Comments on: Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States https://4closurefraud.org/2010/12/31/why-robo-signatures-are-illegal-in-california-and-other-non-judicial-foreclosure-states/ - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud BY SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE Sun, 30 Nov 2025 15:32:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 By: James M https://4closurefraud.org/2010/12/31/why-robo-signatures-are-illegal-in-california-and-other-non-judicial-foreclosure-states/#comment-17025 Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:05:34 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=16242#comment-17025 Right – I think this is good case law for CA. Similar law exists else where. The principle is the same everywhere in the US, fraud on the court is not just a block to obtaining equitable relief it is a crime.

While the UCC may give the secondary note holder the status of a holder in due course, if they acquired the note before a default and without notice of prior fraud, they can’t use any of the prior fraudulent documents in court.

One day there is going to be a Supreme Court decision one day on if the cleansing action attributed by UCC transfer turns bad paper into good. I suspect the court will rule constant with State court laws on this, that a person who acquires a bad security intrest or bad note secured by real property, does not suddenly magically have good title and paper, irrespective of the UCC interpretation of transferees immunities with regard to notes.

]]>