Comments on: Fabrications, Forgeries and Lies | Two Allonges – INGRID BERG v SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES INC https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/14/fabrications-forgeries-and-lies-two-allonges-ingrid-berg-v-saxon-mortgage-services-inc/ - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud BY SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:35:28 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 By: Faith4all https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/14/fabrications-forgeries-and-lies-two-allonges-ingrid-berg-v-saxon-mortgage-services-inc/#comment-61146 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:35:28 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=24783#comment-61146 This crap, directly relates to the crashing of housing market. Also to continue persuing a degree in law for honesty, and what is morally right. Regardless if in the interest of debtor or collector. Wow.

]]> By: Faith4all https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/14/fabrications-forgeries-and-lies-two-allonges-ingrid-berg-v-saxon-mortgage-services-inc/#comment-61127 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:39:44 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=24783#comment-61127 Honestly can you say the mortgage has been paid off?
If not, I work in this field, and there are attorneys selling
Information, to AVOID THE LIEN HOLDERS RESPINSIBILITY.
A home, property is not unsecured debt. If the homeowner chooses to reside and or retain the property, then the debt, unless paid in full still exhists. Thats down right dis honest and contributes to the housing market cris. Your an idiot.

]]> By: LVLawman https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/14/fabrications-forgeries-and-lies-two-allonges-ingrid-berg-v-saxon-mortgage-services-inc/#comment-32441 Sun, 15 May 2011 09:22:30 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=24783#comment-32441 I think the Court here finds Plaintiff’s argument a “distinction without a difference” in apparently denying the Motion To Dismiss. The intent of the dissimilar assignments via allonges clearly intended Option One was assigning the note in blank, meaning to whoever the holder is. The intent represented by the assignments and the authority to do so is undisputed. The authority of the servicer, Saxon, to undertake foreclosure for FV-1 under power of attorney is undisputed.

As agent for FV-1 Saxon produced the undisputed original note & mortgage. It appears from the Court’s discussion that it finds FV-1 to be the holder of the note by way of indorsement expressed on an allonge(s) to the note. The fact that there are two differenet allonges indorsing the note and morgage from Option One to FV-1.

This is a pretty clear case where the foreclosing party’s standing was challenged and in response they; 1) Produced the original note, 2) Produced the original mortgage, produced assignments of the mortgage, and 3) Proved Saxon’s authority by the holder of the note to proceed in their name.

So what we really have here is a “produce the note” type of defense where the lender was able to do so. Can’t win ’em all!

If FV-1, as I suspect is the collateral holder for, or an actual MBS trust then it should have been examined in the assignment to FV-1 was within the time limits proscribed under trust law for the trust to receive assets. If, as I suspect the time limits were not met, then the challange should have been to FV-1’s legal authority to accept the assignment, and if not then the trust documents themselves would render the transfer null and void, ab inito. Thus FV-1 would not be the holder and have standing (through it’s attorney in fact Saxon) to foreclose.

You really have to argue the correct technicality.

]]>