Source: https://livinglies.me/category/corruption/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:27:57
Document Index: 777465410

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 42', '§ 42', '§\u200242', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§\u200242', '§ 22']

CORRUPTION | Livinglies's Weblog
Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES |	4 Comments »
Tonight! How to use discovery in revealing fraudclosures!
Posted on April 4, 2019 by Neil Garfield
Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil F Garfield
The devil is in the details. The details in litigation lie basically in discovery — asking and responding. Very few pro se litigants know how to construct good Interrogatories, Requests to Produce, or Requests for Admission. They know even less about how to use the responses, if they get any.
And they know still less about how to use inconsistencies or lack of response as the basis for enforcement and motions for contempt and sanctions and ultimately to limit the evidence that can be introduced by the claimant in foreclosure.
Failure to know about this is fatal because it is failure to understand the nature and procedure of litigation. Most lawyers don’t suffer from that ignorance. But they often do suffer from lack of motivation and thus they head for failure when they could be heading for success.
Judges are getting increasingly irritated by sloppy and bad discovery practices by both sides in litigation.
See Exterro-EDRM Judges Survey 2019 Series-…iscovery Specialists (ACEDS) – JDSupra
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions |	2 Comments »
How to Think About MERS
Posted on March 21, 2019 by Neil Garfield
If you are going to challenge a foreclosure or sue for wrongful foreclosure and fraud, you need to know what you are doing and know what your opposition has been doing. You also must know what to do about it because knowing is not enough. You need to convince a judge who starts from a bias of upholding “contract” because that is what judges are supposed to do in our system.
Bottom Line: You must convince the judge that the claimant has not satisfied its burden of establishing an enforceable contract between itself and the borrower. And in the case of foreclosure the claimant must satisfy the condition precedent of ownership of the debt. That condition is often “met” solely by legal presumption arising from documentation that is proffered without any meaningful objection and without any impeachment of foundation witnesses.
Think about MERS as your next door neighbor. He lets anyone come into his house and play with his computer. You simply are required to pay him a fee every month and he gives you a key, and the login and password to get into his computer.
So you go in and prepare a report from his computer saying that your loan is all paid up and a release and satisfaction is being filed. Just to be on the safe side you show that the mortgage was transferred to a party that has not made any claim for collection, further confusing the issue of ownership of the debt or mortgage.
Then you go to court and introduce the report as proof that the mortgage is satisfied. The report says is from John Smith, your neighbor who is in the business of keeping mortgage records. You don’t show a canceled check or wire transfer receipt because there is no canceled check or wire transfer receipt; you just introduce the report that you created from your own data for your own purposes and published it with the sole purpose of showing it in court.
You bring in your neighbor who testifies that these records are kept in the ordinary course of his business and that the entries were made at or near the time of a transaction. (Notice he doesn’t say the entries were made at or near the time of THE transaction).
The court accepts the document that you prepared on your neighbor’s computer as evidence that the loan was entirely paid off and that a satisfaction of mortgage should have been issued. Notice that the evidence is not that YOU paid it off but rather that is was just paid off.
The response from your opposition would be that they want to see proof that you paid it off. But you have already introduced the report as your neighbor’s report (an independent third party) and the court accepted it as a business record of your neighbor. The court record now has “conclusive” evidence that the the loan was paid off. Further inquiry is not required and you shouldn’t be required to answer such a silly question that invades your private financial information.
Judgment is entered in your favor and the opposing party is taxed with costs and fees if you had an attorney. Further the court declares the mortgage satisfied and that the final order of the court should be recorded in the public records. Maybe the court orders the party you named in the report as being the new mortgagee to file a satisfaction of mortgage.
That is how MERS works. It’s simple reason for being in existence is not just to avoid recording fees but to act as a substitute for proof of an actual transaction. MERS is the neighbor of the banks and servicers. It gives them the key, the login and the password. After that they are on their own as to what data is entered into MERS and what reports are issued from MERS and what is in each report issued under the name of MERS.
