LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT GOES DOWN IN FLAMES IN IOWA
Posted on July 16, 2011 by Neil Garfield
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEFEATED IN IOWA; TWO SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS IN NEVADA
July 14, 2011, 2 hours ago | Jeff Barnes
July 14, 2011
DECISIONS IN NEVADA
July 14, 2011, 2 hours ago | Jeff Barnes
July 14, 2011
An Iowa District Court has issued a 5-page Order denying Wells Fargo’s
(second) Motion for Summary Judgment. Wells Fargo had originally been
granted summary judgment against the borrower, who was pro se at the
time, in 2005 based upon a sworn affidavit that Wells Fargo was the
holder of the note. The borrower had filed an affidavit which stated
that she had spoken to Wells Fargo and was told that the “investor” on
her loan was Lehman. The case languished in an appellate posture and
was continued for various reasons.
(second) Motion for Summary Judgment. Wells Fargo had originally been
granted summary judgment against the borrower, who was pro se at the
time, in 2005 based upon a sworn affidavit that Wells Fargo was the
holder of the note. The borrower had filed an affidavit which stated
that she had spoken to Wells Fargo and was told that the “investor” on
her loan was Lehman. The case languished in an appellate posture and
was continued for various reasons.
Jeff Barnes, Esq. began representing the borrower in early 2010 with
local Iowa counsel Christine Sand, Esq., who immediately initiated
extensive discovery. The Court ordered Wells Fargo to submit an
original of the Note by July 20, 2010. The next day (after the time
for compliance with the Court’s Order had already passed), Wells Fargo
filed a Motion for additional time to comply with the Order, and a
Motion to Substitute Plaintiff which stated that pursuant to a
servicing agreement between Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers Bank FSB
that the holder of the note and mortgage was Lehman. The 2005 summary
judgment was thus vacated.
local Iowa counsel Christine Sand, Esq., who immediately initiated
extensive discovery. The Court ordered Wells Fargo to submit an
original of the Note by July 20, 2010. The next day (after the time
for compliance with the Court’s Order had already passed), Wells Fargo
filed a Motion for additional time to comply with the Order, and a
Motion to Substitute Plaintiff which stated that pursuant to a
servicing agreement between Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers Bank FSB
that the holder of the note and mortgage was Lehman. The 2005 summary
judgment was thus vacated.
Wells Fargo filed a “lost note affidavit” a month later on August 20,
2010 which the Court found did not disclose the specific facts in the
“record of account” which was reviewed by the Wells Fargo affiant upon
which she based her conclusion. On February 23, 2011, Wells Fargo
filed an Amended Foreclosure Petition alleging that Wells Fargo was
the owner and holder of the note and that Lehman Brothers Bank, Lehman
Brothers Holdings, and a securitized mortgage loan trust of which US
Bank was the “trustee” were added “for the purposes of quieting title
to subject property and to comply with” Iowa statutory law. The court
noted that it was unclear what form of relief was being sought with
the addition of these parties.
2010 which the Court found did not disclose the specific facts in the
“record of account” which was reviewed by the Wells Fargo affiant upon
which she based her conclusion. On February 23, 2011, Wells Fargo
filed an Amended Foreclosure Petition alleging that Wells Fargo was
the owner and holder of the note and that Lehman Brothers Bank, Lehman
Brothers Holdings, and a securitized mortgage loan trust of which US
Bank was the “trustee” were added “for the purposes of quieting title
to subject property and to comply with” Iowa statutory law. The court
noted that it was unclear what form of relief was being sought with
the addition of these parties.
Wells Fargo filed another affidavit executed by the same Wells Fargo
affiant who executed the “lost note” affidavit. This “new” affidavit
stated that the original note and mortgage were sent to Wells Fargo’s
prior counsel in November 2004 and were lost while in the custody of
said counsel. The Court again found that the affiant did not state the
facts upon which the affiant relied for her conclusions nor what parts
of the file she reviewed upon which she relied.
affiant who executed the “lost note” affidavit. This “new” affidavit
stated that the original note and mortgage were sent to Wells Fargo’s
prior counsel in November 2004 and were lost while in the custody of
said counsel. The Court again found that the affiant did not state the
facts upon which the affiant relied for her conclusions nor what parts
of the file she reviewed upon which she relied.
In its Reply to the borrower’s opposition (which is termed
“Resistance” in Iowa) to Wells Fargo’s second Motion for Summary
Judgment, Wells Fargo attached a copy of a lost note affidavit which
the Court stated was “purportedly” executed by Wells Fargo’s attorney
in 2005. Wells Fargo’s current counsel represented to the Court in its
Reply that Wells Fargo’s previous counsel filed a lost note affidavit
on March 28, 2005. The Court stated that it had reviewed both the
docket sheet and the court file and found no evidence that the
original of the alleged 2005 lost note affidavit was ever filed.
“Resistance” in Iowa) to Wells Fargo’s second Motion for Summary
Judgment, Wells Fargo attached a copy of a lost note affidavit which
the Court stated was “purportedly” executed by Wells Fargo’s attorney
in 2005. Wells Fargo’s current counsel represented to the Court in its
Reply that Wells Fargo’s previous counsel filed a lost note affidavit
on March 28, 2005. The Court stated that it had reviewed both the
docket sheet and the court file and found no evidence that the
original of the alleged 2005 lost note affidavit was ever filed.
Based on these matters, the Court found that there were factual issues
as to whether or not the note has been lost and whether the note has
been “transferred”, and denied summary judgment to Wells Fargo on its
foreclosure claim.
as to whether or not the note has been lost and whether the note has
been “transferred”, and denied summary judgment to Wells Fargo on its
foreclosure claim.
Our question to Wells Fargo is, were you lying then or are you lying
now? Round and around and around we go, and where Wells Fargo and its
attorneys will stop, nobody knows! Note, note, who has the note?
Lehman? Lehman Holdings? The USBank securitization? None of the above?
now? Round and around and around we go, and where Wells Fargo and its
attorneys will stop, nobody knows! Note, note, who has the note?
Lehman? Lehman Holdings? The USBank securitization? None of the above?
Separately, the Supreme Court of Nevada issued two opinions on July 7,
2011 which finally compel foreclosing parties in Nevada to produce
material documentation as to chain of title to the Note and Deed of
Trust in order to be permitted to continue with a foreclosure action
when mediation is requested. in Leyva v. National Default Servicing et
al., No. 55216, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 40, the Supreme Court held
that strict compliance is required with Nevada statutes governing the
production of certain documents including any assignment of the Deed
of Trust; that a foreclosing party’s failure to do so “is a
sanctionable offense; and the district court is prohibited from
allowing the foreclosure process to proceed”. Wells Fargo was also the
culprit in this case.
2011 which finally compel foreclosing parties in Nevada to produce
material documentation as to chain of title to the Note and Deed of
Trust in order to be permitted to continue with a foreclosure action
when mediation is requested. in Leyva v. National Default Servicing et
al., No. 55216, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 40, the Supreme Court held
that strict compliance is required with Nevada statutes governing the
production of certain documents including any assignment of the Deed
of Trust; that a foreclosing party’s failure to do so “is a
sanctionable offense; and the district court is prohibited from
allowing the foreclosure process to proceed”. Wells Fargo was also the
culprit in this case.
Significantly, in discussing the transfer of the Note, the Supreme
Court of Nevada cited to the recent In Re Veal decision from the 9th
Circuit Bankruptcy Appeals Panel (which was previously discussed on
this website), holding that the borrower “has the right to know the
identity of the entity that is ‘entitled to enforce’ the mortgage note
under Article 3 (of the Uniform Commercial Code).” The Court concluded
that Article 3 “clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than
mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a
negotiable instrument”. The court found that there was no endorsement
and no assignment, and reversed the District Court.
Court of Nevada cited to the recent In Re Veal decision from the 9th
Circuit Bankruptcy Appeals Panel (which was previously discussed on
this website), holding that the borrower “has the right to know the
identity of the entity that is ‘entitled to enforce’ the mortgage note
under Article 3 (of the Uniform Commercial Code).” The Court concluded
that Article 3 “clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than
mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a
negotiable instrument”. The court found that there was no endorsement
and no assignment, and reversed the District Court.
The opinion in Leyva cited to the Court’s opinion in Pasillas v. HSBC
Bank as Trustee, No. 56393, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 39 (also decided
July 7, 2011), which also reversed the District Court and also cited
to Veal , setting forth the requirements for production of evidence of
chain of title to the note and Deed of Trust in a foreclosure.
Bank as Trustee, No. 56393, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 39 (also decided
July 7, 2011), which also reversed the District Court and also cited
to Veal , setting forth the requirements for production of evidence of
chain of title to the note and Deed of Trust in a foreclosure.
The multiple citations to Veal, which is a Federal Bankruptcy
appellate court opinion, by the state Supreme Court of Nevada, is more
than important. It demonstrates that simply because a foreclosure
issue is decided by a Bankruptcy court does not mean that it is not
applicable to a non-Bankruptcy (or non-Federal) foreclosure case. Time
and again, when we argue that an issue in a state foreclosure case has
already been decided by a Bankruptcy court in the foreclosure context,
attorneys representing foreclosing “lenders” and servicers argue
“Well, Judge, that was a Bankruptcy case, and we are not in Bankruptcy
Court”. Leyva and Pasillas have now put that argument to bed. If a
Federal Bankruptcy decision is good enough for the Supreme Court of
Nevada in two separate opinions, it should be good enough for any
state court.
appellate court opinion, by the state Supreme Court of Nevada, is more
than important. It demonstrates that simply because a foreclosure
issue is decided by a Bankruptcy court does not mean that it is not
applicable to a non-Bankruptcy (or non-Federal) foreclosure case. Time
and again, when we argue that an issue in a state foreclosure case has
already been decided by a Bankruptcy court in the foreclosure context,
attorneys representing foreclosing “lenders” and servicers argue
“Well, Judge, that was a Bankruptcy case, and we are not in Bankruptcy
Court”. Leyva and Pasillas have now put that argument to bed. If a
Federal Bankruptcy decision is good enough for the Supreme Court of
Nevada in two separate opinions, it should be good enough for any
state court.
We thank one of our dedicated readers for alerting us to these two
highly significant Nevada decisions.
highly significant Nevada decisions.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefensenationwide.com
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure,foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, Lehman, LOAN MODIFICATION, lost note affidavit, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, Wells Fargo
Be the first to like this post.
One Response
- Gary H, on July 16, 2011 at 3:19 am said:Thank you Neil for again calling attention to these matters, my own court case continues to grow. I forgot a number of things, and repetition is KEY…..Thank You.
Related articles
- Wells Fargo to pay $125 million in mortgage suit (seattlepi.com)
- Wells Fargo Agrees To Pay $125 Million To Investors In Mortgage Lawsuit (huffingtonpost.com)
- Wells Fargo Settles a Mortgage Suit (online.wsj.com)
- Fontana Settles SEC Claims on Merrill, Wells Fargo Trades (businessweek.com)
- Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $16 Million in Disability Discrimination Claims (sayspecialability.wordpress.com)
