THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CASE LAW IN VARIOUS CASES REPORTED IN THIS BLOG SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE INSTITUTION CONFRONTS ANOTHER, THE APPARENTLY INFERIOR LIEN BECOMES EITHER SUPERIOR, OR THE ONLY LIEN. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS TAKE NOTE: YOUR LIEN MIGHT BE WORTH THE ENTIRE HOUSE IF YOU FILE FOR A DECLARATORY ACTION RAISING THE PRIORITY OF YOUR LIEN. HELOC AND SECOND MORTGAGE HOLDERS TAKE NOTE AS WELL. AND OF COURSE HOMEOWNERS OR THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE EX-HOMEOWNERS TAKE NOTE: YOU MIGHT STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A QUIET TITLE ACTION AND RECLAIM YOUR PROPERTY — ALLOWING ANY ACTUAL “LOSER” IN THE DEAL TO MAKE THEIR CLAIM BUT BARRING NOMINAL PARTIES FROM WINDFALL PROFITS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RISK OR INVESTMENT.
There is practically nobody left who doesn’t see that the “ownership” of the loan is a big red question mark. The question that is unresolved is whether that is relevant to questions of title and foreclosure sales. Here is the issue: In most cases the title record (the official title records books located in the property clerk’s office) show only one “party” to the note (a company identified as a lender) and one “party” to the security instrument — the mortgage or Deed of Trust — (a company identified as the mortgagee or beneficiary most frequently MERS or some other straw man or nominee).
So the first problem is that from the start, the ownership of the note and the ownership of the mortgage are split intentionally by the parties who engineered the “loan” closing. With the exception of a few states where the big banks lobbied for corrective legislation that probably is unenforceable or unconstitutional, it is not possible to enforce a mortgage that is not incident to a note. Each state has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code and its own property laws that make it impossible for one person to get the house and another to get a monetary judgment for the note —- both based upon the same obligation.
- They must be the same person or there is no enforcement of the security instrument (i.e., no foreclosure). And in those states, the mortgage or deed of trust is not incident to the note unless they have a common “owner.” So even before we get to the issue of securitization of the receivable, we have a problem. There is basically no law that would allow foreclosure of a so-called mortgage or deed of trust in which the holder of the mortgage or deed of trust is different than the holder of the note.
Before we get to the securitization issue, there is one more factor that is covered by Reg Z and the Truth in Lending Act. It is whether the “loan” was table funded. A table funded loan is one in which the party identified as a lender was not the source of the money in the transaction. The prohibition and restriction against these transactions is meant to keep the consumer informed about the identity of the party with whom he/she is doing business and therefore able to decide whether in fact they want to do business with the party who is really funding the loan.
- The title problem with a table-funded loan is obvious: the note is supposedly a description of the obligation that arises when the borrower accepts the benefits of the monetary advance from the source of funds. In a table funded loan, the note does NOT describe the real parties and therefore is not proper evidence of the obligation and thus cannot be used as a substitute for proof of the obligation.
- Federal law and rules state that anyone who as a matter of practice is doing table-funded loans, is defined as a predatory lender.
- This means that if someone wants to enforce the obligation, they must have more than the note to prove their case. This is precisely where the pretender lenders are finessing the courts — because before the antics of the last decade, there was no difference between the obligation and the note and everyone on both sides of even an adversary proceeding usually agreed that the original note was proper evidence of the obligation.
- This also means that if someone wants to foreclose, they need something more than the note, because the note, as we have seen, is NOT the complete evidence of the obligation — there is another party involved who was undisclosed and who was the source of the funds. So the obligation was between the borrower and the source of the funds. But the borrower was not told or informed that the money being advanced was from another entity.
- Ordinarily this would not present a major problem, but it still would require corrective action in order to clear title for purposes of a satisfaction or release of the mortgage or deed of trust, refinance, sale, second mortgage, condominium association lien, homeowner association lien, HELOC, non-judicial sale or judicial sale. Without this corrective action ON RECORD at the county recorder’s office, the documents releasing or transferring title to the property would be fatally defective in that the real party who advanced the funds did not execute a release or satisfaction, leaving the borrower or the borrower’s successor with the exposure of yet another foreclosure or another claim on the original obligation. This defect is either suspect or apparent on its face when you see MERS involved or an “originating Lender” that is not a bank (and usually out of business now).
All of this mind-numbing analysis morphs from nitpicking to highly relevant when securitization enters the picture. Securitization as it was used in actual practice, i.e., real world reality, was simply a process by which the payments were split from the obligation, not the note and reframed as the basis for a third party obligation under the terms of a mortgage bond sold to third party investors. So the source of funding never receives the note or any of the borrower’s closing documents. He receives a mortgage bond in which there are multiple payors, obligors, and contingent liabilities only one of which is the borrower’s obligation to repay the obligation.
There are two primary defects in this process that are of high significance:
- In practice, the intermediaries used the documentation for securitization to multiply rather than split the obligation to pay amongst the various payors and co-obligors.
- This means that for every dollar that was advanced for the benefit of the borrower, an obligation was ADDED to the receivable stream for each payor or co-obligor that was ADDED to the obligation to make payments under the mortgage bond. This is where the intermediaries began to make multiples of the money being funded rather than small basis points as was customary in the industry.
- Through the use of highly sophisticated cloaked transactions, each dollar funded was multiplied as a nominal receivable which in turn was sold multiple times and insured multiple times in multiple ways.
- Hence the the total evidence of the borrower’s obligation consists of the closing borrower documents PLUS the closing investor documents. The total accounting consists of the the servicing record of the borrower’s payments PLUS the distribution and tape record of reports and payments to the bond holders.
- This totality of the evidence reveals that the borrower’s obligation resulted in multiple payments by multiple payors and co-obligors, some of whom made money participating in the sham scheme, and some of whom lost money in the scheme.
- In most cases, one of the groups that lost money were the original investors who advanced money for their share of the flow of receivables described in the mortgage bond, which included, at all times, the receivables due from third party payors and co-obligors. Other losers were traders and institutions that were creating the appearance of an unregulated but phantom securities market in which profits and losses were apparently made on a daily basis, but which in fact were all accounting entries much like the Madoff scheme.
- The current foreclosure scheme ignores these factors enabling intermediaries dubbed “pretender lenders” to profit from the confusion by pretending to be lenders when in fact they were never lenders of record and never lenders in the sense that they ever advanced any money. The intermediaries are filing false, fabricated and even forged or back-dated affidavits in the name of “Trustees” for trusts that do not exist or which have been dissolved or paid in whole or in part. The lender having been paid or settled as to the obligation under the mortgage bond thus releases any further claim. The intermediaries profit by pocketing the multiples of payments received, and the borrower suffers from the loss of a home or enforcement of a note that was never the evidence of the obligation.
- In practice, the actual source of funding — the party who advanced funds and who received a mortgage bond instead of the evidence of the borrower’s obligation —- NEVER held the note and was never intended to hold the note — and NEVER was the mortgagee or beneficiary and never was intended to be the mortgagee or beneficiary. Thus a declaratory action against the mortgagee or beneficiary of record should succeed in raising the priority of the interest of the plaintiff above that of the record holder of the security instrument, since the record holder has no obligation owed to it, and never was intended to be the recipient of funds nor to have the right or capacity to foreclose on the loan.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CASE LAW IN VARIOUS CASES REPORTED IN THIS BLOG SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE INSTITUTION CONFRONTS ANOTHER, THE APPARENTLY INFERIOR LIEN BECOMES EITHER SUPERIOR, OR THE ONLY LIEN. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS TAKE NOTE: YOUR LIEN MIGHT BE WORTH THE ENTIRE HOUSE IF YOU FILE FOR A DECLARATORY ACTION RAISING THE PRIORITY OF YOUR LIEN. HELOC AND SECOND MORTGAGE HOLDERS TAKE NOTE AS WELL. AND OF COURSE HOMEOWNERS OR THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE EX-HOMEOWNERS TAKE NOTE: YOU MIGHT STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A QUIET TITLE ACTION AND RECLAIM YOUR PROPERTY — ALLOWING ANY ACTUAL “LOSER” IN THE DEAL TO MAKE THEIR CLAIM BUT BARRING NOMINAL PARTIES FROM WINDFALL PROFITS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RISK OR INVESTMENT.
Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee | Tagged: ASSOCIATION LIEN, HELOC, PRIORITY OF LIENS, Reg Z, SECOND MORTGAGE, table funded loans, truth in lending, UCC |
neidermeyer,
What does our own title insurance policy get us? The title on default of the lender?
What is offered to homeowners who take the modifications is ‘use’ of the home. Who puts up the title for that? Sure we can keep track of it. I knew the trustee had my title until the theft. (so tired of calling it a foreclosure because of the fraud involved in the transaction).
What future borrowers need to do, is be more involved in that contract. If there is a change coming it will be in the fact that future generations should not get caught up in this, AGAIN!
The Great Depression was wreaked with this same fraud, and the bankers just waited it out until those to old to tell the young were dead or in a home suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.
They took property back then, let the country suffer a few years and then let us back into the fold.
I want to make sure if a bank offers up and I sign a 30 year agreement; they had better be around in 30 years just like they are expecting me to keep a promise for 30 years.
If I create a Trust, I had better be a party to it. That Deed of Trust, upon my signature locked me out. But banks who were not a party to it, took my home. I don’t get it. That’s theft. I don’t care if they consumed or bought out the previous bank, there has to be a transaction in that process that ‘assigns’ the interest Bank A has to Bank B. I don’t get it how banks not party to the contract 10 years ago, can just pop up and take homes because they are aware of your promise. AND they aren’t keeping the promise made by Bank A to hand over title when you keep your promise.
Why would I go from keeping my promise to pay so I can have home ownership, to keeping my promise to pay so I can have ‘use’ of the home.
Why should I be the idiot who pays for 30 years, and get a nice paper saying, thanks for keeping your promise, you paid it in full, but don’t get a release of the lien, or a release of the deed, and title to the property to hand off to my future generations because I labored for them?
If there is no ownership, that’s fraud. I would not have entered the contract if there was never going to be any ownership. Why pay such exorbitant usury for ‘use’ and not ‘ownership’. Why leave yourself open for someone with title or deed to treat you as a tenant after you paid the home off?
Imminent domain is still out there, and now without owning the home, some venture capitalist can decide your location is pristine for some project and you don’t even have the deed to the property to be a factor in whether they can make you get out of the home so they can build there.
So easy for them to pass the Deed back and forth among the banks so they can always collect on the property, since it was built once and paid for over and over and over and over, after each sale.
So corrupt, I’d rather live in a tent or teepee than deal with these ‘things’ and the ‘thingus’ that manages them.
at arm’s length
Trespass Unwanted, whole blood, Allodial, in jure proprio
Look – many of the “deals” were Fannie/Freddie deals “wrapped” in private REMICs. Loans were “dumped” as defaults – even when not in default – and sold elsewhere. – and resecuritized in non-qualifying MBS.
Just hearing about these “wraps” – Chicken or Beef??
Attornies follow the money. Even those with pro bono departments will not help if your is conflicts with the side of the business that makes money. If your is foreclosure and the other side of the business makes money from the banks they won’t help.
One good attorney leads to another and another. Where are all you good attorneys that took a pledge to help people and do your lifes work ion purpose. Put your neck out do the job you promised to do. I was given thus quote the other day ” what you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others AND the world is immortal.
If anyone here buys a house without your own title insurance policy you’re a FOOL knowing how twisted things are today… (I’m not talking about the policy the lender makes you buy that covers the lender … I’m talking about a second policy to cover you… a second policy is usually CHEAP as the “research” needed is already being done for the policy covering the lender)
Question: How can a suit be brought in the name of Trust: Bank of America, National, as successor, by merger to Lasalle Bank Nas as trustee under the Pooling and servicing agreement dated March 1, 2007-HE2, be brought and then state in interrogatory answers that no assignments of note and mortgage had taken place prior to, this recent assignment of mortgage dated June , 2009, which was made by MERS/litton loan for New Century Mortgage Corp, whom was shut down by sec and filed for bankruptcy on 4/2/2007?
NCMC, AVELO and LITTON all collected payments throughout the few years.
GSAMP2007-HE2 has been thrown in here and there in some fashion.
Table funded??? possibly???
There has been a stall in the proceedings at the moment for about 7 months now, no filings, have outstanding discovery and hearings will have to be set.
But would appreciate input from anyone,
Wednesday 8 September 2010
Jose Fighter:
If you do not mind, what is LUMINAC, and what report is necessary not to be without in fighting for one’s home?
thx…
Wednesday 8 September 2010
Okay, if the obligation is between the borrower and the undisclosed lender, aka the source of funds, but that source of funds receives a mortgage bond, NOT the note…
Who kept the note? Certainly not the table funding originator. If the source of funds, aka the lender, does not have the note, than the lender is no longer a party to the transaction?
Asked another way:
If the note in a table funded loan does not describe the real parties, and the real party lender receives a mortgage bond as a receipt for the lender’s funds loaned, then who is the real party on the other side of the Note?
It is confusing to say, “…the payments were split from the obligation, not the note…”
Is not the note the obligation?
If the table funder acted as a front and is not a true party to the note; if the borrower does not know who the true lender is; if the true lender received a mortgage bond in return for funds loaned, who is the guiding hand directing all of this?
My confusion is evident from the questions posed because the article states “Hence the total evidence of the borrower’s obligation consistes of the closing borrower documents PLUS the closing investor documents.”
Wait a minnute. Did not the lender receive a mortgage bond as his/her/their closing documents, if the note was never given to the true lender?
The article then states, “The lender having been paid or settled as to the obligation under the mortgage bond thus releases any further claim.”
How and when was the lender “paid” or “settled?” It seems like the lender is not a true party to the transaction, at least not with the borrower. Someone is still holding the note, yes? The debt still exists.
There is discussion re no assignment from the original lender to the table funder-lender of record, so that the table funder-lender of record cannot assign to anyone else what it does not have, dealing with the chain of title.
I need to understand the origins, the source, the heart of the initial transaction because everything else that follows, all of the securitization slight of hand, all the ensuing “fabrications,” “portfolio sales,” etc, etc, etc, do not matter, no matter how much lipstick is applied.
It sounds like the unseen guiding hand directing all of this slight of hand transaction for each mortgage needs to be identified before the ensuing sea of paper work and secutiry transactions go into effect.
The borrower is an obvious known factor as one side to the transaction. It seemed like the other side was the unidentified lender, but if the unidentified lender receives a mortgage bond, then the other side of the transaction is someone/something else.
?
The likelihood of title fraud is minuscule, it does happen. By taking simple, affordable steps to protect yourself, you could be saving yourself from financial devastation in the future.
Nice to share…….
Securities Fraud Attorney
There is no loss mitigation. The lender is not a lender but a party fighting for your home. Don’t beleive me…that’s fine. I’m telling you what i know. And what I knonw is “Loss Mitigation”means your due for a notice of sale on your home
Web Reference: http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
WHEN THEY BREAK THE CHAIN OF TITLE ANYBODY CAN MAKE A CLAIM IN THEORY.
COMINGLING OF FUNDS WHEN IS A SERIOUS CRIME.
Another Great posting. Thank you Neil !
We will now even more weapons to take the hill. Make your stand ! Do not turn the other way. Be a Patriot ! Stop your payment and fight these usurious bastards.
PROVE COMINGLING OF FUNDS THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME.
THEY NEEDED TO COMINGLE FUNDS IN ORDER FOR THE PONZI SCHEME NOT TO GET EXPOSED TO INVESTORS AND BORROWERS.
QUIET TITLE + TREBLE DAMAGES
IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME DONT DO THE CRIME
BANKSTERS
This where the report being generated by LUMINAC and its analysts is a must have resource. Do not fight for your home without it.
I do not represent any of the parties that created the report but I have been a witness to the process this blog has undertaken to give us all tools and information to fight for our futures.
Thanks Mr. Garfield, you ROCK!!!
greetings from Virginia
Once again, If you file an action to quiet title, the issues you bring forth are pivotal. very few judges may want to prevent you from clearing the mess your title is right now.
And if you get a judge that does not seem to want to understand. Amend the complaint, withdraw and re file, request another judge, etc. I would always recommend to use an attorney. But in Non judicial States like Virginia, California, etc. This may be a viable vehicle to attack even prior to a default.
You have a legitimate claim to your right to face the real creditor in court and for all pertinent documentation to be produced in court. The beauty of an action to quiet title is that you are looking for the thruth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, denying you of that right would be very telling for most judges.
I have seen a couple of cases where the judge urged the parties to reach an agreement or face consequences.
Tuesday 7 September 2010
Have not yet been to the law library to research Quiet Title. The usual caveat of having an attorney do it will often be heard. As long as one remains in the property, and there are exceptions, Quiet Tilte can be pursued with you [generic] as plaintiff claiming that the lender-now-defendant does not have a legitimate claim to the lien. It is a new lawsuit.
I have not yet read of a judge requiring a bond, and see no need for one, so I am guessing that particular judge is getting in the way, purposefully, I say, ‘screw-em!’ Demand another judge, as is by right, at least in Illinois, and one needs to know their local procedures as to how it applies for you, [generic], in order to make that demand…and once made, the judge has NO MORE SAY in the matter, including his dismissal.
I have done it on three occasions. Rat bastards.
Although this seems a little far-fetched and certainly complex, it appears accurate at least in some cases. one example is American Home Mortgage Investment trust 2004-4. This purported trust smelled badly—–the mortgage loan schedule was not filed with either the SEC or the delaware UCC as stated in the securitization documents. It is similar to a corporate subsidiary that was subject of a filing in a Sec State office but never had any meetings or other elements of reality. A sham entity.that seemingly was used to allow off-balance sheet treatment for the borrowings of the now-defunct group described as mortgage-backed notes-MBS. However, what really set me aback was the very recent discovery that the series of 8Ks filed in 2005 before the MBS wwere unlisted actually doubled the face amount of the securities that were supposedly issued under that Prospectus. The prospectus and every other document in the securitization stated that roughly $3.5 billion in notes were issued. These were “backed” by about $3 billion in mortgage principal loaned out. A healthy markup I thought–but properly disclosed to the MBS investors. But come June 25, 2005 and later in Sept 2005 the 8Ks were filed by Bank of New York-signed for by Ira Nydick. The twist was that the sum of the numbers in the column for the Note classes was actually about $3.3 billion if you run a calculator on the column. But apparently numbers don’t add up at BNY [Indenture Trustee] as they do everywhere else on Earth. The BNY number that summed the column was a tad over $7 billion. It simply doubled! It was not dirty old AHM that did this but BNY the pride of New York -instrumental to the municipal bond market. The outlandish numbers were detailed eleswhere in the 8K incredulously. There was a repeat in the next quarter–but the numbers changed slightly. It was no mistake! All this was made infinitely easier by failure to file the loan list that would clearly reflect the gap between the MBS balance and the underlying mortgages. BNYs nasty role in this is accentuated by the 10K filing EOY 2004 for this purported trust. There AHM CEO Strauss made his Sarbannes Oxley certification with the proviso that he relied on representations by BNY. So who is the frauder behind this purported trust? I still have a hard time believing that the bank is actually behind this gross mistatement on the SEC record. But its there in black and white for all to see on Edgar. Please look at this and determine for yourselves. Investors look at it and at least cover yourselves —–it wouldnt be so bad if the money were going to investors who laid out real money——-but if this behavior is behind these things, then its unconscionable. If this is the way BNY operates -better look very hard at the muni market.
Neil,
If they are selling these mbs for almost nothing . How can you find out which one is yours and buy it? Put your mortgage payment in a escrow account controlled by a lawyer /court order until you can find out who or what and how much. Then buy it for almost nothing because they can’t sell this shit. Nobody wants it and that is why the government will not refi it. They don’t know who owns it and there are investor contracts attach to screw the government for breach of that contract. Hell we could even set up pools in different states to buy them and screw the government contracts.
A roomate of mine had propert caught up in the 1987 S&L crap. So the bank got taken over by the resolution authortity. They would not return calls and could not get a written response from them. So I got a lawyer and put everything into escrow forcing them to deal with it. That took 3 years. The idiot I talk to said she had no land because the note and mortgage was split in the deal. So they are very familiar with this processes for a reason.That was a outright lie. So I sued them. They gave her the land without going to court. This was a very consistant battle. It did cost her 5,000.00 to get her property. But she got it.
The government doesn’t give a shit about us. We are just their meal ticket.
I feel your frustration. We just can’t let them win.
We have to be like a snapping turtle that will not let go.
I am not a lawyer but I am an account and auditor. I have lost alot of jobs because of corruption because I wouldn’t participate. So I’m basically a whistleblower. I am still shocked that our elected officicials lead us to be slaughtered.
We need so dam much to be changed and now.
President Obama said that he was like FDR if you want change make me do it. So lets sue the FED for this bankster fraud lending. I mean get everyone together and put the money in escrow and sue their ass for fraud. Do it by state to incorporate the state laws and take out the federal laws and their officials.
The fed is bankrupting our states and cities.
You said you can’t get a clear title so why pay for something you can’t get? I have title insurance from stewart but google them and they are up to their ass in lawsuits for fraud as well. So if you have title insurance FYI I hope they stay in business. This is hitting all the basis to screw you the homeowner.
I have aarp auto insurance and they had a hefty increase. I ask why they said Texas was more expensive. Today I found out they got 600 million from TARP they were broke, too. Treasury put them up for sale today. This is so messed up.
Banks are not solvent. Insurance companies are not solvent. How many companies are really solvent ? Mark to market account is BS and we all know it. It is so manipulated
The only thing left of real value is land and they want it.
Let’s not let them have it.
TTFN
Debbe
Also with quiet title, how do you get around the issue of the judge wanting a $20,000 bond
bird,
All for quiet title – but many are thrown out of court because the judge claims the default borrower no longer has rights to quiet title. Quiet title is a good avenue – but you have to have the right court and judge.
News today Obama wants to do “something” – government refinances – 10% principal reduction. And, as my 84 year old “young” mother listened to news – heard her say – “yeah, but who is the LENDER????” Yeah, Mom – you have it right.
I’m one who ‘thinks’ they’ve lost their home. Had to stop messing with this ‘theft’ because I didn’t want to lose my job, which has been very patient while I tried to preserve my ‘rights’ to not do business with an entity that demanded money but violated ‘statute’.
Quiet Title.
Is that something a layman can do? Is there a Quiet Title example in Scribd or Neil, does this website provide an example.
at arm’s length
Light and Love,
Trespass Unwanted, live born
I’ve learned so much from everyone here… and my own situation seems to be progressing in a positive manner for me. For now at least 🙂 Got the attorney general to send a cease and desist to my latest lender – they received it today. Will see what happens next. Plan on filing FDCPA claim against them in a week or so. After that, plan is to attack the original assignment and get that voided. Figured one step at a time for me right now is best.
This declaratory action idea is intriquing… see my mom is in a condo in Nevada, and situation has become just horrible. Mers, Countrywide/Bofa. Condo management has started renting out (to section 8 people) the abandoned units, neglecting the property, security issues, you name it. Paid $172,000 just over three years ago, now worth maybe $40,000, only three owners left in the entire community, all others renters now. I decided to look over her documents to see what I can find.
I noticed that the Bill of Sale of the condo was signed in Nevada and notarized in Florida. Hrm. Does that potentially void the original sale? Is that something to do a title insurance claim on? If the original sale is void, how does that effect the mortgage?
ALMOST 90% OF LOANS FUNDED BETWEEN 1998 AND 2008 AND SPECIALLY THOSE WHERE MERS WAS MENTIONED IN THE DEED OF TRUST WERE TABLE FUNDED.AND IF THEY WERE NOT MADE WITH THE CLASSICAL DEFINITION OF A TABLE FUNDED LOAN, THEY WERE HENCE AGGREGATED IN GROUPS THAT WERE AUCTIONED OFF AS SECURITIES .THE ALLEGED ISSUING LENDERS HAD THEIR SERVICING DIVISIONS READY TO START COLLECTING. CLEAR EXAMPLE WAS LEHMAN BROTHERS AND THEIR GREEN POINTY SUBSIDIARY, THEY HAD AURORA LOAN SERVICING PROVIDING THAT SERVICE FROM THE GET GO.
BEAR STEARNS WITH EMC AND SOME OF THEIR PREDATORY SUBSIDIARIES.
YES ACTIONS TO QUIET TITLE THEY SEEM SIMPLE AND NONTHREATENING BUT THEY ARE LETHAL TO THE PRETENDER LENDERS. COMBINE IT WITH A NICE CHAPTER 13 AND THE RESULTS MAY BE PRICELESS. REMEMBER THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE JUST A COMMENTARY.
So if I’m in foreclosure and I have the Note( signed in blank) and I ask for a summary judgement because I’am the owner and holder of the Note, I’m not entitled to it..?
Interesting read….
Would it be asking too much to have an edit function added to correct misspellings?
Or perhaps a “preview” function if you don’t want people to be able to edit an existing reply….
Neil
Please cite the case law, regulatory decision or statute you mention whereby table funded loan equals predatory lending. I think that would be an enormous help to your readers and me. Thx.
waiting for Krieger.
think the problem is that the documents that show what this post is pointing out are the ones that you just don’t get without discovery. The chances of the “bank” wanting to keep the complexities hidden could be paramount to their case, and yours. It shows whether or not they have standing, and usually after they have claimed it by a legal action, thus putting them at risk again. Again, Quiet Title seems to be the appropriate solution.
Would it be asking too much to have an edit function added to correct misspellings?
Tuesday 7 September 2010
I believe my loan was table funded, but how would I be able to prove that? The originator has since gone BK,
although the foreclosure mill has been proceding with the cae as if that were not true.
The BK status and fact that another entity is stating that my loan is now in a secutitized trust, and the servicer is making a claim for the same note, which I put in a responsive pleading, prompted the “plaintiff” to withdraw their motion to confirm sale. The sh1t is starting to hit the fan for them, and they blinked.
Quiet title may be next in line. Krieger said his book would be out by now, but that seems a non-event. Back to the law library…
Great – Neil.
But, do not forget – you are describing what happened at origination – and everything you say is correct. However, there are numerous other fabrications that went on, and continue to go, after origination – including scratch and dents from portfolios, sale of whole portfolios (that were not even scratch and dents), sale of whole loans and securities to distressed debt buyers. Even Maiden Lane has not just securities but, also, whole residential loans in their government portfolio.
Where anything went AFTER the crisis was exposed is anybody’s guess.
Great post Neil- Reading this, I can almost hear the rising anger in your voice- now, if you can follow up with clear,concise examples of a case or two so we can reread the post, study the case, reread the post, study the case.