Skip to main content

The note attached to a foreclosure summons was NOT endorsed. An interrogatory answer stated the note was a copy of the ORIGINAL.

Orlando, FL |

A highly respected and experienced COURT APPROVED forensic document examiner (after examining the file in court) confirmed in an affidavit that the "Original Note" (filed three and a half years after issuance of summons) has an endorsement, hand stamped without a written signature by a VP of a bank that was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision, subsequently incorporated into the Office of the Controller of the Currency (eight months prior to issuance of summons), and differed in other respects to a copy of the first appearance of "THE ENDORSED NOTE", filed when the original plaintiff sold out to a second bank (two and a half years after issuance of summons). Could this be a case that fraudulent documents were filed in court, and also a serious case of Fraud on the Court?

+ Read More

Attorney answers 2


Without seeing the notes an attorney cannot give you a definitive answer by posting on a message board. You should hire a mortgage foreclosure defense attorney to ensure that any possible defenses you have, including fraud on the court, are addressed.

This communication is not intended to create an attorney/client relationship. It is always recommended you consult an attorney in person to discuss your case. The Law Offices of Stage & Associates practices state-wide and represents homeowners and community associations. Please visit our website at


Could be, but I can't tell that from what you have written. In order to foreclose, the plaintiff is going to have to show that it (or the original plaintiff) held the valid not at the time the complaint was filed. That might be an issue. It sounds like they have the beneficial interest in the note now, but did they when the case was filed? I hope you have an attorney on the case.



If the note was not endorsed at time of summons (plaintiff agreed in an interrogatory answer that note attached to summons was a COPY of the ORIGINAL, see question), the endorsement was obviously a fraud as the purported signer's signature, which was part of the stamp (see question), signed as a VP of a bank that closed eight months prior to the issuance of the summons (see question). Do you still contend that they HAVE beneficial interest in the note now? Two other attorneys agree with you.

Joshua Eli Adams

Joshua Eli Adams


A note may be endorsed "in blank," meaning that the party receiving the note is not identified. However, it sound like you may have an argument that the "in blank" endorsement is not valid, and therefore, only the original lender, or successor in interest can foreclose. Even this argument has some weaknesses, but I think you may need to depose this "VP" in order to be successful. Remember, even if you are right, you need admissible evidence.



With respect, the "in blank" endorsement is not the issue on hand nor in my question, and no VP, nor any staff of that bank exists, as it closed down fully and went out of existence eight months before the summons was issued. But thanks all the same.

Real estate topics

Recommended articles about Real estate

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer