MERS “chain-of-custody” issues preventing foreclosures.

[jpinpb]

Here’s another interesting read:
Doctor Housing Bubble

[Anonymous]

MERS as mortgagee assignor

Hello all, hoping someone has answers or references for me to look into…:

On a 2005 Promissory Note, it is stated that the Borrower must notify the Note Holder of any act that may effect an obligation to pay under the Note, using the address of the Lender or the address of the Note Holder if different from the Lenders address.

The Lender sold the Note to an unknown entity at execution, and also named MERS a mortgagee at execution (MERS was not a signatory to the mortgage nor to the note)and the same Lender transferred the mortgage for servicing to still another entity a month after execution.

The Lender admits that it was never to be considered as the mortgagee.

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Neither the Lender nor the Servicer was the mortgagee at default and filing of f/c, and the named mortgagee MERS (who admittedly never owned of held the note) conveyed the Note by assignment to the Servicer after the servicer filed foreclosure complaint in 2008.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

It also claims that MERS had given an valid ownership interest in the Note by assignment (the assignment was recorded after complaint was filed, has no specific date of assignment, and is not dated by the notary, no address for the MERS “officer” who also happens to be the attorney of the Servicer).

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

Also, what is the true legal definition of “mortgagee”?

[Anonymous]

MERS as mortgagee assignor

Hello all, hoping someone has answers or references for me to look into…:

On a 2005 Promissory Note, it is stated that the Borrower must notify the Note Holder of any act that may effect an obligation to pay under the Note, using the address of the Lender or the address of the Note Holder if different from the Lenders address.

The Lender sold the Note to an unknown entity at execution, and also named MERS a mortgagee at execution (MERS was not a signatory to the mortgage nor to the note)and the same Lender transferred the mortgage for servicing to still another entity a month after execution.

The Lender admits that it was never to be considered as the mortgagee.

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Neither the Lender nor the Servicer was the mortgagee at default and filing of f/c, and the named mortgagee MERS (who admittedly never owned of held the note) conveyed the Note by assignment to the Servicer after the servicer filed foreclosure complaint in 2008.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

It also claims that MERS had given an valid ownership interest in the Note by assignment (the assignment was recorded after complaint was filed, has no specific date of assignment, and is not dated by the notary, no address for the MERS “officer” who also happens to be the attorney of the Servicer).

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

Also, what is the true legal definition of “mortgagee”?

[Anonymous]

MERS as mortgagee assignor

Hello all, hoping someone has answers or references for me to look into…:

On a 2005 Promissory Note, it is stated that the Borrower must notify the Note Holder of any act that may effect an obligation to pay under the Note, using the address of the Lender or the address of the Note Holder if different from the Lenders address.

The Lender sold the Note to an unknown entity at execution, and also named MERS a mortgagee at execution (MERS was not a signatory to the mortgage nor to the note)and the same Lender transferred the mortgage for servicing to still another entity a month after execution.

The Lender admits that it was never to be considered as the mortgagee.

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Neither the Lender nor the Servicer was the mortgagee at default and filing of f/c, and the named mortgagee MERS (who admittedly never owned of held the note) conveyed the Note by assignment to the Servicer after the servicer filed foreclosure complaint in 2008.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

It also claims that MERS had given an valid ownership interest in the Note by assignment (the assignment was recorded after complaint was filed, has no specific date of assignment, and is not dated by the notary, no address for the MERS “officer” who also happens to be the attorney of the Servicer).

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

Also, what is the true legal definition of “mortgagee”?

[Anonymous]

MERS as mortgagee assignor

Hello all, hoping someone has answers or references for me to look into…:

On a 2005 Promissory Note, it is stated that the Borrower must notify the Note Holder of any act that may effect an obligation to pay under the Note, using the address of the Lender or the address of the Note Holder if different from the Lenders address.

The Lender sold the Note to an unknown entity at execution, and also named MERS a mortgagee at execution (MERS was not a signatory to the mortgage nor to the note)and the same Lender transferred the mortgage for servicing to still another entity a month after execution.

The Lender admits that it was never to be considered as the mortgagee.

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Neither the Lender nor the Servicer was the mortgagee at default and filing of f/c, and the named mortgagee MERS (who admittedly never owned of held the note) conveyed the Note by assignment to the Servicer after the servicer filed foreclosure complaint in 2008.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

It also claims that MERS had given an valid ownership interest in the Note by assignment (the assignment was recorded after complaint was filed, has no specific date of assignment, and is not dated by the notary, no address for the MERS “officer” who also happens to be the attorney of the Servicer).

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

Also, what is the true legal definition of “mortgagee”?

[Anonymous]

MERS as mortgagee assignor

Hello all, hoping someone has answers or references for me to look into…:

On a 2005 Promissory Note, it is stated that the Borrower must notify the Note Holder of any act that may effect an obligation to pay under the Note, using the address of the Lender or the address of the Note Holder if different from the Lenders address.

The Lender sold the Note to an unknown entity at execution, and also named MERS a mortgagee at execution (MERS was not a signatory to the mortgage nor to the note)and the same Lender transferred the mortgage for servicing to still another entity a month after execution.

The Lender admits that it was never to be considered as the mortgagee.

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Neither the Lender nor the Servicer was the mortgagee at default and filing of f/c, and the named mortgagee MERS (who admittedly never owned of held the note) conveyed the Note by assignment to the Servicer after the servicer filed foreclosure complaint in 2008.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

It also claims that MERS had given an valid ownership interest in the Note by assignment (the assignment was recorded after complaint was filed, has no specific date of assignment, and is not dated by the notary, no address for the MERS “officer” who also happens to be the attorney of the Servicer).

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

Also, what is the true legal definition of “mortgagee”?

[ucodegen]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).

What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??

[ucodegen]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).

What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??

[ucodegen]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).

What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??

[ucodegen]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).

What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??

[ucodegen]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.

The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.

Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.

The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.

Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.

Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.

You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.

The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.

This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.

What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?

It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).

What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??

[Anonymous]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

The Lender as named on the mortgage and the note was not the actual lender. This Lender gave notice of transfer of servicing to WF a month after closing, which was AFTER the real lender securitized the note. MERS was named as nominee mortgagee at closing for the Lender, and the real lender was not a signatory to the mortgage and note, neither was MERS, for that matter. WF never purchased the note and never held it, and since MERS never had an interest in the note (remember, MERS is nominee for the named Lender, not the real lender), it could not assign the note to the servicer WF as it did. WF cannot show that it has POA for the real noteholder. WF brought the f/c complaint before MERS “assigned” the note to it. The real party has never appeared to foreclose, and MERS, the Servicer WF, the originating Lender, and the real lender cannot produce the identity of the noteholder. Only the noteholder or it’s agent can collect upon the debt. But, the named Lender has no idea to whom the real lender sold the note to. And the Lender assigned the mortgage to WF for servicing, it didn’t assign the note, because it couldn’t – it was securitized at closing. Notice of default was sent by the servicer, not the lender nor the Lender, so the notice is not valid. There will be no trustee sale, because the trustee has not shown that it has POA for the beneficial noteholder.
MERS stopped being the mortgagee at the time the mortgage was tranferred to WF for servicing. My homeowners declarations prove this. WF claimed to be mortgagee for 2 years on my HO ins. – but it’s mortgagee status was never perfected because it was never a true mortgagee, and a fraudulent assignment of mortgage TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE from no-longer-qualified MERS, after filing of f/c complaint by the servicer WF, does not remedy this. 24 months in f/c limbo and counting, along with my 11-mo-old Federal lawsuit against all parties for the 200% overappraisal of my property to fraudulently induce me into a debt that could not be repaid even if I had tried to sell my home 1 month after closing.
BTW, this was a refinance of my home of 20 yrs to pay medical bills in 2006 – I knew nothing of it’s market value at application for the refi and I was required to use the Lender’s appraiser as a condition. I want to advise the noteholder of the fraud so I can negotiate my promissory note – which would include holding the defendant parties responsible for my home equity theft, unrepayable debt, and the unlawful overvaluation of the noteholder’s investment interest. I, the homeowner, am a victim of fraud, and so is the investor. The lender, Lender, MERS, WF, all got paid while I suffer financial hardship, credit woes, clouded title, and the investor loses his investment money. I will either give the property only to the noteholder in repayment, losing my life’s asset and all payments I made, and the defendants will be held liable for the destruction of my finances and family unity – OR I will keep the property until that noteholder brings me the negotiable instrument, and if the noteholder does not make claim before SOL for unsecured debt has expired, I will file for quiet title.
Tired of seeing hardworking people file for bankruptcy – it’s Wall Street’s turn to go bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

The Lender as named on the mortgage and the note was not the actual lender. This Lender gave notice of transfer of servicing to WF a month after closing, which was AFTER the real lender securitized the note. MERS was named as nominee mortgagee at closing for the Lender, and the real lender was not a signatory to the mortgage and note, neither was MERS, for that matter. WF never purchased the note and never held it, and since MERS never had an interest in the note (remember, MERS is nominee for the named Lender, not the real lender), it could not assign the note to the servicer WF as it did. WF cannot show that it has POA for the real noteholder. WF brought the f/c complaint before MERS “assigned” the note to it. The real party has never appeared to foreclose, and MERS, the Servicer WF, the originating Lender, and the real lender cannot produce the identity of the noteholder. Only the noteholder or it’s agent can collect upon the debt. But, the named Lender has no idea to whom the real lender sold the note to. And the Lender assigned the mortgage to WF for servicing, it didn’t assign the note, because it couldn’t – it was securitized at closing. Notice of default was sent by the servicer, not the lender nor the Lender, so the notice is not valid. There will be no trustee sale, because the trustee has not shown that it has POA for the beneficial noteholder.
MERS stopped being the mortgagee at the time the mortgage was tranferred to WF for servicing. My homeowners declarations prove this. WF claimed to be mortgagee for 2 years on my HO ins. – but it’s mortgagee status was never perfected because it was never a true mortgagee, and a fraudulent assignment of mortgage TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE from no-longer-qualified MERS, after filing of f/c complaint by the servicer WF, does not remedy this. 24 months in f/c limbo and counting, along with my 11-mo-old Federal lawsuit against all parties for the 200% overappraisal of my property to fraudulently induce me into a debt that could not be repaid even if I had tried to sell my home 1 month after closing.
BTW, this was a refinance of my home of 20 yrs to pay medical bills in 2006 – I knew nothing of it’s market value at application for the refi and I was required to use the Lender’s appraiser as a condition. I want to advise the noteholder of the fraud so I can negotiate my promissory note – which would include holding the defendant parties responsible for my home equity theft, unrepayable debt, and the unlawful overvaluation of the noteholder’s investment interest. I, the homeowner, am a victim of fraud, and so is the investor. The lender, Lender, MERS, WF, all got paid while I suffer financial hardship, credit woes, clouded title, and the investor loses his investment money. I will either give the property only to the noteholder in repayment, losing my life’s asset and all payments I made, and the defendants will be held liable for the destruction of my finances and family unity – OR I will keep the property until that noteholder brings me the negotiable instrument, and if the noteholder does not make claim before SOL for unsecured debt has expired, I will file for quiet title.
Tired of seeing hardworking people file for bankruptcy – it’s Wall Street’s turn to go bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

The Lender as named on the mortgage and the note was not the actual lender. This Lender gave notice of transfer of servicing to WF a month after closing, which was AFTER the real lender securitized the note. MERS was named as nominee mortgagee at closing for the Lender, and the real lender was not a signatory to the mortgage and note, neither was MERS, for that matter. WF never purchased the note and never held it, and since MERS never had an interest in the note (remember, MERS is nominee for the named Lender, not the real lender), it could not assign the note to the servicer WF as it did. WF cannot show that it has POA for the real noteholder. WF brought the f/c complaint before MERS “assigned” the note to it. The real party has never appeared to foreclose, and MERS, the Servicer WF, the originating Lender, and the real lender cannot produce the identity of the noteholder. Only the noteholder or it’s agent can collect upon the debt. But, the named Lender has no idea to whom the real lender sold the note to. And the Lender assigned the mortgage to WF for servicing, it didn’t assign the note, because it couldn’t – it was securitized at closing. Notice of default was sent by the servicer, not the lender nor the Lender, so the notice is not valid. There will be no trustee sale, because the trustee has not shown that it has POA for the beneficial noteholder.
MERS stopped being the mortgagee at the time the mortgage was tranferred to WF for servicing. My homeowners declarations prove this. WF claimed to be mortgagee for 2 years on my HO ins. – but it’s mortgagee status was never perfected because it was never a true mortgagee, and a fraudulent assignment of mortgage TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE from no-longer-qualified MERS, after filing of f/c complaint by the servicer WF, does not remedy this. 24 months in f/c limbo and counting, along with my 11-mo-old Federal lawsuit against all parties for the 200% overappraisal of my property to fraudulently induce me into a debt that could not be repaid even if I had tried to sell my home 1 month after closing.
BTW, this was a refinance of my home of 20 yrs to pay medical bills in 2006 – I knew nothing of it’s market value at application for the refi and I was required to use the Lender’s appraiser as a condition. I want to advise the noteholder of the fraud so I can negotiate my promissory note – which would include holding the defendant parties responsible for my home equity theft, unrepayable debt, and the unlawful overvaluation of the noteholder’s investment interest. I, the homeowner, am a victim of fraud, and so is the investor. The lender, Lender, MERS, WF, all got paid while I suffer financial hardship, credit woes, clouded title, and the investor loses his investment money. I will either give the property only to the noteholder in repayment, losing my life’s asset and all payments I made, and the defendants will be held liable for the destruction of my finances and family unity – OR I will keep the property until that noteholder brings me the negotiable instrument, and if the noteholder does not make claim before SOL for unsecured debt has expired, I will file for quiet title.
Tired of seeing hardworking people file for bankruptcy – it’s Wall Street’s turn to go bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Admitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).

Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.

The Lender as named on the mortgage and the note was not the actual lender. This Lender gave notice of transfer of servicing to WF a month after closing, which was AFTER the real lender securitized the note. MERS was named as nominee mortgagee at closing for the Lender, and the real lender was not a signatory to the mortgage and note, neither was MERS, for that matter. WF never purchased the note and never held it, and since MERS never had an interest in the note (remember, MERS is nominee for the named Lender, not the real lender), it could not assign the note to the servicer WF as it did. WF cannot show that it has POA for the real noteholder. WF brought the f/c complaint before MERS “assigned” the note to it. The real party has never appeared to foreclose, and MERS, the Servicer WF, the originating Lender, and the real lender cannot produce the identity of the noteholder. Only the noteholder or it’s agent can collect upon the debt. But, the named Lender has no idea to whom the real lender sold the note to. And the Lender assigned the mortgage to WF for servicing, it didn’t assign the note, because it couldn’t – it was securitized at closing. Notice of default was sent by the servicer, not the lender nor the Lender, so the notice is not valid. There will be no trustee sale, because the trustee has not shown that it has POA for the beneficial noteholder.
MERS stopped being the mortgagee at the time the mortgage was tranferred to WF for servicing. My homeowners declarations prove this. WF claimed to be mortgagee for 2 years on my HO ins. – but it’s mortgagee status was never perfected because it was never a true mortgagee, and a fraudulent assignment of mortgage TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE from no-longer-qualified MERS, after filing of f/c complaint by the servicer WF, does not remedy this. 24 months in f/c limbo and counting, along with my 11-mo-old Federal lawsuit against all parties for the 200% overappraisal of my property to fraudulently induce me into a debt that could not be repaid even if I had tried to sell my home 1 month after closing.
BTW, this was a refinance of my home of 20 yrs to pay medical bills in 2006 – I knew nothing of it’s market value at application for the refi and I was required to use the Lender’s appraiser as a condition. I want to advise the noteholder of the fraud so I can negotiate my promissory note – which would include holding the defendant parties responsible for my home equity theft, unrepayable debt, and the unlawful overvaluation of the noteholder’s investment interest. I, the homeowner, am a victim of fraud, and so is the investor. The lender, Lender, MERS, WF, all got paid while I suffer financial hardship, credit woes, clouded title, and the investor loses his investment money. I will either give the property only to the noteholder in repayment, losing my life’s asset and all payments I made, and the defendants will be held liable for the destruction of my finances and family unity – OR I will keep the property until that noteholder brings me the negotiable instrument, and if the noteholder does not make claim before SOL for unsecured debt has expired, I will file for quiet title.
Tired of seeing hardworking people file for bankruptcy – it’s Wall Street’s turn to go bankrupt.

[Author]

Posts