Kimberly Miller PB Post – Lawsuit claims that Florida’s largest foreclosure firm faked documents

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser, who handles the county’s foreclosures, said she’s dismissed cases when she found problems with assignments. She wasn’t speaking directly about cases filed by Stern, and said it’s only happened a few times.


“I haven’t seen any widespread problem,”
Sasser said.


I guess she hasn’t read any of these reports that talk about mortgage assignments…

Excerpts from the report…

Florida’s purported largest foreclosure law firm filed thousands of documents to take people’s homes that contained deceptive and intentionally ambiguous information, according to a proposed class action lawsuit.

The suit, filed last month in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, says David J. Stern and his Plantation-based legal team violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by generating fraudulent mortgage assignments when pursuing foreclosures.

WHOA!!! Another CLASS ACTION FILED Against DJSP & MERS – Figueroa v. Law Offices Of David J. Stern, P.A. and MERSCORP, Inc.

Tick tock, tick tock, tick toc, tic toc… ~ BOOM!!! ~ Lets see, in the past couple weeks, we discussed… Foreclosure Fraud Exposed!!! Foreclosures Bring Wealth, Rebukes for Florida Lawyer David J. Stern Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on July 18, 2010 Attention ALL Florida Judges: ~ With all that is know known, with all the frauds … Read more

“There really is no proper plaintiff to sue and foreclose and that’s what this charade is designed to cover,” said Fort Lauderdale attorney Kenneth Eric Trent, who is seeking class action status and filed the suit on behalf of Oakland Park resident Ignacio Damian Figueroa. “There is no real holder of the note and the mortgage anymore because they broke it up and sold it to 10, 12, 20 people.”

Tracking the true owner of the debt sometimes can be a challenge. When pressed for proof of debt ownership, Trent said Stern’s office would create an assignment signed by a Stern employee instead of a representative of the lender attempting to foreclose.

“The assignments were meaningless shells designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the judiciary and ease the burden upon the unknown real parties of interest,” the lawsuit states.

Miami attorney Jeffrey Tew, of Tew Cardenas law firm, is representing Stern. He said Stern and his company have done nothing wrong, and that it is accepted practice for a firm employee to be given power to approve assignments.

And here is where the real issue lies…

Just because this is an “accepted practice” does not make it legal or proper.

Just because you get away with something for so long does not make it okay.

West Palm Beach foreclosure defense attorney Thomas Ice found 21 examples last year of assignments from Stern’s office that had been executed with a date before the notary’s commission was issued.

In a deposition, a Stern employee agreed with Ice that “sloppiness” was to blame for the irregularity.

Full Deposition of the Soon to be Infamous Cheryl Samons RE: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital Inc, Plaintiff, Vs. Belourdes Pierre – 50 2008 CA 028558 XXXX MB

ICE LEGAL does it AGAIN! Thomas Ice is clearing the path once again. First the Erica Johnson-Seck deposition, now Cheryl Samons (which may have been responsible for more Floridians losing their homes  than any other person in the state). Imagine if all the Foreclosure Defense Attorneys here in Florida got together and worked as Co-Counsel … Read more

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser, who handles the county’s foreclosures, said she’s dismissed cases when she found problems with assignments. She wasn’t speaking directly about cases filed by Stern, and said it’s only happened a few times.

“I haven’t seen any widespread problem,” Sasser said.

Be sure to read the report in its entirety over at the PB Post and get involved in the comments…


8 Responses to “Kimberly Miller PB Post – Lawsuit claims that Florida’s largest foreclosure firm faked documents”
  1. Joan A. Robinson says:

    I was forclosed on in 2006 on property at legacy Place in palm beach gardens, fl. When I went to an attorney
    he said what they did to me was criminal. First Meridan got the mortgage and then was transferred to GMAC.
    The last time I talked to a girl at GMAC, I told her a felt like I was dealing with the Mofia. She said you could

  2. lisamarie says:

    Has anybody out there heard of, or had any dealings with Squire, Sanders and Dempsey law firm??? I hear they are the big guns!!! Say it ain’t so!

  3. PJ says:

    and next… the “Shapiro Network of Attorneys” ! Also a sanctioned Fannie Mae Forclousure Baron law firm!

  4. Jeanne Logan says:

    The following are important to you. You need to pull these cases up and study and if you have questions call. Clair put these together just for you all but this is almost all we have been doing in research for about 10 weeks. This will help you to back up your statutes, UCC cases with caselaw.

    CARPTENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. {Footnote 3]
    All the authorities agree that the debt is the principal [Note] thing and the mortgage [Deed of Trust] an accessory. Much more.
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., appellant, v NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, appellee, 704 N.W.2d 784, 270 Neb. 529, No. S-04-786, Oct 21, 2005, “In other words, through its services to its members as characterized by the district court, MERS does not acquire “any loan or extension of credit secured by a lien on real property.” MERS does not itself extend credit or acquire rights to receive payments on mortgage loans. Rather, the lenders retain the promissory notes and servicing rights to the mortgage, while MERS acquires legal title to the mortgage for recordation purposes.

    MERS serves as legal title holder in nominee capacity, permitting lenders to sell their interests in the notes and servicing rights to investors without recording each transaction. But, simply stated, MERS has no independent right to collect on any debt because MERS itself has not extended credit, and none of the mortgage debtors owe MERS any money. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that MERS does not acquire mortgage loans, as defined in (Ohio) Section 45-702(8), and therefore MERS is not subject to the requirements of the Act.

    This Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff-Lenders in a number of pending foreclosure cases to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage as of the date the Complaint was filed, or the Court would enter a dismissal. The Court has reached today’s determination after a thorough review of all the relevant law and the briefs and arguments recently presented by the parties, including oral arguments heard on Plaintiff Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Reconsideration.
    However, the attached Note and Mortgage identify the mortgagee and promisee as the original lending institution — one other that the named Plaintiff. Ohio law holds that when a mortgage is assigned, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements of R.C. Sec. 5301.25. [Missouri has same requirement in RSMo 442.380 to 442.400. and other RSMo’s.] Arkansas is a recording state.
    Foreclosure Case, 521 F.Supp.2d 650 (S.D.Ohio 2007) (20 cases) United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton, Nov 15, 2007,
    Standing and subject matter jurisdiction, To satisfy Article III ‘s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show: (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual (2) injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) as opposed to merely speculative, the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

    An affidavit documenting that the named plaintiff is the OWNER and HOLDER of the NOTE and MORTGAGE; and a corporate disclosure statement. And the Court can confirm standing and the existence of diversity jurisdiction at the time the foreclosure complaint is filed.

    LANDMARK NATIONAL BANK V. KESLER, 40 Kan.App.2d 325, 192 P.3d 177, 2008 Kan.App. LEXIS 138 (2008)
    SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS 289 Kan. 528; 216 P.3d 158; 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, August 28, 2009 The court also found that Sovereign’s (bank) failure to register its interest with the Ford County Register of Deeds precluded it from asserting rights to the mortgage after judgment had been entered. MERS, nominee “is the mortgagee and is holding that mortgage for somebody else.” At another time he declared on the record that the nominee
    “is more like a trustee or more like a corporation, a trustee that has multiple beneficiaries you don’t serve one of the beneficiaries you serve the trustee of the trust. You serve the agent of the corporation.”
    Black’s Law Dictionary defines a nominee as “[a] person designated to act in place of another, in a very limited way” and as [a] party who holds bare legal title. for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes the funds for the benefit of others. This definition suggests that a nominee possesses few or no legally enforceable rights beyond those of a principal who the nominee serves.
    “A nominee of the owner of a note and mortgage may not effectively assign the note and mortgage to another for want of ownership interest in said note and mortgage by the nominee.” Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interest of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable.

    In Re Kang Jin Hwang, United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California, 396 B.R. 757, No. LA08–153375B; Debtors. Holder, but not Owner of the Note, The transfer of a negotiable instrument has an additional requirement: the transferor must indorse the instrument to make it payable to the transferee. May deny standing where movant did not acquire note until after filing motion for relief from stay.

    In Re Robin Hayes, Debtor, No. 07-13967-JNF, United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, August 19, 2008; For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Deutsche Bank failed to trace the mortgage from Aragent Mortgage Company, LLC to itself and thus lacks standing to obtain relief from stay and to defend the Debtor’s Objection to the claim filed by AMC. [BK Petition filed 26 June, 2007] The assignment was dated April 16, 2008, but it provided that the effective date of this assignment is October 24, 2005. [? Backdated “assignment”] “Standing” The plain language of section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code requires that one be a party in interest to seek relief from stay. {And Much more} Creditor must show chain of assignments.

    In RE Darrell Royce Sheridan and Sherry Ann Sheridan, Debtors, Case No. 08-20381-TLM
    United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Idaho. MERS –Party in interest and NO STANDING. Endorsement in Blank; There is no date nor indication of who was or is the transferee. Fieldstone Mortg. Co. may have indorsed the Note in Blank, but this document does not alone establish that either HSBC Bank USA or Fieldstone Mortg. Investment Trust is the Note’s Holder.

    IN RE: Marty Eugene Box and Tammy Jean Box, Case No. 10-20086, United States Bankruptcy for the Western District of Missouri: Servicing Co. lacked standing to foreclose. [A parallel to Belistri Ocwen.] BAC has not produced the original Note, nor has it even produced a witness stating that BAC is in possession of the original Note. Indeed even the Affidavit, for what it is worth, fails to make such a statement. Since BAC has failed to demonstrate that the loan was properly assigned to it by Taylor Bean, it lacks standing to seek relief from the stay.

    In RE: Barry Weisband, debtor, Case No. 4:09-bk-05175-EWH United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona; GMAC while it was in possession of the Note at the evidentiary hearing, it failed to demonstrate that the Note is properly payable to GMAC. A special endorsement to GMAC was admitted into evidence with the Note. However, for the Endorsement to constitute part of the Note, it must be on ” a paper affixed to the instrument A.R.S. Sec 47-3204; Here the evidence did not demonstrate that the Endorsement was affixed to the Note. MERS Assignment of the Deed of Trust Did NOT Provide GMAC WITH STANDING. MERS primary function is to act as a document custodian. GMAC, as MERS assignee of the Deed of Trust, “stands in the shoes” of the assignor, taking only those rights and remedies the assignor would have had.

    Major players in the mortgage lending industry created MERS to simplify the process of transferring mortgages by avoiding the need to re-record liens — and pay court recorder filing fees –each time it is assigned. MERS primary function is to act as a document.

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jordan, 2009 Ohio 1092 (Ohio App. 3/12/2009) 2009 Ohio 1092 (Ohio App. 2009) In re Foreclosure Cases, Therefore if plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

    Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County 2006 slip Op 51534U; 2006 N.Y.Misc. LEXIS 2127824 N.Y.S.2d 769; Lasalle Bank National Association as Trustee C/O Chase Home Finance , LLC, Plaintiff(s) against Michael Lamy, Joan Lamy, Defendants; Ownership of the note and mortgage may be established by the lending documents themselves or by proof that the plaintiff is the owner of the note and mortgage by reason of an assignment of both the note and mortgage by the owner thereof to the plaintiff or by the owner’s indorsement of the Note and its written assignment of mortgage to the plaintiff;
    It is axiomatic that to be effective, an assignment of the note and a mortgage given as security therefore must be made by the owner of such note and mortgage and that an assignments made by entities having no owner ship interest in the note and mortgage pass not title there to assignee.
    This is so because the mortgage is merely an incident of and collateral security for the debt and an assignment of the mortgage does not pass ownership of the debt itself.
    The December 29, 2005 assignment of mortgage is thus invalid.
    Appearing in the Court File is a purported “allonge” which allegedly endorsed the Mortgage and Note to the Plaintiff. However, when undersigned counsel examined the Court File, this purported allonge was not affixed to the Promissory Note attached to the Plaintiff’s Complaint nor, upon information and belief, is this purported allonge currently affixed to the Promissory Note. Furthermore, the purported allonge was not dated or notarized.
    Standard of Review discussion, supra, exhibits attached to the Plaintiff’s complaint are part of the complaint, and the allegations made in the complaint do not agree with the exhibits attaches, the exhibits control.

    A draft of the 1951 version of the UCC Article 3 included the comment that the indorsement must be written on the instrument itself or an allonge, which as defined in Section ___ , is a strip of paper so firmly pasted, stapled or otherwise affixed to the instrument as to become part of it.

    853 F.2d 163 Adams v Madison Realty & Development Inc & pc
    This issue presented on this appeal is whether a good faith purchaser is a holder in due course of promissory notes containing indorsements on separate sheets of paper loosely inserted within each note. We answer in the negative and will vacate the judgment.
    The Code substituted the words “so firmly affixed as to become a part thereof for the phrase upon a paper upon a paper attached thereto.
    Mere ownership or possession of a note is insufficient to qualify an individual as a “holder”. The instrument must be obtained through a process the Code terms “negotiation,” defined as “the transfer of an instrument in such form that the transferee becomes a holder.” U.C.C. Sec. 3-202(1). If the instrument is payable to order–as tis the case with the notes here–negotiation is accomplished “by delivery with any necessary indorsement.” Empire is not entitled to the status of a holder in due course.
    In the case, Wets v. Axtell (Mo. 1929) 17 S.W.2d 328, the court indicated that a Trustee in a foreclosure sale must be in possession of the original Note and the Deed of Trust at the time of the sale.

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] hey, whats the difference. According to a recent quote by Judge Sasser in an article in the Palm Beach Post, “I haven’t seen any widespread problem,” Sasssr […]

Leave a Reply