Cart 0

Mortgage Assignment Hanky Panky

Posted by 15789465 on

On Friday, August 12, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court released a decision that is more important for the questions it raises than the answers it provides. The appeal came about after the assignee of a mortgage foreclosed on the mortgage and then sued for the $1MM+ deficiency. The property, and the lawsuit, were in Baldwin County. The borrower claimed the lawsuit and foreclosure should be thrown out because of defects in the assignment. The borrower apparently focused on the wrong "defects" and lost the appeal. The important part of the decision focuses on an apparent mass-notarization of blank mortgage assignment forms, which were then completed later when the lender decided who would get to buy the mortgages.  The trial judge commented:
"One problem I got — I don't know how you're going to get around and that is that the date of [the mortgage assignment] is five — six months before the execution of the document and I don't know how you're going to get around that.
"Let me tell you what it leads me to believe. It leads me to believe the lady at Wachovia sat down and signed a bunch of these and then they took this and attached it as they sold off the different mortgages. They may have sold one to RCH. They may have sold two or three to some other company and put the attachment to it which means she didn't sign this document. She signed an uncompleted document en masse because they were probably selling them off left and right. And then they dated it as they reached the deal with RCH."
The Alabama Supreme Court apparently thought that was a very interesting observation, but said, "However, the defendants' trial counsel did not object to the admissibility of the mortgage assignment on that basis" so it could not be considered in the appeal. Hmmmmmmm..... I wonder if that trial judge in Baldwin County was on to something. Do we have our own version of Robo-signing in Alabama?  Read the decision, RCH IV-WB, LLC v. Wolf Bay Partners, LLC. Tell me what you think!

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

  • will read the opinion later – but on the surface i note:

    if the question is wrongful admission of evidence, the appellant must have objected on specific grounds at trial in order to raise admissibility as an issue on appeal

    that’s why i hire a trial attorney with experience to represent me at trial

    in the appeal of ross v rosen-rager i was not allowed, in an action for punitive damages, to raise the issue of the admission of testimony related to my wealth. My trial attorney objected at trial to the testimony as “irrelevant”. My appeal attorney argued that alabama law prohibits admission of any evidence that shows a defendants worth in a trial for punitive damages. the supreme court held that an objection at trial of irrelevance was not specific enough for the appellant to raise the issue of admissibility of wealth evidence on appeal.

    howard ross on

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.