We end up listening to information, not evidence, from lawyers who are not sworn in as witnesses, as to matters that are totally outside their scope of knowledge. And then we end up arguing over giving title to a party who admittedly doesn’t have one dime committed to the transaction and who stands to lose nothing. If the foreclosure goes forward, under their plan, they have the property, the investor has the loss, and the homeowner is homeless. And they never put up a dime.
Lawyers have pointed out some notable failures to sway the Judge, where the Judge didn’t get it or refused to get it and where the law was misconstrued. That is our system. 18 months ago none of them got it, but today there are hundreds of judges and thousands of lawyers who in one form or another are pressing forward, successfully with challenges to pretender lenders and trying to get to the finish line of identifying the real lender and getting the loan re-structured or otherwise settling the case between the true parties in interest — the investor who advanced the cash and the homeowner who got the benefit of SOME of the investor’s advance (the rest having been diverted as fees and profits to Wall Street and main street intermediaries).
Here is my answer to one of those lawyers.
OK. There are going to successes and failures and they will probably come in groups. But more and more judges are getting it and more and more we are seeing the law followed, rules enforced, evidence required etc. Don’t let it get you down. One thing we are experimenting with is a very narrow laser-like appraoch at the very beginning of litigation that basically says — tell us the name of the Lender. We have asked and they haven’t answered. Judge tell them to answer. And we don’t mean the party named on the original documentation we mean the party who today stands to suffer the economic loss if this obligation goes unpaid.
We have federal requirements to seek modification, mediation orders that are usually entered, and the desire to settle and re-structure this loan. None of these things can be accomplished if we don’t know who the Lender is. We end up talking to people who don’t own the loan, don’t have any decision making authority, and in the end telling us whatever deal they “Agreed” to is subject to investor approval. Then they tell us the investor didn’t approve. But we still don’t know who the investor is even at the end because they won’t tell us.
Imagine this claim judge, they are saying that the name of our lender is confidential. When in the history of jurisprudence has anyone made a claim like that and was allowed to proceed? If you make the Qualified Written Request(QWR) for information and/or Request for Verification of Debt( DVL) then you can add that they are obligated by federal law to give you the name of the investor/lender, the phone number and a ddress. They are obligated to state and show you what documentation supports their answer. If they don’t know, they don’t belong in court.
And if we don’t get to speak with the lender, how do we ever get a full accounting for what money was received on behalf of borrower from insurance, credit default swaps or federal bailout. How do we know who has subrogation rights and may have replaced the lender?
In any small claims action the plaintiff must present evidence, not information, that is accepted by the court of proof of the claim along with a register showing the payment history and what is owed. These people, “pretender lenders,” trustees, foreclosure mill attorneys, apparently wish to finesse that requirement because they don’t know all the facts. The accounting they present is only a small part of a much larger picture. We end up listening to information, not evidence, from lawyers who are not sworn in as witnesses, as to matters that are totally outside their scope of knowledge. And then we end up arguing over giving title to a party who admittedly doesn’t have one dime committed to the transaction and who stands to lose nothing. If the foreclosure goes forward, under their plan, they have the property, the investor has the loss, and the homeowner is homeless. And the party getting the property never put up a dime.
So Judge all we want is to be able to identify the Lender, speak with them and see if this obligation can be re-structured, where the title is cleared, the obligation is definite, and the terms and parties are publicly known.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: bailout, borrower, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, Lender Liability, securitization, trustee |
Wow, the more you know the more it looks like a big scam. A home should be something that is a expense, that you can afford, not an investment vehicle, not something that can be disected and treated like a commodity. Wall street had no business invading main street.
http://activerain.com/manateemoves
short sale expert in Manatee county
You know, guys, I think I’m guilty of repeating something posted here a couple of months ago. I personally have not questioned or verified the statement. But I did read it here on a thread. Anyone else remember seeing this? Hey, IPA guy. The Federal Register guy. anyone remember? Buehler?
UsedKarGuy:
You wrote, “Securities Act of 1933 also requires the trust to perfect title to the asset.” My deed of trust and note were never assigned to the securitized trust and since such assignments don’t exist, were also not recorded. Could you please tell me the exact section of the Act that states this requirement? Please either post here so that others may be helped or email me at FreeClearHome@aol.com
Thanks!
maineloanmodification,
Why does an endorsement in blank not fall under UCC 9? Does blank endorsement cause an instrument to fall under some other section/article of the UCC?
Rose, my state (MS) law says that assignments have to be recorded unless an agent or beneficiary of the holder is listed on the Deed of Trust. If an agent or beneficiary is listed–as MERS is on my Deed–then the law says that there is no requirement to disclose the holder of the promissory note.
I think two defenses against this exception are as follows:
1. MERS is not a beneficiary according to any standard legal definition and therefore an assignment IS required to entered on the margin of the record and
2. The agent or beneficiary listed in the Deed may have represented the holder at the time the Deed was first recorded, but since the sale of the Note, the new holder may or may not be represented by the agent/beneficiary listed in the Deed of Trust.
Angry,
I’m gonna take my lawsuit as far as I can without declaring bankruptcy. That will be my last resort. Like I said, the rights, protections, and arguments that are cited by judges in the recent foreclosure decisions also apply to borrowers not in bankruptcy. I am not going to go gentle into that good night and I am not going out without a fight.
States Are Pondering Fraud Suits Against Banks
By DAVID STREITFELD and JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
Published: November 2, 2009
PHOENIX — Newly empowered by the Supreme Court, the attorneys general of several states hit hard by the housing collapse are exploring consumer fraud suits against major mortgage lenders.
Frustrated by the banks’ inability or unwillingness to stop an avalanche of foreclosures, the states are considering lawsuits over the creation and marketing of millions of bad loans as well as the dismal pace of mortgage modifications.
Such cases would have been impossible until recently, because federal regulators had exclusive oversight of national banks. But a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in June allowed the states to exercise their own supervision, giving them significant leverage.
“We tried to use the tool to be persuasive with the banks,” Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, said in an interview. “But their waterfall of excuses, the abysmal numbers of modifications, tells us persuasion is not working.”
As a result, he said, “we’re moving much closer to litigation.”
While statutes vary, those of every state prohibit fraud in consumer lending. The attorneys general are considering the theory that the banks essentially perpetrated a vast fraud on consumers by marketing exotic loans that would prove impossible to pay back.
During the boom, the banks earned short-term fee income from generating the loans, then quickly resold most of them to investors or to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored housing agencies that eventually required costly taxpayer bailouts.
The Mortgage Bankers Association, a trade group, declined to comment on the possibility of state fraud lawsuits. A spokesman, John Mechem, warned that consumers would end up paying for any campaign of stepped-up legal activity.
“Lawsuits add to the patchwork of regulations that increases compliance costs for lenders, which in turn increases the cost of credit for borrowers,” Mr. Mechem said.
The states’ new power to sue banks arose from an effort in 2005 by Eliot Spitzer, then the New York attorney general, to discover whether several banks had violated the state’s fair-lending laws.
The banks balked at surrendering any information. The Clearing House Association, a consortium of national banks, and the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency filed suit, asserting the states had no authority over national lenders.
Mr. Spitzer’s successor, Andrew M. Cuomo, took up the battle. Lower courts agreed with the banks, but the Supreme Court, narrowly, did not.
Already, the states’ victory in Cuomo v. Clearing House is beginning to affect the legal landscape. “The handcuffs are off,” said Ann Graham, a professor of banking law at Texas Tech University. “The states can pursue justice now.”
In July, the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, filed a civil rights case accusing Wells Fargo of predatory lending. While the case was in the works for 18 months, Ms. Madigan said “it would have been much more difficult to bring” without the favorable Clearing House ruling.
The impact goes beyond housing issues. In West Virginia, a case brought by the state against Capital One, charging deceptive marketing of credit cards, was blocked by a judge in June 2008. The judge said the state did not have authority to pursue the case. After the Clearing House decision, West Virginia filed a request to reinstate the case.
Other states say they are just beginning to explore their new powers.
“We’re back on the field,” said Iowa’s attorney general, Tom Miller. “That’s really important. Certainly there will be some litigation.”
In Arizona, the number of state lawyers working on mortgage issues went from one to eight after Clearing House. “Before the court’s decision, we wouldn’t waste our time looking at national banks,” said Robert Zumoff, senior litigation counsel for Mr. Goddard.
The Clearing House ruling rolled back an expansion of federal authority that began more than five years ago. In January 2004, the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency responsible for regulating national banks, issued two rule changes that had a far-reaching effect on the ability of state banking regulators and law enforcement to pursue violations of state law by large banks and their subsidiaries.
The rule changes broadened the protections afforded to national banks against prosecution for violations of state civil rights and predatory lending laws and other banking statutes. In a statement announcing the regulations, then-comptroller John D. Hawke Jr. said that his agency would take the lead on preventing lending abuses by the banks.
“Predatory lending is a very significant problem in many American communities, but there is scant evidence that regulated banks are engaged in abusive or predatory practices,” Mr. Hawke said then. “Our regulation will ensure that predatory lending does not gain a foothold in the national banking system.”
In the years that followed, as the housing market roared to a peak and then began to plunge, national banks repeatedly and successfully cited the new regulations to turn back lawsuits alleging violations of predatory lending statutes and other laws by state attorneys general and banking regulators.
At other times, they merely switched their charters. When Illinois first started investigating the branches of Wells Fargo Financial Illinois for predatory lending in the spring of 2008, the branches operated under a state charter.
Initially, Wells responded to the state’s subpoena. But on July 26, 2008, the branches were put under the control of Wells Fargo Bank, which is nationally chartered. Wells promptly informed the state of this new situation and ceased cooperation.
With such maneuvers, Ms. Madigan said, “it was much easier for people in the banking industry or any other industry to hide their misconduct.”
While the attorneys general do not say they could have prevented all the shady deals that characterized the housing market at its worst, they believe they might have been able to stop enough of them to limit the scale of the crash.
“For the better part of eight years, the federal regulators were not being aggressive, and at the same time we were disabled,” said the Ohio attorney general, Richard Cordray. “There was nothing holding back irrational and irresponsible practices.”
The Clearing House decision was not a full-fledged victory for the states. The decision limits their subpoena power. While it is now easier to bring cases in court, it might be harder to develop them in the first place.
If the banking industry has its way, the victory will not be a permanent one.
In Washington, the banks are lobbying hard to try to block the states from becoming more aggressive. Lobbyists have urged lawmakers to pre-empt state rules that are more restrictive than federal laws. The Obama administration has opposed those changes.
Two weeks ago, the House Financial Services Committee voted to give the federal government the power to block states from regulating large national banks in some circumstances. Under the compromise, the Comptroller of the Currency would be able to override the states, but only after finding that the state law significantly interfered with federal regulatory policies.
In an interview in his offices here, Mr. Goddard and his top aides spoke repeatedly of their frustrations in dealing with the banks.
After the Clearing House decision, he said, there was “a virtual parade of national officers of national banks” coming through, ostensibly eager to find a common ground to help stanch foreclosures that are running as high as 7,000 a month in Arizona.
But Mr. Goddard, a former mayor of Phoenix, said the lenders were often unable or unwilling to provide him with elementary information, including how many and what kind of loans they have in the state.
The banks have been imploring Mr. Goddard to tell homeowners in default to get in touch with them, opening a dialogue. So he has. But the homeowners say they call and get no response.
“People call and get a runaround,” Mr. Goddard said. “The paperwork gets lost. It’s time to stop this absurd dance.”
He would rather have a solution to the foreclosure problem today than a court victory in three years. But since he is not getting a prompt solution, that leaves only the hope of legal action, in his view. Any case will most likely be a major effort involving multiple states.
“Maybe the banks think we don’t have the gumption to pull the trigger,” Mr. Goddard said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/03suits.html?ref=business
Article 9 is not applicable in these Securitized cases because the Notes are mostly endorsed in Blank, per Fannie Mae policy, and the Servicers or Trusts attempting to foreclose are not the Party in Interest, therefore, the Doorway to the Courtroom is blocked, no standing to seek relief. Agents of the note holder, ie Servicers and MERS, are simply NOT THE HOLDERS by their own admission, and they cannot take possession of a Note, no matter if they argue it is Bearer paper endorsed in Blank, because UCC does not allow the Note to “be passed around like a whiskey bottle at a frat party” to quote Judge Bufford. If the Note issuer, the original creditor, has not transfered away the paper, and there is no evidence to such a transfer, (ie the local credit union making a portfolio loan) and they lost the Note, this article 9 allows them to enforce the instrument.
Servicers tried to manipulate this Article and impose the “lost not affidavit” technique, and it worked…for a while….until Justice caught up with them.
Think positive….
Angry and zurenarrh, local laws will differ. Ffor instance, in GA, where I reside, there is case law requiring perfection of title. As well as statute requiring that the foreclosing entity be on the record at the county in which the property is located PRIOR to bringing a foreclosure action.
Do not assume this is true only in GA, check your state’s statutes, they contain a wealth of information and ammunition.
zurenarrh
i was in the same boat as you debt & bankruptcy…only to protect the house!
bankruptcy is the only means that can legally AVOID a debt of DEED or mortgage. this falls squarely on claims of perfection ; determines if the debt is [secured by perfection ] or unsecured. but most mortgages are [ secured .. this is not quite the same definition as the “perfection secured” this is secured by collateral , which if not avoided by the debtor filing an adversary in bk, allows the [ bank ] to foreclose on the collateral .. but the unsecured debt /or debt contested is discharged.
its much more convoluted then i have stated for the sake of simplicity which of course is a “fuckin oxy moron” because NOTHING about it is simple.
Outside of bk.. as far as i have seen the results have been minimal at best.
months ago i asked here” where are the results???” I didnt get any fingers pointing “excepting mine pointing into the mirror..idiot” haha.
In ca recording is really only to provide means of a race of 1st to record to prevent another from beating the bank [or owner of record so to speak] a valid claim of title .[ protection from squatters claims of title].
bk court or rules brings all claims of title & perfection into the light in a non-judicial state, many bk judges & most civil judges have routinely ignored filing requirements, consumers protection & the occasional contesting the 75+ years of the banks unfettered claims of no contest of ” their valid contracts “.i think we are still far from the judiciary noticing right of consumers in civil court untill we demand the barrier of non-attorney parties have as much or more of the rights to use the courts to settle the differences this mess has rendered. I’ve discovered other thing in the last few days that maybe laughed at by those “play the law game”[ modern judiciary layers & judges ]
http://www.lawlearners.net/
we are all students of the law..only of different degrees.
Angry,
I guess this revision to UCC 9 is why so many of these new decisions (Kansas Supreme Court, etc.) arise from bankruptcy cases. Bankruptcy of the obligor/mortgagor, that is. I was hoping to not have to declare bankruptcy, simply because the mortgage is my only debt problem. But I was told by a local bankruptcy attorney that bankruptcy is the only way to get the big banks to even show up in court and that the bankruptcy judge is the only local judge who “gets it.”
When I read over the recent decisions that seem to support the Living Lies method of foreclosure defense, I wondered why bankruptcy seemed to be such a common theme. After all, the rights of obligors and restraints on the banks being cited by the judges in these decisions seem to be perfectly applicable and workable OUTSIDE of bankruptcy.
For example, MERS is not a nominee/beneficiary no matter if the borrower is in bankruptcy or not; the investors, not the banks, own the Notes whether the borrower is in bankruptcy or not; the Note and Deed/Mortgage have been separated whether the borrower is in bankruptcy or not, etc.
So why is it that we don’t see more successful foreclosure defense lawsuits from borrowers who are NOT in bankruptcy?
Does UCC 9 really make the practice of recording assignments “ineffective” for perfecting a security interest, to quote the article? And how can it be true that chain of title can only be verified and stated accurately by private banks (instead of by consulting public records), as the article says? That would seem to go against 1) hundreds of years of precedent-establishing property law and 2) plain old common sense.
I mean, does UCC 9 really just give banks the power to do whatever they want and make any claim without having to prove anything? If so, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me, but again, wouldn’t that mean that our attempts at foreclosure defense (especially outside of bankruptcy) would be ultimately futile?
zurenarrh
Sorry i could not explain this more clearly… not even sure that i have it correct after rereading it 100’s of times….Who’s implying I’m impaired besides me!?
zurenarrh
i could not agree more..
confusion abounds; [ for and in favor of the bank ]* (with a few exceptions)
if read in the correct light or at least interpreted for the intent of the writers of theses law(s) and revisions…remember that a large portion of the revisions were to encompass bankruptcy law and the position of the [ debtor ] in many cases the debtor would be the pretendler in bankruptcy..the securitization intent was to remove or inhibit the bankruptcy trustee’s ability to reach these assets (ie..bankruptcy remote status; please correct me if this is the wrong terminology here ).
this is where it becomes uber confusing [creditor becomes debtor] bla bla.
i think i’m goint to hurl…again.. e…uck!
but here…
c. 9-109 of Revised Article 9 also state that any attempt to obtain or perfect a security interest in a mortgage by complying with non-Article 9 law (such as recording a collateral assignment of the beneficial interest) would be ineffective. Purchasers of interests in promissory notes and the underlying debtors must rely on representations and the financial stability of originators/sellers to determine who really owns the interest. See UCC sec. 9-308, cmt. 6.
THIS IS WHERE THE VULNERABILITY IN BANKRUPTCY IS .
THE PERFECTION HAS BECOME DEFECTIVE WITH THE BANKS FILING BANKRUPTCY.
Legal information is not Legal advise!.. nice disclaimer huh?
Angry,
Thanks for posting that article. But after reading it, I’m confused…it seems to say that, basically, no foreclosure defense of the kind mentioned here at Living Lies is possible. It basically says that “nothing matters and what if it did,” i.e, filing at county level doesn’t matter, assignments don’t matter, possessing the Note (or not) doesn’t matter, etc.
The info in the article, if accurate, strikes me as somewhat of a silver bullet for the mortgage industry against the homeowner.
Having said that though, I’m not sure that the article as written as clearly as it could have been or should have been. For example, the following passage appeared to support what usedkarguy was talking about below and what Neil has said regarding “default”:
“The secured party does not have to foreclose on the promissory note in order to foreclose on the mortgage. Of course, the secured party cannot foreclose or exercise the debtor/mortgagee’s foreclosure or other remedies unless the debtor/mortgagee is entitled to do so under the mortgage.
This raises the possibility that the debtor/mortgagee may not be in default under its obligation to the secured party, but the obligor/mortgagor is in default under its note to the debtor/mortgagee. If the debtor/mortgagee is not in default, the secured party cannot foreclose on the mortgage. (The agreement between the debtor/mortgagee and the secured party should address this situation).”
Sounds good, but the terminology of the parties involved strikes me as being garbled. The article appears to incorrectly use “debtor” and “mortgagee” as synonyms yet correctly uses “obligor” and “mortgagor” as synonyms. The article confusingly refers to “debtor/mortgagee’s foreclosure” and a situation in which an “obligor/mortgagor” can be in default to a “debtor/mortgagee.”
Is that just a weird mistake on the part of the writers? Aren’t the terms “obligor,” “mortgagor,” and “debtor” more or less synonymous with “mortgagee” essentially being antonymous with those terms?
Or did I just read this whole thing wrong?
FWIW….perfection of promissory notes.. falls under UCC Article 3 and Article 9 and the states controlling contract laws.
title insurance companies deal with this daily !!
impertinent parts
To summarize, under the UCC Article 9; possession is not an indication of ownership of the note. Recording of collateral assignments is not required under Revised Article 9. Enforcement of the debt without the note is allowable under Article 3. Equitable arguments are available to prevent a borrower from benefiting from the industry’s inability to keep track of its documents.
Because perfection can be done without filing, and possession of the instrument is not determinative of ownership, and because UCC sec. 9-203(g) states that the mortgage follows the note, the original maker of the note and an escrow holder cannot rely on the public records to determine who owns the note and who can sign a reconveyance or release of the mortgage.
Revised Article 9 does not protect the original maker, nor provide advice on how to determine whom to pay. Revised Article 9 simply states that the “issues are determined by real-property law”. The Comments to UCC Sec. 9-109 of Revised Article 9 also state that any attempt to obtain or perfect a security interest in a mortgage by complying with non-Article 9 law (such as recording a collateral assignment of the beneficial interest) would be ineffective. Purchasers of interests in promissory notes and the underlying debtors must rely on representations and the financial stability of originators/sellers to determine who really owns the interest. See UCC sec. 9-308, cmt. 6.
In ca ..contract law is controlling as this is a non-judicial state.
These both UCC Article 9 & Article 3 were both revised 2-09.
bankruptcy law is what exploits the greatest vulnerability regarding these
statutes .
ref. you may want to ck out
http://www.firstam.com/content.cfm?id=3242
usedkarguy:
Thanks for the elaboration.
You said:
“The Securities act says that the “trustee” must perfect (record) their interest in the real estate. This is done at the county level. The banks never did this. At least, they didn’t do it my case.”
They didn’t do it in my case either, because they thought they’d get around recording at the county by using MERS, who is neither nominee nor beneficiary according to any standard, generally accepted legal definition.
You also said:
“Loans are defaulting in the 40% range, but the insurance monies keep the trust alive. That’s what we mean when we say that no DEFAULT has actually occurred. The servicer continues making the payments from the chunk of insurance money they collected upon MY default.”
The “default” point is a very good one in that there may have been a “default” by borrowers under the terms of the mortgage/deed of trust BUT said “default” doesn’t result in any losses to the investors or servicers because of the insurance.
I’ve read about this issue and think I get it, but which insurance are you talking about–credit default swaps or PMI or what?
I’ve had to pay PMI and in fact I’m still being charged for it even though I’m not paying. I’ve never seen the PMI policy I’m (no longer) paying for, so I don’t really know the details of it. All I know is that it is supposed to protect the “Lender” in case of my “default.”
So Countrywide was my “Lender” but they sold the Note to Fannie Mae. Now that I’ve “defaulted,” is Countrywide getting the PMI money? Or is Fannie Mae getting it? Or both? Or have they even made a claim? It strikes me as somewhat dishonest to have me pay PMI ostensibly to protect my “Lender”–Countrywide (and the PMI company is owned by Countrywide)–in case of my default
and then to require me to continue to pay the PMI after my “Lender” has been repaid in full for my “obligation” upon sale of the Note. In other words, since Countrywide was paid back when they sold my Note, why am I still required to pay for insurance to protect Countrywide in case I don’t “pay them back?”
I suppose if I ever got to see a copy of the insurance policy, it might say something to the effect that it protects the “Noteholder” as opposed to the “Lender.” Just strikes me as curious…
zurrenarh, the security interest must be recorded. The Securities act says that the “trustee” must perfect (record) their interest in the real estate. This is done at the county level. The banks never did this. At least, they didn’t do it my case. the mortgage exists in the name of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, but Wells Fargo Home Mortgage didn’t own the loan for 5 seconds. they transferred ownership to the other parties along the chain of securitization. In the case of Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed Certificates 2005-2, I believe those assets (loans) were repurchased by Wells after securitization to HSBC when the Trust started to implode. Loans are defaulting in the 40% range, but the insurance monies keep the trust alive. That’s what we mean when we say that no DEFAULT has actually occurred. The servicer continues making the payments from the chunk of insurance money they collected upon MY default. HEY GOSH, that’s called a RE-REMIC. They are taking the loan pools from defaulted Trusts and re-collateralizing the “CDO” (collateralized debt obligation). Then they sell a whole new set of certificates. It’s a bad-debt sandwich squared. Pretty soon all this shit comes to an end if the FASB standards are allowed to be enforced after January 1, 2010. The banks are still fighting that one.
h gosh,
I believe UsedKarGuy had a similar situation as yours. Probably not exactly, but I think the Trust failed (or didn’t sell?) and the pool was added to another pool. He can probably provide more information.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
usedkarguy,
Thanks for that info–could you elaborate?
Has anyone else come across the following situation: Company is going belly-up. Company obtains loans from other financial institutions to keep it afloat and pledges Trusts in which they have securitized Notes as collateral and enters into Indenture Agreement. Company eventually “dies”, Indenture Agreement “called”, and other Financial Institutions acquire Trusts. Other Financial Institutions then place Notes into additional “synthetic” securities. My question – What is the legal status of the homeowner Notes used as collateral for the Indenture of Original Note Holder?
zurenarrh: Securities Act of 1933 also requires the trust to perfect title to the asset.
Martin,
Thanks for the very helpful info. I think that will come in very handy!
The link below has some florida case law regarding mortage fraud and idenity theft. It was sumitted by Donald Bradshaw Esq. I’ve always liked this one. They are breaking the law!
http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/florida-id-theft-and-mortgage-fraud-statutes.pdf
L. Fitzgerald,
It would make things interesting to figure out if Florida has a law similar to California regarding identity theft. Even if not, you should consider using any existing laws that apply. It would be interesting to make a criminal complaint against anyone using your identity in an attempt to circumvent what is lawfully allowed (for assigning notes for real property). Of course it sure seems to me that fraud and forgery are pretty big criminal complaints also. And if they say “those guys (the servicers) said it was OK”, then you have subornation.
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is what I am looking at in my case.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Living in Florida …and being foreclosed on by the infamous ” Florida Default Law Group ” . I am sure there are thousands of homeowners who have been victims of the ” FDLG “.
This Foreclosure Mill is a very active user of Note’s and assignments fabrications, …misleading motions , misrepresentations of evidence , false affidavits ….
In my opinion they are a white collar criminal organization ..working for the Wall Street Banksters ..no better than a drug cartel, or Mafia operation.
I am happy to announce : that the Florida Attorney General Economic Crimes Div. is investigating them .
Call the direct line . (954) 712-4625 , and request your on line affidavit form , and file your compliant .
Help the A.G. put these crooks & thieves behind Bars.
See a copy of the A.G. letter :
Re: Florida Default Law Group
To Whom It May Concern:
The Office of the Attorney General for the State of Florida is actively investigating Florida Default Law Group, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for compliance with Fla. Stat. 501.1377 concerning mortgage rescue and mortgage loan modification. If you have a complaint regarding Florida Default Law Group, we request that you please complete the enclosed affidavit complaint form.
While our office cannot determine at this time where our investigation will ultimately lead, the information which you provide will assist us in determining the most appropriate course of action.
Sincerely,
Economic Crimes Division
Office of the Attorney General
110 S.E. Sixth Street
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 712-4625 direct line
LF
Zureath,
You need to go a little further and prove that Fannie Mae was just a Depositor, and that a Trust holds the Note endorsed with an Assignment. That is the language used in some Pooling Agreements. Countrywide is nothing more than a Sponsor turned Servicer with no Standing and Fannie is not a Real Party in Interest.
It goes with the “Bankruptcy Remote” theory, that the Trusts are assigned the actual documents…in theory.
However, if MERS has an electronic record, you can file a discovery request, or compel the Court to produce the Electronic Registry that tracks E-Notes….which is another imaginary world capitalizing on your Note and Deed.
MERS has no standing either, in real land records legal systems.
So we have a clear and concise occurance of “twinning the streams of revenue” which is unlawful. Although I think this concept has yet to be discussed.
Dan,
As usual, you bring up an excellent point when you say the following:
“The warehouse lender (and/or presumably the Federal Savings Bank) keeps the asset and lists it on their balance sheet so they can use it as collateral to borrower money.”
Here’s how it worked in my case:
-Countrywide was the “Lender” with MERS as beneficiary on Deed of Trust
-Countrywide sold the Note to Fannie Mae but did not assign the Deed of Trust to Fannie Mae–in fact, Fannie Mae explicitly states that “no assignment is necessary” to Fannie Mae if MERS is the beneficiary
-Therefore, Countrywide is still technically the owner of the Deed of Trust but with no claim to any payments from me, having sold the Note
-Fannie Mae/MBS investors now have claim to the payments, but not to the property because it was never assigned to them
In my mind, this splits the Note from the Deed of Trust in violation of the explicit terms of my Deed of Trust, which says:
“The Note or a partial interest in the Note (TOGETHER WITH THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.”
So effectively, Countrywide now has a worthless Deed of Trust (because there is no Note attached to it), while Fannie Mae/MBS investors now have an unsecured debt (because there is no Deed of Trust attached to it). So they both are $#!+ outta luck and have broken their contract with me by not selling the Note “together with this Security Instrument (i.e., the Deed of Trust).”
Now if only the judge will acknowledge that…
The prospectus also tells the investor that there is “errors and omissions” insurance to pay the claim if the lender breaks the law. The American Securitization Forum also recommends that Trustees and Securities Administrators use those policies to pay the claims for predatory lending and to hold the trust harmless.
this is from the sec filing of my loan with Fremont..
i’m willing to bet yours will include the same somewhere.
read this and see that almost all theses loans will fall into this catogory of predatory.
Prospectus Supplement
VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS MAY RESULT IN LOSSES ON THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AND YOUR CERTIFICATES
Under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the mortgagor is required to meet a net tangible benefits test in connection with the origination of the related mortgage loan. This test may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a mortgage loan does not meet the test even if the Originator reasonably believed that the test was satisfied. Any determination by a court that a Mortgage Loan included in the trust fund does not meet the test will result in a violation of the state anti-predatory lending law, in which case the Sponsor will be required to purchase that Mortgage Loan from the trust fund.
Neil –
Is it possible to sue the pretender lenders and the attorney foreclosure mill involved for mail fraud for each and every document that has been mailed to us, the homeowners who stand to loose it all? Seeing as how the pretender lender has no pecuniary interest in the foreclosure proceedings and the foreclosure attorney mill is fabricating the documents to support pretender lender’s position, why is this not considered mail fraud?
charlie,
i think it really help if you go to sue for TILA and Respa Violations because on that particular prospectus it says that no “high Cost” or predatory lending included in that trust. so in this case if the trust fund belongs to the kennedys meaning they are also a victims of fraud by the depositors who sold the mortgage certificate to them. remember the real victims of these “FRAUD” are the homeowners and the real investors who put and paid for those pieces of junk.
dan,
i have GMAC as a loan servicer, this is where i found out about their names on the trustee under DALT 2007-OA5, in one of my property. i filed a motion to dismissed the “proof of claim” from GMAC Mortgage, LLC and give them 10 days to produce the documents to show that Gmac Mortgage, LLc , has legal standing to foreclose . the 10 days has expired and did not hear from the court nor from the attorney. my next step is to file “quiet title” in the state court. i knew all the documents submitted by the lawyers of GMac Mortgage, LLc were all fraudulent. i could all identified all the parties in that “trust” . my other ccase is pending now in the court of appeal. thanks god i submitted it on time.
Charlie A.,
I don’t know that this will help in the foreclosure process. It is just that the termination of the Trust(s) is / are somehow wrapped up in the descendents of Joseph Kennedy. I will have to find which SEC filing I found this in. I looked again at my prospectus and could not find it. However I have 3 or 4 other documents to search through. It has TONS of conspiracy theory value but I am not sure what else.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
DAN AND ERLINDA, please explain a little more about the “prospectus” and stuff, sounds interesting but it’s all new to my ears, what is it? or tell me where to go to learn about, the more i know, the more damage we can do to the pretender lender. thanks!!
DAN and ERLINDA
Dan!
Thank you. I “got it” now. You just brought
more “clarity” for me.
Maher’s style of writing was difficult to
understand because of his “technical”
orientation.
But I now see what the “Deal” structure
was accomplishing. At least partly
anyway.
Thanks!
Found that same family name in a Lehman Trust. So how can we get consumer protection from Congress with names like Kennedy & Rockefeller connected with the big banks.
Yes very interesting – conspiracy theories will abound. Mine is not Countrywide – it is GMAC and/or subsidiaries (ResCap, RFC, RASC, etc).
I recall that mine was also in regards to the termination of the trust and something about the “last decendent” or something of that nature.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
dan,
we have the same feeling about finding their name on the prospectus. i have known this for about a month. since you mentioned their name on this blog it is up to the readers to make a conclusion. last night, i am reading a countrywide prospectus and again i tumbled their names. look for article 9 on “termination of the trust” and i wonder what the hell is this? so maybe we could research more on this why their name are on the prospectus for 2 trustees with different depositors. i have to research more on this.
Angry,
When Maher posted that article it is when I realized that not only was the note split from the Deed (or mortgage), but the actual asset was split from the payments provided by the borrower. The warehouse lender (and/or presumably the Federal Savings Bank) keeps the asset and lists it on their balance sheet so they can use it as collateral to borrower money. But they don’t have use of the borrowers payments as these have been supplied to the Trust for distribution to the “holders of certificates”. The beneficiaries of the Trust don’t make “use” of the asset as they just use the payments. They only (theoritically) need “use” of the asset if / when a foreclosure is necessary.
As has been stated numerous times – the Trusts are empty shells. There are no loans in them. The warehouse lender / securitizers never passed the mortgages into the Trusts. Why should they? The Investors don’t really need them anyway. They gave them a couple of thousand pages of documents to distract them and keep them busy chasing their tails.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Erlinda,
I found a reference to the decendents of Joseph Kennedy in my SEC filings for the securitization. I will have to go back and look for that again. The hair stood up on the back of my neck when I read it and I was pretty much in shock. I should have posted the info when I came across it.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Look at these elements of a lawful holder. None of these Plaintiff’s satisfy any of these conditions, especially bailed out bankrupt firms purporting to hold the Note, even endorsed in Blank as bearer paper.
To foreclose a mortgage, the Party must have lawful possession of the Note. Look at (a)2. The person took the instrument “for value” and in “good faith” and without notice the instrument was overdue.
The UCC laws protect us from such unlawful possession after Default.
Therefore, even in Maryland, one cannot take possession of a Note endorsed in blank and attempt to enforce it, without satisfying these criteria.
UCC Law – Holder in Due Course
a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:
◦ (1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
◦ (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
◦ (c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor’s sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.
Erlinda,
Please give us more information on this so we can better understand your request
neil,
i have been researching and reading all the prospectus of countrywide and Dalt 2007-oa5, and to my surprised i found out about a political family in the u.s are beneficiary for a trust fund for these trustee. I can’t believed what i read. i was thinking if i could include them in my lawsuit for predatory lending. any comment from the readers.
Beth,
With the pro ported original note in hand, flip over the document on its back side, pass your index finger over the back of the signature, if you feel bumps or scrapes its most likely hand done, but if it is completely smooth, you should look at it farther, the other method is to enlarge the signature by use of photo copy and look for small dots, indicative of scanned fake signatures.
Also the court allows a forensic specialist that is hired by either party to examine the original note, if the note is in the courts possession.
Personally, I would think that the fake note trick would be the first and most fake trick the proposed note holder would try to pull off, to just sort of slip a fake not in there, that is not contested, and tell me? those fake assignments? I have not seen the first real assignment to this day.
Actually if the pro ported lender has the note it still may not make much of a difference, as a matter of law, remember that all these loans were sold, and sometimes in advance, using other peoples money, for this matter, they were not sold in whole, but in parts, to different people or companies, plus a cross collateral condition made for a hell of a huge mess, now there is a huge cloud on every title that was financed for the passed years.
I think it is a natural shifting of wealth, where people could end up owning homes not banks and betting clubs like the wall streets of life.
The mantra is “contest everything”.
this was posted a week ago .. but there is something here that struck me as not being revealed before.
thit lends itself to motive & action of the so called lenders
that may lead to other/ different/alt results that are valid claims in court if this can be proved
and may also be a clue to where you should be looking for “your note”
MSoliman replies:
1) The note is an obligation and collaterals the security and appraised vale of the home.
2) Counterparties deals solely with hedges and swaps???
The obligation is lost to the transaction and not as in a lost set of keys. Look, the lender took your home and showed it on a balance sheet used to pledged it as a wholly owned asset.- they don’t own the home they own an interest (duded securing the obligation) and the amount due from you on the obligation.
They treat the mortgage ike a sucurity deed (look up please) sold the receivable yet keep the collateral with a Bailee or custodian. MERS. Nothing leaves custodial possession until default kicks in and they nonw after six months of accrual you will never catch up. Then its dump time. But dump what. They don’t own the collateral …UNLESS THEY FORECLOSE ON THE HOME – GET IT! SO THEY WERE CORRECT IN SHOWING YOUR LOANS ON THEIR BALANCE SHEET AS WHOLLEY OWNED ASSETS. CONTINGENT WHOLLY OWNED ASSETS.
They are the borrower (as obligor) not you- you sold them your home and never knew it. ***REMEBER*** ITS about the bundle of loans (so stop breaking out your loan as a separate asset) United we stand and . ..
At the member bank level – warehouse billion dollar lines of credit – they keep the note or FDIC auditors will shut them down. MERS maintains the confidentiality of the security holder who is a member bank. COUNSEL – YOU TAKE THEIR MONEY AND NO NOT WHO YOU ARE SUING! WHO ARE YOU SUING?
SUMMARY : So registrant originates loans with reckless abandon made to borrowers from borrower funds and assign the cash flow to themselves (subservicing) and make a monthly LUMP SUM dividend payment on the strength of their name and programs SOLD to clueless capital management firms or “investors” selling nothing tangible other than a high leveraged fraud intended to generate more cash from new issue and Shelf’s consisting of classes of stock and proffered shares while they pay dividends to the parties.
Their stock was flat and boring to investors and this was an optimal way to find new access to the capital markets they lost access to after the crash of early in the decade. It’s about stock and selling securities not mortgage lending and there you should target the causes for predatory lending claims that judges don’t want to hear.
I would venture to say the lenders in hindsight were duped with borrowers while going along with this crap when they signed up for this toxic nightmare. At least the earned a ton of money before losing their companies. And you lose your home.
For all the flack I take intended to discredit me – if you
Only knew what I saw and whom I transacted with …you would see I sold myself out to join the good fight. That industry is lost to me forever and that the chance I took. But now to be rejected here is a once in a lifetime shot to show attorneys and others what they can do and expect. . .Instead I have the Shank off report and email covert chit chatter instigators competeing for business…..and of course Abby Lane to deal with .
I won’t put anyone down here for trying but at times one can be so far off with lost note, MERS and Tandori Chicken cube arguments that are so far off I have to jump in…But not at your expense – to avoid confusion. .
My contention is the source of funds and why does each player (big five) own a FSB. I believe an FSB may have originated the wire and that opens up the arguments for an unlawful business combination.
There you have a disclosure violation where MERS lists itself as a sole and separate company.
Also where is the acceptance originating from – Wall Street or Street delegated system? You must see the PURCHASE AND SALE commitment.
Your most compelling conflict is with the SEC guidelines for a 401 D Registration and HUD regulatory enforcement.
The acceptance and wires MUST originate free of any influence and subsequent determinations of concentration of product mix and delivery to or by one source is a controlled business arrangement.
Regarding the question if you can do a SEC search without the Trust – you have to have the Name of the Trust. You can search by Trustee but that would list 100s of Trust and you need to know which one you are looking for.
As far as the Notes being produced, those are Notes with endorsements in blank and in Maryland you just need to produce the “original” if endorsed in blank. Its actually better to have the plaintiff file a lost note aff’d because they have to show they were the owners at the time the note was lost and the chain of custody. They only are required to show a chain of custody if there is no endorsement on the Note.
Producing a Note is not difficult, all it takes is a photocopying machine and a strawman endorsing in Blank. DO NOT TAKE THIS BLANK ENDORSEMENT for face value.
1. Is it accompanied by a Power of Attorney?
2. Is it Certified under penalty of perjury?
3. Is there a Notary stamp?
A popular trick… or treat, in the securitization scheme involving MERS, was to endorse the Note in black, store it with a Custodian or shred it, and then trade it as an “E-Note” on the electronic MERS registry.
This was business as usual, and allowed the Note to be traded hundreds of times, without recording them in the Land Records…this was normal…until MERS started loosing standing cases.
Now the MERS jig is up, according to 2 Supreme Courts, and numerous Federal Courts.
My question, is there a way to “find” your Note, if you are confident it was assigned to a Trust? I would think the only way is through the Discovery process, which the Pretender Plaintiff will object to citing attorney-client privilege.
Is there an SEC search option, without knowing the Trust?
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/age-records-2009-10-27
New RICO Lawsuit Alleges Countrywide Destroyed Mortgage Records
House panel is issuing subpoenas to Countrywide Financial and its parent, Bank of America, to get to the bottom of the failed mortgage firm’s lending practices and VIP program. But new allegations by more than 10,000 borrowers suggest the company’s records are full of holes and fake filings, left there as part of a pattern of fraud by company officers.
According to those charges – leveled in a federal class action suit filed in New York – BoA and Countrywide destroyed and “recreated” documents relating to their mortgage programs to conceal their own errors and illegal practices.
“To cover up the servicing mistakes and fraud and misrepresentation in the servicing of a consumer escrow, Defendants ‘recreate’ letters, insert data as they see fit, and fail to produce the entire HUD complaint form,” the plaintiffs said in their complaint. “This way, a consumer is left in the dark about the fraud that occurred to them.”
That lawsuit further alleges that the banks’ practices violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, committed conspiracy, and failed to produce records. The plaintiffs say Countrywide routinely dismissed customers’ requests for information about their loans by saying the records were “unavailable or destroyed.”
I have an idea: a foreclosure judge who doesn’t get it has to prove he has taken the livinglies workshop and passed a specific foreclosure “get it” test. No evidence of proficiency in all foreclosure facts and law – no passing grade obtained – no foreclosure rulings allowed. Doctors, auto mechanics, pilots, and myriads of other people must “get it” in their respective fields. Is there a special exemption for judges, something like a “no requirement to get it clause”? A doctor who doesn’t get it can do immeasurable harm, so can a judge who doesn’t get it. Disclaimer: I refer here only to judges who don’t get it or refuse to get it. I applaud all judges who got it and are working hard to keep it.
Produce the note has a more to about the supporting documentation then the actual note. You need all supporting documentation. You need the COMPLETE chain of custody. Just having the note isn’t the proverbial “possession is 9/10 of the law” In my case the opposing council produce the note, however according to the servicing and pooling agreement shows them as document custodian. I think of it this way, if I have a safety deposit box with the title of my car in there does that mean the bank “owns” my car?
If the loans were securitized and you are seeing 50% of the notes included, I would say that would be a HUGE warning sign.
Compare the “original” to the copy. Compare the signatures and initials. Check the ink, how does it look? Can you actually see indentations of where the borrowers pressed down with a pen? I would connect up with an expert because you are dealing with so many. However, there are probably other methods for detection – I have seen some information on this site from others on what to look for.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Government Is Trying to Make Bailouts for the Giant Banks PERMANENT
By George Washington of Washington’s Blog.
On September 25th, I wrote:
Paul Volcker and senior Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron both testified to Congress this week that the government is trying to make bailouts for the giant banks permanent.
Writing Wednesday in The Hill, Congressman Brad Sherman pointed out that :
In my opinion, Geithner’s proposal is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal [the proposal being the “Resolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009”] allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.
Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.
When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress.
Both TARP and the Treasury proposal have vague provisions under which taxpayers might possibly recover any money lost through a special tax on the financial services industry. Under the Treasury proposal, only the very largest institutions could benefit from a bailout, but the special tax, if ever collected, would fall chiefly on medium-sized institutions.
Thus, the medium-sized institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. First, the largest institutions will be able to borrow money more cheaply because their creditors will believe that if the institution is unable to pay, the taxpayers will. Second, if there ever is a bailout benefitting a very large financial institution, the tax will be imposed on the medium-sized institutions.
Sherman is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and a certified public accountant, so he has a good nose for analyzing proposed financial regulations.
Last week, Sherman made the following comments to the Washington Independent regarding Congress’ proposed bill on the too big to fails:
That is a huge gravy train to the top 20 [financial institutions] because it allows them to borrow money at a lower rate. Think of what this does to moral hazard.
I’m not looking for a TARP on steroids with oversight. I’m looking for an end of TARP.
* The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/guest-post-government-is-trying-to-make-bailouts-for-the-giant-banks-permanent.html
I am paralegal that does securitization research for attorneys defending homeowners in foreclosure. Most of my work is in Maryland and Maryland does require that the secured party be noted as well as an aff’d of ownership of the Note.
My question is that we are seeing the Plaintiffs produce the “original” Note at least 50% of the time. Now I’m wondering if that is the real Note or a scanned copy printed on a color printer. I’ve heard the term “wet ink” copy. How does one know whether the Note is the original as claimed or just a copy that was scanned and printed out?
Beth Jacobson
jacobson.beth@yahoo.com
I was totally unfamiliar with civil procedure in 2004
when I was unexpectedly hit with a foreclosure suit
by an entity I had never heard of or done business with. Also, I had not defaulted on my loan and the
servicer OCWEN knew this was true and had the records. The objective was the $70,000 equity I had
in my property. I was a target because I was having
problems with the State taxing authorities and Ocwen
found out about it, so they figured I was a prime candidate for attack. There is no other way to explain it.
The foreclosing entity, US Bank, Trustee did not have the Note and their was no assignment of the
mortgage on file from New Century Mortgage to US Bank.
Even as a novice to the legal system, I could see that this was not “kosher”, but I didn’t know how to procede. I filed an answer denying everything and saved up for a lawyer. I got an unsolicited offer of representation in the mail that was a lowball offer
of help. It later turned out that law firm was working’
for the other side! Luckily, I caught the scam in time and saved my credit and my home. But the thought’
lingers, how could the “System” have been so corrupt as to allow that case to drag on for four years to 2008!
I learned alot about the law in that case and have since helped several other people save their homes.
All this conflict will hopefully return our Court System
to integrity by enforcing the laws already on the books!
IndyMac warning!
If you have an IndyMac loan or they are named in your securitization or you are being foreclosed by IndyMac, take special notice. In order to transfer property, special requirements have been setup. I believe the signature of an authorizing officer is required but I am not sure. You should perform due diligence because virtually all signatures used for assigning property in foreclosure are probably not valid. You will need to research the agreement for transferring assets from IndyMac Bank F.S.B. to IndyMac Federal Bank F.S.B. to make sure. I have it on good authority that this requirement is buried in that documentation.
Here is more info, but not on the signature issue mentioned above:
Recently, the FDIC was appointed as Receiver for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (“IndyMac Bank”). The FDIC created a new Federal savings association known as IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (“IndyMac Federal”) and FDIC became the Conservator of IndyMac Federal. FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Bank entered into an Insured Deposit Purchase and Assumption Agreement dated July 11, 2008 (the “Purchase Agreement”) with the FDIC as Conservator for IndyMac Federal to transfer substantially all of IndyMac Bank’s
assets to the FDIC as Conservator for IndyMac Federal. Included in the assets transferred by the Purchase Agreement were loans, mortgage servicing rights and real estate. Unless otherwise advised, it is not necessary to require any further documentation
relating to the appointment of the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Bank or Conservator for IndyMac Federal.
You may be able to find out more info on this from the FDIC website: http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/IndyMac.html
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
The entire system is hopelessly corrupt beyond repair.