Freddie Mac / Bank of America / Taylor Bean Whitaker – IMPORTANT INFO & STATEMENT REGARDING ASSIGNMENTS… TRANSFERS… NOTE OWNERSHIP!!!
Today, June 21, 2010, 31 minutes ago | Foreclosure Fraud “Indeed, it appears as though many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various constituencies“
6 21 10-Freddie-Objection-to-Boa-in-Re-Taylor-Bean-amp-Whitaker-Mortgage-Corp1
6 21 10 Boa-Answer-to-Freddie-Objection-in-Re-Taylor-Bean-amp-Whitaker-Mortgage-Corp1
By Nye Lavalle
In my 1999 21st Century Loan Sharks Report, I coined and defined the term “Predatory Mortgage Securitization” (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_mortgage_securitization) in my report from MY PERSONAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS I DEFINED SOME THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES THAT DEFINED Predatory Mortgage Securitization….
Securitizations that are termed and classified as “whole loan” and “true” sales “without recourse” that are really financing mechanisms with undocumented side deals and agreements for recourse which may not be able to be classified as investments in real estate and may have tax and reporting consequences for purchasers; Stamping, filing and recording loan and mortgage instruments that indicate loan was sold “without recourse” when in fact there were recourse provisions; Failing to record in country records the true and real ownership, assignment and endorsements of promissory notes, deeds and other mortgage documents which were part of sale, assignment or transfer; Knowingly accepting via computer tapes the principal balances of loans offered for securitization when the servicers, investment bank or securitizer has knowledge that problems or potential fraud existed in the servicing operation of the bank, servicer, broker originating, selling, assigning or transferring the loan; Knowingly accepting via computer tapes the principal balances of loans offered for securitization when the servicers, investment bank or securitizer has knowledge that problems or potential fraud existed in the servicing operation of the bank, servicer, broker originating, selling, assigning or transferring the loan and the new owners, servicer and assignee securitizing the loan pool does not possess the full and complete loan transaction histories for each borrower; Knowingly accepting loans and not disclosing to investors problems with loan documentation; missing, altered or fraudulent documentation in loan file; chain of titles and ownership; threatened legal actions; current regulatory actions or complaints made about loans assigned; Reporting problems or improper custody, maintenance and control of promissory notes, deeds and other loan documents; Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or securitizer does not have a real interest in; Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or securitizer does not have in their custody or control; Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or securitizer has offered for sale to someone else; Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or securitizer is owned by someone other than party identified in the prospectus; In essence on thousands of occasions I stated to regulators, CEOS, banks, Fannie and Freddie that the practices of the banks were that they were double and multi-pledging assets and pledging paid off and refinance notes to securitizations. This is something April, Max and I have discussed for years now. Now, they come and admit that each of my allegations were true Without analyzing the deal, as complex as they are, you WILL NEVER KNOW IF THE FORECLOSING PARTY HAS “ANY” RIGHT TO FORECLOSE!!!
The motives I identified for the “Blank Endorsements” and missing assignments and “pre-notarized” “Blank Assignments” and “Blank Allonges” that “were placed into the “custodial/collateral” files were to be able to:
Multi-pledge collateral (Notes) so as to cook the books; In case of bankruptcy, allow the entity in possession of the notes to simply transfer to another entity to be decided or themselves the notes etc… so as to keep out of the bankruptcy estate of the bankrupt creditor; To pretend to show that a “true sale” occurred when in reality the so-called lenders were financing their receivables; Complete and change chains in titles to notes that were toxic where fraud was known and HDC could be achieved; Shuffle the ball (note) under the shell (owner) so as to subvert TILA, RESPA, and FDCPA claims and other lawsuit claims and any related HDC and assignee liability issues.
Now, in BOA’s Motion in the TBW case, they prove my allegations that the notes were multi-pledged and my statement for years that unless you see where each note comes on and off the books, and review the custodial documents, you will NEVER KNOW WHO OWNS THE NOTE and has any right to accelerate, amend, modify, settle, payoff, satisfy, return, and cancel the note, let alone authority or standing to foreclose.
Here is the key part from the motion….
On numerous occasions, the Debtor has informed the Court and other parties in interest that one of the biggest challenges in this case will be sorting out the competing claims to cash and other assets that flowed through the Debtor’s accounts prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Indeed, it appears as though many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various constituencies. According to the Debtor, the largest single source of disputed funds—more than $548 million according to the Debtor’s Second Interim Reconciliation Report—relates to Freddie Mac. Indeed, BofA believes that there were improper diversions of Ocala loans and assets from TBW to Freddie Mac, and Ocala may have valid ownership claims with respect to a substantial portion of assets that relate to Freddie Mac. Accordingly, there can be little doubt that BofA, in its representative capacities with respect to Ocala, has a valid and pressing need for information regarding Freddie Mac’s extensive relationship with the Debtor, which is directly relevant and necessary to evaluate the Debtor’s property, liabilities, and financial condition. In just a few weeks, the Debtor intends to file an Asset Reconciliation Report that will identify with greater specificity (but, importantly, not resolve) the remaining issues with respect to ownership rights. As a result, the need for BofA to gain access to documents in Freddie Mac’s possession has become particularly urgent.
Among other things, BofA needs to obtain documents from and examine witnesses at Freddie Mac to (1) evaluate competing claims against the estate, (2) test the assumptions contained in the Asset Reconciliation Report, and (3) examine Freddie Mac’s claim of ownership with respect to certain mortgage assets and its custodial arrangements with Colonial Bank for those assets. Despite these time sensitivities, Freddie Mac has so far blocked BofA’s ability to obtain any of this information, including those documents that have already been produced to the Debtor and counsel for the Committee. In its objection, Freddie Mac goes to great lengths to characterize the BofA 2004 Motion as overly burdensome, massively expensive, improperly motivated, and generally disruptive to the ongoing discovery between the Debtor and Freddie Mac. Even if such arguments had any merit under the circumstances (which they do not), the simple fact remains: nearly three months after the Court entered its order on the Debtor’s Rule
2004 motion authorizing and directing examination of Freddie Mac, BofA has not been able to review a single document… Be sure to sift through the files below… Fascinating…
Filed under: foreclosure |
I would send a QWR to Bank of America to Start. Make sure you ask them for a copy of the originial note, and the assignment of mortgage in the request. It appears that TBW an B of A is acting as the servicer of your loan. Read your loan documents very very carefully. If the documents don’t tell you who is your lender, Chances are bank of America don’t know. This could be the main reason that you are not in foreclosure. Foreclosure is a law suite for breach of contract, and Bank of America did not lend you money or claims to own the loan, Therefore, it’s diffcult to prove you owe any money. Mortgage fraud is quite common you need a trained eye to spot a fraudulent note or assignment. Be prepared to fight because B of A or someone may try to steal your home. Learn the Judicial process, State Statues, The rules of Civil Procedure. You well need them, Even if you Hire a Lawyer.
HELP!!!
My mortgage was through TBW. In 2008 my husband lost his job, and TBW would not allow us to make partial payments until his unemployment started. Long story short, TBW forced us out of our house. Our loan was transferred to BOA in 2009, and BOA will NOT work with us on a modification nor will they help us. We were approved by BOA for short sale last year. An offer was made on the house and BOA turned it down stating we were not approved. Our house has not been paid for in 3 years and no foreclosure has been done, however BOA has us listed in their system as foreclosed. I was told by a Forensic Mortgage Auditor that she thinks our loan is not assigned to a lender that is why BOA will not work with us. Due to the fact that BOA is ONLY the creditor, they do not know who holds the note to our house. I’m now hearing things that Freddie Mac is the actual lender on most BOA loans taken over from TBW. Can anyone tell me if this is true, or give me some insight on how to find out who holds the note to my property. We would love to save our home, but BOA is NOT in anyway, shape or form helpful. All they want is the money and they refuse to work with us.
Thank You in advance for any advice you can provide
I merely trying to find out who owns a piece of property that I’m interested in purchasing. County records show Taylor, Bean, & Whittaker as being owner. A notice recently put in the window of the home states it is owned now by BOA/ROA. They do not show anything on the property. How can I go about finding info on this property?
I’m looking for proof that my loan was sold into a PSA, Pool Servicing Agreement or that my loan was Securitized.
My servicers are First Federal Savings Bank of Leesburg, Colonial Bank, and Branch Banking & Trust.
The loan was taken out in 2004.
I received a letter from BOA that states
Ta Hfi 1st lien mortgage is the creditor to whom the debt is owed. However Ta Hfi is not named on the
mortgage or note.
Please email who TaHfi is and the implication they
are not mentioned on the endorsed docs.
Thanks
[…] READ ARTICLE […]
I living in Colorado where we have non-judicial trustee sales. The judge allowed OneWest to sell my home despite the fact that I had irrefutable proof from the FDIC that OneWest was not the real party in interest, Freddie Mac was (allegedly) from a screen shot of OneWest’s own database system. It clearly showed the original loan with IndyMac was sold to Freddie Mac in 2004.
Long story short, Colorado has an expedited process called a 120 hearing which is unappealable. OneWest bought the property at the Trustee sale for a deficiency bid and a few weeks later flipped it to Freddie Mac for $10.
Now Freddie Mac has filed an FED (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) action against me, which I’m fighting. I filed a previous law suit against OneWest, but since they are now out of the picture we are going to substitute Freddie Mac.
What I need to know is where and who to serve the papers to at Freddie Mac? Does anyone know?
Sharon Woodard
Difficult to prove a “red flag” – but it should be part of discovery. You can start by looking at your credit reports – if accounts have been sold to another lender- this should be reported (but often it will not be – because credit reporting is a mess).
The Consumer Data Industry Association publishes credit reporting standards called “Metro 2” – which are used by most financial institutions. They discuss account number changes through a question that regards “partial charge-off.” They write:
Question: Is there a preferred method of reporting when an account is partially charged-off?
Answer: Report the original account with the appropriate Account Status for that month (e.g., Current, 30 days delinquent, 60 days delinquent) with a balance that does not include the amount charged to loss.
The charged-off portion of the balance would be reported as a separate account with a new Account Number. If the new account is subsequently charged off, both accounts would be reported as Account Status Code 97 (Charge-off), but would have different Original Charge-off Amounts.
End. From me – Stands to reason that a fully charged-off account would be assigned a new account number. Guidelines for charge-off reporting is 180 days. This does not mean a bank has to sell collection rights after charge-off – but most do – and often with prearranged buyers.
Also, a SPV Mortgage Schedule often lists original loan numbers that are also on original mortgage loan note. Although the Schedule may include your original loan number – that loan number no longer exists – and, really should not be traced to you.
THE A MAN
I know of opposite instances where loans showed up in Fannie/Freddie – but subsequently disappeared!!!
Sharon,
I believe in order for a loan to be securitized it must be sold a minimum of 2 times. I believe I read that somewhere. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t want to pass on incorrect info. I may have interpreted incorrectly.
YOU stated
ANONYMOUS, on June 28, 2010 at 3:21 pm Said:
A.R.
Different account numbers is a red flag. Each time a mortgage loan is sold – you get a new account number. The old number is dead and gone. And, the original Mortgage Schedule that contained your original loan number – is no longer relevant. In addition, your mortgage note contains the original loan number – how the heck will that ever be discharged – either by foreclosure or bankruptcy – when that loan number is gone – charged-off – written off – missing in action?.
Colonial Bank was taken over by the FDIC – they should be able to give you all information regarding your loan. Contact the Ombudsman. Demand to know the path of your loan.
MY COMMENT..
how can we prove this ? I’m in foreclosure and need to prove it .. as my original loan number HAS been changed thus it’s been sold.. is the FACT that the loan number was changed PROOF enough?? i am thinking it is not. THUS how do we prove it’s been sold thus securitization was committed , FRAUD HAS been committed. and the contract is VOID. right ????
ANONYMOUS…
Thank you for your response. I have contacted the FDIC in the past but I used the servicer’s name. I will contact them again. We just made the 3rd payment of our FAUX trial modification. We said we would make 3 trial payments in “good faith”. So when the Shiot hits the fan we can at least say to the Judge that we tried to work with the “servicer”/”pretender lender”.
You can’t ?………. Now show me the frickin Note. The wet document with our blue ink signatures. I have to say WE ARE SOOO tired. It’s been 16 months for us. I know that there are others that have struggled longer. This fight has to result in something. It can’t be for naught.
Stay Strong and thank God for Neil Garfield and the many other websites that exist to help homeowners.
God Bless America. The Judicial System is ALL we have LEFT.
A.R.
A.R.
Different account numbers is a red flag. Each time a mortgage loan is sold – you get a new account number. The old number is dead and gone. And, the original Mortgage Schedule that contained your original loan number – is no longer relevant. In addition, your mortgage note contains the original loan number – how the heck will that ever be discharged – either by foreclosure or bankruptcy – when that loan number is gone – charged-off – written off – missing in action?.
Colonial Bank was taken over by the FDIC – they should be able to give you all information regarding your loan. Contact the Ombudsman. Demand to know the path of your loan.
Our settlement date was July 2007. I have paperwork stating that Franklin American Mortgage got funding from Colonial Bank in August 2007 About 5 weeks after we closed. Our servicer is now WF. We haven’t been able to find our pool. Is it b/c Colonial bank was taken over by the FDIC ? If so what does this mean for us ?
We also have more then 4 different account numbers associated with our loan.
I HAVE GONE ON THEIR WEBSITE AND MY LOAN DOES NOT SHOW UP ON FREDDIE MAC AND FNMA, EVEN THOUGH BANK OF AMERICA HAS WRITTEN TO ME THAT IT IS A FREDDIE MAC LOAN.
MY ATTORNEY SAID IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IT DOES NOT MATTER.
IS IT THE JUDGE? OR IS IT MY ATTORNEY? WHAT IS IT?
GOD BLESS AMERICA
HELP:
Go to, click on this link, https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/ . Fill in your loan account number information and find out if it is a freddie mac. loan. If not try fannie mae
thanks for the BofA post. I am in a lawsuit with them. BofA has told me on the phone that my loan investor is CIG HFI 1st Lien Mortgage, then BofA deny’s this in Court and Court pleadings.
Anyone with a BofA loan please let me know if you have any docs from BofA or BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP with CIG HFI 1st Lien Mortgage written on them as an investor.
BofA- on my NOTE, at the bottom of the document filed with the county it states “NO RECOURSE” with a stamp and signed by the VP of BofA…does that many it is a non recourse loan?
WITHOUT RECOURSE:
A phrase used by an endorser (a signer other than the original maker) of a negotiable instrument (for example, a check or promissory note) to mean that if payment of the instrument is refused, the endorser will not be responsible.
An individual who endorses a check or promissory note using the phrase without recourse specifically declines to accept any responsibility for payment. By using this phrase, the endorser does not assume any responsibility by virtue of the endorsement alone and, in effect, becomes merely the assignor of the title to the paper.
A without recourse endorsement is governed by the laws of commercial paper, which have been codified in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC has been adopted wholly or in part by every state, establishing uniform rights of endorsers under UCC § 3-414(1).
A without recourse endorsement is a qualified endorsement and will be honored by the courts if certain requirements are met. Any words other than “without recourse” should clearly be of similar meaning. Because the payee’s name is on the back of the note, he is presumed to be an unqualified endorser unless there are words that express a different intention. The denial of recourse against a prior endorser must be found in express words. An implied qualification, based on the circumstances surrounding the endorsement to a third party, will not be recognized by the courts. An assignment of a note is generally regarded as constituting an endorsement, and the mere fact that an instrument is assigned by express statement on the back does not make the signer a qualified endorser.
The qualification without recourse, or its equivalent, is limited to the immediate endorsement to which it applies. It may precede or follow the name of the endorser, but its proximity to the name should be such as to give a subsequent purchaser reasonable notice of the endorsement to which it applies.
A person might agree to accept a check without recourse if the person believes she could collect the money in question. Often the purchaser of such a note will acquire it at a substantial discount from the face value of the note, in recognition that the purchaser can only seek to collect the money from the original maker of note.
An example of a without recourse note is a personal check written by A, the maker, to B, the payee. B, in turn pays off a debt to C by endorsing the check and adding the without recourse phrase. If A’s bank refuses to pay C the check amount because A has insufficient funds in his checking account, C cannot demand payment from B. C will have to attempt to collect the money from A.
M. Soliman
I think everyone here understands you are very knowledgeable on these issues, but could you try English as a first language? In other words, most of us can’t understand what you are posting!!
Post script ‘
TBW was a whole loan aggregator. Not a securitizer and has nothing to do with the current mess. As an aggregator you aquire assets and pool them for sale.
Whole loans are sold and with no retained interest as compared t a registration.’
There was not a year gone by where an investor did not wire $20 million into the wrong account. Its called being out of trust! There is no way the warehouse line could let it go and the money had better be returned.
So I can guarantee thats what happened and Colonial could not tally the misappropriation due to its “less than arms” relationship with TBW. The trust was breached.
This is a trust issue and not relevant to the current dilema. That is just bank fraud and an FDIC embarrasing nightmare.
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
NO THE ASSET WAS CHARGED TO ZERO …GOT IT?
COMMENTS – Securitizations that are termed and classified as “whole loan” and “true” sales “without recourse”
Soliman Q: your recourse is the repo which the lenders use to favor themselves versus avoid. (?) (?)
Comment: Those are really financing mechanisms with undocumented side deals and agreements for recourse
Soliman(Q) Your referring to the purchase and sale agreement correct?
Comments: Which may not be able to be classified as investments in real estate and may have tax and reporting consequences for purchasers?
Soliman(Q) You’re talking about the financing of receivables and offering of securities which are governed by securities law, correct?
Comments:Stamping, filing and recording loan and mortgage instruments that indicate loan was sold “without recourse” when in fact there were recourse provisions;
Soliman(Q) The things you identified here are REPO provisions and yes, against whom? The seller friend is long gone and bankrupt or on the run.
Soliman(Q)The loan funded on a FSB line under FDIC Authority and was credited to capitalize a new business segment. Violation FIERREA.It’s now a charge and offset by NOL carry forward as OBAMA approved earlier this year under tarp amendment.
Soliman(Q)That’s dual consideration bubba! The FSB now holds a liability for an investment in a delisted and consolidated entity no longer recognized as a spe.The originating lender was an FSB under FDIC authority. The loan you recived was charged to zero. You cannot repossess zero …got it.
Soliman(Q)The sale is staged to appear its stauatory…but just a sale. It’s done on a credit bid to reestablish basis in an asset charged to zero.
Its a Fraud. . . .but nice find !
Soliman (C) Look, you’re going off a pooling and servicing agreement over five years since last reported. The registration is delisted and removed by the secretary from sec authority.
Comments – in essence on thousands of occasions i stated to regulators, ceos, banks, fannie and freddie that the practices of the banks were that they were double and multi-pledging assets and pledging paid off and refinance notes to securitizations.
Soliman(Q)ALL THE TIME. IT’S CALLED A BLANK ASSIGNMENT.
Comments: This is something april, max and i have discussed for years now. Now, they come and admit that each of my allegations were true without analyzing the deal, as complex as they are, you will never know if the foreclosing party has “any” right to foreclose!!!
Soliman(Q)NO No NO NOPE …..THE ASSET WAS CHARGED TO ZERO …GOT IT? Your going the wrong way.
M.SOLIMAN
EXPERT.WITNESS@LIVE.COM