MANY THANKS TO DAN EDSTROM
Dan has put together a list which frankly I would like him to expand. Following the money means determining the party to whom you MIGHT owe money. It certainly isn’t the pretender lender and if you can fill in the blanks on this list you will be able to show that. Remember the burden is NOT on you to prove it, the burden is on you to ASK for it in qualified written request, debt validation letter and/or discovery (interrogatories, request to produce, subpoena duces tecum, and requests for admission). If you ever get someone the pretender lender offers to answer your questions at deposition make sure you specify that you will want the person(s) who are able to answer questions about the following items on this list.
Your forensic review can only estimate the some of the data. But the closer you get to answering more and more of these questions by aggressively enforcing their obligation to answer under federal law, state law and rules of civil procedure, the closer you get to proving that the wrong party is servicing the loan, the wrong party is collecting on the loan, and the wrong party is enforcing the note, while the obligation has been altered by events outside of the report that the foreclosing party is reporting to the court. Each time they fail to give you the right person or the information leading to the names of the investors/lenders, the amount still owed on the obligation (not the note), you will get the judge increasingly interested as to why they can’t come up with information they should have had when they started foreclosure. Remember this is not about getting a free house — it is about getting answers to your questions. You might end up with a free house as others have done or you might end up with a re-structured loan on terms you can afford. One thing is sure — when you DO have all the answers, the amount due is bound to be far different than the amount they are claiming.
Laymen will be confused by my distinction between the obligation and the note. Under law, the note is only evidence of the obligation and is often confused, even in court, with the obligation itself. It is that confusion that the pretender lender are leveraging so they can keep everyone’s eye off the ball — the true amount of the obligation, not the indisputable amount written on the note. By distracting the Judge into looking only at the note, they finesse the proof requirement as to what is really owed. The fact that the real lender has been paid or settled through federal bailout, insurance, credit default swaps etc., is kept off the table as long as you fall into the trap of looking at the note (merely evidence of the obligation) instead of looking at the entire transaction through the lens of the creation and payment of the obligation from all potential sources.
ITEMS TO DEMAND IN ACCOUNTING FOR THE OBLIGATION:
– Original face value
– Beginning Notional / Principal balance
– Pass-through rate
– Principal distribution
– Interest distribution
– Total Distribution
– Principal loss
– Interest loss
– Deferred Interest
– Ending Notional principal balance
– The accrual period
– Acrrual methodology
– Optimal Interest Amount
– Interest loss
– Deferred Interest
– Interest shortfall amt
– Other income
– Accrued certificate interest remaining unpaid
Other income detail:
– Certificate class
– Prepayment charge
– Remaining excess cash flow and OC release amount
– other income distribution
Interest shortfalls, compensation and expenses (per Group)
– Current prepayment interest shortfall amt
– Compensating interest
– net prepayment interest shortfall amount
– Civil Relief act shortfall count
– civil relief act shortfall amount
– Compensation
– – subservicer
– – master servicer
Advances by master servicer
– Allowable expenses per governing document
– non-recoverable advances
Prepayment interest and Basis risk/net WAC shortfall amount (by certificate class)
– [I will leave out this section)
Collateral summary
LOAN COUNT AND BALANCE (by group)
– original laon count / scheduled principal balance
– beginning loan count / scheduled principal balance
– scheduled principal
– curtailment
– payoff
– matured loans
– repurchases (by the way this is 0 for all months reported)
– beginning aggregate scheduled principal balance of liquidations (and?) charge-offs
– ending loan count scheduled principal balance
there is more, but I will just leave it at that. None of the information is specific to any one loan as I had hoped. But, they have to keep that info somewhere (use discovery) …
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: accounting, audit, borrower, disclosure, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, forensic review, fraud, lender, Lender Liability, mortgage note, securitization, servicer, servicing agent, TILA audit |
“Attachment A – Explanation of Securitization”
Does anyone here know the source of this document?
Gain on sale accounting is required in any mortgage cracked securitization. That’s a gain booked at the time the loan is sold to the investor, regardless of the less than arms relationship, SPV, SPE or STD. Compensating balances says the sale is offset by its counterpart, right…..hello?
Derecognition is like a “Troggs” album – – – great tune from a name you never heard of! But “what I need to know for sure. . . .” will recognition survive a claim of indirect capitalization by member insured banks?
The Special Purpose Entity is a capitalized business services Platform and or Vehicle that is the primary driver for creating a transformation of one loan into beaucoup d’largent and sole cause of deposits?
J’ai doit un peu distress! Alors D’accord … .
If this is incorrect and I will so elect to stand up and seek correction. So where are these deposits coming from ?
Are these deposits perhaps a combination of cash and securities? Are the securities posted against collateral? Is that collateral Stock, mortgages or perhaps outstanding lines of credit from an FDIC warehouse line? Wild Thing, I think I need to know for sure….
I think its an option…did not want to jade your first impression.You like I follow GAAP and know FASB issues are a problem for the White House call to modifcations. It maybe an important option for the securities “foul play” and their interpretation / opine.
I would think it prudent to open up discussions for tax treatment and GAAP restrictions prohibiting modifcations. I don’t know as so many options are available, so little time in a day for consumer and few are used – your comments?
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
While there are probably other uses for the PCAOB, the immediate use would be to notify them of ALL the issues we are focusing on as they should understand how wall street, lenders and others are ABUSING accounting standards and getting away with it. After all, that is the ENTIRE PURPOSE for this board to exist (in my opinion). Maher and Neil (and anyone else qualified) should send them a letter discussing the pertinent issues. This should be followed up with letters from homeowners showing specific instances of the problems we are encountering.
It should be shown to them that the violations are standard operating procedures, not some rare aberration.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
To: Dan Edstrom about PCAOB
Dan,
I found this on Wikipedia, do you see any strategic use?
Organization overview
The PCAOB has five members, including its chairman, each of whom are appointed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Two members of the PCAOB (and only two members) must be or have been a certified public accountant.
However, if the chairman of the PCAOB is one of those two members, he or she may not have been a practicing certified public accountant for at least five years prior to being appointed to the Board. Each PCAOB member serves full-time, for staggered five-year terms. The salary of the PCAOB’s chairman is currently $556,000 per year, while the salaries of other board members are $452,000 annually.
The Board’s annual budget of approximately $100 million, which must be approved by the SEC each year, is funded by fees paid by U.S. issuers. The organization has a staff of over 300, and its headquarters is in Washington, D.C. The PCAOB’s immediate past chairman is the former New York Federal Reserve president, William J. McDonough. The Board’s current Chairman is Mark Olson, a former Federal Reserve Board governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board
External links
* PCAOB official site
* SEC description of PCAOB
* SEC documents relating to PCAOB
Maher,
Is that a question for me? I don’t think I have ever heard of the PCAOB …
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Amen!
And they think they got a fight with gun control and the right to bear arms!
We’re talking about homelessness on a totally different level and the right to question authority for the rights to maintain your HOME from theft.
Re: Senator’s and Congresspersons
Dear senior leadership
Your efforts made to date seeking to save one more home are not wasted in foreclosure nor contemplated with that occupant’s departure. Now, it fuels the fire and spirit within to proclaim we are one moment closer to that time and place when this uninvited hell shall end.
You shall leave office and upon departure shall you also leave behind that legacy of a broken promise. That lost American dream. That dream now relies on you to come to the aid and to assist the dying spirit of the home. Your promises speak bold and offer little Assistance. What you’re constructing by program lacks transparency and really is nothing at all.
It is what your destroying I contend, is the problem. This vessel you created for ensuring the family and home is broken now. It is a drift and nothing good appears to have come from it. The example you set forth is the country’s future; and its compromise is truly the wrong message to send your younger statesman. Are you preparing these leaders, the future of America for anything better other than more of the status quo? I am afraid you had better think again.
With all respect, let me say to you that you’re killing the very spirit the American system of banking was borne onto. And, for that comes a burden at the expense of the family structure. It’s not what this country was based upon. It is that very same institution of honesty and integrity that we proclaim your spirit can yet instill!
What I have seen with my own eyes and heard from others who also share my concerns (herein- this public forum) is a disgrace and a sham. We may disagree; my cohorts who from time to time will employ varying and wide ranging views.
But we do in fact unite and share that same spit for coming to the aid of others.
What is it you intend to accomplish with this kind of a showing counsel? It’s not over, and no it will not end soon. This mess we are in shall never, ever be forgotten.
What I can tell you is only what I know and that is as follows – the homeowners will strive and work harder now than ever to keep what is there’s. They shall abide by the laws of this Country and also its spirit within them. For they cannot give up, and they will never give in. The family, home and its occupant therein shall never accept anything less than what they were raised as Americans to accept. Integrity!
Weigh the fight of these young Americans who do not question your authority and who wage war overseas as their fathers and their father did. And, when they return to come home to what?
They will tell you when knocked down get up, stand up and face the adversity. Will we concede to the problems and work with you for a cure….but the elixir or remedy can never be to lie down and merely accept our fate? Why, for allowing that which is in front of us to be remembered as the best this Country has to offer? No, never and ever again. For this condition it is not what the founding fathers of this nation would ever have envisioned nor conceded too…selling out .
Therein, nor shall we. And the spirit of that now vacant home shall live on as a reminder that tomorrow brings hope for a new start. That the chance to hang on and remain firmly in place, in property, in dwelling or within a home.
You must embrace that future and do so in spirit and in the power of now! Do not try and sell that dream for America as later while the future is now. From my home to yours I ask you to consider this as a call to courage my friends. It is a call to perseverance, a proclamation for restoring ethics, decency and demand for the return of integrity.
The homeowner of America. That is what the leaders of this country should be made of.
God Bless
———————————————————————
I always knew what the right path was.
Without exception, I knew.
But I never took it.
You know why?
It was too damn hard. …
Al P.
Dan;
The PCAOB is private-sector created by the SarBox, a 2002 federal law for public companies. Its purpose is to ‘protect the interests of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, fair, and independent audit reports’.
Although a private entity, the PCAOB has many government-like regulatory functions, making it in some ways similar to the private Self Regulatory Organizations (SROs) that regulate stock markets and other aspects of the financial markets in the United States.
Where can PCAOB assist the homeowner and why not?.
Thanks
admin@borrowerhotline.com
NOVEMBER 9TH 2009
Dear Counsel
I ask that you please keep in mind there are still outstanding issues included in our discovery for Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. such as the “sponsor registrants” insolvency and the cap counterparty with Respect to the Class 1-A1 and Class 3-A1 Certificates.
Arguments for considering receivership and disposition of trust assets include challenges to the Trust with respect to accounting rules restricting revenue recognition for bill and hold sales. Of greatest concern here is the following:
“Did these trust arrangements and transfers offer a valid business purpose?”
In my opinion, no! I believe the sole motivation or reason for the trust to exist is based on accounting expectations. Experience allows me to see most indentures as a scheme used to advance revenue recognition criteria. The arrangement is subject to FSP 140-3 that establishes a presumption of a “valid business purpose”. It is otherwise not and difficult for one to ascertain no valid purpose exist for recognition purposes.
The views advanced by FASB and taken from published guidelines offer the accounting practitioner little else to consider. Therefore it should be realized as another off-balance sheet scheme. I have and continue to question FASB and their willingness to concede here. We both know there is a growing need for more rational methods for differentiating assets and the use of this format in the mortgage industry.
I again emphasize the growing sentiment of the more rationale accounting community and have concerns for differentiating a sale versus leveraging assets and debt. See the updated information under FAP and pronouncements under 140-3 for these changes. The entire activity of the trust appears in reliance of off-balance sheet accounting.
The issues in support of this inquiry are for claims made on behalf of the “mass” who collectively seek to enforce their rights and to protect the rights of others. My engagement will still mandate inquiries and responses from the regulatory enforcement desk of the Securities Exchange Commission and scrutiny of your servicers conduct under 1122AB. I shall include our differences for accounting practices and whereby I believe you are maintaining an economic advantage which may void the “controlling interest” recital and a less than arms sale.
This is brought to your attention subject to my findings as an expert witness and pursuant to the rules of evidence and not as counsel.
Good day!
M.Soliman
expert.examiner@live.com
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160943 – Similar
Wall Street: Goodbye to Conspicuous Consumption | Newsweek /…Sep 26, 2008 /… And untill the fat lady sings, I mean the SEC, no one has gotton away with anything. http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com/. Reply;
Following the money means determining the party to whom you MIGHT owe money. MSoliman
This brings into clear view that the ownership of the assets (mortgages) may or may not belong to WAMU or may or may not belong to JPM or may or may not belong to the certificate holders
——————————————————————
November 10, 2009
msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Look back to the article MSoliman wwrote earlier in the year about Following the Money”. Attack the deed and security as defect. Lost note and MERS gibberish aside.
Join MERS for a trip to file an injunction Counsel!Anywho…..it’s the point that matters.
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES – Depositor funds the loan and then sells the receivable in a pool of assets to the Trustee. Depositor deposits the loans accordingly and books the cash as a gain on sale.
The cash excites an immediate payable for the securities it shall receive back from the trust. The securities are deposited as from the issuance (but really collateralized by the loans held long term by trustee).Upon a trigger such as a home sells or refinance or DEFAULT and FORECLOSURE the call to repurchase certificates occurs.
The transfer of certificate for loan happens on a “flow” versus earlier “bulk” sale. That sale however MUST occur in an “open market transaction”. Got it my level headed supportive friends?
An OMT would be Christies Auction House, EBay, Receiver…..or TRUSTEE SALE!
Aqui -tu tiennes Luchas Libre con muchos problemos!
La Pantera Negra
—READ ——–READ ——–READ ——–READ —–
1.The trustee sale is an unfortunate component of the accounting guidelines.
2.The ability of the FASB to circumvent GAAP causes consumer arguments to be defeated just like a UCC covers the bulk delivery.
3.The UCC vs deed or mortgage provisions under state law are circumvented from prior filing and registration claims.
4.The delivery method is solely to accomplish earnings recognition…that sucks but is allowed.
5.There is in fact no economic benefit for the initial sale or transfer to the Trustee you see!.
6.So The State under 2923.5 compel the lender, pretender gender bender to pay down a loan to accommodate a repurchase and modification?
. . . . .The resulting accounting would create an impossible dilemma for the “benders”.
7.The Secretary of the Treasury is looking to make even more broader and generous concessions to FASB accounting rules as we speak.
8.So attorneys and loan officers’ gone consultant are stealing from homeowners and were forced out…why?
D_E_R_E_C_O_G_N_I_T_I_O_N
defeats 2923.5 and TARP!
9.So efforts to modify loans and help Americans were deemed unlawful. And why not
10. Amended Ccc.2923.5 and TARP are NOT Workable.
” I see a cloud upon the horizon with lawyer malpractice claims a flying while state and federal lawsuits sail back and forth for years and years to come.
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
————————————————————————
You hold their future . . .
in your hands, (loan) committee.
It’s a valuable future.
Believe me.
Don’t destroy it!
Protect it., Embrace it.
It’s gonna make ya proud one day
— I promise you.
Al Pachino
Following the money means determining the party to whom you MIGHT owe money.
—————————————————————————-
By M.Soliman
November 8th, 2009 5:02 PST
http://www.borrowerhotline.com
—————————————————————————-
November 10, 2009
Structured Asset Securities Corporation
745 7th Avenue,
New York, New York,
(212) 526-7000.
Dear Counsel
I ask that you please keep in mind there are still outstanding issues included in our discovery for Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. such as the “sponsor registrants” insolvency and the cap counterparty with Respect to the Class 1-A1 and Class 3-A1 Certificates.
Arguments for considering receivership and disposition of trust assets include challenges to the Trust with respect to accounting rules restricting revenue recognition for bill and hold sales. Of greatest concern here is the following:
“Did these trust arrangements and transfers offer a valid business purpose?”
In my opinion, no! I believe the sole motivation or reason for the trust to exist is based on accounting expectations. Experience allows me to see most indentures as a scheme used to advance revenue recognition criteria. The arrangement is subject to FSP 140-3 that establishes a presumption of a “valid business purpose”. It is otherwise not and difficult for one to ascertain no valid purpose exist for recognition purposes.
The views advanced by FASB and taken from published guidelines offer the accounting practitioner little else to consider. Therefore it should be realized as another off-balance sheet scheme. I have and continue to question FASB and their willingness to concede here. We both know there is a growing need for more rational methods for differentiating assets and the use of this format in the mortgage industry.
I again emphasize the growing sentiment of the more rationale accounting community and share concerns for differentiating a sale versus leveraging assets and debt. Please, see the updated information under FAP and pronouncements under 140-3 for these changes.
The entire activity of the trust appears in reliance of off-balance sheet accounting.
The issues in support of this inquiry are for claims made on behalf of the “mass” who collectively seek to enforce their rights and to protect the rights of others. My engagement will still mandate inquiries and responses from the regulatory enforcement desk of the Securities Exchange Commission and scrutiny of your servicers conduct under 1122AB. I shall include our differences for accounting practices and whereby I believe you are maintaining an economic advantage which may void the “controlling interest” recital and a less than arms sale.
This is brought to your attention subject to my findings as an expert witness and pursuant to the rules of evidence and not as counsel.
Good day!
M.Soliman
expert.examiner@live.com
—————————————————————————
I did not want to believe the information;
[I] just had to trust my imagination
My heart going boom boom boom
“Son,” he said “Now grab your things. . .
I’ve come to take you home.”
Peter Gabriel –
Thanks Dan,
I have the prospectus which is a joke, the prospectus supplement, the seller guide and servicer guide(good because it references exactly what the originator lender must give to them for deposit which includes a note assignment to “blank”) the reports, the BK for the originator, and today have been going through the WAMU BK filings and court case between WAMU, JPM and the FDIC.
What I have found is that the xfer of the Trust assets is in dispute and affirmed by the judge as a “core issue” and may have been a fraudulent transfer.
This brings into clear view that the ownership of the assets(mortgages) may or may not belong to WAMU or may or may not belong to JPM or may or may not belong to the certificate holders(They may have given the money but really got hosed out of the right to the own anything)
If that is the case how can they even attempt to show up and try to take my property? Hopefully the judge is going to rule on my motion to dismiss the foreclosure action this week.
They do reference the “unclean hands doctrine” in the WAMU counterclaim against JPM and I wonder if I can also do the same as to if there is anything even remotely legal as to what they are attempting to do.
The funniest idea I had this week: There has been a local shooting(never in the last few decades so it’s big news here)and there are going to be plenty of news reporters hanging around the courthouse if I have to go in for a hearing.
I may just invite them to sit in on the hearing and reference what my arguments are going to be so that it adds some pressure to the mix. This is the same court house where Kobe Bryant was tried for his case. Might give me some leverage and put pressure on the parties to act accordingly.
As for the Private Placement, I’m curious if there is supplementary info for the certificates that get placed in the private placements as to discounted value or disclaimers as to why they are being dumped into the PPP. These things seem to trade like hot potatoes and for pennies on the dollar. Thought it would be interesting to get the info.
JW Files Landmark Lawsuit to Obtain Documents Regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Political Contributions
View Discussion Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC — August 19, 2009
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to obtain documents related to political contributions made by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to the FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might well possess documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s initial FOIA request. However the agency claims it is not obligated to release such documents to the public. Judicial Watch maintains that since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now wholly operated by the federal government through the FHFA they are subject to FOIA law.
Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request on May 29, 2009 seeking access to the following records from 2005 to the present:
a. Any and all Freddie Mac and/or Fannie Mae records concerning political campaign contributions.
b. Any and all Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac records concerning policies, stipulations, and/or requirements concerning campaign contributions.
The FHFA acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request in a July 1, 2009 letter, claiming that it had no documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. However, the letter also stated that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might possess the requested documents, the FHFA was not obligated to release them under FOIA allegedly because they do not “control” them. Judicial Watch appealed this decision on July 24. However this appeal was denied by FHFA on August 4, prompting Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. The two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are in conservatorship under FHFA, which has full control over Fannie and Freddie, including their records. In addition to the $840 billion in taxpayer funds (from the Fed and Treasury) already spend on behalf the GSEs, taxpayers face a potential liability of $5.4 trillion from Fannie and Freddie.
Overall, members of Congress have received more than $4.8 million in political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last ten years. According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1998 through 2008, the top ten recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s political largess, are as follows: Senator Dodd (D-CT), then-Senator Obama (D-IL), Senator Kerry (D-MA), Senator Bennett (R-UT), Rep. Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), Senator Bond (R-MO), Senator Shelby (R-AL), Senator Reed (D-RI). Senator Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee responsible for regulating the mortgage industry. Notably, President Obama was a top recipient of campaign monies despite being in the Senate for only three years.
“So much for the new era of transparency from the Obama administration…The decision to keep Fannie’s and Freddie’s political contribution records secret conveniently protects President Obama, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his top party allies on the Hill. And more than a few Republicans stand to benefit from this improper secrecy,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Fannie and Freddie funneled ‘profits’ from backing risky mortgages to politicians like Barack Obama. In turn, these politicians protected Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight of the risks they were taking with taxpayer-funds. More than anything else, this fundamentally corrupt scheme led to the collapse of the housing market and the financial crisis. No wonder the Obama administration doesn’t want us to see what is in Fannie’s and Freddie’s records.”
Bookmark/Search this post with: (What’s this?)
OK I found the loan level details for my deal. It shows my loan in foreclosure and my last payment in 6/2008 (which is accurate). What it doesn’t say (among other things) is what advances were made on the account. Very interesting. This report is generated monthly but they are only reporting the current month. It also shows which pool my loan is in (originally their were approx. 4 pools, now there are 2). This means I can use all of this information to possibly calculate the advances reported – except that two months before I missed my first payment they stopped reporting SUB-servicer advances.
DIST_DATE
SERIES_NAME
LOAN_NUM
POOL_NUM
DEAL_NUM LTV_DISCLOSED_PCT CLTV_PCT CREDIT_SCORE_NBR BACK_END_DTI_PCT
JUNIOR_RATIO LOAN_DOC_TYPE_DSCR LOAN_PURPOSE_TYPE_DSCR OCCUPANCY_TYPE PROPERTY_TYPE_DSCR LIEN_PRIORITY_DSCR STANDALONE_IND SILENT_SECOND_IND PROPERTY_STATE CONFORMING_BAL_IND INT_RATE_TYPE_DSCR MARGIN_GROSS_PCT
PMT_1ST_DATE INT_CHG_FREQ_MTH_QTY INT_CHG_PRD_INCR_CEIL_RATE INT_LIFE_CEIL_RATE INT_LIFE_FLOOR_RATE INT_ONLY_TERM_MTH_QTY INT_CHG_1ST_MTH INT_CHG_FREQ_DSCR INT_CHG_MTH_DIFF_QTY MORTAGE_INSURANCE_PROVIDER MORTAGE_INSURANCE_TYPE_DSCR MATURITY_DATE
NOTE_DATE
PRIN_ORIG_BAL
SOLD_BAL
TERM_ORIG_MTH_QTY PREPMT_PENALTY_TERM_MTH_QTY BORROWER_RESIDUAL_INCOME_AMT RFC_GRADE_CODE PRODUCT_GROUP_FALLOUT_DSCR MI_TYPE_DSCR INDEX_TYPE_CODE INDEX_TYPE_DSCR MLY_CURTAILMENT_AMT MLY_DRAW_GROSS_AMT MLY_COUPON_NET_RATE MLY_COUPON_GROSS_RATE MLY_PRIN_UNPAID_BAL MLY_PRIN_SCHED_BAL LOAN_AGE MLY_TERM_REMAIN_MTH_QTY MLY_UTILIZATION_PCT MLY_DELQ_REPORT_METHOD MLY_LOAN_STATUS_CODE MLY_LOAN_STATUS_DSCR MLY_PREPMT_TYPE_DSCR MLY_PAID_TO_DATE
If anyone wants this file or any of the servicing reports so they can see the actual data shoot me an email.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Wow! Some good info here Dan. Thanks!
Thanks for the info Dan!
I have filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing as of Friday and raised multiple objections to the true holder in due course as well as various transactions and bankruptcies across the transfer chain to question the true standing of the balance and ownership.
I will not accept a certification “to the best of their knowledge’ as to the trust having ownership of the note. I have all of the documentation to take with me if they hold the hearing on Friday of this week to back up the assignment chain as well as the pending litigation against the trust and the lender.
I do not think the local district judge will turn me away without listening to what I have to say. We are a small community and I think it gives me a good edge with an attorney from two hours away.
My other loan with them has been rescinded for absolute legitimate reasons(no rescission due to UW changing to second home) and none of it was brought to my attention until I was denied a modification.
I would imagine that if they can produce the original note(highly unlikely) that the validity is going to come into question on both loans as the first loan was notarized by the broker and the other certified as a copy by the UW that committed the fraud on the loan.
I’m hoping to take the same stance as the judge in new york and dare them to bring some of the proof to court.
Here’s to hoping at least. Thanks for the info and if things get ugly this week I may have some questions to ask.
J in CO,
NO THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE PROOF. They are winning every single day without it. Of course YOU and your attorney are on the hook to make them produce proof if you want to keep your home. If you are successful, you have seen what the results are in Jeffs case and the others that have been posted in the last month or so.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Don-CA,
Remember that I never agreed to pay back any third party for making my payments for me. If they made any payments it was out of the goodness of their heart (yeah right). I am not contractually liable to repay them. In fact they signed a contract with somebody else to make my payments for me! That was really nice of them and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate their generosity, especially in these tough economic times.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
J in CO,
I am not advocating for them. I am just telling you what they are doing in the cases I have seen. They will fight long and hard to say you breached your obligation, that is your unconditional promise to pay. That is their main focus If you don’t convince the court to look at the other material that is in my opinion “material information”, you will lose. So yes you are right but the other side will try objections and other tactics to distract the judge.
Don-CA,
When I sent my QWR in (dated 12/29/2008) I asked 25 questions. They only responded to a couple things I said in the QWR and did not answer any of the questions. They said “we are unable to substantiate any questions regarding the origination of your loan” and gave a blanket “everything we did not respond to is proprietary information”. To keep it simple I made them Yes or No questions:
1. Has the borrower gone into default? Yes or No
2. Did the originator loan borrowers the originators own money? Yes or No
3. If the originator loaned borrowers their own money, was the originator ever at risk of losing this money? Yes or No
4. Did the originator disclose to borrowers all the true terms of the loan? Yes or No
5. Did the originator disclose to the borrowers the full cost of the loan? Yes or No
6. Was the originator the actual lender for this loan? Yes or No
7. Did the true lender provide borrowers with the required notices of rescission? Yes or No
8. Did the originator disclose to borrowers all fees paid to all parties involved in this loan? Yes or No
9. Are any of the entities involved in the loan securitization process required to buy back the loan in the event the borrower goes into default? Yes or No
10. Did any of the servicers (sub-servicer, master servicer, successor master servicer, etc) advance any part of any of borrower’s payments or escrow account overdrafts to any other party at any time during the life of borrower’s loan (hereinafter known as “servicer advances”)? Yes or No
11. When the borrower fails to make a payment and any of the servicers advance this missed payment for the borrower, is the advanced payment a gift to the borrower? Yes or No
12. Regarding servicer advances, are any amounts advanced considered a loan? Yes or No
13. Regarding servicer advances, does the borrower repay back any advances? Yes or No
14. Regarding servicer advances, does the borrower pay interest on any advance? Yes or No
15. Regarding servicer advances, can the borrower owe late fees on any advance at any time? Yes or No
16. Regarding servicer advances, was any amount advanced concealed from the borrower? Yes or No
17. Regarding servicer advances, if the advance was a loan, is it secured by real property? Yes or No
18. Regarding servicer advances, can attorney fees be charged to borrower for not repaying advances in a timely manner? Yes or No
19. Regarding borrower’s entire loan payment history, has any holder in due course ever sustained a loss because of any borrower non-payment? Yes or No
20. Do all entities involved in borrower’s loan, loan securitization and payment handling (including advances), comply with USAP (Uniform Single Attestation Program) minimum servicing standards? Yes or No
21. Is there a true and correct accounting for all payments and servicer advances to all holders in due course for loan #1115033333 or 4040021333? Yes or No
22. Is it possible for any holder in due course to prove they have sustained a loss from borrowers? Yes or No
23. Was this entire loan securitization process setup to provide as much protection as possible to keep any holder in due course (A.K.A. “Investor”) from sustaining a loss? Yes or No
24. Has The Lender already been paid in full 100% or more for borrower’s loan? Yes or No
25. If the borrower provides further payments on this loan, will the borrowers aid and abet illegal activities? Yes or No
Of course my QWRs contain much more information then just these 25 questions. Also I include the following so no party can claim they did not receive a notice from me:
Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
Notice to Servicer is Notice to Lender. Notice to Lender is Notice to Servicer.
Notice to Servicer is Notice to Trustee. Notice to Trustee is Notice to Servicer.
Notice to Servicer is Notice to Master Servicer. Notice to Master Servicer is Notice to Servicer.
Notice to Servicer is Notice to Holder(s) in Due Course. Notice to Holder(s) in Due Course is Notice to Servicers.
Notice to Servicer is Notice to Foreclosing Attorney. Notice to Foreclosing Attorney is Notice to Servicer.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Good Stuff Dan,
“Realization Upon Defaulted Mortgage Loans. During this period and in the administration of such defaulted Mortgage Loans, the Servicer shall be responsible for making all customary Servicing Advances.”
OK, so how much is owed on the obligation? Dan, did you send that list to your sub-servicer?
Dan,
Regardless of which party starts the process be it the trust, servicer, etc they still have to have the proof of the debt or proof of the damage, correct?
Why, if I can get the judge to understand right off the bat, can they be allowed to continue without proving the damage in lack of payments if they may have received other compensation or if they by their own admission will not have the note and will not make an assignment?
They regardless of the action, invoking power of sale or filing a declaration for my rescission, should have to prove standing in damage or in ownership before the court will allow them to proceed.
I have enough info as to raise the question of ownership and the possibility that this may have been paid by a third party either in payments or complete relief.
The most interesting thing that I fall back on to raise some questions is if they are in possession of four appraisals that show the value at a much reduced amount 1.6M in difference prior to deposit into the trust, did they reduce the amount they paid the originating bank for the loan when they purchased it i.e instead of the 1.7M loan amount did they discount it to the new appraisal and the subsequent LTV of 60% meaning they bought it at 780K instead.
My logic would be they discounted the price they paid for it to the bankrupt originating lender but still represented the original value to the trust and certificate buyers to get the full amount in cash. There is no way they bought the loan with blatant appraisal issues without a discount. With fraudulent concealment I should have a tolled ability to Rescind outside of the three year statute or worse, would I not?
Tracking the compensation given for the asset and then what it was sold for should give me at least a laser pointed request that cannot be denied for being too excessive as they may want to do in a discovery phase. This one action should be enough to raise serious doubt.
Are there limits to the amount of information that you request from them in the court process? Would you not have to prove the necessity of each item as pertinent outside of the normal course of business(i.e typical fees in the course of doing business as a bank)
I understand that they will only want to show the court, I borrowed the money and stopped making payments thus that is all they need to show. My job is to show that everything is relevant as it wasn’t the transaction I signed up for especially as time progressed because I cannot have a true conversation with the alleged party that owns the loan.
I wish we had a registry where we could document everyone’s progress and where the lender stopped fighting back so that we could judge how far into the process most of these cases make it before the lender bails.
I just don’t see them wanting to fight against something that could end up with fraud against them or further exposure to the court system.
J in CO,
I haven’t heard of a Private Placement Memo so I looked it up. It is the Prospectus issued by whoever is issuing securities. For our purposes this would be the trust our loan is (allegedly) pooled in. Maher refers to this as a “Blue Sky”. Yes I have read my prospectus and it has a TON of very important material information. In order to find the prospectus (424B5) look in the SEC filings. Mine was created by the Depositor for the name of the Issuer (Trust). Mine is listed here: http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.z46u.htm#16v4
Go to the section marked Bankruptcy Risks and read the first two paragraphs. The 1st paragraph discloses the fact that they really didn’t sell the loans into the Trust like they said they did. The 2nd paragraph says “The recording of mortgages in the name of MERS may affect the yield on the offered certificates”. Dans interpretation of their risk assessment: MERS is a new concept and has not been tested and we may not be able to recover properties through foreclosure and you might lose your butt. If that happens, don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
J in CO,
Remember, the sub-servicer is the one foreclosing and as far as I can tell they are limiting the scope to the borrowers unconditional promise to pay along with their (the sub-servicers) record of your payments. Notice I didn’t say their record of payments. They are intentionally concealing or omitting material information and trying to limit the scope to what they want. In addition, they are ignorant (or closing their eyes) to other events and terms.
They are authorized by their agreement with the master servicer as well as the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and they use them as necessary for THEIR benefit but leave out anything that will benefit the borrower.
The borrower needs to turn this around and show that this information is relevant. You need to frame your requests correctly. For instance if you say “Judge, the sub-servicer made my payments for me and I want to know how much they paid”, the judge will think you are crazy. But if you show the judge that according to the Pooling and Servicing agreement the sub-servicer is required to make payments for borrowers, then show the judge the certificateholder statements that show they are actually making these payments, your request might be relevant.
Besides all of the above everyone needs to remember that the Trustee has NO KNOWLEDGE OF A DEFAULT unless they are told (per the SEC filings) by the master servicer or depositor. Because the sub-servicer is foreclosing for the Trustee (using a Power of Attorney), NONE OF THE AFFIDAVITS showing your payment history or loan status are from the proper party UNLESS THEY ARE FROM THE MASTER SERVICER OR DEPOSITOR. In all cases that I know of they come from the sub-servicer.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Maher,
I am not falling for anything. I am trying to research as much as possible about EVERYTHING that happened. I was not on the inside so I am using every bit of information I can to try to reverse engineer the entire process. Please don’t tell us we are on the wrong track – just keep providing more information that will help us. You have done great so far and I am sure you have much more information that will be helpful to all.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan/Zurnarrh,
Have either of you ever seen the language of a Private Placement Memo?
I know of people that trade these deals and roughly the discounted prices they pay for them so to get to that discounted number they have to have some serious disclaimers as to the enforceability of the notes etc in the memos.
On the etrustee site I found the info on this memo is locked to public view. Thought it would be interesting if anyone has viewed one of the memos.
Dan,
Wow, that is quite a list!
Would the lender not have to account for this information to prove his damages and payoff thus showing standing to foreclose?
I know that in my PSA it blatantly acknowledges this:
“The trustee will not physically possess some or all of the mortgage notes and mortgages related to the mortgage loans owned by the Trust. The mortgage notes and mortgages held will not be endorsed or otherwise marked to reflect the transfer to the trust, and assignments of the mortgages to the trust will not be prepared or recorded. AS A RESULT, IF A THIRD PARTY WERE TO OBTAIN PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THOSE MORTGAGE NOTES OR MORTGAGES WITHOUT ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRIOR TRANSFER TO THE TRUST, THE TRUST’S INTEREST IN THOSE MORTGAGE NOTES AND MORTGAGES COULD BE DEFEATED.”
This is one of the reasons they may shred the original and hope no one asks.
I can’t see how they could prove either to a court when asked to do so.
Without a complete accounting how can we prove our loans were not already satisfied? With admissions to certificate holders of the above how can they prove they can enforce anything?
If the certificate purchasers were disclosed as above and still bought the junk how is it that they even have a claim against us for the mortgages?
To me it almost seems as though they have admitted the investors are buying something that cannot be enforced so take what you can until the debtors wake up out of the comma and tell you to take a hike.
Do the foreclosure mill attorneys even understand the things that will need to be accounted for if we hold firm to making them document any of this?
Dan,
Fannie is subject to FOIA because it is currently under conservatorship with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the agency to whom Fannie FOIA requests should be addressed.
Here’s the FHFA FOIA page regarding requests:
wwwDOTfhfaDOTgov/DefaultDOTaspx?Page=46
Here are the questions that I composed before reading your submission (still trying to figure out how to work your info into these questions):
“I wish to request all records relating to any and all activity of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) concerning the Note and Deed of Trust of zurenarrh, including but not limited to the following:
-document(s) showing the date of purchase and/or repurchase and/or sale of said Note by FNMA
-document(s) showing the price paid by (or to) FNMA for said Note as part of any purchase and/or repurchase and/or sale therof
-documents showing the name of the trust(s) or pool(s) said Note was put into (if any)
-documents showing any and all Pool Numbers or CUSIP Numbers relating to said Note or relating to any type of security of which said Note forms the basis either in whole or in part
-any relevant documents regarding the trust, including but not limited to the pooling and servicing agreement(s), prospectus(es), trust indenture(s), insurance and investor information regarding the trust(s) into which said Note was placed
-copies of both the front and back of the original Note in question, along with any and all allonges pertaining thereto
-copies of any assignment contracts and assignments of said Note or Deed of Trust to or from FNMA including but not limited to assignments from the seller of said Note, assignments to the trust of which said Note was a part, and assignments to the purchaser of said Note (if any)
-documents regarding the repurchase (if any) of said Note from the trust
-documents regarding the funding source of the repurchase (if any) of said Note from the trust
-documents regarding the purchase (if any) of any credit default swaps related to the trust
-documents regarding the securitization of said Note
-documents regarding the current status of said Note, i.e, whether it is currently in a pool or trust or whether (and when) it has been sold or transferred by FNMA to another party
-all communications related to said Note and Deed of Trust between Countrywide, Bank of America, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, and Recontrust Company
-all communications that reference Nye Lavalle or mortgagefrauds@aol.com as well as documents related to the independent counsel investigation of FNMA and final report that FNMA conducted via Baker & Hostetler’s Mark Cymrot
-any Request for Release/Return of Documents (Form 2009) in which said Note is mentioned
-copies of any and all documents relating to any agreement(s) or communication(s) between FNMA and any document custodian in which said Note is referenced
-copies of IRS form 1099 relating to said Note for each year FNMA held said Note
-copies of UCC-1 Financing Statement regarding said Note and/or Deed of Trust”
OK this is hilarious. They STOPPED reporting sub-servicer advances in April 2008. At that time the sub-servicer was advancing $596,511.53 (Group I loans) and $73,543.85 (Group II loans), for a total of $670,055.38 …
The master servicer advanced $49,808.32 (Group I) and 0.00 (Group II).
Total advances: $719,863.70
This number was $140,000 in January 2007, $345,000 in July 2007 and $660,000.00 in January 2008. It slowly rose from $660,000.00 in January 2008 to $719,863.70 in March 2008.
I can only estimate that starting in April this amount starting rising dramatically. (My last payment was June 2008.)
Seems to me this would be good information to use in my lawsuit and discovery. The judge should be interested in this also (I hope).
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
How do I use this in a QWR?
First, remember that these are monthly statements since shortly after the closing for the securitization – and this is specifically for the trust my loan is allegedly pooled in (I assume statements for others are similar). FYI my loan closing was 9/72005 and the trust “closing” was 11/17/2005. The first statement was issued on 12/22/2005. (NOTE: the older statements are slightly different from the newer ones I previously posted below. The old ones include sub-servicer advances). My first guess is that if they told the investors how much the sub-servicer was actually advancing, the investors would all immediately know what was going on and initiate lawsuits.
To use this in a QWR (or in discovery) you would want to ask for YOUR SPECIFIC loan information for each category listed for each month since the first statement. It is possible you would only need it from the time in which you were late (or the month before), but I would want them from the beginning. They will show (presumably) true picture of what actually happened to your loan FROM THE INVESTORS perspective (unless of course they give you FALSE information). If you missed payments, you will probably find that the sub-servicer made them for you, at least for awhile. You would probably also find that once the sub-servicer stopped advancing, the master servicer started advancing. You may also find that at the time of Notice of Default (or the time your foreclosure suit was initiated), the investors were actually CURRENT and nobody was harmed by your missed payments (except of course for those who advanced your payments OR those who paid insurance claims for your missed payments. If this is true, that means you are being foreclosed on by somebody because SOME THIRD PARTY COMPANY THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH IS MAKING YOUR PAYMENTS AND THEY WANT YOU TO PAY THEM BACK. Sorry, I am off subject now …
You want to know when and how much the sub-servicer advanced for your loan. You want to know when and how much the master servicer (and/or successor master servicer) advanced for your loan. You want to know what was reported EVERY MONTH to the certificate holders as to how much principal was distributed and how much interest was distributed. The advances made by the sub-servicer or master servicer is used to pay your principal and interest. They advanced it and will collect it from you later (or so they think).
There is much more information in these reports. Look at it and ask yourself if you think having this would be relevant to your case.
MORE INFORMATION
In my case, the sub-servicer was compensated $115,919.11 in December 2005 and the master servicer was compensated $1,733.64. The sub-servicer was the ORIGINATOR of my loan. The originator and the sub-servicer had an agreement starting in 2000 to securitize loans. My loan closed on 9/7/2005. The originator never disclosed to me the business combination they had with the master servicer (GMAC-RFC) and they failed to disclose any additional fees they would be paid outside of closing. They KNEW they would be collecting these servicing fees, they KNEW the master servicer would be collecting their servicing fees. The entire pool consists of loans originated by the company that originated my loan and it was the 4th Trust established between the originator and the master servicer in 2005. I cannot confirm a 2nd YSP, but I can say that all the servicing fees were NOT disclosed as they should have been. But this also means all other fees paid were not disclosed:
– how much did they pay the originator to originate the loan?
– how much did they pay to “create” the Trust?
– how much did they pay to lawyers and financial engineers to setup the entire securitization?
– how much did they pay to file the SEC filings?
– etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum
If your loan was pre-destined for securitization, the number of fees paid outside of closing is astronomical.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
zurenarrh,
I have heard of FOIA requests and seen them mentioned before on this blog. My loan is pledged by GMAC-RFC (and/or GMAC-ResCap and/or GMAC and/or Ally Bank [FKA GMAC Bank[). GMAC (and/or some subsidiary / ies) received TARP and/or other government assistance. Who and how do we ask for a FOIA request in order to determine how these funds were used within the company / companies that received it? We should be able to determine:
– how much the bank applied to our “on balance sheet asset”
– how much applied to any certificates the company / companies hold from our particular Trust
– how much applied to any advances for our particular loan
– how much applied to any non-recoverable advances for our particular loan
– how much applied to shortfalls (foreclosure shortfalls, interest shortfalls, etc., etc.)
You can see where I am going with this. This information is material to my determining:
– how much is owed on my loan
– how much each real and indispensible party has actually received (or not received)
The companies that received bailouts are publicly traded companies and/or bank holding companies and/or Federal Savings Banks (what did I leave out OR can somebody narrow it down?). These companies are typically HUGE and it is their job to do proper accounting and handle large sums of money. For the government OR these companies not to know what they did with the money is FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING, TAX EVASION, fraudulent concealment, SEC violations, Sarbanes-Oxley violations etc and of course illegal and deceptive business practices.
It seems to me we should be sending these to the Fed, the FDIC, the Office of the Thrift, the IRS, the SEC and who else? Who knows which questions to ask each of these government entities?
zurenarrh, teach all of us (or at least me) how to do an FOIA request (I assume it is simple and straight forward and I am really looking for all of us to work together to coordinate). We should all hit them with these questions, then use the answers in our court cases. These answers will probably be:
– We don’t know
– We aren’t sure
– We have no accounting of that
– You do not have the right to know
– This is confidential information
– etc.
It is possible that just one (or hopefully more) of WE THE PEOPLE might get this request in front of a government official who takes their job seriously and will actually be able to get real answers (miracles can happen).
Is it possible to use FOIA to determine who the holders of certificates are from the DTC applicable to my trust (I believe they hold the listing of all purchasers of certificates issued from the trust)?
It seems to me that the judge should take it under advisement if we present him with these answers (or lack of answers). We should be able to do this in discovery also (send requests for this information).
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
This is great info Dan, nice work.
I agree, you must use the Discovery process as a medium for selling your defense strategy.
I personally think the more logical questions raised in Discovery, that of course go unanswered, are the foundation for forcing the Judges hand.
The Plaintiff will most likely object to all of the documents and interrogatories…or just ignore them.
However, when it comes to requesting Admissions, if these go unanswered after 30 days(in most States) then you may Move the Court to Compel and Deem Admissions as TRUE.
For example, “Admit that the Plaintiff is not the actual Party in Interest because the Note is held by a MBS Trust not specifically endorsed.”
When this goes unanswered, the Court may deem it as an admission by acquiescence, their silence.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, I didn’t have $100,000 to go to law school, nor did I pass the bar….so I cannot give you any advice to save your family from homelessness. Take it for what it is.
Dan
You really did do a great job. Good work Bud.
Call me with an update.
MSoliman
Dan,
This is very timely for my purposes as I have been composing my FOIA request to Fannie Mae and checking and re-checking to make sure I have all the bases covered. Thanks for all your hard work…geez, and I thought I was a good researcher…got nothin’ on you, my good man!
The party funding the loan is the holder in due course. The issue isnot a successors and assigns at all. Did the lender and registrant sell the loan or not? We say NO! The trailing assignment dady’s before sale is the proof.
It’s a matter of a warehouse lender getting stuck with loans it never could deliver or coverage that really was not coverage under FASB guidelines according to GAAP.
What you are doing here is falling for this CDO MERS trap and making it way to hard. I was on the inside… remember?
MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
foreclosureinfosearch.com
Thanks Neil. Here is the complete information (without most of the actual answers) of what is included in my report to certificateholders (this is LONG). It doesn’t line up exactly right so I will email it to you also.
GMAC RFC
Statement to Certificateholder
1. Distribution Summary
2. Factor Summary
3. Components Information
4. Interest Summary
5. Other Income Detail
6. Interest Shortfalls, Compensation and Expenses
7. Prepayment Interest and Basis Risk/Net WAC Shortfall Amounts
8. Collateral Summary
9. Repurchase Information
10. Loan Status Report (Delinquencies)
11. Deal Delinquencies (30 Day Buckets)
12. Loss Mitigation and Servicing Modifications
13. Losses and Recoveries
14. Credit Enhancement Report
15. Distribution Percentages
16. Overcollateralization Summary
17. Excess Cash Flow, Overcollateralization Provisions and Derivative Amounts
18. Performance Tests
19. Lender Paid Mortgage Insurance
20. Comments
Deal Name: Residential Asset Securities Corp, 2005-EMX4
Asset Type: Home Equity Mortgage Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates
Closing Date: 11/17/2005
First Distribution Date: 12/25/2005
Determination Date: 09/21/2009
Distribution Date: 09/25/2009
Record Date:
Book-Entry: 09/24/2009
Definitive: 08/31/2009
Trustee: US Bank N.A.
Main Telephone: 800-934-6802
GMAC-RFC
Bond Administrator: Perry Bons
Telephone: 818-260-1441
Pool(s): 40197,40198
Residential Asset Securities Corp, 2005-EMX4
September 25, 2009
1. Distribution Summary
Class
CUSIP
Original Face Value
(1) Beginning Notional / Principal Balance
(2) Pass-Through Rate
(3) Principal Distribution (3)
(4) Interest Distribution (4)
(5) Total Distribution (3) + (4) = (5)
(6) Principal Loss
(7) Interest Loss
(8) Deferred Interest
(9) Ending Notional / Principal Balance (1)-(3)-(6)+(8)=(9)
2. Factor Summary
Class
CUSIP
Beginning Notional / Principal Balance Factor
Principal Distribution Factor
Interest Distribution Factor
Total Distribution Factor
Deferred Interest Factor
Interest Shortfall Factor
Ending Notional / Principal Balance Factor
Deal Factor
Group I Factor
Group II Factor
3. Components Information
(No information in report)
4. Interest Summary
Class
Accrual Period
Accrual Methodology
Beginning Notional / Principal Balance
Pass-Through Rate
(1) Optimal Interest Amount
(2) Interest Loss
(3) Deferred Interest
(4) Interest Shortfall Amount
(5) Other Income
(6) Interest Distribution (1)-(2)-(3)-(4)+(5)=(6)
Current Index Rates
Index Type
Rate
Classes
5. Other Income Detail
Class
(1) Prepayment Charges
(2) Remaining Excess Class Flow and OC Release Amount
(3) Other Income Distribution (1)+(2)=(3)
6. Interest Shortfalls, Compensation and Expenses
(1) Current Prepayment Interest Shortfall Amount
(2) Compensating Interest
(3) Net Prepayment Interest Shortfall Amount (1)-(2)=(3)
Civil Relief Act Shortfall Count
Civil Relief Act Shortfall Amount
Compensation
Subservicer
Master Servicer
Advances by Master Servicer
Allowable Expenses per Governing Documents
Non-Recoverable Advances
[Advances are made for delinquent loans and are reimbursed from borrower collections and liquidation proceeds as reported herein]
7. Prepayment Interest and Basis Risk/Net WAC Shortfall Amounts
(A) Prepayment Interest Shortfall Amounts
Class
(1) Current Period
(2) Prior Unpaid
(3) Prior Unpaid Accrued Interest
(4) Total Paid
(5) Remaining Unpaid (1)+(2)+(3)-(4)=(5)
(B) Basis Risk / Net WAC Shortfall Amounts
(1) Current Period Uncompensated
(2) Prior Unpaid
(3) Prior Unpaid Accrued Interest
(4) Total Paid
(5) Remaining Unpaid (1)+(2)+(3)-(4)=(5)
8. Collateral Summary
A. Loan Count and Balances
Original Loan Count / Scheduled Principal Balance
Beginning Loan Count / Scheduled Principal
Scheduled Principal
Curtailments
Payoffs
Matured Loans
Repurchases
Beginning Aggregate Scheduled Principal Balance of Liquidations / Charge-offs
Ending Loan Count / Scheduled Principal Balance
B. Weighted Averages
Beginning Weighted Average Gross Mortgage Rate
Ending Weighted Average Gross Mortgage Rate
Ending Weighted Average Remaining Amortization Term
Ending Weighted Average Months to Maturity
Beginning Weighted Average Net Mortgage Rate
Ending Weighted Average Net Mortgage Rate
Beginning Weighted Average Unmodified Net Mortgage Rate
Net Weighted Average Cap Rate
Weighted Average Net Rate
9. Repurchase Information
(1) Breaches of Representations and Warranties
(2) ARM Conversions
(3) Optional Repurchase of Defaulted Loans
(4) Others
(5) Total (1)+(2)+(3)+(4)=(5)
10. Loan Status Report (Delinquencies)
Delinquency Calculation Method: Office of Thrift Supervision
Current / Delinquent
Count
Scheduled Balance
Bankruptcy
Count
Scheduled
Foreclosure
Count
Scheduled Balance
REO
Count
Scheduled Balance
Actual Balance
Total
Count
Scheduled Balance
Note that the above were listed with the following breakdown
Deal Totals
Current
30 days
60 days
90 days
120 days
150 days
180 days
181+ days
Total
(and repeated with percentages)
(above repeated for Group I and again for Group II)
11. Deal Delinquencies (30 Day Buckets)
Totals
Count and % Count
Balance and % Balance
Note: the above is listed by month from 1 month to 59 months and then one entry for 60+ months
12. Loss Mitigation and Servicing Modifications
Modification
Current
Count and scheduled balance
1 Payment
Count and scheduled balance
2 Payments
Count and scheduled balance
3+ Payments
Count and scheduled balance
Foreclosure
Count and scheduled balance
REO
Count and scheduled balance
Total
Count and scheduled balance
The above is broken down by:
Modification
Capitilization
Other Modification
Total for Group 1, Group 2 and All Deals
13. Losses and Recoveries
A. Current Cycle Realized Losses
Current Period Realized Losses
Liquidations
Charge-Offs
Servicing Modifications
Bankruptcy Losses
Total
Shown with the following breakdown by Groups and Total Deals:
Loss Count
Beginning Aggregate Scheduled Balance
Principal Portion of Loss
Interest Portion of Loss
Total Realized Loss
B. Cumulative Realized Losses
Current Period Realized Losses
Liquidations
Charge-Offs
Servicing Modifications
Bankruptcy Losses
Total
Shown with the following breakdown by Groups and Total Deals:
Loss Count
Total Realized Loss
C. Subsequent Recoveries
Subsequent Recoveries
Current Period
Cumulative
Shown with the following breakdown by Groups and Total Deals:
Subsequent Recoveries Count
Subsequent Recoveries
Net Loss 1
Net Loss % 2
1 Total Realized Loss less Subsequent Recoveries
2 Net Loss % of Original Balance
D. Default Percentages
Default Loss Percentage
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
12 Months
Life of Deal
Broken down by Group and Total with the following:
Monthly Default Rate
Constant Default Rate
1-Month MDR (Current Month) = SUM (Beginning Scheduled balances of liquidating loans) / [SUM (Beginning Scheduled loan balance) – SUM (Scheduled Principal payments)]
m-Month = 3, 6, 12, months or the life of deal to date
m-Month MDR (over M months in period where n is current month) = 1-[(1-MDRn-m+1) * (1-MDRn-m+2)*…..*(1-MDR n-1) * (1-MDRn)]^(1/m)
CDRm = 1 – [(1 – MDRm)^12], where m is number of months in period
14. Credit Enhancement Report
Hedge Agreements
Description
Provider
Termination Date
Amount Received From Provider
Amount Paid to Provider
15. Distribution Percentages
No data
16. Overcollateralization Summary
Prior Required Overcollateralization
Beginning Overcollateralization
Overcollateralization Increase (Reduction) Amount
Ending Overcollateralization Amount
Current Required Overcollateralization
17. Excess Cash Flow, Overcollateralization Provisions and Derivative Amounts
Excess Cashflow and Derivative Summary
Broken down by the following:
(1) Scheduled Unmodified Net Interest
(2) Interest Losses
(3) Subsequent Recoveries
(4) Interest Adjustment Amount
(5) Yield Maintenance / Swap Payment Amount – IN
(6) Certificate Interest Amount
(7) OC Reduction Amount
(8) Excess Cashflow Prior to OC Provisions
Overcollateralization and Derivative Amounts
Broken down by the following
Excess Cashflow Prior to OC Provisions
(1) Unreimbursed Principal Portion of Realized Losses
(2) Principal Portion of Realized Losses
(3) Overcollateralization Increase
(4) Prepayment Interest Shortfall
(5) Unpaid PPIS With Accrued Interest
(6) Basis Risk Shortfall Carry-Forward Amount
(7) Relief Act Shortfall
(8) Unreimbursed Realized Losses
(9) To Class SB Certificates
Note: Excess Cashflow Prior to OC Provisions amount takes into account any Non-Recoverable Advance Amounts from Section 6
18. Performance Tests
Senior Balance Test
Senior Certificate Beginning Balance – Actual Value
Zero Balance
Senior Certificate Beginning Balance = 0.00
Current Distribution Date >= Target Distribution
Current Distribution Period
StepDown Target Distribution Period
Current Distribution >= Target Distribution Date
Stepdown Date – Senior Enhancement Test
Current Senior Enhancement Percent – Actual value
Specified Senior Enhancement Percent – Target value
Senior Enhance Pct >= Specified Senior Enhance Pct (Actual End Balance = Target Distribution Date
Senior Enhance Pct >= Specified Senior Enhance Pct (Actual End Balance = Target Percent
StepDown Date has occurred
Senior Certificate Beginning Balance = 0.00
After StepDown Date and Senior Enh Percent >= Target Percent
Stepdown Date has occurred
Sixty-Plus Delinquency Percentage >= Target %
3-Month Average Sixty-Plus Delinquency Percentage – Actual Value
Senior Enhancement Delinquency Percentage – Target Value
Sixty-Plus Delinquency Percentage >= Senior Enhancement Delinquency Percentage Target
Trigger Event clause (b) – Realized Loss Test
Aggregate Realized Loss Percentage – Actual Value
Scheduled Loss Target Percent
Aggregate Realized Loss Percentage >= Scheduled Loss Percent
Trigger Event is in effect?
Sixty-Plus Delinquency Percentage >= Senior Enhancement Delinquency Percentage Target
Aggregate Realized Loss Percentage >= Scheduled Loss Percentage
Trigger Event is in effect
StepDown Date and Trigger Event in effect
Stepdown Date has occurred
Trigger Event is in effect
Trigger Event is in effect on or after StepDown Date
19. Lender Paid Mortgage Insurance
No data
20. Comments
ERISA Text: Each beneficial owner of any Certificate (or any interest therein) which provides credit enhancement for any other Certificate and is available in book-entry form, including a Class M Certificate, shall be deemed to have represented, by virtue of its acquisition or holding of such Certificate (or interest therein), that either: a) it is not an employee benefit or other plan subject to the prohibited transaction provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended(‘ERISA’), or Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (a ‘Plan’), or any other person (including an investment manager, a named fiduciary or a trustee of any Plan) acting, directly or indirectly, on behalf of purchasing any Certificate with ‘plan assets’ of any Plan; or b) (i) the transferee is an insurance company, (ii) the source of funds to be used by it to purchase the Certificates is an ‘insurance company general account’ (within the meaning of Department of Labor Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (‘PTCE’) 95-60), and (iii) the conditions set forth in Section I and III of PTCE 95-60 have been satisfied. Any purported beneficial owner of any such book-entry Certificate (or interest therein) to whom either (a) or (b) above does not apply shall indemnify and hold harmless the Company, the Trustee, the Master Servicer, any Subservicer, and the Trust Fund from and against any and all liabilities, claim, cost or
expenses incurred by such parties as a result of its acquisition or holding of such Certificate.
Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Neil,
After all of the details and prospectus reading and the various layers that have been peeled like an onion so far, the most compelling question I find is the most simple:
Proof of standing.
Prove you own my note
Prove you have suffered monetary damage
Prove you have acquired either of them legally under penalty of perjury.
I suggest everyone understand everything that they can about what has transpired over the life of your loan. Research, if you can’t find something ask one of the generous people on this board. We are all here to help each other. Arm yourselves with as much as you can and make them convince you and the judge.
If they have to prove to you that you owe them the money, make them account for EVERY penny that has an affiliation to your loan or note.
If they say they own your note make them give you everything that proves it from day one.
Most of them assigned the notes to a blank entity on purpose which in some places creates a payable to bearer situation. If you do not get the original how will they prove there isn’t someone else holding it?
If you rescind, they still have to prove both to the judge in the action against you. They know and you should too.
We can find plenty of places in which they committed illegal acts but for a busy judge in just about any court be polite but be determined. Don’t settle for their answer or justification, Make them Prove it!
Don’t ever give up and keep spreading the word.
Our prayers are with you Neil for a speedy recovery!