Friday, March 23, 2012

Guerrero vs. Chase Home Finance LLC-FL DCA-Chase tries to re-establish lost note without a lost note count in its original complaint

However, on cross examination the witness admitted that he neither knew what this representation meant nor knew if Chase (much less IBM/Fannie Mae) agreed to it:

Q. [BY COUNSEL FOR CHASE]: Is it true that, according to

this affidavit . . . the plaintiff is willing to indemnify . . . ?

A. I’m not sure what you mean by that.. . . .

THE COURT: Counselor’s cross examination was getting right to the heart of it. If this note is found, and after this proceeding . . .would the plaintiff be in a position to indemnify anybody for that note that was lost, now found? . .

[A.]: I apologize, I’m not sure what the word “indemnify”means.. . .

Q. [BY COUNSEL FOR THE GUERREROS]: By the way,are you authorized to indemnify the defendants by the servicer or the holder of this note? Can you make that statement in this courtroom?

A. Again, I don’t really understand exactly.

5. . . .Q. Did you understand what you were signing?

A. I understood the parts about the – that have to do with thesearches that we did and when the notes came in. I guess my answeris, No. [This statement] is not completely understood

Guerro v. Chase

No comments: