Source: https://forum.msfraud.org/post/can-an-allonge-be-a-forgery-6109710
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 20:24:48
Document Index: 516356453

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§3202', '§3202', '§3203', '§3203', '§3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§\n3', '§ 3308', '§ 25', '§ 400', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§3', '§3']

Can an allonge be a forgery? - MSFraud.org Mortgage Servicing Fraud Forum
Can an allonge be a forgery?
Texas 1354630106
Visit the Uniform Commercial Article §3-202, actually for this exercise the writer will be using California Commerce Code §3202 & §3202: other states are similar in verbiage.
(a) Negotiation is effective even if obtained (1) from an infant, a corporation exceeding its powers, or a person without capacity, (2) by fraud, duress, or mistake, or (3) in breach of duty or as part of an illegal transaction.
It is possible to determine holder in due course of a negotiated note and it is also possible to discern who claim to be holder is only in possession.
What about California Commerce Code §3203:
(d) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this division and has only the rights of a partial assignee.
From subsection A to C it is clear that an Allonge would be applicable for obtaining Holder in Due Course where an indorsement is missing upon the face of the instrument except when subsection B applies to fraud or illegality affecting the instrument..
To substantiate subsection (d) one needs to turn attention to the Security Instrument that was to secure the instrument. In this example we shall use verbiage from a standard Fannie Mae Security Instrument[1]:
20.  Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance.  The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.
“or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument)” is substantial in the fact it supports along with the notes standard being” indorsed in blank” the need to create an allonge. In reviewing the securitization process it is evident that we have A as the originating lender and  B, C, D as intervening parties to investor purchase of the intangible certificates. Not that the tangible note arrived via negotiation to the investors collateral pool, in fact the tangible note by legal definition never lawfully left A. Whereas D acts as servicer to conceal the failure of fiduciary duty and applying subsection (b) “Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.} an allonge could not be created to give the illusion the tangible note was negotiated and further applying subsection (d) of California Commerce Code §3203 the investors purchase of an intangible interest in the tangible note reducing the value of the tangible note would not allow the note to be negotiated and therefore no subsequent holder of the tangible note could be a Holder in Due Course. Whereas the Security Instrument hints as the Security Instrument is to follow the intangible obligation, one would need to inquire of such instrument eligible for recordation to secure a tangible note as the Security Instrument does not comport to law.
Who is the Holder in Due Course of a Secured Instrument?
Who is the Holder in Due Course of an Unsecured Instrument?
[1] https://www.fanniemae.com/singlefamily/security-instruments
Assignments and allonges go hand in foot for robosigning.
Mike H 1354633916
The short answer is yes! They usually are forgeries, especially when the assignments of the
mortgage do not match the endorsements on the Allonge to the Note.
In my experience, what usually happens is that the originator (A) went out of business without
having ever transferred the obligation to any third party. The borrower (B) won the "death gamble"
(mort gage) fair and square and should own the property "free and clear".
But the servicer (S) "croupier" decides to steal the winning bet off the table and claim the prize,
the house, for itself.
So (S), using a counterfeit, color, photocopy of the Note, gives itself a "power of Attorney" from
the "dead" originator, to transfer the obligation into a "phony trust" as the plaintiff in the foreclosure
"S" also gives itself a "phony" POA from the "phony trust" so it can "verify" the Complaint and
commence the foreclosure action.
During the couse of the foreclosure action, it fabricates a phony endorsement or allonge for the
phony Note, and very often records a phony assignment of the mortgage from the dead lender into
the phony Trust by the use of MERS. Very often, this phony assignment occurs years after the originator (A) was dissolved and no longer exists and could not possibly be a member of MERS.
Surprisingly, most attorneys and pro ses do not pick up on this "flim flam" and call attention
to it with the Judge. When they do, the case usually gets dismissed.
Texas 1354654226
Uniform Commercial Code Article §3
§ 3-201. NEGOTIATION
(a) "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.(Thief in the night.)
§ 3-203 (d) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. (Reference Security Instrument, “interest in&rdquo
§ 3-202. NEGOTIATION SUBJECT TO RESCISSION
§ 3-202 (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. (Reference Security Instrument, “interest in&rdquo
§ 3-203. TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT; RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY TRANSFER
(Paradox to § 3-202. (a) Negotiation is effective even if obtained (i) from an infant, a corporation exceeding its powers, or a person without capacity, (ii) by fraud, duress, or mistake, or (iii) in breach of duty or as part of an illegal transaction)
§ 3-204. INDORSEMENT
§ 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT
"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. (Thief in the night.)
Yikes, it looks as all the bases were covered to even allow for a criminal to claim Holder with rights, except § 3-203 (d) provides that not even a thief in the night can become a holder with rights where the full value of the instrument was not transferred or negotiated.
In not applying § 3-203 (d) one would be inclined to believe that just mere mechanical possession of the instrument provides rights of enforcement. However, having mechanical possession without rights and postulating the claim to rights is only a mechanical gesture, it is not supported by statutory law
In applying § 3-203 (d) along with what is common Covenant #20 within a Security Instrument to which was to secure to the instrument, we find fraud in conception by claiming the Security Instrument follows the intangible obligation identified within the Security Instrument which following the intangible obligation is totally opposite of statutory and case law. But such fraud has been excluded by the Article(s) to allow enforceability of the instrument by an innocent subsequent purchaser. With fraud present within the Security Instrument, can under statutory law the Security Instrument attach and perfect to the instrument a lawful alternate means of enforcing the instrument?
Pro se 1354728302
I am confused (as always) So does it mean we can't challenge the endorsement on the Note? UCC 3-202 (a)
Texas 1354731968
Indorsement sometimes equal to an allonge containing the Indorsement.
Pro se 1354732962
yes, but it must be firmly attached to the Note, so it becomes part of the Note. The issue is can we challenge the endorsement its self ? Like it was executed without proper authority ?
Texas 1354734761
Read in the reverse, an allonge containing an indorsement sometimes equal an indorsement.
Have never, will never give legal advice. Facts and statutes are what they are, in applying those facts to individual scenarios into the legal arena is left to those who are eligible to practice law before the court.
FnDoomed 1354757277
The issue is can we challenge the endorsement its self ? Like it was executed without proper authority ?
See UCC 3-308 and official comments. Authenticity and authority is assumed unless specifically denied in the pleadings. See relevant case law for your authorities.
Contract law says that as a non party to the indorsement then you have no standing to challenge a technicality that would merely render the assignment voidable at the election of the assigner.
Pro se 1354806457
1. Does anybody know where to get the official comments ? Cornell Law stopped showing.
2. Relevant Florida statue : 673.3081 Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course.—
Texas 1354808061
http://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/orc/jd_130336-54dd.html
frangelo 1354812500
This message is directed to the seniors, like 'allmighty" W.A.R. FnDoomed and others:
basically, how do I prove that :"there is a dispute as to the indorsement and delivery of the negotiable instrument"?
I am just learning all this stuff. I am in NY
Also FnDoomed: How do I collect / gather authoritative cases pertinent in NYS?
I am going to the local law library, but I just dont know where to start
I you give me a quick start up give would be great
Mr roper stated that the assinment thing is not as important as the UCC related matters
and you can send an emailto: frangelo93@hotmail.com Thank in advance
FnDoomed 1354888376
The mortgage assignment really is less important than the UCC. That's not to say it can't be used. For example in Drouin the assignment was from a company that went out of business years before and the judge shot down the FC.
I have a collection of roper essays and some good cases to whet your appetite in Foreclosure Defense 101 here. From that document you can get LegalAidPC which is a special purpose web browser that I built to help research cases. It doesn't do anything that you can't do yourself but it makes things easier.
Go to scholar.google.com - select your states and/or feds and/or BK courts. I'd start by querying for cases that explicitly quote a relevant statute. Be sure to wrap your query in quotes " for an exact match. Here are some examples. Note that I haven't actually read any of these...
442 BR 10 - Bankr. Court, D. Massachusetts, 2010 - Google Scholar
... "In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each
signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings." GL c. 106, §
3-308(a). This is an action with respect to 15 an instrument: in Count I, Wilson seeks a ...
Cited by 4 How cited Related articles Cite
466 BR 439 - Bankr. Court, ED Tennessee, 2012 - Google Scholar
... concerning proof of signatures: (a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the
authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted
unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of ...
Cited by 2 How cited Related articles All 2 versions Cite
Bankr. Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit, 2012 - Google Scholar
... commercial law. Fed. R. Evid. 902(9). The applicable general commercial law of
California provides that: "Each signature on the instrument is admitted unless
specifically denied in the pleadings." Cal. Com. Code § 3308. The ...
Bankr. Court, MD North Carolina, 2009 - Google Scholar
... Gen. Stat. § 25-3-308 (a), which provides as follows: In an action with respect to an
instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument
is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If ...
STATES RESOURCES CORP. v. Harris
Dist. Court, WD Missouri, 2009 - Google Scholar
... Missouri law, which governs this action according to the terms of the promissory note, provides
"[i]n an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each
signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings." Mo. ...
PAATALO v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA
Dist. Court, D. Montana, 2012 - Google Scholar
... 307, which provides in pertinent part: In an action with respect to an instrument, the
authenticity of and authority to make each signature on the instrument is admitted
unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a ...
Bankr. Court, ED Wisconsin, 2011 - Google Scholar
... and the authority to make them: (1) In an action with respect to an instrument, the
MILLON v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
Dist. Court, WD Missouri, 2012 - Google Scholar
... Because that document was a negotiable instrument, "the authenticity of, and
authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically
denied in the pleadings." § 400.3-308(a); see also Fed. R. Evid. ...
Bankr. Court, ED Tennessee, 2012 - Google Scholar
... concerning proof of signatures: (1) In an action with respect to an instrument, the
WM CAPITAL PARTNERS I, LLC v. BBJ MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
Dist. Court, ED Michigan, 2011 - Google Scholar
... In particular, under UCC § 3-308, "[i]n an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity
of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied
in the pleadings," and "[i]f the validity of signatures is admitted or proved," a party in ...
Cabinetmaniac 1354910386
I have a collection of roper essays and some good cases to whet your appetite in Foreclosure Defense 101 here.
Thanks Doomed, that's good stuff.
Texas 1354991052
§ 3-205. SPECIAL INDORSEMENT; BLANK INDORSEMENT; ANOMALOUS INDORSEMENT
(b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a "blank indorsement."When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed.
Excerpts of Covenant #16 and #20, FLORIDA--Single Family--Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3010 [1]:
Regardless of Savings Covenant #16, factual evidence provides the Security Instrument was filed of record containing Covenant #20. Facts go further that alleging an Intangible Interest (Intangible Payment Stream) was created; utilizing specialized Secondary Market research tools such as a Bloomberg Terminal, evidence from the specialized tools confirm that intangibles were created and sold to the secondary market under guise of lawful securitizing. This ripping of the payment stream intangible from the tangible Note and in compliance with UCC Article 3 §3-203 (d), made the tangible Note ineligible for negotiation for the tangible Note was not for full value. In further, the placement of the Indorsement by an Indorser also in applying UCC Article 3 §3-203 (d) does not transform the tangible Note not for full value to be “Bearer Paper” for Indorsement is a legal impossibility.
Within the scope of UCC Article 9 Secured Transactions, Intangible Obligations can be created and the intangible (payment stream) security attaching and perfecting and transfer of perfection to the intangible obligation would be under the governance of UCC Article 9. Regardless of the fact that most of the 50 states have adopted a version of the UCC, the UCC itself does not pre-empt other state law for the perfection of a Security Instrument to attach and perfect to a Tangible Note or the transfer of such rights.