Did anybody notice Florida Statute 692.01 - Conveyances executed by corporations - was modified on March 26, 2010 ??
I was not aware of this.
You may not be aware of the following document, used to to justify that change.http://www.rpptl.org/Content/Committees/LegislativeReview/Execution...
I find it interesting that the statute NOW reads, in part,No corporate resolution need be recorded to evidence the authority of the person executing
the deed, mortgage, or other instrument for the corporation, and an
instrument so executed is valid whether or not the officer signing for
the corporation was authorized to do so by the board of directors, in
the absence of fraud in the transaction by the person receiving it.
means there need be no showing of authority to execute, and there can
be buckets of fraud by the parties who draw up, sell or execute the
documents, but it is all good so long as there is no fraud in the
document by the party receiving it
Since he receiving
party does not execute anything on a deed, or on an assignment of
mortgage, this allows lots of fraud by the party giving it, making it,
signing it, and it is all good so long as the receiving party is clean.
in case the reviving party is dirty, they can transfer it again and it
gets to be laundered clean again because the next line says:In
cases of fraud, subsequent transactions with good faith purchasers for
value and without notice of the fraud shall be valid and binding on the
So if you commit fraud in the execution of an
assignment of mortgage, that's OK because it is not fraud by the
receiver, and if there is fraud by the receiver you just assign it again
and it is magically laundered paper to good again.
assignments on bad paper the law allows them to become good again. This
flies in the face of the UCC holder in due course rule that if you buy
bad paper you now own bad paper.
We now have a mortgage and
note laundering statute. Every time you run paper through it any fraud
gets washed away and it comes out clean.
This would explain
why lots of people are getting notices that their note was sold again,
during the action. This seemed to start around last March.
example I got a notice stating that the note was sold from Everhome
Mortgage to EverHome Bank, it's twin at the same address. This seems to
have happened to several people I know. (In my case there has been no
motion to substitute Plaintiff party, just got a letter in the mail).
the fraud with which EverHome Mortgage claims to have gained my note,
by the Bethany Hood assignment of mortgage, a back dated AOM, executed
months after the action commenced, claiming to back date the transaction
by more than two years, is now all washed clean by the new sale from
Everhome Mortgage to Everhome Bank, because Everhome Bank did was not a
party to that fraud. How convenient !