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

IN law school we are always told to start at the beginning, although few practitioners actually do that ,since they THINK they know at a glance the nature of the transaction. Consider the usual “loan closing” where a securitization scheme is in operation. It is a “table-funded loan” which is a fancy way of saying that someone else actually loaned the money — some one other than the party named as payee on the note, or as lender or beneficiary on mortgage or deed of trust. A pattern of conduct in which table funded loans are the rule rather than the exception is evidence prima facie of a predatory loan. (REG Z). Why?

The reason is actually quite simple. If an undisclosed party is the actual party in the money trail, then the document trail is defective and does not comply with disclosure requirements under the deceptive lending laws at the federal and state level. The pretender lender at closing is masquerading as the party who did the underwriting on the loan, who was taking the risk of non-payment and who has the power of enforcement. But these assumptions are not true. And at the point where the pretender lenders come up with fabricated and forged assignments and affidavits they are misdirecting the attention of the court away from a simple fact.

In order for the pretender lender at the closing to have been party to a contract that is enforceable with the homeowner as borrower, the pretender lender needed some documentation that was recorded at closing showing its representative capacity for the real source of funds, i.e., the real lender. Thus the investor-lender would be required to execute an assignment of the legal and equitable rights under the loan transaction to the pretender lender. That assignment does not exist, which is the fatal incurable defect in nearly 80 million transactions in which a securitized loan was involved.

The banks want the Courts to accept their word for it — that the assignment should be presumed. Some have advanced the argument that there is an equitable assignment, which the courts have universally struck down as being contrary to the need for certainty in the marketplace and contrary to all law and precedent. Thus the closing of the loan DOCUMENTS conflicts with the closing of the actual MONEY TRANSACTION. The absence of the phantom assignment between the investor and the pretender lender is not overcome by reference to the PSA whose terms clearly show the requirements and timing of assignments, as well as the requirements for underwriting and compliance with existing law.


39 Responses

  1. saveamericaone

    Settlement agents were not typically attorneys — but, rather companies set up/owned by mortgage brokers — and settlement agent acted as agent for the originator. Many of these settlement agents are dissolved.

    Settlement agents also acted as agent for the mortgage title corp. — but, after their dissolution, mortgage title corp. will claim they do not have the records.

    Agree- what to do with information?? Courts — difficulty in procedure and discovery. Many cases dismissed on technicalities. Has anyone seen a foreclosure case challenge go to US Supreme Court??? :You will not. Settlement — if you have a good case. But, settlements limited because of insurance representation. Who do you really think attorneys are representing??? Insurance is limited.

    Will say – again and again — it is up to government agencies to fully investigate. It is up to government agencies to prosecute. It is up to government agencies to protect the American homeowner victims.

    And, according to Sheila Bair — the investigations will go on for years… This is despite any “for show” weak AG settlements.

    We are only touching the surface. But, as more and more victims lose their homes — it will get more and more difficult for government agencies to do their job. Why?? Because this would admit — that they never did their job in the first place — courts included.

    Our loss is not limited to the loss of our homes. It extends to the societal impact on our children, the sick, the elderly – and the lower/middle class in general. And, spillover is indirect to others not affected by subprime refinances — but, rather victims of the financial fall-out of the subprime fiasco — which affected American home values in general — and, ultimately American jobs. The jobs that were holding the American economy in place — were jobs related to the subprime “mortgage” BOOM — and it’s affect on consumption.


    if your loan was a “cash-out” — unlikely it was a “new loan.”

    Deregulation — boom for subprime and hedge funds — and “trading” — Disaster for the general American public.

  2. In California it’s coming down to one key issue, MERS NOT having an assignment of the Note from the Original Lender to MERS, legally recorded.

    “The assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt was a nullity in law.”
    “A lien is not assignable unless by the express language of the statute.”

    “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
    CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872), U.S. Supreme Court

    More info at

  3. Dear KJP2U
    I feel your anger and pain.
    Consumers transactions at RETAIL.
    Substantive Omissions of Material facts & concelment.

    Worst part, all RETAIL mortgage loans purchased were in best interest of originator and done in bad faith. Sadly, the US Goverment largest client purchasing.

  4. Dear usedkarguy, I feel like ‘N’ too I have all of this good information and don’t know what to do either.
    Kind Regards, Mary

  5. Dear usedkarguy, I feel like ‘N’ too I have all of this good information and don’t know what to do either.
    Kind Regards, Mary

  6. Annonymous:
    Thanks for the update. I’ve been quietly researching finding a lot of valuable information.

    The ‘Settlement Agent’ in Agreement with Originator.
    The ‘Settlement Agent’ typically an Attorney correct?
    The fidicuary authority of the Settlement Agent necessary to move funding between financial entities.

    We could sue the ‘Settlement Agents’ who refuse to provide documents. If every person sued the originator’s Settlement Agent, one by one we would get into court the related parties up through Foreclosue Gate.

  7. KJP2U,

    Because — only collection rights survived. No loan — not existent — gone —

    Title companies??? Partly compliant — partly victims — since loans were “bumped” — JUST before refinance — title report did not reflect.

    So — “pay-off” — not to any recorded party. Pay-off — WHERE????

    Title companies — reports done a couple of weeks BEFORE actual closing — but sale of “default” debt done JUST BEFORE closing. Title company never notified. Never recorded. NO RECORD.

    Oh — the game.

  8. Stewart Title stamped our Deed of Trust over to Wells Fargo Bank, NA without our knowledge and right before recording. We only discovered this AFTER getting a copy of the Deed of Trust. Yet GN Mortgage, LLC pretended to be the lender as a subsidiary of Guaranty Bank out of Wisconsin. GN Mortgage, LLC was not licensed to lend in California when we signed out docs. Guaranty Bank pretended to be the Servicer. What a scam.

  9. neidermeyer

    Child should be registered too. But, always changing names — Parent always responsible for child.
    What about LLC?? Is there a different site to look there???

  10. The Parent is registered … So a child doesn’t have to be? I could see that if the name of the child was “XYZ depositors” and they were a sub of “XYZ Corp” … but is that still true when you have “XYZ Corp” and “XYZ acceptance corp.” ,, I know in FL if you have corp in the name it must be registered…

  11. neidermeyer

    Depositors are subsidiaries of corporations. Trusts are actually “owned” by the Depositor — not security investors – as some believe. The Depositor is the “owner” of the trust. But, the Depositor is a subsidiary of the parent bank that purchased the loans. Depositor has no balance sheet of it’s own.

    There are some trusts that imply a chain of sale from the ORIGINATOR to the originator’s Depositor AFFILIATE . These trusts are never true sales — as originator does not sell to ITSELF.

    But, for the most part, Depositor is subsidiary of the bank who purchased the so-called “loans”. While these Depositors should be registered — it is their parent corp. that is the owner of the “collection rights” to default loans– actually mods.
    Parent is certainly registered.

  12. ANONYMOUS or anyone else with knowledge of NY State Trust Law;

    To my knowledge all corporations must have corp or corporation or such in their official name and that company/corporation must be registered with at least one states Secretary of State.. I understand that technically a trust in NYS is a corp but is not required to be registered as such…

    I came across a “depositor” to the trust which is a corporation (has corporation in it’s name) which I cannot find registered in any of the 50 states ,, active or inactive…

    CAN THIS BE VALID? And if so can you point me to an explaination of WHY…

    Thanks in advance ,, this forum is the best.

  13. Hi Ian,

    Will try –always researching, but not going near Mr. Soliman — because he does not like me.

    1) We know that nearly all subprime loans were refinances — not new purchases. And, we know Subprime refinances were loans that did not not qualify for traditional MBS. That is, could not be rated triple A — which was required for GSE securitization. Thus, banks “took over” what the GSEs could not do — securitize subprime debt -rejects from the GSEs.

    2) Subprime securitization trusts were — we know – funded with little actual funds. The “credit enhancement” subordinate tranches were sold first to debt buyers/hedge funds– these tranches were proportionately much smaller in principal compared to the senior tranches — that the banks RETAINED.

    3) Securitization involves a removal of receivables from a balance sheet. But, the chain — stated in PSAs/Prospectus never shows a “sale” of loan receivables by the purchasing bank. Closest we get is that “loans” were sold to Depositor — via a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement/Mortgage Schedule. But, Depositors do not have their own balance sheet either — thus, had to be on Depositor’s parent corporation balance sheet — but, these receivables were never reflected there. And, since the originators balance sheets do not reflect a removable of receivables — but, instead would show a direct sale — then, where did the receivables come from???
    Came from nowhere — magic. Only answer is the loans were never current receivables as reflected on a balance sheet. But, rather they were collection rights — from GSE rejects/defaults — which would NOT be reflected on anyone’s current balance sheet receivable account. “Modifications” of default debt — whether rightly a default or not.
    Collection rights do not have to “funded” — they are transferred by assignment.

    4) Not calling government actions “blatant fraud” — but, their response to financial crisis was quick and fast — and an unprecedented situation. They knew there had to be victims (homeowners) in order to prevent a total meltdown. Once the CDS kicked in by “trigger events” of default on the subprime trusts — those securities no longer exist. All that remains — when cash is paid (AIG paid in cash) – was rights to collateral that once backed the securities. And, what was the collateral??? Collection rights. Nevertheless, the government has taken that “collateral” and formed a new “CDO” with the “dead” securities that were once held in the subprime trusts. And, sold off “bonds” from the CDO to distressed debt investors. There is no rating on this CDO — where is the SEC??? And, any existing cash flows are going to the government – not to the original subprime trusts.

    5) There are no loans (as to subprime refinances) — agree with Mr. Soliman. Transparency — no one really knows everything — because there is no transparency.

    Not all foreclosures were subprime refinances. Accounting different. And, description of charge-off/reversal process is only IF they were actual loans — we will not find this on subprime refinances– because they were not. But, charged origination fees — as if subprime refinance was a new loan.

    To quote THE A MAN — “Accounting Shmaccounting. Everytime we figure it out they change the rules in their favor.”

    One “rule” they have not yet changed — “foreclosures must go through.” Why?? Because if they do not — it would require disclosure by valid and meaningful modifications — to the “collection rights.” NO CAN DO.

  14. Anonymous

    My loan was a new loan, a cashout. Does this make any difference in how my loan would have been treated as you propose most were not new financing? I can’t find mers. My 2009 assignment not quite four years post settlement was from the servicer, Ahmsi, (as “successor in interest to option 1″) to Deutsche bank,”Trustee
    for Soundview 2006-opt1.”

    Never heard of a servicer assigning the DOT. Wonder what kind of animal this is.


  15. just think of it as purchasing a “place” in the title chain.
    it appears to be legal ….

    what rules? what laws? WTF!

  16. “Unprecedented situation — given government reaction to an unprecedented situation — for which the government has determined — there must be victims ——- YOU!!!!!!!!.”

    i hear for a small fee a re-conveyance can be mailed to the recorders office with a money order.
    hell …LPS showed us all how …right?

  17. To all with specific knowledge to this question…..I ask because of my current court case in pro-per.

    1. I “purchased / bought ” my home from the owner who executed a recorded grant deed in my favor.

    2. After closing this same owner received funds, by an unknown party, in their bank account reflecting said sale of the home.

    3. The argument goes, “I bought, the owner got paid” via a direct money transfer to their bank account (but, from whom)?

    4. Who paid the original owner …..and on what “legal premise” considering securitization?

    From appearance, the ASB / MBS securities paying the “owner / seller” after “origination” are void as well.

    I welcome comments.


  18. ANONYMOUS- at 6:11 pm on May 9th you said, “Good points, Neil” . I understood that. But the next 2000 words left me gasping for air and struggling to comprehend. Can you switch this to a bulleted type explanation? For example,
    *most subprime loans were refinances
    *most refinances were not new loans, but were simply modifications of existing loans, even though the borrower paid ‘origination fees’ (no origination)
    *the AIG/ subsequent Maiden Lane transactions were blatant frauds
    You know, simply explain things in a line-item fashion as to be more easily understood by us pikers.
    Idea: maybe every 3 lines or so, throw in an item of interest by Maher Soliman, followed by No can do. That ought to clarify all relevant points.

  19. Does this mean 80 million of us regardless of ability to pay can go back take our lenders to court for fraud and win? or what…?

  20. Accounting Shmaccounting. Everytime we figure it out they change the rules in their favor. This is a game of cat and mouse, mouse and cat.

  21. usedkarguy,

    Quote —- “am thinking they closed my loan TWICE; three days apart” ——

    You are thinking ACCURATELY— question is — the purpose?? And, why AFTER title insurance already procured???

  22. saveamericaone

    Really good post to usedkarguy (old friend) — but — problem is — most “settlement agents” are gone. These settlement agents acted on behalf of originators — that are also gone. And, they also acted as a agent on behalf of the title insurance company — who will claim that they have no records because the settlement agent is gone.

    No records. Always the answer. Convenient.

  23. Well — before he attacks me — Mr. Soliman does have some valid points!!! Agree, Sir — There are no loans!!!!

    But, Mr. Soliman — I am not into your site — do not know who you are — do not care — and have no issues with you. Nor do I intend to steal any business — because — I have NO business!!!!!!!

    So — Please DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF ANYTHING!!!!! I am simply an individual who cares. That is all.

  24. Dear usedkarguy,

    If you know what you are suing for then you would know what party to list. Why would you list the ‘filename’ of a loan trust?

    What harm?

    The harm you have directly connected to

    Falsified documents filed by DOXC & LPS
    Clouded Title
    Settlement Agent in your state closing with
    Settlement Agent in Minneaplis Mn (probably REO Broker division) who closed as instructed and did not file the lawful documents
    Was the title policy you paid for the REO BROKER Insurance – not a real Title Policy?
    Do you have a Chain of Title Audit?

    You do have
    Settlement Agent
    A person responsible for ensuring that all laws and regulations are followed in transferring real estate from one owner to the next. For example, when one sells his/her house, the settlement agent performs the title search and conducts other activities necessary for the real estate to close smoothly. Generally speaking, a settlement agent does not represent either party in a real estate transaction. Some U.S. states require a settlement agent to work on real estate transactions.

    Settlement agent. In some states, a settlement agent, or closing agent, handles the real estate transaction when you buy or sell a home.

    He or she oversees title searches, legal documents, fee payments, and other details of transferring property, acting on your behalf to ensure that the conditions of the contract have been met and appropriate real estate taxes have been paid.

    A settlement agent also represents you at the closing, so you don’t need to be present

    What you don’t have the Nominee: A person or organization in whose name a security is registered though true ownership is held by another party

    What you have is a person or organization named to act on behalf of someone else, esp to conceal the identity of the nominator

    funder third party (as modifier) nominee shareholder ?

    Evidence keeps a case going before the COURT.

    Do you have evidence, hard substantiated certified evidence or conclusions of hearsay?

  25. Good points, Neil. But, there is a problem – as to SUBPRIME prime mortgage “loans” – (and not all foreclosures are subprime — large spillover to other victims (unemployed/underwater) of the mortgage financial fiasco)). Must be careful to distinguish – as this affects claimed loan collection rights. All loans/foreclosures not the same.

    A big problem is the refinance of subprime loans -and, nearly ALL subprime loans were refinances. There was likely NO new mortgage in a subprime refinance — but, rather, only a modification of already (falsely) classified default debt. This is why there was no need for “funding” — as to “shell” trusts. Cannot “fund” already classified default debt — no need to fund. Only funding was for “excess cash” by the subprime refinance. All that occurred in subprime refinances — was a transfer of servicing rights to a modified “default loan.”

    Prior loans — No need for pay-off — since only collection rights were modified.

    Table Funding?? Originally also my source of RESPA fraud – too. But, nothing was even table-funded by subprime refinances — nothing was funded at all — which is why the SUBPRIME “trusts” are EMPTY. Nothing more than a shell for falsely stated mortgages that were never mortgages to begin with.

    Now, let us look at Maiden Lane sale of bonds to NEW “investors.” Maiden Lane is basically a newly formed (BIG) CDO — combines many tranches – from many trusts — regarding subprime “trusts” – for which credit default swaps have been executed upon. Once CDS executed upon a security — there is NO MORE security — NO MORE cash flow. The security is dead — with only collection rights — swapped out of the (false) trust.. Collection rights swapped to default swap holder. Unless swap was paid in cash — then — collection rights remain with bank — that is, until government bailed out AIG and, by paying cash, took possession of collection rights (for the banks).. So — who are the “investors” — in Maiden Lane’s credit default swap portfolio??? And, how does this even happen??? Not the way financial markets were supposed to operate.

    AIG was paid CASH for the swaps AIG insured (on behalf of clients.). The securities Collateral to the executed swaps —- were/are held in Maiden Lane. NOT THE LOAN ITSELF THAT HAD ONCE BACKED THE SECURITIES. (not really loans) – because no loans were EVER actually transferred to trust — because they were not NEW loans to begin with. (Again, this is for subprime loans ONLY). .

    Normally, the swaps would have REMOVED the collection rights from the trusts — to the swap holder – for a traditional MBS trust. But, subprime loans were NOT traditional MBS. And,, government orchestrated a new approach to the “newly” formed “default” securitizations — given the near “financial collapse” – that was occurring- due to the leverage upon leverage on “default” distressed debt collection rights. Political?? Save face.

    Government paid the cash to AIG — and “took over” the securities that should have been now technically DEAD — for the banks that held the toxic “loans” — not really loans – but collection rights — to the “toxic” default debt that once backed the “toxic” securities that were bailed out by the government.

    So we now have “investors” to (false) “securities” — to MAIDEN LANE — that should NOT be securities at all– because bailed out by CDS (which terminates securities). . But, the government created a NEW CDO — for the dead CDS “toxic” securities — that the government bailed out — in order to save AIG and the financial industry market (banks). Dead toxic securities — backed by dead toxic modifications to falsely classified default debt modifications. What kind of securities market is that???

    Oh — but Geithner/Bernanke state that — FORECLOSURES MUST GO THROUGH — (NO matter what). .

    Ongoing problem with subprime “loans” lies with the modification of (false) default debt – from the so-called “origination,.” There were no securities — no funding — no valid trusts- no conveyance — and no possession to begin with.

    Can anything be modified now??? Not without divulging WHO holds collection rights on it’s balance sheet. Can false default debt ever be modified?? Investors to Maiden Lane CDO — which is CDS swap security collateral to dead securities — say — NO!!!!!!.

    Unprecedented situation — given government reaction to an unprecedented situation — for which the government has determined — there must be victims ——- YOU!!!!!!!!.

  26. right on target like always neil, massachusetts is starting to come around, the smelling salts are out,registery of Deeds are getting proactive,we need atty’s that really get it in mass, let’s go!

  27. does anyone get what M. Soliman is saying???I get the feeling tickling at the back of my head that what he is saying is super important but I can never get it. I am a Wells Fargo, HSBC trustee blah blah blah victim and I wish I could understand what this guy is saying…

  28. Dear Mr. Soliman:

    Thank you for sharing your accounting expertise.
    May I interpret the facts from your statement to mean that the actual ‘TRUST FUND’ of 88 Loan Trusts will reverse November 2011?

    I suspect one of the WFMBS 2006-10 trusts therefore to be reversal.

    Not a REVERSAL between the Master Servicers Aurora/Lehman BUYER of discounted loans who sold back servicing rights to Wells Fargo.

    Who benefits from the reversal? Or this is the third tier of the rolling five year plan.

    Wells Fargo & Co/MN – Wells Fargo Bank NA as pass thru agency one who does not report federal taxes – assets not an issue?

    I understand this but have trouble relating to harm under law.

  29. Philly Newspaper + BK+ Stalking Horse Bid ….Somthing I published last year …Hungarian was right !

    3rd Circuit overrules -NO CAN DO !

    … bidding


  30. Deutsche funding check;Wells Mortgage; HSBC Trustee never recorded til 5 yrs later.

    Asset charged and write down – its called a recap or reversal -accounting -got it



  31. Interesting subject matter—Hmmmmm

    Bush repealed the table funding and Sarbox disclosure . Questions involve basis accounting and general ledger accounting for gain on sale . Then . . . . check the UCC 1 Filing

    Peace Brother

  32. Nobody is going to jail that should go to jail. I wonder when that will happen. I truly believe that some of them will go to jail. If not, it is we, the people, who must act in our best interests. I wonder how members of the military feel about this? It would be something interesting to find out. Keep reading your Roman history.

  33. Mary, I am thinking they closed my loan TWICE; three days apart, two collection letters/different reference numbers; Deutsche funding check;Wells Mortgage; HSBC Trustee never recorded til 5 yrs later.

    You’re sounding like Nostradamus to me.

    I have listed the Wells companies (N.A, HM, WFASC, WFHET 05-2), HSBC, Deutsche, as defendants along with the DOES.
    Should I sue the title agent, too?
    Your thoughts…….

  34. I am not a lawyer; I don’t know legal things even if I think I do I don’t.

    My Pofessor is a fantastic lecturer who brought to life the US Constitution, Civil Litigation, Business Law and accountability to bring into the light of day important facts. None of her studnets ever wants to be ‘that person’ found to be resposible for filing a complaint for an attorney that would get dismissed because of a stupid mistake.

    Learn the vocabulary, and always use a Legal – Financial Dictionary until you know the legal and financial meaning of every word.

