DeutschBank’s Version of CYA: SERVICERS “It’s Your Fault.”

40116426-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-NOTICE-TO-CERTIFICATE-HOLDERSForeclosure-Practice-Notice-10-25(2)

It would be funny if it were not so disastrously tragic. This group of memos corroborates the information I heard on a telephone conference between the head of “asset acquisition” and the spokesperson for Deutsch as Trustee. To translate it into my native NY tongue. Fuhgetaboutit. (Okay, he said “this might be counter-intuitive.” Same thing). What he said was that Deutsch might be named as the Trustee but all the responsibilities of the Trustee vest with the Servicer, (in that conversation being OneWest, which had taken over FDIC assets in an interesting shared risk deal with the FDIC).

In one swell foop (faux pas) he bypassed the PSA and the rights and obligations of the Master Servicer, Trustee, Depositor, Sponsor, and Underwriter. Let the ankle biting begin.

Here we have Deutsch Bank taking its lines from Hogan’s Heroes, for those of you who remember that series, in which Sgt. Schultz was given to say say “I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing.” Not content with the writing from Bob Conrad’s series they went to the Classic Casablanca where they were  horrified to discover that servicers and other people were using the Deutsch name without their knowledge or consent and utterly miffed at the disgraceful foreclosure practices of these unscrupulous characters. They clearly were “shocked, shocked to discover there was gambling going on here.”

The connection between the taped conversation I heard and the latest missive from Deutsch to all who will read it, is that before the stuff hit the fan, Deutsch was very much aware of the fact that things were going to blow and was disclaiming any knowledge or responsibility to anyone who would listen. In our little case it was a borrower who was persistently asking questions about how they could be named the Trustee and not have any powers, rights or obligations. THOSE little things belonged to the servicer, not the Trustee. And THAT is why I predicted that the “Trustee” would end up as “the contingent agent, not trustee, of a nonexistent trust.”

19 Responses

  1. They are in collusion with the foreclosure mill lawyers as well. -Juicy Juice

    No collusion…they were on FDIC payrill under legal services contracts!

    expert.witness@live.com

  2. Thanks, Monica, Nice surprise. Accounting understanding is not a choice to elect or avoid.

    Now here’s my bigger worry. As of 2011, FDIC restrictions on the securitization process will determine whether a transfer is within the safe harbor.

    The stakes just got higher. The FDIC is not about to ratchet up the claims requirements – THEY HAVE DAM’N IT – It’s party over for MERS challenges and fraud instruments by nominee for making claims!

    Accounting rules procedures and reconstruction of the general ledger is what takes from here. You got a forged document, or fake instrument? Pro tanto and eminent domain means …So what! You must seek equitable remedies and relief by rescission.

    1) No basis in assets at transfer can be avoided by repudiation
    2) Sale is not brought by a holder – case precedent
    3) Material misrepresentations to date cause deed to be defect
    4) Attorneys are liable for material fraud under FDIC engagement
    5) Controlled business arrangement and bid manipulation
    6) Subrogation award brought to parties in receivership
    7) Receiver is the FDIC to an economic interest party. (We knew this fact in 2007)
    8) FDIC preemptive strike here is an admission or mark to marketability
    9) Servicer must show servicing rights on balance sheet – they don’t
    10) Transfer is at discounted amount (“below the borrower’s modification request”)

    “Think here about where I am going with #10. This last argument is worth more than all the above and anything I have named to date.”

    Counsel must make an argument for judicial interpretation versus statutory rules violations. Be rationale in your pleading and then before a judge. The court should know why you’re being cheated out of the Fifth Amendment over more than a forged document at this late stage.

    I have been fortunate to win working cases with counsel in court and with testimony brought by willing attorneys that has gained the judges attention. It’s with arguments counsel presented in court that backed the opposition into a corner.

    Here is my concern that requires you now, more than ever to think through your claims. These three issues could be giant killers to your claims.

    First, all securitizations or participations in process before December 31, 2010 THAT SATISFY CERTAIN CONDITIONS, are permanently grandfathered under the existing rule 12 c.f.r. § 360.6. The final rule becomes effective September 30, 2010. : If it meets new FDIC requirements, and it qualifies under fas 166 and fas 167. LIMITED PROTECTION IS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSFERS THAT DO NOT SATISFY FAS 166 AND FAS 167, BUT THAT DO MEET THE NEW FDIC STANDARDS. Also my concerns are FOR RE-SECURITIZATIONS AND COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE UNDERLYING ASSETS ARE MADE TO INVESTORS. FINALLY, FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST MUST BE BASED PRIMARILY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TRANSFERRED LOANS.

    In 2000, the FDIC adopted 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 (the “Securitization Rule”) to clarify that, in certain instances, it would not (as conservator or receiver) seek to disaffirm or repudiate the sales contracts for the transfer of assets in connection with a securitization or participation.

    Specifically, the Securitization Rule provided a safe harbor from disaffirmance or repudiation for asset transfers treated as if an accounting sale had occurred. Thus, if the transfer of financial assets was considered a sale, then pursuant to the Securitization Rule, the FDIC would recognize such assets as being “legally isolated” from the insured depository institution in an FDIC conservatorship or receivership and therefore outside the reach of the FDIC’s disaffirmance or repudiation power.

    The effect of the Securitization Rule was diminished significantly in June 2009, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 166, “Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets—an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 140,” and SFAS No. 167, “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R).”

    These two releases significantly changed the accounting framework for transfers of financial assets and the criteria for determining whether to consolidate a special purpose entity. SFAS No. 166, among other things, revised how interests retained by the transferor in a sale of financial assets initially are measured.

    SFAS No. 166 and SFAS No. 167 became effective as of the beginning of an entity’s first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2009.

    Under these accounting rules, most asset transfers in connection with securitizations or participations would no longer qualify for sales treatment and therefore would no longer have had the benefit of the FDIC safe harbor.

    To forestall this result—and to prevent uncertainty about the FDIC’s use of its disaffirmance and repudiation powers—the FDIC revised the Securitization Rule (issued in the form of an interim final rule) in November 2009, before the new accounting rules took effect. The modified Securitization Rule largely negated this result by expanding to cover any asset transfer that would have qualified for sale treatment (before the release of FAS 166 and FAS 167), provided that two conditions were met.

    First, the expansion applied only to transfers in connection with securitizations where beneficial interests were issued on or before March 31, 2010. Second, the asset transfer was required to satisfy a “legal isolation” test described in the regulation. On March 11, 2010, the FDIC issued a final rule, extending the safe harbor to securitizations in which qualifying transfers were made or beneficial interests issued on or before September 30, 2010.

    On a parallel track, in December 2009, the FDIC began a rulemaking proceeding to amend the Securitization Rule in order to remedy perceived defects in the securitization process, including undue credit risk and a lack of understanding of securitization transactions on the part of investors.

    The FDIC final rule represents the culmination of the FDIC’s efforts to soften the potential impact of FAS 166 and FAS 167 on the securitization market and to correct certain practices in the industry.

    The Final Rule creates three classes of transfers that may be eligible for the safe harbor:
    (i) Those that occur on or before December 31, 2010;
    (ii) those that occur after December 31, 2010, that meet FAS 166 and FAS 167 requirements and that satisfy several new FDIC conditions; and
    (iii) Those that occur after December 31, 2010, that meet the same new FDIC conditions but that do not qualify as sales under FAS 166 and FAS 167. In other words, the Final Rule extends the same grandfathering provision that had been granted to earlier transfers to transfers before December 31, 2010. For the same kind of transfer after December 31, 2010, it qualifies for the safe harbor only fewer than two conditions: it meets new FDIC requirements, and it qualifies under FAS 166 and FAS 167.

    More limited protection is available for transfers that do not satisfy FAS 166 and FAS 167, but that do meet the new FDIC standards.

    The restrictions are many and address most aspects of the securitization process. For any transfer, the FDIC imposes the following:
    • Re-securitizations and collateralized debt obligations are permissible only if certain disclosures regarding the underlying assets are made to investors.
    • Payment of principal and interest must be based primarily on the performance of the transferred loans.

    expert.witness@live.com

  3. M. Soliman is right again….. he said this MONTHS ago! This is sweet confirmation, memos going in as judicial notice, subpoenas to follow.

  4. scott, i am from california. whitney k.cook signed a substitution of trustee in behalf of MERS and emc. naming NDEX WEST as a “subs trustee. now Ndex WEst is claiming a non monetary damages as a trustee on my lawsuit against nDEX WEst.

  5. Boots
    I also have Whitney Cook on my documents. Where are you located?

  6. What’s really messed up is the statement that “securitization trusts typically become the owners of, and take title to, mortgage loans at the time the securitization trusts are formed.” Yet, the securitization trust is NEVER the Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust….at least, not in the beginning. When foreclosure is looming, that’s when the “assignment frenzy” starts, when the pretender lender or MERS “assigns” the Deed of Trust “together with the Note” which, of course, they have no interest in. They always try to put Humpty-Dumpty “back together” somehow…..even when it’s impossible (seeing as how they never took delivery of the actual loan instruments).

    Then again, the memos have a point, because the servicers DID screw things up even more. They kept payments when the trust went into default; they foreclosed when they were neither the Beneficiary nor the Note Holder; they provided an incorrect accounting of the monthly mortgage payments to the borrower; and they usually refuse to answer a borrower’s QWR in full.

    Yes, it’s tragic…..but I had to laugh anyway.

  7. can someone tell me if WHITNEY K. COOK has been subpoena by the attorney general as a “robo signer in Florida? has she been dispose yet? i want to find out this person with multiple personalities if she is an ex- mental patient. i want to know who is her “master” to serve. i’m confused she seems to be having different position with different lenders. where are you Whitney K. Cook? come out and expose this fraud.

  8. From deep within the pooling and servicing agreement comes a bright light that says—-there needs to be endorsements in the name of the trust. Not just blank.

    ————-
    As promptly as practicable after any transfer of a Mortgage Loan under this Agreement, and in any event within thirty days after the transfer, the Trustee shall (i) affix the Trustee’s name to each assignment of Mortgage, as its assignee, and (ii) cause to be delivered for recording in the appropriate public office for real property records the assignments of the Mortgages to the Trustee, except that, if the Trustee has not received the information required to deliver any assignment of a Mortgage for recording, the Trustee shall deliver it as soon as practicable after receipt of the needed information and in any event within thirty days.

    Also there is a part which says that as long as there is no rating problems the rating agencies. Well that is no longer a freebee–

    (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, for administrative convenience and facilitation of servicing and to reduce closing costs,–(*WHAT BULL…..THEIR COSTS)— the assignments of Mortgage shall not be required to be submitted for recording (except with respect to any Mortgage Loan located in Maryland) unless such failure to record would result in a withdrawal or a downgrading by any Rating Agency of the rating on any Class of Certificates; provided, however, that each assignment of Mortgage shall be submitted for recording by the Seller (at the direction of the Servicer) in the manner described above, at no expense to the Trust Fund or the Trustee, upon the earliest to occur of: (i) reasonable direction by the Holders of Certificates entitled to at least 25% of the Voting Rights, (ii) the occurrence of a bankruptcy, insolvency or foreclosure relating to the Seller, (iii) the occurrence of a servicing transfer as described in Section 7.02 hereof and (iv) if the Seller is not the Servicer and with respect to any one assignment or Mortgage, the occurrence of a bankruptcy, insolvency or foreclosure relating to the Mortgagor under the related Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Servicer is unable to pay the cost of recording the assignments of Mortgage, such expense shall be paid by the Trustee and shall be reimbursable out of the Distribution Account.

  9. @ Martha, you are absolutely so right. There’s something very wrong with our system. It’s like laws only are applied to whomever and whenever they want to apply them to and it’s sickening to my stomach. I discovered fraud in my family foreclosure paperwork by of course “Deutsche Bank” and will fight them down to the white meat in my knuckles. But GOD always has the last say so, that’s why he exposed these idiots because his children are suffering and suffered long enough. GOD stepped in and is showing out…….

  10. A man can be sent to prison unjustly convicted, and then freed on “new evidence” that supports his “denial” We all accept this as just, right, I mean if the new evidence shows he is not guilty, we must right the wrong.
    So.. if a HOME is taken from an American, based on false evidence, and NEW evidence of the fraud comes up down the road at some point… should not the property be restored to the rightful owner?

  11. @ Bill….. Hey Bill guess what, you can’t get no info now from that website….Hmmmm, wonder why!!!!!

  12. When Deutsche is a Defendant on your complaints, one could attach this these letters as exhibits, showing they were aware of the frauds, and didn’t do a dang thing about it then or now.

    Shows knowledge, foreknowledge, definitive decoupling of the Note from the Deed of Trust, and a lack of clean hands, as to your demands for Quiet Title.

    Deutsche is a core alter ego or enabler, for so many of these servicers we fight, when you dig deep enough.

    You can research any possible relationship with your bank at their website at:

    https://tss.sfs.db.com/investpublic/

  13. Indymac filed against me with Fl. Default after three loan mods were turned down. I lost my motion to dismiss with Meenu Sasser, cause remember, She doesn’t see a widespread problem. Hasn’t made it any further THEN A year and a half later, Deutche also filed against me with another law firm, thus I am being foreclosed upon by both, same house, different lawyers. No Widespread problem here!!!
    Of course, Mers is listed as mortgagee, with Compliance Source, inc.
    Anybody heard of Melody Spotts??? She signed as Assistant Vice Pres for Indymac, although I would not call squiggly lines a signature.
    Meanwhile, One West, who bought Indymac, is also sending me info claiming to be the new trustee and receiver. So thats four claimants, so far.
    Funny thing is, Indymac, One West, fdic, Mers, Deutsche and Fannie May are all going after what is no longer theirs, it’s is now mine!!!! Come and Get it!!
    I will not modify or settle, I will not rest until I take what I ahve spent $250,000 on prior to the default, enticed by them.
    I keep hearing about how nobody should get or deserves a free house, HA! What is free; The Deposit Money, The Taxes, The Insurance, The Maintenance, The years of mortgagepayments made until default???? Would I or any other sane person give up so much of their income and savings if we knew we were being hustled? I think not, I was fleeced and I am taking what is RIGHTFULLY mine. I hope every other citizen does the same.

  14. and the dish ran away with the spoon…

  15. @ The A Man….That’s a good and proper name for them….lol. And they knew because they were the ones that were and still are producing fabricated documents counting on it not being dicovered….. They are in collusion with the foreclosure mill lawyers as well.

  16. No where does that leave any and all loans they claimed to be trustee of. Certainly not in there hands…..

  17. You are telling me that Deutsche Nazi Bank did not know that the banks in america were giving loans to dead beats?

    Who is his/her right mind would give a bunch of dead beats loans?

  18. so were does this leave all the indymac loans that have d bank as trustee

  19. THIS IS CLASSIC. NOW I HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY. IT LISTS ONEWEST AS AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE.

    BOTH ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THE MOVANT GOES FROM ONEWEST TO ONEWEST AS AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK.

    SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE IS A PROBLEM.

    THE WRITTEN (VAN ECK) OBJECTION IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR READING AROUSAL PLEASURES.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/40195232/Onewest-Amended-Motion-for-Relief-From-Stay

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39002836/ONEWEST-HAS-NO-STANDING-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-WITH-OBJECTIONS

    MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY BY ONEWEST. A PARTY NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE CHAPTER 7 FILING. HOWEVER, MOVANT ONEWEST COMES INTO THE COURT WITH 1) NO STANDING, 2) FALSIFIED AFFIDAVITS 3) DISCOLORED NOTES NOT COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS 4) SIGNED AFFIDAVITS BY BRIAN BARNHILL THAT ARE INACCURATE 5) DEED OF TRUST THAT IS FAULTY AND NOT PERFECTED 6) A SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF THE DEED OF TRUST WHICH TRIES TO CORRECT SECURITY INTEREST AND TITLE ISSUES.. DEBTOR ASKS FOR SANCTIONS. READ THE ENTIRETY AS IT IS LISTED AS UNSECURED DEBT, ONLY ORIGINATOR IS LISTED.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: