“JUST GIVE ME THE NAME OF THE TRUST” EXPLAINED

ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD

COMBO ANALYSIS TITLE AND SECURITIZATION

  • Does the ‘Just Give me the Name of the Trust” product provide PROOF that the mortgage is in that trust?
  • Does it tell us how to access that trust and see our mortgage in it?

The answer to your question starts with our premise: that this service will identify whether your loan is CLAIMED to have been securitized. In all probability the claim is false because the proper transfer papers were never executed nor delivered. That leaves the “lender of record” which is the party identified in recorded documents at your County Recorder’s office. The problem there is that the Lender of Record didn’t lend anything, never touched any money and served no purpose other than to pretend to be your lender when in fact the source of funds was from an undisclosed third party.

In fact, in most cases the “lender of Record” never receives any payments either and even if it does, it is only for a month or two after which you are instructed to send your payments to XYZ servicing company who presumably forwards the money to an undisclosed third party who may or may not be a creditor.

The party threatening to evict you is in all probability NOT a creditor having never parted with a nickle to fund your loan or buy it. If they are threatening eviction it might be supposed that a “sale” has occurred. However the auction sale was never completed because the buyer in nearly all cases, offers no money, contrary to state law and instead offers the representation that it is the creditor when in fact it is not. Thus the sale would have taken place under false pretenses, as well as the Notice of Default being defective in that it neither identified the creditor nor the correct amount due.

The “Just Give Me the Name of the Trust” Service is a misnomer in that it does not prove that the loan was securitized, it only shows that the loan was claimed to have been securitized when in fact such was not the case. It would not be in your interest to say or admit PROOF of the facts recited in the identification of a document purporting to describe a pool, which may or may not legally exist, and describes your loan as part of the trust, which probably never legally made it into the pool. Our service identifies potential claimants whose claim is in most cases without merit.

Whether you can find all the appropriate documents on your own regarding the alleged securitization depends upon whether the offering was quasi-public and registered with the SEC or was “private label.” So the answer to your question is NO our search does not PROVE the loan WAS securitized, it only shows the potential claimants who will say that it was securitized even though they have no documents to back up their claim. And the answer to your second question is that NO the limit of this service is to give you the name of the trust.

If you want to pursue the matter further with a  title search, report and analysis plus a securitization search, report and analysis you can go to either of these links and buy the COMBO.

COMBO ANALYSIS TITLE AND SECURITIZATION

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

MEMBER COMBO SEARCH – SUBSCRIBERS

BLOG MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTION TELECONFERENCES AND NEWSLETTER


6 Responses

  1. Thanks Leo, That was my train of thought .

    I will be doing so.

    Appreciate everyone’s input.

  2. @Mary

    When the loan – which wasn’t assigned to the Trust – defaulted, it would have been written off. If your servicer repurchased it and then pretended they were the owner of the loan/Note and assigned it and the Mortgage to the “Trust” for the purpose of foreclosing, you can nail them, THEIR LAWYER/s and MERS. Invest in a securitization analysis and you’ll have the evidence you need to prevail.

  3. If Buyer entity had a purchase and sale agreement, with re-purchase demand if Seller had to re-state earnings. But buyer could not shove the toxic loans back to seller due to seller entering bankruptcy and then the sold loans, (paper) due to kick out as scratch and dent for dirt cheap, which is stating to be in a trust of securitized mortgages, which it never made it in by cut off date, would that be a form of fraud. And what if the assignment to that mortgage was now made by mers/servicer as nominee for bankrupt lender 2 years after cutoff date of the psa and there is no evidence of authorization from the bankruptcy court to do so for bankrupt entity.

    The kicker, what if servicer was advised that fraud, bait and switch , etc., took place at closing and did nothing but then offers a modification of terms through omissions of facts of lender and omission
    that is or has new owner of loan,, knowing there was fraud, etc., covering there a** cause they bought the loan for dirt and now two years later tries to foreclose and submits an assignment of mortgage from the bankrupt entity without authorization. Says it was sold and securitized place into trust ***** through this assignment in 7/09 with an effective date of 3/09 but not recorded until 8/09. mind you, the free writing prospectus loan schedule, shows six loans in this area and only two with this zip code and one only in the amount of the original supposed refinance amount, but all information on loan schedule appears all zeros telling me the loan was kicked out, couldn’t demand repurchase due to the bankruptcy of originator and probably sold to junk debt buyer for dirt, whom happens to be the servicer on the psa, but is now claiming it was in trust.

    So if this purchaser bought this debt knowingly through inside information and through scheme and trickery induces the home-owener into re-signing just to continue collecting and places them in a situation whereby they default, so they could come in and foreclose with false assignment to trust, would that be considered in your opinion to be fraud in the inducement?

    Comments would be appreciated

  4. HAS IT EVER REALLY DAWNED ON ANYONE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE PARTY AT MOST FAULT IN THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS

    Think about it, they even created multiple ‘Federal Homeowner Protection Programs’ (HAMP) which people could ONLY be ELIGIBLE IF THEY DEFAULTED and then BLAME the crisis on FOR DEFAULTING. Combining these facts with the ‘Federal Consumer Protection Laws’ that courts refuse to enforce seems like nothing more than INSIDIOUS TRAP.

  5. fighting mad, mad as hell,
    Actually our REAL Birth Certificates, the ones with our names printed in normal case, ie “John Doe” as opposed to the UCC copies we receive with our names appearing as “JOHN DOE” printed on Bank Note paper ARE traded the same way promissory notes are. Use the first 3 numbers printed in RED on the copy of your ‘birth certificate’ and do a search on Fidelity’s website to see the value of the “Fund” your in. Google for the instructions.

  6. Imagine if birth certificates and marriage licenses were treated the promissory notes have been treated.
    You have no proof of a marriage, it wasn’t recorded.
    Without witnesses, even a legit marriage has a problem and is not valid.
    You need a valid birth certificate for many things, enrolling in school, inheritance, SSI claims for surviving minor children, retirement benefits, taxes, driver’s license, State ID. What would happen to a system if no one had marriage license or birth certificate.
    It’s confusing enough since marriage is a choice now, unless the parents legally claim their children, they don’t have any parental rights and technically (in some states) until they do the child belongs to the state.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: