Mounting Evidence on Phantom “Trusts”

First they started with servicers bringing foreclosures, and that didn’t work. Then they tried MERS to bring foreclosures, and that didn’t work. Then they tried backdated, fabricated and forged documents from non-existent originators with signatures from phantom people as “limited signing officer” or “assistant vice president” and that is going down the drain. Now they are bringing foreclosures in the name of “Trustees” and the cracks in that strategy are already appearing.

What they were doing was buying time. The ‘Trustee” in fact had virtually no powers on paper and certainly no power in practice. The “Trust” was an entity “to be formed by the Master Servicer” and never was. And now the reality is the investors have been written off, with the Master Servicer buying the pool, and engaged in repackaging loans that are already dead or dying, selling an entirely new securitization package to anew group of investors with a similar structure as the old one but with new investors, underwriting, etc.

The investment bank, through the Master Servicer declares that the value of the “pool” has gone down. They don’t actually know or care whether or how much the value of the pool has gone down or up, they just declare it because they can according to the securitization documents. That triggers the Master Servicer to put a value on the pool and buy it at that value or even lower if the pool is seen as a declining asset.

Keep in mind that the pool is a process rather than a single thing or event. Loans are being taken out and new ones are put in. Assignments during litigation are direct violations of the pooling and servicing agreements that prohibit acceptance of the assignment of a non-performing loan after the cutoff date which is usually years before the litigation. So in truth nobody really knows what really made it into the pool or if there really was a pool by any name, whether any particular loan is STILL in the pool.

So the Master Servicer buys the pool and the investors settle for pennies on the dollar. Then the write-down of the pool on the mere declaration of the investment bank or its agents or affiliates, triggers claims for losses backed up by insurance, credit enhancements, credit default swaps, guarantees etc. Since there are no investors left in the pool by virtue of the Master Servicer’s purchase, the proceeds of the third party payments go to the party that owns the policy or contract, to wit: the investment bank, Master Servicer or other affiliate, which in turn takes part of the money as profit and sends the rest to London or Luxembourg.

Under this scenario, the investors who were the lenders in the borrower’s loan are no longer in the picture and arguably have no right or claim to third party payments. Since they were the creditor, the allocation of third party payments to the obligation from the borrowers never occurs. Hence while the loan is paid off sometimes multiple times, neither the borrower nor the investor get to see a penny of it.

To make matters worse, the “Trustee” is now bringing foreclosure actions on behalf of dormant or dissolved pools that never existed as actual legal trusts, and which have been dissolved anyway. So they get the money from the yield spread premium where they took the investor money and only invested part of it in mortgages. They get the money from third party payments. And now they are going after the houses.

Somehow all this is being allowed because under some philosophical theory it is more equitable for these intermediaries who never invested a penny in any loan deal to make a profit than to let the borrower keep a house of dubious value. The borrower who was cheated by the false appraisals just like the like the investors were cheated by the false appraisals of the securities they bought, now is sitting with a defective loan, a devalued house, and a life in shambles. How is that a good thing?

17 Responses

  1. Nightbird: the assignment took place in 2009, two years after new century bankrupt and revoked. So how is that an effective assignment? I just sent out letter to delaware court regarding the New Century case and the filing of AP. Thanks for the advice you offered,

  2. Mary,

    I believe the right for MERS to assign a mortgage depends upon the state. As I understand, some rulings have denied MERS the ability to assign a mortgage and some have decided MERS could assign a mortgage but succeeds only in splitting the mortgage from the Note. The problem is that MERS does not appear on the Note, so they can only assign whatever interest they have in the mortgage which seems to be that they only hold Title to the mortgage.

    I hope a knowledgeable person does address this question. As I see it, if the mortgage wasn’t split from the Note upon signing, it surely is when MERS does an Assignment of Mortgage.

    I’m unaware of any Note made payable to MERS. I have though seen a fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage that states the Note payable to MERS was transferred with the mortgage. I imagine the Note in that case will be “lost.”

  3. I left out the He2 after the March 1, 2007

  4. Kansa supreme court ruling: Landmark National bank v. Kessler, Court held nominee company mers has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure,

    Do they have the right to assign a mortgage , Mers/Marti Noriega of litton loan servicing, (as nominee) for original lender (Bankrupt New Century) to another entity, (Bank of America National Association, as successor by merger toLasalle Bank National Association, as trustee, under the pooling and servicing agreement dated March 1, 2007?
    Refused to submitt discovery by order of the court , just an assignment of mortgage as per above.

    I have put in a motion to dismiss months ago and still no ruling, nothing.


    Please contact me ”” so that I can send you some good stuff, so that you can comment on this.

    Thanks and Be Safe

  6. Yesterday I went the court house to follow a trail from a court house web-site. I saw where the entity suing me had filed “ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE” back in 2008. This was news to me. I had a demand for production answered with a shoddy, corporate assignment. No note. When I asked the court clerk to see the paperwork she handed me a piece of paper that said “FILED ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE” So I said “OK, WHERE is it” after thumbing through the file three times she stated “It’s not here”. So I asked her why they are able to say they filed something when they clearly did not. All she told me is it’s not their job to question filings and whats there or not. She went on to tell me that people say there is evidence attatched to filings all the time when there is none. So people beware. I also asked that she remove that piece of paper stating filed ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE, she said could not.





    “Be Strong and Courageous”

    (Deut. 31:6)


  8. PJ, Neil or others,

    How exactly does one go about finding their loan in the pool or pools? Where do you search and how do you know it’s you?

    Great info!

  9. Neil, great post!

    “To make matters worse, the “Trustee” is now bringing foreclosure actions on behalf of dormant or dissolved pools that never existed as actual legal trusts, and which have been dissolved anyway. ”

    Have posted this before… our mortage was put in a now desolved “jumbo loan Pool” at Fannie Mae… problem is we never had a “Jumbo Loan”! Which I suspect is fraud. Also think I found our loan obligated in another pool at a major bank with an inflated ammount (over $100,000.000 of obligation) that would make it a “jumbo loan” …. have you ever come across this before?

    Also have a desolved servicer, closed down for securities fraud… not the servicer checks are sent to endorsing checks and depositing it at WF?

    What are your thoughts on this. And as alway’s thank you for your work.

  10. Doe anyone have any Civil or Federal Court Cites I can use for my motion here in Racine, Wi?

  11. Oh, the synchronicity! I’m seeing the same issues in my loan audits and the information on a lot of them is all over the place — MERS says one thing, the recorded documents say something else….all of this makes PERFECT sense given what I’m seeing unfold in the forensic audits. Thanks for posting this!

  12. Neil. Thank you for this latest expose’. Your work and hints to us keeps getting better & better. You are real blessing to our great country.

    Realistically, these Servicers and Master Servicers have no decency, and never will.

    Therefore perhaps its time to start boycotting these servicing banks by not using their fractional reserve ‘accounts’ – 90% of the time. By keeping and using cash instead, they no longer get a percentage fee from every transaction any more. Every merchant gets charged 1.5% to 4% on every transaction, that feeds these un-American corporations. Of course this fee raises our checkout prices that amount each time as well, which the merchant passes that to us.

    Perhaps then these Servicers would get the message. Americans are not going to take the MBS and fraudulent document cover ups any longer; and we aren’t going to support you in the meantime, with the abuse of our hard-earned ‘account’ monies either.

    No fees, less mischief.

    Cash Boycott.

  13. Exactly my question.. how is this a good thing? not good for borrower, not good for investors (retirement accounts perhaps?) and not good for economy or america in general.

  14. These comments by Neil Garfield are a testament to his effort to drill down into the deep chasm of mortgage securitization money flow. The fact is that the gatekeepers have resorted to the fraudulent activities reiterated here, ranging from blatant and obviously amateur ruse to astonishing sophisticated deception. No honorable institution of character would ever consider engaging in these tactics.

  15. The facts are clear as discovery progresses with my case. The servicer now is saying they are not a holder in due course, they do not own the note. They just collect the money. The trustee is now the beneficiary and holder of the note in custodian vaults, that I may not see despite document request for the loan file. The assignment of the deed of trust was done by MERS for the originator LENNAR/UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE-they say it is not their employee the signor works for MERS.

    These people have confused themself. Thanks to Neil and others

    educating us to protect our self. Here is my opposition to the demurrer to my second amended complaint done by Deutsche Bank. It is interesting as I am seeing a conflict for the same attorney to represent the servicer, foreclosure mill, Mers, and the Trustee of the RAST 2007-A5.
    Fight them——


    Here is a great work on this exact subject

  17. Good post, Neil. Except (I always have an except – sorry), the resecuritizations are only for current loans – are not selling – and not Triple A rated for MBS securities. Most of the loans from the dissolved are now with – well you know my answer.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: