#AskObamaHousing

Well, so he answered some questions, but here's some more.
 #AskObamaHousing- President Obama, what is being done, about these private hedge funds, that suddenly come up with false paperwork that has been missing for years, with no assignments , no Allonge, nothing to show where they got them from and courts allowing this as proof , they own a note?

#AskObamaHousing -President Obama, Land records not recorded to show proof of ownership, and Judges FIXING them, this clearly shows Title Fraud, and leaves the homeowners in a situation of someone coming back to them, down the road creating more problems. The homeowners have a right to know who has their homes, and this is being denied by Judges across the country, and here in VT.

#AskObamaHousing -President Obama, What about Chase and the FDIC , allowing foreclosures of Washington Mutual and Long Beach Notes, that clearly were not there's to begin with? Example# Yes, we OWN both your  notes ( Chase explains) they send you all the paperwork, the note, the mortgage, HUD papers. Everything is now in order and for the first time in 5 years , someone actually shows they own the note and mortgage Started in Sept 2006- Its now Summer of 2011 . Yet, the Judge who never saw this paperwork, allows in Dec 2008, Deustsche Bank to intervene saying, we bought the note in Sept 2006, yet, no land records recorded, no papers to show proof, no Bill of Sale that directly showed ownership ( they will make some up in 2012) Than in 2010 sells the note , still not showing how they bought it, to Archbay Holdings LLC 2010B - and than they sign land records, ( which still clearly show on the town records Long Beach Mortgage owns its , and this is in 2010) Their is NOTHING  on the record that shows Deutsche Bank ever owned this note or was given to them by, Washington Mutual, Long Beach or Chase, Yet, the Judge allows Archbay to intervene.. still no proof of ownership. ( private Hedge fund that failed in 2012, and was taken over by York who funded it and removed all employees and CEO) Than after almost a year of Chase saying they owned it, they come back and say Oh, we made a mistake , were sorry,. we never owned the first note or had it in our possession! HUH? Yet, they sent all the papers and even CC the VT States Attorney and the OCC in 2011 , telling them as well they owned it. Suddenly, Archbay sells it to Roosevelt Mortgage and low and behold they have ALL the paperwork in 2013~The Judge sees it , and gives them my home! I have spent over 70,000.00 and I didn't get a federal bail out check, because I believed Chase! I am now selling my business to save my home, because all my savings , EVERYTHING is gone, because of of theft and loading the courts with paperwork to stall, for 7 years! Not to mention a Judge who just wanted this over , not allowing my lawyer or I to see how this note went from Long Beach to ending up in Roosevelts hands with all the documents that were never there before., or allowing me my rights to appeal. 
I was charged for insurance ( I had insurance) Its an outrageous sum.
I was charged 365.00 for a drive by appraisal ( he stated the house was worth 160,000.00- 165,000.00 when a honest appraiser came just a year and a half before and appraised it at 117,000.00. )
 OH, and I forgot to mention, how Chase in late 2012 stated after reviewing there records-AGAIN - nothing ever showed of a sale to Deutsche Bank only servicing transferred to Select Pro-Folio Services on Oct 2006, in which Washington Mutual remained as Master Servicer, which is how Chase had the original documents to begin with! Not to mention , how, even Select Pro-Folio Services lawyer never heard of Deutsche bank owning the note in OCT 2008. 
So whats your take on this question President Obama?  
 
 #AskObamaHousing -President Obama,Are you aware of the many frauds still happening in this country? My answer is NO. People are subject to this still , happening NOW, and its being done by Hedge Funds being funded by the BIG Banks to hide the fraud and are still taking peoples home! What is being done about this? I know , NOTHING!



 #AskObamaHousing -President Obama- How about you, come to these actual foreclosures, or with the Sheriffs and see for yourself the abuse actual homeowners you FORGOT, are enduring. Or how about you tell the children and the families, that nobody will work with you , because they want the homes because they can't rewrite these notes! How about YOU, take a stand for these people, like you promised during the re-election.

#AskObamaHousing -President Obama- I forgot to mention to you, I went looking for these people myself  and to try and find the truth of who owned my home in 2008, because I knew when Deutsche Bank stepped in, something was wrong, I thought I found it when Chase said after 5 months of looking , that they owned my home and, even told my lawyer they owned my note  and  would work with me to  fix the problems so I could pay for it, see I wasn't  trying to do anything but PAY for my home , that was over appraised by Long Beach appraisers, and nobody would let me.. Nobody wanted my money, just my home. 
I also forgot to mention that a week after Chase claimed they made a mistake , satisfied the second mortgage paid in full and stated it on the credit report and with town records as well . Not a dime was paid for it , but they wrote it like it was and did I forget to mention how Long Beach still has an open foreclosure on record for the first note that dates back to May 2006? So this ends my story.. but sir, there are millions more.  
It would be nice to have these questions answered - #AskObamaHousing

Obama Takes to Social Media to Address Housing Issues

Wed, 2013-08-07 18:07 — Robert Ottone

President Barack Obama, fresh off discussing the potential elimination of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, discussed his housing plan online, fielding questions from Vine, Twitter and other social media outlets using the hashtag #AskObamaHousing for a virtual roundtable discussion. Questions for the President began pouring in well before the designated start time and varied from topics, such as cities facing monumental foreclosures (like in Detroit), to what proposed initiatives have been outlined for those with already-existing portfolios. While the President was unable to field every question, he answered quite a few.
Calling the roundtable, A Better Bargain, the President, along with Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff moderated the event. While some of his answers were fairly standard, the President tackled a few curveballs, notably indicating that he is still pushing for a government refinance program, with interest rates being so low.
Obama also praised those who wish to rent, which he describes as a “safe” alternative to purchasing a home. Not long after giving that response, Obama answered a question regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with "You can't have a situation in which the government is underwriting and guaranteeing all the mortgage lending,” adding, “The private market can step in and do a good job and government can be a backstop." This is, of course, alluding to the work that Sens. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Michael Crapo (R-ID) have been doing in their efforts to outline the potential dissolving of the GSEs.
The President also indicated that change isn’t immediate and that new laws and regulation could take time. The concept of shocking the market with such an abrupt change isn’t something that anyone in the Obama White House is looking to do.
"This is something that would have to be phased in,” Obama said.
Obama also put an emphasis on the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Bureau's push towards transparency. "The more knowledge consumers have the more empowered they are going to be,” Obama said.

NUCLEAR FORECLOSURE CASE BOMBSHELL

NUCLEAR FORECLOSURE CASE BOMBSHELL- A JUDGE EXPLAINS WHY FORECLOSURE IS A FRAUD!

July 7, 2013

by Matt Weidner

CHASE, in the instant action, committed a fraud upon the Court by claiming to be the plaintiff. FANNIE MAE should have been the plaintiff as the owner of the note and mortgage when the BUTLER foreclosure action commenced.

After numerous misrepresentations to the Court by various counsel for CHASE, it is clear that the actual BUTLER mortgage and note, given in 2007 by the defunct WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA [WAMU], was acquired in 2007 by the FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION [FANNIE MAE] from WAMU. Despite CHASE’S claims, before December 2011, to the Special Referee and the Court that it owned the subject mortgage and note, plaintiff CHASE only purchased the servicing rights to the subject mortgage and note from the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [FDIC] in September 2008, when WAMU was seized by the FDIC.
Plaintiff CHASE, as will be explained, never owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note. Therefore, CHASE had no right to foreclose on the subject mortgage and note. Moreover, the continued subterfuge by CHASE and its counsel to the Special Referee and Court that it owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note demonstrated “bad faith” in  [*3] violation of CPLR Rule 3408 (f), which requires that “[b]oth the plaintiff and defendant shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible.”
This case is troubling because various counsel for CHASE falsely claimed for almost two years, from January 20, 2010 until December 2011, that CHASE was the owner of the mortgage and note. Ultimately, in late 2011, after the subject mortgage had been satisfied, plaintiff CHASE’s counsel admitted, in opposition to defendant BUTLER’s October 26, 2011 order to show cause, that plaintiff CHASE did not own the BUTLER mortgage and note, but only the servicing rights to it. CHASE’s counsel, in its opposition papers, submitted an affidavit, dated December 9, 2011, from Greg De Castro, “Director-Servicing Management” of FANNIE MAE, claiming that FANNIE MAE acquired from WAMU the BUTLER Mortgage and Note and “Chase is the servicer of the loan.” Further, Mr. De Castro makes the ludicrous claim, in violation of New York law, that “[a]s Fannie Mae’s servicer, CHASE has authority to commence a foreclosure action on the Loan and to receive and/or collect the proceeds from the sale of the Property.”

Background
The Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) does not show any assignments of the WAMU mortgage to FANNIE MAE or CHASE. However, a CHASE representative, Yvonne Brooks, “Home Loan Senior Research Specialist,” in her December 8, 2011-affidavit attached to plaintiff’s cross-motion, claims, in ¶ 6, that FANNIE MAE, in April 2007, purchased the BUTLER loan and WAMU retained the servicing rights. Exhibit D of the cross-motion contains a computer printout, dated April 20, 2007, showing this. Thus, plaintiff CHASE ultimately acknowledged that FANNIE MAE is the “Wizard of Oz,” operating behind the curtain, and the real owner of the subject BUTLER note and mortgage.
Then, on September 24, 2008, WAMU failed and its deposits and assets were seized by the federal government. On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision, a now-defunct federal agency, named the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) as Receiver for WAMU. WAMU had not corrected its errors by re-instituting Butler’s line of credit and correcting the erroneous reporting to credit bureaus before it was seized by the FDIC. CHASE, despite its assertions to the contrary for almost two years in the instant action, purchased the servicing rights to WAMU’s mortgages and notes, not the actual mortgages and notes.
In a letter, dated October 10, 2008, CHASE advised BUTLER that WAMU was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC was named Receiver. It then states that CHASE “acquired certain  [*8] assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC, including the right to service your loan.”
Plaintiff CHASE’s counsel, then Steven J. Baum, P.C., commenced the instant foreclosure action on the subject premises, with the filing of a summons, complaint and notice of pendency on January 20, 2010. In the first paragraph of the complaint, Steven J. Baum, P.C., “alleges upon information and belief” that plaintiff CHASE is “the owner and holder of a note and mortgage being foreclosed.”
After plaintiff CHASE filed a Request for Judicial Intervention, an initial CPLR Rule 3408 mandatory settlement conference was held on March 22, 2010, followed by at least nine additional conferences, before Special Referee Deborah Goldstein. Defendant BUTLER appeared pro se except for the last conference, when he was represented by Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq. At the conclusion of the April 7, 2011-settlement conference, Special Referee Goldstein ordered that “Plaintiff is directed to appear by Sarah Feor, the attorney of Baum with knowledge of the standing and litigation issues. Production of all title and ownership documentation, including the note and all assignments are required to be produced in accordance  [*9] with [CPLR] 3408 (e) at the next conference on 4/11/11 and Sarah Feor, Esq. must appear with a Chase rep.”
Thus, it appears to the Court that the delay by CHASE in producing the subject BUTLER Note was to give Baum and/or Cullen & Dykman ample time to temporarily borrow the BUTLER Note from FANNIE MAE for its May 2, 2011 presentation to the Court. Despite its December 2011 admission that FANNIE MAE owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note, CHASE, prior to this, continuously presented its ownership subterfuge to Special Referee Goldstein and the Court. The Court cannot countenance the deceptive behavior of CHASE, the alleged owner of the subject BUTLER mortgage and note, its counsel, and FANNIE MAE, the real owner of the subject BUTLER mortgage and note. FANNIE MAE’s Servicing Guide, with its deceptive practices to fool courts, does not supercede New York law.
Further, Ms. Brooks explains the May 22, 2010 transaction, in ¶ 14 of her affidavit, as “an automatic cashless Fannie Mae transaction . . . which reclassifed the loan from being a schedule/schedule loan to an actual actual/actual remittance loan mortgage. See Fannie Mae 2006 Servicing Guide I, 208.06: Reclassification of Certain MBS Pool Mortgages attached hereto as  [*19] Exhibit “H [sic].” This regulation, in its version of Orwellian Nineteen Eighty-Four “Newspeak,” states:
Rather than requiring the servicer to repurchase certain delinquent MBS pool mortgages that are serviced under the special servicing option – those for which we have the entire foreclosure loss risk and those for which Fannie Mae and the servicer share the foreclosure loss risk with Fannie Mae having the responsibility for marketing the acquired property – we will automatically reclassify a mortgage that satisfies our selection criteria as an “actual/actual” remittance type portfolio mortgage. Generally, we will select mortgages that have at least three payments past due for reclassification in the month when the fourth payment is delinquent.
CHASE, in the instant action, committed a fraud upon the Court by claiming to be the plaintiff. FANNIE MAE should have been the plaintiff as the owner of the note and mortgage when the BUTLER foreclosure action commenced. Thus, CHASE went to numerous CPLR Rule 3408 mandatory settlement conferences with unclean hands, falsely alleging that it was the plaintiff owner of the BUTLER mortgage and note.

In order to understand the full importance of the opinion at the right, it’s critical to understand that in the vast majority of foreclosure cases, the bank that is foreclosing does not own the mortgage at all.  At best, in the vast majority of foreclosure cases the foreclosing plaintiff has, somewhere along the way, (probably) obtained the servicing rights for the loan. Now mind you, they are never required to prove up this essential fact, but that’s not even the issue.
The fact that a bank does not own a mortgage does not prevent them from lying to courts all across this country and falsely representing that they do in fact own the mortgage they are foreclosing on.
But courts let them get away with this lie.  The biggest financial lie of the century.
There are undoubtedly big policy reasons why they have decided that they cannot be truthful and transparent about the ownership of property in this country….probably because if Americans knew that it was the federal government moving to throw them out of homes and destroying communities, it would get to be an uncomfortable dynamic.
It’s just astonishing and disturbing how long this lie has been permitted to be perpetuated…over and over…all across this country.
I remember an appellate argument had when a brilliant appellate judge asked me,

“Mr. Weidner, does it matter who owns the mortgage…after all, your client isn’t paying?”

Yes judge, it mattered then and it matters now and it will matter far more in the years to come when Americans wake up and realize our economy has been hijacked, our property has been stolen and our country is lost.

And our nation’s court system became complicit in the crime spree.

When will Americans wake up? When will judges wake up?  Who knows…and that’s what’s scary….
Reading this document below gives some insight…..

LINK HERE

Courts need eduction and quickly.

WHY ARE COURTS ALLOWING ENDORSEMENT  IN BLANK TO TRANSFER THE LOAN WHEN THE BASIS OF THE PROPONENT'S AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE IS A DOCUMENT THAT FORBIDS ACCEPTANCE OF  ENDORSEMENTS IN BLANK?

 I recently received a question from an old friend of mine who was a solicitor in Canada and who is frustrated with our court system that continues to assume the validity of loans that have already been thoroughly discredited. He has attempted on numerous occasions to get information through a qualified written request or a debt validation letter and has attempted to verify the authority of any party to whom he would address a request for modification of his loan in Florida. While chatting with him online I realized that this information might be of some value to attorneys and borrowers. The principal point of this article is the old expression "what is good for the goose is good for the gander." For those of you who are unfamiliar with the old expression it means that there should be equality of treatment, all other things being equal. In mortgage litigation is apparent that when an allegation is made or a proffer is made through counsel rather than the introduction of evidence, the courts continue to function from both a misconception and  misapplication of the Rules of Court and the rules of evidence.

 When the case involves one institution against another, the same arguments that are summarily  rejected when they are advanced by a borrower are given considerable traction because the argument was advanced by a financial institution or financial player that identifies itself as a financial institution. In fact, a review of most cases reveals a much heavier burden on the party defending against the loss of their homestead than the party seeking to take it ---  which is a complete reversal of the way our justice system is supposed to work.  The burden of proof in both judicial and nonjudicial states is constitutionally required to be on the party seeking affirmative relief and not on the party defending against it.

In the nonjudicial states, in my opinion, the courts are violating this basic constitutional requirement on a regular basis under circumstances where the party announcing a right to enforce a dubious deed of trust, collection on a dubious note, and therefore having the right to sell the property without judicial intervention despite the inability of the foreclosing entity to produce any evidence that it owns the debt, note, mortgage rights,  or even demonstrate a financial interest in the outcome of the foreclosure sale; to make matters worse the courts are allowing trustees on deeds of trust to be appointed or substituted even though they have a direct or indirect financial relationship with the alleged lender.

