“Generally speaking, if the DOT/Mortgage has been transferred, the Note should have been transferred at the same time. I just looked at a case where the Allonges to the Note were created at closing, with the mortgage broker signing the Allonge from the pretender lender to the investor, and then signing the second Allonge from the investor to the mortgage pool. He signed both with different titles for two different companies, which is a classic example of the authority issues we commonly see in foreclosure documents. I pulled up his employment information on LinkedIn as evidence in support of our allegations that he was not a VP of the originating bank, nor had any affiliation with a pretender lender.
The transfer of the Note would probably have been fine (except for the Note should be endorsed instead of using an Allonge) if the Mortgage had been assigned immediately after closing, but it was not assigned until two or three years after the loan’s origination and with robo-signers and robo-notaries.
By the way — this is the whole concept behind the UCC and the note split from the deed argument. In this situation, it’s clear that the Note was split from the mortgage, because there is no chain of custody that matches up with the dates. Because the case is in a state where that’s a viable argument, it has a decent chance of being taken seriously there.”