Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Second Amended Objection to Proof of Claim

Second Amended Objection to Proof of Claim

Ratings: (0)|Views: 270 |Likes:
Published by ajv3759
An objection to a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case.
An objection to a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case.

More info:

Published by: ajv3759 on Jun 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION
InRe:ANTHONY JEROME VALENTINE A/K/AA J VALENTINEBERNIDINE VALENTINE A/K/ACASE NO. 8:12-BK-00951-CPMBERNIDINE SIMS VALENTINECHAPTER 13Debtor(s) ____________________________________/
SECOND AMENDED OBJECTION TO THE PROOF OF CLAIMFILED BY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Come now the Debtors, ANTHONY JEROME VALENTINE AND BERNIDINE VALENTINE,et al,. pro se, and file this
SECOND
 
AMENDED OBJECTION TO THE PROOF OF CLAIM FILEDBY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
, and state the following:
1.
Bank of America, N.A. has filed a Proof Of Claim in the above-styled case.2.A foreclosure suit was filed in October of 2007 by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., nowowned by Bank of America, N.A.(attached as exhibit ‘E’)a.The foreclosure complaint listed Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., as the holder of the noteand mortgage.
b.
The Lender, at that time, on Debtors’ original note and mortgage was Market StreetMortgage. (attached as exhibits ‘H’ and ‘I’)3.Bank of America, N.A. is not the holder of the note and mortgage for the Debtors’ propertylocated at 3381 Landover Blvd., Spring Hill, Florida 34609, as indicated by theASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE dated 5-5-2011, and attached to the Proof Of Claim. (attached hereto as exhibit ‘A’)
1
 
a.
This ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE was signed by a MERS representative, who islisted on a “known robo signer” list. (attached hereto as exhibit ‘F’)
b.
The assignment was from MERS to Bank of America, N.A., yet, the Debtors’ mortgageis currently owned by Freddie Mac. (see exhibits ‘C’ and ‘G’)
c.
The assignment would have had to have gone from Freddie Mac, to Mers, toCountrywide Home Loans, Inc., to Bank of America, N.A., to be valid.
d.
This was a MERS assignment. There is no evidence to show the chain of transfer asoutlined in 3. (c).e.MERS has been recently deemed a “non-entity” with regard to mortgage assignments bythe Florida State Supreme Court, unless a proper chain of transfer is stated. No suchchain of transfer is presented by Bank of America, N.A. to support the validity of theASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE FILED. (see SC09-1460)4.Even if the assignments were valid, both assignments postdated the filing of the foreclosureComplaint filed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., now owned by Bank of America, N.A.,Rendering said assignments invalid. ( see: BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANYvs. REGINALD JENKINS,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 642a,
CHASE HOME FINANCE,LLC v. JANET DOBSON,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 428a,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. vs.MICHAEL EASOM,
17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 100b,
CREDIT BASED ASSETSERVICING AND SECURITIZATION, LLC v. TAMMY D. HARDY,
16 Fla. L. WeeklySupp. 1147a,
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. vs. ELENA V. FULLERTON,
16 Fla. L.Weekly Supp. 1146b,
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. MARY L. BARNICH,
17Fla. 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
and WACHOVIA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs.JUANITA NORTON,
16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1043a.)
2
 
5.
At the time of the filing of the original foreclosure complaint, the note holder was MarketStreet Mortgage.
6.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b) states, in pertinent part: “ Any exhibit attached to a pleading shall beconsidered a part thereof for all purposes.”
7.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 10210(a) states, in part:“Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest…”
8.
MERS has been determined by, most courts, to be unable to meet this criteria.
(In reAgard,10-77338,U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New YorkCentral Islip) 9.
MERS fails to meet the criteria here, because there is no clear trail of when, if ever, MERS became a holder of both the note and mortgage.
10.
That Debtors have had letters sent to them from Bank of America, N. A., which states thatBank of America, N.A. “… does not own your loan…,” and is effective as of July 1,2011(attached as exhibit ‘G’), and Freddie Mac, which states that “…Freddie Mac is theowner of your mortgage…”, and this letter was dated September 17, 2009.(attached as exhibit ‘C’)
11.
Debtors also have a notice from Bank of America dated August 2, 2010, stating that FHLMCS/A-3DAY ARC-125949, (which is Freddie Mac) “…is the investor on your loan…”
12.
The most recent ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, filed by Bank of America, N.A. is datedMay 5, 2011. (see exhibit ‘A’)
13.
This assignment is fraudulent, and represents a fraud upon the Court.
14.
That there is no supporting documentation stating or verifying when, where and how theassignment was acquired, and by what or whose authority the assignment was executed.
a.
There is no record of any kind that shows when Freddie Mac, the current owner of the mortgage, signed the note and mortgage over to anyone or any entity.
3

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
chazzcam liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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