Comments on: Ohio Court of Appeals | Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hansen – Court Erred in Admitting Screen Shot as Evidence of Amount Due for Purposes of Granting Summary Judgment https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/24/ohio-court-of-appeals-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-v-hansen-court-erred-in-admitting-screen-shot-as-evidence-of-amount-due-for-purposes-of-granting-summary-judgment/ - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud BY SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE Tue, 24 May 2011 18:57:17 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.4 By: Dahotruth https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/24/ohio-court-of-appeals-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-v-hansen-court-erred-in-admitting-screen-shot-as-evidence-of-amount-due-for-purposes-of-granting-summary-judgment/#comment-34234 Tue, 24 May 2011 18:57:17 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=25525#comment-34234 Ah, this is a horrible ruling…the Homeowners LOST! This is classic case of putting bad precendent on the books….the only question left for trial court as I read it is whether the amount of debt is $110k or maybe $112k
Won the battle but lost the house….
“The mortgage assignment in the instant case states that Argent Mortgage
Company, LLC “sells, transfers and assigns” to appellee all its rights and interest in
appellant’s mortgage. The assignment further conveys the note of indebtedness
referred to in the mortgage.”
1st problem – robosigner Bryan Bly involved and it was not addressed
2nd problem – “the (mortgage) assignment further conveys the note”
WHAAAT?
MERS may be an alleged party to the “mortgage” but is not a party to the “note” and has no beneficial interest in the note….and then THIS>>>
“‘Where a note secured by a mortgage is transferred so as to vest the
legal title to the note in the transferee, such transfer operates as an equitable
assignment of the mortgage, even though the mortgage is not assigned or delivered.
Kuck v. Sommers (1950), 59 Ohio Law Abs. 400, 100 N.E.2d 68, 75.
Uh HELLO….notes do not have “legal title holders” properties do….notes have “payees”
….and the court had to go back to 1950 for an applicable cite….nothing more current I guess since that citation predates MERS and Fannie/Freddie by 25-40 years…

“In the instant case, appellants have argued that there is no evidence
establishing the conveyance transactions from Argent Mortgage Company, LLC to
Argent Securities, Inc., and there is no evidence showing the assignment of the loan
from the depositor Argent Securities to appellee. However, the assignment on its face
purports to transfer the mortgage and the note from the lender, Argent Mortgage
Company, to appellee. Appellants have presented no evidence to demonstrate that the
conveyance is improper or incomplete.
{¶50} Appellants further argue that the note was not properly endorsed
according to the PSA, and therefore the note is not properly a part of the pool.
However, as this Court held in Dobbs, supra, the transfer of the mortgage without
express transfer of the note is sufficient to transfer both, where the record indicates it is
the intention of the parties to transfer both. The assignment in the instant case transfers
the mortgage to appellee. Appellants have presented no evidence that this conveyance
was not valid.”
Guess they should have entered the whole 1900 page PSA into evidence….or got an expert witness affidavit relative to the PSA ….

]]> By: Pamela https://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/24/ohio-court-of-appeals-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-v-hansen-court-erred-in-admitting-screen-shot-as-evidence-of-amount-due-for-purposes-of-granting-summary-judgment/#comment-34219 Tue, 24 May 2011 17:35:17 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=25525#comment-34219 Kudos and congrats. to the home owners.Way to go on showing them how to get the job done the right way the first time around.Tooo bad they don’t have such a good track record with thier reps.but worked well for the owners.Yeah thats what I’m talking about.

]]>