Juarez v. Select Portfolio | Backdated Mortgage Assignment Comes Back To Haunt Foreclosure Lender

Court

“Nothing in the document indicates that it is confirmatory of an assignment executed in 2007. Nowhere does the document even mention the phrase “confirmatory assignment.” Neither does it establish that it confirms a previous assignment or, for that matter, even make any reference to a previous assignment in its body.”

~

Backdated Mortgage Assignment Comes Back To Haunt Foreclosure Lender in Juarez v. Select Portfolio

Noted Massachusetts foreclosure defense attorney Glenn Russell is on a roll of a lifetime, yesterday winning a rare victory on behalf of a borrower at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. The case is Juarez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (11-2431) (click for opinion). It is, I believe, the first federal appellate ruling in favor of a wrongful foreclosure claimant in the First Circuit which covers the New England area, and one of the first rulings to delve into the problem of back-dated mortgage assignments.

Alleged Backdated Mortgage Assignment Proves Fatal

Melissa Juárez purchased a home in Dorchester, Massachusetts on August 5, 2005, financing it with reputed sub-prime lender New Century Mortgage. The mortgage was packaged and bundled into a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”), a special type of trust that receives favorable tax treatment, ultimately being held by U.S. Bank, as trustee. Juárez could not afford the payments on the mortgage and defaulted. Foreclosure proceedings began in the summer of 2008, culminating in the sale of her home at an auction in October 22,2008. She claims, however, that lender did not hold the note and the mortgage at the time they began the foreclosure proceedings against her, and that the foreclosure was therefore illegal under Massachusetts mortgage law.

The problem in the case centered around the mortgage assignment into U.S. Bank, as trustee — the same problem the same bank faced in the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. The “Corporate Assignment of Mortgage,” appears to have been back-dated. It was dated October 16, 2008 and recorded in the corresponding registry of deeds on October 29, 2008, after the foreclosure had been completed. However, at the top of the document, it stated: “Date of Assignment: June 13, 2007,” in an obvious attempt to date it back prior to the foreclosure.

Rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
2 Responses to “Juarez v. Select Portfolio | Backdated Mortgage Assignment Comes Back To Haunt Foreclosure Lender”
  1. Hallen says:

    what the Banks are getting away with every day to defruad the borrowers,the courts,the judges
    and how they are deceiving everyone is on this reply as follows.THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF EXTORTION.

    the banks are buying dead defaulted non-performing assets from secondary markets for
    pennies on the dollar . these loans have already been written off by the REMIC(REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUITS) WHO HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED 70 TO 80%OF THE LOAN AMOUNT OF A SECURITIZED LOAN THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO AN MBS
    (MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITY) THEN THE REMAILING 10 TO 20 % IS SOLD TO THE SAME LENDER BUYING BACK A DEFAULTED LOAN TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.

    LETS START FROM WHEN THE LOAN WAS ORIGINATED BY THE LENDER . THE BANK ORIGINATES THE LOAN AND SELLS IT TO A REMIC FOR 1.05 TO 1.5 TIMES THE FACE VALUE OF THE LOAN. IT GOT PAID IN FULL (AND MORE). THEN WHEN THE LOAN GOES INTO DEFAULT ,THE BANK PICKS UP THE NOTE FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. FORECLOSES ON YOUR HO– USE AND THEN SELLS IT TO THE NEXT SUCKER FOR FULL PRICE. ON TOP OF THAT THE FDIC COVERS 70 TO 80% OF THE LOAN AMOUNT ALSO?
    THIS ALL STARTED SOME TIME IN 2008 WHEN THOUSANDS OF HOME BACKED SECURITIES LOANS WERE BUNDLED TOGETHER AND SOLD TO WALL STREET PACKAGED IN A REMIC
    AND SOLD TO THOUSANDS OF INVESTORS .

    SINCE THE BANKS DIDN’T WANT TO PAY TAXES ON THESE LOANS THEY MADE EACH INVEST PAY THROUGH A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE(SPV) THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT WAS ONCE THEY TOOK THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND CONVERTED IT TO A STOCK SOLD ON THE SEC ,THE LOAN COULD NEVER BE A
    LOAN AGAIN AND SINCE THE BANKS CHOSE TO — USE A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE THE LOST OWNERSHIP OF THE NOTE WHICH DIDN’T EXIST ANYMORE AND SINCE THEY DIDN’T PAY TAXES THE OWNERSHIP WENT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE STOCK WHO ONLY OWNED 1 TO 2 % OF THOUSANDS OF LOANS SO THEY HAD NO RIGHTS TO FORECLOSE ON ANY OF THE THOUSANDS OF LOANS IN THE REMIC. SO WHO HAD ANY RIGHTS TO FORECLOSE ? NO ONE. SO HERES WHERE THE DECEIT COMES IN.

    WHY ARE SO MANY HOMES BEING FORECLOSED ON EVERY DAY?
    WHEN A LOAN IS SECURITIZED IT IS CONVERTED INTO A STOCK.THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE THE ONLY BENEFICIAL PARTIES OF INTEREST BUT ONLY HOLDING A FRACTION OF THE NOTE. NO ONE PARTY MAY FORECLOSE ON THE PROPERTY.LOOKM UP FAS 140WHEN AN ASSET IS SOLD INTO A REMIC THE BANK LOSES CONTROL AND IS NO LONGER THE BENEFICIAL PARTY OF INTEREST TO FORECLOSE. THE BANKS GET AWAY WITH IT EVERY DAY RELYING ON OUR COLLECTIVE IGNORANCE, THE JUDGES IGNORANCE, THE ATTORNEY’S IGNORANCE.

    ITS TIME TO WAKE EVERYONE UP.WHY DO YOU THINKN THAT THERE IS LOST NOTES AND MORTGAGES APPLIED FOR. WITH NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHERE OR WHEN THEY DISAPPEARED?

  2. Wayne Lewis says:

    As with mine and thousands, if not millions, of other cases the lower courts adamantly refuse to see the forest for the trees, let alone there is even a forest, by letting these bogus assignments ” go thru. It is sad that it is a “rare” victory. The actions of our system makes us question ourselves here in the afternoon of our lives, whereas we see the mornings of our lives have been but an illusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *