Posts Tagged ‘false assignment’
HOLY SMOKES- READ THIS DEPOSITION OF MERS, INC. PRESIDENT!
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
MERS is a dark and shadowy corporate figure playing out behind the scenes in millions of foreclosures across the country. For an entity that has played and continues to play such a critical role in the devastation of so many American’s lives, very little is known about the company, how it operates and their internal corporate structure.
Take the time to read this deposition and, while you won’t know all you need to know, quite a bit of the corporate structure and organization will be laid out, along with some very important fault lines exposed. For attorneys and advocates out there trying to figure out if you need a MERS deposition, this depo will show you why you do.
When they object, this deposition excerpted for your judge will help the judge to understand why testimony of a MERS agent, along with the purported “vice president” or whomever executes documents purportedly upon the lender’s behalf, is critical to establish whether proper authority ever existed for the purported MERS Assignment of Mortgage.
Bankruptcy Court Denies Lender’s Right To Foreclose- Questionable Assignment
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
The problem with all the “evidence” being created by pretender lender and foreclosure mills is it often lacks the evidentiary basis to establish the claims the documents purport to support. In a hot of the presses, just released opinion from the Federal Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida, Judge ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN denied the relief sought by a lender because he questioned the veracity of the “evidence” provided by the alleged lender.
If the same analysis used by judge Briskman were applied in circuit courts across the state, the pretender lenders would be in a real mess….it’s clear when you examine the “evidence” submitted by plaintiffs and read the deposition transcripts of robo signers that the practices employed by the lenders simply cannot withstand proper judicial scrutiny. The full opinion can be found here, excepts of good case law as follows:
It appears the Allonge and the Assignment were created post-petition for the purpose of the relief from stay proceeding. Movant did not establish Jennifer Henninger and Jack Jacob had authority to execute the Allonge and Assignment.
Movant’s submissions are insufficient to establish it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage or is authorized to act for whoever holds these documents. In re Relka, No. 09-20806, 2009 WL 5149262, at *5 (Bankr. D. Wyo. Dec. 22, 2009) (granting stay relief where movant established possession of note through testimony of witness who personally retrieved note from movant’s vault); In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. at 370 (denying movant’s stay relief motion due to movant’s failure to establish it was holder of note); In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259, 270 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) (denying movant’s stay relief motion and sustaining debtor’s claim objection due to movant’s failure to establish it was holder of note). Movant has not established it has standing to bring the Motion and the Motion is due to be denied.