These trustees are accepting "credit bids" without any due diligence as to whether or not the party making the offer of the credit bid at auction is in fact the creditor who may submit such a credit bid according to the statutes governing involuntary auctions within that state.  In nonjudicial states the burden is put on the borrower to "make a case" and thus obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the sale of the property. This is absurd. These statutes governing nonjudicial sales were created at a time when the lender was easily identified, the borrower was easily identified, the chain of title was easily demonstrated, and the chain of money was also easily demonstrated. Today in the world of falsely securitized loans, the courts have maintain a ministerial attitude despite the fact that 96% of all loans are subject to competing claims by false creditors. The borrower is forced to defend against allegations that were never made but are presumed in a court of law. If anything is a violation of the due process requirements of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of most of the individual states of the union, this must be it.

 In the judicial states,  the problem is even more egregious because the same presumptions and assumptions are being used against borrowers as in the nonjudicial states. Thus in addition to being an unconstitutional application of an otherwise valid law, the judicial states are violating their own rules of civil procedure mandated by the Supreme Court of each such state (or to be more specific where the highest court is not called the Supreme Court, we could say the highest court in the state).  This is why I have strongly suggested for years that an action in mandamus be brought directly to the highest court in each state alleging that the laws and rules, as applied, violate constitutional standards and any natural sense of fairness.

 Here is the question posed by my Canadian friend:

(1)  The documents are phony documents (copies) produced by Ben Ezra Katz. It will cost me several thousand dollars to have a document expert evaluate the documents and then testify if they find them to be copies. At the beginning of this case, The Plaintiff's attorney (Ben Ezra Katz associate) told the court (I do have a transcript) that they has found the ORIGINAL documents (note, mortgage, etc.) and that they had couriered the ORIGINAL documents to the clerk of Court. They did a Notice of Filing which on its' face states ORIGINAL documents. I can not afford a document expert, however the AG in S. Florida has an open investigation into this case. Would I be out of line in requesting that they include this case per-se as part of their investigation and accordingly make a determination as to if or if not the subject documents which are on file with the clerk of court are originals or copies ??
(2)  The only nexus that Wells Fargo produces to establish themselves as a real party in interest is a hand filled out allonge (copy attached). Please note that the signer only signs as "assistant secretary" without further specifics. On the basis of what they provide it is virtually impossible to depose this person to determine if she actually did or did not sign this document, and if so what is her authority to do so.  I want to launch some sort of discovery that seeks to discover what else the Plaintiff has which would support the alleged allonge. Things such as any contracts, copies of any consideration, what was the consideration, who authorized the transaction, etc.  Do you have any suggestions in this regard. I bounced this off my attorney and I am not sure that we are on the same page. He wants to go to trial and have the proven phony documents as the main thrust. I agree with that, however I also would feel far better if we were able to cut them off at the knees as to standing such as the alleged allonge is part of the phony documents, and there are no documents that the Plaintiff can produce to support not only its' authenticity, but its' legitimate legal function. I do not like to have all of my eggs in one basket.

 And here is my response:

 You are most probably correct in your assessment of the situation. If they lied to the court and filed phony documents you should file motion for contempt. You should also file a motion for involuntary dismissal based on the fact that they have had plenty of time to either come up with the original documents or alleged facts to establish lost documents. The affidavit that must accompany the allegation of lost documents must be very specific as to the content of the documents and the path of the documents and it must the identify the person or records from which the allegations of fact are drawn. They must be able to state with certainty when they last had the original documents if they ever did have the original documents. If they didn't ever have the original documents then an affidavit from them is meaningless. They have to establish the last party had physical custody of the original documents and establish the reason why they are missing. If they can't do those things then their foreclosure should be dismissed. The more vague they are in explaining what happened to the original documentation the more likely it is that somebody else has the original documentation and may sue you again for recovery. So whatever it is that they allege should result in your motion to strike and motion to dismiss with prejudice. As far as the attorney general's office you are correct that they ought to cooperate with you fully but probably incorrect in your assumption that they will do so.

I think you should make a point about the allonge being filled out by hand as being an obviously late in the game maneuver. You can also make a point about the "assistant Sec." since that is not a real position in a corporation. Something as valuable as a note would be reviewed by a real official of the Corporation who would be able to answer questions as to how the note came into the possession of the bank (through interrogatories or requests for admission) and  what was paid and to whom for the possession and rights to the note, when that occurred and where the records are that show the payment and how Wells Fargo actually came into possession of the note or the rights to collect on the note. As you are probably aware the predecessor that is alleged to have originated the note or alleged to have had possession of the note must account for whether they provided the consideration for the note and what they did with it after the closing. If they say they provided consideration than they should have records showing a payment to the closing agent and if they received consideration from Wells Fargo they should have those records as well.

But the likelihood is that neither Option One nor Wells Fargo ever funded this mortgage which means that the note and mortgage lack consideration and neither one of them has any right to collect or foreclose.   In fact, since they are taking the position that the loan was not securitized and therefore that no securitization documents are relevant,  neither of them can take the position that they are representing the real party in interest as an authorized agent for the real lender.  And the reason you are seeing lawsuits especially by Wells Fargo in which it names itself as the foreclosing party is that the bank knows that Iit ignored and routinely violated essential and material provisions of the securitization documents including the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement upon which investors relied when they gave money to an investment banker.

In that case, since you seek to modify the loan transaction and determine whether or not it is now or is potentially subject to  a valid mortgage, you should seek to enforce a request for information concerning the exact path of the money that was used to fund the mortgage. And you should request any documentation or records showing any guarantee, payment, right to payment, or anything else that would establish a loan to you where actual money exchanged hands between the declared lender and yourself. The likelihood is that the money was in a co-mingled account somewhere ---  possibly Wells Fargo ---  which came from investors whose names should have been on the closing and the closing documents.  Those investors are the actual creditors. Or at least they were the actual creditors at the time that the loan money showed up at the alleged "loan closing." Since then, hundreds of settlements and lawsuits were resolved based upon the bank tacitly acknowledging that it took the money and used it for different purposes than those disclosed in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement. These settlements avoid the embarrassing proof problems of any institution since they not only ignored the securitization documents, more importantly, they chose to ignore all of the basic industry standards for the underwriting of a real estate loan because the parties who appeared to be underwriting the loan and funding the loan had absolutely no risk of loss and only had the incentive to close deals in exchange for sharing pornographic amounts of money that were identified as proprietary trading profits or fees.

And the reason why this is so important is that the mortgage lien could never be perfected in the absence of the legitimate creditor who had advanced actual money to the borrower or on behalf of the borrower. This basic truth undermines the industry and government claims about the $13 trillion in loans that still are alleged to exist (despite multiple payments from third parties in multiple resales, insurance contracts and contracts for credit default swaps). The abundant evidence in the public domain as well as the specific factual evidence in each case negates any allegation of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted, to wit: the money came from third-party investors who are the only real creditors. The fact that the money went through intermediaries is no more important or relevant than the fact that you are a depository bank is intended to honor checks drawn on your account provided you have the funds available. The inescapable conclusion is that the investors were tricked into making unsecured loans to homeowners and that the entire foreclosure scandal that has consumed our nation for years is based on completely false premises.

Your attorney could pose the question to the court in a way that would make it difficult for the court to rule against you. If the lender had agreed to make a loan provided you put up the property being financed PLUS additional collateral in the form of ownership of a valid mortgage on another piece of property,  would the court accept a handwritten allonge from you as the only evidence of ownership or the right to enforce the other mortgage? I think it is clear that neither the banks nor the court would accept the hand written instrument as sufficient evidence of ownership and right to collect payment if you presented the same instruments that they are presenting to the court.

PRACTICE HINT: In fact, you could ask the bank for their policy in connection with accepting its mortgages on other property as collateral for a business loan or for a loan on existing property or the closing on a new piece of property being acquired by the borrower. You could drill down on that policy by asking for the identification of the individual or committee that would decide whether or not a handwritten allonge would be sufficient or would satisfy them that they had  adequate collateral in the form of a mortgage on the first property and the pledge of a mortgage on a second piece of property.

The answer is self-evident. No bank or other lending institution or lending entity would loan money on the basis of a dubious self-serving allonge.  There would be no deal. If you sued them for not making the loan after the bank issued a letter of commitment (which by the way you should ask for both in relation to your own case and in relation to the template used by the bank in connection with the issuance of a letter of commitment), the bank would clearly prevail on the basis that you provided insufficient documentation to establish the additional collateral (your interest in the mortgage on another piece of property).

The bank's position that it would not loan money on such a flimsy assertion of additional collateral would be both correct from the point of view of banking practice and sustained by any court has lacking sufficient documentation to establish ownership and the right to enforce. Your question to the court should be "if justice is blind, what difference does it make which side is using an unsupportable position?"