An Example Of Bank Of America Refusing To Provide An Original Mortgage Note

Tyler Durden's picture

Two months ago, there were a variety of campaigns launched to get the mass public to demand from their bank an original, wet ink signature note for their mortgage. Many of these fizzled out. That said, we would like to present one instance of Bank of America responding negatively to just such a demand by a Zero Hedge reader, in which the bank's Home Loans unit outright refuses to provide the requested information hiding behind a lack of affirmative responsibility. Specifically, the response from the Qualified Written Request Group notes: "you cite no legal authority that supports your claim that you are entitled to view the original Note, and we are not aware of the existence of any such authority. Accordingly BAC Home Loans respectfully declines this request. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please provide such legal authority." In other words, banks continue to hide behind a legal defense that ultimately involves the jurisdiction of various (if not all) state attorneys general. In the meantime, odds are (99%) that the bank has absolutely no copy of the original and should the reader proceed to default (in a judicial state), the bank will likely ultimately be forced to give up its claim on the mortgage. And one wonders why the TBTF banks (especially BofA, Wells and JPM) are doing all they can to promptly bring the AGs under their fold (regardless of "cost") before all hell breaks loose should the required "legal authority" be provided through case law.


We urge readers who have received comparable responses from their bank, to submitted a properly redacted response to us, following which we will compile all the responses and send them to all highly corrupt legal authorities in very public fashion.

Additionally, for those to whom this is insufficient, here is a form letter (note: prepared by the SEIU) addressed to the appropriate just as corrupt Attorney General - link. Should readers not wish to provide their information to the SEIU's database, we are confident there are enough form letters floating in the Internet to make this a simple task.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
prophet's picture

Chase and military service member issues!  and their home page promoting their special services.

Pladizow's picture

Anybody done any serious research on



Malcolm Tucker's picture

Here is a Chilean telling David Rockefeller that he's not welcome in Chile:

Maybe it has something to do with the alleged Pinochet collaborator who gets in the car with him!

TruthInSunshine's picture

The Mortgage Bankers Association strategically defaulted on their own mortgage, of an office building in D.C., because they were able to rent for 1/3 the cost of the monthly mortgage payment down the street in a similar building...

...this is after they had a run a national TV Ad campaign about how strategically defaulting was unethical.



Daily Show: Cenac - Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default The Mortgage Bankers Association strategically defaults on its loan after shaming homeowners who do the same.

Precious's picture

All you people with mortgages. Tell BofA no problem.  

But for your next payment, just send them a copy of your fucking check and tell them to eat shit.

Triggernometry's picture

Or perhaps send in a letter questioning BoA's legal authority in servicing a mortgage for which they don't have a wet ink note. The letter should be well spoken, calm, and polite in reminding the bank they stand to lose from lack of legal authority, not you. Remember to throw in a "dictated but not read" at the end, just to fuck with them.

Fuck Wank of America

Everyman's picture

Well played Precious.

"my Precious"

nmewn's picture

They might send back a picture of a cardboard box...LOL.

I would say attack it under the seventh amendment...but with all the assaults on the Bill of Rights there is a ten day waiting period now with a background check...and you can only bring so many suits within thirty days...and then there is the amounts of the mortgage, because no one really needs a 600K dollar mortgage ;-)

TruthInSunshine's picture

In almost every jurisdiction, it is required that original documents be furnished in order to prosecute a legal claim, and only in relatively rare instances do courts allow photocopied or reproduced instruments to be used. But I am confident that Bank of America's attorneys fully know this, yet hope as few people as possible realize it.

TruthInSunshine's picture

See, everyone, the proof is in the pudding.

Thanks for posting that article.

"Loans from 05, 06 and 07 are being put back to the bank."

If anything, that Bloomberg article soft sells the scope of the crisis for banks and mortgage originators; that paper could have been originated in years well before 05, 06 or 07, and it would have been sold during the great mortgage bundle stuffing and MERS explosion upon hungry investor pools during the great credit boom spawned by the real estate boom and agents and re-agents like Goldman and Morgan from 2004 to 2007, where trillions in mortgages were sold and run through 'electronic intermediaries' or other conduits, with original paperwork being lost, ostensibly forever.

The shit hasn't even hit the fan yet.

Dr. Porkchop's picture

Show me the note, motherfucker!

Pladizow's picture

There must be some legal standing to see the original note, right?

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Often, there is one difference between the original, un-photocopied/scanned contract and all other copies: the existence of possible high-lighting by the mortgage officer.  These neon yellow marks would only be visible on the original paper, which is the exact copy that you are looking for. They are invisible when photocopied and/or scanned. 

So now you need to create a case that would require the need to see if the original paper was high-lighted, something that none of the other scanned copies would reveal.

You or your lawyer would argue that the mortgage officer had 100+ documents requiring 200+ signatures, and all of them were high-lighted.  You were told to "just follow the high-lights," as the pages were just continually flipped in front of you.  Not only were pages not thoroughly detailed for you, but the high-lights distracted your eye from the "truth in lending" information.  You were "led".

Furthermore, the reason that BofA sent you your payment history is to create a case of "if there was fraud, why did you make all these payments?"

To that, you reply:  I knew the monthly payments, but I did not understand how all the payments added up which is detailed in the "truth in lending section" - something that was never reviewed with me. I'm not a contract lawyer, so I was just doing what I was being told, "follow the high-lights".  Sometimes one doesn't know they've been defrauded until after it happens, you mother fuckers!



Precious's picture

Q: "If there was fraud, why did you make all these payments?"


A: "Listen you lifeless, minimum wage turd, you're lucky I'm even talking to a mindless troll like you.  But to give you an honest answer, I JUST DISCOVERED THE FRAUD, YOU FUCKING NUMBNUTS ! "

MachoMan's picture

Fraudulent concealment is a fairly difficult standard in many jurisdictions.  Essentially, you cannot continue to make payments and never ask for the note...  and then some years later say, I WANNA SEE THE NOTE NOW DAMNIT!  I'VE BEEN DEFRAUDED?!?  In other words, you should have been provided a copy of the note at closing...  and a copy is likely available from the closing company...  you've had years to read the document you signed and file a suit to correct it.  You slumbered on your rights...  that is not fraudulent concealment.

If you possess the reasonable means to discover a fraud, you have an affirmative duty to utilize those means to uncover the fraud or else waive your right to contest it.

Now, whether or not you may see/contest an assignment of the note is likely governed by the terms and conditions stated in your original note (and other law)..  and, further, making payments after you have been notified of an assignment is tantamount to waiver...  if you wanted to contest an assignment, that you knew about (they usually send letters and tell you who differently to start paying), then you should have done that before you started sending payments...

Further, fraudulent concealment is only a device for getting past the statute of limitations...  often times, depending on when you consummated the transaction, you're not going to be past the time in which you can still file a myriad of lawsuits (e.g. breach of contract, fraud, etc.).  Also, some types of action, e.g. equitable, really have no formal period of limitations... 

The proper angle, I think, is per the ibanez case...  tackle the issue of clear title, not the right of the servicer to collect payments...  they are intertwined and likely one in the same, in the end, but you have likely waived one...  opt for plan b and keep trudging.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

You make valid points, however let me add/ask a few things.

So many of these mortgages were unconventional ones, where the terms change quite dramatically three or five years after the signing; a contract that changes terms after a period of time should weaken the "why did you wait so long?" defense.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that you had no reason to believe you had been defrauded for the years leading up to the "reset". Once the reset occurred, that is when you had discovered that the terms where not what you had originally believed.  The payment made after the "reset" were in good faith until you figured out what your rights were.  Of course, this is assuming that the mortgage in question is an adjustable one, but it appears that millions of the foreclosed houses were.

Secondly, adjustable rate or not, if the bank takes the position that you've argued wouldn't their defense be severely weakened by the fact they can't/won't produce the original paper in question?  If all the cards are on the table, the borrower may have the weaker hand; but if the one card missing from the table is the exact document in question, I believe that blows a fairly significant hole through BofA's defense.  All the scanned/photocopied documents aren't sufficient in this case, since the high-lighted marks are invisible on scanned copies.  This is an argument where the original paper is the only document sufficient in this claim.


MachoMan's picture

First, no.  Whether you refuse to read a contract you signed today, tomorrow, or five years from now is likely of little effect.  Your reason to believe you have been defrauded is that you did not know what your contract stated...  however, refusing to read the document and, further, slumbering on any right to read the document/make any effort to see it while making payments for years, is likely going to get the court's foot planted squarely in your behind.  If the statute of limitations has not run, then file your claim...  but concealment has not occurred...

Second, it depends on the action.  If the bank is foreclosing and the jurisdiction requires the original to foreclose (generally they do not and, if they do, there are alternative measures to implement if the original has been lost), then it may be an issue.  However, if you are proactively seeking to rid yourself of any liens on your property and/or your note, then a copy should suffice.  In other words, the enforcement of the note is a separate issue from whether foreclosure may be pursued.  As a result, whether or not the servicer can cough up the original is likely of differing concern to the court.

The biggest issue in the robostamping scandal is that they refused to utilize already available mechanisms in the court system to achieve their intended goals.  In short, they simply tried to push through foreclosures, without the requisite formalities, rather than take a longer path they brought upon themselves...  there are a myriad of ways they can still foreclose prospectively...  but, given their apparently review of the matter, it is cost prohibitive or they are simply rolling the dice...  who knows.  However, there are legal avenues to which they can still operate...  in other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat (zombie).  [zombie cannabalism].

Further, it is the Plaintiff's job to prove his case.  If he claims there is a highlighted document out there, but the Defendant refuses to produce it/says it does not exist/etc., then the Plaintiff is going to have a hard time proving it.  There may be a presumption against the Defendant in the event the evidence is deemed to be withheld, etc., but that's probably a coin toss.  Here, the homeowner would be caught in the same trap the banks are as plaintiffs in foreclosure actions...  in essence, they do not have the documents to prove their claims, respectively, as brought, unless patently against truth in lending, etc.

If someone called me and said they thought they were the victim of fraud, under these circumstances, I would not likely take the case on contingency...  maybe if we got a slamdunk statutory violation...  but on fraud, etc., I wouldn't touch it.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Fraud can only be waived, if ever, via failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in responsive pleadings, through the appropriate statute of limitations, or via an affirmative act by the party alleging it which furthers or assists the fraud.

I'm not quite certain how you're arriving at your conclusion that fraud is somehow magically negated, because a party to a fraud has an affirmative duty to immediately (and I'll paraphrase)  do something about a fraud perpetuated as soon as discovery of said fraud takes places.

I suppose this argument would be better suited if one were to use the 'at a point when a reasonably prudent person' should have discovered a fraud/act, and then, in the context of mitigation of damages.

MachoMan's picture

you need to actually read what I wrote...  I was talking about fraudulent concealment, not fraud...  big difference.  Fraud has a statute of limitations, just like about everything else, and it has not been tolled by this issue.  That was my point.  The signer of the note has always been privy to its contents...

here is an excerpt:

Further, fraudulent concealment is only a device for getting past the statute of limitations...  often times, depending on when you consummated the transaction, you're not going to be past the time in which you can still file a myriad of lawsuits (e.g. breach of contract, fraud, etc.).  Also, some types of action, e.g. equitable, really have no formal period of limitations...

In short, they might have been defrauded (only way of proving is through parol evidence, i.e. long shot), but the sol on fraud is running.  Fish or cut bait.


TruthInSunshine's picture

How is parol evidence the "only" way to prove fraud? Discovery can be taken which pinpoints the time of a fraudulent act by deeds (pun intended? I don't know, but it works).

More importantly, the point of fraud in this case is arguably when the party receiving mortgage payments receives each and every payment, or when representing, implicitly or at least expressly that it holds the mortgage in a bona fide fashion, despite not holding the actual mortgage as a secured asset and instrument, and not at the point of origination of the mortgage.

Finally, every jurisdiction that I'm aware of has a 'discovery rule' on fraud, which at least extends the time to file a legal suit premised on any count sounding in fraud (in some jurisdictions, by a minimum of 2 years from discovery with a caveat of no more than 10 years from the actual act of fraud, or something similar), and in many jurisdictions, it tolls the statute of limitation until actual discovery of the fraud takes place.

MachoMan's picture

I find the best way to have a discussion is to not presume the other side is an idiot.  In this sense, my comments on parol evidence must be put into the context of the facts at hand and the scenario premised...  once you do this, I think you'll get your answer.  In short, it was not a universal statement.

The person accepting payments merely represents they are the servicer of the loan.  It is not fraud if the party collecting payment ensures that the payments are applied to the right party.  Further, we have to differentiate between recording requirements for liens on real property and the assignment of notes...  the former is, generally speaking, much more rigid and unforgiving.  The assignment of a note may very well be valid, while at the same time invalidating the mortgage or, alternatively, rendering it unenforceable.  In short, proving the loan servicer had the intent to defraud is going to be a stretch, especially considering nothing in any of the cases or other matters in our discussion that the payments received by the servicer have not been applied to the homeowner's balance.  In other words, the servicer would be faced with fraud only to the extent it refused to indemnify the homeowner for the payments the servicer has received.  In other words, the servicer, in our example, is doing what a servicer should do and it appears the homeowner is receiving credit for the payments....  damages, among other things, are a prerequisite for fraud.

The discovery rule on fraud requires the party proclaiming a tolling of the statute of limitations to have undertaken reasonable efforts to uncover the fraud.  Refusing to read the contract you sign is NOT reasonable.  This is why statutory schemes, such as truth in lending, were required to fill in the gap...  In short, issues about variable rate mortgages, etc., are being time barred daily...  Further, in the event a new servicer proclaims its status and you continue paying said servicer for a number of months without contesting its status, I have serious reservations about the validity of a fraud claim.  I would think waiver/ratification would be at the forefront of any reasonable defense attorney's arsenal.  Just because it becomes the popular thing to do and other people have discovered the issues with assignment, doesn't mean that you have acted reasonably with respect to your servicer and enforcing your rights and they may be time barred...

Here is a chart on states' respective discovery rules...  At first blush, I think your numbers are exagerrated.  

TruthInSunshine's picture

As a friend and very sharp mentor once told me, after I had written a treatise on a subject that could have been effectively dealt with in a sentence or two, "you are greatly complicating this matter unnecessarily."

There is no affirmative duty to look for and root out particular acts of fraud in order to have either a defense or affirmative legal claim. In all but the most egregious cases of something akin to blatant fraud in the inducement, fraudulent acts could very well be stealthy and lied dormant and unknown to even the most prudent of people.

With that said, this mortgage issue between mortgagee/servicer and mortgagor is being derailed by discussion of fraud. Fraud isn't a necessary element to prove with respect to either defenses or affirmative claims in mortgage foreclosure proceedings or title actions where the original mortgage can't be produced in open court.

What is far more central are issues of title, recordation and assignment, all done in proper, legal conformance with statutes and other authority under state law.

And that's where any entity professing that is holds title to any real property, but that can't produce an original instrument evidencing proof of ownership, and that can't, on top of this, show that it properly and duly recorded same in a manner prescribed by law, will run into problems.

Talk of fraud is a detour on the road construing the real issues of Fraudclosure.

MachoMan's picture

Although I have already stated most of this myself above, the issue is not that simple.  Overturning a foreclosure judgment, in general, is going to require fraud upon the court to have occurred, thus making the order void ab initio, thereby releasing the requirement of showing a meritorious defense by moving party (I could have paid my mortgage, I swear).

Fraud in executing the loan documents in the first place is water under the bridge.  My guess is that folks have slumbered on their rights and are time barred for the most part.  Presuming it is fraud that is even the cause of action, as opposed to a truth in lending or other cause.

You claim that there is no affirmative duty to look for and root out particular acts of fraud, but this is not remotely being objective about the issue.  One of the requirements for someone alledging fraud is that they must prove their reliance was reasonable under the circumstances.  In this case, that means actually reading the note...  or, alternative, in the case of an assignment of the note, it means asking the servicer to show you the documents of assignment BEFORE you start paying the servicer. 

Yes, I completely agree that fraudulent acts can be stealthy and lie dormant...  hence the tolling of the statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment...  however, this concept has not been applied to the facts at hand...  where failure to do any due diligence and wander zombified and aimlessly through the world is nothing short of waiver/ratification.

In short, fraud is important in the analysis of the impact of fraudclosure, depending on the area of your analysis...  and most certainly spans material issues.

TruthInSunshine's picture


I do not understand your seeming obsession with fraud as it pertains to foreclosure issues du jour.

The only real issue that is relevant, and in almost all cases, central, as between mortgagors and those seeking judicial foreclosure is whether the mortgagee can provide the original mortgage to the trier of fact, that has been properly recorded, or not.

If not, whether because the mortgage was synthesized or assigned, in whole or part, to secondary purchaser of mortgage debt, and if an end run around traditional and proper recordation channels regarding mortgages were undertaken (including but not limited to the use of MERS), then there is a viable claim or defense on the part of the mortgagor that there is no standing to foreclose, because the party seeking foreclosure is not a bona fide owner of the note and therefore not a party in 'due course.'

Why would there have to be any showing of any fraud, period?

This is a simple title issue as between the party seeking foreclosure and the mortgagee/'homeowner.'

Is the term 'fraudclosure,' used widely in the media and across headlines, the reason you are insisting on a showing of fraud in any of these cases?

The issue of fraud has far more relevance in the context of the foreclosure crisis in terms of the chain of events as between mortgage sellers and mortgage investors/buyers, as the mortgage investors/buyers not able to foreclose on what were presented as securitized properties discover that without an original mortgage instrument in hand, their ability to foreclose on defaulted mortgages has been impeded.

MachoMan's picture

I dunno, I'm going to go out on a limb here...  this might seem outlandish to you...  but the posters we are replying to were discussing fraud...  I guess I'll try harder to insert a nonsequitor next time.

Further, we have to differentiate between those foreclosures that have already occurred and those that may prospectively occur...  in other words, in order to vacate the foreclosure judgment obtained against me, I need to show bank X perpetrated a ___________________ on the court.  For prospective foreclosures, there are many things the assignees can do to ensure they are capable of foreclosing, such as to conduct their own declaratory action prior to foreclosing to determine who the proper party to foreclose might be...  hence the fear regarding improperly handled foreclosures...  not so much with prospective foreclosures (although, they carry their own downsides, such as likely admitting to securities violations/fraud).

In addition, I'm not sure why you keep insisting on taking my statements out of context...  it's happened with multiple replies now...  each being pointed out along the way...  and, frankly, it's not helping to fruitfully progress the discussion.  For example, "I do not understand your seeming obsession with fraud as it pertains to foreclosure issues du jour."  In reply to "In short, fraud is important in the analysis of the impact of fraudclosure, depending on the area of your analysis".  Clearly, du jour if I've ever seen it...

Again, fraud is an important component of our analysis of the impact of fraudclosure...  it is not the only issue in which to analyze...  it is one of many, but depending on the area of your analysis, its materiality changes...  It is very material to some issues, not so much for others...  Fraudclosure is incredibly complex, multi faceted, and will take many, many years to litigate.  Ignoring fraud renders any macro analysis of the impact of fraudclosure near sighted at best.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Thank you for that civil response. I agree that many are focusing on the issue of fraud, whereas it may be a marginal issue in the grand scheme of things (although not completely irrelevant, as you point out), and I understand now why you were addressing it at such length (in response to so many comments about it).

Cheyenne's picture

My bank blew off my request as well, so I stopped paying my mortgage. I hope they call me requesting legal authority. I have a flechette gun of it.

After a few more months, I'll gamble the withheld payments in Vegas. I plan to send photos and movies to the bank to get its professional feedback on optimum dime super strategies.

traderjoe's picture

Buy silver, food, brass first...though I do understand your post was likely sarcastic...

Cheyenne's picture

I already took care of silver and food. No sarcasm. Totally serious. The bank is already out 12/10 and 1/11 mortgage payments.

I'll happily pay when it coughs up a color copy of the promissory note. Until that happens, fuck them.

traderjoe's picture

Oh, I'm totally with you. Was just remarking on the Vegas thing...

I think a wide-spread popular revolt from the banksters and their parasitic and fraudulent ways - ideally leading to a debt jubilee - is exactly what this country needs...

Cheyenne's picture

No joke there either. My pal John Fox is opening at the Trop's comedy club on Monday 4/25/11. We're working on the screenplay now.

We're driving from Chicago in a Winnebago with a film crew. I'm sick of the banks' shit.

MachoMan's picture

Depending on your jurisdiction, if you want to contest anything, you may need to pony up your note payments into the court's registry...  I'd be sure to have a sinking fund/reserve set up...  of course, if you lose, the prejudgment interest is likely more than anything you will make on the money...  unless you can beat 6%+.

guestpost's picture

i did show me the note too. got a letter from wachovia 3 weeks later asking for proof of insurance, which hasn't changed or lapsed, there was no follow through from US apethetic bitchez and robo signoing seemed to go they ignored me and i ignored them, nothing more.

cranky-old-geezer's picture

Banks with their above-the-law attitudes and screw-the-customer attitudes simply aren't going to do the right thing voluntarily. 

All they care about is money. So the only way to get their attention and motivate them to cooperate is withhold money from them.

Marc45's picture

I am so disappointed in this post.  They didn't refuse to show you the note, only to send you the original.  What is so wrong with a copy?  The post misleads this fact.  If the copy of the note is forged, then BAC is in a lot of trouble.  However, most people remember when they signed something as important as a home mortgage and can recognize their own signature.  I really don't see what the fuss is all about.

This whole idea of hiding behind a technicality so as to avoid paying your mortgage sucks worse than the giant squid that we all know and love.

I'm getting spammed offers from people offering to get me my house back without a mortgage, free and clear despite the fact that I do have a mortgage and I do pay it on time.  WTF is wrong with this one wants any responsibility and everyone wants everything.  You guys are just trying to manufacture a controversy.  I'm disappointed to say the least...

Boba Fiat's picture

You're misunderstanding the issue.  In my case they are able to show me that I took out a mortgage with Bank X (the original document signed at closing).  However, they CANNOT offer any proof that the note was legally transferred from Bank X to BoA.  Get it?  I want them to verify this, as I am sending them a shitload of money each month.  All they have to prove is that they legally own the note.


They won't give you an "original copy of the Note", but they fool you by offering a "copy of the original Note."  The former would be the current note; the latter is obsolete.  I already have a copy of the original note.  I want a copy of the Note with BoA's fingerprints on it.

traderjoe's picture

Eggsactly. A copy of the original note is worthless. You want a copy of the current and properly endorsed note. 

And they hide behind the concept of no legal standing. Why wouldn't/shouldn't a customer be able to verify that they are paying the proper party and that their payments are being appropriately credited? The burden of proof should rightfully rest with the party that holds the note - to show that they do in fact have a legal and appropriate claim on the asset. 

From Mish's blog - interesting reading...

Pladizow's picture

Those who say a copy is as good as the original are ignorant and have obviously not done their due diligence!

Dont bother with a response to these types of posts.

Marc45's picture

"I already have a copy of the original note.  I want a copy of the Note with BoA's fingerprints on it."


and this give you the option of not paying your mortgage?  I don't get why you feel so entitled to a free ride.  Actually I know why.  It's because the banks are very reluctant to foreclose and take the hit on their balance sheet.  You're just taking advantage of the situation (like the big banks are).  People will justify all sorts of behavior if it suits them, it's the self-righteous attitude that gets me.  I'm still disappointed because in the end an obligation is not being honored and the blame is being diverted.


BTW, if you don't believe they have proof the note was transferred, then why don't you continue making payments to the original holder?

JoeStocks's picture

Amen!! Marc I am with you on this. Too many freeloaders out there trying to game the system.

Marc45's picture

Thanks Joe!  I hate the big banks as much as anyone here.  I think BAC should have gone into receivership two years ago.  There are more than a lot of things wrong with the system.

I also think that two wrongs don't make a right.  I pay my debts.

traderjoe's picture

It's hard to tell if you are shilling for the banks, or perhaps just don't understand the situation. 

Several blogs have been all over this issue, including ZH a bit, but it hasn't been a huge focus. 

In a nutshell, if the note hasn't been properly transferred, particularly if a securitization trust has been involved (most likely), then the reality is that it would be difficult if not impossible to determine who is the actual legal owner of the note. This has vast implications for not just the 'deadbeats' but also the people currently paying on their notes. Essentially, the chain of title has been broken and any sale, payment, or other transaction is clouded. 

Simply paying the original note holder won't do it either. So who do you pay? And who caused the problem and all of the clouded titles? Was it the borrower? Or the BANKS? So the banks didn't properly perfect their claim to the notes? Long-standing property law says that this is their responsibility. The alternative is that anyone can make a claim on any asset. Good luck with that legal paradigm. 

So, if no one has clear title to your note, who do you pay? Can you ever sell your house? Hmmm...

Oh, and we haven't even touched on MERS... 

Misean's picture

OH I smell SHILL big time here. Remeber not long ago the bankster funded horseshit campaign to try and guilt people into paying their "debts". Note the last sanctimonious line from the bot tool that posted..."I pay my debts."

Not much else to say but bought and paid advertising from the squid. Pay it no mind.

Finally, just to nail this nonsence shut, if the company you are in debted with real property as collateral goes tits up, then the person claiming you owe them that debt must PROPERLY prove they are what they claim. Show me the note, I'll pay. Quite simple and orderly. It's a simply a contractual obligation...

Fred Hayek's picture

And here's a very interesting article from Denninger's site about how a condo owner in Utah had his lawyer file a motion to quiet title, essentially to resolve a question of uncertainty about the title for the condo unit.  Unfortunately for the banksters, there really wasn't anyone to notify.   MERS admitted that it doesn't actually have any fiduciary interest in the condo and the title companies cited in documents admitted they don't either.  Nor does the servicer.  The banks have so efficiently obscured the issue of ownership (in order to and in the process of avoiding paying recording fees among other goals) that there's no one to stand up on the side opposite the condo owner!!

TruthInSunshine's picture

Chain of title breaks @ MERS assignment point, which basically incentivises an entity or individual to seek ownership by adverse suit if there's positive equity, or as is more common now, dissavow liability if there's no or negative equity, if mortgagee can't produce the mortgage in original form.

MachoMan's picture

The awesome part is that you can just nonsuit your causes of action and likely not have to pay any attorney fees or anything else...  take out a grand or two, fire away with a lawsuit, and gamble they don't have their docs...