EXPLAINING THE ADDITION OF CO-OBLIGORS WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT

THANK YOU DAN EDSTROM:

Hats off to Dan for explaining the logistics of how additional people were added toy our deal, that you have a  right to know who they are and how their addition to your deal changes everything. Here is what he said:

So the homeowner gave an unconditional promise to pay. The “investors” who purchased securities from the issuing entity (the trust) stood up as the lender and provided the money. Now is where it gets tricky. Another 3rd party sprang up between the two and became the obligor to the lender. That is, they took over the CONDITIONS for providing payments to the “investors”. As Maher just said, they sliced and diced everything up into small pieces. But one thing is for sure, the relationship between the original borrower and the ultimate lender was bifurcated. They abstracted out the borrowers obligation to pay and replaced it with another 3rd party obligation to pay that is jacked up full of all kinds of goodies that apply not only to the investors, but to the borrowers also. This 3rd party took over the borrowers obligation to pay such that the borrower does not have to make payments and the “investor” lender’s payments are still “magically” made.

What are these “goodies” and magic? Advances, credit default swaps, hedges, insurance, over-collateralization, extra pools of funds, payments from borrowers in lower level tranches, you name it. And of course this does not even include government bailouts, write-offs, charge-offs, etc. The homeowners obligation to pay has been eviscerated.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

7 Responses

  1. I am looking for a foreclosure defense lawyer in Dallas, Texas.

    I have been to a pre-trial hearing and the judge ruled for the Mortgage Servicer to go ahead with a foreclosure sale on the property. I need help fast to stop this. Who is a Lawyer That Gets It in Dallas?

    Please respond with any info
    justanotherjoe61@gmail.com

  2. Superb capture of ideas we can truly learn from & use.
    This is good food I can sink my teeth into, QWR & TILA application for directing demands for ALL documents; trapping pretender-lender when they either produce it or don’t produce it in 60-days, exposing investors and payments/insurance/profits made. Or they can accept my one-time-settlement-offer to Quit Claim or Satisfy to Quiet Title. My initials werer forged on Pgs 1-4 of Deed. Would you consider this forgery to be criminal or first worthy of my demand for 60-day Quiet Title w/attached Notice of Rescission better to then force their hand to Quit Claim (or self-expose their abuses)?
    Also: Isn’t refusal to apply qualified Gov’t programs like MHA and HAMP after applying an issue of Fair Housing
    Discrimination?

  3. SCANDAL BIGGER THAN BERNIE
    Last Updated: 7:42 PM, August 13, 2009
    Posted: 7:42 PM, August 13, 2009
    PRINT EMAIL
    SHARE
    RSS
    Richard Johnson with Corynne Steindler and Neel Shah
    HARRY Markopolos — the whistleblower on Bernie Madoff who proved to be much smarter than the SEC — says there are evildoers out there who will make the Ponzi scum “look like small-time.” Markopolos gave a speech to 400 of the faithful at the Greek Orthodox Church in Southampton and predicted major scandals will soon be revealed about the unregulated, $600 trillion, credit-default swap market. “To put it in simple terms, it is like buying fire insurance policies from five different insurance companies on your neighbor’s house and then burning down the house,” he said. After his lecture, Hampton Sheet publisher Joan Jedell reports Markopolos was feted at a dinner at Nello Summertimes hosted by John Catsimatidis and his wife, Margo, who were joined by Al D’Amato and Greek shipping magnates Nicholas Zoullas and Spiros Milonas.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_z15tVmVCG9Kp2Otl6vZStK#ixzz0YSCuEkmk

  4. The investors are starting to get it.
    Thanx Dan for your clear writing.

    http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/DEUTSCHEBANKv.BANKOFAMERICA.pdf

  5. In many states that allow the nonjudicial foreclosure of mortgages, the lender who forecloses must be the mortgagee of record. If necessary to foreclose,lender who forecloses must be the mortgagee of record. If necessary to foreclose, Revised Section 9-607(b) authorizes the secured party to record in the real property records “a copy of the security agreement that creates or provides for a security interest in the obligation secured by the mortgage” along with an affidavit stating that “a default has occurred” and “the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage nonjudicially.”

    9-607(b) is not referring to the debtor, but to the entity that purchased the note from the original Lender. In order for this person to be allowed to foreclose nonjudicially, both the debtor and the entity the party purchased the note from must both be in default. Therefore, Section 9-607 cannot be used by a secured party who buys a mortgage note because the seller will not ordinarily be in “default” by virtue of the mortgagor’s default. Which means that they are not entitled to foreclose.

    They even admit that this is a problem with no solution yet.

    An Article 9 Review Committee, which is considering possible recommendations for amendments, has identified the issue but has not yet reached a decision as to possible changes.

  6. Sal D’Anna,
    I am not sure what all of that means but I can state that their are additional defaults. US Bank (as Trustee for my alleged mortgage pool) believes this to be a default:

    DEFAULT
    The issuer’s failure to pay principal or interest when due. Default may occur as a result of bankruptcy or failure to meet non-payment obligations, such as reporting requirements.

    The investors who purchased certificates from the trust my loan is allegedly in do NOT look to me to make my payments. They look to the ISSUER. The issuer bears the responsibility for making these payments based upon money that is put into the custodial accounts by ANOTHER different party. The Trustee cannot determine anything ON THEIR OWN in regards to a borrower default. They can only know about it if told by the master servicer.

    So the Trustee is allegedly foreclosing on me and they have not provided any information about a default except from the sub-servicer, who is NOT authorized to tell them whether or not I am in default. The Trustee has actually seen ALL of my payments and passed them on those the beneficiaries with a pecuniary interest. If I have not defaulted, and the issuer has not defaulted, under what grounds am I being foreclosed on and who is doing it? When I look at the statements issued to the certificateholders from the master servicer, it shows that they are receiving their payments. There is NO DEFAULT.

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@hotmail.com

  7. UCC REQUIRES TWO DEFAULTS TO OCCUR WHICH IS CAUSE FOR ALARM FOR FINANCERS OF LOANS
    Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code Copyright 2009, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.
    PART V Real Estate Related Collateral CHAPTER 16 Article 9 and the Law of Real Estate Financing

    1C-16 Secured Transactions Under the UCC § 16.09 AUTHOR: Julian B. McDonnell and James Charles Smith

    Recording an Assignment of Mortgage in the Real Property Records

    Security assignments of promissory notes secured by mortgages as well as sales of such notes are within the scope of Article 9, and thus Part 6 of Article 9 generally governs the remedies available upon the default of the debtor/mortgagee. When the original mortgagee assigns or sells one or more promissory notes, the assignee secured party may obtain an assignment of mortgage and record that document in the real property records, but that step is not always taken. In many states, failure to take that step becomes a problem if the mortgagor defaults in paying the note, and the assignee secured party decides to foreclose.

    In many states that allow the nonjudicial foreclosure of mortgages, the lender who forecloses must be the mortgagee of record. If necessary to foreclose, Revised Section 9-607(b) authorizes the secured party to record in the real property records “a copy of the security agreement that creates or provides for a security interest in the obligation secured by the mortgage” along with an affidavit stating that “a default has occurred” and “the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage nonjudicially.” The affidavit of course should also describe the mortgage by recording reference. Such documents would not be recordable under the recording statutes of most states because they are not original documents, signed by the mortgagee and notarized or otherwise acknowledged. This Article 9 provision, therefore, overrides the general statutory requirements for recording instruments in the real property records.

    Revised Section 9-607 refers to “default” twice, in subsections (a) and (b), without expressing stating whose default. Is it the “debtor’s” default (i.e., the mortgagee), the default of the person obligated on the note (i.e., the mortgagor), either one, or both? The Section 9-607(a) reference appears to refer only to the mortgagee, who is the Article 9 debtor. In Section 9-607(b), default probably refers to the maker of the note (mortgagor) because foreclosure is neither “necessary” nor legally permissible unless, the maker has defaulted. Reading the two subsections together, therefore there must be a “double default,” i.e., both mortgagor and mortgagee/assignor have defaulted before the secured party is allowed to record the security agreement and affidavit. If so, Section 9-607 cannot be used by a secured party who buys a mortgage note because the seller will not ordinarily be in “default” by virtue of the mortgagor’s default.

    An Article 9 Review Committee, which is considering possible recommendations for amendments, has identified the issue but has not yet reached a decision as to possible changes.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: