Securitization Search: Why You Need the PSA

Quoted from April Charney — I’m not sure of the source. She is right on every point.PSA= Pooling and Servicing Agreement

EDITOR’S NOTE: Glad to see that April is doing what the rest of us are doing — going deeper and deeper. There are two things you need — the loan specific title search with analysis and the securitization search, report and analysis. One tracks the chain of title the other tracks the chain of money. You must track both in order to avoid the “proffers” and bogus representations of opposing counsel. The only thing I would add is that the Prospectus, Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Distribution reports and “re-stated” agreements tell a long tale as well.

The search for the securitization documents is not as simple as you might think. The claim of some “Trustee” for a “pool” is never backed up by documents showing the full chain of title of the loan, because the receivables were assigned, not the loan. More than one pool can often be found claiming “ownership” of a loan that meets MOST of the characteristics of your loan, but not all of them. It is these inconsistencies that enable you to chip away at the credibility of the pretender lenders.

COMBO TITLE and SECURITIZATION Search, Report, Documents and Comprehensive Analysis

You must realize that while the original PSA is a good starting point, it isn’t the ending point. That is because of the the dissolution of hundreds if not thousands of these special purpose vehicles which was easy because they were never officially formed in the first place. You must realize that the point of fact is that there is a “claim” that the loan is in a “pool” which may or may not have ever existed, but that the the documentary trail shows it was never really assigned tot he pool. So the money trail leads us to those people who have an actual interest in the loan — only after you can make the point that ALL transactions by or relating to the “pool” must be accounted for and allocated to individual loans.

My opinion, is that the the money people, if they can be found, have an interest that can imposed by equity and not by law. Everyone else is simply out to line their own pockets without ever having invested a dime in the loan transaction.


“You have to get the PSA and the mortgage loan purchase agreement and the hearsay bogus electronic list of loans before the court. You have to educate your judge about the lack of credibility or effect of the lifeless list of loans as the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act specifically exempts Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities from its application. Also, you have to get your judge to understand that the plaintiff has given up the power to accept the transfer of a note in default and under the conditions presented to the court (out of time, no delivery receipts, etc). Without the PSA you cannot do this.

Additionally the PSA becomes rich when you look at § 1-302 (b) which says that the obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by the code may not be disclaimed by agreement, but may be enhanced or modified by an agreement which determine the standards by which the performance of the obligations of good faith, diligence reasonableness and care are to be measured. These agreed to standards of good faith, etc. are enforceable under the UCC if the standards are “not manifestly unreasonable.”

The PSA also has impact on when or what acts have to occur under the UCC because § 1-302 (c) allows parties to vary the “effect of other provisions” of the UCC by agreement.

Through the PSA, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot take an interest of any kind in the loan by way of an “A to D” assignment of a mortgage and certainly cannot take an interest in the note in this fashion.

Without the PSA and the limitations set up in it “by agreement of the parties”, there is no avoiding the mortgage following the note and where the UCC gives over the power to enforce the note, so goes the power to foreclose on the mortgage.

So, arguing that the Trustee could only sue on the note and not foreclose is not correct analysis without the PSA.
Likewise, you will not defeat the equitable interest “effective as of” assignment arguments without the PSA and the layering of the laws that control these securities (true sales required) and REMIC (no defaulted or nonconforming loans and must be timely bankruptcy remote transfers) and NY trust law and UCC law (as to no ultra vires acts allowed by trustee and no unaffixed allonges, etc.).

The PSA is part of the admissible evidence that the court MUST have under the exacting provisions of the summary judgment rule if the court is to accept any plaintiff affidavit or assignment.

If you have been successful in your cases thus far without the PSA, then you have far to go with your litigation model. It is not just you that has “the more considerable task of proving that New York law applies to this trust and that the PSA does not allow the plaintiff to be a “nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.””

25 Responses

  1. A lot of people are immersed in the complicated world of credit cards without knowing a thing or two of them. Just as in the credit card using the Chase, for example, there are several pointers to follow in order to maintain good habits and purchasing, to Avoid the pitfalls of using credit.

  2. Thx anonymous

  3. from the almost the first sentence they commit alleged fraud “lender” is really a mortgage broker for all intents and purposes.

    the appraisal is their appraisor



    the stated income is filled in by BANKSTER

    and on and on and on and on and and on.





  4. any 5th grader knows the game is rigged they are roling shaved dice

  5. Leo,
    Apparently many cannot get to discovery….due to judges. That is the problem.

  6. Regarding April Charney’s valuable guidance, aren’t the documents set forth in her post available as discovery the plaintiff must produce in response to demands for all documents related to the securitization process for the loan which is the subject of the foreclosure complaint? And if plaintiff refuses to provide such discovery, won’t the stage then be set for a suceession of defendant motions culminating with a dismissal of the complaint?


    Yes, we are truly very angry. And if you read some posts here, the anger literally jumps off the computer. I am hopeful that we can organize. It seems that little by little people are finding their way to me….hopefully, we can start the attack (not literally) when we get more organized. There is power in numbers people!!! Why are we continuing to fight this alone? If we all get together, we will have power to change this. Yet, we sit alone in our living rooms…..a silent army blogging away.


  8. OP: NOTHING COVERS EVERYTHING AND THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. I WORKED THREE YEARS WITH SOME SMART PEOPLE ON COMMODITIZING A SERVICE THAT COULD BE AFFORDABLE AND USEFUL. Most attorneys and mortgage analysts find what we do to be very useful. Assignments of mortgage may not be required but the issues of fact remain whether they are required to be recorded or whether they are not required to be recorded. The point here is that you want to be able to credibly deny that they have properly stated the obligation, that the loan is due, that the loan is in default and that they are the party to whom the money is owed. The point is to make them prove their case since THEY are the party seeking the affirmative relief of foreclosure.

  9. angelo

    Yes. And, they have already committed fraud – and prevented homeowner from seeking legitimate help in compliance with federal law. – because the homeowner never knew who their true creditor was/is.

    Like to add here – that mortgage repurchase demands are rapidly escalating by investors, Federal Reserve, Fannie/Freddie.

    Few here know that most subprime loan origination was for a refinance – NOT a purchase. Many of these refinances was to consolidate credit card debt – solicited by the very bank that held the credit card debt.

    Few also know how to really read a credit report. Much debt that was supposedly paid off by a refinance – was NEVER accurately reported as paid on credit reports. You have to know the fields – and correct standards for credit reporting. Thus, many loans were simply kicked out of trusts – or should have been kicked out – because the credit card bank would claim the debt was never paid (thus subjecting the lender to additional possible claims against the property). This was because the bank had already sold your debt collection rights. According to Mortgage loan agreements – this could not stand for securitization – thus, the bank would also kick out your mortgage loan, or should have, because they claimed you never paid the debt. “Undisclosed debt” is the new key term – of course, they will try to pin this on the borrower. .

    Now, many investors are questioning this practice. All was promoted by repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act that separated commercial banking (credit card lending) from investment banking (securitizing your loans). Therefore, Wall Street was able to 1) grant you credit card credit 2) securitize that credit 3) offer you a refinance to pay of that credit 3) keep you delinquent as to your debt paid (or settled) 4) purchase you mortgage and securitize it.

    They controlled you – and the ability to keep you in the mortgage – under all circumstances. They TARGETED you for credit – targeted you for a mortgage refinance – and kept you obligated to that mortgage – by control of your credit reports. ( or giving their debt buyer control).

    Then, they had ability to sell rights to collection – (even if you had already paid your credit card debt) and sell rights to your mortgage loan collection – you were doomed. You were trapped – no way out.

    It was a win/win for the banks. They could not lose – until – homeowners started defaulting en masse. Banks could not keep up payments to their “sucker”/greedy investors. thus, the fall. This is a battle between those who were scammed – and those that insist that those who were scammed – CONTINUE TOO PAY – to keep funding their pockets and retirement. That is what is going on. And, these parties contributed to Congressional rep campaigns to insure – that the the PARTY kept going until the wee hours!!! We have limited power to battle this in court. They are in control. Courts are living in the dark ages. We have to have alternative strategies to expose the fraud – and stand up for ourselves – as a whole. Only then, will we be able to be given fair justice in a court of law..

    There is no benefit to beating a foreclosure – unless you can prove – mortgage title to your home is valid. Without mortgage title – even if you win at foreclosure – your home is NOT vendible.

    Time to face the truth – you were targeted – you were scammed – and they will continue to lie and control you until they win.

    Are we angry enough yet?

  10. The above is most helpful. Does anyone have word on whether the BONY v. Raftogianis case out of New York has been approved for publication? One source said yes, but NY docs indicate still unapproved.

  11. Anon
    So if they keep the “trustee” the same but resecuritize the loans, do they need to file the summons and complaint to a different “pool/trust”?

  12. Basically slavery still exists in the US. We now have to make bricks without straw and plus increase the output. The judges are nothing more than the slave keepers for the government. What ever happened “For the People” By the People” ?

  13. David,
    BTW, the problem with the Trustee, is that the Trustee should have always been for the beneficiary. Even when the deed calls for a ‘Substitute Trustee’, that a substitute for the beneficiary, not for the Grantor. Once the Grantor signs, we are out of the loop.

    The Beneficiary is who that Deed of Trust was created for.

    My theft occurred because “a mortgage company”, none I’d ever heard of or done business with, and never paid a dime nor shiny penny to; told a law firm they wanted my home, and that law firm assigned someone to be my Trustee, and they appointed themselves to me, the Grantor, and added the mortgage company as co Grantees, and stole my property by conveying it to their client, a Grantee, WHO WAS NOT A BENEFICIARY in any document I’ve ever seen.

    They should be jailed, but the process is written by them, for’s their lawyers, what law firm would be prosecuting them?
    None will stand up against the ‘unseen’. They know it’s out there and they choose to ‘sacrifice’ the people to the hidden hand behind all of this. They are all puppets..and they have sold their souls. Jail is nothing. They ‘create’ money, so they can pay any fine. Fining a bank CEO is like printing money from the Fed and dropping it out of helicopters all over the U.S. Jail is nothing, fines are nothing…they need something that matters.

    I am using focused intent to make sure they get it. I’m not carrying that burden. I’m laying that burden right where it belongs, on their shoulders.

    I will have a front row seat, and will be so happy and just joyful and glad to see how they beg for mercy in the Court of Honor and the Court of Law The Universe has waiting for them. That’s why it’s ‘game over’! They will appear as themselves, and be judged as themselves, not as a judge, or a lawyer, or a corporation, or a statutory person, they will be who they are to the core, and that’s what will be judged for all their deeds.

    It’s coming. I’m gearing up for the final episode.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, sui juris in propria persona.






  16. Enough said…it is time these SOBs go to jail:
    Thank you for the posting TW

    General Rules and Regulations promulgated
    under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

    Rule 10b-5 — Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices

    It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

    To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

    To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

    To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

    Regulatory History

    13 FR 8183, Dec. 22, 1948, as amended at 16 FR 7928, Aug. 11, 1951

  17. Neil,

    My loan number has changed three times since I went to settlement on my refi in 2007. The MERS site now shows the newest loan number as of last month prior to that MERS showed the old loan number.

    So if I order your Securtization and Title Search which loan number do I use?

    The one the broker assigned at settlement
    The one the first two servicers used
    The one the New Servicer is using ?

    Very confused?

    I read somewhere that a loan number change is not a good thing. Funny thing is I have owned several homes in 33 years and never had a loan number change a without a refinance to pay off the old loan.

  18. MR. Garfiled- If we have your service completed on our loans, will it cover all that is mentioned above?

    What if you are in a state where they do not require assignemtns of mortgage to be recorded with the counties or to tell the Title Company?

  19. General Rules and Regulations promulgated
    under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

    Rule 10b-5 — Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices

    It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

    To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

    To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

    To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

    Regulatory History

    13 FR 8183, Dec. 22, 1948, as amended at 16 FR 7928, Aug. 11, 1951

  20. Perhaps I will have to read and re-read this article as many times as it takes me to get it, but right now I am clueless…..crap.

  21. Great info, again, from April –

    I would like to add that the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement is also a “Repurchase” Agreement. The list for repurchases will be separate from the “Mortgage Schedule” for loan purchases. The repurchase list will include different information about you – possibly including private information such as a social security number.

    I am also discovering that some servicers resecuritize non-performing loans into other “trusts.” These trusts are private and you will not find information on them. However, the trustee for the resecuritized trust will often be the same trustee as for the original SPV. Servicer advances are also supported by resecuritization. That is why it is absolutely critical to get a “remittance ledger” from the trustee. That will tell you what has been submitted by the servicer to the trustee – and where the trustee is applying either current payments, payment of taxes, advances, insurance payments etc. etc.

    The original trust was just a “starting point.” By identifying the original trust to you – it is just akin to providing the name “original lender” (which you already knew). Many things have happened since the setup of the original trust. And, this is not an easy trail to trace.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: