Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Friedman Brief 03-14-11 F-45978-08 Docx

Friedman Brief 03-14-11 F-45978-08 Docx

Ratings: (0)|Views: 143|Likes:
Published by jack1929
greenpoint mortgage, assignment of mortgage fraud, earl david foreclosure law
greenpoint mortgage, assignment of mortgage fraud, earl david foreclosure law

More info:

Published by: jack1929 on Mar 15, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Earl S. David
Attorney at Law
216 River AvenueRiviera Executive CenterLakewood, NJ 08701Tel. 908.907.0953
Email:earlsdavid@yahoo.comMarch 14, 2011The Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, P.J. Ch.Mercer County Civil Courthouses, 5
Floor 210 S. Broad StreetP.O. Box 8068Trenton, NJ 08650-0068
 Re: Docket # : F-45978-08Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc,.v. Chaim Friedman, et al  Motion return date ± 03/18/11
Please accept this letter in lieu of a formal brief which is in reply to plaintiff's opposition todefendant's motion to vacate judgment.As noted in your Honor's order, dated, February 7, 2011, the Court denied our previous motionon the grounds that we did not submit a brief containing the legal argument in support of our motion.There are three rules that govern motions to vacate default judgment and motions for reconsideration that include Rule 4:43, rule 4:50 and 4:49-2.In the instant case, defendant failed to file a timely answer to the complaint as he was never  personally served which is required by Rule 4:4. Moreover, till date, I have yet to have a copy of the complaint although I previously submitted a notice of appearance. As I do not have a copyof the complaint, I cannot prepare the proposed answer.As noted in our previous motions, we questioned the veracity and accuracy of the assignment of mortgage that was dated June 18 , 2008. As noted in a brief by the New Jersey Legal Services,
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->