Non-Recourse Lending

29 Oct

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

The Washington Times reported in “Fannie, Freddie leave $4.6 billion in collectible foreclosures,” that, according to a federal investigator:


“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage finance giants whose financial woes required massive taxpayer bailouts in recent years, could be missing out on as much as $4.6 billion in payments from foreclosed mortgages in their portfolios . . . .

“Freddie Mac alone has not dealt with about 58,000 foreclosures on single-family homes, letting the borrowers go into default instead of paying back the loans . . . .  many of those in default are not disenfranchised families down on their luck. Instead, they have the financial capability to pay back their loans.

 “Freddie Mac eliminated any possibility of recovery when it did not refer foreclosed mortgages for evaluation of collectibility,”. . . .  Disorganization cost the mortgage company 6,000 potential foreclosures because the statute of limitations expired.

“The numbers are even worse for Fannie Mae, which . . . did not pursue 44,600 cases because the statute of limitations expired.

“Inaction by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other companies causes a high level of ‘non-recourse lending.’ This type of lending carries few consequences because businesses legally can’t or won’t pursue people who default on their mortgages . . . .”


OK—according to this article, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to collect almost $5 billion in mortgage payments due to: 1) “Disorganization”; and 2) “Inaction”. Result?  The statute of limitations ran out and collection procedures had to terminate.

That explanation seems reasonable since just about everyone believes that government is so screwed up that “disorganization” and “inaction” could easily explain and excuse the loss of a “mere” $5 billion.

The article explains that the result of this “disorganization” and “inaction” was “non-recourse lending” wherein the lender had no legal capacity to sue or foreclose if the borrower defaulted on his mortgage.

I don’t doubt that the result was “non-recourse lending” where the banks have no recourse (can’t collect or foreclose) against borrowers who don’t repay their mortgages.  But I doubt that the cause for “non-recourse lending” was government “disorganization” or “inaction”.

Instead, I suspect that those home loans were truly “non-recourse lending” because the lender sold the Notes and Mortgages and therefore had no legal right to foreclose.

I’m not a licensed attorney.  Take my suspicions with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, my understanding of the mortgage and foreclosure law leads me to suspect that the reason the government couldn’t foreclose on over 100,000 mortgage defaults is that Freddie Mac and Fannie May didn’t have and could not acquire the orginal Notes and the actual Mortgages (or Deeds of Trust) actually signed by the borrowers.

Mere copies, even verified copies will not legally suffice.  In order to assert ownership to land, the plaintiff has to produce the one, actual, original title with the original signatures on it.  Similarly, without ownership and possession of the original Notes and Mortgages, the purported “lenders” and their agents had no more legal right to foreclose on those 100,000 homes than I do.

Q:  Why can’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac find the original Notes and Mortgages?

A:  Because they were “sliced and diced,” incorporated into “mortgage-backed securities,” sold to third parties and spread around the world.

The original Notes and Mortgages probably couldn’t be found under any circumstances.  But even if they could somehow be found, they probably couldn’t be used in court because they no longer exist in a coherent form.

Is the problem of missing Notes and Mortgages true for only the 100,000 mortgages that Fannie and Freddie neglected to enforce?

Probably not.  The problem of “missing” Notes and Mortgage could apply to millions of homes that were purchased between A.D. 1990 and A.D. 2010.

But the vast majority of those millions of mortgagors don’t understand the law.  Those millions of Americans don’t understand that if the bank sold their Note and Mortgage to some 3rd party, the bank—and Freddie Mac and Fannie May—may have no legal right to foreclose.  Only the 3rd party who owns both the Note and the Mortgage has the legal capacity to foreclose.

But if the 3rd party subsequently sold, lost or destroyed those Notes and Mortgages, then no one has the right to collect mortgage payments on that property and no one has the right to foreclose if the purchaser fails to make payments on his loan.  Although the extent of this mortgage fraud isn’t clearly known, it’s possible that millions of Americans have been hustled and deceived by their lenders and the banking system into making mortgage payments to alleged “creditors” and “lenders” who have no right to collect those payments.  Millions may have been foreclosed on and forced to abandon their homes by “lenders” who didn’t have the actual Note and Mortgage and therefore had no right to foreclose.

Those millions of American borrowers understood and agreed that they were legally bound to make payments on their mortgage debt.  What they did not understand is that they’re only bound to pay whoever owns and produces their original Note and the original Mortgage.

They don’t have to pay me because I don’t own their original Note and Mortgage.  Any fool can see that.

But most people have a hard time imagining that they also don’t have to repay their home loans to the bank that made the loan–even if that bank no longer holds the original Note or Mortgage.  Americans recognize the importance of paying their debts.  They do not recognize the critical importance of the original paperwork (not copies) associated with that debt.

If the bank or lender sold, lost or destroyed the original Note and Mortgage—too bad for them.  Without those original documents, they have no standing to foreclose or even collect the mortgage payments.

It’s like buying the winning lottery ticket and then accidentally setting that ticket on fire and causing it to disappear.  Go ahead; contact the lottery people and tell ‘em that you clearly remember buying a lottery ticket with the winning number but, unfortunately, you lost the ticket.  Odds are, the lottery people won’t allow you to collect your prize.  The prize is due to however holds the original paperwork (the lottery ticket).  No tickee, no checkee.

Same thing with Notes and Mortgages.  If the alleged creditor can’t produce the original Note and Mortgage, he has no right to foreclose.  He might be able to bluff an unsophisticated borrower into paying the debt, but without the original Note and Mortgage, the lender has no actual right to collect on the debt or foreclose.

The original mortgagor may be obligated to pay someone the substantial debt on his home loan.  However, the mortgagor is not obligated to pay just anyone.  He’s only obligated to pay the debt to whoever legally owns the original Note.  He has no obligation to pay the debt to anyone who can’t produce the original Note.  Likewise, he can’t be foreclosed on except by whoever holds both the original Note and the original Mortgage.

This is why, back when I was a kid, people who finally paid off their mortgages had a mortgage=-burning party.  When the mortgage was finally repaid, the bank returned the original Note and Mortgage to the borrower.  The borrower then celebrated (and insured himself against future mortgage payments) by burning and destroying the original paperwork.  Once the original paperwork no longer existed, no one had a right to collect mortgage payments on the house and no one had a right to foreclose.  Being freed from that threat, the borrower celebrated his good fortune.

Today, if you finish repaying your mortgage debt there’ll be no “mortgage burning party” because the original lender sold your paperwork and couldn’t find it if you put a gun to his head.

Nevertheless, in their pristine ignorance, millions of American mortgagors may have been subjected to foreclosure—even by people and institutions who don’t have the original Notes and Mortgages.  Such foreclosures would be fraudulent but still presumed legal because the borrowers didn’t have sense enough to challenge the standing of the plaintiffs to foreclose by demanding that the plaintiff produce the original Note and Mortgage.

And those who seek to foreclose must have both: 1) the original Note; and 2) the original Mortgage.  The Note establishes the debt.  The Mortgage causes the house to be deemed security for the Note.  If you have the original Note on the loan used to buy my home, I owe you (and only you) the amount specified on the Note.  But if you don’t also have the original Mortgage, you can’t foreclose on the house if I fail to make payments on the Note.  You can put a lien on the house and if I ever sell it, you can collect whatever is owed you out of the proceeds of the sale.  However, even if I haven’t paid you a dime in years, you won’t be able to legally foreclose on the house even if you have the original Note but don’t also hold the original mortgage.

I therefore suspect that the 100,000 delinquent mortgagors who weren’t foreclosed on by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have been allowed to “escape” because they understood enough law to demand to see their original Note and Mortgage as proof of Fanny’s and Freddy’s right to foreclose.  Once that issue was raised, Fannie and Freddie would have to produce the original Note and Mortgage or openly admit that they had made a “non-recourse loan”.  If they admitted that they’d sold, lost or destroyed the original Note and Mortgage, they would’ve lost their legal remedy to enforce payment of the loan and be left with no “recourse” in court.

If Fannie and Freddie admitted on the public record that they didn’t have the original Note and Mortgage and therefore couldn’t foreclose, they’d inspire millions of other borrowers to begin to ask about who holds their Notes and Mortgages.  Once those millions learned that their Notes and Mortgage were also “missing,” they’d also default on their mortgages and collapse the mortgage “bubble”/Ponzi scheme.  Therefore, I suspect that in order to prevent a widespread collapse of the mortgage Ponzi scheme, Fannie and Freddie simply ceased collection efforts against anyone who was smart enough to demand to see the original Note and Mortgage.

Fannie and Freddie claimed the $5 billion in lost foreclosures was due to “disorganization” and “inaction”.  Maybe so.  But I’d bet that Fannie and Freddie declined to foreclose on those who demanded to see the original Note & Mortgage rather than risk being charged with fraud.


The fraudsters lost $5 billion to those Americans smart enough to know the law.

If you knew the relevant law, and if you understood the significance of original documents,  and knew how to gather and introduce evidence into a court record, you might not be subject to foreclosure.  You might not even be subject to making mortgage payments. If you were really knowledgeable, you might even be able to sue your purported mortgage creditor and collect some or all of the fraudulent mortgage payments you’ve already made.


Posted by on October 29, 2013 in Banking, Foreclosure, Fraud, Government as Gangsters


Tags: , ,

18 responses to “Non-Recourse Lending


    October 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM

    All one needs to do is to understand the english words what their meaning is at Constitutional Law !
    and keep in mind that the english is defined in the bible concordance as the begaining of the fudal system .
    those whom interpert the legal system are called criminals in the black robe . People that defend their Rights and know that they have Guaranteed Rights afforded to them by the Bill Of Rights then that is real law not legalized by the criminals in the black souls or robe .
    Folks its like this ! if they did not give us the Guaranteed Rights ( Bill Of Rights ) the THirteen Colony’s would have not excepted the U S Constitution as a Rule Of Law ! CAPISCE ?Joe L’Amarca

  2. Yartap

    October 29, 2013 at 6:33 PM

    Al, I agree with you.

    The arrogance of the American bankers, who think themselves above the law can be seen at the web site of the American Banker .com when they say,

    “When a note has been transferred, the mortgage securing it automatically follows. This rule is codified in the UCC section 9-203. The maxim that the “mortgage follows the note” has been followed in most states, including Florida, New York, Ohio, Texas and California.”

    What they fail to mention is that UCC section 9-203 requires “in registered form” to fulfill legal assignment. Meaning: placing on file with the county records the assignments or transfers which is required. They seem to think that the all mighty banks do not have to comply. This is where they have failed. They further state,

    “Disputes about whether mortgages were properly assigned to the foreclosing lender by Mortgage Electronic Registration System — commonly known as MERS — could be put to the side. Lenders designate MERS as their nominee and grant MERS the authority to transfer mortgages within its network of lenders, WITHOUT RECORDING THE ASSIGNMENTS PUBLICLY. MERS has become a favored whipping boy of borrower lawyers who regularly challenge the validity of mortgage assignments executed by or on behalf of MERS. But an assignment by MERS, and whether it legally transfers the mortgage or not, is irrelevant because possession of the endorsed note is all that matters [WRONG!].”

    Rule #1 in Real Estate Law 101, if the assignment document of the note and the mortgage are not on file with a lawful recorder of record where the real estate resides, then the assignment is not valid! This also applies to real estate notes and mortgages.

  3. Dude

    October 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM

    Good article. You made many valid points… and even after summary judgment has been granted to the crooks, no true foreclosure has been performed/perfected because the original note is note canceled or returned. Still, they have the sheriff forcefully remove people from their homes. The courts are wicked. I know this from personal experience specific to this matter.

  4. FL GIRL

    October 30, 2013 at 8:53 AM

    All true, but all courts ignore the alleged laws, and I too was a victim of such acts. I bought up all these issues and asked the court to sequester a document examiner to validate the note/mortgage and note modification, but the court ignored my request, even placing in the final summary order that the documents(note/mortgage/note modification) be returned to the alleged “lender” upon sale of our property. I even objected that the documents were forgeries, all ignored by the judge.

    Another hint, review the judge’s loyalty oath in your state, you will find they have been modified from the original state constitution to exempt them from declaring “they are not part of any communist party! ” Then the question to ask is who are they and where do they gain their delegation of authority to pirate our properties…All their works are done by force by private contractors, the local sheriff office or police department; they are not part of any “state” or local government. Research in your home town where they are deemed part of the local government, you will find they are private contractors. So what is our remedy??? I say since there is no remedy, may be our remedy…I’m still investigating this issue, but not sure where to bring my claim yet, any suggestions would be nice!

    Also, go on youtube and type in Joan Veon, she has a few videos out there that explain public/private partnerships…I believe this has everything to do with what is going on in these alleged courts, its all global actions….and the last point to ponder is where did the Federal Reserve gain authority to “lend” fiat money to the American People…Congress was only authorized to coin the money, but where does it talk about lending it, and for it to be issued by a foreign, private organization, could this be the sign of the bankruptcy we were never told about???

    • pop de adam

      October 30, 2013 at 11:54 AM

      “I say since there is no remedy, may be our remedy…I’m still investigating this issue, but not sure where to bring my claim yet, any suggestions would be nice!”

      Perhaps you might be thinking of this, though I have no idea how it might be utilized:

      • FL GIRL

        October 30, 2013 at 6:03 PM

        Thank you.

    • Yartap

      October 31, 2013 at 8:29 AM

      FL GIRL,

      Are you saying that NO DOCUMENTS were produced for review by you and the court from the lender? Then you say that something was “forgeries?” So what was produced? Are the note modification(s) assignments to other lenders from the original lender? Did you check the court records to see if these documents were on file with the court? Did the foreclosing lender have or present the original mortgage? If documents were presented by the lender that foreclosed, are the same documents filed with your court of records (recorder)? If no documents were recorded in your court, did you place a “Motion to Dismiss” based upon their “standing” to file a judicial foreclose and “jurisdiction?”

      • FL GIRL

        October 31, 2013 at 2:11 PM

        The alleged “lender” or servicer never appeared in court to support any of their affidavit or to state a claim, only their alleged attorneys, and the bank’s “servicer’s” affidavit. Yes, the bank’s attorney came to court with “copies” of the alleged note/mortgage and note modification. We stated they were forgeries for this fact and for non full disclosure reasons as well; we did file several petitions to dismiss, and the judge just rolled over on us. On the summary judgment order, the attorney claimed they had the originals, but we never had an opportunity to see them, we were shown the “copies” at the start of the foreclosure proceedings, about 2 years prior to summary judgment. That is why we asked the court to sequester a document examiner, and if the court was going to allow the foreclosure, then the court would have to allow these documents to remain on the record until a document examiner could authenticate/validate the documents, which the judge ordered all documents to be returned to lender within the summary foreclosure order, because the attorney “said” they were originals.

        The fraud goes as far as to cite a date for summary judgment on a date we weren’t even in court, and the next schedule hearing was suppose to be a summary status hearing. The order reads something like this…”This matter being heard on July 14, 2011, it is hereby determined….etc… and we weren’t even in court on that day, nor was a summary judgment hearing scheduled for that day.

        What also is a mystery is the note modification was to supersede the note/mortgage, however the whole foreclosure was based on the alleged mortgage. The note modification stated that normal payments would resume Nov. 2038, so in short we weren’t in default. There are so many twists and turns in my case, that I need a real expert to help me obtain a real remedy.

        There was also a title claim filed by the lender, and I believe they were paid as well. I also should be entitled to a title claim but the title company denied my claim. That’s another long story. But if I understand what happened, the lender got paid in full based on the title claim, then was allowed to sell my home while I was in appeals for $600,000 below appraisal which sold in 10 days of listing it, and the title company will not tell me if they paid the claim.

        Then the judge issued an injunction upon us from contacting the bank, the real estate company and the new owner or going 1000 feet near our home, since I was seeking discovery after the foreclosure because I never received it in court and I still own 2 acres of the original tract of land; but the last twist regarding this title claim was the bank foreclosed on one address and parcel number ending in “10” which they placed in the newspaper and the court did a reformation of deed in the final order as well, then sold my home and property under a newly created parcel number ending in “18” and kept my original address on the newly created parcel, how can they do that????

    • Yartap

      October 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM

      FL GIRL,

      In most contracts or notes, it states where conflicts will be decided (venue). If it says your court system or little johnny down the street, then that is where the conflict will be resolved. The oath does not matter.

      • FL GIRL

        October 31, 2013 at 2:46 PM

        I dis-agree, if the contract is fraud in the inducement and you go to court thinking there is a court of law that is “in law” and not “at law” with real judges that are suppose to protect your rights as a living being, according to the “Constitution for the United States of America” and ensure the alleged contract is honored according to law; but this doesn’t happen, it doesn’t matter what you have as evidence, if you’re not an attorney, you’re not going to be heard in their court, because you’re not a legal fiction, and their law is copy written.

        The most critical issue are the definitions of the contract, and if you research the definitions you will find there is no contract. Does your mortgage state, “for a loan you have received” prior to your receiving it? Yes, Does it state you promise to pay “U.S. $xxxxxx Dollars,”, Yes, but is the U.S. dollar in circulation, No! The legal definition of a U.S. dollar is .371 grains of silver, and only foreign federal reserve notes (FRN’S) “debt instruments” are in circulation making everything impossible to “pay”. Only gold and silver can “pay” a debt and qualify ownership. So what are you purchasing over a 30 year term? The right to live there?? We are being mis-led to believe we would own something at the end of term, when in fact we own nothing. We the people were never meant to use FRN’S, they were reserve currency according the Federal Reserve Act, and “for no other purpose” and probably was meant for only the 10 square miles of D.C. and its territories.

        When we asked the judge what unit of measure was the court stating we still owed, she would never give us an answer, she would only say, “We’ll save that for trial” which we never received a trial by jury.

        There is a lot more to my case that I have not divulged as of yet. Even President Bush refused to pay a fraudulent debt the was repugnant to the Constitution.

      • Yartap

        October 31, 2013 at 7:37 PM

        Hi FL GIRL,

        It certainly sounds like you got railroaded. The part about the Title Company does sound like a fraud was committed by the lender, if I understand. Are you saying that the Title Company paid out because “something” was wrong with the title? Or was the Title Company involved with the loan modification, which may have had a problem (transfer mistake)? Go back and get copies of all documents from your county recorder, if you do not have them (I assume you already have them). Read on any modification/re-assignment to see if the transfer mentions the purchase or assumption of the original mortgage. And see if al documents are on file with the county recorder, too. If you suspect fraud and time has run out for an appeal, then get in touch with the criminal division of your state.

        I’m assuming that you are from Florida where the property resides. I have never liked the use of title companies in Florida. It’s not the first time problems have happened with them, and it won’t be the last.

      • FL GIRL

        October 31, 2013 at 8:23 PM

        The answer is yes to a title defect and yes to no assignment/transfer on record. The lender insisted it never transferred any assignments from itself, that it directly lent the money. But since we are dealing in FRN’S, and not lawful money, it can only be securitized paper, falling under Article 8 as securities, and since the maturity date is beyond 9 months, it can’t be a “loan” obligation, but an investment making us (the alleged borrowers) a 3rd party investor. Not only that, it is my understanding that according to Article 8 and 9, the note/mortgage was suppose to be placed in a REIT or a REMIC together within 90 days from closing, meaning if they were placed in a trust, the trust cannot be opened once its created and not until maturity. Its my understanding that most banks don’t place the paper in the trust as regulations require, therefore, the alleged loan becomes “unsecured” and if it unsecured, our property is no longer obligated as well.

        Further, it is my understanding in March 2008 The Department of Treasury issued a “blue print” for a modernized financial Regulatory Structure, placing all banks under one umbrella, including state credit unions, you guessed it, the Federal Reserve, under the IMF, under the IBS…so do we have an international contract or a domestic one, and is it still a contract???? More evidence of public/private partnerships! Where is the full disclosure?

      • Yartap

        October 31, 2013 at 10:54 PM

        Hi again, FL GIRL,

        I would suggest setting the issue of FRN’s and lawful money to the side when dealing with government agents and others. They just don’t understand the issue.

        As far as REIT’s and REMIC’s are concerned, most mortgages are bundled and placed into REMIConduits, then placed into the REITrust, so as, to create leverage for capital creation and taxing purposes. You can go to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac’s web site with your mortgage number to discover the servicer and to see if these institutions may have your bundled mortgage. In a bundled situation, the question of who’s right to file a foreclosure is clouded. Only the owners/holder of the mortgage may file a foreclosure, not the servicer.

        But, from what you have said, I think a call to the cops may be in order for fraud.

  5. pop de adam

    October 30, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    Should anyone wonder about this in my neck of the woods, a slightly publicized case here was:

    US bank vs Ibanez or Ibanez vs Massachusetts Land Court.

    I believe the former the original case, the latter the appeal. It seems some people noticed they weren’t following their own rules and while most people went along complacently and never challenged the process.

    Another issue with these controversies I have been curious about: Even if a foreclosure were processed according to the original agreement, do those foreclosed upon get any of the payout from the resold real estate? If I contract with a lender and either of us default for non-perfomance, I can understand the recouping of the collateral(the property) if the fault is mine, but from what I hear often people are faced with the prospect of being put out on the street. It might be said like this: “Fine I defaulted, take the house, but I want the accrued payments minus any dues or fees associated with this foreclosure”. They may take the house, but they should not take both the house and the amount you have paid towards it. If they got a refund so to speak, perhaps these situations would not seem so bleak and hopeless.

    • Yartap

      October 30, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      Hi Pop de Adam,

      In many States, they have equity protection laws. Meaning: If one is foreclosed upon, any sale of the home or property by the mortgage holder above the value owed (after attorney fees or cost of foreclosure) is returned to the debtor/homeowner. Of course, we have seen many sales of homes at a loss due to market devaluation.

      And we must remember: In many States, the one (bank or lender) who offers “Purchase Mortgage Money” is the first lien holder. This is why I recommend to others to have the mortgage placed in one name and then the debtor sales the property to the other spouse, which means that the debtor offers “purchase mortgage money” to the spouse, which in turn places the original debtor in first place as lien holder over the original lender (2nd place). Now, mixed with the equity protection laws, if payments are in default and the lender tries to foreclose, the lender discovers that the original debtor has to be payed first before the lender. This set up makes the lender have to work with the family owners and they will stop foreclosure proceeding for their protection.

  6. Jetlag

    October 30, 2013 at 10:12 AM

    Hopefully someone who got to keep their house by asking to “see the note” will go public and share their technique with everyone.

    Considering the sums of money involved, a teacher of real-world foreclosure avoidance could easily fill a conference room and charge hundreds of dollars per customer.

    • pop de adam

      October 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      I’m fairly certain there are others, I cited one such case above. In the late 60s there was an action taken by some In which they used a notary/justice of the peace to convene their own “court”. It was treated dismissively by most, but did end up in an “official court” in the end. It was called: First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly or Credit River case

      Of course it is up to you to decide how much trust you have in any of this, very many adversarial interests at play. Its a wonder such agreements can even be arrived at, since so many of the terms and conditions are predicated on the agreements failure. I don’t think it was the intention for most people to be complicit in a soft take over of all the property by the banks and the legal institutions.

    • Yartap

      October 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      Hi Jetlag,

      The bases of what Alfred is talking about (the subject) is improper paper work by the banks or lenders. (See all my posts above). A lender who has not filed the proper paper work with the court’s recorder lacks “standing” to proceed with a foreclosure, which also, implies lack of jurisdiction in the matter of the mortgage only (not the note). The mortgage is the collateral against the property and the note is the proceeds towards the purchase. And there is a time period that they must comply with (Statue of Limitation).

      There are basically two forms (others exist) of foreclosure: Judicial foreclosures and Power of Sale (non-judicial) foreclosures. The Judicial form requires the lender to file with the court a complaint (and you have to file an answer) and have a sheriff’s sale to finalize. The Power of Sale (non-judicial) allows the lender (following state law) to place the property up for auction for finalization. With a Power of Sale, it is the borrower/debtor who has to file a complaint with the court to stay (must ask for stay of foreclosure) the foreclosure proceedings and make it into a judicial form.

      But, before you file a suit or give an answer (whichever applies), one must check the court records where the property resides for what the lender(s) have “properly” filed. This check of records can be searched by an Abstractor for a small fee. If the chain of assignments with other lenders is broken (does not exist), then you have grounds to justify the lender’s Lack of Standing. Now, the lender has to go back and make all the corrections to start the proceeding over once again (if time allows), so one should delay -delay-delay the court’s proceedings and then ask for a Motion to Dismiss!

      Your next line in the sand is Discovery of documents. The foreclosing lender must produce the “original mortgage” to the court for inspection to have “true” claim to the property. If the lender cannot produce the original document of the mortgage (even if its on file with the court recorder), then the lender lacks Standing, once again; and must obtain the “original” mortgage for presentment. File a Motion to Dismiss and make them start all over again.

      Remember: the lender can remedy all of the document mistakes; if they can find them. And remember, time is running against them. And you must know the state’s laws on foreclosure where the property resides. Plus, assignments of the documents to other lenders must mention the transfer of the mortgage and just not the note. The questions that arises is “Did they buy the mortgage, and do they lawfully own the mortgage?”

      See my post to pop de adam (above) for the only other way (that I know) to stop foreclosure using “Purchase Money Mortgage” and “equity protection” laws in some states.

      I hope this helped, Yartap.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s