“Where’s The Note” Update

SEIU or not, here is a status update from Where’s The Note, as the recently launched campaign to request proof of mortgage note existence approaches the 20 day limit by law within which banks have to respond to all properly-submitted verification claims.

Heard Anything?

When news broke that Wall Street had made a total mess of our mortgages, we launched a website that let homeowners ask their bank a simple question: where’s my mortgage note?

By law, banks had 20 days to respond to your request. We’re coming up on 20 days – can you give us a few minutes to tell us what you’ve heard? Click the appropriate link:

We’ve already started to hear back from some of the 200,000 homeowners that have gone to our site. So far, the responses are troubling.

Some banks claim they have no idea where the note is. Others have sent what they claim is the note, but closer inspection shows that it’s a completely different document.

But, the most troubling of all is the response that many homeowners have gotten from Bank of America. They’re telling customers they have no legal right to see their own note. Think about how absurd that is; your mortgage note is a contract you signed with your bank – and they’re telling you that you can’t see it?

Did your bank give you a similar response? Click here to alert your state attorney general:http://action.seiu.org/page/s/investigate

We aren’t going to get to the bottom of Wall Street’s mess overnight. But step one is alerting the authorities if your bank fails to honor your request in a way that you think is acceptable. And if there’s any hint of possible fraud, it needs to be investigated immediately.

I’ll send you another update once we hear back from other homeowners in the same boat as you. If we’re going to keep paying thousands of dollars to these banks, we have every right to demand some shred of accountability from them.

See this:  http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/a-survey-of-cases-mers/

Excerpt:

A must read, covers all MERS litigation to date.

….Parties seeking relief from stay must be aware that by presenting a motion to the Court, they represent that the “allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support...[.]” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(3). The Movant was unable to provide evidentiary support for its allegations when called upon to do so. It is the claimant’s burden to bring information regarding the relationships between the parties to the Court. “If the claimant is the original lender, the claimant can meet its burden by introducing evidence as to the original loan. If the claimant acquired the note and mortgage… the claimant can meet its burden through evidence that traces the loan from the original lender to the claimant. A claimant who is the servicer must, in addition to establishing the rights of the holder,identify itself as an authorized agent for the holder.”Compliance with these rules is not difficult and this Court will require it in order to preserve the rights of debtors. Any motion filed with the Court must be true and have support as of the date of the motion…. [A] movant cannot state that it is the “current holder” of an instrument if it is not.146

None found.
This entry was posted in Common Law and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.