Note: For good measure I threw in the Recall Scott Walker video showing how his office ran a man right out of town when he came to question his foreclosure. They didn't want to talk to him at all, and kept trying to separate us, an act that dovetails with Walker's attempts to ban cameras in the Statehouse. As you can see, I'm not having any of that nonsense, he is a public servant, I am a reporter with experience as a closing attorney/title insurance producer and the Truth will be told, right here at Mortgage Movies Journal.
He's baaaack.... and thank god he actually protected the First Amendment in Wisconsin's raging union battle in a crushing blow to the Republicans who are now trumpeting big bank puppets like Senator Kelly Ayotte. Here is the actual Opinion, and here is the dirt on Juan B. Colas and Anchor Bank, who got receivership without ever demonstrating a showing of Standing requisite to any legal foreclosure case, as determined in Wisconsin Appellate Court in Aurora v. Carlsen, followed by Aurora v. Weisbaum, below the fold.
Although Aurora's vice president averred in conclusory fashion that Aurora became holder of the mortgage which is the subject of the action "by delivery without a written assignment," the affiant failed to give any factual detail of a physical delivery of both the consolidated note and the CEMA to Aurora prior to the commencement of the action. Thus, Aurora failed to establish its standing to commence the action.
Accord Aurora v. Weisbaum, 2011 NY Slip Op 4184; 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4108 (May 17, 2011) P12 In sum, Aurora failed to authenticate Exhibit D, the document purporting to be an assignment of the note. Thus, regardless of other alleged proof problems relating to that note and the Carlsens' alleged [*9] default, the circuit court's finding that Aurora was the holder of the note is clearly erroneous--no ad-missible evidence supports that finding. Aurora failed to prove its case, and it was not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure.
or of the entire consolidated note and CEMA in the amount of $704,000. Although Aurora's vice president averred in conclusory fashion that Aurora became holder of the mortgage which is the subject of the ac-tion "by delivery without a written assign-ment," the affiant failed to give any factual de-tail of a physical delivery of both the consoli-dated note and the CEMA to Aurora prior to the commencement of the action. Thus, Aurora failed to establish its standing to commence the action.