Dismiss against Marshall C. Watson for the very same reason (hand a copy of
16 Fla. L.Weekly Supp. 833c
to Judge) (FACT). At a glance I have over ten (10) cases where thistactic has been used and the case was dismissed as a result (FACT) (hand Judge the caseswith the points highlighted). Those cases are BRANCH BANKING AND TRUSTCOMPANY vs. REGINALD JENKINS,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 642a,
CHASE HOMEFINANCE, LLC v. JANET DOBSON,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 428a,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. vs. MICHAEL EASOM,
17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 100b,
CREDIT BASED ASSET SERVICING AND SECURITIZATION, LLC v. TAMMY D.HARDY,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1147a,
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. vs. ELENAV. FULLERTON,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1146b,
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. MARY L. BARNICH,
17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 100a,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BRENDA C. ROSE,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1044a,
US BANK N.A. v. JESUS TACORONTE,
17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 17a
andWACHOVIA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. JUANITA NORTON,
16 Fla. L.Weekly Supp. 1043a.
All of these cases support that where an Assignment is filed AFTER the Complaint isfiled and the Complaint fails to allege and/or Plaintiff fails to submit other documentaryevidence showing conclusively an EQUITABLE TRANSFER of the Note (FACT),Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a foreclosure action and the case should be dismissed(FACT). I would ask the court at this time based on the OVERWHELMING support Ihave provided to dismiss this case.
STOP RIGHT HERE (EDITORS NOTE): I cannot tell you what the judge willdecide or what Opposing Counsel will say after this point…you be the judge. What Iwill say is that Judges want to hear the FACTS. You have presented the FACTS verywell here. The key to success in this example is your flow of words in a strong andconfident manner without studder, interruption or indecisive pause.
Another very important point and cross argument I want to point out is the Assignment is99% of the time from MERS to the Plaintiff. There are two (2) important positions to takeon this.(1) While the Mortgage may name MERS as the Nominee for Lender, it does so only inthe Mortgage and the Mortgage interest only. MERS is not mentioned ANYWHERE onthe Note hence it can not assign an interest greater than that which it is entitled to. TheMERS assignment (outside of the number of fraudulent issues that may exist on the faceof it) will casually state in the language that it is transferring ALL beneficial interest inthe Mortgage AND Note. Be sure to bring to the court’s attention that MERS name is notmentioned anywhere on the NOTE as the Lenders Nominee and Plaintiff has NOT provided evidence to support MERS ability to transfer the beneficial interest of the Note.(2) In instances where the Plaintiff is Trustee for a securitized pool of loans, find thePooling & Servicing Agreement athttp://www.secinfo.com/. Show the court that it would be impossible for MERS to transfer interest to Deutsche when it is clear from the casecaption that this loan is part of a pool of loans (FYI – just because they allege your loan is part of a pool does not mean it is but for argument sake use this allegation against them).The Pooling and Servicing Agreement will show who the Depositor is, Servicer, Master Servicer and Deutsche as Trustee. This document is evidence that a) the loan transferredfrom the original lender to at the very least, the Depositor (where is the evidence of thistransfer?), and from the Depositor to the parties in the pool (where is the evidence of this