Across the country, banks are attaching “allonges” to original promissory notes, then using the attached allonge to allege their ownership of the note and their standing to foreclose.
The problem for the banks is an allonge is only supposed to be used when there is not sufficient blank space on the front or the back of the original note to stamp a “wet” endorsement on the face of that original document to transfer ownership from the lender whose name appears on the face of the note to the next holder of the note.
Attached here is a Motion to Dismiss I just filed which includes all the relevant research from across the United States that pertains to the use of allonges. It is fascinating to consider that allonges are being used perhaps millions of times across the country in support of bank’s efforts to foreclose on homes when the use of allonges in many of these cases may not be supported by the law or the facts of the case.
I publish this Motion and challenge attorneys, advocates, academics and any interested party to weigh in on the issue…if anyone can find proper legal justification for the widespread use (misuse) of allonges that currently exists in mortgage foreclosure cases, please send me information and correct me…having said that, I don’t expect that any contrary case law exists.
As we’ve learned from depositions taken of Angela Nolan (her full deposition here) and other Robo Signers, allonges are being produced by word processors and not signed by hand (as they are supposed to be). The original note is not even in possession of the party when the alleged allonge is created and the allonge is merely stapled or affixed at some later date. All of this violates the intent and purpose of original “wet” endorsements on the face of the documents which are intended to be a permanent record of a negotiable instrument’s chain of title.
Examine all documents carefully, and challenge the authenticity of everything….this issue is begging for an appellate court decision!
