Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

ATTENTION ALL FLORIDIANS (especially attorneys) YOU HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT FRADULENT ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGES TO JUDGES……

fl-bar-opinion

[This opinion was affirmed by the Professional Ethics Committee at its June 24, 2011 meeting.]

The operative facts as presented in the inquiring attorney’s letter are specifically as follows:
Bank holds a large portfolio of mortgages and hires Lawyer to file foreclosure lawsuits on mortgages which fall into default. Lawyer files 1,000 foreclosure cases per year for 20 years. Only 2,000 cases are open and active. 3,000 cases were settled by voluntary payment of the mortgage debt or reinstatement of the mortgage loan. The remaining 15,000 cases had foreclosure judgments entered, and the mortgaged properties were sold at a judicial sale with a Certificate of Title issuing shortly thereafter to the judicial sale purchasers. These 15,000 sold properties are now almost all in the hands of subsequent third party purchasers.
Recently, Bank has instructed Lawyer to stop progress on all foreclosure actions due to potential defects with affidavits which Bank submitted to Lawyer and which Lawyer in turn filed with the court.

This is the first time Lawyer has heard of any potential defects with affidavits.
Bank explained that it had 2 employees signing affidavits for the past 20 years, Signer 1 and Signer 2. Both signers have assistants who present the affidavits to the signers together with copies of Bank’s business records which show the account-specific information contained in each affidavit. Both signers also signed Verifications of foreclosure complaints pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).
Signer 1 has always personally verified the figures contained in the affidavits and the facts in foreclosure complaints by looking at the copies of Bank’s business records before signing. Signer 1 has always signed or acknowledged his signature in the presence of his assistant, who then notarizes his signature in his presence.
Signer 2 adopted Signer 1’s procedure for signing affidavits and verifications last month. For the previous 19 years and 11 months Signer 2 relied on his highly
experienced and conscientious assistant to check the figures in the affidavits and the information in the foreclosure complaints against Bank’s business records and make sure all information correctly reflected the information in Bank’s business records. Until last month Signer 2 signed the affidavits and verifications without personally looking at the copies of business records which were paper clipped to each affidavit and proposed foreclosure complaint and verified by his assistant. Additionally, until last month Signer 2’s assistant notarized all of Signer 2’s affidavits and complaint verifications whether or not Signer 2 was personally present. Fla. Stat. 117.05 requires notarization in the presence of the signer. Signer 2’s affidavits and verifications executed under the procedure of the previous 19 years and 11 months are referred to below as the ” old affidavits” and ” old verifications.” Bank has expressed confidence that the figures in all affidavits and the information in all proposed complaints were correct. Lawyer believes this situation presents a possible question of candor to the tribunal under Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.3 which may or may not call for remedial action. Lawyer’s considered legal opinion is that replacing Signer 2’s old affidavits and verifications in approximately 1,000 pending foreclosure cases would raise red flags that would result in costly litigation contrary to Bank’s interests but which would have no reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome of the actions. With regard to the 18,000 closed foreclosure actions, Lawyer’s considered legal opinion is that raising an issue as to Signer 2’s old affidavits and verifications, if any, would also raise red flags, would be contrary to Bank’s interests, would cause instability in the title to those properties which are now in the hands of third parties, would lead to complicated and expensive litigation involving multiple parties and would have no reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome of those actions.

The operative facts as presented in the inquiring attorney’s letter are specifically as follows:

Bank holds a large portfolio of mortgages and hires Lawyer to file foreclosure lawsuits on mortgages which fall into default. Lawyer files 1,000 foreclosure cases per year for 20 years. Only 2,000 cases are open and active. 3,000 cases were settled by voluntary payment of the mortgage debt or reinstatement of the mortgage loan. The remaining 15,000 cases had foreclosure judgments entered, and the mortgaged properties were sold at a judicial sale with a Certificate of Title issuing shortly thereafter to the judicial sale purchasers. These 15,000 sold properties are now almost all in the hands of subsequent third party purchasers.
Recently, Bank has instructed Lawyer to stop progress on all foreclosure actions due to potential defects with affidavits which Bank submitted to Lawyer and which Lawyer in turn filed with the court. This is the first time Lawyer has heard of any potential defects with affidavits.
Bank explained that it had 2 employees signing affidavits for the past 20 years, Signer 1 and Signer 2. Both signers have assistants who present the affidavits to the signers together with copies of Bank’s business records which show the account-specific information contained in each affidavit. Both signers also signed Verifications of foreclosure complaints pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).
Signer 1 has always personally verified the figures contained in the affidavits and the facts in foreclosure complaints by looking at the copies of Bank’s business records before signing. Signer 1 has always signed or acknowledged his signature in the presence of his assistant, who then notarizes his signature in his presence.
Signer 2 adopted Signer 1’s procedure for signing affidavits and verifications last month.

For the previous 19 years and 11 months Signer 2 relied on his highly
experienced and conscientious assistant to check the figures in the affidavits and the information in the foreclosure complaints against Bank’s business records and make sure all information correctly reflected the information in Bank’s business records. Until last month Signer 2 signed the affidavits and verifications without personally looking at the copies of business records which were paper clipped to each affidavit and proposed foreclosure complaint and verified by his assistant. Additionally, until last month Signer 2’s assistant notarized all of Signer 2’s affidavits and complaint verifications whether or not Signer 2 was personally present. Fla. Stat. 117.05 requires notarization in the presence of the signer. Signer 2’s affidavits and verifications executed under the procedure of the previous 19 years and 11 months are referred to below as the ” old affidavits” and ” old verifications.” Bank has expressed confidence that the figures in all affidavits and the information in all proposed complaints were correct. Lawyer believes this situation presents a possible question of candor to the tribunal under Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.3 which may or may not call for remedial action. Lawyer’s considered legal opinion is that replacing Signer 2’s old affidavits and verifications in approximately 1,000 pending foreclosure cases would raise red flags that would result in costly litigation contrary to Bank’s interests but which would have no reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome of the actions. With regard to the 18,000 closed foreclosure actions, Lawyer’s considered legal opinion is that raising an issue as to Signer 2’s old affidavits and verifications, if any, would also raise red flags, would be contrary to Bank’s interests, would cause instability in the title to those properties which are now in the hands of third parties, would lead to complicated and expensive litigation involving multiple parties and would have no reasonable likelihood of changing the outcome of those actions.

60269200-Florida-Bar-Ethics-Opinion-Jan-11-2011-Approved-by-the-Fla-Bar-s-Professional-Ethic-s-Committee-June-24-2011-Fraud-and-Documents-1

5 Comments

  • J.R. Homeowner says:

    Having solid evidence of many THOUSANDS of such fraudlent assignments of mortgage presently filed in virtually every county in the state of Florida, WHICH JUDGE would you suggest I report this to and by what method?

    I am happy to do my duty.

    • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

      Can you sort your data to select the GMAC Mortgage Fraud Group and provide the false documents created by that group to me?

      Please contact me at accesslegalservices.info@gmail.com if you can help press the issue that the GMAC Fraud Group is using bankruptcy powers to continue to take homes with fraudulent (usually forged) documents.

      All homeowners affected by the GMAC Mortgage Group (multiple corporations and LLCs) and/or its REMIC trust Residential Asset Securities Corporation (RASC)can take the action I have described below.

  • Ray Shelton says:

    The issue is really clear now: US Bank, SN Servicing and the opposing attorneys who are representing them in our case are committed fraud on the court and the court may have let them do it. US Bank submitted fake signatures on our documents. The one thing they missed was one very important fact, WE SIGNED EVERYTHING IN ROYAL BLUE INK. And now the Notary has come forward and taken an oath that he and his wife witnessed that my wife insisted and in fact did sign in Royal Blue Ink. Note that during our summary judgment hearing our previous attorney told us that Judge Frances King of Marion County looked at the faked signed doc’s in black ink and said oh, “I do see blue ink”, our previous attorney said no it is clearly signed in black your honor then she just preceded to levy the summary judgment against us. It was very disappointing because the attorney felt like she was working as a partner or collector for the bank and not for justice for the little guy.
    That’s all going to change now because we are headed to the higher courts for justice and we now have the famous attorney Jeff Barnes. This guy is amazing and he is winning very important cases all across this nation. We fully intend to notify the FBI, the US Attorney General, our local law enforcement, that a forgery crime and fraud on the court has been committed probably on a massive scale. I will name all the opposing attorneys the Board of Directors of US Bank and the owners of SN servicing as soon as Mr Barnes says go. Ray Shelton.

  • MR says:

    WHILE the Abreu v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (“BAC”) (3rd DCA) Appeal is pending in June 2012; after Assignment of Bid from BAC to Fannie Mae in Dec 2011; after Fannie Mae’s succesful bid in Dec 2011; and after no documentary stamp taxes paid (despite Dept Rev Code) for Assignment of Bid from BAC to Fannie Mae, a publicly traded entity (thus, loss of money to our State, Courts and Clerks; and then also no doc stamp taxes paid when clerk issued Certificate of Title to Fannie Mae, NOW ALL OF THE SUDDEN there is recorded on June 11, 2012 in Miami-Dade County (again no doc stamps paid) an ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE POST FORECLOSURE SALE FROM MERS to BAC’s successor by merger, Bank of America, NA.

    IF Fannie Mae has Certificate of Title (with no mention of MERS) then how can MERS assign to Bank of America, NA during a pending appeal in the Third District Court of Appeal? What I believe is happening is that they know they will lose on appeal or do a confession of error as done in other appeals so that the Third District Court of Appeal does not right up an opinion; thus, foreclosure sale will be vacated putting the case back to where it was before the improperly entered summary judgment or voluntarily dismissing case to refile after all their games. BUT how can MERS assign that which it does not have (even the first assignment of mortgage filed after Complaint was improper) and now years later they are trying to fix their case to refile that which was never proper to commence with just because they claim to hold the Note. Apparently, Fannie Mae; Bank of America, NA; BAC and/or MERS are laughing at the Courts with their games with our land title system and not having to pay any doc stamp taxes with all the multiple transfers back and forth and breaks in chain of title. Just because someone holds a blank undated endorsed note with no original signature (appears stamped signature); at what point do our Courts realize that many Plaintiff’s in the recent years of our mortgage foreclosure crisis have made a mockery of our legal system; not assured anyone who really is the rightful owner and holder of the Note (especially in cases where Defendants do not have resources for attorneys) and have not paid doc stamp taxes (thus further depriving our States and Courts of millions of dollars of funding because of their circumventional games). Does anybody have any caselaw/statutes, etc to deal with this improper Post Foreclosure Sale Assignment of Mortgage during an appeal by entity not on Certificate of Title?

  • Well you totally nailed it I had the same IRS problem. And yep. The IRS pushed me around like a was a moron. But I found these these IRS attorneys who showed me how to handle the IRS. Case closed.

Leave a Reply