AHMSI directs a company called DOCX/LPS to initiate foreclosures. LPS has an office in Alpharetta georgia where Assignments of Mortgage and Releases of Mortgage are "created". The kids there sign on behalf of many companies [see Judge Schack's ruling in New York ]. More improbable is that the signatures of the same signers often vary dramatically from one day to the next—but are always notarized. This implies that at least some of the assignments are no more legal than toilet paper that was scribbled on by kindergarden kids. However, these documents are sent across the country to "partnering" law firm-collection agencies where more kids with law degrees churn out one page foreclosure complaints. Attached is a "copy" of homeowner promissory note, a copy of the mortgage on file in the county, along with the "created" assignment of mortgage to a trust or other entity that you never heard of that now purports to own your note and mortgage —based on the kids' "created" toilet paper document. The documents usually have the following statement "Prepared by Ron Meharg" who was DOCX Cheif Compliance Officer. This creates the appearance that the document was prepared by an atty and under his supervision—guess again!
This document goes to the local state partnering collection agency-law firm that also sends collection warnings, and is attached to the complaint as the only evidence of connection between the foreign trust and you the homeowner. The collection agency files a copy of the toilet paper with the local couny title office where it gets stamped "recorded". This file stamped toilet paper is then attached to the complaint. The complaint is again file stamped by the local court and "served" on the unsuspecting homeowner. Unless the homeowner pays an atty to unravel this —and they know about the LPS document "creation" aspect, the court will rule that the toilet paper is a valid basis for throwing the homeowner in the street and getting a deficiency judgment.in one case in Ohio involving other collectors a person was defending a foreclosure because no original note was offered up. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS A SECOND PURPORTED NOTEHOLDER also filed a demand for payment. If these guys are going to create critical documents that are really toilet paper, then it is absolutely incumbent on defendants to demand their right to see the blue ink original note, or be subject to multiple claims. Also many of the notes were allegedly procured by predatory means—illusory teaser rates, strange appraisals, failed disclosures at closing etc etc. Now if the lender or an accomplice continues to hold the note then they are pretty much like Jesse James pointing a gun at you and demanding you sign a check in favor of Jesse. Jesse then turns it over to Frank who held the reins during the holdup, and then Frank demands later that you ay on the check—no, not a holder in due course. The note they obtained from you was basically the fruit of the crime. Its a lot easier to get around ths problem if they wave a magic wand over the pile of paper and assert someone else is the noteholder—but if it is an accomplice after the fact &its still Frank demanding payment. See Ohio AG case against AHMSI filed a week ago.
0 comments