standing fast for liberty. Gal. 5:1
For help and support, call us at (334) 239-8987 or click here to email us.

Words from the Rising Republics

THE ARCHITECT OF DESTRUCTION

 

Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh , PA , and retired to Richmond , VA , in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions.

The accomplishment of which she is most proud is her volunteer work at an Army base where she looked into the eyes and hearts of the service members who protect our country.

Our Pledge of Allegiance, a military band playing the National Anthem, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, inspire her passion and views. Her life is guided by a firm belief that truth is the most important virtue, and that God knows what He is doing with her.

 

ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, could have described this President more accurately. This is a brief biography that articulates the man, his life and his goals perfectly!

 

The Architect of Destruction

 

By Maureen Scott 

 

Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors…it seems to have never left him.

 

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America .

 

Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

 

Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," (no. he gets goose bumps when he hears the '''Muslim call to prayer"""(his words)))))or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of " America the Beautiful?"

Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America , penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

                        


Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

 

Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.

 

He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many. Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.

 

Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America , rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security.

He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.

 

Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.


    · Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.

 

    · Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.

 

    · Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!

 

Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America , and the epitome of a Demagogue.

"Oldest called "Hate Group"

 

Largest Historical “Hate Group”

Centuries old

The Apostle Paul’s recorded description by the intolerant

 Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Two groups are identified:

Those who hate God and hate all who disagree with them.

Those who love God, and who love their neighbor as themselves.

Which group have you supported?

Freedom's Way

 

Here lies the real gist of the whole matter. Is God known, loved, and trusted? If He be, the heart will delight in the most absolute dependence upon Him. If not, such dependence would be perfectly insufferable. The un-renewed man loves to think Himself independent — loves to fancy himself free — loves to believe that he may do what he likes, go where he likes, say what he likes. Alas! It is the merest delusion. Man is not free. He is the slave of Satan. It has been over six thousand years since he sold himself into the hands of that great spiritual slave holder who has held him ever since, and who holds him still. Yes, Satan holds the natural man — the unconverted, unrepentant man in terrible bondage. He has him bound hand and foot with chains and fetters which are not seen in their true character because of the gilding wherewith he has so artfully covered them. Satan rules man by means of his lusts, his passions, and his pleasures. He forms lusts in the heart, and then gratifies them with the things that are in the world, and man vainly imagines himself free because he can gratify his desires. But it is a melancholy delusion; and, sooner or later, it will be found to be such. There is no freedom save that with which Christ makes His people free. He it is who says, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." And again, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8.

Here is true liberty. It is the liberty which the new nature finds in walking in the Spirit, and doing those things that are pleasing in the sight of God. "The service of the Lord is perfect freedom." But this service, in all its departments, involves the simplest dependence upon the living God. Thus it was with the only true and perfect Servant that ever trod this earth. He was ever dependent. Every movement, every act, every word — all He did, and all He left undone — was the fruit of the most absolute dependence upon, and subjection to, God. He moved when God would have Him move, and stood still when God would have Him stand. He spoke when God would have Him speak, and was silent when God would have Him silent.

TODAYS NEWS

 

STATE CONTROL

 

The media today has no talent for reporting the truth. Christopher Tiedenam wrote in 1886 more truth than the combined truth that is possessed by the entire current bureaucracy. If you want to know what is in progress today read his writings below. Forrest Gump would say of us today, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

We are slaves by consent.

 

                                                          

All governmental power is de­rived from the people; and instead of the king being the vicegerent of God, and the people subjects of the king, the King and other officers of the government were the servants of the people, and the people became the real sovereign through the officials.

The sphere of governmental ac­tivity was confined within the smallest limits by the popularization of the so-called laissez-faire doctrine, which denies to government the power to do more than to provide for the public order and personal security by the preven­tion and punishment of crimes and trespasses.

