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.