Daily Archives: July 11, 2014

A Trial Transcript…Chase Mortgage Tries to Convince a Trial Court a Not That is NOT original…is in fact Original….

Matt Weidner law blog:

The judgment must be vacated because Plaintiff failed to SURRENDER the original promissory note or give a reasonable explanation for its failure to do so

Plaintiff’s parlor tricks do not constitute competent, substantial evidence that Plaintiff has surrendered the original note to the Court

 In its opening statement, Plaintiff alleged that

This is a foreclosure matter,

the original Note and Mortgage were filed

with the court back in September 30, 2010.

Trial Transcript, pg. 4, lines 12-14.

However, Plaintiff thereafter contended that the September 30, 2010 “filing” was in fact not the original note:

Well, I was unaware that

this was not an original blue ink copy of

the Note. So I’m going to be moving the

Court to amend to allow the plaintiff to

proceed under a lost note when it’s clear

that there is partial –

Trial Transcript, pg. 27, lines 7-12.

  1. Plaintiff thereafter “withdrew” its motion to amend to “conform to the evidence” because it represented that that the purported original note “was misfiled and I don’t know why.” Trial Transcript, pg. 29, lines 11-12.
  2. When Plaintiff presented this purported original note to defendant testified as follows:

I don’t know if this is the exact one

I signed because that’s where I had — I had

been requesting to inspect these documents. So

when you said you didn’t have any knowledge that

it wasn’t in here, I’d been requesting this

since this whole thing started. I even

requested special dates and times to meet with

you guys to see it, and I never got any of that

afforded to me.

So I’ve also had other documents here

where I saw date changes. I don’t know what’s

original and what’s not.

Trial Transcript, pg. 30, lines 14-25. Bold emphasis added.


I don’t see any blue ink on that, so I

don’t know that that’s the original. You said

the other one is a copy, now you’re showing this


Trial Transcript, pg. 30, lines 14-22. Bold emphasis added.

  1. On cross-examination, Mr.  testified as follows:

I want you to compare what is marked

as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1B, I suppose, and I want

to ask you, for the record, is there anything

that’s different about this signature and the

way it appears on 1A and 1B?

A. Yes.

Q. What’s the difference, sir?

A. The color is different.

Q. And Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, I’m showing

that to you, do you recognize that as the

original Mortgage that you signed?

A. Yes.

Q. And were these — are these documents

all dated on the exact same day?

 A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign these documents the same


 A. Yes.

 Q. Can you explain to the Court why one

is — well, can you describe what this subset of

Exhibit 1 is? Read from the top there.

A. The name affidavit.

Q. Yes, sir. Can you describe it for the


A. Yes. It’s all in blue ink…

Trial Transcript, pg. 46, lines 1-25. Bold emphasis added.

Q. The next document, this I believe is

Plaintiff’s 2, can you describe what that

document looks like to you?

A. The Mortgage where we initialled the

bottom of every page.

Q. What color is that initial?

 A. All in blue ink.

 Q. And then turning to the last page of

that document, describe this document for the

record, please.

A. The signatures for the Mortgage.

Q. And what else can you tell us about


 A. Those are all in blue ink.

Trial Transcript, pg. 47, lines 9-22. Bold emphasis added

New Foreclosure Case 2nd DCA…Foreclosure Summary Judgment REVERSED!

Matt Weidner law blog:

Because there remain genuine issues of material fact about BOA’s standing to foreclose on the subject note and mortgage, we reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings. We further observe that although the record suggests that notice of acceleration was sent to Ms. Plaja, BOA failed to introduce admissible evidence to refute Ms. Plaja’s affirmative defense about compliance with a condition precedent in the mortgage, which required written notice of acceleration.

2Nothing in the record establishes any relationship between BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. and the entities identified in the indorsements, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., or Countrywide Bank, N.A., as agent for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. More important, the undated indorsements, which were not attached to the complaint, do not establish that any of the foregoing entities owned or held the note when BAC filed the complaint.

More Here

Rhode Island Supreme Court affirms MERS role as mortgagee

The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in favor ofMortgage Electronic Registration Systems, affirming MERS’ role as mortgagee, including its authority to assign a mortgage, the latest in a string of favorable court rulings.

“The Court’s ruling is consistent with previous decisions upholding MERS’ role as mortgagee and validating its authority to assign mortgages it holds,” said MERSCORP Holdings vice president for corporate communications, Janis Smith.

In Ingram v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., the plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MERS and other defendants, alleging in part that the mortgage assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank was void and therefore Deutsche Bank did not have the ability to foreclose on the property.

Read on.

Wells Fargo sued in a False Claim Act

MANHATTAN – Wells Fargo Bank wrongfully took more than $690 million from Uncle Sam, through false statements in the Home Affordable Modification Problem, and kept $222 million of it for itself, a legal assistant/relator says in a False Claims Act complaint in Federal Court.

 Source: Courthouse News

Kingsoft : China looking into Bank of China money laundering allegations: Xinhua

China’s central bank is looking into allegations by a state broadcaster that Bank of China, the country’s fourth largest lender, has been laundering money offshore for clients, the official Xinhua news agency said on Friday.

While Beijing maintains a tight control over its capital account, limiting foreign currency transfers by individuals to $50,000 a year, wealthy Chinese, including corrupt government officials, have managed to move their money out to snap up overseas property and other assets.

The China Central Television (CCTV) aired what it said was an undercover investigation program on Wednesday that focused on a service offered by BOC called “You Hui Tong”, which is designed to help Chinese individuals take part in investment emigration programs in other countries to move cash offshore in amounts the exceed the annual cap.

Read on.

Scant Interest in F.H.A. Program

A government program aimed at helping “underwater” homeowners refinance into more-affordable, reduced-principal loans has captured only a sliver of the borrowers thought to be eligible in the four years since its introduction.

The Federal Housing Administration’s Refinance of Borrowers in Negative Equity Positions program, more commonly known as the F.H.A. Short Refi, enables borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth to refinance into an F.H.A. loan with a lower monthly payment.

But lender participation is voluntary. And only about 4,600 F.H.A. loans have been originated under the program, a far cry from the 500,000 to 1.5 million borrowers the Department of Housing and Urban Developmentestimated could be helped when it announced the program in 2010.

Beyond that, existing F.H.A. loans are not eligible for the Short Refi program. So that leaves a much smaller pool of eligible borrowers whose loans are not backed by the F.H.A. or one of the government-sponsored agencies, but are likely more exotic.

“Most of the loans we do start out as some sort of interest-only, option ARM or one of the other esoteric products that were popular before the crash,” said Brian Faux, the chief operating officer of 1st Alliance Lending in East Hartford, Conn., one of the largest F.H.A. Short Refi lenders.

Read on.