The Borrower Can Challenge The Assignments Of The Security Instruments [mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed etc.] Pursuant To The Rulings In "Slorp": The Full Case is Included Here

"WHAT IF THE HANKY PANKY IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT?"

RICK A. SLORP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; SHELLIE HILL; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

ALL OF THE FORECLOSING PARTIES HAVE BEEN USING THE WORN OUT INTERPRETATION  OF LAW,  SAYING "THE BORROWERS CANNOT CHALLENGE ANY ASSIGNMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE".   BUT, MORTGAGE FRAUD CHANGES ALL OF THAT ACCORDING TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT IN "SLORP"!

   Republished by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press

   The Foreclosure Solutions Group

   

The Imposter Foreclosing Party almost always claims that the Borrower (as the mortgagor) cannot challenge assignments. You did make your Promissory Note negotiable according to the terms of your Promissory Note that you allegedly signed. That is why the foreclosing parties use this interpretation.

But did the foreclosing party buy it legally? No almost assuredly it was never involved in a purchase and sale transaction which even involved any real purchase of your debt.

                                                                                                             READ MORE Click this link 

Learn the Hanky Panky with Danny Hammond - mtgfrd.info@gmail.com

Tenney's Win In The Judicial Foreclosure Kansas Appellate Court Case This was Danny Hammond's 1st Complete and Correct Win

 “I was playing for time. Just for time. I played the wrong way, of course.”

Raymond Chandler

by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press

Case No. 110.359

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee for THE Certificateholders of CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST INC., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007- AMC1, Appellee, 

v. 

DENNIS W. TENNEY and BECKY TENNEY, et aI., Appellants the appellate court stated:

“Per Curiam: “Dennis and Becky Tenney filed a motion to set aside an agreed
judgment of mortgage foreclosure, claiming that the judgment was void. They argued that
U.S. Bank had not shown that it properly held the note secured by the mortgage therefore it was not the real party in interest, and it therefore lacked standing to sue. 

The district court denied the motion, finding that it was untimely. We disagree, because in Kansas lack of standing is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time, and Kansas Law is in lock step with Article III. 

We reverse and remand for a hearing on the question of whether the agreed judgment was void for U.S. Bank's lack of standing.

The district [Kansas state] court heard that motion the same day it was filed. The judge declined to take evidence, but it did hear arguments of counsel. 

The greatest part of the hearing consisted of a colloquy between the district court and the Tenneys' new attorney. Counsel advised the district court that the Tenneys were claiming the judgment was void under Article III and Kansas UCC statute, stating: "I think the judgment is void if they're [U.S. Bank] not the proper party in interest." 

The Tenneys' attorney maintained that the issue of whether a judgment was void for lack of standing could be raised at any time. The district court disagreed.

Continue Reading      The First Face To Face and Correct Win For Me.

Find Danny Hammond - mtgfrd.info@gmail.com