By: Andrea Guice

Andrea Guice — Sat, 28 May 2011 01:48:35 +0000

Question?! Lender of securitized note/mortg was to have transferred borrowers note/mortg to a Trust by the cut off date, 90days, according to the ‘PSA’ agreement. The ‘Trustee’ for investor later sues borrower claiming they own the note & recv’d the note appropriately that within the 90day time frame that year. But, during the borrowers ‘bankruptcy case’, two consecutive years later, the Bank sueing borrower now, was not the ‘movant’ to the borrowers note/mortg, but rather, the 1st Lender who supposedly transferred the note to Trustee, was named as the ‘movant’ to the Bankruptcy Judge. Question: Should the ‘movant’ during borrowers bankruptcy case have been the owner of the note that claims the note was transferred to them years prior,ie., 90days of the close of escrow according to the ‘Pooling and Servicing Agreement’? And, since they were not the ‘Movant’, that would suggest they did not own the note, but acquired the note years after the ‘PSA’ cut off date. Question: Isn’t that ‘fraud’, and fraud against the
Court?
Question: How many ‘other’ Bankruptcy cases could reveal ‘banks contradictions in foreclosure cases?
The banks wear many masks, but they forgot to take it off at the ‘Bankruptcy Court’ doors.
Oopsie!!

Comments on: Radio Show Saturday from 8-10 am EDT with 4closureFraud.org and ForeclosureHamlet.org

By: Andrea Guice