BOA PR Campaign Continues to SPIN Legitimacy of loans and BOA Status

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

EDITOR’S NOTE: OK they are tripling the number of mortgage centers but they still will offer no help. They don’t own the mortgage, note or receivable. They never purchased the mortgage, note or receivable. They are not the authorized agent of the creditor because they violated the terms of the Pooling and Service Agreement by NOT transferring the mortgage, note or receivable into the pools. Any deal made with BOA, for the most part, is a meaningless piece of drivel unless you can get a Judge to issue a declaratory judgment quieting title and approving the settlement. Otherwise you might just as well negotiate a modification or settlement with Donald Duck.

Bank of America to Triple Number of Mortgage Help Centers

By

Bank of America plans to triple the number of local centers across the country that provide assistance to mortgage customers facing foreclosure, lifting the total to 40 from 12 by early summer.

The bank, which will announce the plan on Thursday, will focus on regions hit especially hard by the rising tide of homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments. Seven locations will open in California and three in the Detroit area; other centers will be unveiled in St. Louis, Newark, Philadelphia and Tucson, among other cities.

Just over two million homes are in foreclosure nationwide, according to LPS Mortgage Monitor, and another two million borrowers are severely delinquent.

Additional centers may open later this year, the bank said. Counselors fluent in languages including Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian will be available for non-English speaking customers.

“There are some people that prefer a face-to-face experience,” said Rebecca Mairone, national mortgage outreach executive for Bank of America. “They prefer telling their story face to face or need additional information about documents or other counseling. We’re committed to helping distressed customers.”

Most of the counselors in the new centers will be transferred from other areas of the mortgage business, like sales and originations, which have slowed with the decline in mortgage demand.

Bank of America officials said their internal foreclosure procedures had changed in the wake of public criticism, and that the centers were being opened partly in response to customer feedback.

Despite the plans for the new centers, local housing advocates said they remained skeptical of the bank’s willingness to reduce loan balances or otherwise ease the terms of existing mortgages.

Bank of America, the nation’s largest mortgage servicer, and other major banks are overhauling their approach to dealing with distressed homeowners in response to pressure from regulators.

After a public uproar began last fall over problems in the foreclosure process, regulators in Washington and all 50 state attorneys general began a broad inquiry into servicing procedures. In particular, they looked at issues like frequently lost material and at cases in which bank officials reviewed thousands of documents a month with only a cursory glance, a practice known as robo-signing.

Fourteen servicers signed consent orders last month with federal regulators. The orders restrict foreclosure-related fees, and mandate servicers to provide a single point of contact for homeowners who are behind on their payments and an appeals process for borrowers whose first request for a loan modification was turned down.

Separate negotiations are still under way between the major servicers and the state attorneys general, who are pressing the banks to set aside billions to help distressed homeowners modify their mortgages.

Since January 2009, Bank of America has doubled the number of employees who deal with troubled borrowers, to 28,000, but critics say the process still leaves much to be desired.

“If they don’t change the way they interpret the rules for making modifications, the centers won’t make that much of a difference,” said Avis Holmes, executive director of the Detroit Non-Profit Housing Corporation, which provides counseling to homeowners in danger of default. “It seems like they’re more interested in ways not to fully implement modifications.”

Ms. Mairone said that Detroit would soon have three centers to help troubled borrowers, but said “many of these customers will not be able to get modifications.” Instead, she said, the local centers can ease the process, providing other options like allowing customers to sell their homes and pay back as much as they can without a foreclosure, a process known as a short sale.

76 Responses

  1. B of A is committed to one thing only….making more money. Saying they want to help distressed homeowners is a bunch of BS, and Mr. Monihan, (sp?) knows that better than anyone. Does He, (“They”) really think we are THAT stupid? And Mr. Mozillo….I hope you never sleep again… until “then”.

  2. @ Hanna L

    The 2005 vintage note is on LEGAL paper.

  3. Would you please tell if you got a loan from
    2005-2006, is your note on letter size or legal size paper? It’s very important! Thanks

  4. @BSTL;
    “Without a note, a bank cannot prove it has a right to foreclose on a home; homeowners have used the absence of a note to contest foreclosures. BANKS SHOULD NOT HAVE A NOTE AS A RESULT OF SECURITIZATION, NO?”

    A holder can either present the original note or a credible lost note affidavit.

    Pursuant to securitization documents, the banks that sue as plaintiff- “INDENTURE trustees” generally are supposed to go to the CUSTODIAN bank and sign out the file–leaving a trail of where the note/loan file is/was.

    It appears that the lengthy provisions in the securitization docs were not followed for some originator/servicers. Instead they kept the files in their own warehouses–even had clauses allowing them to charge about everone but the indenture trustee for photocopies. [THEY DID NOT ALWAYS OVERLOOK DETAILS !]

    “Likewise, a missing note compromises the legal rights of an investor in a mortgage security, a situation that has prompted some investors to sue the banks that sold them the securities.”
    COMMENTS PLEASE…”

    There are many things that these outfits–private lables— did that may have damaged investors:
    sure–not following the securitization docs vis separation of responsibilities might.——-also losing their priority in bankruptcy by failing to file loan schedules with appropriate Secretary of State offices—

    But also if they did not adequately disclose the defective loans in the bottom tranches—eg knowinly over-appraising—-no doc loans etc—-however what does one say if Moodys gives a AAA and no loan list was filed–Moodys seems to have no responsibility to even look at the filings to see if they were complete–so investors relied on Moodys to no purpose. Clearly somebody is at fault re the investors if no loan schedules were filed anywhere.

    But Moody’s role is most troubling to me—–the underlying non-filing issue seems material to me –whatever dis Moodys get paid for? to review the data the securitizer gave them rather than the materials filed with SEC –or at least represented as filed with SEC?

    Why is Moodys opinion worth anything? with no standard of care and no duty?

  5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/10/mortgage-fraud-reports_n_859845.html
    MY INSERTIONS IN CAPS:
    “Homeowners and investors have filed numerous lawsuits against mortgage companies, claiming that crucial mortgage documents were misplaced or even forged.
    Some of these suits have been successful, bolstered by testimony from bank employees.
    In a widely cited example, an employee of the lender now owned by Bank of America testified in a New Jersey court in 2009 that her company regularly held onto mortgage notes even as the loans were sold to investors (DOESN’T THIS CONSTITUTE SECURITIES FRAUD?), contradicting what contracts usually require.
    Without a note, a bank cannot prove it has a right to foreclose on a home; homeowners have used the absence of a note to contest foreclosures. BANKS SHOULD NOT HAVE A NOTE AS A RESULT OF SECURITIZATION, NO?
    Likewise, a missing note compromises the legal rights of an investor in a mortgage security, a situation that has prompted some investors to sue the banks that sold them the securities.”
    COMMENTS PLEASE….

  6. From In re Sheridan, Idaho 2009

    “Hasso v. Mozsgai (In re La Sierra Fin. Servs.),
    290 B.R. 718 (9th Cir. BAP 2002), explained that the doctrine of standing encompasses both constitutional limitations on federal court jurisdiction (i.e., the case or controversy requirements of Article III), and prudential limitations on the court’s exercise of that
    jurisdiction. Constitutional standing requires an
    injury in fact, viz. an invasion of a judicially
    cognizable interest. 290 B.R. at 726-27. Prudential
    standing requires that the party’s assertions fall
    within the zone of interests protected by the statute
    and, further, requires that the litigant assert only
    its own rights and not those of another party. Id.
    at 727 (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 167-68 (1997). The party asserting standing exists has the BURDEN OF PROVING IT. Id. at 726. ……

    These same standing requirements were
    recently highlighted in a stay relief context by the court in In re Jacobson, ___ B.R. ___, 2009 WL 567188 at Page 8 *5-6 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2009).

    2. Real party in interest

    Under Rule 9014, which by virtue of Rule 4001(a)(1) governs stay relief requests, certain “Part VII” rules are applicable. See Rule 9014(c). Among those incorporated rules is Rule 7017,
    which in turn incorporates Fed.R.Civ.P. 17, and Rule 17(a)(1) provides that “An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”

    Jacobson notes that its moving party, who claimed to be a servicer for the holder of the note, “neither asserts beneficial interest in the note, nor that it could enforce the note in its own right.” 2009 WL 567188 at *4. It concluded that Fed.R.Civ.P. 17 applied, requiring the stay relief motion to be brought in the name of the real party in interest. Id. (citing In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 767 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)); see also In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 521 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). As Jacobson
    summarized:

    The real party in interest in relief from stay is
    whoever is entitled to enforce the obligation sought to be enforced. Even if a servicer or agent has authority to bring the motion on behalf of the holder, it is the holder, rather than the servicer, which must be the moving party, and so identified in the papers and in the electronic docketing done by the moving party’s counsel.

    The upshot of these several provisions of the Code, Rules, local rules and case law is this: to obtain stay relief, a motion must be brought by a party in interest, with standing. This means the motion must be brought by one who has a pecuniary interest in the case and, in connection with secured debts, by the entity that is entitled to payment from the debtor and to enforce security for such payment. That entity is the real party in interest.
    It must bring the motion or, if the motion is filed by a servicer or nominee or other agent with claimed
    authority to bring the motion, the motion must IDENTIFY and be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest……………”

    The court said in regard to a newly submitted note with an endorsement not on the note originally proferred:
    “Sixth, even were it considered, the “new” Note’s asserted indorsement states: “Pay To The Order Of [blank] Without Recourse” and then purports to be signed by Fieldstone Mortgage Company through a named assistant vice president. There is no
    date nor indication of who was or is the transferee. Fieldstone Mortgage Company may have indorsed the Note in blank, but this document does not alone establish that either HSBC Bank USA or
    Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust is the Note’s holder.

    Thus, even if a “nominee” such as MERS could properly bring a motion for stay relief in the name of and on behalf of the real party in interest — the entity that has rights in and pecuniary
    interest under the Note secured by the Deed of Trust — nothing of record adequately establishes who that entity actually is.
    Under the evidence submitted at the § 362(e) final hearing, which consists solely of Exhibit 1, the only entity that MERS could conceivably represent as an agent/nominee would be Fieldstone Mortgage Company. But MERS does not represent that party
    according to the Motion and, in fact, its contentions are to the effect that Fieldstone Mortgage Company is no longer a party in interest.[fn18]

    At the time of that final hearing, counsel for Movant conceded that he had no documentation provided to him by his “client” which indicated the interests under the Note or Deed of Trust were held by either HSBC Bank USA or the Fieldstone Mortgage
    Investment Trust. Counsel filed the Motion and characterized the Movant’s identity therein based solely on undocumented representations made to him. This would appear to be a problematic approach generally.[fn19] And, in this particular case, Trustee’s objection to the Motion put the matter at issue and Movant to its PROOF……………

  7. Cattle in field analogy;
    now that you bring it up its strict liability too. But in my county corn is more important than cows—more of it—and you have no chance of catching your cows again–so the sheriff shoots them if they do not come back of their own accord and after you did your best -because risk is not really to corn-its to auto-drivers—much bigger consequences for having unruly herd than just corn

    maybe they shot lehman?

  8. To David,
    I love the cow analogy. Yes it is like a prison break on a debt slavery plantation enclosed by barb
    wire. The first cows will get impaled but the later cows will climb over their dead bodies and escape to freedom. yes the “gullible cows” are starting to
    smell freedom and will not remained caged up much longer!

  9. re: remaining note. Homestead your property. You will at least ‘shelter’ the amt of your state’s homestead exempton. In Nevada, it’s 550k.

  10. @ David C Breidenbach

    Regarding the cows out in the corn field:

    Now if that corn field belongs to a neighbor who is not on the best of terms with you, and the herd has done a lot of damage to the crop, that neighbor just MIGHT herd the lot into a holding pen and demand damages for his crop before you can take your cattle back. If the bull was also with the herd, depending on the state and the temperament of that bull, some states used to allow charges for allowing a dangerous animal to get lose.

    Certainly with proof of the cattle being yours and the trampled field, you’d be paying for the crop.

    Now regarding the Bovine from Wall Street, they are all bulls. Remember bulls can be designated as dangerous animal. I think it is time to turn some of them into steers and also time for a huge round-up, branding and rodeo followed by a monster-bash beef barbeque. Some of the critters will only make good stew meat, but some of it is so nicely fattened, it will make some decent steaks. There will be lots of fatten bulls that need to be slaughtered since they are too dangerous to be kept on Wall St.

  11. By assuring that the players in this phenomical demise which those in the industry have bestowed upon us – that price would be astronomical and simply cannot be met. And our expectation that if the rule of law was applied which would give us some degree of satisfaction, that would be an expectation that will never be met.

    solution: Resolve the issue asap by coming up with an amount that will offer proper compensation for damages done. This would constitute a real admission of guilt, but it would give the banks, etc., and opportunity to understand that “they will follow the rule of law – that they are not immune.

    I am sure they want to put this behind them asap and who doesn’t. The people have a right to know more about any potential settlements – where is that information and will they get a chance to challenge it before it is agreed upon.

    If no jail time, then the price will be high to compensate those they have harmed – they need to thank about it. But of course, they know or are at least confident – they can beat the system. Our courts and law enforcement so far along with the administration have shown this to be true. Otherwise foreclosures would have stopped several years ago.

  12. tO:Mike H added a new comment to the post BOA PR Campaign Continues to SPIN Legitimacy of loans and BOA Status.

    i THINK THE WAY THE BANKS HAVE OPERATED CAN BE PUT IN SIMPLE TERMS. IF A SINGLE COW BANGS HER HEAD INTO A FENCE, SHE JUST GETS BOUNCED BACK WITH A SORE NECK—–BUT IF 25 OF EM RUSH THE FENCE TOGETHER THE FRONT COUPLE HIT THE FENCE, GET CLIMBED OVER BY THOSE BEHIND AND NOW THEY ARE OUT GRAZING FREELY IN THE COMPLETELY UNFENCED CORNFIELD.

    NOW WHAT DO YOU DO. HERD EM BACK IN ??

  13. To Mike H;
    WOW what great facts.
    \ We commenced a quiet title on the 1st suing
    “dead lender”, Mers, and the servicer. We shall see
    what happens. My prediction: “dead lender and MERS will default, servicer will not be able to prove
    they own the Note ,nor the mortgage. Note holder
    will never appear because original was photocopied and sold multiple times on the secondary Note market. The original was destroyed
    to hide the crime of counterfeiting. My client winds up with an unencumbered house.

    IM SORRY IM NOT FAMILIAR WITH DEAD LENDER–YOU MEAN BANKRUPT–THAT JUST MEANS SOMEBODY IS SLEEPING ON THE NOTE AND WILL EVENTUALLY BUY AN ACCOUNT AND DO A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT-IM THINKING—–MAYBE A TRAIL OF CRAP BUT YES WHAT DO YOU DO IF THEY SHOW UP WITH LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT-YOUR WORD ON ALL THAT STUFF VS THEIRS-DISCRETION OF COURT??? YOU GONNA TRY ALL THOSE OTHER FACTS IN A HEARING? I MEAN YES ITS GOOD LAW—–BUT WHAT DO I KNOW-ITS THE JUDGE THAT COUNTS-

    QUESTION WHAT DOES THE CREDIT REPORT SAY ABOUT THE 1ST-HOW DO YOU GET RID OF THAT BUT BK? MAYBE WHO CARES-BUT I COULD NEVER LIVE WITH THE UNCERTAINTY AND NOT PUT MONEY INTO MAINTENANCE ETC NOT BE AFRAID TO ANSWER THE DOOR–MAYBE–SELL HOUSE QUICKLY TO A GOOD FAITH BUYER? IS THAT SAFE TO HIM? I THINK THATS THE BANKS PROBLEM TODAY? TITLE INSURANCE-WHAT WILL A NEW INSURER SAY WHEN YOU SELL? I DONT KNOW-

  14. TO CONCERNED
    On another thread, the following comment on this situation has been raised by Jan van Eck: “I would suggest that you have either a “Wild Instrument” as assignment, or a document manufactured in anticipation of litigation with the express purpose to perpetrate a deceit (or both). Since foreclosures are inherently equitable matters, and the act is a willful act prior to coming to Court (or concurrent to it), then you have the set of events addressed by the US Supreme Court in the matter of “Keystone Driller v. General Excavator,” 290 US 240. Note that the Court in that case ruled that “the Court House Doors shall be barred in limine, and he shall take nothing by his complaint.” See at 245. This allows you to get a dismissal with prejudice, and probably a voiding of the Note and the Mortgage. Then sue the bums.”

    So, for those of us with an assignment that is as flawed as my own, I may have VERY good grounds for having the note VOIDED entirely. That would be ‘lover-ly” (ala My Fair Lady).

    i DONT THINK THAT THEY HAVE DONE ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU THAN IS TYPICAL—–SAD BUT TRUE

    i AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS RE COURT SITTING IN EQUITY AND ETC—-I REMEMBER THE PROFS TALKING ABOUT THAT STUFF IN LAWSCHOOL 35 YEARS AGO—AND IT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE——BUT THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS HAVE “SCHOOLED” ON YOU—–AGGREGATED THEIR SHORT-CUTS AND WORSE SUCH THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM CRASHES IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY HELD TO THE RULES

    AT LEAST SO THEY WOULD ASSERT

    SO WHAT THE POLICY MAKERS MUST DO IS BALANCE THE INTEREST OF YOUR 401K AGAINST YOUR INTEREST AS AN OBLIGOR AND TRY TO CREATE AN APPROVED CLEANUP DEVICE-THAT WILL AT LEAST PREVENT DUPLICATE CLAIMS ON THE NOTE–OUTSIDE BANKRUPTCY—

    BUT THEY HAVE SHREADED THE LAW OF MORTGAGES, REAL ESTATE, UCC—SEC EVERY RULE THAT GOT IN THE WAY——SO THE SOLE ISSUE OTHER THAN MECHANISM FOR CORRECTION OF THESE MANY -FAILED NOTARIZATIONS ETC-AND A DETERRENT TO REPETITION

    I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS ANY DETERRENT HERE THAT WORKS UNLESS SOME OF THE OLD LAWS ARE APTLY APPLIED –AND AT VERY LEAST THE RECOVERY OF ILL GOTTEN GAINS–IF NOT THAT BAR THEM FROM THE BUSINESS PLEASE

  15. Mike:

    I am curious about this.

    1) Somebody owns the note and somebody has proof that you made payments on the first to the loan servicer of record. The servicer’s records will show that the money is being remitted every month through the investor accounting system so there is an owner out there somewhere even when MERS is not considered the creditor.

    I hope you are right that the first lien lender is a dead lender – but the truth of the matter is – someone owns that note – MERS is not receiving the money, but someone is – Now if someone is collecting and can’t explain what happen to their paperwork – then perhaps

    I don’t know – I am sure you now have a release of lien on the 2nd since you agreed to pay them the $16K, so that was a really good deal for you. But I still worry about the first lender being a dead lender thingy.

    Also, if the first lien holder stays in place and eventualy forecloses – you would be out the $16K. Is that right?

    What is the status of the MERS issue? WE know they are not the beneficiary of anything and do not receive any money – but somebody did.

    any comments to help me understand it.

  16. Dear David C. Breidenbach,
    Here are the facts on a case I am working in Florida. Property value =180k, 1st= 292K, 2nd=88k.
    1st lender is a “dead lender” and no assignment
    ever occurred, servicer refuses to produce the Note,
    it is a MERS mortgage. 2nd is a “live lender” and
    the owner is in default on the second but current
    on the 1st. 2nd is threatening foreclosure if full
    balance not paid immediately.
    Question: Does the 2nd know something we don’t know? Is that why they are so bold?
    My solution: I negotiated a “cram down” on the 2nd for 16k. They accepted. 2nd is now gone!
    \ We commenced a quiet title on the 1st suing
    “dead lender”, Mers, and the servicer. We shall see
    what happens. My prediction: “dead lender and MERS will default, servicer will not be able to prove
    they own the Note ,nor the mortgage. Note holder
    will never appear because original was photocopied and sold multiple times on the secondary Note market. The original was destroyed
    to hide the crime of counterfeiting. My client winds up with an unencumbered house.
    BUT: worse case scenario true note holder shows up, we do a Chapter 7 using the HX exemption and wipe out the unsecured Note in BK.

