dated November 4, 2010, which was submitted to the New Jersey Supreme Court, it noted thatthere were serious problems with those kinds of assignments including document irregularities.In the instant case, there are serious flaws with the assignment of mortgage that was filed withthe Court. For instance, the assignment at bar states that the Assignor, which I assume isMortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) has hereunto set his hand and seal. Theassignment was signed by Tina Jones, who I assume is a woman so it appears that the gender isincorrect. Moreover, it says that Tina Jones is acting as Assistant Vice President of GPM, that Iassume is Greenpoint Mortgage. However, there is no signature of the Assignor which is MERS.In article that was culled from the internet, dated February 17, 2010, it states that Tina Jones wasdirector of foreclosure operations at Greenpoint Mortgage. Here it says she is the Assistant VicePresident. How can she wear two hats? We need the opportunity to depose such an individual todetermine what was her position with the company.Additionally, there is an article from CNBC, dated August 20, 2007 that said, "The company willcease residential mortgage origination effective immediately and close Greenpoint's Novato,California Headquarters."
See copy of the letter as an exhibit
. The MERS document, datedJune 18, 2008, lists Greenpoint Mortgage Funding ,Inc residing or located at 100 Wood HollowDrive, Novato, Ca 94945.How can Plaintiff prepare a document with an address that did not existat the time of the alleged assignment? This is a clear example of a bogus assignment.Plaintiff's Attorney submitted three separate assignment of mortgages on three separate Friedman properties. A clear look at the signature of the notary, Kay Coats, on one of the documentsdoes not match the other two signatures.It appears that this document was prepared or ordered by Milstead and Associates as it mentionstheir name at the top left hand corner of the document and gives instructions to Record andReturn to Milstead& Associates ,LLC. The assignment of mortgage was prepared tomemorialize the assignment.Based on above analysis, the assignment is invalidon it's face as it was never executed by theAssignor and the information on the document was incorrect.By Plaintiff counsel's own admissions, Greenpoint Mortgage may not even have standing to prosecute the action. Mr. Milstead states in an undated letter to my office that it is commonknowledge that Countrywide later acquired Greenpoint.
See attached letter as an exhibit
. Inanotherletter fromMilstead and Associates, submitted to the Court by Nelson Diaz on June 3,2010, it states that the Servicer is Bank of America. On MERS website, it says that the servicer isBank of America. Although Milstead and Associates stated that it is common knowledgeregarding Countrywide, we see that there are other entities that may be involved in the chain of title. Moreover, it contradicts their most recent letter, dated, March 9, 2011, which states that"This foreclosure action was instituted in the name of the original noteholder ,GreenpointMortgage Fuding, Inc. and Defendant's arguments lack all merit." It may be the same name, butthat does not mean it is the same entity. The complaint, which we have yet to see, may bemissing a recital of assignments in the Chain of Title. This is required under Rule 4:64.Furthermore, Plaintiff has not even furnished any official documentation regarding the real party