Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
I haven't seen the affidavits but I would expect the last line to be something like "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true of my own personal knowledge." Maybe he didn't understand "the foregoing" -- but did he really not understand the statement that "the foregoing is true"? If anything, the "gosh, I didn't understand the document" argument is further proof of bad faith.
|
Note--The closest I come on this is Ty's suggestion that it's reckless--certainly not good faith, but not necessarily bad faith either.
That said, doesn't it depend on what he understood "personal knowledge" to mean, what he was instructed to review and certify too and what the level of detail regarding the ownership of the note/mortgage contained in the aff was?
Say the aff stated "GMAC is the holder of legal title to the note in original amount $X, secured by mortgage on 123 Fake Street. GMAC holds the legal right to enforce said mortgage." before detailing default, last payment date and amount of arrearages, penalty interest and fees, all of which he actually confirmed. In the *personal* knowledge of the signer, GMAC owned the note and had the right to foreclose--otherwise, why would he, an employee of GMAC--be signing the document, right?
And, almost certainly, the assertion of ownership and rights was in the "pre-printed" portion of the doc, with the numbers and dates as the only fill-in info. Again, to the personal knowledge of the signer, GMAC's ownership wasn't in question (not anymore, of course). Which is why one should never accept a knowledge qualifier keyed on the personal knowledge of an individual on behalf of a corporation, unless you get some sort of "after due inquiry" proviso, too.
