What to Look For and Demand Through QWR or Discovery Part II

Dan Edstrom, you are great!

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. [Editor’s Note: Those who are computer savvy will recognize that these are field names, which is something that should be included in your demand and in your QWR. You will also wanat the record data and metadata that is attached to each record. ]


If anyone wants this file or any of the servicing reports so they can see the actual data shoot me an email.

Dan Edstrom

48 Responses

  1. Ioodn wtwe [url=http://www.miumiufanatic.com]miumiu 財布[/url] Ibuuz ryii Nfkvd fppu [url=http://www.miumiufanatic.com]miumiu アウトレット[/url] Cilcz zikv Bvuru bwez [url=http://www.miumiufanatic.com]ミュウミュウ 財布[/url] Xkesh gbho Njrsf iwqn http://www.miumiufanatic.com ミュウミュウ 財布 Uazps vrfo Iggpc akla [url=http://www.miumiufever.com/]miumiu アウトレット[/url] Qmbph zufd Ftgia cvli [url=http://www.miumiufever.com/]miumiu 財布[/url] Atmfm hwtw Ewslm ewbh [url=http://www.miumiufever.com/]ミュウミュウ 財布[/url] Jdetl rwhj Twyhf vbmo http://www.miumiufever.com/ miumiu 財布 Lgbxa yogn Zsbtw yeha [url=http://www.miumiufans.com/]miumiu 財布[/url] Fzyhn qiot Fwedy tblq [url=http://www.miumiufans.com/]ミュウミュウ 財布[/url] Ozaxu nwdr Cmdgp erml [url=http://www.miumiufans.com/]ミュウミュウ バッグ[/url] Jmztq syhs Vouvv zkqa http://www.miumiufans.com/ ミュウミュウ 財布 Smris xpiz Rjiwv cqtw [url=http://www.heysaymiumiu.com/]miumiu アウトレット[/url] Ctsgk oxza Lkmwp zxju [url=http://www.heysaymiumiu.com/]ミュウミュウ 財布[/url] Jhcuv qich Ztaxq ognp [url=http://www.heysaymiumiu.com/]miumiu バッグ[/url] Dwvkp ktef Zftho bwgd http://www.heysaymiumiu.com/ miumiu バッグ Qoldl itdo


  3. . . . . .a statement that the party used the criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB (17 CFR 229.1122) to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria; (wow) Yes, SEC rule 1122 AB(v.) . We have found “sugar coated “auditor attestation” reports from Price and Coopers ,etc that would blow you away my rising star. [Sarbox violations / wow] Material non compliance over and over again for delayed reporting and breach of the servicing agents role and the indentures call to compliance.

    Check out what I wrote on this subject last February . . . .in 2008


  4. Here is more discovery, and it is HUGE:

    In addition, in March of each year, starting in 2008, each servicer and the trustee will be required to deliver to the depositor and the trustee, as applicable, an assessment of compliance with servicing criteria that contains the following:

    o a statement of the party’s responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it;

    o a statement that the party used the criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB (17 CFR 229.1122) to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;

    o the party’s assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during and as of the end of the prior calendar year, setting forth any material instance of noncompliance identified by the party; and

    o a statement that a registered public accounting firm has issued an attestation report on the party’s assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during and as of the end of the prior calendar year.

    Each party that is required to deliver an assessment of compliance with servicing criteria will also be required to simultaneously deliver an attestation report of a registered public accounting firm, prepared in accordance with the standards for attestation engagements issued or adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, that expresses an opinion, or states that an opinion cannot be expressed, concerning the party’s assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. You may obtain copies of these statements and reports without charge upon written request to the trustee at the address provided in this prospectus supplement.

    Dan Edstrom

  5. Excellent read…

    Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck – RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado



  6. Dan,

    I was reviewing the FDIC website about transactions and found this:


    On May 27, 1976, the FDIC sent the following letter to the Chief Executive Officers of all insured nonmember banks subject: Federal Trade Commission Trade Regulation Rule on the Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses:

    A copy of the … Rule is included in the … Staff Guidelines on the Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses. This Rule, which is frequently referred to as “The Holder-in-Due-Course Rule,” was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission effective May 14, 1976.

    In essence, the Rule prohibits a seller from taking or receiving a consumer credit contract that does not contain a prescribed notice which preserves the consumer’s claims and defenses in the event that the contract is negotiated or assigned to a third party creditor. In addition, the Rule provides that the seller may not accept the proceeds of a purchase money loan unless the evidence of the loan contains the prescribed notice preserving as against the lender whatever claims and defenses the consumer may have against the seller. Omission of the required notice by the seller, or acceptance by the seller of the proceeds of the purchase money loan where the evidence of the loan does not contain the notice, constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice within the meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45).

    While the Rule admittedly is aimed at sellers, there are situations where the Rule will also affect banks. Under the Rule, banks which purchase consumer paper containing the notice required of sellers will no longer be able to avail themselves of the holder-in-due-course doctrine. Also, banks which make purchase money loans containing the notice will be subject to all claims and defenses which the consumer could assert against the seller.

    Banks should not accept any consumer paper which fails to contain the notice required of sellers, since they may be considered to be a participant in the seller’s violation of the Rule. In addition, banks making purchase money loans should include the prescribed notice in their contracts. Regarding this latter point we recommend that banks use the text of the notice set forth in Section 433.2(a) of the Rule. The notice prescribed under Section 433.2(b) of the Rule, which would be eliminated under a pending amendment to the Rule (40 Fed. Reg. 53530 (1975)), is fully included in Section 433.2(a). Therefore, it may be advisable to use the notice prescribed under Section 433.2(a) in order to avoid additional printing costs.

    The … Staff Guidelines, which were published by the Federal Trade Commission in the May 14, 1976 FEDERAL REGISTER, address certain questions regarding the interpretation and application of the Rule (41 Fed. Reg. 20022-27 (1976)). However, we would point out that the analysis is informal and advisory in that it has not been formally reviewed or adopted by the Commission.

    Banks should consult with local counsel in determining whether the Rule applies in a particular transaction, especially since the Rule abolishes the holder-in-due-course doctrine which is one of State law. Also, banks may wish to contact the appropriate FDIC Regional Office with any questions regarding the Rule.

    There is more here:


    I would assume this would be in some fashion still applicable if it is still currently posted on the site. i will review in detail later but this seems to address the liability position and how it passes through to any holder………

  7. I have the same thing but have to force the assignments out of them.

    The originator went bankrupt and is being sued, the first assignment was supposed to and disclosed to go to CountryWide just as the wheels were falling off the bus, then went to WAMU who deposited into their trust.

    This is where they got their hands dirty for sure as they had the review appraisals done showing the 1.6 Million dollar discrepancy in value but still to this day report the original value. They even sent me the reviews and I have the reports showing the value.

    This is where I could use the clean hand doctrine to push for a summary judgement but the depositor to trust conveyance may screw me up.

    I know they screwed everything up as that is why the attorney is trying to hide the assignments and rely on the certification of qualified holder instead.

    I’m going to combat that with the rules of evidence and at least the judge will hopefully force them to give up the assignments.

    I’m starting to think I should go ahead and file an answer and counterclaims and a TRO but this is where the procedural part makes me nervous as I don’t want to screw it up.

  8. I have the same type of issues everytime I try to start writing up what happened, it takes me 3 or 4 paragraphs to get completely tangled up in the endless web of details. Here is the good news (for me anyway): Look very closely at your assignments. Go through them with a fine toothe comb. Who did the conveyance? Who do they work for? Who else do they work for? Who else do they work for? (No kidding, there might be 3 companies they work for). Are they authorized? Was the consideration paid? Was the company that conveyed represented? Is that company in business? Is (or was) that company in bankruptcy? Did they change names? Were they bought out? Were they taken over by the government?

    In my case the originator declared bankruptcy and there is NO WAY that even a peppercorn could have been used as consideration unless it is shown in the bankruptcy proceedings. ITS IMPOSSIBLE. I now have my silver bullet and it is going to pack a wallop. In my opinion (and only my opinion) I have no need to look any further. In fact I have two fraudlulent conveyances.

    This may not work for everyone, but a lot of companies are out of business or declared bankruptcy. Look very carefully.

    I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is what I am doing for my own case.

    Dan Edstrom

  9. Dan/Martin

    Help me with some ideas.

    I can prove without much doubt that the Depositor/Sponsor has “unclean hands” but I can’t seem to figure out how to transfer that liability to the Trust or Trustee to avert the foreclosure action being brought against me.

    If the Trustee has the assigned right to foreclose would they also take the liability from the depositor so that I can bring that claim?

    It is just so convoluted that it is hard to figure out how to tie it back to anyone.

    They all seem to agree if a mortgage is defective the depositor has to repurchase or replace but they never addressed who takes the responsibility if the Depositor is out of business.

    I can’t see how anyone can enforce the mortgages if no one is responsible for them.

    The more I do the more confused I get.

    Any thoughts?

  10. When I get to court I will push the following:

    I want to know which of the “holders of certificates” suffered a DIRECT loss because of anything I have done. I want to see the evidence of their direct losses. They broke up the certificates into tranches. Which of them suffered a loss because of any alleged non-payment?

    Don’t I have a right to face my accuser? I am not an attorney. Do I get to question this person or people? The servicer is not the “lender”. The Trustee is not the “lender”. I want to take a deposition of this alleged “lender”. I want them to take the stand. How come none of the accountings and payment histories are actually from the one who allegedly suffered a loss?

    Dan Edstrom

  11. Dan,

    Thanks for the insight. I made an appearance today to schedule a hearing on my motion to Dismiss the foreclosure. We’re set for the 3rd. They filed a response which is pretty much what I expected. They claim the note and the certificate of qualified holder is enough to prove they have standing(BS) I challenged six different ways they do not have it and they say they have the assignment and it is good enough.LOL. They also fell back on the state rule 120 statute that limits this action to standing and ruling on the default. They claim I did not deny the default and so that is all they want a ruling on. I specifically questioned the accounting and standing to make them prove it prior to action.

    Now I need to decide if I want to file an amended Motion to Dismiss and Specifically deny the loan is in default or do I want to wait until the hearing?

    I may expand the original motion and make it more along their narrow perspective to make the judge happy and offer more substantial evidence to question the assignment and thus request that they have the original and all assignments and MERS electronic data. In fact all data including the meta data etc to verify if they delete or change anything in the system.

    How are you doing on your rescission process? I was reading a post from a week or two back that said you were rescinding.

    I rescinded my other loan and they just sent me the NED. I am going to follow it up with a very specific QWR straight to the attorney since it would be the third verified QWR I have sent since September. That one has USBank as TTEE for the WMALT Trust but not as successor Trustee like the other.

    I am also thinking of bring up the Clean Hands Doctrine as I have absolute proof of the appraisal/securities fraud on the first one and the UW fraud on the second which is what triggered my rescission.

    I have a good understanding of the CHD but am wondering if anyone has good info on summary judgements or cases that reference it or used it.

    I have been delving into the Fraud in the Factum/Inducement for Voiding the deed which we have some significant CO SC rulings on to help.

    Now onto your comments on the prior post.

    It seems to me the more I review the actions required in the Trust/Depositor/Servicer relationship that no one can act without acting in concert regardless of how they disclose it.

    The trustee is supposed to act for the benefit of the Trust and on behalf of the Certificate holders. How can an agent for a pass through entity that cannot actually be damaged bring the action without the certificate holders being named as co-plantiffs/petitioners? I suppose the legal definition of a statutory trust would be good to reference to make sure.

    The interesting thing I found in the language is this:

    It is the intent of the parties to the pooling agreement that the conveyance of the mortgage loans and the related assets to the Trust constitute an absolute sale of those assets. It says that if it is deemed to create a security interest in those assets the depositor will grant the trust a security interest.

    I would almost have to argue that if the trust delivered it’s end of the bargain i.e the money but there is in any way a discrepancy in transfer of the mortgage through an assignment of the note or the MERS system that the debt would have been satisfied by a third party. If they assert otherwise then they may trap themselves into proving the inter-relationship of all of the pieces in conspiracy. It would be extremely telling to have all of the accounting and balance sheet entries to back up if they existed simultaneously.

    Could the above verbiage be interpreted as the investors are buying certificates but not security interest in the Trust unless they are deemed to. If the trust owns the mortgage but the certificate owners don’t when would it convert to a security interest? If the repurchase is deemed to not be possible and the trust is left stuck with the end result? If so would they not have to decide rather than the Trustee? I haven’t found yet how that event would occur. If the certificate holders are in litigation against the trust would that not screw up the ability of the trust to do anything?

    If there is a liability for fraud etc it should fall back on the Trust since the Trustee takes no liability. It actually is supposed to fall back on the Depositor but they disclaim any on loans they did not originate.

    I guess if I lose the standing issue the counterclaims will fall on the trust.

  12. J in CO,
    Be sure to look very closely at what is happening. I have a debt collector foreclosure company who is the successor trustee also. But on the legal documents for foreclosure (including request for release from stay), everything is listed as US Bank NA as Trustee by Residential Funding Attorney in Fact. Who is claiming attorney in fact? Wells Fargo. They are the successor sub-servicer (came in after the originator / sub-servicer declared bankruptcy) AND the custodian of records as well as the custodian of trust accounts. Who signed your substitution of Trustee, your assignment(s), etc? Have you found all of the SEC files for your securitization? It may be possible that it isn’t BofA or it may be possible that BofA is or was somehow involved.

    The master servicer has not produced any documents showing my payment history, just the sub-servicer. They have created the certificateholder statements but they have not submitted these as evidence that I am late AND they have not broken down the information to my specific loan level. The loan level details were not submitted as evidence and again, they have not included all of the information necessary to determine all of the payments, advances, insurance and everything else paid by me or somebody else to the holders of certificates.

    My SEC filings state that each certificate evidences ownership in the Trust. All certificates together evidence all of the ownership. Here is what my SEC filings say the Trust is:

    “Trustee for the Trust”
    “Successor Master Servicer”
    “owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity for the benefit of holders of certificates”
    “Paying Agent”

    Here is my redifinition:

    “owner of [pledged] mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity [trust] for the benefit of holders of certificates”

    Black’s Law Dictionary definitions:
    owner: One who has the right to possess, use, and convey something; a person in whom one or more interests are vested. See ownership.
    “beneficial owner”: (1) One recognized in equity as the owner of something because use and title belong to that person, even though legal title may belong to someone else; esp., one for whom property is held in trust.

    ownership: The bundle of rights allowing one to use, manage, and enjoy property, including the right to convey it to others. * Ownership implies the right to possess a thing, regardless of any actual or constructive control. Ownership rights are general, permanent, and heritable. Cf. Possession; Title (1).
    “beneficial ownership”: (1) A beneficiary’s interest in trust property.
    “trust ownership”: A trustee’s interest in trust property

    Equity: (1) Fairness; impartiality; evenhanded dealing. (2) The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law. (3) The recourse to principles of justice to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances. (4) The system of law or body of principles originating in the English Court of Chancery and superseding the common and status law (together called “law” in the narrower sense) when the two conflict. (5) A right, interest or remedy recognizable by a court of equity.

    Regarding the mortgage loans:
    The “holders of certificates” are the beneficial owners, the owners in equity (fairness) set in stone by a pecuniary interest. The Trustee is the putative legal owner and owner on behalf of the Trust for the benefit of “holders of certificates”
    The Trustee is an “agent” for the Trust.

    Again, this “agent” has to be authorized (according to the SEC filings) by a certain number of “holders of certificates” to foreclose AND they have to indemnify the “agent”. Read your documents to find the exact wording and use it in discovery to determine who is authorizing the Trust to foreclose. You want to know who is paying the bills to foreclose because that party should be the real and indispensible party and you have claims against them.

    The Trust cannot exist for accounting purposes only – their must be a valid business reason. Because of this and the fact that the mortgage loans were pledged, and the fact that the “seller” and “depositor” never gave up interest in the loans, means (to me) that they are all one big JOINT VENTURE.

    Back to Black’s Law Dictionary:
    joint: (1) (Of a thing) common to or shared by two or more persons or entities (2) (Of a person or entity) combined, united, or sharing with another.

    joint activity:

    joint enterprise: (1) criminal law. An undertaking by two or more persons who set out to commit an offense they have conspired to. See Conspiracy (2) Torts. An undertaking by two or more persons with an equal right to direct and benefit from the endeavor, as a result of which one particpiant’s negligence may be imputed to the others (3) joint venture

    joint venture: A business undertaking by two or more persons engaged in a single defined project * The necessary elements are: (1) an express or implied agreement; (2) a common purpose that the group intends to carry out; (3) shared profits and losses; and (4) each member’s equal voice in controlling the project. Cf. partnership; strategic alliance.

    Is it a joint venture? I don’t know I am not an attorney. And of course none of this is legal advice, just my own opinions.

    Dan Edstrom

  13. Dan,

    I just a chance to read your last post.

    I have a slightly different issue here. BofA as “successor” trustee for Lasalle Bank blah blah for the Trust is the actual party foreclosing on me.

    So I have no MERS to contend with(makes it simpler)
    I have no “servicer” foreclosing as an agent.

    All of the rest with regard to the Trust issue is about the same. The trust doesn’t really start the foreclosure without receiving the default “evidence” from the servicer, which is in a sense the same entity as the Depositor/Sponsor and the Underwriter of the Securities which is where the two Class action suits against them gain traction.

    This is all going to fall under one classification……..Plausible Deniability

    If the blame bounces around(this still happens with MERS too) we will all be dead before the blame comes to rest on the correct person.

    I am losing track where all of the things I have come across are listed but I think I read somewhere that is the Trust is established for the mere accounting and tax shielding that it cannot actually be damaged. This would require that the damaged parties step up as plaintiffs in the action and prove damage by tracking the funds or invoke the repurchase by the now defunct lender.

    Everything is shielded from enforceability with the shell game. Disclaimers to the investors about risks shield the depositor from liability beyond repurchase(cannot be done accept through the liquidating trustee of the BK estate in alot of cases) If they accept loss as the risk, but the trust is simply a non-damaged agent how can the trust even have standing?

    In comes the blank note endorsement. It is blank to ensure the trust can foreclose as simply a bearer and hold the note. It is not a lender but can be the holder or bearer.

    The bank wants to maintain the asset on their books including the receivables from the neg am or reverse mortgage principle increases as receivable and or pledge the note(not the income as that is pledged to the trust) and the implied income from the payments. This they can do maybe through the Small Bank entity that shadows the main bank FSB relationship.

    MERS hides the real owner and only has to disclose the Servicer of record so that it always has to go back through the bank/servicer that made the mess.


  14. Dan,

    You have been busy on this thread since I checked it this morning!

    I haven’t viewed a post that addressed this but if asking for the full chain of assignments(I doubt more than the first one to blank exists) would it not be a good idea to also request the record books of the notaries to verify they were properly recorded in accordance with the Notary standards?

    Since they are typically principles of the assigning entity anyway they should be available.

    I heard from the clerk today and need to appear to set a hearing on my motion to dismiss in the morning. I hope the judge is less biased than his clerk.

  15. Dan,
    Agreed about the debt collector issue.

    I have been using a great letter against credit card debt collectors and it might be useful for the mortgage situation, too. It addresses the issues you brought up about whether or not the “lender” loaned its own money, whether the “lender” suffered a loss, etc. It’s long, but I think it could prove useful. I should point out that this debt validation letter WORKS (or at least has worked so far, which has been about 5 months), especially on unsecured credit card debt being sought after by bill collectors.

    Here it is (the only person I know to credit with this letter is “Goldie”)–maybe it will help some people with discovery:

    Non-Negotiable, Non-Transferable

    (Insert Collector’s Name Here)

    Applicable to All Successors and/or Assigns
    Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent

    Date: Monday, January 1, 2010

    From: (Insert Your Name Here)

    To: (Insert Collector’s Name)
    P.O. Box XXXX
    City, ST ZIP

    Re: In the matter of: Debt collection letter dated 12/25/2009; INSERT NAME OF CREDITOR, (“alleged creditor”);

    Sent by: U.S. Postal Service REGISTERED MAIL

    To Whom It May Concern,

    Please take notice as follows:

    1. Authority: That this Notice of Dispute of Alleged Debt (“Notice of Dispute”) is sent to you pursuant to Title 15, United States Code Annotated (“U.S.C.A”) § 1692 et seq, known as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the legislative purpose of which is to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by debt collectors;

    2. Your debt collection letter: That I have received and read your debt collection letter referenced above, identifying yourself as debt collectors,(Exhibit A; copy of debt collection letter), wherein you allege that I have a debt obligation to the alleged creditor referenced above;

    3. Purpose of this notice: That the purpose of this Notice of Dispute is to assert my rights in debt collection under FDCPA § 1692(g)(b) without delay and within thirty (30) days of my receipt of your aforesaid debt collection letter;

    4. Alleged debt disputed: That I hereby dispute the validity of the alleged debt in its entirety;

    5. Verified documentary evidence requested: That I hereby request you provide me with the following verified (sworn to by affidavit) documentary evidence in substantiation of the alleged debt claimed by the alleged creditor referenced in your debt collection letter (see Exhibit A);

    (a) Proof of authority: Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) proof of your authority to represent the alleged creditor in this instant matter;

    (b) Real party in interest: Please verify who the real party in interest is in this debt collection matter;

    (c) Alleged original creditor. Please provide me with the name and address of the alleged original creditor if different from the alleged creditor identified in your above mentioned debt collection letter.

    (d) Alleged original agreement: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy, both front and back, of the alleged original agreement and any other alleged original security instruments in their entirety, including the allonge , affixed to the original alleged agreement for endorsements. Said affidavit is to be sworn to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading, by a properly identified and authorized officer of the alleged creditor, who states that he or she has personal knowledge (Federal Rules of Evidence [“FRE”] Rule 602) of the validity of said alleged original document(s).

    (i) Inspection of document(s). Please provide me with the date, time, and place convenient to (CITY, STATE), that I can personally inspect the above alleged original agreement and any other alleged original security instruments in their entirety relevant to the above alleged debt.

    (ii) Custodian of document(s). Please provide me with the name, title, and address of the natural person custodian of the alleged original agreement and of any other alleged original security instruments.

    (iii) Address of physical location of document(s). Please provide me with the address of the physical location of the alleged original agreement and any other alleged original security instruments if different from “(ii)” above.

    (e) Holder in due course. Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) evidence that the alleged creditor is the secured party in the instant matter, i.e., holder in due course, and has a perfected security interest in the aforesaid alleged agreement and alleged debt;

    (f) Proof of Value Given: Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) copies, both front and back, of all documents and records with respect to the aforesaid alleged agreement and alleged debt from the beginning, including but not limited to, any and all lender issued cancelled certified checks, cashiers’ checks, money equivalents or similar instruments, identified as or evidencing assets provided by the alleged creditor and/or the alleged original creditor to me and indorsed by me;

    (g) Deposit slip and cancelled check: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy of the deposit slip for the deposit of my alleged agreement in its entirety by the alleged creditor associated with the above alleged account/file number, and a verified copy of the cancelled check issued by the alleged creditor as payor in payment for my alleged agreement in its entirety and any other alleged related security instruments;

    (h) Affidavit of debt & damages: Please provide me with an affidavit of debt and damages incurred, sworn to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading, by a properly identified and authorized officer of the alleged creditor, hereinafter “affiant,” upon his or her personal knowledge (FRE Rule 602) stating:

    (i) that the alleged creditor is, indeed, the secured party and holder in due course of the aforesaid alleged original agreement in issue and has an enforceable perfected security interest therein pursuant to and in compliance with the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) Section 9-203, Section 9-204(1), and Section 9-305, or equivalent sections of the Commercial Code of (INSERT YOUR STATE HERE);

    (ii) that the alleged creditor provided consideration to me, the alleged debtor, from the assets they had on hand before the alleged credit was made, and incurred a financial loss under the full and complete alleged original agreement and alleged debt, and state each and every loss that the alleged creditor has incurred to date under the alleged debt in issue; and

    (iii) that affiant has personal knowledge (FRE Rule 602) regarding the facts of the alleged debt and is the original custodian of the books of entry, or directly supervises said original custodian of the records.

    (i) Bookkeeping journal / account ledger entries: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy of the complete set of original bookkeeping journal / account ledger entries associated with my alleged agreement and alleged file/account number using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles per 12 U.S.C. § 1831n, showing all debits and credits and identifying the source(s) and amount of the credit funds/assets; Note: The verifying affidavit of journal / account ledger bookkeeping entries is to be completed by the original custodian of the books and records, sworn to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading. Further, said affidavit shall contain positive identification of the custodian, and state that he or she has personal knowledge (FRE Rule 602) of said entries.

    (k) Assignment contract: If applicable, please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) proof of an assignment contract in its entirety of the alleged original agreement and the alleged debt in issue from an alleged original creditor, as assignor, to the alleged creditor, as assignee.
    (l) Proof of authority: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy of the contract your firm has with the alleged original creditor which authorizes your firm to engage in collection activities on their behalf against the above alleged account, and naming you as an authorized collection agent / claims adjuster.

    (m) Certification of authority: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) certificate of authority from the State of XXXXXXXX authorizing your company to transact business in the state of XXXXXXXXXXX and a photocopy of your State Department of Commerce and Insurance certificate.

    (n) Form 1035: Please provide me with Department of the Treasury Form 1035 Custodian of Documents attached or associated with my alleged original agreement and /or the name and address of said custodian per “(b)(ii)” above;

    (o) Form 1099: Please provide me with Department of the Treasury Form 1099 Original Issue Discount for each year the alleged creditor was holder in possession of the alleged original agreement;

    (p) Vendor sales slips/vouchers: Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) copies of all original sales slips/vouchers from all alleged vendors covering all alleged transactions in the above referenced file/account from its inception to date.

    Note: This Notice of Dispute is not a request for confirmation that you have mere photocopies of alleged documents. I am requesting ONLY VERIFIED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE in validation of the alleged debt pursuant to the FDCPA.

    6. Warning: That all your communications and omissions will be made a part of and incorporated into any litigation arising from this matter.

    7. Time is of the essence; reply deadline: That time is of the essence, therefore, I extend to you, RightWay, thirty (30) days from the date of your receipt of this Notice of Dispute to perform in compliance with verifying the alleged debt as requested above per FDCPA mandates. I will consider a reasonable extension of time–only for the production of verified documents–should you need more than the thirty (30) days if you request it in writing to the address below. Your failure to perform as herein requested will show bad faith and will establish the fact that you are using abusive, deceptive, false, and unfair collection tactics against me as a consumer. Furthermore, if you remain silent to this request or are unable to verify the debt as above, the legal concepts of estoppel by acquiescence and tacit admission will come into play whereby the alleged debt will be admitted invalid, a nullity, and unenforceable, and thereby repudiated in its entirety ab initio . In the interim, you are prohibited from any contact with me, the undersigned, except in writing, and only in regards to the matters herein expressed. All debt collection activity– including litigation– is to cease per FDCPA § 1692g(b) “… the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt…”

    8. Mandatory reply to undersigned: That all of the above demanded verified evidence, sworn to by a competent witness per FRE Rule 602, should be sent to me, (INSERT YOUR NAME), the undersigned, as indicated at the address below within the above-mentioned thirty (30) days from your receipt of this Notice of Dispute. Please do not send any reply correspondence to me at any other mail location except as follows:

    Send to: YOUR NAME
    CITY, ST xxxxx

    9. Exhibits: All exhibits attached to this Notice of Dispute are incorporated by reference herein.

    Signed with reservation of all rights,

    By: ________________________________________


    Enclosures: Exhibit A – Copy of 12/25/2009 debt collection letter

  16. Thanks Abby,
    This is for my GMAC-RFC Trust which is RASC Series 2005-EMX4. It is probably the same for all other RASC series trusts – especially EMX trusts. It may be similar to all other GMAC trusts. You bring up a very good point. Do not use these specific names, this is just a description of the types of data that they are tracking. I have the actual statements, which anyone can request of me and I will send them a sampling. It doesn’t make a lot of sense without it. You should be requesting this TYPE of data. But, beyond that, you can probably go out and get these reports YOURSELVES. GMAC-RFC has them on the investor relations site – request a login and go get them (and much more). I have been to one or two others also (IndyMac for instance). But, in some cases I could not locate them (but I am sure they are out there somewhere).

    These reports were not exactly as I had expected but they have directed me to just ask more questions.

    Abby is right on target – these fields are the fields used by the users and applications but administration, maintenance, auditing and other reasons there is MORE information available.

    Discovery is something I had assumed that every company takes seriously because of the issues with comtempt of court. I was amazed to see so many companies failing to respond at all to discovery. But there is a bigger issue involved.

    Issue #1 is that usually the Trustee (if you are being foreclosed by the Trustee or an AGENT of the Trustee) is not a part of the litigation and does not even know it exists. To get an answer to discovery, the foreclosing party would actually have to go and talk with the Trustee.

    Issue #2 is that in my SEC filings it specifically states that the Trustee does not have to foreclose or file a lawsuit unless a certain number (or percentage) of investors elect to do so AND they indemnify the Trustee. In addition, it states that the Trustee does not even have to respond to a lawsuit. The master servicer (who is also the sponser, seller and remic administrator for my trust) agreed to indemnify them and hold them harmless of any loss they suffer.

    So, how do you get them to respond to discovery? My guess is you are going after the wrong party. You may need to sue (or subpeona) the master servicer (and/or sponser and/or seller and/or remic administrator) AND/OR the depositor.

    After all, they are the one who created the securitization in the first place AND they are the one who probably owns the asset (your note) and they are the one directing the other parties and indemnifying them.

    Which brings up another question. If GMAC-RFC designed and created the securitization, and they have their hand in everything, the pledged instead of sold the assets, they control the Trustee and tell them what they can and cannot do, etc., etc.,etc., – is the Trust REALLY a seperate entity? They cannot exist with GMAC-RFC.

    As Maher said, this is not an arms length transaction. The Trust is a registrant only. The Trust cannot just exist for accounting reasons only (there must be a business benefit). The Trust has NO REASON to exist except for accounting purposes.

    Hmm, we need to delve into this further.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is referring to my particular situation which may be different from yours. Consult with your attorney to see if this is even remotely applies.

    Dan Edstrom

  17. Dan,

    I never gave that paragraph in the mortgage much thought because I honestly do not understand it. I am researching this now. Let me know what your attorney says. thanks


  18. Dan
    Regarding your list of data base field names, which company or trust is this for?

    As you are well aware, each company or trust will not utilize the same field names in their respective databases.

    Also, in discovery, you’d want to limit the data produced to only the data in those fields related to your loan. You don’t want them to come back with the entire ‘world’ of data for other customers.

    One more thing, I am asking for the names of the data base admiinstrators, specifically the DBA who is actually running the report for my data for discovery.

    I might want to depose the DBA.

    Listen, i’ve been in the database world for over 30 years.

    I think you probably know this Dan, but the database product, such as Oracle, Sybase, DB2….typically will have a date/timestamp for every insert, update, delete to any database record.

    I’ve asked for copies of every insert, update, delete and the date/ timestamp and the userid associated with the database action in my discovery.

    I had a situation where I made an electronic bank payment of my mortgage. Chase held onto it for 2 months and then sent it back. Then said I was in default. I’m wanting to see the database transactions.

    Also, I am requesting in my discovery any information technology security policy and audit standards.

    MERS PEOPLE—should you be asking for discovery—request MERS documentation on their IT security and audit policies AND any IT audit reports!!

    You are seeking to determine how secure your information is on their system and how easy or where the holes are that someone could modify and replace one of your documents on the MERS system.

    Again–to reiterate–Dan, please make it clear to all that the Data Field Names you listed above are for a specific company or trust. I do not believe each big bank, securities trust, lender etc…will have the exact same data fields.

    If any LivingLies bloggers need help with any data type or database audit type questions or data security questions you can contact me at carra2009@gmail.com and I am sure Dan Edstrom would assist.

  19. eggsistence,
    I didn’t take it that way. It was actually something I learned about and tried to use with my credit cards when I got into trouble back in 2003/2004. I sent LOTS of letters. In the end I paid a few of the accounts (to debt collectors) but was saved from many others by discovering FDCPA / RFDCPA laws and how to use them effectively (and the discovery of a very good consumer protection attorney). In my opinion (and only my opinion) a 3rd party debt collector is NEVER entitled to ANY payments. And that goes double for Real Estate debts. You are never paying off a debt when you pay money to a 3rd party debt collector. You are paying somebody 100% unearned profit.

    Dan Edstrom

  20. Dan,
    I wrote my previous post about the Daly defense in a hurry (had an appointment to keep). I had just read what you wrote and really wanted to respond but didn’t allot myself enough time to make it thoughtful.

    I knew you know about the Daly defense and didn’t mean to sound like I was schooling you or anything. But what you said is exactly what I wrote in a cartoon that can be read here:


    This Daly defense was my first attempt at coming up with something to defend against foreclosure. However, my attorney wife felt as if that defense had zero chance of working. She’s probably right, but that doesn’t mean that the Daly defense isn’t valid…

    But again, Dan, my apologies. Did not mean in any way for that previous post to sound like it was trying to take you to school–if anything, you’re the one that’s taken ME to school.

  21. Alina,
    I am not an attorney and do not fully understand these issues. I will consult with my attorney to see what I come up with for my case. However, my opinion is that I have asked them to produce the note and validate the debt. And they did neither. The reasons for producing the note are many, UCC 3-501 to 3-505 being only one of them. They have failed to respond, and in my case I specifically revoked ALL RIGHTS that I granted at loan closing. They failed to respond or move to enforce their rights. In fact, my opinion is that they have waived all rights by their lack of response (thanks Neil).

    I will have to go back and read my loan documents to see if it includes the same thing. If yours does, I imagine they all do.

    Dan Edstrom

  22. Dan,

    I never thought to look up the definition of “presentment.” My mortgage states, “I and any other persons who has an obligation under this Note waive the rights of Presentment and Notice of Dishonor. “Presentment” means the right to require the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due.”

    Their definition doesn’t jibe with Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition. Am I missing something here?

  23. The National Alliance of Homeowners for Justice (NAHJ) a charitable non-profit organization whose corporate office is in San Diego California & the HELPING FAMILIES SAVE THEIR HOMES FOUNDATION will perform FREE forensic loan document reviews for homeowners who are facing imminent eviction AFTER foreclosure. Call now 1-888-668-0686 or 858-361-2399 or e-mail: june.reyno@gmail.com. There is a 2 week turnaround time providing the homeowner does their part in diligently producing copies of EVERYTHING from their LENDER to current . Do not send us your originals please if you are sending them my mail.

    You can either do this by scanning your documents electronically or by fax e-mail @ 619-374-2268 with cover page or any other form to transmit the information. An authorization to release information is required before sending us your information for the FREE FORENSIC LOAN APPLICATION REVIEW. If you don’t leave us your contact number we can’t reach you! Just a brief statement of your immediate need and current situation via e-mail will do.

  24. zurenarrh,
    Yes I am aware of that. It is possible to use that defense (or offense?) in your pursuits, however, I mainly brought it up because the laws surrounding this issue are nearly the same as when the originator does NOT lend their own money. At least I believe that to be the case. So in my opinion, these same issues can be raised whether or not you want to argue that you lent yourself the money for your loan. Besides that issue, I want to see:

    – the CALL REPORTS
    – the check that was used to fund the loan
    – the GAAP entries of the originator (and all alleged holders and/or assigners and/or assignees)
    – the other items mentioned in the post
    – oh yeah – and ALL auditors reports pertinent to my loan and/or the pool of loans for the companies involved in my securitization

    Dan Edstrom

  25. Dan,

    You’re also describing the Daly defense, which Jerome Daly successfully used in the “Credit River” decision in late 60’s Minnesota (Google it and read all about it). Of course, in Daly’s case, when he accused the bank of creating credit out of nothing, the head of the bank ADMITTED to it. That’s not likely to happen these days.

    But our money is fake. Or more accurately, we have given the banks the “divine right of money creation” when it is actually US who creates the money. The bank couldn’t lend anything if we didn’t give them an asset, i.e., a promissory note. Mortgages are not “loans” in any true sense of that word, they are merely EXCHANGES of assets.

  26. More discovery info. Note that this is based upon the fact that the promissory note is a form of money and that you are giving the bank money in exchange for money and/or you are giving them the “money” used to fund the loan transaction. However, this could easily be modified to include that fact that the originator did not lend their own money OR modify it to use both arguments. Or just use this for discovery of the items mentioned.

    It has come to Borrower’s attention, after checking the records for the Loan, that there appears to be a material omission in the Loan agreement concerning the deposit and disposition of the Borrower’s promissory note during the execution of the Loan.

    Pursuant to Federal and State laws and regulations, the Borrower is hereby giving the Lender Notice and Demand for Full Disclosure of the terms and execution of the Loan. Please mail to the Borrower, certified and verified copies, or schedule an opportunity for the Borrower and/or their CPA and/or their attorney to make a physical inspection of the following documents within twenty (20) days of the receipt of this Notice:

    1. The original promissory note, front and back, associated with the Loan
    2. Any allonge, front and back, affixed to the Borrower’s promissory note for indorsements
    3. All bookkeeping journal entries associated with the Loan
    4. The deed of trust associated with the Loan
    5. The insurance policy on Borrower’s promissory note associated with the Loan
    6. The Call Reports for the period covering the Loan

    7. The deposit slip for the deposit of the Borrower’s promissory note associated with the Loan
    8. The order authorizing the withdrawal of funds from Borrower’s promissory note deposit account
    9. The account number from which the money came to fund the check given to the Borrower
    10. Verification that Borrower’s promissory note was a free gift to the Lender from the Borrower
    11. The name and address of the current holder of the Borrower’s promissory note
    12. The name and address of the Lender’s CPA and Auditor for the period covering the Loan execution

    This is the Borrower’s good faith attempt to clear up any confusion in this matter before taking any further actions. Failure to respond within twenty (20) days of receipt will be deemed a dishonor of this Notice and Demand for Full Disclosure.

    Dan Edstrom

  27. Adequate Assurance of Due Performance

    I learned about this in 2003-2004 and saw the lawyers use use the Adequate Assurance argument in bankruptcy in a request for release from stay. Here is a request (similar to a QWR?) that could be used.

    Dear officers and/or agents for Lender,

    It has come to the attention of the alleged Borrower, after consulting with Borrower’s CPA and researching the United States Code, the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations, the Uniform Commercial Code, and certain Federal Reserve Bank Publications, that there is reason to believe that the alleged Lender is not the Holder in Due Course of the Borrower’s promissory note and/or may have breached the agreement concerning the above-referenced, alleged loan or loan of credit.

    Since the Borrower paid money in the form of a promissory note to the Lender to perform according to a loan agreement, the Borrower is now hereby requesting Adequate Assurance of Due Performance pursuant to UCC 2-609 that the Lender has performed according to the loan agreement and that the original lender used their own money to purchase the Borrower’s promissory note and (1) did not accept the Borrower’s promissory note as money or like money to fund the check or similar instrument that the Lender then lent to the Borrower – which would have an economic effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling – and that (2) the originator lent the borrower the originators own capital at risk of loss and (3) the Lender has followed the Federal Laws 12 USC Sec. 1831n(a)(2)(A) and/or 12 CFR 741.6(b) regarding Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards concerning this loan.

    The Borrower is hereby requesting that an authorized officer or agent of the Lender sign and return the attached affidavit within 15 days of the date of this notice. Also attached is an affidavit signed by the Borrower stating the Borrower’s personal knowledge of the terms of the agreement. This is the Borrower’s good faith attempt to settle this matter and clear up any confusion about the terms of the loan agreement prior to an Administrative Hearing on the matter. Failure to respond will be deemed a dishonor of this Notice. The affidavits are evidence that may be used according to the Federal Rules of Evidence to prosecute or enforce any default by you in this matter. My CPA is prepared to offer Expert Witness testimony should court proceedings be necessary.

    This can probably be expanded and/or modified to suite the specifics for each individual borrower.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational purposes only.

    Dan Edstrom

  28. This leads to more information (UCC 3-501 to UCC 3-505 in last post):

    Blacks law definition of Warranty:
    (2) Contracts. An express or IMPLIED promise that something in furtherance of the contract is guaranteed by one of the contracting parties; esp., a seller’s promise that the thing being sold is as represented or promised. * A warranty differs from a representation in four principal ways: (1) a warranty is an ESSENTIAL part of a contract, while a representation is usu. only a collateral inducement, (2) an express warranty is usu. written on the face of the contract, while a representation may be written or oral, (3) a warranty is conclusively PRESUMED TO BE MATERIAL, while the burden is on the party claiming breach to show that a representation is material, and (4) a warranty must be strictly complied with, while substantial truth is the only requirement of a representation. Cf. CONDITION (2), (3).
    “deceptive warranty”. A warranty containing false or fraudulent representations or promises.
    “implied warranty”. An obligation imposed by law when there has been no representation or promise; esp., a warranty arising by operation of law because of the circumstances of a sale, rather than by the seller’s express promise.

    Much of the conduct of the foreclosing party in their use of foreclosure and/or power of sale violates “implied conditions” (see Black’s Law Dictionary: Conditions “implied conditions”).
    It seems to me that Warranty and representation should be added to the list of issues to be discussed with your attorney in your pursuit of justice.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational purposes only.

    Dan Edstrom

  29. J on CO and eggsistence,

    In regards to the following:

    “They would note actually send you the original but you may be able to request that you are able to inspect it in their possession(long shot)”

    There are numerous law that allow you to ask to see the note. The most recent that we have found (thanks to Mario Kenny): UCC 3-501 to 3-505 …

    My understanding is that when they ask for payment, you have the right to ask to see and inspect the actual document. If they don’t provide it, you have the right to NOT provide payment until they do. In my mind, this means they cannot report you as late to credit reporting agencies (FCRA) and they cannot proceed in foreclosure either. When used with a proper request that you are disputing the validity of the debt, it seems to me that your rights are even stronger.

    Blacks Law Dictionary Definition for “presentment”:
    (3) The formal production of a negotiable instrument for acceptance or payment. “presentment for acceptance”: Production of an isntrument to the drawer, acceptor, or maker for acceptance. * This type of presement may be made anytime before manturity, except that with bills payable at sight, after demand, or after sight, presement must be made within a reasonable time. “presentment for payment”: Production of an instrument to the drawee, acceptor, or maker for payment. * This type of presentment must be made on the date when the instrument is due.

    Always dispute the debt and ask for validation, always ask to see the original instrument(s), always ask who the holder(s) in due is/are, always ask who the Trustee and Trust are, etc.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational purposes only.

    Dan Edstrom

  30. eggsistense,

    Sorry I didn’t see your post until now. The lender rarely wants to give up the investor name and the request for the original note would give you the ability to void it as they have probably assigned it to blank thus making it a payable to bearer situation(invalid, maybe?)

    They would note actually send you the original but you may be able to request that you are able to inspect it in their possession(long shot)

    You may be able to still find your loan in a trust but it would require some digging. The trust that my loan is in has some CW loans in it as well, CW also had others that they dumped loans into. If you can narrow it down to a specific timeframe you may be able to go through the reports to find it.

    In the SEC filings, they also had to file specific(aka Supplement) prospectus that have the total amount transfered and the info for the loans. You would be looking for what is usually coded as a FWP(free writing prospectus) there are two of these and sometime you have to open one to find the other as a sublayer.

    The FWP has the individual loan report and your loan number is buried in the fourth or fifth column and a new investor loan number is assigned. I find that it is easier to highlight the column and search down through it for state and zipcode until you find a match.

    I found both of my loans that way. You can bet that each lender has at least 5-10 trusts in the range of time so it would be tedious but possible to find.

    If they admit the loan was sold to Fannie, I would call them and see if you can track it that way instead.

    Good luck and if I can help please let me know!

  31. Yes I agree with Neil- Dan, you are great and thank you from the many you are helping and with such solid info. God Bless.

    Neil you are even greater- thanks again and get well soon.

  32. J in CO,
    Thanks for the response and the info–this is zurenarrh (I wasn’t able to subscribe to posts anymore so now have to use my seldom-used Word Press account).

    The Fannie docs I’ve seen have pool numbers and CUSIP numbers. You can search through thousands of them, and they all have a bare minimum of information–they’re 4 pages long. All they say about the mortgages is what state they’re from and the unpaid balance. If there is more than one mortgage from any given state, then all unpaid balances from that state are added together.

    Countrywide (now BAC) originated the loan. Countrywide serviced until being bought out by BoA and is now BAC Home Loans Servicing.

    BAC has turned down my request for a copy of the original Note, basically saying they don’t have to give it to me so they won’t.

    I know my Note was sold to Fannie Mae. Both Fannie Mae and BAC admit that much. But that’s all I know.

    My loan was a refinance, 30-year conventional with PMI.

    I guess this is why I have to do the FOIA request to Fannie, so I can at least find out the name of the trust. But they’ll probably cite some bogus reason as to why they don’t have to give me the info.

  33. zurenarrh,

    CUSIP numbers are issued to each class of securities inside the trust(i.e. b1, x, r etc.) They are tracking numbers for registration of the owners of the certificate with the DTC. In other words don’t start there, when you find the trust name you may be able to get specific info by knowing the class but that is hard to get.

    I think Fannie is more of the insurance for the trust loans but I don’t know that they create the trusts. The way I found mine was when they sent me the Notice of Election in the foreclosure as the lender in trust for the such and such trust. You typically can’t find it through a title search and the info is held closely by the lender.

    Who originated the loan? Start there as most had specific relationships with their buyers of the mortgages. We may be able to help point you in the right direction.

    Who is servicing the loan? Sometime you can track based on the originator and servicer.

    Ask the lender who the investor is, probably won’t work but it did on one of my loans.

    If you know the originator and who it was typically sold to, you can do a search on the SEC website and find a few trusts that are associated. Each trust should have an exhibit with the supplementary prospectus that has a loan list. They have different investor loan numbers than that of what is on your statement. You can scan the excel file for your state and zipcode to find your loan, Maybe that is.

    Fannie and Freddie are hard to search to find the info and as my loan is non conforming I haven’t tried doing that for any length.

    If you can post the lender “players” you can start to narrow based upon things we have all sifted through and hopefully we can help you find something.

  34. I have been in email contact with Dan and it has been helpful. But I still don’t have critical info, like the name of the trust my loan is in, or its pool number, CUSIP, or anything.

    Armed with some of Dan’s info, I resumed combing through the Fannie Mae site and the SECInfo site. It was unfruitful, and I realized that I’m probably still looking for the wrong info. So here are my questions, if anyone can help:

    1. Dan’s “investor” is GMAC, but his trust is called “Residential Asset Securities Corp, 2005-EMX4” and is listed under that title on the SECInfo site. I assume it is not listed under GMAC. So since I believe my “investor” to be Fannie Mae, I need to know what Fannie Mae calls its trusts that would be equivalent to Dan’s “Residential Asset Securities Corp.” If anyone knows this info or has any ideas about where to get it, that’d be a great help.

    2. Having said that, it occurred to me that perhaps Fannie Mae does not actually create trusts. Well, that’s not accurate–dny has led me to Fannie’s “Trust Indenture” and I know other Fannie Mae documents refer to their trusts.

    But if one goes to the Fannie Mae site, one can find thousands and thousands of prospectuses and prospectus supplements which list loans by state and amount. However, none of these are given names like Dan’s “Residential Asset Securities Corp.”–they are only given pool and CUSIP numbers.

    Looking at one such document just now, I notice that Fannie Mae refers to all of these pools as “securities,” not “trusts.” So if I haven’t completely confused anyone, my second question is this: does Fannie Mae merely pool loans and then sell them to trusts which bear names like “Residential Asset Securities Corp.” or does Fannie Mae actually create trusts which are shell corporations like “Residential Asset Securities Corp.?”

    If no one has the answers to those questions, how about this last one–where can I find loan-level details for loans like mine that have been securitized by Fannie Mae?

    Any help or suggestion is appreciated.

  35. Everyone,
    It is obvious to me that homeowners need some real help. I have been CRUSHED with requests for the information I posted. If you haven’t received a reply from me yet it is because I am working my way through them AND working full time AND trying to accomplish my normal daily activities (eat, sleep, be with family, etc).

    I will try to get back to each of you.

    Dan Edstrom

  36. Deutsche Bank Investor reporting Web site


    This DB site has an enormous amount of data regarding reports on securitzed sales, including monthly investor loan level details (down to the individual mortgage). It is a great place to grab info on your particular trust and use the info agianst the pretender lenders.

  37. I received this info from Peter Morah and am passing it on:

    (remove spaces, then add periods)

    from www tickerforum org …

    http : // sacramento bizjournals com/sacramento/stories/2009/11/09/story5.html?b=1257742800^2405131&s=industry&i=banking_financial_services

    More info from Zerohedge:

    Cumulative losses are being delayed indefinitely as trigger events are being virtually prohibited courtesy of the administration’s loose actions. Yet the underlying asset values still get exhausted. The Fed can prolong the pain only so much before 20% real unemployment (the U-6 should get there within 3-6 months), vacant office buildings, and collapsing world trade extract their toll on cash flow generation capabilities. But if papering over a hollow economy has worked so far, why not let it work a little longer. As has been made all too clear, the 2-3 computers holding all the marginal stocks at the end of the rally will be wiped out, all the insiders will have sold their shares, and those in the middle class who think they can compete with Wall Street will be selling hot potatoes to themselves all they way down to whatever the new low becomes. If this low is accompanied, or preceded by the Fed’s launch of a tightening strategy (very, very unlikely: the Fed will likely keep interest rates at zero as Australia’s hit 20% at some point in 2012), we will see lows much worse than what was experienced in March 2009.

    Thanks for the info Peter …

    Dan Edstrom

  38. J in Co,

    What is it that you are looking for in the WMALT deals? I have found 2005 – 2007 securities Distribution reports,
    Loan Level reports, and Prospectus reports for each month of this year…


  39. This is great. We’ve had a good weekend. After meeting Michael (4closurefraud) at the livinglies seminar in Clearwater, we asked him to take a look at our assignments. We had been following others attempts to find their trusts and working on it ourselves for months without finding anything. We thought it was a lost cause.

    One day later Michael found our mortgage pool!!! AMAZING.

    To the community…Please donate to keep Michael researching, as we did. Go to 4closurefraud.wordpress.com to help the cause.

  40. Has there been any word on Neil’s request for persons to perform this type of research for a fee? I would think that once someone has the procedure down, (hundreds of hours, I’m sure) they could charge a fair fee and do alot of business while helping out those who don’t have the wherewithal to perform these onerous tasks. Is there anyone who can track a loan, if only to a point, with all the information in Dan’s posts? Thanks, I am a willing purchaser.

  41. Foreclosure Fraud,

    What type of info can you find on the WMALT deals? I have the investor typical reports but does it show anything else? I go to the etrustee.com site which is mostly deals that BofA has as Trustee now and the WMMSC investor site which both seem to have about the same reporting info.

    I’m still digging for insurance info or default swap info etc. I have the rest so far but looking for more juicy details if I can find them.


    What type of info can you find on GMAC loans if the foreclosure paperwork doesn’t name a trust? I think it may have only been theirs for a short time before defaulting so it may never have made it. I think the originator was Homecomings. This one was sold and purchased by the bank at sale but we got them to set it aside last week. I’d like to find something to use for leverage for him if possible.

    I have an IndyMac lot loan but it doesn’t seem to be blatantly securitized. If there is a website to access please forward to my email if you wouldn’t mind.

    Has anyone found any info on the individual originator to depositor loan purchase/sale agreements? It would be nice to find a document that would typify the discount on forward commitment and mandatory sale agreements.

    God Bless Google.

  42. Excellent ForeclosureFraud! Besides most GMAC deals I now have access to IndyMac loan level details. Let me know if you have an IndyMac loan. I am not sure I can find your actual loan, but if you know your Pool / Trust / Deal name, I can look it up.

    Dan Edstrom

  43. Alina,

    I have found a way to access all the pools listed below. There is a wealth of information in these documents. Ironically I still have not found my specific loan either.

    They are all wamu / jpm related. I will email you one report that has the loan pool, distribution report, and the prospectus.

    They report monthly on all these pools so to send all of them would be a tedious task.

    If you see one below that relates to you just let me know and I will see what I can find for you.

    AMAC ABN AMRO Mortgage Corporation

    HMSI Headlands Mortgage Securities Incorporated

    MLMI Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Inc

    PNCMS PNC Mortgage Securities Corporation

    SMSC Sears Mortgage Securities Corporation

    SMSCMBS Sears Mortgage Securities Corporation MBS

    WAMMS Washington Mutual MSC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

    WAMU WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

    WMALT Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Alt A

    WMMSC Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation


  44. Alina,

    Sometimes you can find a decent human being at the lender if you get the right department. If they don’t understand the info they are giving you can ask them to tell you who the investor is.

    I dealt with the executive resolution department and simply just asked one of the employees. You can bait them in by saying that you are looking for some info on your loan and the last person you talked to had mentioned the investor was such and such as trustee for so and so but you didn’t write it down blah blah and sometimes they can look it up.

    If you are pushing for a modification already sometime they are a little looser with the info.

    Citi is tough because it is usually someone in india but with WAMU it wasn’t that hard.

    Good Luck!

  45. Alina,
    I will send you the info but it will not help with finding what securitization “deal” you are in. I found out my “investor” was GMAC. That combined with the originators name and the year helped me narrow it down to two securitization deals. It then took me 3 months to find my loan number, city, state and other fields in an SEC filing.

    Dan Edstrom

  46. Dan & Foreclosure Fraud
    I am very interested in receiving this information. My email is virani0786@yahoo.com. I have been trying to track down my loan for over a year and have come up empty. Additionally, the only documents the servicer will provide are the mortgage, note and transaction history. thanks


  47. Neil,
    Here it is straight from the horses mouth. At your attorneys conference and on this blog you told us about our payments – the advances, insurance proceeds, etc.. The answer to this question will (in theory) tell you how much the “investors” have received in payments for your loan (probably leaving out other information though, such as TARP, government bailouts and impaired asset market valuations). This from the prospectus (AKA “blue sky”, private placement memo, etc) is where they actually tell us the SAME THING that can be used to support discovery. This is what I have been looking for so I could find this information for my specific loan. I will keep trying, but I will probably have to wait for discovery (and even at that time I will probably be denied). I want this information broken down to show which loan numbers are used, by month, for each of the following:

    – advances
    – non-recoverable advances
    – reimbursed or recovered non-recoverable advances
    – Insurance Proceeds
    – Liquidation Proceeds
    – Subsequent Recoveries from the mortgage loans
    – proceeds from repurchases of and substitutions for the mortgage loans

    Here it is from the prospectus:

    Payments on the Offered Certificates

    Amount available for monthly distribution. On each distribution date, the trustee will make distributions to investors. The amounts available for distribution will include:

    o collections of monthly payments on the mortgage loans, including prepayments and other unscheduled collections; plus

    o advances for delinquent payments on the mortgage loans; minus

    o fees and expenses of the subservicers and the master servicer for the mortgage loans, including reimbursement for advances.

    See “Description of the Certificates–Glossary of Terms–Available Distribution
    Amount” in this prospectus supplement.

    They referenced Available Distribution Amount, so here is that reference also:

    Available Distribution Amount–For any distribution date, an amount equal to the sum of the following amounts, net of amounts reimbursable to the
    master servicer and any subservicer:

    o the aggregate amount of scheduled payments on the mortgage loans due during the related due period and received on or prior to the related determination date, after deduction of the master servicing fees and any subservicing fees in respect of the mortgage loans for that distribution date;

    o unscheduled payments, including mortgagor prepayments on the mortgage loans, Insurance Proceeds, Liquidation Proceeds and Subsequent Recoveries from the mortgage loans, and proceeds from repurchases of and substitutions for the mortgage loans occurring during the preceding calendar month; and

    o all Advances made for that distribution date in respect of the mortgage loans.

    In addition to the foregoing amounts, with respect to unscheduled collections on the mortgage loans, not including mortgagor prepayments, the
    master servicer may elect to treat these amounts as included in the Available Distribution Amount for the distribution date in the month of receipt, but is not obligated to do so. As described in this prospectus supplement under “–Principal Distributions,” any amount with respect to which this election is made shall be treated as having been received on the last day of the preceding calendar month for the purposes of calculating the amount of principal and interest distributions to any class of certificates.

    Dan Edstrom

  48. Here are the headers in the loan pools I have been looking at. If anyone wants to see these files send me an email… I have the loan pools, distribution reports and the prospectus for each.

    They may not pertain to your specific loan but are definitly an interesting read…



Contribute to the discussion!