Robo-witness and Robo-Testimony Shot Down by Fl 4th DCA

Dec 7, 2015

Sanchez v. SunTrust Bank | FL 4DCA – Robo-Witness disemboweled | The the fact that a witness employed all the “magic words” of the exception does not necessarily mean that the document is admissible as a business record

=====================================

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This article is no substitute for a legal opinion from a competent attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property or transaction is located.

======================================

In the never-ending quest to substitute faulty presumptions for fact, the banks have settled on sending people to court with absolutely no knowledge of their own. Hence they cannot be accused of lying.

These robo-witnesses routinely spout robo-testimony stating the magic words. Yes they are familiar with the books and records, yes the entries were made at or near the time of the transaction etc.

But the truth is they have no idea what transactions, if any, were done by, much less recorded by, their employer. And the the second truth is that their employer is most likely to be a “servicer” who has not “serviced” the account — ever. The “new” servicer gets its authority from an unnamed instrument, perhaps a power of attorney, from another “servicer” whose power is derived from the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, of a Trust that never purchased the loan, note or mortgage — which means that the “original servicer” had no right to be servicing the loan and the Trust had no right to be referred to as the Plaintiff or beneficiary, depending upon whether you are in a judicial state or non-judicial state.

When the courts were presuming that the loans were real, they always started off their opinions with the idea that the homeowner took a loan from someone in the chain of the party who is asserting the right to collect and foreclose.

In this case, the Florida 4th DCA makes a subtle but profound change. It recites not that a loan was made but that documents were executed — and that makes all the difference in the world.

Sonia J. Sanchez and Hector L. Sanchez (“appellants”) appeal the trial
court’s final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Suntrust Bank (“appellee”).
They argue that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain documents into evidence under the business records exception. These documents include: a screenshot of a computerized record keeping system; the payment history; two default letters; the collection notes; and a payoff calculation. We agree with appellants and reverse.

Appellants executed a promissory note and mortgage with Suntrust
Mortgage LLC (“Suntrust Mortgage”), a wholly owned subsidiary of
appellee and the servicer of appellants’ loan, in June 2006. In January
2010 appellee filed its initial complaint, but failed to attach the note.
Later, in May 2010, appellee filed the original note which contained an undated, blank endorsement from Suntrust Mortgage.

– See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/11/26/sanchez-v-suntrust-bank-fl-4dca-robo-witness-disemboweled-the-the-fact-that-a-witness-employed-all-the-magic-words-of-the-exception-does-not-necessarily-mean-that-the-document/#sthash.u578fg3G.dpuf