Verifying that the ‘Substitute Trustee’ is indeed a TRUST

BTW, I ask about verifying that the ‘Substitute Trustee’ is indeed a TRUST since I saw a post that made a point that any named ‘TRUSTEE’ must really be a TRUST.

Quality Loan Servicing was nominated by Litton Loan Service’s employee (via MERS) as the Substitute Trustee in place of ReconTrust.

I may have a case where BofA was in too many of the ‘roles’. The servicing was transferred on the very day the modified payments were to start per a signed and notarized mortgage modification agreement. The transfer was an attempt to justify the ‘mod’ not ‘happening’. RESPA does not agree with that. They ignored me. They never contacted me about any reason the mod was not occurring. I had been assured it was ‘my mod’. The BofA employees have stated that ‘all AG Mods’ were canceled. Well, they think that is the word. Actually the correct term is ‘BREACHED’.

So now I have some funny-looking documents being filed and what appears to be a bogus attempt to foreclose. Who knows who really has the note. Litton has filed documents saying that the ‘investor’ is CWABS with BoNY-MELLON as the trustee. Strangely BofA claims to be the beneficiary in more-recently filed documents in my court case. If BofA is ACTING for the investor, what the hell is Litton doing? The beneficiary LITTON should be ‘working for’ would seem to be the CWABS trustee. Certainly, I question whether BofA would have bought the mortgage back from the pooling (CWABS) once it was in litigation without advising the court at least. I do not understand how I can have BofA make the claim that they ARE the ’successor beneficiary’ when CWABS was otherwise identified as the ‘investor’.

Also, how would they deal with the original ‘Lender’ being a fictitious business name and the only beneficiary named is MERS as ‘nominal beneficiary’? Will I have more fictitious assignments to be looking for?

3 Responses

  1. TRUSTEE….WHAT TRUSTEE? ITS A DEBT COLLECTOR AND ADMITS THAT ITS ACTING AS A CREDITOR….FOR “AT THEN CONSIDERATION” FOR OBLIGATIONS OWED UNRELATED TO THE SUBJECT UNDERLYING CONSUMER DEBT.

    THE REAL TRUSTEE IS LOST TO THE TRANSACTION AS ITS NO LONGER A SECURED OBLIGATION. THE ASSET IS A HIGH BALABCE CREDIT CARD AND THE SHAM TRUSTEE SALE IS ASSUMING YOUR HOME AS IF IT WERE A JUDGEMENT LIEN THEY ARE ENFORCING.

    WTF (Wheres the Fed) WAKE UP!

  2. The beneficiary LITTON should be ‘working for’ would seem to be the CWABS trustee.

    ** HOW , THE TRUST IS AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE OWNED BY AN FDIC MEMBER BANK AND REGISTRANTS WHO ARE NIM SHAREHOLDERS. FDIC WONT STEP UP AND THE NIM IS LONG GONE.

    Certainly, I question whether BofA would have bought the mortgage back from the pooling (CWABS) once it was in litigation without advising the court at least.

    ** USING A SALE CREDIT BACK -JOKE! NO CAN DO LOU WITHOUT ACCOUNTING VOO DOO. IF THEY DID IT WOULD BE AT A BOOK VALUE . HOW WITHOUT CONSIDERING GOODWILL PRICE OF 8 TO 10 TIMES THE VALUE OF THE LOAN. GIVE ME A BREAK.

    I do not understand how I can have BofA make the claim that they ARE the ’successor beneficiary’ when CWABS was otherwise identified as the ‘investor’.

    ** THE INVESTMENT WAS CHARGED TO ZERO UPON THE FEDS INTERVENTION. THE ASSETS WHEN CHARGED TO A LOSS ARE USED TO OFFSET OTHER INCOME BY SHAREHOLDERS. THAT IS NEW CONSIDERATION THATS AN OFFSET (THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING). IT MAKES THIS UNLIKELY BASKET OF CRAP THEIR SELLING YOU ON IMPOSSIBLE.

    THESE ARE ORPHANED ASSET BEING CLAIMED USING VOODOO ACCOUNTING METHODS.

    COMMENTS: THE LENDERS INTEREST IS IN DISPUTE ARE LOST TO THE LENDER NOT AS A BENEFICIARY BUT AS AN I*N*V*E*S*T*O*R GOT IT!

    YOUR PONDERING AND MENTAL MANIFESTATIONS ARE LOOKING AT THE CLAIMS AS IF ITS COMING FROM A LENDER.

    COME ON NG ! NONE OF THIS EFFECTS THE OWNERS FEE INTEREST SO QUEIT TITLE AND CLAIM BACK YOUR PROPERTY

    expert.witness @ live.com

  3. Obviously, there is a misconception here Neil that a trust can be a corporation itself (the fiction). This is false. A TRUSTEE is an individual that can only wear one hat! Trustees can NOT wear two hats! They can’t be TRUSTEE and BENEFICIARY. Those are two distinct persons. MERS is an electronic database and has admitted that it has no beneficial interest, despite what it filed for record in those 60,000,000 mortgages it recorded. MERS cannot be a TRUSTEE and MERS cannot be a BENEFICIARY. Will you all get that through your friggin’ heads? MERS has no capacity to foreclose and their “recording” is no good! This is where title to property gets clouded because MERS does not pass the “litmus test” of (1) advancing any money to the borrower; (2) it does not accept payments from the borrower; and (3) it does not retain any financial consideration after foreclosure. MERS cannot act as a trustee, no matter what they claim. This whole thing IS the smoke screen. MERS is a neutral corporation that records mortgages and nothing more. By having MERS in the position to acquire “beneficial interest”, it is acting outside of the capacity for which it was formed.

    My book FORECLOSURE OFFENSE: How to “foreclose” on your lender before your lender forecloses on you is almost complete and will be available as an e-book soon.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: