Comments on: Foreclosure Fraud – The Market Ticker – See, I Told You So (Deliberate Destruction Of Documents)

By: indio007

indio007 — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:48:31 +0000

E-notes don’t exist and are not legal. The only way they can be legal is if the issuer expressly consents the to electronic record.
From the electronic commerce act

15 USC CHAPTER 96 – ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND
NATIONAL COMMERCE

Sec. 7003. Specific exceptions

-STATUTE-
(a) Excepted requirements
The provisions of section 7001 of this title shall not apply to a
contract or other record to the extent it is governed by –
(1) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing the
creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary
trusts;
(2) a State statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing
adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law; or
(3) the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State,
other than sections 1-107 and 1-206 and Articles 2 and 2A.

etc…….
Sec. 7021. Transferable records

-STATUTE-
(a) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) Transferable record
The term “transferable record” means an electronic record that –

(A) would be a note under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial
Code if the electronic record were in writing;
(B) the issuer of the electronic record expressly has agreed
is a transferable record;

By: PJ

PJ — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:13:57 +0000

Mr. Kessler, there has been harm done. There are many people out there that were going about their business so to speak , making payments working hard… and boom, the TBTF bailout and double digit unemployment. All because their ABS, their home and payment stream was used to sweeten the pot of Toxic Loans. Know plenty of people that were/are out of work that drained savings, deterred college for their kid’s to keep a roof over the families head, most with manageable mortgage payments and significant equity in their homes. First they were hit in 2004-2008 with increased “assessments” due to the “bubble” and “false appraisal values” of properties sold… then they are hit by record unemployment, and their children and their children’s children will bare the burden of debt via the bailouts!

When do these Americans get a fair shake? In fact each and every homeowner should have the right to demand, without recourse, and receive full disclosure on how, when , and by whom their “asset” was used to perpetuate this fraud. As information provides, it is quite possible that the “pooled” mortgages of these people have been paided off 5X’s over. To that extent, then there should be a “free house”, and residual damages paid to people, many who have found themselves and their families devastated by no action of their own.

By: John

John — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:21:44 +0000

In reply to Mimirayo.

How folks were harmed is yet to be determined. When a Mortgage is paid off per the note, will you then get the original sent to you makked Paid Iin Full?
That was always a time for a burning of the note party.
Now, because fo these false notes and lost notes, the fear is noone knows who actually holds the original note and who you are paying is in question.
The forced uncertainty, and no guaranty you are paying who you are supposed to be paying and will not have someone show up demanding payment with the original in their possession after you’ve in good faith paid all you were supposed to is the harm!

By: Richard F. Kessler

Richard F. Kessler — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:39:59 +0000

I do not agree with the conclusion. Digitization of documentation when it comes to the chain of mortgage title and the mechanics prescribed by state law for the transfer of holder status were flouted by the securitzation industry. This does not automatically work a fraud upon the borrower. It does create major legal problems. Part of the problem, as you correctly indicated, is that digitization was undertaken with neither the consent nor the knowledge of the borrower. I believe this is part of the major legal problem that consent of the borrower is required for securitization as well as digitization of the conveyance of mortgage title and was never obtained from the borrower.

It may well make the mortgage unenforceable. However, this will not stop a judge from declaring an equitable trust in favor of the creditor. Your analysis fails to address the question how was the borrower harmed. It is the harm that provides the predicate for a monetary counterclaim for damages to offset the equitable mortgage.

By: Mimirayo

Mimirayo — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:21:37 +0000

Yea….I’ve gotten three versions of my “original” and “certified true copies” of my Deed of Trust over the lasst three years from my lender……they have yet to come up with the “assignment” although the pool said they were to be recorded in the land records in 2006…….what did they have soooo many they just didn”t get arount to it til now…….4 years later???