  17. In ordinary times before 1998 – the entity holding the negotiable instrument would be considered the note holder – however, if the current note holder did not come by the note by proper chain of ownership (assignment of Note and Lien), why would they be considered the right holder of the note.

    For example – the note was endorsed over to the trustee by a company that was not part of the transaction other than the (table funder) and this table funding was never disclosed to any participants of the closing.

    Also, the loan was in default by the time the note was transferred by assignment 5 years after the closing date of the Mortgage Loan Purchase AGreement. The originator sold the NOte to the table funder who in turn endorsed to trustee for certificate holder. However, the endorsement from the table funder was not part of the PSA therefore, it was in conflict: The originator endorsed the note without recourse to the table funder who endorsed to the trustee – but the originator also sold the note to the depositor (sponsor by MLPA – so he sold it to two different parties .

    The NOte I believe is a “NOTE” in transit back from the Trustee to the Depositor as a “PUT or REPURCHASE ITEM – tHAT BEING SAID, HOW IS IT THAT THE TRUSTEE CAN CLAIM HE IS THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE LEGALLY?

    CAN SOMEONE STRAIGHTEN ME OUT ON THIS. As far as I am concerned – once it was established in the trust department that we had an unacceptable loan – repurchase was requested and as of that point – the NOTE belonged (in the case of a MLPA) to the Depositor/originator – not the trustee.

    The courts during 2007-10 were saying -produce the note and you can foreclose – I just don’t get it because they did not prove they owned the loan and the note follows the loan – does it not. All the Court saw was an endorsement to the NOTE TO THE TRUSTEE BUT WOULD NOT LISTEN TO OUR EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS ENDORSED BY THE WRONG PARTY. SINCE THE Mortgage Loan purchase Schedule did not list the loan id infomation, he decided to award to them based on their holding the note which had been endorsed to them.

    I have had to request bunches of repurchases from cmopanies which the banks purcahsed those notes and liens and we took the position that the bank was not the owner of the note and we endorsed the note back over to the seller. What happen to that policy – It worked beautifully.

  18. @ David C Breidenbach

    I had also made a comment on another post here that has elicited another slant on these documents that are created late and try to do impossible assignments of the Notes along with the DOT.

    In my case, after a skirmish in state court over a permanent mod that the pretenders breached, I shifted gears to fight them on the mortgage front. In that initial skirmish though, the pretenders already had alleged the investor was a particular trust’s certificate-holders. Now NO ASSIGNMENT was in evidence nor produced during that initial skirmish, just court documents signed by Litton or their attorneys.

    Now with the fight entering a federal court, Litton concocted the assignment dated in 2010 to that particular trust with it being a single assignment from the never-formed corporation name directly into the particular trust with it’s trustee for the particular certificate-holders. Multiple problems exist on the face of that assignment, let alone the problems with not abiding by the PSA chain of assignments and not doing them 5 years earlier when they should have occurred. [Note it was created AFTER it was already claimed to exist in the prior court case?]

    An added problem is that Litton TRIED to assign the NOTE at the same time. But of ultimate importance is the timing of the creation of this document. For some of us this may work out to be the key.

    On another thread, the following comment on this situation has been raised by Jan van Eck: “I would suggest that you have either a “Wild Instrument” as assignment, or a document manufactured in anticipation of litigation with the express purpose to perpetrate a deceit (or both). Since foreclosures are inherently equitable matters, and the act is a willful act prior to coming to Court (or concurrent to it), then you have the set of events addressed by the US Supreme Court in the matter of “Keystone Driller v. General Excavator,” 290 US 240. Note that the Court in that case ruled that “the Court House Doors shall be barred in limine, and he shall take nothing by his complaint.” See at 245. This allows you to get a dismissal with prejudice, and probably a voiding of the Note and the Mortgage. Then sue the bums.”

    So, for those of us with an assignment that is as flawed as my own, I may have VERY good grounds for having the note VOIDED entirely. That would be ‘lover-ly” (ala My Fair Lady).

    As to my second, the lender went bankrupt. No assignment has ever been recorded. The replacement servicer has sold off the debt-collection rights. I suspect they need to go back to the original lender’s bankruptcy to try to get an assignment.

    Does anyone here know anything about “Secured Funding”? That is the lender that bankrupted in 2007 or 2008 as I recall.

  19. Some servicers get a head of themselves but most order the change of endorsement to the mortgagee of record with the servicer if that is to whom the trustee transferred the deed to. It is usually done immediately on those whereby the servicer force placed the policy. If it was not a force placed policy, then they should order a new one in the new owner’s name, be it the investor (in securitizations it would be the trustee on behalf of the certificate holders.)

    As far as the non judicial states – it is quite disturbing that some states allow it. These would be the states that appear to be in bed with the lenders. We are going to see what we can do about that in TExas, along with a few other foreclosure issues which clearly disadvantage the homeowner – you know, the guy that voted those people into office. Did not take the representative long to “fall in line” if you will.

    Any representative worth his salt would have known years ago that the foreclosure laws did not work in the best interest of the property owner – yet, did anyone fight them here in Texas.

    I wasn’t on top of that issue but I will be now. Now that the realtors association has had their big picnic with the legislature in Austin, we are going to go in and try to convince that we don’t intend to be the garbage left behind.

    Realtors did much to work in tandem with lenders, and title companies to help create this mess – and now they have a picnic rewarding each other – I don’t think so.

  20. M. Cauthen;
    If the first lien is foreclosed, then the second lien holder moves into first position. Issues may come up regarding invalid first lien mortgages or the statute of limitations so one has to be careful about which lien gets removed first.

    Assume the court finds the first lien mortgage is invalid for whatever reason holds and the court requires them to release the first lien. This could be mean that the second lien holder who may have a debt for $40,000 could get the property for that. Foreclosures wipe out the lien, but a court order does not wipe out the second lien. I think this is correct – but am just now investigating it.

    See an attorney – we are not attorneys but these are issues that have come up in our advocacy files And which were referred on to an attorney.

    YOUR ANALYSIS POINTED UP THE ONLY REASON THE 1ST WOULD WANT TO BUY THE 2ND—-SINCE THE 2ND IS GENERALLY SO FAR BELOW WATER ON A SUBPRIME OR BRUISED CREDIT-LOAN—THE VALUE IS ZIP——EXCEPT THE NUISANCE VALUE TO THE 1ST WHO MAY HAVE GOTTEN ONE BY THE HOME-OWNER BUT THE 2ND IS ON TO THE GAME. IT DOES INDICATE THAT THE 1STS KNOW VERY WELL THAT SOME VULTURE IS AFTER THE 2ND—–AND I MIGHT SUGGEST ANY OF YOU WHO ACQUIRE THE 2ND CAN DO THE SAME–EVEN IF YOU SETTLED ON THE 1ST. BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE IN THE SHOES OF THE 2ND WHOSE DUE PROCESS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN DEFECTIVE 1ST CLAIMS

  21. Concerned added a new comment to the post BOA PR Campaign Continues to SPIN Legitimacy of loans and BOA Status.

    There are several legal issues involved. And virtually any one of the many writers here has either or both personal knowledge or professional knowledge that far exceeds mine in these states that tolerate non-judicial foreclosure–which seems abhorant to me–but seeminly allows escape from deficiencies under some circumstances-which is not the case in judicial foreclosure states.

    So having said that, I do not think the rule of law of standing–and/or judicial jurisdiction should be much different. In either case the party in interest is the holder of the note–or some substantial interest in the note. And has frequently been stated in this site, it really is up to the plaintiff after you deny the claim to proceed with the burden of proving that it is the note-holder by presenting the note or an affidavit of lost note as per UCC.

    For the past 3 years the defendant homeowners’ denials were simply deemed to be implausible as a practical matter by the courts. It took the disclosure of the DOCX and other robo-signers to crack open the door there– that its maybe not so irrational that the claim might be fabricated–to put it nicely.
    My personal opinion and experience is that all this securitization detail is simply a way to demonstrate to the court the plausibility of the defense–so that the claimant actually has to prove something.
    about the note. It is very nearly impossible for you to prove the negative–no matter how hard you try.
    Only in Perry Mason did the defendant have to prove who the real murderer was to get free. Basically Perry always PROVED the negative–that his client did not do it. In this case–ie mortgages–what a lot of people are doing is trying to find out who the real owner is—-and its Perry Mason–you arent supposed to have to do that—-this is where due process is being bruised.

    The robo-signer issue basically is separate—-the assignment of mortgage is a nicety in some states. Some states simply say that the mortgage follows the note. As one well-spoken NJ court stated”the assignment is a mere distraction” -unless its also a FDCPA issue——and a cloud by having a document in the chain –the improperly notarized-ie un-notarized assignment.

    As far as insurance or swap proceeds, if the insurer, say AIG, paid out an amount that was a calculated value reduction—-under a credit default swap that is not subject to IRS excise insurance premium taxes, then the insurer/counterparty to the swap does not get title to the note—not like a wrecked car thats totaled. The insurer is not subrogated under the note–ie the insurer does not necessarily step into the shoes of the insured investor or trust or whomever. There is a good reason other than avoiding the insurance premium tax. The swap guys may be making plain bets where there really is no undelying asset to take–just gambles.

    Under old black letter insurance law–all I know—there was no limit on double recoveries either—-like life policies piled on top of each other. In most cases today, the insurance contracts themselves state that the recoveries are prioritized or subrogated etc ——so no potential for double recoveries. But here–just because the holder of your note has been paid back twice on insurance/CDS -and only paid 30cents /$ for the note as a second hand buyer-or MBS holder etc–still the law allows this double dipping. It is BAD PUBLIC POLICY-rewards totally unnecessary risk-or rigging. But thats the law most times-please tell me it aint so folks-but im thinking they do it daily -and more to come—–

    if you want to look more at insurance-look at the casualty side.–hard–who pays it –how long does it stay in place after you exit.

