A few days ago I was met with some skeptics when I showed how robo-signed documents mentioned on 60 Minutes this year crept into my case.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
60 Minutes "Next Housing Shock"
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
Here is another example of a bank running amok: The bank collected rents from this man's tenants without a hearing.
http://www.youtube.com/...
The single mother in the movie is crying because she believed the bank when they illegally posted notices to pay them instead of the landlord, despite the fact that NO HEARING on receivership had ever occurred. The landlord decided not to evict her and instead is drawing her statement against the bank. He may sue the bank for the back rent under Conversion.
This event is doubly shocking because of the case law established earlier this year 20 miles down the road in Aurora v. Carlsen as noted by Beth Findsen law office:
http://findsenlaw.wordpress.com/...
Aurora Loan Services Slammed By Wisconsin Appeals CtIn a refreshing development of a court following the rules of evidence in a foreclosure case, the Wisconsin appellate court reversed a summary judgment for Aurora Loan Services because there was no admissible evidence supporting its claim to be the holder of the promissory note.
The same proper result is seen in NJ two months ago in Aurora v. Toledo.
http://tinyurl.com/...
Furthermore, even if plaintiff had presented adequate
evidence that the purported assignment of the mortgages and
notes attached to McCann’s affidavit was a copy of the original
in plaintiff’s files, this would not have been sufficient to
establish the effectiveness of the alleged assignment. This
document was signed by a JoAnn Rein, who identifies herself as a
vice-president of MERS, as nominee for Lehman Brothers, and was
notarized in Nebraska. Plaintiff’s submission in support of its
motion for summary judgment did not include a certification by
Rein or any other representative of MERS regarding her authority
to execute the assignment or the circumstances of the
assignment. In the absence of such further evidence, we do not
view the purported assignment of the mortgages and notes to be a
self-authenticating document that can support the summary
judgment in plaintiff’s favor. N.J.R.E. 901; see 2 McCormick on
Evidence § 221 (6th ed. 2006).
There is an additional potential problem with this
purported assignment. The assignment was not made by Lehman, as
payee of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage, but
rather by MERS, “as nominee for Lehman.” Although the notes and
mortgages appointed MERS as Lehman’s nominee, Lehman filed a
petition for bankruptcy protection in September 2008, see Andrew
Ross Sorkin, Lehman Files for Bankruptcy; Merrill is Sold, N.Y.
Times (Sept. 14, 2008), which was before the purported
assignment of defendant’s mortgage and note on January 30, 2009.
Therefore, we question whether Lehman’s designation of MERS as
its nominee remained in effect after Lehman filed its bankruptcy
petition, absent ratification of that designation by the
bankruptcy trustee. On remand, the trial court should address
the question whether MERS was still Lehman’s nominee as of the
date of its purported assignment of defendant’s note and
mortgage to plaintiff.