[suijuris]

"I'm pretty positive they won't produce the note. I was even informed in the mail several months back that it had been sold to someone else."



Ok people, you need to pay close attention to the following. This is going to be some of the best information I can provide in a while relating to bank loans.



I have never heard of a case where banks have produced the original note. There are several reasons for this... one is that they modified the note after your signature. And in some cases, they cannot locate it for various reasons.



In your case, you say they allege it has been sold. If they do not produce the original, how do you know you are paying the holder of the note? How do you know that the actual holder will not come forward later and demand payment? Without the note, they have no proof of a contract. They do not have anything, unless you allow them to enter a copy of the note as evidence. There are cites in this forum (here) that show the original note is required. Without being able to enter that into evidence, they have nothing, unless they get you to testify that the note/contract exists....



Many people get tripped up one one simple thing - they admit to signing the note. Now, they can bypass all your allegations of fraud, and that the note is nonexistent or being held by another party because you have CONFESSED AND ADMITTED to signing the note... this is admitting that they loaned you money and you agreed to repay. Game over. It matters not if they can cannot provide their ledger and bookkeeping entries, the contract, the original note, proof of consideration, etc.



By admitting that your signature is on the note, you are not only admitting that you picked up a pen and wrote your name. You are attesting to the validity of the note. The altering of a document such as a note makes it a FORGERY, and no longer attests to the validity of the forged note. The forged note may have your handwriting or name at the bottom, but your signature is not lending validity to the authenticity of the document because it was altered.



A document can be a forgery not only if the signature is forged, but also if the document is altered. So when the bank stamped the note to deposit it as money to fund the check, the note was fundamentally altered, and became a forgery.



If I were asked if it is my signature that appears on the note, my response would be that "...it looks like a great forgery. As I do not understand what this document is, can you stipulate if this promissory note acts like money or the equivalent to money use to give value to a bank check? Can you stipulate all of the material facts about the promissory note or what the agreement is so I know what it is that my alleged signature is validating as to the agreement? I can not determine if it is myself or the bank who provides the capitol to fund the check. I cannot testify if something is my signature if I do not know what is agreed to in the alleged document. I cannot answer until these questions are explained to me."



Remember, your signature means that you agree the bank lent you their money and that you owe them yours. Without you testifying that it is your signature or the bank producing the original, unaltered note, does the bank have any evidence of a contract or that the note ever existed? Without producing their ledgers, do they have any evidence of a loan? Without any evidence, do they HAVE A CASE?



Just my thoughts based on my research... I recommend the Rommel school of law's banking handbook as well as the bankhonesty.com material, I have learned much from both. If you can afford them, get them BEFORE going to court.



Scott, I hope you will provide more details on your case. What was the cause of action, what relief was sought, what evidence has been provided by yourself and the plaintiff, what motions, memorandums, etc, have been filed?



And most importantly, why is the bank requesting summary judgment? Are there really no facts in controversy? Can you prove otherwise?