Robo-signing is no magic bullet

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Research and reporting on robo-signing is no substitute for the COMBO title and securitization search, report and analysis. It is a valuable adjunct to it. The COMBO provides the context in which the presence of robo-signing can be shown to be important — like a substitution of trustee in which the document is shown to be bogus. There, the COMBO report will show that the actions of the pretender were with full knowledge that they were not the creditor and that the document trail and the money trial go into multiple directions, none of which meet. All actions flowing from a false substitution of trustee (and there are many of them, if not most) are voidable if you properly object, keep the burden of proof on the pretender because you know the document cannot be authenticated. If the Judge allows it in anyway then you must bring evidence into court that will destroy the pretender’s prima facie case.

The confusion over robo-signing is causing some mistakes in court. By now there are many lists floating around the internet which name “people” whose name and “signature” have been affixed to legal documents upon which the pretender lenders rely in prosecuting foreclosures. Anyone offering you a magic escape hatch just because one of those robo-names comes up on a list or search is not aware of the court realities in the difference between information and evidence.

Start with the definition: Robo-signing is the act of unknown parties sitting around a table with a bunch of rubber stamps and pens. They receive instructions from the people who hired them as to which name to sign and what stamp to use. They forge the signature of the person whose name has been supplied by their employers, who in turn are working for the Wall Street Banks. Each person who signs a name does so in their own writing and many simply disguise their writing so the forgery is not traced to them.

Robo-signing is not the act of one person signing a lot of documents without reading them. It is the act of falsely presenting a person’s name who has no knowledge their signature is on any particular document.

When you go into court, pointing out the name of a person on the robo-list, you are inviting a dismissal of your claim. Without more, the signature on YOUR documents might be valid. The presumption, especially if it is notarized, is that the signature is valid. So simply identifying the presence of a person whose signature was robo-signed on OTHER documents doesn’t prove and is not evidence that the signature on YOUR documents is not genuine. Several people are making the error of assuming that the Judge will automatically accept the robo-list as evidence of the fabrication and forgery. Like the Banks, you need to lay a proper foundation for the evidence you want to submit with a live witness.

VOID AND VOIDABLE: There is a huge difference between the two. Most lay people regard a robo-signed document as void, and indeed the judge might so decide — but only because all the facts showed that the foundation for authenticity of the document was lacking merit. THAT is an example of a voidable document — i.e., a document whose effect will or might be considered legal in the absence of a successful challenge to the document. Void documents are rare. Those are documents that, under the law of the jurisdiction in which they were found, are declared void on their face because of some defect apparent on the face of the instrument. Even a law that says a document is void usually means that you must challenge it, which procedurally makes it voidable, not void. A void document is one in which any judge or even a clerk would ignore and refuse to consider or record.

The witness must have personal knowledge, under oath, or an expert opinion that will stand up in court. The piece that is missing is the laborious task of digging up not only 18 different signatures attributable to one person, but also the task of showing a signature that has a Presumption of authenticity like the signature affixed to the named person’s own mortgage or other public document. Then you could say to the Judge that you have a signature of Linda Green on the mortgage she has, and that it does not match any of the signatures you found on 18 other documents, INCLUDING THE ONE IN YOUR CASE.

IT IS ONLY WITH THE ADMISSION OF REAL EVIDENCE THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE OR APPELLATE COURT WILL SEE A RECORD OF PROOF SUPPORTING YOUR ALLEGATIONS. A LIST FROM ANOTHER STATE DOESN’T PROVE YOUR CASE. THE PERSON MIGHT HAVE STARTED BY ACTUALLY SIGNING DOCUMENTS AND THEN IT MORPHED INTO DOZENS OF OTHER PEOPLE SIGNING HER NAME. WITHOUT PROOF, THE ANSWER IS MERE SPECULATION AND WILL WORK AGAINST YOU IN COURT.

Then you have the issue of what does this mean, assuming you prove the likelihood of fabrication and/or forgery? You just understand and have a competent report from analyst that traces the chain of title to the property and traces the chain of title to the alleged loan and then traces the money trail in order to show that the securitization of this loan was a faked. Only then if you have made your case regarding the failure of the securitization parties to legally transfer the obligation and legally document the obligation with a legally binding note — only then can you attack the issue of whether the lien was legally perfected or if it is fatally defective.

A statement from an incompetent expert  whose credentials cannot withstand cross examination or some other self proclaimed expert or analyst will not be given any weight at all in the proceedings and will likely not be admitted into evidence, a decision that the appellate court is likely to affirm. This is how we reach “bad law” decisions because the litigant, the lawyer or the service provider giving the information has only provided information, not evidence. Additional statements from the service provider that a document is void is not necessarily correct. each state varies, which is why you need to check with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

Robo-signing is most probably an illegal, even criminal act depending upon which state the property is located in. But the existence of robo-signing, even if you find that your documents show the name of someone whose name was used in robo-signing does not prove they did not sign it. Each case has its own evidence. The litigant and their attorney must be prepared to offer the document into evidence along with testimony in which the credibility and authenticity of the document is cast into doubt. Some judges who are already disposed to ruling for the borrower might be more lenient than others.

But it is still true that most judges are not predisposed in favor of borrowers and that they will certainly apply the rules and laws of evidence very strictly, particularly strict adherence to the laws of evidence is the argument that got you to the point that the authenticity of the signature, notary and witnesses is a question of fact, requiring an evidentiary hearing. when it comes down to it, the party who dug up the list of robo-signers is NOT going to be able to defend a statement that the document is void or even that ti was forged or fabricated. This is because the researcher is not an expert in title, not a lawyer and not possessed with any personal knowledge cornering the signature on the document in question.

That said, the work of these researchers is invaluable because it points the way for the litigant and their lawyer to ask questions in discovery, if you can get that far. In most cases, making assumptions from the information you have can, with the help of properly worded discovery requests, convert that information into evidence. You must realize that the mere report does not relieve you of the burden of proving your case.

Research and reporting on robo-signing is no substitute for the COMBO title and securitization search, report and analysis. It is a valuable adjunct to it. The COMBO provides the context in which the presence of robo-signing can be shown to be important — like a substitution of trustee in which the document is shown to be bogus. There, the COMBO report will show that the actions of the pretender were with full knowledge that they were not the creditor and that the document trail and the money trial go into multiple directions, none of which meet. All actions flowing from a false substitution of trustee (and there are many of them, if not most) are voidable if you properly object, keep the burden of proof on the pretender because you know the document cannot be authenticated. If the Judge allows it in anyway then you must bring evidence into court that will destroy the pretender’s prima facie case.

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, discovery, evidence, fabrication, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, forgery, fraud, information, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, robo, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |