Since the entire scheme was based upon using money advanced by investors, why are they not the beneficiaries on the mortgage or deed of trust and why were they not the payee on the note?
The investors would not have advanced any money without getting a certificated or non-certificated interest in the pool of assets “purchased” with money from a pool of money collected from a group of investors.
There could be no certificate of asset backed series xxx-2006A without there being something in existence bearing the name asset backed series xxx-2006A.
There could be no entity (SPV) bearing the name asset backed series xxx-2006A without a framework of securitization of money (SIV) and assets (SPV).
That framework could not exist but for the existence of securitization documents including the pooling and service agreement.
Thus all this must be in place before accepting the first application for a loan.
Therefore when the loan closed the true beneficiaries and payees on the note were known and should have been named as such without a nominee (MERS) or any other intermediaries. Of course THAT would have ceded control over the pool of assets to the owners of that investment, something that neither the investment bank nor any of the other intermediaries wanted. It would mean that loans and claims could be modified or settled easily since all parties are known.
It would also mean that if the intermediaries did anything wrong, like for example investing only part of the money into mortgages and keeping the rest, BOTH the investor and the borrower would probably find out. And it would mean that third party payment would be made to the investors and the investors would deduct those payments from the balance due on the obligation and statements sent out to borrowers would reflect the change _ i.e., either a deduction or subrogation of rights, spreading the ownership out to the third parties who made the payments.
And THAT would mean all those illicit profits would be the subject of liability and damages in lawsuits and maybe criminal liability. So the pretender lenders are right. This is a simple matter — or would be — if they had played by the rules and named the right parties to begin with. Maybe they would even have used industry standard underwriting principles since there was real risk involved.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Still can’t get ahold of Brad keiser and have no idea what the status is of my QWR that he did for me!!!!
Most lenders are corporations chartered within specific states. The purported NOTE/INSTRUMENT is a deliberate attempt to confuse the main issue. That ISSUE being – they (pretender/lender) LOANED the borrower MONEY. They never loaned any money. In fact, they LOANED CREDIT – which is illegal!
“It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done.” Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L ‘Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
“There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser.” National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.
“A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.
“.. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.” Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.
“A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest.” Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.
“A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment …” Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
“A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money.” Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393
The issue of claiming to have loaned money is not only Fraud but is the “inducement to defraud” the borrower by claiming to LEND money. At best, they are merely writing a CHECK which is NOT money it is the same as the Promise to Pay.
Therefore, the bank/lender is actually LENDING CREDIT thus breaking countless laws. I don’t know how to connect the dots yet but this IMHO is a bigger deal than what is presently understood. If the Fed Gov is the only one who can create money – meaning NO STATE and certainly no corporation – then the issue is the FRUAD committed when the lender LOANED their CREDIT using the borrowers assets to do it. Their credit is worthless – your asset is the true value!
just some thoughts
Thank you Trespass,
I hope the courts are okay with me being in Pro Per even though I have an attorney representing me in the bankruptcy. Worse case scenario, I will substitute him out.
I will start working on my declaration. I have gathered so much information about MERS and servicers and I just printed the article from 4closurefraud. Thank you for that!
kickboxer,
as with anything I say, I remind you I know nothing..so if I know nothing, I can’t give legal advice.
kickboxer
look at 4closurefraud.org article
M E R S – Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Foreclosure Bankruptcy Decision – This Court is Convinced that MERS had NO Interest it Could Transfer
It deals with MERS in California. I would represent myself in advisory and I would put a ‘declaration’ on the record in my bankruptcy, even if my lawyer is not going to litigate.
His statement to not litigate may mean he’ll hand purported creditors whatever they are asking for on a platter.
Make your declaration short and sweet, use info in that article to help you, and you can title it ‘private notice’ and it will remain for the judge’s eyes only in the case. Sign it, as ‘in propria persona’ (underneath your signature) When you write it, try to represent yourself as a creator, you created documents, you created debt, you created obligations, you are a creator. Stand tall. Use ‘in propria persona’ wherever you can and before you sign documents you are asked to sign. All signatures seal a contract. You may not know it’s a contract, but a contract requires a signature. If they want you to sign, it’s some sort of contract. Write ‘at arm’s length’ and then sign it. If you see words that describe you as Litigant signature or Defendant signature, you can strike through them and ‘correct’ them as ‘in propria persona’ and then sign it. Make sure all corrections are made before you sign.
Good luck.
ANONYMOUS
Thank you for the post..I am still trying to locate the Turst. So far , NO luck….
BSE
Lucy,
Hi,
I feel for you, I can understand you anger, I.m in the same boat, had to do a bankruptcy, just to try and save the home from foreclosure, and at 61 and not in the best of health it’s hard.I believe that something needs to be done, Maybe Neil and a few of his good lawyer friends might want to take on these case ‘for Free” just to show the system that even thr poor people have rights, and to show the system that they must play correct, we all don’t want a free home just a fair deal.
Trespass,
Thank you for the words of encouragement.
Unfortunately, I am in California (non judicial). And yes, MERS is on the DOT. I doubt that MERS will be the foreclosing party though since FNMA has requested they don’t file on loans owned by them. I’m sure any day now I will get a NOD from BAC. In the meantime, BAC claims they are still reviewing me for a mod. One day I get a call saying I was declined for a mod, next day I get a call saying we are being reviewed.
In the end, we are all at the mercy of the courts, whether we have an attorney or not.
QUESTION:
If I have an attorney filing my BK, and he already told me he doesn’t litigate, could I still defend myself at an adversary hearing even though I’ve retained a BK attorney? Should I substitute him out right before the hearing so I can represent myself during the hearing?
Lucy
Your nephew was scammed -like millions others out there.
Anyone also hear of credit card solicitation to university/college students??? Well known.
An outrage.
Thank you Trespass unwanted for the encouragement and support.
Annonymous, I am not saying my nephew shouldn’t take responsibility for the mess because he is!!!! He has kept up an impossible mortgage and property tax for 2 years before giving up, and his credit is destroyed, and he is ashamed for getting into this mess, and feels bad and is ashamed.
When I found out about his situation I was furious at first because I was flabberghasted that anybody would give 700k mortgage to a boy making barely 30k, you’d have to be a fool or a scammer to approve this kind of mortgage!!!!
We have an obligation to protect the young and the innocent!!!
No matter what, my husband and I have made a committment to persue this matter, even if it cost us all our savings!!!
I can’t imagine giving the house to these imposters,
I have no problem giving back the house to the true owner, or the holder of the note, but never to these trustees!!!
My email address is lucyyoo@gmail.com, and all suggestion are welcomed!!!
BTW- THANK YOU NEIL FOR THIS WONDERFUL WEBSITE!
LUCY
Angelo
Because the bank said it was Okay – that’s why. People cannot “approve” themselves. What you state is part of the scam. These were not really mortgages – these were vulture wholesale mortgage originators – anxious to sell debt (disguised as a mortgage) to Wall Street. If people could have approved their own loans- they could now approve their “modifications” – does not work that way. The people thought they owned an asset with value – if they could not pay – they assumed that they could simply walk away and sell it. When the crisis hit, they became trapped – unable to sell and unable to refinance.
PLEASE – do not blame the people. They were targeted by greedy and corrupt people. If your statement stands – then all of the globe “bought too much” (ie Europe) – your statement just is not valid. The people are far less sophisticated than Wall Street. THAT is why we need the Consumer Protection Agency. No one else is watching out for the consumer.
BSE
The real target is the Trust’s security underwriter parent corporation – i.e. – Wall Street. Have to trace from there what happened and who now owns collection rights.
Started out myself with scouring SPV trust documents – and the process. This path is for research only to lead you to the culprit. After that – forget that the loan was even securitized -your loan (or collection rights) has nothing with security investors. Loan ownership and security investment are two different things. THEY want you to believe it is one and the same – not so.
Lucy
Provide your email address.
I have been visiting related blogs and sites lately and i have to admit you have a nice design and content. I have bookmarked your page and hope to mention your post in my upcoming blog.
100% financing, as the name implies, offers complete financing of your property. The other option, 80/20 finance your mortgage with two loans. Loans may be made by the lender, but sometimes the seller or the lender is obligated to reach second mortgage of 20%.
100% financing is easier to handle, but not all lenders offer this type of loan.
Qualifications for the Zero-Down
Kickboxer,
(I’m not an attorney, I don’t act like one, I don’t give legal advice, I know nothing; this goes for any post I ever post including this one, nunc pro tunc)
I’ve found that when a bank does not modify a loan, it’s because they don’t have the original documents anyway.
They can’t negotiate what they don’t have the power to negotiate.
So they move toward a foreclosure and the homeowner remains silent, even though the trustee attempting to foreclose will send a letter telling you, that if you need supporting documents, you can request them before the foreclosure sale date.
I’ve found that people that paid banks, who would not modify, found out at the last payment that the same bank could not release the mortgage, (could not release the lien).
So they ended up paying the wrong party anyway.
It only takes a high school education to do what you need to do. You don’t need a college degree to know right from wrong.
If’ it’s MERs, the answers are so easy, I don’t know why MERs can still foreclose in non-judicial states without a homeowner raising questions.
Trustees are attorneys, bankruptcy court uses attorneys, banks use attorneys to help them foreclose judicially or non-judicially.
If the foreclosure is pure theft, ie. They don’t have standing to foreclose, use your state’s Attorney General office to interfere.
A person contacted the state attorney generals’ office and told them. “If this was a dispute where me and the other party had an agreement and we disagree about the agreement, I’d hire an attorney and dispute it in court.” “But this is a case where there is no agreement and the other party is trying to steal my home, so I am bringing the case to the attorney general.”
All correspondence between the parties is helpful. Verbal is hearsay, but written is strong, especially in instances of fraud.
What evidence do you have? Did they provide original document copies, or copies of certified copies.
Send partial payments and see if they are accepted and cashed by the servicer. Use a bill pay service at your bank to make partial payments if you can. Don’t just dispute it unless you have a reason to dispute. At 50 it’s not easy to start over, but realize there is a greater plan than you and I could possibly understand, and if you end up without your home, it is part of a greater plan.
Hopefully on a 50 state level, it is determined that all homeowners own their homes free and clear and those displaced can get them back.
Lucy,
I feel you.
I have read the sizes of some of those homes sold for $700,000. Here’s some things to ask about, in whatever manner you can.
Your attorney has a copy of the note, I bet it’s the front copy only, you would want a copy of the front and back of the note.
You want the allonge to the promissory note
You want evidence that the Title between the Promissory Note and Mortgage were not bifurcated (you’d expect to see evidence of the two originals together)
You want to know who is entitled to enforce the obligation sought to be enforced (the real party in interest).
Do not bring a dispute to the table. Always have it appear that you would work it out with the other party if they were the right party to work it out with.
So you state the Trustee does not have the power to sale; then do not enter any agreement, no handshake, no head shake, no agreement to any question they ask that gets you to say ‘yes’, to anything, no matter how simple.
The first yes, a person gives can lead to ‘trick non-related questions’ that cause other ‘yes’s’ and before you know it, your former yes that had nothing to do with the current question can be used against you, and make you appear to the terms of the meeting.
So keep in mind what you’d like to see.
Your current interest in this mediation is to be speaking to the “real party in interest”, and right now that real party could be a corporation..by name..with a president and CEO, who only works there and gets paid there. That real party could just be a business that does not eat, sleep, breathe, or think, and it can only be represented. Think of a business by name, a grocery store name, a gas station name, a fast food restaurant name, a bank name, a mortgage company name…don’t be surprised if that company is the ‘real party in interest’. Now how can that non-living entity ‘tell you’ you owe it money?; by being represented by a person on the payroll called a Trustee.
Keep in mind who you are dealing with and stay focused.
You only want to know what information they have to support their claim. Do not agree to the payments you had already accept or already made, (ie. Don’t answer yes. Just refer them to the documents), do not agree that anything you see is your signature. Tell them, you know your signature only at the time you signed documents, but you can’t verify a document someone else holds is original or a forgery, and you only trust your copies of the documents you have.
If someone asks me a question to some payment or document we have in our presence, I’d respond, you can see that information right there. Right at the source, you have the information in front of you. I don’t need to answer that. If you have to point it out, say ‘here it shows’…blah blah blah. Do not argue. A person who argues is the weaker party, an arguing person is the one with something to lose. Why else would you argue over ‘facts’?
Your strength is that they must have a security interest in the property, and the trustee doesn’t; because if he did, there would be a Deed or Mortgage filed in your county with that trustee’s name on it as the Lender/Mortgagee.
Your strength is your mortgage states that the mortgage and note belong together.
Do not let anyone disect your mortgage and only enforce one part and ignore another. It’s an entire document.
Where ever you see a failure in the performance of that document, you may point it out. You should know your document. All the definitions they gave you..know what they mean when the word is used somewhere else in the mortgage. Draw a diagram of things that seem mixed up. IF they say lender can sell to servicer and servicer can sell back to lender and you can’t figure out what it says, draw a diagram to get a picture of what your son signed. It makes it easy for me to figure out the terms when I write down terms, and definitions, and what is allowed by whom to do and how.
Someone is watching this mediation, and which ever side would get unjust enrichment over the other will lose. So if you appear that you owe and are fighting to not pay because they knew how low the salary was and sold the house anyway, then that will appear that while the other party took advantage of you in selling you the home, you took advantage of them in agreeing to pay and not paying. If you disagreed with the terms, you could have moved out or taken them to court. So don’ t bring up what is already agreed upon, but there are many flaws in how they managed the account and papers afterwards.
The trustee wasn’t there when it was purchased, so why be there for mitigation? The trustee represents the beneficiary who has the note and an interest secured in that home.
You want to know who he’s representing. And they better had perfected their claim in your county by filing papers to show an assignment.
You need it to appear the other party is taking advantage of you. Although you have paid that extremely high price, you rely on them to keep the paperwork together (Mortgage and Note) so that you pay the right party and they release the Mortgage when your payments are complete.
You want to know, the correct party who can release the Mortgage when you finished paying.
That last one is a stickler. If you agree, and they don’t release, you want to know what you get in return for their final failure to perform and you’d want to know if they are willing to place that money into an escrow account in case they don’t follow through with the terms when you make payment in full.
You’d be surprised what a Trustee, ‘can’t’ agree to.
You never know, you may win a lottery or gain some cash in an unexpected way, and if they fail to perform upon satisfaction of your obligation, you want to get your remedy.
I hope it helps.
Stay positive. Stay focused. There are no enemies.
Just people hired to do things a certain way, so this Trustee is hired to make you think he is there to work with you, but he works for someone or something else.
Keep that in mind as you discuss things because you aren’t talking to the person or thing that wants your home.
You are talking to someone who represents the person or thing that wants your home.
An 18 year old can legally enter into a contract, so being 22 is not excuse for your nephew, (I love him, so no harm in that comment is meant), and since he’s not the Trustee’s immediate family nor is he paying the Trustee for his services, your statement about the age and the deal will fall on deaf ears.
Only state things that you know will be heard. Do not let them tune you out based on statements that are not relevant to the situation.
Good luck, my thoughts and prayers are with you
I don’t think it even matters whether some bought too much house for their income. We didn’t, and we are STILL losing our home. We bought a 1976 ranch style fixer upper that is not even 1200 sq ft. It’s old and small, but it’s our home.
Our hardship resulted from loss of income. The construction industry was hit hard and early on. We’ve been going through this a lot longer than most people.
Even though my husband found employment, he is not making anything close to the wages he earned as a construction foreman. The bank just won’t modify our loan. We have enough income to support a lower payment but I don’t think they have any intentions of helping people stay in their homes.
After the dust finally settles, what incentive will there be to work hard and pursue the American dream? We worked hard and made so many sacrifices, and all for what? Also, we’re pushing 50, so it’s not that easy to recover from this at our age.
The banksters know they have us all by the short hairs. They are well aware that most of us can’t afford representation. I have enough money to retain a BK attorney who does not litigate. He basically runs a bankruptcy mill.
Yes, I will do my best to defend our home. But honestly, I only have a high school education. I don’t know how I will fare against their attorneys who are educated for this and have the experience. I just know that I have to at least try and that it’s better than doing nothing at all.
Lucy
I understand your anger, im in the same boat as your nephew, but he also needs to take some responsibility for the mess that he is in. If he was only making 30K a year, why did he attempt to buy a 700K house, his salary could just barley pay the taxes.
With that said, the mediation process is for trying to modify the loan, and I dont think thats going to happen with his salary. Hes not going to get a free house, he owes somebody the $$. Let your lawyers get to discovery and try to attack the assignment and possibly the other strategies in this forum.
Good Luck!
Lucy, your lawyer should have all the solutions! Send her/him to Neil’s website to fully understand how to defend your case.
In addition, check out jurisdictionary.com and learn over a weekend how things ought to work. (Disclaimer: CEA has no financial interest in this recommendation).
Civilized society needs good people to win – it looks as if you “have it in you” – go for it and give them a hard time in June.
Remember what Neil said: “No Judge I am not trying to get my house for free, I’m trying to stop THEM from getting my house for free. They don’t have one dime invested in this deal and payments have been received by the real creditors for which they refuse to give an accounting.”
Good luck!
Hi,
WE HAVE A COURT DATE FOR JUNE 22ND,2010 BUT WE FIRST HAVE TO GO TO A MEDIATION. WE ARE IN NEW JERSEY, A JUDICIAL STATE AND OUR PLAINTIFF IS US NATIONAL, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ASSET-BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-AMC.
i WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD ASK THE PLAINTIFF?
SINCE TRUSTEE DON’T HAVE FORECLOSURE RIGHTS WHY SHOULD WE NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT WITH THEM?
OR, WHAT CAN WE ASK THEM AS A PROOF THAT THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT WITH US?
OUR ORIGINAL LENDER WAS ARGENT AND IT WA 80/20 ADJUTABLE.
SALARY WAS BARELY 30K A YEAR AND GOT 700K 2 FAMILY HOUSE AND PROPERTY TAX IS 14K A YEAR.
THIS WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE DEAL AND MY NEPHEW, WHO WAS 22 YEARS OLD WHEN HE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN 2006 COULDN’T KEEP UP WITH THE PAYMENT FROM THE BEGINNING AND DEFALTED ON THE MORTGAGE PAYMENT IN 0CTOBER 2008 AND FORCLOSURE LAWSUIT WAS SERVED ON MARCH 2009.
PLEASE ADVISE ME ON WHAT TO REQUEST FROM THE PLAINTIFF DURING OUR MEDIATION(COURT MENDATED)?
OUR LAWYER RECIEVED FROM DISCOVERY INTERROGATORY A COPY OF THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND NOTHING ELSE.
WE ALSO DID A FORENSIC AUDITING B/4 HIRING A LAWYER AND FOUND MANY VILOLATIONS AND IT IS A SUPRIME MORTGAGE.
WE WANT TO FIGHT ALL THE WAY!!! MY HUSBAND AND I ARE HELPING MY NEPHEW WITH HIS FORECLOSURE BECAUSE WE’VE BEEN FOLLOWING LIVINGLIES AND ALL THE NEWS ON THE HOUSING CRISIS, AND WE FEEL THAT YOUNG 22 YEAR OLD’S LIFE HAS BEEN GREATLY JEPARDIZED BY THESE GREEDY BANKSTERS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM SUFFER!!!!
THANK YOU,
LUCY
ANONYMOUS
Good points.
Now who is the real target ?
BSE
CEA/Neil,
I believe that this is the thing that needs to be done as well.
I have a group that is focusing on the RICO and antitrust aspects of the Chase/WAMU/FDIC/OTS/and LPS connection.
This was a pre meditated collapse with the help of the regulators and the accounting tricks are the tip of the iceberg.
I think each group should focus on the lender they know best and attack in a very specific manner which should incite the SEC to step in to save face for not doing it prior to a private action.
I have an attack plan to hit them from, that will expose both sides to the sunlight and make it utterly impossible to defend. We just need the legal teams to assemble and then, with a solid plan, we can arrange groups to fund the litigation process.
This is possible and we need to get on this before the ship sails without us and the statute of limitation runs on everything.
Where are the attorneys that want to step up as we cannot do this without someone with some guts and experience to tow the line?
Anyone?
Neil
I think you are great – but there is a reason for your comment – “Since the entire scheme was based upon using money advanced by investors, why are they not the beneficiaries on the mortgage or deed of trust and why were they not the payee on the note?” The answer is that they could not be a direct beneficiary on any individual mortgage/loan/note/deed. Although, security investors indirectly fund loans by purchasing securities from bank, security investors can never be the “Creditor” – and never have their names on mortgages, deeds of trust, loan, or the note. Security investors are only entitled to a pro-rata share in the bank’s “pooled”, and removed, balance sheet receivables. Banks raise capital in different ways to fund financing of loan origination. Most often through commercial paper and other short-term financing. This funding is never directly traced to an individual loan origination or its financing. The SPV is set up AFTER individual loans are financed by the bank (even though there may have been pre-arranged agreements between the banks and wholesale mortgage lenders).
If the security investors could directly fund mortgage loans – they would need a license. And, if you try to state the security investors are the Creditor (which they cannot be), this takes liability off the bank and onto security investors. It feeds right into the concept that the SPV Trustee is the “agent” creditor for security investors – which is false. Also, all certificates to trust are sold to the bank’s security underwriter – and any pass-through on securities is just for pass-through of the bank’s cash receivables. Also, remember that individual loans receivables are not assigned to SPV – only a “pool” of receivables are assigined. Further, security investors cannot account for any recovery on foreclosures to the IRS. The real creditor has to account for recovery.
While I have no great affection for security investors who invested in mortgage-backed securities, they are not the culprit , not the creditor, and should not be the target. Any connection to security investors is remote and indirect – and untraceable to any individual loan.
Bulls eye, Neil!
Why don’t we turn big time pro-active?
Why don’t respectable folks like you lead an “Association of Borrowers And Investors” and help society to recover triple damages (racketeering)? The co-defendants would include everyone in the chain of coercive transfer of the nation’s wealth!
That way all of us will get 3 houses back. This is a drop in the ocean compared with the quadruple payments intermediaries got against (copied) signatures. Globally, this can apply to everyone, in foreclosure or not, effectively re-transferring the nation’s wealth back to where it belongs and where it came from: Investors (money) and borrowers (title and payments)!!
Society has only one common enemy, globally: Economically unproductive, but collectively coercive, wealth shifting “3rd party interlopers”!
Focus on the root cause. Focus, focus!
What are we waiting for?
Will you pick your team this weekend, Neil? 🙂