The political pendulum is again swinging in the opposite direction, and the doctrine of governmental inactivity in economical matters is attacked daily with increasing vehemence. Gov­ernmental interference is proclaimed and demanded every­where as a sufficient panacea for every social evil which threaten the prosperity of society. Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism are rampant throughout the civilized world. The State is called on to protect the weak against the shrewdness of the stronger, to determine what wages a workman shall receive for his labor, and how many hours daily he shall labor. Many trades and occupations are be­ing prohibited because some are damaged incidentally by their prosecution, and many ordinary pursuits are made government monopolies. The demands of the Socialists and Communists vary in degree and in detail, and the most extreme of them insist upon the assumption by government of the paternal character altogether, abolishing all private property in land, and making the State the sole possessor of the working capital of the nation.

The con­servative classes stand in constant fear of the advent of an absolutism more tyrannical and more unreasoning than any before experienced by man, the absolutism of a democratic majority.

Under the written constitutions, Federal and State, democratic absolutism is impossible in this country, as long as the popular reverence for the constitutions, in their restrictions upon governmental activity, is nourished and sustained by a prompt avoidance by the courts of any violations of their provisions, in word or in spirit. The substantial rights of the minority are shown to be free from all lawful control or interference by the majority, except so far as such con­trol or interference may be necessary to prevent injury to others in the enjoyment of their rights. The police power of the government is shown to be confined to the detailed en­forcement of the legal maxim, Ric utere tuo, ut alienum non lcedas.

If the author succeeds in any measure in his attempt to awaken the public mind to a full appreciation of the power of constitutional limitations to protect private rights against the radical experimentations of social reformers, he will feel that he has been amply requited for his labors in the causes of social order and personal liberty.

University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo, November 1, 1886                       C. G. T.

Modern Day Slavery

 

Today the peonage instrument is a securitized mortgage.

Once the mortgage fraud is out front and known, it becomes apparent that the homeowner will never own his home property with a legal and unbroken chain of title, the homeowner then will realize that he was and will always be a tenant on his property making payments that will never purchase the home property, then he knows he is an involuntary indentured servant.

It is a choice of slavery or freedom.

Wells Fargo has a written policy active now for eighteen years making slaves (indentured servants or peons) of all their mortgage customers. Slave makers are too big to fail. Shake hands with yourself as a slave every time you make a payment to Wells Fargo, the one place you can never get what you pay for. If Walmart did this, who would buy from Walmart? “Stupid is as stupid does.” The Stockholm syndrome is the kissing of the feet of the torturer.

Who cares that you must give an account to God?

The FBI has accurately testified, before congress, that 80% of all mortgage fraud is by the lender, not by the borrower. The making of slaves is illegal except to a corrupt judicial branch.

One cannot serve two masters. If one is in God’s household one has already been bought with a price. God’s servant is God’s freeman. True freedom is a gift. Have no part of bondage.

42 U.S. Code § 1994 - Peonage abolished

 

The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.

HOW YOUR PROPERTY IS STOLEN WITHOUT DISCLOSURE

 

HERE IS HOW IT IS DONE

FBI SAYS 80% OF ALL MORTGAGE FRAUD

IS BY THE LENDER NOT THE BORROWER

  1. 1.Get signed Promissory Note and Mortgage (Cow and Tail)
  2. 2.Banks cannot lend money Balance Books with

Bookkeeping entry in account (NO SUBSTANCE: FROM AIR)

  1. 3.After three days SCAN NOTE AND MORTGAGE, THEN DESTROY.
  2. 4.Sell Note to Investment Banking for Bond trading thru SPV. Sell over and over.

Place in many Purchasing and Serving Agreements. Get Bond rating?

NOTE PAID IN FULL and cannot be enforced. Cow is killed and dead tail is waved.

(Toxic, dead investment sold with no disclosure) FRAUD.

  1. 5.Buy insurance for investor in the event of default.
  2. 6.Earn Servicing Fee from servicing account. Harass borrower because servicer must

pay when borrower is late.

  1. 7.After 90 days of no payment, collect insurance and pay investor. (NOTE IS AGAIN PAID)
  2. 8.Seek immediate foreclosure to hide fraud. Select attorney foreclosure mill who can Manufacture

Documents to deceive borrower, judges, and unaware public.

  1. 9.Auction property without warranty of title. Collect the money and run like hell.
  2. 10.If caught, pay fine to avoid jail because Al Capone is too large to fail.
  3. 11.When sued, find attorney that will follow the directions below:
    1. a. Avoid Service of Process
    2. b.File a motion to dismiss saying the facts are un-denied, but the borrower has failed to file a claim for relief that can be granted (Old law it was called a demurrer)
    3. c.Move to federal court because federal court has no jurisdiction over ownership of property, ownership of property exclusive jurisdiction of State. Federal courts wink at half-truths and are open to manipulation because judges do not seek election.
    4. d.If borrower files motion to remand the case to State Court, then file many appeals on as many technical issues necessary to cause the borrower to withdraw or deplete his funds to object.
    5. 12. All the while DEMONIZE THE BORROWER AS A NO GOOD DEADBEAT. (Acts 24:5)
    6. 13.Maximize return on ZERO INVESTMENT:
      1. a.Value of note maximized.
      2. b.Sell copies of note at least five times on the average for small Ponzi Scheme.
      3. c.Auction property and keep 100% of bid.
      4. d.Finance the property with foreclosure deed without warranty of property with ZERO value.
      5. e.Start all over again, find another involuntary indentured servant, never owner just tenant.
      6. f.Reward CEOs with big bonuses or golden parachute.
      7. 14. FILE 1099A with IRS claiming the property because borrower “abandoned the property” rather than have the property owner shot by the Sheriff.
      8. 15.PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK FOR SWINDLING THE UNKNOWING.
      9. 16.PURSAUDE YOURSELF THAT GOD WINKS AT MONEYCHANGER’S WITCHCRAFT.
      10. 17.CONTRIBUTE TO THE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.
      11. 18.MAKE HUGH EQUAL DONATIONS TO LOCAL CHURCHES AND POLITICAL PARTIES.
      12. 19.SMILE; WHAT THEY DON’T KNOW CAN SOMETIMES HURT ALL BUT ME, THE “LENDER”    

CONSCIENCE VOID OF OFFENSE

 

CONSCIENCE VOID OF OFFENSE

Oh! let us be honest, come what may. Let us walk in the fear of God. Let us, like the blessed apostle, “exercise ourselves to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man.”

True, it may cost us something. We may have to suffer for righteousness' sake. But what is all this when compared with the deep joy of walking with God in that narrow path on which the blessed beams of His approving countenance ever shine? Is not a good conscience better far than thousands in gold and silver? Our God will take care of us. He will meet all our real need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Why should we ever devote ourselves to the contemptible “tricks of trade” in order to make money or make a living, when our Father has pledged Himself to care for us all the journey through?

It is very important that the Christian should be thoroughly clear and above-board in all his ways. There should be nothing questionable in any of his transactions — nothing hidden.

You got to have a ten dollar bill in hand to spend it, not copy

Diane Gray

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association

No. 2120087

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

January 10, 2014

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-11-901316).

PER CURIAM.

Diane Gray appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). We reverse the trial court's judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

On April 15, 2011, Fannie Mae filed a complaint against Gray asserting that, "by virtue of foreclosure on April 4, 2011, of that certain Mortgage originally between Diane Gray and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acting solely as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Corporation subsequently transferred and assigned to EverHome Mortgage Company and further purchased by [Fannie Mae], " Fannie Mae is the owner of certain real property located in Jefferson County. Fannie Mae alleged that it had served a written demand for possession on Gray, that Gray had failed to vacate the property, and that Gray had lost her right to redeem the property. Fannie Mae requested possession of the property, money damages for the wrongful retention of the property, and an order stating that Gray had "forfeited her right to redemption for failing to vacate the property." On May 18, 2011, Gray answered and asserted as an affirmative defense that the foreclosure was void.

On March 27, 2012, Fannie Mae filed a motion for a summary judgment, along with evidentiary materials in support thereof. Fannie Mae submitted the affidavit of Robin Murdock, vice president for "EverBank sbm Everhome Mortgage Company" (hereinafter referred to as "EverBank" or "EverHome"), the servicer of the loan, in which Murdock stated, in pertinent part:

"3. In my present position, I have direct access to business records of EverBank as loan servicer regarding the account which forms the basis of this action and am a custodian of said business records. I have reviewed said relevant business records, and consistent with my review of the business records of EverBank as loan servicer, I have knowledge of the facts set forth in this Affidavit.


"4    The business records were made in the ordinary course of the business and it was the regular course of said business to make such records. Said records relative to Defendant GRAY ... and this action, were made at the time of the transaction, occurrence or event referred to therein or were made within a reasonable time thereafter, and said records are kept under my care, supervision, and/or control.

"5    On or about January 30, 2004, GRAY entered into and executed that certain Note, in favor of Irwin Mortgage Corporation and its successors and assigns....

"6    On or about January 30, 2004, GRAY entered into and executed that certain Mortgage, securing the Note, in favor of FANNIE MAE....

"7    On May 10, 2007, Irwin Mortgage Corporation executed an Assignment of Mortgage to EverHome Mortgage Company (aka EverBank)....

"8    On November 4, 2010 and December 31, 2010, GRAY [was] sent a Notice of Default. This notice informed GRAY of [her] failure to make payments according to the terms of the Note and Mortgage and advised her of the possibility of foreclosure.... This notice was sent to the address recited in the Mortgage.

"9    On February 8, 2011, GRAY [was] sent a Notice of Acceleration at the address recited in the mortgage....

"10 The notice of foreclosure was published on February 9, 16, 23, and March 5, 2011, in The Alabama Messenger....

"11 On April 4, 2011, the Mortgage was foreclosed through a valid foreclosure sale....

"12 By virtue of the April 4, 2011 foreclosure sale, FANNIE MAE was the highest and best bidder at the foreclosure sale and is the owner of the [property].

"13 On April 4, 2011, a demand for possession of the property was sent to the GRAY at the property address set forth in the Mortgage...."

Fannie Mae also attached a note dated January 30, 2004, given by Gray in favor of Irwin Mortgage Corporation; a mortgage ("the mortgage") relating to the property given by Gray to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), acting solely as a nominee for Irwin Mortgage and its successors and assignees; an assignment of the mortgage from MERS, as nominee for Irwin Mortgage and its successors and assignees, to EverHome dated May 10, 2007; a letter dated November 4, 2010, notifying Gray that she was in default on her mortgage payments and that she had 20 days to get her account current or the mortgage would be foreclosed; a letter to Gray dated December 31, 2010,


notifying her of her breach of the note and of the mortgage and stating that she must pay the amount of $21, 094.53 in order to reinstate the loan and to avoid acceleration of the total amount due under the note and the mortgage; a letter dated February 8, 2011, notifying Gray that she was in default of the note and the mortgage and that EverHome was accelerating to maturity the entire unpaid balance of the loan; proof of publication of the notices in the Alabama Messenger, a newspaper of general circulation in Jefferson County; a foreclosure deed dated April 4, 2011, from EverHome to Fannie Mae, which states that the foreclosure sale occurred "at public outcry in front of the Courthouse door in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, " on that day "between the legal hours of sale" and which includes a certification from the auctioneer that the sale took place on that date at 11:33 a.m.; and a demand for possession of the property sent by Fannie Mae to Gray dated April 4, 2011.

On May 1, 2012, Gray filed her response to the summary-judgment motion, along with her affidavit in support thereof. In her affidavit, Gray averred, in pertinent part:

"I bought the property ... on January 30, 2004, and signed a promissory note with Irwin Mortgage Corporation and executed a mortgage with [MERS] as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Corporation. The note and mortgage are secured by the property.... The mortgage was recorded in the probate records of Jefferson County, Alabama. I am the sole owner of the property in which I currently reside.

"The mortgage and note [were] apparently transferred to EverHome Mortgage Company at some point thereafter; although, I was never notified of said transfer. Prior to the foreclosure EverHome was acting as the servicer of my mortgage loan. The original terms of the note and mortgage required [me] to pay $708.59 each month which included escrow funds for taxes and insurance. My mortgage is a Fannie Mae mortgage and so states on the face of the document. In September 2007, I lost my job due to company layoffs. As a result of my job loss, my household income significantly decreased, and I began having difficulty paying the mortgage payments. Because of the circumstances, I began seeking assistance from the mortgage company regarding my difficulty in making the monthly mortgage payments. In October 2007, I began contacting the mortgage company about making payment arrangements. I tried to get EverHome to assist me, but it refused so I was forced to file a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on March 31, 2008 to save my home. While I was in Bankruptcy, I lost my job in October 2010, and had difficulty again making my mortgage payments and the bankruptcy payments. I got behind with the mortgage payments again and was sent a notice that EverHome intended to foreclose on my home. I again contacted the mortgage company in February 2011 in an effort to save my home and asked for HAMP [Home Affordable Modification Program] modification through EverHome's


loss mitigation program.

"In February and March 2011, I spoke to the mortgage company numerous times about a loan modification or work out plan through their loss mitigation program. They told me they would work with me and that I qualified for assistance and would get a loan modification. However, they did not follow through with assisting me, and I never got the loan modification to which I was promised. I could never get anyone to follow up with the modification despite my repeated calls to the mortgage company. I sent all the requested information to them; however, I never heard from them. I had to keep calling them back regarding my application for assistance. I was told by them that the foreclosure would not go forward as long as they were working with me through the loss mitigation program. Because of these communications with the lender, I was confused about the foreclosure procedure. Further, I relied upon these communications and believed that the mortgage company was working with me to help me keep my home and avoid foreclosure.

"Although, I was aware I was in foreclosure, I never received any notice that a foreclosure sale had been set for April 4, 2011. On Friday, April 1, 2011, I was told by representatives of the mortgage company not to worry, that they were still reviewing my account for a loan modification and that they would postpone any sale until the review was finished. My first knowledge [of] the foreclosure sale was the morning of the sale (April 4, 2011) at approximately 9:00 a.m. when I called the mortgage company to check on the status of the mortgage and was advised that the house had was set to be sold that day at noon and that there was nothing further that they could do to stop the foreclosure sale. They refused to offer me any further help to save my home. I went to the courthouse at approximately 11:20 am the morning of the sale and stood on the front steps of the main entrance of the Jefferson County Courthouse. I stayed there until after 12:30 p.m. and no one ever appeared there to [sell] my house. I later received a letter from the law office of Sirote & Permutt advising me that the house had been sold and asking me to vacate the premises.

"I was never sent nor did I receive any proper notice of default or an opportunity to cure the delinquency. Furthermore, I was never provided with a notice of intent to accelerate as required by my mortgage contract. Paragraph 21 requires that the mortgage company send me a default notice and a notice of intent to accelerate the mortgage indebtedness. I was not provided with a notice of intent to accelerate stating the following elements: (a) the specific default, (b) the action required to cure the default, (c) a date by which to cure the default, and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice will cause acceleration of the debt. The notice was required by the mortgage, and was extremely important. I have a meritorious defense to this action. This property was wrongly foreclosed. Even if the


mortgage contract is held to be valid, EverHome has failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract. Since its power of sale and ability to foreclose is conditioned upon the mandates and procedures of the contract, their failure to follow said contract renders the foreclosure sale invalid. EverHome wrongfully foreclosed and attempted to purchase for itself the property on April 4, 2011 without giving me a proper notice of the default, a notice of intent to accelerate, a notice of sale, and an opportunity to cure that default. Prior to acceleration of the debt, I did not receive the required notice outlined in the mortgage document that I was given on January 30, 2004.

"The indebtedness on the property at the time of the foreclosure sale was approximately $75, 000.00. [Fannie Mae] bought the property from itself at the foreclosure sale for $73, 185.89.

"Failure to set aside this foreclosure sale would render a harsh result on me due to my financial situation. I want to keep this property."

Both parties moved to strike the affidavits submitted by the other party. On May 22, 2012, Fannie Mae filed a reply to Gray's response to the summary-judgment motion. Fannie Mae attached an affidavit of the foreclosure-sale auctioneer averring that he had conducted the foreclosure sale on April 4, 2011, "at or about 11:33 AM during the legal hours of sale at the place appointed for foreclosure auctions in front of the main entrance to the Courthouse in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama."

After a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment on June 22, 2012, in favor of Fannie Mae, awarding possession of the property to Fannie Mae and ordering the Jefferson County sheriff to restore possession of the property to Fannie Mae. The trial court found that Gray had forfeited her right of redemption by failing to deliver possession of the property to Fannie Mae after having been given 10 days' written notice.

The trial court did not rule on the respective motions to strike. On July 25, 2012, Gray filed a postjudgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the trial court's judgment; Fannie Mae filed a response to the motion on September 4, 2012. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Gray's postjudgment motion on September 6, 2012. On October 17, 2012, Gray filed her notice of appeal to this court. On May 22, 2013, this court transferred the appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction; that court subsequently transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-2-7.

Standard of Review

"'We review this case de novo, applying the oft-stated principles governing appellate review of a trial


court's grant or denial of a summary judgment motion:

"'"We apply the same standard of review the trial court used in determining whether the evidence presented to the trial court created a genuine issue of material fact. Once a party moving for a summary judgment establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' In reviewing a summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and entertain such reasonable inferences as the jury would have been free to draw."'

"American Liberty Ins. Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So.2d 786, 790 (Ala. 2002) (quoting NationwideProp. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 792 So.2d 369, 372 (Ala. 2000) (citations omitted))." General Motors Corp. v. Kilgore, 853 So.2d 171, 173 (Ala. 2002).

Discussion

On appeal, Gray argues that the summary judgment entered by the trial court was improper because, she says, there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Specifically, she argues that there was no evidence indicating that EverHome was the owner of the note at the time of the foreclosure sale. We agree. The only evidence regarding the note is a copy of the note indorsed by the vice president of Irwin Mortgage; that indorsement is not dated and does not include the name of the assignee of the note. In Harris v. Deutsche Bank NationalTrust Co., [Ms. 1110054, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So.3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013), our supreme court reasoned:

"The Harrises also argue that the power of sale described in the mortgage was given by the Harrises as part of the security for the repayment of the debt evidenced by the note and can be 'executed' only by the trustee if it was the party entitled to the money thus secured. They cite § 35–10–12, Ala. Code 1975, which states that the power to sell lands given in a mortgage 'is part of the security and may be executed by any person, or the personal representative of any person who, by assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money thus secured.' In Carpenter v. First National Bank, 236 Ala. 213, 181 So. 239 (1938), this Court applied the predecessor to § 35–10–12, stating:

"'A power of sale in a mortgage of real estate is a part of the security, and passes to any one who by assignment or otherwise becomes entitled to the money secured. Code 1923, § 9010.

"'But an agent of such holder to whom the mortgage is delivered merely for the purpose of foreclosure, having no ownership of the debt, is not authorized to foreclose in his own name, and execute a deed in his name to the


purchaser. Ownership of the debt does not pass to such agent merely because the note is indorsed in blank. Such foreclosure is ineffective, and a court of equity may take jurisdiction for the purpose of foreclosure.'

"236 Ala. at 215, 181 So. at 240 (emphasis added). The foreclosure deed in this case was executed by the trustee in its own name, not on behalf of the lender, SouthStar, or any other party to which SouthStar may have assigned the note. The deed was effective to transfer title and to foreclose the rights of the mortgagor, therefore, only if the trustee, in its own name, was entitled to receive the money secured by the note at the time it executed and delivered that deed.

"The parties agree in their briefs, however, and we accept for purposes of this case, that the mortgage given MERS 'solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns' did not entitle MERS to the money secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, the subsequent assignment of that mortgage by MERS to the trustee did not accomplish an assignment of that right to the trustee. The trustee in fact concedes that summary judgment was inappropriate in this case and that on the state of the current record there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the trustee received an assignment of the note so as to have entitled it to execute the power of sale in its own name. (It asserts that, if this case is returned to the trial court, it will introduce 'conclusive evidence' of its receipt as early as 2005 of the debt evidenced by the original note signed by the Harrises.) The summary judgment entered by the trial court therefore is due to be vacated and the case remanded for a determination as to whether the trustee received an assignment of the right to receive the money secured by the note, and thus the power to execute the corresponding power of sale in its own name, before executing and delivering the foreclosure deed."

(Footnote omitted.) See also Ex parteBAC Home LoansServicing, LP, [Ms. 1110373, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So.3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013) (holding that the right of the foreclosing entity to conduct a foreclosure sale must be proven in order to show that the buyer at a foreclosure sale has superior legal title and a cause of action to eject the debtor). Further, in Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So.3d 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), this court explained:

"Alabama law specifically contemplates that there can be a separation. See § 35–10–12 and Harton [v. Little, 176 Ala. 267, 57 So. 851 (1911)]. The Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages takes the position that a note and mortgage can be separated but that '[t]he mortgage becomes useless in the hands of one who does not also hold the obligation because only the holder of the obligation can foreclose.' Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 5.4, Reporter's Note –- Introduction, cmt. a at 386. The Restatement explains: '"The note is the cow and the mortgage the tail. The cow can survive without a tail, but the tail cannot


survive without the cow."' Id. at 387 (quoting Best Fertilizers of Arizona, Inc. v. Burns, 117 Ariz. 178, 179, 571 P.2d 675, 676 (Ct. App.), reversed on other grounds, 116 Ariz. 492, 570 P.2d 179 (1977))."

104 So.3d at 205.

Similar to Harris, in the present case "the mortgage given MERS 'solely as a nominee for [Irwin Mortgage] and [Irwin Mortgage's] successors and assigns' did not entitle MERS to the money secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, the subsequent assignment of that mortgage by MERS to [EverHome] did not accomplish an assignment of that right to [EverHome]." Id. at ___. EverHome presented no evidence indicating that the note had been transferred "by delivery of possession or by written assignment." Coleman v. BAC Servicing , 104 So.3d at 203 ("The promissory note evidencing that debt was a bearer instrument that could be transferred in two ways: by delivery of possession or by written assignment."); see also Ala. Code 1975, § 8–5–24 ("The transfer of a ... note given for the purchase money of lands, whether the transfer be by delivery merely or in writing, expressed to be with or without recourse on the transferor, passes to the transferee the lien of the vendor of the lands."). "'[O]nly the holder of the obligation can foreclose.'" Coleman, 104 So.3d at 205. Because there was no evidence presented that EverHome, the foreclosing entity, was the holder of the note at the time of the foreclosure sale, we conclude that, like in Harris, the summary judgment entered in the present case was improper.

Gray makes several other arguments regarding the propriety of the summary judgment and the denial of her motion to strike. Because we are reversing the summary judgment on the merits, we pretermit discussion of those arguments. See Crews v. McLing , 38 So.3d 688, 696 (Ala. 2009).

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the summary judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Pittman, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result only, with writing, which Thomas, J., joins.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result only.

In defense of the ejectment action initiated by the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"), Diane Gray argued that the foreclosure deed pursuant to which Fannie Mae claimed to own the property was invalid because there was no authority to conduct the foreclosure sale upon which that deed is based. Among other things, Gray contends that, in support of its summary-judgment motion in its ejectment action, Fannie


Mae failed to present prima facie evidence that either the mortgage or the note had been transferred to EverHome Mortgage Company before EverHome conducted the foreclosure sale.[1]

The record indicates that on May 10, 2007, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), in its capacity as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Company, the original mortgagee, purported to assign to EverHome the mortgage executed by Gray in favor of Irwin Mortgage Company. However, the power to sell or foreclose is available only to a person or entity entitled to payment of the money secured by the mortgage or note. § 35-10-7, Ala. Code 1975. In Harris v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., [Ms. 1110054, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. 2013), our supreme court held that when an agent, or nominee, of a lender is not entitled under § 35-10-7 to receive the money secured by a mortgage, the agent may not purport to transfer the right to the receive that money on behalf of the lender. In other words, under the facts of this case, if MERS was not entitled to receive the money secured by the mortgage from Gray, it could not validly assign to EverHome the right to receive that money. The language specifying the rights afforded MERS under Gray's mortgage is identical to the language setting forth the rights MERS had under the mortgage at issue in Harris. In Harris, the parties agreed that the language detailing MERS's rights under the mortgage did not entitle MERS under § 35-10-7 to the money secured by the mortgage at issue, and our supreme court accepted that agreement for the purposes of resolving the appeal. ___ So.3d at ___. In this case, there is no such agreement. However, Fannie Mae has not argued that at the time MERS executed its purported assignment of Gray's mortgage to EverHome, MERS had a right to receive the money secured by the mortgage. In the absence of such arguments or evidence, I believe the holding in Harris controls this issue in this case. EverHome could foreclose and transfer the property via a foreclosure deed to Fannie Mae only if, at the time it foreclosed, EverHome had the right to receive the money secured by the mortgage. Harris, ___ So.3d at ___. Under our supreme court's recent holding in Harris, MERS could not properly assign the right to the payment of the money secured by Gray's mortgage to EverHome. Accordingly, I must conclude that Fannie Mae failed to present a prima facie case that EverHome had acquired the right to foreclose on Gray's mortgage by virtue of a purported assignment of that mortgage from MERS to EverHome.[2]

However, the inquiry does not necessarily end when it is determined that a valid or timely assignment of a mortgage did not occur. This court has recognized that a mortgage need not be assigned in order to enable an owner of the debt secured by that mortgage to foreclose under a power of sale. Perry v.Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 100 So.3d 1090, 1095 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). A promissory note secured by a mortgage that is indorsed in blank may be transferred merely by possession. Id. This


court has explained:

"The promissory note evidencing that debt was a bearer instrument that could be transferred in two ways: by delivery of possession or by written assignment. See Ala. Code 1975, § 8–5–24 ('The transfer of a ... note given for the purchase money of lands, whether the transfer be by delivery merely or in writing, expressed to be with or without recourse on the transferor, passes to the transferee the lien of the vendor of the lands.'); Kevin M. Hudspeth, Clarifying Murky MERS: Does Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Have Authority to Assign the Mortgage Note in a Standard Illinois Foreclosure Action?, 31 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 1, 14 (2010) (stating that 'a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action obtains the right to enforce the note in one of two primary ways: (1) through proper assignment ..., or (2) through negotiation under the U[niform] C[ommercial] C[ode]').

"'Ownership of a contractual obligation can generally be transferred by a document of assignment; see Restatement, Second, Contracts § 316 [(1981)]. However, if the obligation is embodied in a negotiable instrument, a transfer of the right to enforce must be made by delivery of the instrument; see [former] U.C.C. § 3–202 (1995).'

"Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 5.4, cmt. b. at 381."

Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So.3d 195, 203-04 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).

As the main opinion indicates, the record on appeal contains a blank indorsement to EverHome of the note executed by Gray and secured by the mortgage.[3] My review of the evidence in the record indicates that Fannie Mae failed to present evidence as to whether EverHome was in possession of the note that was indorsed in blank. Murdock's affidavit speaks only in terms of certain actions being taken by some unspecified entity--perhaps EverHome, although this court may not so speculate--in seeking to accelerate Gray's debt and foreclose based on the purported assignment of the mortgage from MERS to EverHome. EverHome might have been in possession of the promissory note at the time it foreclosed; however, Fannie Mae failed to make a prima facie showing in support of its summary-judgment motion that EverHome was in possession of the note.

Fannie Mae attempted to base its prima facie case in support of ejectment on its claim that it had a valid foreclosure deed. However, Fannie Mae failed to present prima facie evidence demonstrating that EverHome had the authority to foreclose and to issue the foreclosure deed. Accordingly, I conclude that Gray has demonstrated on appeal that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae.

Thomas, J., concurs.


Notes:

[1]In considering this issue, I do not address the argument raised by Gray that some portions of Fannie Mae's evidence was not admissible under Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P.

[2]In support of its summary-judgment motion, Fannie Mae submitted the affidavit of Robin Murdock, the "Vice President for Everbank sbm Everhome." In his affidavit, Murdock stated that, "[o]n May 10, 2007, Irwin Mortgage Corporation executed an Assignment of Mortgage to EverHome Mortgage Company (aka EverBank). A copy of the Assignment of Mortgage is attached as 'Exhibit C.'" The exhibit to which Murdock referred in his affidavit was the May 10, 2007, purported assignment from MERS, as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Company, to EverHome. Fannie Mae submitted no other evidence tending to indicate that Irwin Mortgage Company had executed an assignment of Gray's mortgage to EverHome.

[3]A "blank indorsement" is "an indorsement that names no specific payee, thus making the instrument payable to the bearer and negotiable by delivery only." Black's Law Dictionary 844 (9th ed. 2009).