Main Contents


April 12, 2013

April 12, 2013As we all know, there are promissory notes with “blank endorsements” on the Note, and there are Notes with no blank endorsement or endorsement of any kind by which the foreclosing party seeks to enforce via undated and unauthenticated “Allonges.” Certain states, such as Florida, have case law which explains the difference between the two, and Colorado has a statute which deals with Allonges and the requirements for proving the legal effect of an Allonge. The two situations (a Note with an actual endorsement in blank or special endorsement on it versus a Note with no endorsement of any kind) are legally different, and the proof requirements for enforcement are different are well.Notwithstanding this, we have had to deal with attorneys for foreclosing “banks” who, in the last 3 weeks and in different states, told courts through Motions, Affidavits, and argument that a Note is “endorsed in blank” when in fact the Note contains no endorsement of any kind, with there only being the presence of a separate paper styled “Allonge” or “Allonge to Note” or “Endorsement Allonge” which is undated and has no independent evidence of authenticity. These attorneys are thus lying to the courts, as are the persons who sign affidavits who claim that the foreclosing party has “the Note endorsed in blank” when in fact there is no such endorsement. This false testimony constitutes perjury, but few Judges seem to think that this matters when the bank’s attorney cries “but Judge, they have not paid the mortgage in years”.We are thus making records and taking appeals where there are decisions rendered based on these false representations and perjured testimony. It seems that some of the courts just want to railroad the foreclosures through without scrutinizing whether the foreclosure action and alleged proofs comply with the law. More appeals courts need to do what one appeals court did in Florida, stating in an opinion that the court’s prior opinion on the issues related to questionable undated endorsement “bears repeating”, because the trial court apparently did not pay attention to the law when it entered the judgment against the homeowner, which judgment was reversed by the appeals court.Jeff Barnes, Esq.,

Filed under: Uncategorized |

Leave a comment