Full Deposition of Angela Edwards “Robo-Witness” as Servicer for the Plaintiff for Verification of Foreclosure Complaint
Great depo of a Robo-Witness who knows nothing in a foreclosure case…
First, although the Ms. EDWARDS listed her position as “Vice President” in the verification of the Complaint, Ms. EDWARDS admitted that she was “not the vice president” of the company. Then, Ms. EDWARDS admitted that the alleged Power of Attorney which allegedly gave the servicer, her employer, the right to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, was not made by the Plaintiff and did not even mention the Plaintiff’s name. Further, the Corporate Resolution from the Plaintiff’s employer contained conflicting directives as to whether or not Ms. EDWARDS was actually even authorized to sign for the company for which she worked, HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, which is not even a party to this action.
Even if she was authorized to sign on behalf of the Plaintiff, Ms. EDWARDS admitted that she did not and could not verify all of the factual allegations in the Complaint. Although Ms. EDWARDS signed the verification on the Complaint under penalty of perjury and swore that all of the facts alleged in the complaint were true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief, she admitted in her deposition that her knowledge regarding most of the information was gained solely from the information found in the Complaint. The very document Ms. EDWARDS was charged with verifying.
Paragraph 5 of Complaint: “Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the terms of the note and mortgage pursuant to Florida Statute 673.3011.”
At the deposition, Ms. EDWARDS admitted she was not familiar with Florida Statute 673.3011.
Q: How do you know that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the terms of a note and mortgage pursuant to that statute?
A: Because the mortgagors have signed off on those documents stating.
Q: Do you know what that statute says?
A: No, I do not, not at this time.
Q: Have you ever known what that statute says?
A: It was a part of our training, I’m sure that — but I just can’t remember off the top of my head right now.
Paragraph 7 of Complaint: “Plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the note and mortgage to be due.”
Q: How do you know that the plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the note and mortgage to be due?
A: Because of their signature. They’ve signed off stating they would pay that amount and they became delinquent.
Q: But how do you know the plaintiff is declaring that amount payable?
A: Oh, I’m sorry. Because of the complaint that’s been filed. I apologize. Okay. It’s because they placed a judgment against the borrowers.
Q: The plaintiff placed a judgment against the borrowers?
A: Meaning us – well, the attorneys have filed a complaint stating that they have been delinquent with their payments, so, therefore, they have — they’re no — they’re not keeping up with what they have stated that they would pay, their payments monthly, if that makes — I’m trying to make sense of it.
Q: What in the documents that you’ve reviewed for this case tells you that the plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the note and mortgage to be due?
A: The demand letters that were served to the borrowers.
Q: Let’s take a look at that. Can you show me in either D-2 or D-3 where the plaintiff declares the full amount due?
A: Not — okay. I see what you’re saying, the full amount due. It shows the delinquent payments, of course. But the actual note has the full amount that the borrower signed off on that shows the amount that they were to pay. And, of course, I have my fact verification sheet, which is D-4, that shows the original amount of the mortgage, which was 5,020, and the amount of each payment that should have been paid and when the last payment was received.
Q: And I appreciate what you’re saying, but none of that’s answering the question. I just want to know what shows you that the plaintiff has made this declaration.
A: Okay. When you say — meaning the complaint itself — I’m not sure. Really, I’m not sure what you’re — other than — I’m just going to be quiet on that one. I’m not sure.
Paragraph 9 of Complaint: “In order to protect its security, the Plaintiff may have advanced and paid Ad Valorem Taxes, premiums on insurance required by the mortgage and other necessary costs, or may be required to make such advances during the pendency of this action. Any such sum so paid will be due and owing Plaintiff.”
Q: Okay. How do you know that in order to protect its security the plaintiff may have advanced or paid taxes — excuse me, ad valorem taxes, premiums on insurance required by the mortgage and other necessary costs or may be required to make such advances during the pendency of this action?
A: The actual payments are on the — are on this payment history that you’ve been given. And then, of course, we have the note and mortgage. It shows the —
Q: So has the plaintiff advanced any taxes or premiums on insurance or other costs?
A: Yes. I mean, according to what I have here on the pay history.
Q: Can you show me on the pay history where the plaintiff —
A: When you say the plaintiff, I hope I’m understanding that correctly. We’re talking about the borrower or the actual …
Q: Sure. The plaintiff in this case is, technically, Master Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-1, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2007-1.
A: Oh, where they’ve actually paid anything? No. I don’t see that for them. I’m talking about the actual mortgagor . So I’m sorry. I misunderstood that question.
Paragraph 10 of Complaint: “On or about February 28, 2008, TERRY CARTER died.”
Q: Your knowledge that she is dead is because — on that date is because it’s stated on the complaint; isn’t that what you just said to me?
A: Yes, that is correct, because it’s stated on the complaint.
Paragraph 11 of Complaint: “The record legal title to said mortgaged property is vested in Defendant(s), JOHN CARDER, living and if dead, the unknown spouses,heirs, and beneficiaries who hold or holds possession.”
Q: How do you know that the record legal title to the mortgage property is vested in John CARTER?
A: Because of the documents he signed, the note and mortgage.
Q: The note and mortgage tells you that he owns the property?
Q: And that legal title is vested to him?
A: Once he pays it off completely, then yes.
Q: What was that? I’m sorry?
A: Once it’s paid in its entirety.
Q: I couldn’t hear you. If he’s paid in its entirety?
A: I said once he’s paid this debt off in its entirety, then he would own this title — own it. But, yes, he’s in pursuit of paying for the title.
Paragraph 12 of Complaint: “All conditions precedent to the acceleration of this mortgage note and to foreclosure of the mortgage have been fulfilled and have occurred.”
Q : Can you tell me what a condition precedent is?
A : I cannot.
Q: Tell me how you know that all conditions precedent to the acceleration of the mortgage note and to foreclosure of the mortgage have been fulfilled and have occurred.
A:By reading the complaint, the information that’s here.
Paragraph 13 of Complaint: “For purposes of collection and foreclosure, the Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney and is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee for his services.”
Q : How do you know that for purposes of collection and foreclosure the plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney and is obligated to pay said attorney a reasonable fee for services?
A : That, again, dates back to the demand letter that was issued, the delinquent payments. And how he was obtained or who obtained and what date, I’m not sure.
Q: So how do you know that ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ & SCHNEID the attorney — the undersigned attorney that’s been retained by the plaintiff?
A: I’m not sure.
Paragraph 14 of Complaint: “Plaintiff alleges that the claims of the remaining Defendants are secondary, junior, inferior and subject to the prior claim of Plaintiff, and more particularly the remaining Defendants claim some right, title and interest in and to the mortgaged premises . . .”
Q: How do you know that the remaining defendants claim some right, title and interest in the mortgage premises?
A: Again, all of this just goes back to the information that’s in this packet and what they were — so I don’t have any — other than what I see before me and what I would have viewed at that time.
Q: Besides what’s stated here in the complaint, in Paragraph 14 that I just read to you —
Q: — is there any other document that you reviewed that states the defendants — other defendants have some right, title and interest to the mortgage premises?
A: No. I cannot think of it right off. I cannot recall.
It is plainly obvious that Ms. EDWARDS has very little knowledge of even the basics of her employer’s business. Although she claims she received training to verify complaints, she cannot explain basic facts that are alleged in the Complaint and does not even know what to look for in order to verify those facts. Most poignantly, she admittedly did not verify certain key aspects of the Complaint but instead relied on the Complaint itself as her proof that the allegations stated therein are true and correct.If this were a philosophy paper, a somewhat circular statement such as “I think therefore I am” is perfectly acceptable. However, in a court of law, when a document requires that it be verified as true and correct, under penalty of perjury, one cannot sign off that what is stated in the Complaint is true because it is stated in the Complaint. This is preposterous.The entire reasoning behind the Florida Supreme court taking unprecedented, historic action to amend rule 1.100(b) was because of the financial industry’s well documented illegal behavior. It was primarily in response to the “robo signing” scandal, which ultimately led to settlements with 49 states, OCC consent orders, and numerous class action and shareholder lawsuits. We now know that “robo-signing” is used to describe the rampant process of having a person sign a document without authority to do so and/or knowledge as to that which they are signing, despite swearing otherwise. Yet, no matter the amount and severity of lawsuits, settlements, and bad publicity, it appears, at least in this case, that the act of signing without proper authority or knowledge as to that which one is signing, continues.
Full deposition below…