
Final words: the ´Robo actions are just the tip of the iceberg but the ´Robo actions allowed part of the iceberg to be seen.
For the complete Congressional Written Report go to : www.foreclosureself-defense.com/downloads/Congressional_Foreclosure_Report.pdf
The following long list indicates how rampant this problem is. Lying is wrong. Period. It cannot be tolerated in our courts and we cannot allow banks to lie and then justify said lie for expediency.
AFFIDAVIT IN ADMISSION OF FALSE DOCUMENTS FILED BY FLORIDADEFAULT LAW GROUP: www.frauddigest.com/indictments/37452927-FDLG-Admits-to-Violation-of-Professional-Conduct-Code-Jeffrey-Stephan-Affidavits.pdf
TOP INDICATORS/SIGNS YOU PROBABLY HAVE A FALSE DOCUMENTS AND A VICTIM OF FORECLOSURE FRAUD
1. Any document signed by an officer of MERS. MERS states at www.mersinc.org that: Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
2. The signor of the document states that they are acting ´solely as nominee for some other party.
3. The document was notarized in Dakota County, Minnesota
4. The document was notarized in Hinnepin County, Minnesota
5. The document was notarized in Duval County, Florida
6. The document was notarized in Palm Beach County, Florida
7. The document was notarized in Pinellas County Florida
8. The document was notarized in San Diego County, CA
9. The document was notarized in Fulton County, GA
10. The document was notarized in Polk County, IA
11. The document was notarized in Travis County, Texas
12. The document was notarized in Harris County, Texas
13. The document was notarized in Salt Lake County, Utah
14. The document was executed the same day it was filed with the Court
15. The party who signed the document executed it as ´an authorized agent for the servicer or the Plaintiff.
16. The party who signed the document executed it as ´an attorney in fact for the servicer or the Plaintiff.
17. The name of the signing party is stamped on the documents in block letters.
18. The name of the servicer or Plaintiff is stamped on the document in block letters.
19. The document appears to be a standard form with ´fill-in-the-blanks for the names of the signors and entities.
20. The paragraph numbers are not consistent (for example the first page may end with paragraph 7 and the second page may start with paragraph 10)
21. The party who signed the document and the notary are the same person.
22. You cannot read the signature of the signor and the name is not printed out on the document. (Some people refer to these a ´squiggle marks) The bottom line is you cannot decipher any name or word on the document.
23. The signature on the document consists of one loop in the shape of an ´S or something that looks like an ´8.
24. The date of the signature and the date of the notarization are not the same.
25. The same ´officer or Vice President of a mortgage company or lender is also the Vice President or officer of many other entities or lenders in the chain of assignments or endorsements.
26. The same ´officer or Vice President of a lender signing the documents is located in various cities throughout the United States.
27. The document includes numerous pre-stamped names and signatures.
28. The document includes a second page or last page notarization that does not conform in type font, style, format, texture, age, from the primary pages of the document.
29. Backdating effective dates on assignments.
30. Signatures of officers are dated years after an entity has been out of business, merged with another company or filed for bankruptcy.
31. The party who signed the document executed it as a representative of the servicer.
32. The notary failed to attach a notarial seal.
33. The notary failed to sign the notarization.
34. The name of the party appearing before the notary is blank.
35. The name of the party appearing before the notary is block stamped.
36. The endorsement is not at the foot of the note, but on a separate page or allonge to the note. (if there is room at the foot of the note, the endorsement must appear there. An allonge may only be used if there is insufficient room at the foot of the note for the endorsement)
37. The document purports to assign the mortgage or the deed of trust from the originator directly to the trust.
38. The document that purports to assign the mortgage of deed of trust to the Trust is dated BEFORE the Trust was registered with the SEC.
39. The document that purports to assign the mortgage of deed of trust to the Trust was signed AFTER the cut-off date for the transfer of all such to the Trust pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
40. The origination date on the mortgage note is not within the origination and cut-off dates provided for by the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
41. The mortgage note is assigned rather than endorsed from Party ´A to Party ´B or from any party to another party or entity.
42. The mortgage note is endorsed from the originator to the securitized Trust.
43. The mortgage note is endorsed from the originator to the current mortgage servicer.
44. The mortgage note is endorsed from the originator to the depositor for the securitized trust.
45. The affidavit is a ´Lost Note Affidavit filed by the mortgage servicer.
46. The affidavit is a ´Lost Note Affidavit filed by the Trustee for the securitized Trust and claims they never received the original Note. (You can only file a lost note affidavit under the UCC if you possessed the Note before it was lost)
47. The assignment of mortgage or deed of trust was filed or signed after the filing of the bankruptcy case.
48. The assignment of mortgage or deed of trust was filed or signed after the foreclosure proceeding began/was filed.
49. The assignment of mortgage or deed of trust was filed or signed after the filing of the Motion for Relief from Stay in Bankruptcy Court.
50. The affidavit was signed by an employee MR Default Servicers or has the MR Default Servicers information on the document as an identification number.
51. The affidavit was signed by an employee Promiss Solutions or has the Promiss Solutions information on the document as an identification number.
52. The affidavit was signed by an employee NDEx Technologies, LLC or has the NDEx information on the document as an identification number.
53. The affidavit was signed by the same attorney that signed the foreclosure complaint.
54. The affidavit was filed by an employee of the attorney that filed the foreclosure complaint.
55. The documents are clearly two photocopies of the same document with different information filled in regarding the names of the assignor and assignee.
56. The Note is stamped with the following: ´Certified True Copy.
57. The signature of the Vice President states that they are a Vice President of Lehman Brother Holding Company, but the printed or stamped name on the document is Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB.
58. The document is signed by a Bank Officer without any designation of the office/position held.
59. The affidavit is signed by the ´designated agent of any entity or party.
60. The affidavit includes one or more bar codes. (Similar to the bar codes you see on items at the grocery store, etc.)
61. Any document signed by an individual who states that they are the legal coordinator for any entity involved in the lawsuit or chain of custody.
62. The return address on the Assignment or affidavit is to a third party provider, such as Financial Dimensions, Inc, FANDO or FNFS.
63. The transferor and the transferee have the exact same physical address including the same street and/or P.O. Box numbers.
64. The document bears the image: This is not a certified copy.
65. The document refers to a Power of Attorney, but no such document is attached or filed and recorded.