So if someone is attempting to rely on a MERS report they are relying on a fiction of their own making. This is somewhat like uploading a fake trust document to SEC.gov and then citing to it as worthy of judicial notice or using it as a government filing. It isn’t. It’s just a fiction of their own making. And it never has the mortgage loan schedule attached which means the trust document is incomplete, subject to some later addition/revision that might or might not have been accepted by someone was authorized to accept it.
Objections to the MERS report must be about foundation. Discovery and investigation is key to knowing the facts as they apply to your case. Writing and presenting the defense narrative in motions and pleadings is the other key. Here is what you should be thinking about:
Establish that nobody employed by MERS entered any data or produced any report.
Ask the players for the identity of the individuals who entered data.
If they give you the name, question the individual.
Ask for the identity of individuals who produced reports.
All this will make opposing counsel very uncomfortable as you are zeroing in on the nub of a fraudulent scheme. The lawyers will start feeling the heat as they approach suborning perjury. The banks will feel the heat because it threatens to expose the reality that nearly all claimed securitizations of residential loans were faked. That is the key to a successful (and confidential) settlement — the value of your case as threat to their entire scheme or parts of it.
Spoiler alert: in most cases counsel will abandon the MERS report and use some other fabricated document instead. But you can use inconsistencies between their previous and current position to reveal that there are gaps that cannot be filled by legal presumptions.
In order to start defending you must know things. But in order to get traction in court you need to convince the judge. Badly drafted pleadings undermine credibility. That is why you need professional assistance.
The person drafting your defense narrative and the drafting your motions, discovery, and pleadings must know what needs to be said in order for the court to take the defense narrative seriously. And what needs to be said often sounds tame or irrelevant to lay people who want the judge to know that the opposition is a bunch of liars and thieves. Really good legal writers know that such conclusions are best left to the judge, after a process in which he/she gets thoroughly disgusted and exasperated with the lawyers, the servicer and the bank pretending to be a trustee of a dubious trust.
Filed under: boarding process, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, sham transactions, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: drafting, TRUTH |	3 Comments »
Beware of Magic Bullets
Posted on March 19, 2019 by Neil Garfield
Departing from my usual format, there are a few things I want to say to people who are looking for relief from foreclosure and are hearing what they want to hear.
ONLY A COURT ORDER CAN STOP A FORECLOSURE. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
YOU CAN’T GET A COURT ORDER UNLESS YOU FOLLOW THE RULES AND THE LAW.
NOBODY HAS EVER OBTAINED SUCH AN ORDER WITHOUT A PROLONGED COURT BATTLE.
If someone tells you “just do this” they are partially or entirely wrong or worse.
Like everything life is complicated and that includes litigation. Any thought you are entertaining that you have some magic elixir in which you will summarily get a court order is delusional.
Every plan looks good on paper until it is implemented.
I am worried that those who in good faith are trying to find the magic bullet are promoting a misguided set of principles that will continue to make bad law. I admit that I contributed to this initially back in 2008 when I proposed that a quiet title action should wrap things up. I was dead wrong and the people who continue to pursue that strategy are always getting the same result: the homeowner loses and another case is either decided badly or worse, makes bad law with a legal opinion issued by a judge or panel of judges.
The truth is that a successful quiet title action is a rare bird along with similar strategies. And remember that an unenforceable document by one party is no reason to lift an encumbrance from the chain of title. In order to remove an encumbrance from the chain of title, the instrument must be completely void and no voidable. That means it should never have been recorded in the first place or that it is now void by operation of law. That is the ONLY circumstance in which a mortgage or deed of trust or assignment of mortgage can be lifted out of the chain of title.
I do agree with the strategy of attacking the assignments in a lawsuit or motion. The motions don’t get much traction but the lawsuits tend to do better if they are pursued aggressively and persistently, with full recognition that no bank or service is going to roll over and play dead even if you are completely correct on the law. Your opponents and their lawyers will do everything in their power to wear you down, undermine your confidence and the undermine the confidence of the lawyer representing the homeowner. Your strategy must be laser-focussed, supported by substantive law and procedure.
But I don’t agree that any lay person can accomplish an attack on assignments without a lawyer representing them. If the practice of law was just about the contents of a statute we wouldn’t need courts. It’s about procedure, rules of evidence and basic notions and biases of fairness.
It’s true that the substitutions of trustee, the assignments, the indorsements etc. are probably legally void. For the most part they are fabricated. An assignment of mortgage probably lacks any foundation.
But what you’re up against, for example, is the fact that an assignment of mortgage is often assumed to be an assignment of the debt and the note. An indorsement of the note is often assumed to be an assignment of the debt. Possession of the note is often assumed to be possession of the debt. Possession is then assumed to be the result of delivery. Delivery implies authority. Transfer of the note implies a transfer of the debt. Transfer of the debt implies the assignment of mortgage was proper under state statutes. And a proper assignment supports a declaration of default and foreclosure. A proper assignment means that party foreclosing is going to get the proceeds of sale on foreclosed property. End of story.
So that is where you stand when your challenge begins. Don’t kid yourself. The task is daunting.
Those conclusions are all legally valid assumptions and presumptions because that is what the law says should be done with these documents and events. Facial validity is like possession — it’s 9/10 of the law.
If you think you can simply challenge these assumptions and presumptions and events and quickly get an order that completely undermines the parties attempting to foreclose — without going through a grueling court battle — you are simply wrong.
That said, thousands of homeowners have indeed won based upon such challenges. Nearly all of those cases have been buried under seals of confidentiality. The way they won was by educating the judge, one small piece at a time, using persuasive court techniques that nobody other than an experienced trial lawyer knows how to use. By the time the case ended, the court, unwilling to strike all such foreclosures, was careful to detail the specific abuses and gaps in the case against the homeowner.
Bottom Line: If you have the money and the time and the commitment to oppose these illegal foreclosures, by all means do it. And if you must do it pro se, know that the opposition will steamroll you on procedure and the laws of evidence. So you must have some knowledgeable lawyer giving you specific guidance as each point becomes an issue. Don’t pursue any strategy that promises to be a quick fix.
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, education, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, prima facie case, quiet title, Servicer, sham transactions |	10 Comments »
PTSD: A Breakdown of Securitization in the Real World
Posted on March 18, 2019 by Neil Garfield
By using the methods of magicians who distract the viewer from what is really happening the banks have managed to hoodwink even the victims and their lawyers into thinking that collection and foreclosure on “securitized” loans are real and proper. Nobody actually stops to ask whether the named claimant is actually going to receive the benefit of the remedy (foreclosure) they are seeking.
When you break it down you can see that in many cases the investment banks, posing as Master Servicers are the parties getting the monetary proceeds of sale of foreclosed property. None of the parties in the chain have lost any money but each of them is participating in a scheme to foreclose on the property for fun and profit.
It is worth distinguishing between four sets of investors which I will call P, T, S and D.
The P group of investors were Pension funds and other stable managed funds. They purchased the first round of derivative contracts sometimes known as asset backed securities or mortgage backed securities. Managers of hedge funds that performed due diligence quickly saw that that the investment was backed only by the good faith and credit of the issuing investment bank and not by collateral, debts or mortgages or even notes from borrowers. Other fund managers, for reasons of their own, chose to overlook the process of due diligence and relied upon the appearance of high ratings from Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch combined with the appearance of insurance on the investment. The P group were part of the reason that the Federal reserve and the US Treasury department decided to prop up what was obviously a wrongful and fraudulent scheme. Pulling the plug, in the view of the top regulators, would have destroyed the investment portfolio of many if not most stable managed funds.
The T group of investors were traders. Traders provide market liquidity which is so highly prized and necessary for a capitalist economy to maintain prosperity. The T group, consisting of hedge funds and others with an appetitive for risk purchased derivatives on derivatives, including credit default swaps that were disguised sales of loan portfolios that once sold, no longer existed. Yet the same portfolio was sold multiple time turning a hefty profit but resulted in a huge liability when the loans soured during the process of securitization of the paper (not the debt). The market froze when the loans soured; nobody would buy more certificates. The Ponzi scheme was over. Another example that Lehman pioneered was “minibonds” which were not bonds and they were not small. These were resales of the credit default swaps aggregated into a false portfolio. The traders in this group included the major investment banks. As an example, Goldman Sachs purchased insurance on portfolios of certificates (MBS) that it did not own but under contract law the contract was perfectly legal, even if it was simply a bet. When the market froze and AIG could not pay off the bet, Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs literally begged George W Bush to bail out AIG and “save the banks.” What was saved was Goldman’s profit on the insurance contract in which it reaped tens of billions of dollars in payments for nonexistent losses that could have been attributed to people who actually had money at risk in loans to borrowers, except that no such person existed.
The S group of investors were scavengers who were well connected with the world of finance or part of the world of finance. It was the S group that created OneWest over a weekend, and later members of the S group would be fictitious buyers of “re-securitized” interests in prior loans that were subject to false claims of securitization of the paper. This was an effort to correct obvious irregularities that were thought to expose a vulnerability of the investment banks.
The D group of investors are dummies who purchased securitization certificates entitling them to income indexed on recovery of servicer advances and other dubious claims. The interesting thing about this is that the Master Servicer does appear to have a claim for money that is labeled as a “servicer advance,” even if there was no advance or the servicer did not advance any funds. The claim is contingent upon there being a foreclosure and eventual sale of the property to a third party. Money paid to investors from a fund of investor money to satisfy the promise to pay contained in the “certificate” or “MBS” or “Mortgage Bond,” is labeled, at the discretion of the Master Servicer as a Servicer Advance even though the servicer did not advance any money.
This is important because the timing of foreclosures is often based entirely on when the “Servicer Advances” are equal to or exceed the equity in the property. Hence the only actual recipient of money from the foreclosure is not the P investors, not any investors and not the trust or purported trustee but rather the Master Servicer. In short, the Master servicer is leveraging an unsecured claim and riding on the back of an apparently secured claim in which the named claimant will receive no benefits from the remedy demanded in court or in a non-judicial foreclosure.
NOTE that securitization took place in four parts and in three different directions:
The debt to the T group of investors.
The notes to the T and S group of traders
The mortgage (without the debt) to a nominee — usually a fictitious trust serving as the fictitious name of the investment bank (Lehman in this case).
Securitization of spillover money that guaranteed receipt of money that was probably never due or payable.
Note that the P group of investors is not included because they do not ever collect money from borrowers and their certificates grant no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. When you read references to “securitization fail” (see Adam Levitin) this is part of what the writers are talking about. The securitization that everyone is talking about never happened. The P investors are not owners or beneficiaries entitled to income, interest or principal from loans to borrowers. They are entitled to an income stream as loans the investment bank chooses to pay it. Bailouts or even borrower payoffs are not credited to the the P group nor any trust. Their income remains the same regardless of whether the borrower is paying or not.
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: ABS, AIG, CERTIFICATES, derivatives, Fitch, Goldman Sachs, MBS, Moody, securitization, Servicer advances, Standard and Poor |	11 Comments »
Stop Referring to Defaults as Something Real
Posted on March 11, 2019 by Neil Garfield
Referring to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, completely undermines your argument that they have no right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure.
…when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from you as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale.
Questions to the servicer about how, when and where they made payments to Deutsch, or Deutsch as Trustee, or any trust, or any group of investors holding certificates will reveal their absence from the money trail. No such payments exist nor will they ever exist.
I take issue with the practice of referring to “the default.” When someone refuses or stops paying another person that does not automatically mean that a default exists. A default only exists if the the payment was due to a specifically identified party and they didn’t get it. Failure to pay a servicer is not a default. Failure to pay a servicer who is sending your payments to a creditor IS a default.
Since the fundamental defense for borrowers that wins cases is that the claimant has no right to be in court, it seems wrong to refer to”the default.” It should be “the claimed default.”
If your refusal to make payment was in fact a default as to Deutsch as Trustee of a real trust or as authorized representative of the certificate holders (they never make that clear), then all of your arguments come off as technical arguments to get out of a legitimate debt. You will lose.
On the other hand if your position (i.e., your denial and affirmative defenses) is that Deutsch is not a party on its own behalf and that it is being named by attorneys as being in a representative capacity for (a) a trust that does not exist or (b) for holder of certificates that do not convey title to the debt, note or mortgage and are specifically disclaimed, then you have a coherent narrative for your defense.
And if you further that argument by asserting that Deutsch has never received any payments and does not receive the proceeds of foreclosure on its own behalf nor as trustee for any trust or group of investors and will not receive those proceeds in this case then you push the knife in deeper.
So if Deutsch is not appearing on its own behalf and the parties that the lawyers say it is representing either don’t exist or are not identified, then the action is actually being filed in the name of Deutsch but for and on behalf of some other unidentified party who may or may not have any right to payment.
What is certain is that Deutsch is being represented as the owner of the loan when it is not. The owner of a loan receives payments. Deutsch never receives payment from anyone and the investors never receive payment from the borrowers. If they did the servicer would have records of that.
So when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from the homeowner as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale.
If Deutsch didn’t suffer any default it could not legally declare one. If the declaration of default was void, then there is no default declared. In fact, there is no default until a creditor steps forward and says I own the debt that I paid for and I suffered a default here. But there is no such party/creditor because the investment bank who funded the origination or acquisition of the loan has long since sold its interest in the loan multiple times.
Thus when lawyers or as servicer or both sent notices of delinquency or default they did so knowing that the party on whose behalf they said they were sending those notices had not suffered any delinquency or default.
When homeowners refer to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, they completely undermine their argument that they have no right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure.
And remember that the sole reason for foreclosures in which REMIC claims are present is not repayment, because that has occurred already. The sole reason is to maintain the illusion of securitization which is the cover for a PONZI scheme. The banks are seeking to protect “profits” they already have collected not to obtain repayment. That is why a “Master Servicer” is allowed to collect the proceeds of a foreclosure sale rather than anyone owning the debt.
Also remember that while it might be that investors could be construed as beneficiaries of a trust, if it existed, they actually are merely holders of uncertificated certificates in which they disclaim any interest in the debt, note or mortgage. Hence they have no claim, direct or indirect, against any individual borrower.
PRACTICE NOTE: Don’t assert anything you cannot prove. Leave the burden of proof on the lawyers who have named an alleged claimant who they say or imply possesses a claim. Deny everything and force them to prove everything. Discovery should be aimed at revealing the gaps not facts that will prove some assertion about securitization in general. Judges don’t want to hear that.
Appropriate questions to ask in one form or another are as follows:
Who is the Claimant/Plaintiff/Beneficiary?
Who will receive the proceeds of foreclosure sale?
Before the default, who received the proceeds of payment from the subject borrower? [They will fight this tooth and nail]
Did the trustee ever receive payments from the borrower?
Does the trustee in this alleged trust have any contractual right to receive borrower payments?
Do holders of certificates receive payments from the borrower through a servicer?
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Investor, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: BoNY-MELLON, default, Deutsch, notes, principal, recovery, security, transfer, TRUTH, US BANK |	3 Comments »
Is that Mortgage or Deed of Trust Void or Just Unenforceable?
Posted on March 5, 2019 by Neil Garfield
Proving that an instrument is unenforceable does not void the instrument unless it is unenforceable by anyone. Better to prove that it should never have been written.
The DOT could only be void if it was not facially or actually valid. That, in my opinion, means that the the DOT should never have been written, should never have been executed and should never have been recorded. It must the equivalent of uttering a false instrument and have the qualities of being a wild deed.
You need to look at your state statute that authorizes the use of a Deed of Trust. Look for the elements. If they are present, the DOT is not void on its face. If the elements are falsely presented then the instrument can still be proven void.
Proving that an instrument is not enforceable by the party trying to enforce it does NOT prove that nobody could enforce it. Hence it isn’t void until you can show that there is nobody who can or will enforce it. You must show that the DOT should never have been presented, signed and certainly not recorded.
That isn’t easy. And it is nearly impossible without investigation and discovery in which some party claiming to have an interest admits that there are fatal defects in the DOT. Defects in assignments or legal standing do not prove that the original instrument is void.
Put yourself in the shoes of a party whose money was used to give you the loan. Would you want your collateral wiped out because your servicer did something wrong in enforcement?
So in Washington DC the operative statute says as follows:
§ 42–801. Execution, acknowledgment, and recordation in same manner as deeds.
Mortgages and deeds of trust to secure debts, conveying any estate in land, shall be executed and may be acknowledged and recorded in the same manner as absolute deeds; and they shall take effect both as between the parties thereto and as to others, bona fide purchasers and mortgagees and creditors, in the same manner and under the same conditions as absolute deeds.
So then we are referred to the execution of absolute deeds. That statute says as follows:
§ 42–401. Effective date of deeds; exception.
Any deed conveying real property in the District, or interest therein, or declaring or limiting any use or trust thereof, executed and acknowledged and certified as provided in §§ 42-101, 42-121 to 42-123 [repealed], 42-306, and 42-602 and delivered to the person in whose favor the same is executed, shall be held to take effect from the date of the delivery thereof, except that as to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers and mortgagees without notice of said deed, and others interested in said property, it shall only take effect from the time of its delivery to the Recorder of Deeds for record.
And you may have trouble with this one:
§ 42–403. Defective grants recorded on or after April 27, 1994.
Any instrument recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds on or after April 27, 1994, shall be effective notwithstanding the existence of 1 or more of the failures in the formal requisites listed in § 42-404, unless the failure is challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 months after the instrument is recorded.
But look at this —-
§ 42–404. Failures in formal requisites of an instrument.
(a) The failures in the formal requisites of an instrument that may be cured by this act are:
(1) An omission of an acknowledgment or a defective or improper acknowledgment;
(2) A failure to attach a clerk’s certificate;
(3) An omission of a notary seal or other seal; or
(4) An omission of an attestation.
(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to eliminate the requirement that a deed be under seal. Any deed accepted for recordation without a seal but made effective by operation of this act shall be deemed a sealed instrument.
(c) Nothing in this act shall be construed to validate any instrument with respect to which there was any misrepresentation, fraudulent act, or illegal provision in connection with its execution or acknowledgment.
(d) Any person convicted of a fraudulent act, in connection with the validation of any instrument under §§ 42-101, 42-402, 42-403, and 42-602 shall be subject to the penalties set forth in § 22-3222.
So putting it all together you probably cannot prove that the instrument is facially invalid but you can prove that it is invalid for misrepresentation of the lender and the terms of the loan referenced by the DOT by its reference to the promissory note. The actual terms were that a remote undisclosed party would sell the borrower’s signature multiple times reaping huge rewards without any application of sale proceeds to the borrower’s account.
The part about the wrong name being inserted as the lender is a good one. But that could be theoretically corrected by an affidavit of scrivener’s error, although supporting such an affidavit would be nearly impossible.
But since the statute speaks to the commission of a fraudulent act you might be able to invalidate the the DOT without appearing to invalidate the debt. Or you could attempt to reform the DOT to name the actual lender, which I think might be a more productive tack, since it completely avoids the appearance of seeking a free house.
Remember thought that fraud must be specific: You need a representation that was false, which the party knew was false, for the purpose of getting you to reasonably rely on the representation to your detriment and to their advantage. I think you have that here.
And remember that once you prove by clear and convincing evidence that the DOT was void for being part of a fraudulent scheme, any assignments of the mortgage or assignments of the beneficial interest in the void deed of trust are equally void because assignments convey only the interest possessed — they do not create interests.
Filed under: bankruptcy, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, Servicer, sham transactions, STATUTES | Tagged: conveyance of interest in real property, enforceability, TRUTH, void deed, Washington DC Statutes |	1 Comment »