Eviction Halted | Judge Orders Discovery To Establish Legitimacy Of Dubious ‘Linda Green’ Mortgage Assignment

Bank forges signature, homeowner gets temporary victory

DETROIT — A metro Detroit homeowner received a temporary victory in court April 16 against a possible illegal eviction.

Attorney Vanessa Fluker argued in Wayne County Circuit Court that Deutsche Bank is using forged documents to claim ownership of her client’s home. Fluker’s client, who asked that her name not be released to the press, is facing eviction despite seeking loan modifications and attempting to buy her home after a sheriff’s sale.

Deutshe Bank is one of several large financial institutions foreclosing on homeowners without knowing who legally possesses the title, Fluker argued before Judge John MacDonald. Fluker was in court to defend her client from Deutsche Bank.

Fluker says her client is a victim of an epidemic of robo-signings — the practice of banks signing thousands of documents and affidavits without verifying the information.

“The whole issue is that the homeowner was at the eviction stage and they actually challenged the legitimacy of the ownership/interest of the plaintiff, which is Deutsche Bank,” Fluker told the Michigan Citizen. “One of the reasons and rationale for this is that there were numerous assignments, one of which was done by a ‘Linda Green,’ a nationally known robo-signer.”

Fluker argued the assignments were improper and therefore would affect the bank’s standing to initiate a legitimate foreclosure and subsequent eviction.

Judge MacDonald ruled in favor of Fluker’s client, saying a period of discovery was required before he could establish the “assignment of mortgage” and the case could move forward.

Rest here…



8 Responses to “Eviction Halted | Judge Orders Discovery To Establish Legitimacy Of Dubious ‘Linda Green’ Mortgage Assignment”
  1. Bobbi Swann says:

    What I don’t get is why 1) if the assignment is produced to be forged and 2) thus, rendered useless in proving ownership then 3) why would there be any standing to foreclose when the original mortgagee is now ceased in operations? If no standing is proven in court that would make the note/mortgage unenforceable and thus null and void. I have a mortgage with Chase that is in foreclosure but not one of the WAMU loans. Actually the plaintiff was showing Chase Home Finance LLC which I found was not even a registered business in the state of Florida and submitted as such in my Motion To Dismiss and proving no standing to foreclose. They tried to ‘fix’ it by a merger of Chase Home Finance LLC to Chase Bank in May 2011 but you can’t fix merging a company that was not authorized to do business with a parent company and then still claim you have standing. And the so-called Assignment of Mortgage filed of record clearly indicates from the recorder on the face of the document that the “recording information was not sufficient”. They didn’t even note the recording of the mortgage on my property within the body of the assignment. Chase is scum…..pure and simple!

  2. Ronald Williams says:

    The biggest fraudulent scheme nationwide is being practiced by JPMorgan Chase Bank pertaining to the loans originated by Washington Mutual Bank before Washington Mutual Bank was placed in receivership. Chase Bank has acheived remarkable success acquiring and maintaining receivership status over mortgage notes originated by WaMu but not part of its portfolio when the FDIC closed WaMu. Unfortunately judges both state and federal all over the nation are complicit in all of this. Judges are ruling in favor of Chase Bank based only on evidence consisting of “selective” parts of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement between Chase and the FDIC. The part mysteriously not produced by Chase in courts all over is the schedule that lists the notes and trust deeds actually placed in receivership by the FDIC. The FDIC is complicit for not making readily available the schedule of the notes it placed in receivership. Whenever you see a lawsuit against Chase where Chase represents only being the servicer appointed by the FDIC where the FDIC had not joined as a defendant, you know that Chase has been fraudulently misrepresenting itself as FDIC’s mortgage collector. (servicer) Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act if the FDIC had placed a particular mortgage note in receivership, it was bound by law to have notified the borrower. The ACT also requires the borrower prior to suing to present their claims directly to the FDIC. Chase has been defending lawsuits where it feigns being assigned to service a note on behalf of the FDIC without making any effort (in most cases) to join the FDIC in the lawsuit. That is because if they do, it would expose the FDIC as not having placed the note in receivership, thus Chase’s lie of claiming that it had. Finally, it is hard to believe that judges – particularly federal judges are not aware of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and how it would expose Chase when it lies about collecting mortgage payments as servicer for the FDIC.

  3. incognito123 says:

    Nice, a judge actually took the time to READ what was put in front of them, different!!

    • talktotennessee says:

      No prosecution? The banks LEGALLY hung out the people who executed the forgery (the Linda Greens) as that was the intent; to pass the buck. Who authorized the signing? These are the people who need criminal charges of forgery to avoid paying transfer fees and legal chain of title.

  4. Barbra Orr says:


Leave a Reply