COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION SEARCH, REPORT, ANALYSIS ON LUMINAQ

EDITOR’S COMMENT: All they are seeking to do is restate the obvious — that if the foreclosure is not done properly, title will never be clear — a point that we have been making for three years here. It is a very hot issue since the title companies are at maximum risk here and might be accused of bad faith in writing the policy when they knew about the securitization scheme and didn’t protect the beneficiary of the policy – not to speak of the tremendous liability that is brewing in millions of of other transactions and foreclosures.

The Connecticut Bill seeks to make that perfectly clear and places the burden where it should be — on the would-be forecloser, to assure that they are the correct party initiating the foreclosure and that a “credit bid” is not entered in lieu of cash at the auction by a party who is not the creditor.


Connecticut SB 1074 | Sen Musto Seeks to Change Title Rules in Foreclosure Cases, Force Banks to Perfect their Legal Right Before Foreclosure Action

Today, March 11, 2011, 37 minutes ago | Foreclosure FraudGo to full article

Musto Seeks to Change Title Rules in Foreclosure Cases

Proposal would level playing field between banks and homeowners

Amidst national reports of shoddy paperwork processing that led to suspended foreclosure proceedings at many major lenders, state Senator Anthony Musto (D-Trumbull) is pushing legislation that would require banks to perfect their legal right to property before they can file a foreclosure action.

Under current state law, banks and other lenders are exempt from recording their mortgage assignments, and thus securing their rights to the mortgage, before foreclosing on property—in contrast to individuals, who must properly record such things as deeds, liens and easements in public land records to make them effective.

“Our law treats banks, mortgage holders and other lending institutions different from everyone else,” said Senator Musto, who testified in support of the bill before the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee this past Friday. “With recent fraudulent document scandals involving some of the countries biggest mortgage lenders, and with a foreclosure crisis planted at the root of our continuing economic troubles, it makes no sense to allow banks to skip a step required by everyone else to secure an interest in the land. This bill will remove an unreasonable exemption and provide an additional layer of security for homeowners. Banks simply need to play by the same set of rules everyone else uses.”

Formally, the bill would repeal Section 47-17 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The legislation—Senate Bill 1074, An Act Concerning Foreclosure When Legal Title Has Not Been Conveyed—currently waits for action from the Judiciary Committee.

The 2011 legislative session adjourns on June 8.

Senator Anthony Musto represents Bridgeport, Trumbull and Monroe in the state Senate, where he serves as chair of the Human Services Committee.

SOURCE: State Senator Anthony Musto

Bill text below




An Act Concerning Foreclosure When Legal Title Has Not Been Conveyed

15 Responses

  1. Anon I believe you and i also think they knew it would be a problem eventually. Just as mers is there for a reason again I don’t believe they didn’t get the fact that they were surplanting their own
    self serving rules of recording for tried and tested method already in place and actually legal! But the money they made we will never know so obviously this mess was worth it to some of them
    there’s a reason for every manuevere the banksters make and it is never in the majority interest and frankly these days neither is justice ” the most good for the majority”

  2. Deb wynn,

    Note is split for a reason — never paid off in a refinance.

  3. Fixation I can’t help fixating excuse the pun.. The note is split and cannot be fixed retroactively, Why, well with mers in The mix how can you proove a negative Isn’t thst the point of ucc fixation law and the indorsement of a negotiable instrment and the allonge being part of the note that’s ” fixation” all stAtes laws are unambiguous regarding this therefor title is slandered at Inception being ths mers is to hold bare legal title solely as nominee but like a camelian kept changing it’s legal capacity in the form of one or two robosigners
    the debt owed may be many times infact to many entities we already have a case with 2 origional ink signed notes… Godknows what they did with my name my name is slandered too !

  4. cubed2k,

    Even if you pay — you will never be credited for payment. WHY?? — you never know who is actually being paid – because – it is NOT the party of record. .

  5. How about this then. Instead of credit bid on trustees deed upon sale they took thr time and trouble to write ( handwritten) “cash” now why do you think they did that. It’s so transparent if the trustee is the trustee for the certificate holders then it’s usually a credit bud right but if he isn’t maybe then they pretend they pay cash
    either way the guy that sold it to him is committing fraud.

  6. credit cards should actually be called debt cards, not to be confused with debit. Home equity should actually have been called home debt or line of debt, not line of credit. Would any of you have gotten a credit card if it was actually called a “debt card”?

    Next time you go to the store, ask other customers there if they would apply for the new thing called a “debt card”? Ask your friends.

    I’m telling you whatever the financial industry states as good is actually bad and vice versa. You have to view their statements from their point of view, same for the Government. Cash for clunkers, credit for buying a new home. Wow, what great programs from who’s point of view? From the creditor point of view – great, from the debtor point of view, no.

  7. This repeal is such a long time coming in leveling the field. It should have been this way all throughout this unfair process of foreclosures. I do hope that it passes, and I do hope that something similar in other states like California, where the homeowners seem not to have any help from any government officials. Banks have had it their way for so long acting like the 19th century Mafia and the law is beneath them. It’s time like you said to level the field and give homeowners a bone here and there!.

  8. ok, so if you think I’m a deadbeat for not paying my debts to the banks,

    Solving this debt problem by writing down debts strikes many people as unimaginable. There is a moralizing tendency to imagine that all debts can be paid – and that if they are not paid, it must be the debtor’s fault. This is an ideology well popularized by the financial sector. You might call it the opposite of “truth in lending.” It encourages gullibility. The prospective borrower is treated as a “counterparty” – itself a rather hostile term.

    “Thinking that debts can’t be paid strikes most people as cognitive dissonance. Yet Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that no government ever had paid off the public debt. The “magic of compound interest” makes it impossible for all debts to be paid over time.”

    And thus it was about 2 years ago that I RE-discovered the magic of compound interest and realized I was on the wrong side of the equation and when they raised my credit card rates to 30% and everybody else, why I decided that is it. I don’t need your credit dollars.

  9. I defaulted on my credit cards two ago. I have been living rent free for 1 year now. Screw you banks and the wealthy. I’m out of your rat cage. I win, hahaha. Thank you very much. I am stronger as a result.

  10. First we bailed out Wall Street (tax payer money), now after some time we must reduce the deficient (cut tax payer services). So the tax payer (middle class) gets hit twice. Am I seeing this right?

    A review:


  11. I know nothing and if I think I know something I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    In my opinion, it appears they are setting it up so the settlements include a modification and that mod, just may or may not include wording that gives them first lien on the property (an interest secured in the home; a security interest).

    Who better to bear false witness against himself than the homeowner?

    Suppose the homeowner swears or states under penalty of perjury, within that mod, that there is no other lien holder while they are signing that mod, and WHAMO, they can file that thing and claim first lien and by filing in the public land records secure their interest.

    If a homeowner will file for bankruptcy to keep their home, then they’ll sign anything to keep their home.
    (bankruptcy being the worse thing in the world…they are cleaned out….and I still can’t get an unemployed one to tell me they filed for bankruptcy..but man there has to be a connection, in my opinion!)

    I still have the opinion, that this is all part of the plan by them banks. They knew how much money could be made breaking the law, and they knew if they botched the clean up people will be angry, so they botch it for a while, allow someone to reveal the ‘mistake’ and then get a settlement that lets them ‘steal’ the titles free and clear from investors, land owners, the state itself and they still become the largest land owner making everyone else tenants. Imagine making tens of trillions in the fraud, losing 30-50 billion in the settlement. Some of that is from homes not sold yet so it’s not really a big deal since credit was used to buy it back, and some of it on homes that did sell, but they already got the money from another bank so that other bank is holding that loss.

    Sounds like a winning combination to me. A plan that knew when the failure occurred when to let it fail so an endorsed correction can be made.

    Didn’t someone say something similar to this?
    “I care nothing of a nations laws as long as I can control the money supply.”

    In my opinion, AG’s settlement verifies that confidence.

    In my opinion, there is the conflict of interest. They squeezed the people and reduced the money supply so the people would lose their ability to pay.
    They have their hand in everything financial, and attorneys have their hand in everything legal, and attorneys get paid from the financial.

    BUT, while this game is being played, there is an unraveling taking place. If I still had my home, in my opinion, I would hold off on a mod as long as I could, as the unravel takes place, or I’d be smart enough to ‘modify’ their mod and cross out what is still unconscionable, and add what I consider true.

    If the mortgage is supposed to be in a trust, then, in my opinion, I’d probably add something like, “this mortgage was supposed to be in trust abc according to the SEC and I understand this mod is only because the bank needs to perfect title, but if there is evidence of a creditor before this entity claiming to be creditor then this contract is void, as I am stating under oath or penalty of perjury there is no other lien and may not be aware of hidden financial issues contradictory to this statement.”

    Somewhere in the process, I’d be the ‘adult’ in the situation and set my own terms in this (so called quote) agreement between parties that these AG’s are setting up.

    In my opinion, I’d probably state no foreclosure action can occur prior to communicating with the real creditor for negotiating the terms of the foreclosure, or I’d say, if a foreclosure action occurs, return all my payments made on the home plus any basis (or costs for improvements and upgrades), plus the original documents and I’ll return the keys.

    In my opinion, right now homeowners have the home right now and can set their agreements within that modification and not have to just accept the bank’s terms.

    This is a contract. I signed one without realizing how detrimental it could be that someone who was Trustee could hand my title over to another attorney because they both have the same client!

    That was MY title! It was put up as collateral for the debt!

    In my opinion, I’d probably state I inhabit this home (or something similiar) and make sure they know my STATUS AND STANDING in the document such that no one looking at it will be able to place me under an expressed or constructive trust without my consent.

  12. They must have gotten a copy of this – straight from
    the horse’s mouth:
    “DISCLAIMER: MERS makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or reliability of the information provided. MERS disclaims responsibility or liability for errors, omissions, and the accuracy of any information provided.
    MERS does not input any of the information found on the MERS® System, but rather the MERS Members have that responsibility regarding mortgage loans in which they hold an interest. Users of this information have the responsibility to verify the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information. The information does not
    constitute the official legal record and is for informational purposes only….”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: