Promissory Note Fraud

Many times the endorsement on a promissory note is fraudulent. It takes a careful eye to catch it. Look at this endorsement in blank from Bravo Credit. When an endorsement is like this in blank, the note becomes a bearer note and who ever holds it owns the debt. Many lawyers do not want to produce the note because the endorsement (s) are copied on the note way down the chain of holders in due course and are not real signatures. When a lawyer for the plaintiff in a foreclosure knows or suspects the endorsement is invalid, they will seek the plaintiff to acquire an assignment of mortgage and include in it the promissory note. In this manner they do not have to PRODUCE THE NOTE.

Well check the endorsement of the note above. You can see it was Photo Shopped and then copied on the back of a note.  It is not an original stamped and sign endorsement.  In this endorsement, Bravo Credit is the lender and note holder. Why is it important to check the original note for these endorsements?  It is because this endorsement is not original. It is copied on the back of the note. The signature is not in ink. This kind of endorsement is not valid for foreclosure. Any plaintiff who presents this kind of note will likely not be ruled to have standing to foreclose.

When a note is not perfected, and the plaintiff knows there are legal problems, they will attempt to get a backdated Assignment of Mortgage.  MERS has been backdating these Assignments for years. They have been doing this fraud and getting by because few defendants know how to depose them and include them in countersuits under the Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act. If an assignment is presented into the record, the defendant should still press to see the original note. The reason is to check the endorsement on the back to make sure it is real and not a Photo Shop copy. If the note is not properly endorsed, any assignment entered into the record must then have a chain of assignments all the way back to the original lender.  If there is no chain of Assignments the defendant should move to have the case dismissed.

The original lender may nominate MERS to be nominee for the mortgage but there is no nominee language to MERS on any promissory note I have seen.  So, while MERS may be nominee for the mortgage they are not nominee for the assignment of the note.

It is possible that if MERS assigns the mortgage with no authority to assign the note, they may have split the mortgage and the note and make them both unenforceable. These may be a cloud on the title and an action to quiet title later on down the road may be the way to clear this all up.

Make MERS produce a legal document allowing them to act as nominee for assignment of the promissory note.

In the case of any assignment, have a forensic done on it and check it out for any defective or possible fraudulent signatures including the notary signature. Any document even if notarized that is fraudulent is considered un-notarized according to Florida Notary law.  In this case, the Assignment would be invalid if the notary signature, commission date, and the signature being acknowledged is false.

In the case of U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee ET AL v Ernest Harpster; Pasco County, Florida: Case No. 51-2007-CA-6684ES, presiding judge Lynn Tepper granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice because the plaintiff tried to introduce a fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage created by MERS. The judge as a sanction prohibited the plaintiff from presenting the alleged promissory note to the court (March 25, 2010).

Hillsborough County Pro-Se Litigant