An assignment of mortgage but not the note

This is exactly what we try to warn the courts about. Nobody knows for sure who they are paying. It’s all a crap shoot. Make them all produce the note and record it or shut the hell up!

Justice League

Nothing has changed from the banksters. Still submitting fraudulent documents in the county recorder offices. Check this out. This is an email that I received from Virginia of Deadly Clear website. Thanks Virginia!:

Another one to follow – thought you’d find interesting.

Aloha, Virginia


Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Morell <>
Date: August 21, 2014 9:08:58 AM HST
To: Tim Morell <>
Subject: assignment of mortgage but not the note…

Here is a not your typical MERS type assignment of mortgage.  This is a situation where Citimortgage originally was the holder of the note and filed suit for foreclosure in 2013. The borrower got a successful modification. He started the process with Citi, but Citi advised him that a new servicer would be taking over: FIC Lender Services LLC.

One thing led to another and the client received copies of assignments of…

View original post 84 more words

1 thought on “An assignment of mortgage but not the note

  1. The below is taken from the opening salvo, er, umm, Petitioner’s Motion For Discretionary Review in Lemelson v Northwest Trustee Services. Specifically it comes from footnote 8, at the bottom pages 3 and 4. There is more to this motion worthy of a good read, but this one is a real gem, and relevent here.

    “The rule in Washington is ‘the one presuming to make the payment thereon still has the burden of showing specific authority of the other to receive it, or else that he has been represented by the owner and holder of the security to have such authority.’ Ross v. Johnson, 171 Wash. 658, 664-65,19 P.2d 101 (1933). The justification for this rule is that under the equitable doctrine of ‘comparative innocence’ the one who pays the money out is in the best position to avoid paying the wrong entity. Compare, Von Normann v. Woodson, 182 Wash. 271,46 P.2d 1050 (1935); Ross v. Johnson, 171 Wash. 658, 19 P.2d 101(1933); Nichols v. McDougal, 175 Wash. 536, 27 P.2d 699 (1933); Bjorkstam v. Federal Land Bank, 138 Wash. 456,244 P. 981 (1926).”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s