Analyzed and Presented by Charles Koppa, MORTGAGE AUTOPSIES
There are 131 pages within links at the bottom for Maiden Lane Disclosures (a year later). They give ONLY NAMES of nearly 800 underlying Securities Trusts with NO NAMES/LINKS to the original Grantors in the Deed of Trust for underlying “toxic mortgages” which attach real estate collateral that allowed securitization for each CUSIP. That information remains in the hands of third party loan servicers and third party bond servicers.
BEST THEORY: The Borrowers Loan Default triggers but one element within the Creditor/Depositor’s Security Trust Account. NOD and NOTS are filed in the loan servicer’s behalf, concealing the final Beneficial Trust. With help of MERS, they Assign these “rights” to a new “holder” without borrower approval or knowledge, as part of a process of Substitution of Trustee (to their “friends”?). The three collude against the Homeowner and mutually determine which “sub-trust” should receive the untitled transfer via an unlawful Trustees Deed Upon Sale (TDOS). Unlawful because the Back to Beneficiary process in a Trustees Auction does not meet the requirements of a Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP), especially when IT predatorily devalues the property by an unconscionable 20-25% below realty comps on the DATE OF AUCTION! Worse, such “sub-trust” cannot deliver a “real person” to a Jury Trial for recovery, because IT is simply a bookkeeping task managed by a DIFFERENT Trustee on in the chain of heritage of a top Wall Street Bank Holding Company!
Every property needs a scorecard to track dozens of middlemen between the loan debtor and the true creditor. We are witnessing massive Foreclosure TYRANNY and a generational transfer of wealth without an audit trail…
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: Assign, audit trail, Back to Beneficiary process, Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP, Borrowers Loan Default, Creditor/Depositor's Security Trust Account, DATE OF AUCTION, discovery, final Beneficial Trust, Grantors in the Deed of Trust, HERS, HOLDER, Maiden Lane Disclosures, MERS, NOD, NOTS, Securities Trusts, sub-trust, Substitution of Trustee, TDOS, third party bond servicer, third party loan servicer, transfer of wealth, triggers, Trustees Auction, Trustees Deed Upon Sale (TDOS), unlawful Trustees, unlawful Trustees Deed Upon Sale (TDOS), untitled transfer |
The second endorsement came from First Franklin Financial Corporation…an unliscensed loan originator in my state…as was FF a Div of Nat City.
I have found the Trust my loan was assigned to in the released holdings of Maiden Lane II. Doesn’t that mean that the “Fed” is the “owner”?It says on their website that they bought these securities from the books of AIG and some of their insurance subsidieries during the bailout of these institutions.
Can anyone help me hire a Lawyer? I am in Cincinnati, Ohio. We have interviewed with numerous ones…clearly explaining ourselves (because we get it now)…and they all want to charge me a bunch of $$ to use my 15 months of manic researching…to obtain a good Modification!!! Grrr…The last one wanted 3000.00 for “research”…another 5000.00 for Litigation that she can’t do but has friends who can…all for a Modification that the people trying to steal my house can’t do.
The servicer said they were going to proceed with Foreclosure in a response letter to my QWR to obtain servicing records and signed copies of origination documents that we never received.
Nobody is filing anything yet and they still have to send the Notice of Acceleration. There are NO assignments at all at the Recorders office. It lists only the original ” lender” First Franklin a Div of Nat City Bank of In and of course MERS as Nominee. The copy I received is endorsed without recourse by First Franklin a Div and endorsed again without recourse in blank…
Anyone care to “Comment” if this SEC Action will impact litigant ability to DISCOVER? Such as “loan level” details, PSA documentation etc.
——————————————-
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Release No. 34-61884
April 9, 2010
ORDER EXEMPTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, MAIDEN LANE LLC AND THE MAIDEN LANE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2008-1 FROM BROKER-DEALER REGISTRATION
I. Introduction
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Fed-NY”), Maiden Lane LLC and the Maiden Lane Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Trust 2008-1 (“Maiden Lane”) (together, “Applicants”) have requested exemptions from Section 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and certain other related requirements in connection with the restructuring of certain debt instruments acquired by Maiden Lane to facilitate the merger of The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (“Bear Stearns”) with JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“JPMC”).
II. Background
This section summarizes the facts as they have been represented to the Commission by counsel on behalf of the Applicants:1
It has been represented that, in March 2008, the Fed-NY entered into an arrangement to facilitate the merger of JPMC and Bear Stearns. In connection with the transaction, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (“Board”) authorized the Fed-NY under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to extend credit to a Delaware limited liability company, Maiden Lane LLC, to fund the purchase of a portfolio of mortgage related securities, residential and commercial mortgage loans and associated hedges from Bear Stearns (the “Asset Portfolio”). Maiden Lane LLC, in turn, established two grantor trusts to hold the Asset Portfolio.2 The Maiden Lane trust at issue here holds an approximately $4 billion interest in a $20 billion mortgage and mezzanine financing provided to Blackstone LLP (“Blackstone”) in 2007 in connection with Blackstone’s acquisition of Hilton Worldwide, Inc. (“Hilton”).
Full Document: http://sec.gov/rules/exorders/2010/34-61884.pdf
to Ian:
Done properly, a lender cannot go on assignments of mortgage only. That is legalistic nonsense (admittedly, it happens). The evidence of debt is the Note, not the security instrument that only exists to provide security for the Note.
Lost note affidavits are always troubling, yet seem to be used routinely. I would question if it is the new lender that claims the lost note, or the original lender. Anybody providing such an affidavit would, I should think, be exposed to an evidentiary hearing to set forth the circumstances of how the Note was lost, and when it was last seen, and what copies there might be, and so forth. For a “new lender” to merrily claim “lost note” when he is the new guy on the block: well, what did he buy? Did he buy a “lost note?” Come on, fellas! Nobody buys a lost note. You buy a Note, and it has to be delivered to you. If after you got it, then it got lost, well maybe. But for someone to stand up and say: “I bought a lost note!” that seems a bit far-fetched.
And yes, it happens. All depends on the Judge. And therein lies the problem.
to Annie Green:
I would wish to back-track from my previous Post regarding the ability of a “new lender” to demand back payments. I ran across a case in Court today that seemed to imply that, under circumstances such as you describe, it would NOT be possible. It may be constructed that the back payments actually would belong to the previous lender, who sold the Note and no longer has an interst in the Note (but who “just might” have some claim on the defaulted payments, as unsecured debt.” Maybe yes, maybe no. I will have to study this case a bit to see where it goes.
So the answer to your question is: only maybe.
Your first tactic could then be to challenge the claim of the new lender, dispute the claim, and state to the new lender that the old lender is making claim upon you for the same sums (which he did, of course).
that leads to your asking the new lender for proof of his ownership of the Note, how he calculates his claim of debt, and so forth.
To
Dave Krieger not sure what “links” you want here is the Fed Link for the Maiden Lane Bulletin and Files:
http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/maidenlane.html
———————-
To
PJ, I agree there is a hint of fragrance to the whole story.
I am not sure of the “fragrance” though. Also a key aide to
the most famous “Sheriff Arpaio” I hear was foreclosed on
also. Perhaps the Wall Street Wolves consider Main Street Coyotes “Fair Game” just like us “chickens”.
I guess we’ll just have to listen to the howling. Or who knows, maybe the Coyotes will stand with the Chickens.
2 Deontos, a friend -mailed that story to me over the weekend, but some how this smells a little fishy 2 me…, requesting information from a supposed lender gets a consumer , albeit an elected official , hit with a federal law suit???
Would that not amount to harassment on the banks part ?
Something is not right here… sorry to be off topic from the above post, but thought someone in AZ would have a bit more information/insight about this.
On the Maiden Lane Disclosures, where are the links?
Jan van Eck … I’m going to have to agree with your post to Annie Green … Paid is Paid!
When a lender is paid by another entity for whatever agreed to amount there is (be it a third party collection agency or another lender) … the first loan is paid in full and the original lender loses standing to sue. I see this all the time in credit repair. This is why I send out a certain “brand” of cease and desist letters to the collection agencies to make them go away, because they have no standing to collect either (they can’t prove the debt, especially on charge cards). On loans, they have to bring all of the parties involved to court and they never do and the attorneys haven’t wised up enough yet to stop them from babbling in court on stuff they don’t have first-hand knowledge of. If the third party wanted to make it all stick, they’d have to bring everyone involved in your original loan transaction into court and have them all testify … THEN … they would have to demonstrate to the court they have ALL of the paperwork (most of it is either missing or fabricated).
KPHO.com
Related To Story
Video
State Lawmaker Sued By Her Bank
Bank Sues State Lawmaker
Sarah Buduson
Reporter, KPHO.com
UPDATED: 6:02 am MST March 31,2010
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Ariz. Rep. Michele Reagan, R-District 8, is better known for fighting for new laws, but now, she is speaking about her fight against a lawsuit.
Reagan is being sued by her mortgage companyafter she questioned who owned held the note on her home.
“It’s really scary,” she said, “I think that this really needs to be brought to light that this is happening to people in Arizona.”
Reagan had wanted to find out she and her husband, David Gulino, could refinance their south Scottsdale home.
“In doing research, I began to wonder if the lender even owned the note to my home,” she said. “So I sent them a letter and asked them and asked them several things. I want to know who owns my property. Am I paying the right person?”
Soon after, Colonial Savings filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Reagan and her husband. The company says the couple is trying “to rescind their home loan,” or back out on the loan.
“We’re not interested in walking,” Reagan said. “We’re not interested in saying we’re not going to pay. We just need a little help with the interest rate.”
“I’m current on my loan. Never missed a payment. We’ve never been late. We were sued for asking too many questions,” said Reagan.
As a state lawmaker, Reagan said she had been hesitant to speak out about her ordeal.
“This has now snowballed into something so much bigger and scarier than refinancing and asking who owns your note,” she said.
With a state senate campaign on the horizon, she feared some people may get the wrong impression about the lawsuit, but she ultimately decided speaking out was the right thing to do.
“I finally thought if this could happen to me, how many people has happened to mean to or that means it could happen to people without the resources I have,” she said. “Even with all the information that I have and all the contacts I have, they scared the bejesus out of us and that was their intent and it worked.”
CBS 5 News attempted to contact Colonial Savings and its attorneys, but has yet to receive a comment.
Was just wondering about the recent coverage in Arizona.. a state representative Michele Reagan apparently filed a QWR to said lender, Colonial, and was hit with a federal law suit , claiming that she and her family were trying to “get a free house”? Anyone have a take on that?
To Jan van Eck- in re Annie Green post, what if there is no note, and the “lender” is going on assignments of mortgage? I realize that the indorsements have to be complete throughout the chain and in the proper timeframe, but what if there is a lost note affadavit introduced instead of the original note (or a copy)? What then as far as perfected title?
to Annie Green:
If the “default” triggered some insurance contract, either “PMI” or private mortgage insurance, or some credit-default swap, then some or all of your Note is paid. It isjust notpaid by you. that “should” be no difference to the “lender.” Paid is Paid. Whether it comes from insurance or from your great aunt, somebody has made a payment or payments to the “lender.”
So if the default triggered some form of guaranty or insurance,then NO, the “new lender” cannot demand the back payments (and perhaps other payments). So you have to find this out.
If your Note was “securitized,” e.g. sold into a “real estate Asset trust” or an “Indenture,” then you can bet that it had a default swap insurance placed on it, and for all you know the entire Note is already paid off – just not by you. So then what the “new guy” is doing is “double-dipping,” and this has been going on by the millions all over the land.
It is not so much a “generational transfer of wealth” as asserted by the original poster, but a grab of wealth from the unsophisticated into the pockets of clever scoundrels that (mostly) live around New York City. And those people are scum.
Post who you are dealing with and probably someone on this forum can provide some further insight. Best wishes to you.
to Annie Green:
What the “new lender” can or cannot demand depends mainly on the status of the New Lender to the Note. Once a Note is considered “in default” AND the “new lender” takes on the Note while that default is out there and he knows of it, then he is not a “Holder in Due Course” but, at best, a “Holder.” He might just be nothing more than an “assignee.”
Only a “Holder” of a Note can enforce the terms of the Note. To “hold” a Note you have to have physical possession of it, and it has to be properly Indorsed to you, so that your claim to the Note is “perfected.” All that is legal gobbledygook, of course, but these technical shades make the difference in who has the authority to collect what.
Assuming that the Note is properly Indorsed, and the new guy actually has the Note, then yes, he can demand the “back payments” that are missing. However, the terms under which the “back payments” have to be paid by you to him remain undetermined. Ultimately, that is up to a Court, if the parties do not agree between themselves.
It is not so much the Florida Laws that govern these Notes; it is the provisions of the “Uniform Commercial Code” that all States subscribe to, in varying forms. this is known as the UCC. The relevant section for you in Notes is Sec. 302(2).
Start by writing the “new lender” and ask them to send you a copy of the Note. If they cannot produce the Note (which has to be properly Indorsed to them, known as “perfecting,” then they are going nowhere.
Warning: there has just been a bizarre case in a small Court in Kentucky where the “Obligor” (the homeowner” contested the foreclosure, the “lender” stated in the Complaint that they did not have the Note, they never produced the Note, ownership of the Note was contested, and Nonetheless the Judge granted a foreclosure! Amazing how some State Court Judges just ignore basis legal principles. (This was Kentucky, but then again, KY is backward.)
Could someone please answer this question for me. You have a loan and it goes into default. Lender sells loan while in default to a new lender. Can new lender demand that payments that was in default to old lender be made to them? I live in Florida.
New strategy … when you go after the lender you “think” may be servicing the note, DO NOT NOTICE MERS! Do not even include MERS as a defendant, unless you are going to attempt to bust them for criminal acts (and there is at least one).
The IRS needs to enforce collections of taxes for all of the off-shore accounts that are holding the proceeds of all of these lenders.