Re: Forged Mortgage Security Instrument

Posted by Julio Martinez-Clark on January 31, 2008 at 15:32:26:

In Reply to: Forged Mortgage Security Instrument posted by Michael Kelly on January 31, 2008 at 09:15:11:

Michael,

In response to your questions:
1. Q. Is the Mortgage Instrument still valid after it has obviously been
tampered with by the after-the-fact forgery of my wife's signature onto it?

A. Read the UCC - Uniform Commercial Code:
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
..PART 3. ENFORCEMENT OF INSTRUMENTS

§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

(a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), "holder in due course"
means the holder of an instrument if:
(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear
such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular
or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without
notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is
an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as
part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an
unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to
the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any
party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).

2. Q. Since the plaintiff in their own words admit that they are unable to
produce the Note, do they have a cause for any kind of action against me?

A. I wrote an article and my website at www. is
dedicated to this topic. If the plaintiff cannot prove that it holds and owns the
note, then there is no cause for action. From my article and website...

"On a New York Times article dated November 15, 2007 called “Foreclosures
Hit a Snag For Lenders: Judge Blocks Lenders Over Right to Foreclosure”
brings to the public eye the fact that on October 31, 2007 a federal judge in
Ohio has ruled against a longstanding foreclosure practice, potentially
creating an obstacle for lenders trying to reclaim properties from troubled
borrowers and raising questions about the legal standing of investors in
mortgage securities pools. Another article titled “Judge Demands
Documentation in Foreclosures” and published on November 17, 2007, The
New York Times says...”After the dismissal of 14 foreclosure cases by a
federal judge in Cleveland, another federal judge in Ohio has given lenders
30 days to prove that they own the properties they intend to seize from
troubled homeowners in 27 other cases.” On November 28, 2007 the New
York Times reported on an article titled “Foreclosure Charges by Lender
Investigated” that the federal agency monitoring the bankruptcy courts has
subpoenaed Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender and
loan servicer, to determine whether the company’s conduct in two
foreclosures in southern Florida represented abuses of the bankruptcy
system."

I hope this helps,

Julio Martinez-Clark

Follow Ups:


Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:

 

      The "Reply" function is disabled for older messages.
Please visit the Foreclosure Discussion Board for current discussions.