CHASE, in the instant action, committed a fraud upon the Court by claiming to be the plaintiff. FANNIE MAE should have been the plaintiff as the owner of the note and mortgage when the BUTLER foreclosure action commenced.
We are all, right now, living through the greatest fraud committed on a nation. “The Banks” don’t have any real interest in most foreclosure proceedings. In fact, “The Banks” are dumping their interest in pesky foreclosures that cause them no amount of trouble as fast as they can…..this evolution brings us the rise of the subservicers like Ocwen and Saxon.
The terrifying thing is no one dares to look behind the curtain. No one dares to question….
What are the implications of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures not carried out in the name of the real party in interest?
It’s like it just doesn’t matter that straw parties appear in courts all across this country, wrecking lives and destroying communities. “The Banks” do not have authority to obey orders of courts and local judges unless they get that authority from their masters, Fannie and Freddie. This surely means something….doesn’t it?
But now we’re in the middle of a new reaction to this emerging reality, the conflagration of the concept of “Holder” of a mortgage note. The servicers may be “holding onto” the note, but they are not the “holder”, they are merely in possession of the note on behalf of the “holder”, the note’s real owner. (Although going even deeper down the rat hole, we’ll find that Fannie/Freddie don’t own the notes in some cases…them notes have been pledged, sold, hypothecated to other entities…but who’s keeping track….right? What’s a few billion dollars between ……)
Just read what Fannie themselves say:
Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether
the note is in our portfolio or whether we own it as trustee for an MBS trust.
In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of
the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described
below. We may have direct possession of the note or a custodian may have custody of the note for us. If we possess the note through a document
custodian, the document custodian has custody of the note for our exclusive
use and benefit.
In most cases, a servicer will have a copy of the mortgage note that
it can use to begin the foreclosure process. However, some jurisdictions
require that the servicer produce the original note before or shortly after
initiating foreclosure proceedings. If our possession of the note is direct
because the custody documents are at our document delivery facility, to
obtain the note or any other custody documents that are needed, the servicer
should submit a request to our Custody Department . . . the servicer should
specify whether the original note is required or whether the request if for
a copy.
In some jurisdictions, only the “holder” of the note may conduct a
foreclosure. In any jurisdiction in which our servicer must be the holder
of the note in order to conduct the foreclosure, we temporarily transfer
our possession of the note to our servicer, effective automatically and
immediately before commencement of the foreclosure proceeding. When
we transfer our possession, our servicer becomes the holder of the note
during the foreclosure proceedings. If the borrower reinstates the loan or
the servicer ceases to service the loan for Fannie Mae for any reason, then
possession of the note at that time automatically reverts to Fannie Mae and
the note must be returned to the document custodian. At that time, Fannie
Mae also resumes being the holder, just as it was before the foreclosure
proceedings. The transfer of our possession, and any reversion of
possession to us are evidenced and memorialized by our publication of
this paragraph. This Guide provision may be relied upon by a court to
establish that the servicer conducting the foreclosure proceeding has
possession, and is the holder, of the note during the foreclosure proceeding, [*7]
unless the court is otherwise notified by Fannie Mae. [Emphasis added].”
Thus, it appears to the Court that the delay by CHASE in producing the subject