    Clerk – In COURT, they are an attorney who works for the Judge!

    Secretary – Attorney with authority as officer of business entity to register a company with the Secretary of State.

    Professor Rubino made us fearful! And that’s a good thing like remembering every day

    ‘Stupid people sign stupid contracts’ K.Petrides

    I will not be that student found to be resposible for filing a complaint with a COURT who does not have proper Jurisidiction over the subject matter, or the Summary did not clearly state the allegations and move court from infer to plausible, and never would a complaint be filed if the defendant is not entitled to remedy all forcing the COURT to dismiss the case.

    I find the Jean Kilat Miller v Rick W. Skogg, David Applegate… case compelling to research and by following the case identify what not to do. As a researcher, I’d be very interested in whch law firm, and attorney’s represented Jean Kilat Miller.

    As a researcher I’d build profiles for a Joinder Law Firm to bring facts in the light of day for Consumers as Plaintiff to take down the the Settlement Agents, REO BROKER divisions, intermediary third party funder, and PRETENDER LENDERS.

    CERTIFICATEGATE is around the corner!
    Defendants were Rick W. Skogg President, infamous Aurora and Lehman and David Applegate of infamous GMAC Mortgage Corp of Iowa, GMAC Mortgage Corp of PA …..

    I had evidence of fraud and multiple lawyers seeking $15K in retainer may have taken my money, filed a complaint which would have been dismissed!

    How many consumer’s have lost and never knew that the lawyer did not act in good faith and represent their best interests?

    How many people paid attorney’s good money and lost as Jean Kilat Miller?

    Make sure pro-se that your summary does state a claim upon which the COURT can grant relief COURT must have (subject matter) (jurisdiction) over the allegations. How do you know if you have failed disclosue factual allegations which rise above speculation in order to survive a motion to dimiss?

    Consumers must learn that in order for the COURTS to be independent, the judges and attorneys are assumed to be experts in law (not finance) and the COURT MUST ACCEPT as true the complaint and its evidence as true from the Plaintiff.

    If the Plaintiff’s complaint provides a valid summary, and reasonable inference beyond conclusionary, that there is the possibility that the defendant is liable for the allegations based upon facts moving the COURT from conceivable to plausible a case cannot be dismissed.

    The valid defense in a court of equity remains the broken chain of title to cast shadows over authenticy of party standing before court.

    That Settlement Agent who closed per the instructions filed by orignator will be an affiliate of the Financial Holding Company (Parent) whose employees do submit over 30 days from submission of the credit authorization to check status of your credit rating.

    The employees of the originator did provide the instructions to the Settlement Agent in your state, when to close, who to place on the title insurance policy, the amount to be placed on the title policy, the other Settlement Agent they closed with did they know is an REO BROKER of the originator?

    For example,: Premier Asset Services (“PAS”) is a division of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a divison of Wells Fargo Banki NA, 2701 Wells Fargo Way, Minneapolis MN. The Settlement Agent for ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA in NJ closed with somebody who is a CLOSING Agent (Disburesements) in Minneapolis MN and are responsible for the ordering the funding to be issued by the third party: Deutsche Bank Trust Americas c/o DBT Co LTD, NJ. Detusche Bank Trust Americas on the surface as intermediary funder appears to be an unrelated party, but is in agreement with Parent Wells Fargo & Company, a financial holding company.

    Poor Jean K. did not include these people? I don’t know I don’t have the case.

    The funding went directly into the individual settlement agent’s account in NJ, payable to the individual agent, attorney, who is an affiliate of the Parent through the Title & Settlement Agency.

    All of this MAYHEM started with a phone call perhaps for a car loan. The employee who submitted the credit authorization set the balls in motion to get his $2,500 commission check per loan and whatever other kickbacks, stipends, bonus.

    Moving forward from the credit application and follow the bouncing ball. You do not know what to ask for because you can’t see it. Get copies of the settlement agent files, which contains faxes, date stamped when funding ordered, fax phone#’s reveal the other party’s real identiy, the WFHM employee email’s in which WFHM for example ordered the closing to occur prior to you signing the documents (that is not fraud by the way), ordered the payoff figures if a refinance, ordered the Settlement Agent to follow the closing instructions, ordered the TItle company to issue title policies (for REO Broker) and ordered the intermediary funder to release funding for loan# (and requires loan# to be on documents), and even faxed to the homeowners insurance company to add third party to homeowners insurance policy.

    It’s the REO Broker’s Title Insurance Policy that will pay in the event foreclosue is imminient, FCI for example.

    The consumer paid for Title Insurance – money exchanged hands. Let’s get our copies!

    The Attorney has a fiduciary duty and has records!

    WFHM ordered the Title Agency to create and update a title policy. There is a very good reason why Wells Fargo Bank NA refused to give consumer a copy of the new policies issued during refinance!

    Perhaps evidence that a real title search was not performed by the Title Company who is their affiliate. Perhaps evidence the property put into the hands of their REO Broker

    Yes title insurance for WFHM REO BROKER Divison’s benefit – ever hear of Premier Asset Services?

    Ever hear of an attorney receiving payment of funding deposited into Corporate Treasury Securities account who is not in agreement as an agent, broker, dealer, distributor.

    Premier Asset Services (PAS) for refinances is a div of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and is a div of Wells Fargo Bank NA.

    The Settlement Agents does the secret ‘origination’ transactions as a third party who is an affiliate of the Financial Holding Company Parent as a Nominee perhaps?

    What is a Nominee:
    A person or organization in whose name a security is registered though true ownership is held by another party.

    Settlement Agent
    A person responsible for ensuring that all laws and regulations are followed in transferring real estate from one owner to the next. For example, when one sells his/her house, the settlement agent performs the title search and conducts other activities necessary for the real estate to close smoothly. Generally speaking, a settlement agent does not represent either party in a real estate transaction. Some U.S. states require a settlement agent to work on real estate transactions.

    Title Search
    In real estate, research done to trace a title back to its original owner or back to some date dictated by statute. A title search is done before the sale of property to ensure that there are no competing claims for the same property. A title search protects the mortgage lender from the possibility that that a competing claim will be honored in court, resulting in a loss. See also: Clean Deed, Quitclaim Deed, Title Insurance.

    Title search. A title search is an examination of property records by a title company or attorney to ensure that the person from whom you are buying a piece of property is its legal owner, and that there are no outstanding legal claims against the property.

    Your lender will require you to pay for a title search before the closing, or settlement, on your new home.

    The title search consists of a close examination of public records, such as deeds, wills, court judgments, and trusts, to make sure that the seller has the right to sell the property to you and that all prior mortgages, liens, and judgments have been settled.

    Sometimes the title search uncovers pending legal actions, undisclosed easements, or even claims on the property by heirs to prior owners. Since title examiners might miss problems and public records can contain errors, most lenders will require you to purchase title insurance at closing to protect their interest in the property.

  35. How is B. Davies doing? I have not seen his posts lately?

  36. Home owners are always out of the loop hence the skulkihng smiles on thier faces.We were never allowed the sophistication to know that we were someones financial transport system.Had we been allowed this knowledge we would have walked away from the table maybe a little poorer in money but much richer in the knowledge that it was a good transaction or bad.But at least it would have been an informed choice.We were never given that respect value.We were trated shabbily by an industry that now wants to treat us even worse.Enough is enough.

  37. I would advise that one client in Oregon was facing exactly the situation described (plus so-called “Assignments” where none of the signatures nor the notary signatures were true) and, at the eve of trial, the “plaintiff” blinked- case withdrawn.

    The judges that have figured out they were being lied to and scammed are starting to do a slow burn. Woe the creditor that shows up with papers that are obviously defective. And don’t forget: sue the bums. What these clowns are not set up for in their “business plan” is being buried under tens of thousands of suits from furious homeowners.

  38. Agreed Pam.

    How is it I go into court, the judge and the lawyers exchange polite smiles like they all know something the defendant does not, the plaintiff’s attorneys- the thieves- get respect, and I skulk out head down feeling like the common criminal. Come on now. Enough is known about the contortions that went on here in all agencies of banking and government. Why do they all go home, head held high, and I lose my home, look forward to a future in debt that I will NEVER overcome, and feeling like absolute crap. It cannot ring more clearly of: it’s been going on for years, we all knew about it, we know about it in your case, and you’re not a member of the club. Move on.

  39. Sounds great only problem is it doesn’t happen that way for the home owner.Lets face it if it was that easy every home owner would win just due to standing and nothing else.What does happen is you are stymied and stifled at every cross road where the court system should be making sure that these rights are always upheld.You are constantly told what a deadbeat you are the list just goes on and on.Great article ,really wish it was that way.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: