Friday, August 1, 2014

Part 1 – How to Challenge an Assignment of Mortgage | Deadly Clear

Have you ever wondered what the phrase “Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to mortgage” under BORROWER COVENANTS meant?

Glenn Augenstein, a seasoned researcher and expert witness in
foreclosure fraud, has taken the time to research the ancient word
“seisin” which gives us better insight into what the mortgage document
was meant to convey.

This two-part post is worth the read and education – and may give you
a new perspective on the intention of the documents and the necessity
to defend the title at all costs.

Part 1 – How to Challenge an Assignment of Mortgage

By Glenn Augenstein
We’ve seen
numerous times, in numerous cases, a Homeowner/borrower/defendant and
plaintiff (Homeowner) precluded from raising any issues relating to a
defective assignment Barroga Assignmentof
mortgage (AOM).  This language, or similar, is frequently uttered by
the court in a final order denying the Homeowner has standing to
challenge an assignment of mortgage, and also usually granting summary
judgment to plaintiff bank, “Defendant is not a party to the contract,
or a 3
rd party beneficiary, and therefore  has no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment.”

One case frequently cited by banks to support such rulings in the past three (3) years is Livonia Property Holdings, L.L.C., v. Farmington Road Holdings, L.L.C., 717 F.Supp.2d 724 (E.D.Mich. 2010),
stating “Borrower disputes the validity of the assignment documents on
several grounds outlined above. But, as a non-party to those documents,
it lacks standing to attack them.”

It is significant that the same court held differently two (2) years later in another case.  “It is true that the Livonia Properties
opinion contains the statement that “there is ample authority to
support the proposition that ‘a litigant who is not a party to an
assignment lacks standing to challenge that assignment, ‘” Livonia
Properties, 399 F. App’x at 102 (quoting
Livonia Properties Holdings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, LLC, 717 F.Supp.2d
724, 736-37 (E.D. Mich. 2010)); but when read carefully the case does
not stand for such a general and unqualified position. The Court
believes, therefore, that Livonia Properties
does not compel the conclusion that a foreclosure plaintiff can never
attack the foreclosure by challenging the validity of an underlying
Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F.Supp.2d 896 (E.D.Mich. 2012).

Banks aren’t nearly as quick (heh, heh) to wrap their arms around this counter holding.

Before making a mere layman’s attempt at providing answer(s) to
potential questions raised above I’d first like to cover a bit of
history in regard to conveyance of interests in, and ownership of, real
estate generally.  It is long standing, and well established, that
someone ALWAYS owns land, and that such ownership be a matter of public knowledge, of the public record.

Read more at 

Part 1 – How to Challenge an Assignment of Mortgage | Deadly Clear

No comments:

Post a Comment