IN THE MATTER OF CHAPTER 7 JUANITA STRASSFIELD CASE NO: 11-24269 DEBTOR

DEBTOR’S OBJECTION & OPPOSITION TO WELLS FARGO BANK'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

more+
less-

DEBTOR’S OBJECTION & OPPOSITION TO WELLS FARGO BANK'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Debtor is first compelled to address and correct one of many misstatements of opposing counsel, in that the Debtor is not in a position to know with any degree of certainty the identity of the owner and holder of the Debtor’s note, instead the Debtor called Wells Fargo’s inconsistencies and fraudulent documents to the attention of the Court and the US Trustees and the Chapter 7 Trustee in good faith that the integrity of the judicial process will be protected by those in a position to do so. The Debtor leaves it to the purported creditor to prove its standing. In her Objection the Debtor states that Freddie Mac claims to own her loan (Objection to MFRS ECF Doc. 13 Para. 7) and by way of relief asked the Court to direct the production of the original note. If Freddie Mac truly owns the debtors loan, at best, Wells Fargo might be a servicer. To date, despite all the statements and untruths told to this court by Wells Fargo and its attorneys, there is no servicing agreement offered to support their latest contentions and nothing is attached to the “response” filed late yesterday to evidence Freddie Mac actually owns anything, only a curious single page “Assignment of Mortgage” with recording cover page which the Debtor maintains to be a fraudulent document.

Said Assignment of Mortgage is signed and notarized in the state of Minnesota on March 12, 2007, two days prior to the date the Debtor’s mortgage loan originated

( ie., March 14, 2007) as indicated in the first paragraph of the document and as per the Note and Mortgage provided by Wells Fargo Bank, NA and its attorneys in support of the instant Motion.

Furthermore, opposing counsel attests to the copy of the note provided in the original Motion for Relief From Stay bearing but one specific indorsement from AMC to Wells Fargo which contradicts his new assertion that the note is owned by Freddie Mac as an investor. The Debtor avers that opposing counsel has not personally examined the original note and made the affirmation without conducting any due diligence. To be perfectly clear, the Debtor avers that opposing counsel’s affirmation (see ECF Doc. 25) to the Court is false. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17

2. The fact remains that if Freddie Mac owns the Debtors note, as opposing counsel now insists, and if the indorsement which appears on a separate paper from the note as attached to the Motion for Relief From Stay is authentic, then it follows that the note must have been further negotiated from Wells Fargo to Freddie Mac and both a further endorsement on the note and a correlating purchase agreement would exist.

3. The fact also remains that under Freddie Mac guidelines as pointed out in paragraph 8 and Exhibit B of the Debtor’s Objection (ECF Doc. No. 13) notes owned by Freddie Mac are required to be indorsed in blank. Opposing counsel apparently either made his affirmation overlooking the obvious or he didn’t bother to question his client’s troublesome documents. The Debtor further avers that there is a fee involved charged to the requesting party whenever a request is made for the transfer of original loan documents from a document custodian, perhaps the fee involved was more than the truth was worth.

4. In tangling a seemingly unending web of deceit opposing counsel attests in his Affirmation in Opposition at paragraph 5 (see ECF Doc. No. 25) as to the truth and accuracy of the copy of the note and the copy of an indorsement presented in the original Motion for Relief from Stay. It stands to reason that under FRBP Rule 9011 the only way for opposing counsel to make such a claim to this court is to have personally examined the original note and any indorsements thereon. It is a violation of 9011(b) (3) to make false representations to the court when there is no evidentiary support for the allegations. The Debtor avers that opposing counsel did not personally inspect the note as even the most basic form of due diligence requires especially in light of the issue being raised by the Debtor. The Debtor further avers that opposing counsel, if he is in possession of the original Note, never so much as picked up a phone to invite the Debtor’s inspection of the documents despite the Debtor’s clear demand in prior papers.

Insofar as Wells Fargo admits its deception of holding itself out as the owner and holder and now has the audacity to request the Court overlook its fraud and allow it to amend and to the extent the Court is inclined to permit such amendment, the Debtor reserves her right to object to any proper motion to amend. Under the immediate circumstances, however, the Debtor requests the Court DENY the pending motion with all of the fraud it presents and award sanctions to the Debtor.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Bankruptcy Updates, Consumer Protection Updates, Criminal Law Updates, Finance & Banking Updates, Residential Real Estate Updates

Reference Info:Pleadings | Federal, 2nd Circuit, New York | United States