  22. I was quoting what can happen if a first and second lien are in force and neither has been foreclosed on.

    If the first lien is foreclosed, then the second lien holder moves into first position. Issues may come up regarding invalid first lien mortgages or the statute of limitations so one has to be careful about which lien gets removed first.

    Assume the court finds the first lien mortgage is invalid for whatever reason holds and the court requires them to release the first lien. This could be mean that the second lien holder who may have a debt for $40,000 could get the property for that. Foreclosures wipe out the lien, but a court order does not wipe out the second lien. I think this is correct – but am just now investigating it.

    See an attorney – we are not attorneys but these are issues that have come up in our advocacy files And which were referred on to an attorney.

    The second lien owner normally will not foreclose before the first because they do not want to have to pay the first lien mortgage payments. However, if the first lien cannot accomplish foreclosure then they may attempt to purchase the second lien and pay that 2nd lien party off and then foreclose the second lien since they already own the first.

    Now whether or not the first lien holder wishes to do that is their call if they think that by buying the second lien, they would be able to recover their investment. It is difficult to know what the first lien holder’s mindset in this regard will be.

    I was also curious as to whether or not the PSA or the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement addresses the issue at all and what if anything a second lien holder can do. As long as the first is in place, the second lien if they foreclose can do nothing but take over the debt owed to the first – but if the first lien party buys the second lien – the second lien holder can get out with some money. We cannot know what the mindset is going to be for each of these parties.

    One particular case we have is that the first lien is in appeals and they have been unsuccessful i n foreclosing their lien because of an injunction.

    However, there would be nothing to stop them from purchasing the second lien and then they would own both notes and of which the second lien has not been challenged in the Court In otherwords it is a business decision as to the pros and cons – must know the status of each.

    It is a choice thing. Generally however, the first lien note holder would be aware that the second lien is out there and whether or not it was challenged, but it doesn’t mean they are going to purchase it.

    Others may have information on this site that will help you – perhaps they can weigh in – I know I would appreciate it.

  23. Wonder how B of A spun this? In 2008 it was the clearing bank for Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.

    Because of the complications of transactions for LBHI, LBHI routinely had inter-day overdrafts which were then settled by the end of the day. B of A freaked out as the market slid and held LBHI’s feet to the fire to create a collateral account to the tune of 500M….in the Cayman Islands, by the way. This account was specifically set up only in regard to the inter-day overdrafts. When LBHI filed BK in September of 2008, B of A absconded wtih the funds, the 500M, without leave of the BK court and despite the fact that no overdraft existed, citing offset for other issues as a creditor of LBHI.

    The court found B of A to have violated the automatic stay to the detriment of other LBHI’ creditors, ordered B of A to return the funds with interest, and suggested a sanctions hearing, which I have not followed.

    Given then B of A’s known proclivity for IGMFU, I guess we’re not real impressed with any alleged efforts to help anyone else, especially a homeowner without a war chest for litigation.

  24. @ David C Breidenbach

    So it would possibly go to round two with many of the loans that would, at best, become like huge credit card debts.

    Now if that original named ‘LENDER’ did not do things properly, even the debt shown on the NOTE may be a problem. Remember, many of the ‘Lenders’ cut corners.

    My ‘lender’ never registered with the state, nor did the corporation ever get formed. If any entity could later claim to properly hold that note as an unsecured debt, it is going to interesting for them to PROVE. Also, I would have damages from the clouded title that could be claimed as an offset against any supposed attempt to collect on the note.

    I will admit I am not an attorney. But lets presume the following scenario: 1) the litigation stops all the pretenders from foreclosing but leaves them with the opening to come back with the ‘correct paperwork’, and 2) they do not come back with proper paperwork and eventually a Quiet Title is granted. Now with regard to that note that would then be viewed as a big unsecured debt:1) is a debt that’s based on fraud collectable? and 2) would the party trying to collect need to show how they acquired the debt and that the debt is ‘valid’ and that there had not been insurance payoffs that reduced that debt? Remember the true investors are not the ones trying to collect on these loans.

    First we stop the foreclosure with their lack of standing, etc, then we trace the money, right?

  25. David C.

    Yes, I agree – thanks for the info so everyone will know they need to be careful.

  26. M. Cauthen;

    The mortgage is merely a feature to establish the priority of claims against the defendant. In a judicial state.

    Even if you can cut-off the mortgagee’s priority-it is still likely the largest creditor and would plead the note, default, request as relief the acceleration of the note and get the judgement. Then the judgment is filed in the courthouse as a general claim on all assets and then the creditor can proceed to levy on the house, bank accounts whatever—–the house is sold at sheriffs auction and proceeds applied to the judgement debt. The creditor does not need to wait until a sale to step in and grab the proceeds–it would come up at the closing as a lien–that must be paid out of proceeds of sale-pretty much like a mortgage.

    I may have some of the details loose -like 3rd party creditor claims–bankruptcy implications and those states that limit deficiencies on residential real estate. I just wanted to express that the quiet title is not the final solution for many people-there may be a comeback on the horizon because the UCC does not cut-off a sleeping note-holder if you sue the world by publication-at least I dont think so-please correct me if im wrong

  27. John & E Tolle:

    Contracting away one’s right in certain states is an important issue and the lenders in most deeds of trust or mortgages said they would follow applicable law but may not do so.. So, without disclosing to the borrower before the borrower signed the closing documents, the borrower may very well be contracting away his right because he had no way of knowing that the lender never intended to folllow the applicable law.

    The borrower only finds out that he contracted away his right when the lender denies him his right to exercise such law. This is an issue which must be determined by the Court unless the lender allows the borrower to do what he believes he has the right to do under his state law. What was committed to in the PSA agreement does not always agree with what the borrowers may have a right to do – In fact, in their Prospectus I believe somewhere it says, there may be violations of state law from time to time – just so they are covered I guess, even though there were laws I am sure they did not intend to follow. Some of you may know more about this.

    just wondering.

    Para 3, for example for Collection of Escrow for taxes and insurance states, lender will follow applicable law – There are laws in each and every state that provide certain benefits to the borrower if they qualify and if it was not disclosed by the lender at the onset, it would seem they attempted to get the borrower to contract away his right without knowing that he was doing so –

    Anybody know anything about this?

    Also, on the quiet title issue – even if the mortgage is removed – the note survives doesn’t it?. This means to me that whoever attempts to collect on the note might be able to get a general judgment against the borrower which means it is filed of record and he can’t borrow or sell the property without paying the lender.

    I agree with David C that he is correct, about the quiet title, but can Anonymous or anyne weigh in on this aspect so we know a little more about ow the remaining note is going to be handled.

  28. I am pretty certain that modifications aren’t being done because a) banksters dont’ want to part with the HAMP gimme funds b) you can’t modify a note you don’t own c) they can’t find the notes and don’t know themselves who owns them d) even if ABC (trust, whomever) is “supposed” to own the note – being the intended end of the line – endorsement and physical transfers , etc weren’t done properly etc . and they can’t get an indemnification from the yeahhoo in the chain (depositor?) regarding the propriety (read malfeasance) of the transfers.
    It looks to me like servicers must buy notes before modifying them. They don’t want to in the first place and they can’t get the very same assurances they have told the homeowners to run along about for so many years. Foreclosing on the homeowner was one thing, but it’s not a risk the servicers are going to take – that they have purchased / modified a loan when the real note owner is unknown. Further, FNMA won’t take a modified loan back. Who’s going to buy a note where the buyer was in default? No one. The servicer has to carry it on its own books.
    Any time modification is actually done, it should include an indemnification from the modifier regarding the actual note – that the modifier indemnifies the homeowner from the ‘just’ demand of any other and or true owner since payment of a note to the wrong party is not a legal defense to non-payment to the true party. Fat chance. Otherwise one might find that one has obligated one’s self to a new obligation.
    And this does not include the implications of any kind of insurance or guarantee paid as a result of the loan’s delinquency, nor the fact that RESPA and TILA are implicated by modification. This means the modifier must be a licensed lender in states where modification is done, which does not describe many servicers. If this is true and obviously I believe it is, those people entered into the HAMP contract under false pretenses just on that score.

  29. @ ANONYMOUS

    EXACTLY.

    That is the reason people are being told to first challenge standing of those trying to foreclose and then to later seek a “Quiet Title”. People need to keep hearing this message. It takes REPETITION of a message for people to ‘get it’.

    MERS can not be a nominee for an institution that no longer exists and does not have a successor. Add to the fact that MERS is NOT on the NOTE and it ends up with the judges stating that the parties before the court have NO STANDING to foreclose.

    Look at how many loans name a ‘LENDER’ that does not exist (in some cases NEVER DID exist).

    Even in CA the judges have started ruling that MERS can not assign the loan. With the LENDER no where to be found, only falsified documents are being produced to try to take the houses. The judges are leaving many of the cases open for proper paperwork to be produced. This should end up with the house falling into limbo, awaiting an ultimate motion in state court for a Quiet Title.

    If documents are produced that claim a proper transfer did occur, they need to be professionally examined. But first, determine WHO signed them. Is it ‘MERS” that is named below the signature? Google the signer and the notary to find out more about who they work for. Check the notary’s commission with the state that issued the commission. Check that the signature was valid.

    A copy of the relevant page from the notary’s signature book should be sought during discovery (or even prior to it – some of the notaries are cooperative).

  30. m Gault said;
    “One may generally not contract away one’s rights. Period. (A friend of mine crossed out that section in his trial modification, so that was an early end to him.) But really, In the instant document to which you refer, it’s just not enforceable and banksters cannot really rely on it legally.
    What this means is that the servicer/bankster may not stand on any alleged waiver of rights in the paperwork. They apparently operate under an unfortunately accurate assessment that the average homeowner doesn’t know this”

    Im having a hard time understanding this comment—consideration for modifying the note cetainly can be predicated on a waiver —maybe not in every state——this rule may apply in criminal context [but what about Miranda?]

    please help me out here? what am i missing?.

  31. To MIKE H,
    “The solution is to do a QUIET TITLE action right from the get go. Be pro active. That way you’ll
    either discover the true owner of the Note, or get
    the mortgage wiped out.”

    wont affect the note—later they accelerate the note and make it a general lien on all property –in judicial state–dont know what effect on a non-judicial state—-not a certain panacea

  32. The reason meaningful loans mods (with principal correction) are not being given is because they cannot be given — at least not in the name of a false creditor/lender.

    Deregulation and political system – promote continued fraud.

  33. E. Tolle,

    Here is some interesting info on the history of Fed. Enjoy…

    http://www.themuckraker.net/workindec11.html

    I always welcome all comments at:

    providencegroup@ymail.com

  34. E. Tolle – what a great writer you are! It’s a pleasure (sort of – considering the topics) to read something so well said. But, I do have to comment: One may generally not contract away one’s rights. Period. (A friend of mine crossed out that section in his trial modification, so that was an early end to him.) But really, In the instant document to which you refer, it’s just not enforceable and banksters cannot really rely on it legally.
    What this means is that the servicer/bankster may not stand on any alleged waiver of rights in the paperwork. They apparently operate under an unfortunately accurate assessment that the average homeowner doesn’t know this. Further, the language is so ambiguous that it cannot be interpretted as an amendment to an existing contract, that is, the deed of trust.

  35. Notes endorsed in blank – I recently read that the SEC prohibits the trading of notes in blank. I would think, but don’t know, that this means blank endorsements, not payable to blank.

    Anyone know where this is written? MS? Thanks

  36. @BSTL where in fl? email me ssssssister@yahoo.com trying to get a foreclosures seminar together. christiam meisterr from lee county will be running it but he needs 20 people to come north to pasco/hernando/citrus counties

  37. @ e tolle thank you i read the whole post!!! but everything is true to form. what i have gone through the mod the review for the 2nd mod stalled by my file being moved. the premeditated hamp denial after losing a fed ex package. you have said it and they wells fargo wrote the book. amazing. how do we get this to th judges. they only know so much case law and i am in a small county my case will be here real soon. scared a sheck

  38. PLEASE SHARE THIS STORY!!!

    The world is drowning in corporate fraud, and the problems are probably greatest in rich countries — those with supposedly “good governance.”

    Poor-country governments probably accept more bribes and commit more offenses, but it is rich countries that host the global companies that carry out the largest offenses. Money talks, and it is corrupting politics and markets all over the world.

    Hardly a day passes without a new story of malfeasance. Every Wall Street firm has paid significant fines during the past decade for phony accounting, insider trading, securities fraud, Ponzi schemes, or outright embezzlement by CEOs.

    A massive insider-trading ring is currently on trial in New York, and has implicated some leading financial-industry figures. And it follows a series of fines paid by America’s biggest investment banks to settle charges of various securities violations.

    There is, however, scant accountability. Two years after the biggest financial crisis in history, which was fueled by unscrupulous behavior by the biggest banks on Wall Street, not a single financial leader has faced jail.

    When companies are fined for malfeasance, their shareholders, not their CEOs and managers, pay the price.

    The fines are always a tiny fraction of the ill-gotten gains, implying to Wall Street that corrupt practices have a solid rate of return. Even today, the banking lobby runs roughshod over regulators and politicians.

    Corruption pays in American politics as well. The current governor of Florida, Rick Scott, was CEO of a major health-care company known as Columbia/HCA.

    The company was charged with defrauding the United States government by overbilling for reimbursement, and eventually pled guilty to 14 felonies, paying a fine of $1.7 billion.

    The FBI’s investigation forced Scott out of his job. But, a decade after the company’s guilty pleas, Scott is back, this time as a “free-market” Republican politician.

    When Barack Obama wanted somebody to help with the bailout of the US automobile industry, he turned to a Wall Street “fixer,” Steven Rattner, even though Obama knew that Rattner was under investigation for giving kickbacks to government officials. After Rattner finished his work at the White House, he settled the case with a fine of a few million dollars.

    But why stop at governors or presidential advisers? Former Vice President Dick Cheney came to the White House after serving as CEO of Halliburton.

    During his tenure at Halliburton, the firm engaged in illegal bribery of Nigerian officials to enable the company to win access to that country’s oil fields — access worth billions of dollars.

    When Nigeria’s government charged Halliburton with bribery, the company settled the case out of court, paying a fine of $35 million. Of course, there were no consequences whatsoever for Cheney. The news barely made a ripple in the US media.

    Impunity is widespread — indeed, most corporate crimes go un-noticed. The few that are noticed typically end with a slap on the wrist, with the company — meaning its shareholders — picking up a modest fine.

    The real culprits at the top of these companies rarely need to worry. Even when firms pay mega-fines, their CEOs remain. The shareholders are so dispersed and powerless that they exercise little control over the management.

    The explosion of corruption — in the US, Europe, China, India, Africa, Brazil, and beyond — raises a host of challenging questions about its causes, and about how to control it now that it has reached epidemic proportions.

    Corporate corruption is out of control for two main reasons. First, big companies are now multinational, while governments remain national. Big companies are so financially powerful that governments are afraid to take them on.

    Second, companies are the major funders of political campaigns in places like the US, while politicians themselves are often part owners, or at least the silent beneficiaries of corporate profits. Roughly one-half of US Congressmen are millionaires, and many have close ties to companies even before they arrive in Congress.

    As a result, politicians often look the other way when corporate behavior crosses the line. Even if governments try to enforce the law, companies have armies of lawyers to run circles around them. The result is a culture of impunity, based on the well-proven expectation that corporate crime pays.

    Given the close connections of wealth and power with the law, reining in corporate crime will be an enormous struggle. Fortunately, the rapid and pervasive flow of information nowadays could act as a kind of deterrent or disinfectant. Corruption thrives in the dark, yet more information than ever comes to light via email and blogs, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks.

    We will also need a new kind of politician leading a new kind of political campaign, one based on free online media rather than paid media. When politicians can emancipate themselves from corporate donations, they will regain the ability to control corporate abuses.

    Moreover, we will need to light the dark corners of international finance, especially tax havens like the Cayman Islands and secretive Swiss banks. Tax evasion, kickbacks, illegal payments, bribes, and other illegal transactions flow through these accounts.

    The wealth, power, and illegality enabled by this hidden system are now so vast as to threaten the global economy’s legitimacy, especially at a time of unprecedented income inequality and large budget deficits, owing to governments’ inability politically — and sometimes even operationally — to impose taxes on the wealthy.

    So the next time you hear about a corruption scandal in Africa or other poor region, ask where it started and who is doing the corrupting. Neither the US nor any other “advanced” country should be pointing the finger at poor countries, for it is often the most powerful global companies that have created the problem.

  39. Any advice or guidance on how to pursue loan level data and transactions at Freddie would be appreciated…

  40. What the government do gooders don’t understand is that the servicers do not own the loan
    so they have no power to modify the loan.
    The servicers bought the servicing rights (read
    foreclosure rights) and THAT IS WHAT THEY DO!
    The solution is to do a QUIET TITLE action right from the get go. Be pro active. That way you’ll
    either discover the true owner of the Note, or get
    the mortgage wiped out.

  41. New York Pension Funds Settle Countrywide Financial Corporation Litigation for $624 Million

    http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/feb11/022511b.htm

    Kudos to the state of New York for getting back some of their (stolen) money.

    Whats interesting is that some states would rather layoff employees or reduce salaries rather than investigate fraud. Florida is a prime example.

    Many of the investor class action lawsuits claim misrepresented and/or overrated securities, but rarely do we hear arguments about ‘dark’ or ‘vacant’ pools.

    How come the lawyers for these class actions aren’t mentioning this? Are they simply unaware?

  42. BSTL

    Not the whole story. Need to get to Freddie.

  43. Sorry pasted info for Aurora Robo-signing. In the article the link to the case about 3/4’s down in post you’ll find excellent info on what Plaintiff must have in their case or Court could dismiss.

  44. Folks, they’re getting us coming and going, from the bottom and the top at the SAME TIME! Look at these figures:

    Irish and Greek debts are expected to reach 158 percent of GDP in 2013. Other nations and their debt to GDP (Wikipedia):

    Japan – 225%
    Italy – 119%
    Belgium – 100%
    Portugal – 93%

    The list goes on and on.

    And based on the 2010 U.S. budget, our total national debt will nearly double in dollar terms between 2008 and 2015 and will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.

    And to whom is this debt owed?

    As of January 2011, foreigners owned $4.45 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt. The Federal Reserve owns nearly all of the other half.

    And who exactly is the Federal Reserve? The very same banksters that are fraudulently taking our homes, while their entirely paid off croanies in D.C. do nothing save extend their hand for the ever-present and HUGE campaign donations, along with an extreme job after they’ve “served in public office” and handed over the keys to the Capitol, AND, the White House.

    So, the same oligarchy that is raping and pillaging the globe for it’s land and housing, aka foreclosing on the world, all the while receiving billions in a well orchestrated faux-modification dance between Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue, that same bunch of bastards that got all of our folding money via the wholesale robbery that was TARP, now has all of us up to our follicles in debt. It’s slavery from here on out folks, UNLESS WE REFUSE TO PLAY THEIR GAME!

    For far too long, these financial institutions have treated borrowers like so many scantily clad girl scouts at a registered sex offender’s meet-up. And they and their enablers in Congress need to be stopped now, not later! Shackle Wall Street, and toss out those on Capitol Hill next year….it’s up to us.

    Do the following two scenarios sound similar and familiar? The first refers to nations defaulting, the second to individuals:

    1. “The Default Traps in sovereign borrowing refers to the idea that once a country falls into a default, it is more likely to default again in the future, compared to another country with identical future output ability. The idea of default traps is related with the asymmetric information between the borrower and the lender about the expectation of borrower’s future output(GDP), the negative output shocks that increase the borrower’s future default probability and other possible factors like political shocks.”

    2. “….the second cost comes from borrowers who default again after receiving a loan modification. We refer to this group as “redefaulters,” and our results show that a large fraction (between 30 and 45 percent) of borrowers who receive
    modifications, end up back in serious delinquency within six months. For this group, the lender has simply postponed foreclosure, and, if the housing market continues to decline, the lender will recover even less in foreclosure in the future.”

    So, the oligarchy can save a lot of the money they’ve stolen from us by utilizing the very same matrix on both types of debtors, national and individual. But, what have our wise leaders done to remedy this situation? In the first case, there has been a worldwide effort to give these same banks as much money as they can possibly loot, through failed policies known as TARP; and it’s lesser known evil twin TALF, whose billions of dollars of non-recourse loans have been funded by the very people being trampled upon, you and I. Don’t forget the insurance payments courtesy of you and I through guarantees via AIG and others. The hits just keep on coming!

    Then, our sage protectors in D.C. have orchestrated the perfect control fraud, where they loan our money to these banksters at zero or near-abouts interest, then loan it back to Washington (remember the 100% debt to GDP here) to pay off just the interest on the debts that are supposedly owed, all the while demanding, not asking, that people the world over suffer through harsh austerity measures for endless generations to come. We voted in these morons, and our silence is becoming deafening. A civilized culture would protest the selling of their children’s children into involuntary servitude, but for some reason that I can’t quite understand, that’s not the case today, save for a few Arab nations.

    In the second instance; the individuals; our leaders came to the rescue with a series of sitcoms starting in 2007; first off from none other than that knee slapping bunch over at the Treasury department, a program called “Hope Now”. That was one hilarious show! It was so comical that I couldn’t believe it was cancelled the very first season. Maybe it would have lasted another season if it had been called “Hope When?” Did it modify anyone’s loan? Can I see a show hands? Anyone?

    Then there was another comedy hour, this time from CONgress in 2008 entitled sweetly, “Hope For Homeowners”. Awe, thank you Con-artists, you’re too kind! That program was yanked faster than Madonna’s last movie.

    Next, when we weren’t looking, we all got rear-ended by the Obama Administration’s horrid remake, “Making Home Affordable Plan” in 2009. Hamp, for short, (I’m not sure why…is it a scramble puzzle?) It took forever to close that nasty show down. That one promised yet again to be a blockbuster, only to end up on the cutting room floor, sliced and diced by the banksters who never intended to act in any of these scripts. As a matter of fact, and continuing with this cheesy analogy, the banksters were in fact, the Executive Producers of each and every one of these disaster films.

    Besides the well known dating etiquette that says that each and every one of us should have been bought a dinner prior to rolling out each of these comedy shows, due to the unabashed screwing we all received, the other funny thing that all of these programs had in common was…..wait for it….THEY ALL PAID THE BANKSTERS OUR MONEY TO PRETEND TO MODIFY OUR LOANS! Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!

    The not too funny truth, actually, the quite sad truth is, the vast majority of lenders modified the loans just enough to enable troubled homeowners to get their accounts current. This brilliant plan actually increased monthly payments for an awful lot of hopeful borrowers (me…me…my hand is in the air, along with 65% of other folks at one time) who were expecting substantially lowered monthly payments. And yes Virginia, they got paid for these upwardly mobile pretend-mods as well.

    And don’t forget that at the same time, due to the influx to the servicers of financial statements from each and every one of the victims faxing and faxing their lives away, they knew exactly how many months they could string along each and every one of us before pulling the plug. The absolute height of efficiency….waste not, want not. One academic study I read stated: “….one message is quite clear: lenders rarely renegotiate. Fewer than 3 percent of the seriously delinquent borrowers in our sample received a concessionary modification in the year following the first serious delinquency.

    The banksters all loved touting how many mods they had provided John Q. Public, the fact about increased payment schedules was just a dirty little secret between the banks, the Fed, the Treasury, and the White House. Besides, what possible good could come from informing and disturbing the public while the recession has ended, the stock market is up, and employment is dropping….oh wait, that movie’s still looking for a location.

    Then there’s the signer beware issue! It turns out that many of the forms that homeowners obligingly filled out in hopes of better days, dreaming of affordable monthly mortgage payments for the three months while the banksters pretended to be sizing us all up for a modification that they knew would never happen, there was a deadly hidden trap door, courtesy of the U.S. Treasury Department, tucked within the fine print.

    The forms regularly used required borrowers to “waive important notification rights.” The result being that more and more homeowners who thought their enrollment in the trial modification period would lead to saving their homes, aw….home sweet home, actually found to their dismay that instead the carpet was yanked out from under them by lenders who at the last minute sold the property without even bothering to notify the homeowner. Stuff on the curb, stuff on the curb, looking like a fool with your stuff on the curb! Bent over yet again! Oh Timmy G – you bad boy! That’s without a doubt the roughest sex I’ve ever had!

    The synchronization and efficiency of the multitude of interlocking programs implemented by the banks and their friends in government are very reminiscent of Germany’s WWII 24/7 death machine and its clockwork extermination of the Jews. Although I know it’s difficult to relate much to the horrors of those events, the handing of soap and a towel to millions on their way to a totally unknown and cruel fate is very much akin to how the banks have treated homeowners in the foreclosure process, only typically without the fatal aspects, just the stripping of everything one worked hard for all their lives. Absolute plunder on a scale never before seen. Luggage piled in heaps. Next stop: Tent City.

    There’s only one way out of this mess, from both the individual level as well as governmental; follow Iceland’s lead: strategic default. Stop paying your financial debts, I almost called them obligations, you aren’t obliged. These national debts were created by our various governments being trained monkeys to the elite. The individual debts are fiction. Get that through your head. These are make-believe debts, unsecured, usurious pretend digits on a ledger sheet, approved by your governments, because THEY ARE TOTALLY CAPTURED!

    And call your so-called representatives and tell them that we need to strategically default on as many of the debt obligations as we can, and restructure the rest. Chris Whalen agrees with this point. No more debtors prison, no more austerity for banker’s sakes, and no more tent cities….we’re above that as a civilization.

    Anarchy you say? You’re damned straight. But from their angle. The dictionary reads:

    1. a state of society without government or law. (Check!)
    2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control. (Check!)
    3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. (Oh how I wish!)

    And finally there’s this:

    “The complex webs that securitization weaves can be a trap and leaves no one, not even those who own the loans, able effectively to save borrowers from foreclosure. With the loan sliced and tranched into so many separate interests, the different claimants with their antagonistic rights may find it difficult to provide borrowers with the necessary loan modifications, whether they want to or not. In the tranche warfare of securitization, unnecessary foreclosures are the collateral damage.” (Eggert 2007)

    That should be updated to read, “The complex webs that securitization weaves can be a trap and can leave no one, not even those who think they own the securitized loans, the ability to effectively foreclose upon a borrower. In the tranche warfare of securitization, the inability to foreclose, by the investors, the investment houses that pooled the loans, and the originators is simply the venereal disease that was contracted while attempting to screw too many folks at one time, throwing all tried and true protection to the wind. And I for one will take great pleasure in watching you suffer and wither away in a slow and painful death. Good Riddance!”

  45. @Joyce (11:16) Am helping someone with a 1st Countrywide (BOA), Heloc -Green Tree LLC. Loans were refi’s off original 80/20 with CW. Full Reconveyance on 80/20’s were robo-signed. (For all intents there are four outstanding loans). BOA in ‘process’ of mod., Green Tree is foreclosing on Heloc. I am concluding from your comment that GT is possibly working with BOA to get property back by means of foreclosing on Heloc? I assumed BOA did not know that GT was pursuing F/C as I don’t know if a business arrangement exists.

  46. Rick Skogg
    Aurora Loan Services Inc.
    Corporate Headquartes
    10350 Park Meadows Drive
    Littleton, CO 80124
    Telephone: (303) 720-945-3000

    Aurora Loan Services & Lehman Brothers
    Rick started as ‘President’ 1997 through 2006
    Rick was sooooo good he held two positions
    2003-2006
    1) Aurora Loan Services COO &
    2) Managing Director – Lehman Brothers

    In 1997 Rick Skogg President started
    Aurora Loan Services. Rick Skogg came from Harbourton Mortgage Co. LP. President & CEO. Originally Platte Valley Mortgage Co LPdid a reverse merger reanmed Platte Valley Mortgage Co. Harbourton Mortgage Co.

    Harbourton Funding Corporation is located at
    2530 S Parker Rd Ste 500 Aurora, CO 80014.
    The officers include Rick W Skogg. Harbourton Funding Corporation was incorporated on Wednesday, February 19, 1992 and is currently not active. C T Corporation System represents Harbourton Funding Corporation as their registered agent.

    Rick Skogg does not report where he worked 2006-2008

    10/2008 – 8/2010 Rick Skogg
    SUMMARY & Accomplishments
    DENVER, CO. –
    (November 26, 2008): W.J. Bradley (WJB), a privately held independent retail mortgage lender, announced today the addition of Rick Skogg as the Company’s new President. Skogg joins WJB from Aurora Loan Services, where he served as Chief Operating Officer and was instrumental in successfully establishing retail, correspondent and broker platforms.

    His accomplishments at Aurora included developing a master servicing division that oversaw $170 billion of mortgage assets and building a primary servicing unit that serviced in excess of $90 billion of mortgage rights and a warehouse lending unit that provided interim financing to Aurora’s clients.

    Skogg has more than 20 years of extensive experience in leading successful mortgage organizations, including spearheading the sale of Harbourton Mortgage Company to Lehman Brothers Holdings and serving as President and Chief Executive of Platte Valley Mortgage Corporation.

    “I am proud to be joining a company with a solid vision and mission for the future. WJB’s commitment to outstanding customer service backed by an exceptional sales force and operations team will allow us to gain significant market share while raising the standards of excellence in our industry to newer heights,” shared Skogg.

    Skogg will serve as President of WJB, overseeing all day-to-day aspects of the WJB business, including sales, operations, marketing and customer service. He will also work with the WJB team to increase production and promote continuous and profitable growth of the business.

    Chief Executive Officer Bill Bradley said, “I am pleased to have Rick on board. I believe the combination of his experience, focus and dedication will be critical factors to WJB’s continued success during this historic time in our industry.”

    “I am very pleased to be here at WJB and believe it is an exciting time for our Company,” concluded Skogg. “We are positioning ourselves for long-term success. I look forward to working with our talented team and serving as the catalyst to WJB’s growth.”

    http://wjbradley.com/news-Skogg.html
    ————————

    W.J. Bradley Mortgage Capital Corp (RETAIL BANKERS) backed by a group of private investors. Privately held and operates as an independent mortgage lending firm founded in 2003. Corporate headquarters Denver CO, 201 Columbine St, Suite 300, Denver CO 80206 centralized operations Salt Lake City, UT
    ————————

    Looking for Rick Skogg – Linkedin Currently Rick Skogg is Executive Director
    Institutional Lending Group

    Correspondent Lending
    MetLife Home Loans 8/2010

    Interesting and informative legal discussion which all consumers should pay attention toRick Skogg & David Applegate GMAC Mortgage of Iowa

    http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110203_0000601.DNV.htm/qx
    ———————

  47. I was fighting off a rapid attempt to foreclose by BOA last fall. BOA filed the suit with the note endorsed in blank and then verified it. As a result of a QWR they admitted Freddie Mac held the note. I”m in FL and of course the case is seemingly stalled with no action on their part….
    I caught them trying to steal a house.

  48. Please homeowners do not sign anything with BOA. They want your house not a modification. I have walked in your shoes and know what I am talking about. They are not the investor. You cannot modify a mortgage that does not exist or is invalid.
    I found 3 lawyers who take mortgage fraud cases with contingency fee. I had to call 25 lawyers but they are out there. It has been 4 years and BOA has not offered to help homeowners and are not going to start now. No one is regulating them. OCC is a joke. . You ever notice the President never talks about the homeowner situations. I read he could file an emergency order if he wanted to on anything. Why doesn’t he do that on foreclosures.

  49. From the S/3-A for Wells Fargo 1999 Trust (They are offering certificates on what I believe are restructured mortgages). Here’s the statement of indemnification for illegal acts:

    Line 35,104:
    Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides that a Delaware corporation may indemnify any persons, including officers and directors, who are made, or are threatened to be made, parties to any threatened, pending or completed legal action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (other than an action by or in the right of such corporation), by reason of the fact that such person is or was an officer or director of such corporation, or is or was serving at the request of such corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation or enterprise. The indemnity may include expenses (including attorneys’ fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection with such action, suit or proceeding, provided such officer or director acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the corporation’s best interests and, for criminal proceedings, had no reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was illegal. A Delaware corporation may indemnify officers and directors in an action by or in the right of the corporation under the same conditions, except that no indemnification is permitted without judicial approval if the officer or director is adjudged to be liable to the corporation. Where an officer or director is successful on the merits or otherwise in the defense of any action referred to above, the corporation must indemnify him against the expenses which such officer or director actually and reasonably incurred.

  50. I would love to join a homeowner’s union also, if it is a union of homeowners separate and apart from those already in existence. Seems like a good way for homeowners to get the represenation they need.

    But then getting the people together – there seems to be no interest in petitions or any other collective effort. Some homeowners are doing a pretty good job on their own, but a union might really be key here.

  51. I would love to join a homeowners union!

  52. Excerpt, from article;

    “There are some people that prefer a face-to-face experience,” said Rebecca Mairone, national mortgage outreach executive for Bank of America. “They prefer telling their story face to face or need additional information about documents or other counseling. We’re committed to helping distressed customers.”

    It would always be nice to know with whom you are speaking–the person that has the power to take away the roof over your childrens’ heads. The destruction of your credit-so next time you pull up to but gas at $4.25/gallon-and you credit card doesnt work-because the line was reduced——your job at risk due to your financia troubles—yeah I guess its understandable that a few hard core “deadbeats” might just want to see the person —AND GET THE NAME of that person AND THE REAL COMPANY THEY WORK FOR—–so you know a little better why they say “NO”. Take your tape recoders too.

    And of course ANYBODY that has tried to do anything with the “modification” groups already knows that the voice at the end of the line changes every time-never has a last name and loses everything you send them. It is just hard to understand why the modifiers must actually look the person in the face as they tinker with the family’s life.

    And of course there are upsides to the modifier–when the sucker–I mean homeowner—gets to the part about waiving all rights to raise claims due to past abuses—-and agrees to pay all the deferred “modified” payments in 3-5 years in a bullet——-maybe the modifier can get the homeowner to sign that toilet-paper without getting an attorney to look at it and say “youv got to be kidding me”

  53. @enough already. It is interesting to hear that Wells told you to stop paying or they would not let you apply for a hamp loan. I say it is interesting because a couple of weeks ago I read an article in which a Wells spokesperson said that Wells has never asked people to stop paying their mortgages. This goes to show you how Wells lies through the media and how people acutally believe them. Wells told me the samething, stop making payments then the can help. Yeah they can help themselves to your home.

  54. It shouldn’t matter if you’ve already been foreclosed or evicted. The best PR they could get would be to rectify the problems! As we can see, banks are doing everything but that.

    Banks act as if it’s legal for them to steal our homes, but illegal for them to modify them.

    Good point….in light of B of A saying they want to work with their customers, why are they still foreclosing?

    They like to drag you to that point of foreclosure. Then they can tell you there is nothing they can do, you’ve already been foreclosed on. In their minds, that solves all the problems.

  55. Many of you will not be able to rely on a state statute or fed statute to cancel out the note so as I told some attorneys the other day – it could happen to their client so that had best be ready –

    Hopefully the claims on the first can also be used on the second and you only have to deal with get any claims you are making in line . Most will attempt to foreclose on the second lien first so they might end up getting the property back that way until they can resolve the first lien issue.

    It seems like it is always tougher if they get their hands on the property.

  56. Zoe:

    Yes that is a possibility so try to relay on the statute to cancel out the note and lien.

  57. Enough Already –

    You may email me at seniorauthor@yahoo.com

    Will do what I can to work with you and theservicer – we will see. No charge for any services rendered and when and if you end up utilizing an attorney, that will conclude what I had to offer and no further consultation will be had. The attorneys will indeed have to take it from there and no be so dependent on the clients to present the arguments.

  58. Let’s not ignore Neil’s comments: BOA does not own the note, mortgage or the receivable. It can no more legally modify than it can foreclose.

    When are homeowners going to realize that loan mods are just an attempt in, and will accomplish little more than, getting certain borrowers to sign a new agreement, with fine print absolving the servicer of fraud?

    I’m busy trying to figure out why some entity called Returns Processing sent a notice stating that a second mortgage with BOA has been transferred to Bank of New York Mellon. Has anyone here received the same kind of transfer notice? I have no doubt it is a new way to hook and crook the system…somehow.

  59. while we do need the media – that is true, what we need is a stratgy for all the homeowners as you have suggested.

    This is not something however I feel Unions should be involved in.

    To start with – we need a petition of both the consumers who are caught up in this fiasco with a huge percentage of people who still support the rule of law and who may not have been caught up in this.

    I have long talked on this blog about a plan and a strategy to show that we intend to be in on the settlement negotiations. I believe at some point Neil GArland suggested that comments be sent to him for review, but never heard anything after that.

    There are still some of us from the old school and who did maintain some semblance of what has been going on from start to finish – thos people need to step forward and quickly to come up with a petition that simply says – STOP ALL ACTION NOW – PLAN BEING PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND OF THE PEOPLE AND IT TOO MUST BE CONSIDERED WITH AG’s and other agency proposals.

    NOW is the time – stepping up is the next step.

    We can come up with a win win situation for all when you consider the damage and the rewards that have been factored into this demise. We just have not asked for it on a collective basis.

  60. @ guy thank you are trying to help us i appreciate it here is my email address if you have info or phone# send it we need to organize your right but it has to be national across sate lines. we are all being farked and alot of us do not knoe legaleze. the judges are only passing motions not finding the fraud. they will grant a motion if the fruad is found. but with the new robo signed machines and computer it is hard to prove. mortgage mod, appraisal fruad ect is all over the country. help me i do not want to lose my house. i have work all my life and in fla we can not sell ssssss@yahoo.com thanks

  61. @joyce we need the media involved to expose the fraud. i live in florida i bought a new house in Miramr florida 20 miles south west of ft lauderdale fl. i used “GL”homes own mortgage broker to “save” on closing costs but what occurred was fraud. just as you said. they did not include taxes and insurancein my mortgage. i did not have an escrow and was able to sell becuase i am not a “dead beat” when a home becomes unafordable you sell. well when i got the 7k tax bill from broward county. yes i cried but sold and moved to ahome 300 miles north. on lime stone roads, septice, and well. i wanted low taxes. so i acomplished that but didnt know i was getting ito the middle of a mortgage ponzi scheme. so here i am waiitng for foreclosure because wells fargo refused to work withme for a modification. the lost paper owrk, moved my file. what else can they do except foreclose. we all know they want my home so they can get the insurance. we need to all write 60 minutes. we need to get this out there writing the media. the wall street journal , the new york post, and 60 minutes lets get the word out there the fraud needs to be exposed!!!!!!

  62. Well now, let’s take a look at this just a little closer even though I love franklelee’s and Concerned’s responses.

    These comments have to do with the Servicing Aspect of why 50% of the foreclosures were instituted. 30% on new construction and 20% on refusal by servicer to communicate with the borrower. By utilizing good servicing technique, I know 50% foreclosures could have been prevented.

    1. BAC and other big banks, not only made, but purchased loans that were originated on a newly constructed home whereby the escrow that was set up for the first 12 months, were set way too low (which is fine if taxes billed on unimproved basis) but the beginning of the second year, they did not adjust the escrow to cover what the taxes being paid out would be at the end of the second year. (I call this a form of entrapment, particularly when the go on to adjust the payment at the beginning of the third year which would also include if an ARM loan, an additional payment increase. STOP – This policy was utilized to keep the payments as low as possible for the first 12 to 24 months with the hope that the dangerous loans would not more quickly default.

    2. In 2007, because of the huge escrow deficits named in one above had accured, the servicers had to calculate a 12 month repayment and therefore a 3rd adjustment to the escrow account. Set up to fail was the name of the game and some of these loans were “A” paper loans which F & F purchased as well.

    3. In 2008 – after a lot of hell raising, the servicers were forced to calculate recovery of escrow on 36 to 60 months which did lower the payment down somewhat – but it was still more than the borrower could pay due to his 6 month ARM’s adjustments, and the fact that most of the loans were marginal with respect to repayment ability.

    4. The subprime loan borrowers never had a chance. They got through the first year and then the servicers proceeded to pay their taxes and increase the payments on top of some hard hitting arm adjustments – See so both sides of the coin read the same way – Set up to fail.

    5. Servicing personnel could not properly communicate with the borrower because they had a script they were to follow which sent the borrower in a real tail spin. We all know what that was. This communication issue was reinforced by the FHA, VA, non profits and of course the servicers. See how many people were involved, yet nothing was done correctly – The homeowners scattered.

    . Now BAC is setting up centers to help people – ridiculous – There is only one way to help these people and I believe this looking at the whole of the situation. I visited some of these centers and it was pathetic looking at the dejection that so many homeowners had after talking to people who did not have the authorization to do anything but record the person’s issue. I do not understand why they do not have a plan, A, B., C. D and E. Homeowners do not have to go stand in line for hours for a do nothing performance by the servicer. When all is necessary is a phone call to document the issue and match it up with A, B., C. D or E plan.

    Why put everyone through this for the 5th time other than a newly laid ploy to disuade the AG’s about their desire to “help” people when they in fact created it.

    6. The other 30 % goes to the making of loans that people could not afford and it would be this group that was designed to produce a product for Wall Street to securitize in the sub prime market as well as A loans. This goes to the fraud, the intentional approval of a loan for a person not qualified to repay the debt (putting the banks at risk which is a violation of their fidiciary duty to its stockholders). These would be the easy forclosures.

    No write off of balances would be needed except for a limited few but no one will put their finger on that unknown or what policy would be followed to reach it.

    8. No modifications were ever necessary to the extgent that they were promoted. Of course they were going to go bad – the modification did not allow for anything but the servicer to receive more money for nothing but persecuting the borrower. Borrower still could not make his payment.

    The formul used for modifications was never clear in my mind – so that left the servicers with a blank check to do what they wanted. How can that be right?

    AFter millions paid to non profits – that money wasn’t spent as it should have been. That money should have gone to subsidize the monthly payment whereby the variances noted in 1, 2, 3 & 4 above were commented on and that would have kept the first one million loans from foreclosure plus atrickle down effect of lost property values and job in the housing industry, not to mention retail sales across this nation.

    Critical that the plans be set up and broadcast to the nation: But first approved by those who know what the hell they are doing and the ecnomist, the congress, the treasury may know, but will not exercise the caution needed at this point.

    An immediate halt on the sale of any foreclosed home until the file is reviewed – it could not get any worse than it is and in fact, it is disgraceful that these homes are being sold to investors for pennies on the dollar.

    If the home foreclosed – those would be the settlements that must be made and NOW

    It is a shame that no one has a clue as to how to get out of this mess. Title Companies, foreclosure mills, the Courts, the servicers and the lenders should put up the $200 billion to make it right for their part – wouldn’t mind a little contribution from the NAR and the appraisal services, the American bankers assocation, etc. for their support of these ridiculous activites wich have taken our economy to such depths. It is payback time fellows and there are enough financial institutions to aggregately share the expense of the getting the funds together. Then the banks can earn their way back in the hearts of the people once they learn what ethics, honesty, fair dealing are all about.

    Good luck

  63. Homeowners need to merge with the UNIONS. The UNIONS are where we will find enough political clout to go head-to-head with the Mortgage Banker’s Assoc. ALSO!!! The UNIONS are where some of their members have been unemployed for quite some time.

    I went last night to a UNION event. When I stood up and said, “I am organizing homeowners who are in foreclosure. I am not a Union member, but I need the help of the Unions, as in this foreclosure fight, we are fighting some powerful enemies. I know there are Union members who are facing foreclosure. The war on workers BEGAN with the financial war that the banks have perpetrated. Please help me help your members.”

    After that, I was literally MOBBED with people needing my name, number, etc. UNIONS are where the homeowners will find their support we need in the legislature, and against our most powerful enemy……the banks.

  64. Just Picked up my Los Angles County Sup. Court Transcript of the hearing on 3/25. The hearing that was for sanctions against me, of which motion was allegedly “Personally served” on me the weekend 55 mph winds were blowing and I was in Vegas for five days.

    Of which defendants she dismissed in December for failure to state a claim. Defendants who not one single time have personally served me. I have to watch the docket and then go to court to get copies of what they filed

    Judge refused to allow my motion to quash service to be advanced and heard.
    She refused to aknowledge the hotel reciepts showing i was in another state that date.
    She kept addressing defendents dismissed a long while back, as the only remaining defendant. She ignored my statement that the defendents present were not the correct entity.

    The Court Transcript is MISSING all the statements I made about the correct party not being present.

    The FBI TOLD ME I AM A VICTIM IN FRAUD.

    And the Court and the Judge is criminally acting to deprive me of my rights to a trial.

  65. This is a very interesting article about what is going on

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307133018583442.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

  66. Neil- you are right of course- is there any way to check the # of employees both before and after these loan centers are allegedly staffed with 3000 additional employees? I doubt BOA will hire 1 additional employee. It is just a continuance of the vast ponzi. Check the employee numbers through your contacts, that will further verify the fraud.

  67. Off topic but nowhere to post recent MERS hammering:

    CA BK CH13 in re Doble…judge tells MERS it does not have “talismanic protection against the myriad foreclosure deficiencies committed by the defendants regarding the loan.”

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/05/07/in-re-doble-ca-bk-judge-rips-deutsche-mers-lps-system-multiple-true-correct-copies-of-note/

    Class action for MI residents:

    http://www.financialcrisistalkcenter.com/2011/05/thav-gross-seeks-mers-class-action-members-from-western-side-of-michigan/

    MERS needs to be dismantled and its “officers” need to go to jail.

  68. The BofA spin doctors are DEFINITELY out in force. They’ve hired some better educated propagandists to spread their drivel in the comments sections of major newspapers. That signals to me that the higher-ups are genuinely worried about these issues and are getting more aggressive with the astroturfing. The call center lackeys just weren’t cutting it any more with the deadbeat borrower meme. Please do you part to shred their weak arguments & reveal them for what they are. They don’t like to be called out on their BS.

  69. @the A man because most are undefended, only 94% of the foreclosures are undefended in florida. until CA passes a law like Hawaii they wil continue. fraud will only be uncovered by a lawyer defeneding a case. judges do not find fraud they only approve or disapprove a motion. we had a florida lawyer confront a judge about that last week. and the judge said that. he does not find fraud that is up to the defending lawyer. but the lawyer said that it his job to uphold the constitution and the peoples rights. the judge continued on thats it is not his job to baby sit the
    banks. sad becuase the old addage if you cant pay for home is not true today. 94% of he homeowners are clueless to what is happening. i only found out about this info when wells fargo started dickering with me telling me to stop paying or they would not let me apply for a hamp loan and when i did apply they moved my file out of review and then lost an important fed ex package with my documents. so i google mortgage appraisal fraud, and modification fraud and found all these web sites. but the average mom and pop will move out when they cant afford it. please help get the word out by us writing on these posts is making this post show up in someone else email so on and so forth. at some point some one will know what is going on and will know someine in the media. this needs to get out there. motgage modification fraud is a virus on american families

  70. Indyo007:

    How do you reaffirm a debt that lacks consideration to begin with. Can’t you only truly reaffirm with the true lender?

  71. Donald Duck can’t foreclose but the Banksters can.

  72. So why are they foreclosing on 20 to 30 properties on average a day just in los angeles county?

  73. I’m thinking more in terms of a very pointy-toed boot to the arse of Barbara Doeser and Monihan.

    Just lay off ALL the staff doing the false processing. Instead, make scheduled appearances in every city where there are more than 50 BofA or any ‘subsidiary’ loan foreclosures started per month, provide high-level BofA representatives to perform the ‘BEND-OVER’ service for BofA. Allow each person with any type of BofA loan the pleasure of delivering a good swift kick to the backside of one of the top officials with BofA (a parallel company to MERS will allow appointment of ‘proxy kickers’ for those infirm or unable to travel). BofA would not be allowed to have proxy representatives stand in for the actual bigwigs.

    The upper management would either quit or there would be a LOT of settlements.

    Those settlements should include quiet titles for all properties where the fraudsters have problem paperwork. If it is a CW loan written as “AWL”, admit the loan is a complete FRAUD.

    IF a TRULY IMPARTIAL source can verify that the paperwork was all valid and all transfers were valid, write the loan balance down to 80% of current market value. Put the interest rate at 2.5% FIXED. Set the financing for 30 years (40 if a severe hardship requires it).

  74. They are simply trying to get people to reaffirm the debt. TARP is over so they need a new mechanism to replace the absent paperwork.

  75. most consumers do not know about the fraud. so they will negotiate a mod get screw-d like me and then wait for foreclosure like me. its a great business. what they should have said they are adding more centers to get the homes to foreclosure faster. 30 years to pay off was to slow and 2-5 yrs is to slow they want immediate gratification. they want our homes to collect the insurance they took out on these properties. they new the bubble would burst. fraudlent appraissals kept rising fastr then our salaries. i have a wells fargo loan and the fraud continues. trying to break me so i leave and they can have another undefended foreclosure. more centers. how can we get the word out the people to not leave there homes get lawyers and fight. we need to win this . these are our homes our children live here

  76. “There are some people that prefer a face-to-face experience,”

    Actually, when it comes to BAC, I’d prefer a boot-to-face experience.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: