COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

We are receiving reports that BAC is sending out letters declaring that they are transferring loans from BAC or Bank of America, the parent company as of July 1, 2011.

The question is why? It seems that BOA is starting to realize the title problems inherent in its takeover of Countrywide and the initiation of loans using money from investors who bought bogus mortgage bonds. There is no doubt that the fundamental defects in the original loans is starting to bother BOA and other banks, along with their shareholders and creditors. They managed to get the NY Federal Reserve Bank to issue a statement that was dismissive of such claims. But the Fed doesn’t decide contractual or property rights — that is the exclusive province of the judicial branch applying existing laws.

There is a great deal of confusion added to the chaos that is inherent in the illusion of securitization. It comes from the fact that most people, including regulators, lawyers and judges, fail to appreciate the difference between the servicer and the creditor. Indeed, the pretender lenders are counting on this confusion when they go to court and it is working, albeit less and less as Judges start looking behind the veil of attorney representation and false affidavits that leave the court record bereft of any actual evidence. It might be that the servicing rights have been transferred and not the loan.

But remember that the servicing rights arise from the securitization documents and if those were not followed, thus subjecting the loan to servicing as per the pooling and servicing agreement, the administration of the account by the servicer could be alleged as ultra vires.  And remember that just because something is transferred doesn’t make it any more valid than it was before the transfer. So if the original obligation, note, mortgage deed or other closing documents were not in compliance with law, and factually were at variance with how the loan was actually funded and by whom, then the transfer doesn’t make those defects disappear. The pretenders have been largely successful at convincing the courts otherwise, but each day more judges are realizing that the fact that a “loan” was transferred, doesn’t mean that the loan even existed or that the lien was perfected.

In any event, it would seem that if you receive such a letter, you should ask to see the documents evidencing the transfer. First you are entitled by law to this information, according to Dodd-Frank law. Second whatever they send you they are committing themselves in writing to a specific set of facts that they can no longer change in the shell game they are playing in the courts. At that point it makes sense to inquiring about who signed what and to demand the entire chain. The possession of a COMBO title and securitization report and analysis will go nicely with this effort. A retort expressing the desire to rescind and/or a qualified written request will set the stage for starting off any proceeding with your truthful allegation that first, before they do anything else, they must comply with the requirements of law and respond to your request.

90 Responses

  1. I do believe all the ideas you’ve introduced for your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work.
    Still, the posts are too quick for novices. Could you please lengthen them a bit
    from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

  2. This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks!

  3. I have submitted three QWR letters to Bank of America N.A. since November of 2011. The first request received hardly any attention, the second request prompted them a little more efforts since I went through the Consumer Protection financial Bureau. This time they gave me the name of the holder of the note to be National government mortgage association or so called Gennie May. No securitization report was given to me. To the third request I have received a partial response already, but this time they are saying that the holder of the note is BOA. We are awaiting more documents from them. I am wondering if BOA is not keeping track of the information they have gave us in the past when they said the holder of the note was someone else, are they uncovering their own world of lies?? Or is it possible for the note to have changed owner? By the way mine is an FHA loan.

  4. Very good post. I will be facing a few of these issues as well.

  5. I’ve read some good stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you put to make this kind of magnificent informative website.

  6. check your state statutes for harassment or aggravated harassment. also see the following:

    also review state and federal mail and wire fraud statutes.

  7. I really need an educated anwser to what’s been happening to us. I hope someone can shed some light on this, because I’m an inch away from taking Bank of America to court.

    It became necessary for my (soon-to-be) husband to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2010 on a home here in Ohio. The home loan originated with CountryWide, and the debt was discharged in full. Not long after he received numerous phone calls (while at work!) from BAC requesting payments and he started receiveing payment requests by mail. He kept telling them over and over and OVER again that the debt had been discharged, gave them the case number, etc…..and then they would say “ok, would you like to make a payment???”

    I guess at some point the CountryWide “loan” was illegaly sold to BAC and that is why they were harrassing us. We spent a year or so ignorning their calls and letters thinking surely this must be some misunderstanding or a glich in the system that would correct itself…especially after giving them all the bankruptcy information.

    Then this “loan” was sold to Bank of America, who now harrasses us. They are reporting this as a debt on our credit report and for some reason report that it is timely! I’ve filed with a 3 credit reporting agencies and they have removed the erroneous loan and now have it listed as it shoud be, which is discharged by bankruptcy. i also filed a complaint with the FTC. Our attorney sent BOA a cease and desist letter. I sent all copies of the bankruptcy discharge to BOA,and a letter requesting they remove my husbands information from their files and to stop sending him mail, stop the phone calls and also stop selling this non-existent loan to another company. To which they replied they felt their records were accurate and they weren’t changing their reporting to the credit bureaus. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable, all of this.

    Our attorney plans to file a complaint with the bankruptcy court, so that BOA will have to come in and answer for themselves why they are trying to collect discharged debt.

    Does ANYONE have any experience with this? I know there is an Alabama lawsuit going on for the very same reason. There must be others out there who are victims of Zombie Debt.

  8. I have used this website to find very valuable information and have done a lot of research on my own I would like to share this with all of you and hopefully get some very valuable feedback. I have fought off 3 foreclosures with Qualified Written Request, facts that were found of illegal robosiging of documents in Harris County Clerk’s office which I turned over to the county commissioner and brought to light that Bank of America servicer of my mortgage and Recontrust were foreclosing on my home and on the paperwork put that Current Mortgagee is MERS and 1st Mortgagee is Bank of New York Trustee for Asset Backed Certificates CWABS 2007-2. Of course now this has lead me to further investigate MERS as a Mortgagee and Bank of New York as Mortgagee as neither have proper assignments that can be found in the Harris County Clerk’s Office. Not only did I locate my loan on the SEC under CWABS-2007-2, I also located the pooling and service agreement. The rules of the PSA have been violated. I then did more research and have found the cusip number that my loan is located under. Results are the FHFA has filed a lawsuit against Bank of America, Bank of New York, and other large banks which include CWABS 2007-2 and the CUSIP number which clearly identifies all of the fraud within the banks, investors Freddie MAC and Fannie MAE.
    I have now filed bankruptcy (Chapter 13) because I feel if on the Notice to foreclose by the Substitute Trustee list MERS 1st Mortgagee, and Bank of New York as current Mortgagee, then they should be the Creditors although Bank of America is the Servicer of the loan. So when I list my creditors, I have listed MERS and Bank of New York since this appears to be the Mortgagee. Please let me know if I am missing something or if I seem to be on the right track through all of your comments I am learning a great deal of information.

  9. whoah this blog is magnificent i love reading your articles. Stay up the good paintings! You already know, many people are looking around for this information, you could aid them greatly.


    We are currently only working in these states right now in CALIFORNIA (We need as many California clients as we can get!!) Oregon, Massachusetts, Florida, Illinois, New York and California where our counsel is Mark Zanides, a former US Asst. Attorney General in the Bay area.

    We have a new solution for helping people in difficult situations like yours. In order to help you with your situation you must have recently been discharged from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and have a loan that is owned in a privately securitized bond trust. Don’t worry if you do not know this answer, we will help you figure this part out. It is important to remember that if your loan is owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA or VA, we unfortunately cannot help you at this time.

    We are only focusing on Chapter 7 homeowners at this time, as it alleviates for the most part the deficiencies, etc. and they are typically facing losing the home back to the bank very shortly. These homeowners are typically more educated with the process since they have addressed loan mods and short sales throughout the time in foreclosure and we can focus on business of acquiring, litigating and property managing homes. It’s a much simpler process with post 7 people. We will consider Chapter 13 people but for now Marc wants to stay focused on the 7’s as there are so many of them out there.

    The Company was started by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, who is a leading foreclosure defense litigator; Tracey Baron, founder of Turning Leaf Advisors, successful loss Mitigation Company and Robert Mittleman, Director of Education, Laurus Title Group.

    Marc Dann and the Big Blue Legal Team will oversee the efforts to review all of the Chapter 7 Discharged properties to hone in on properties with first mortgage liens that can be challenged through litigation. Lawyers will evaluate the likelihood of success in litigating a lien strip or purchase of the first mortgage note by identifying properties where the mortgages are securitized and the security interest of the bond trust has not been perfected, where there are issues related to the fraudulent assignment of mortgages or failure to indorse promissory notes within in the timelines established by the pooling and servicing agreements that govern the bond trusts comprised of securitized mortgages.

    Big Blue’s legal operation will then oversee and pay for aggressive foreclosure defense or pro-active quiet title actions to challenge the standing of the alleged mortgage and note holders to foreclose on the acquired property. The Big Blue legal team will create brief and discovery banks and standards and intensively monitor lawyers hired to litigate cases.

    What our company and partner Law Firms does is purchase your home subject to the existing mortgages and aggressively fight the lenders who are likely to foreclose on your home shortly. The purpose of this is to settle the outstanding liens using litigation.

    We identify and acquire carefully pre-selected parcels of residential real estate owned by individuals who have been discharged from Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in situations where the Bankruptcy Trustee has abandoned any claim to the property.

    Big Blue Capital Partners will acquire the interest subject to the mortgage after discharge, but before the mortgage holder seeks to foreclose and aggressively litigate the validity of the mortgage lien. Through this process, we will attempt to purchase the security interests in the properties at a substantial discount.

    We are only focusing on Chapter 7 homeowners at this time, as it alleviates for the most part the deficiencies, etc. and they are typically facing losing the home back to the bank very shortly. These homeowners are typically more educated with the process since they have addressed loan mods and short sales throughout the time in foreclosure and we can focus on business of acquiring, litigating and property managing homes. It’s a much simpler process with post 7 people. We will consider Chapter 13 people but for now Marc wants to stay focused on the 7’s as there are so many of them out there.

    Our team, led by experienced Lawyers, Mortgage experts, Title experts and Real Estate professionals, will take your place in the foreclosure process and if your property qualifies, and is accepted by us, we will aggressively litigate the imminent foreclosure process by the bank or lender, and take over the property entirely.

    Should you be accepted into either of our programs all of the responsibilities related to the ownership of your home will shift to Big Blue Capital Partners, LLC and it’s Law Firm. Should you decide to stay in your property, you will become a tenant with a genuine opportunity to regain ownership of your home if we are successful in our efforts by receiving an option to purchase the property back at some time in the future.


    Lake Oswego, OR

    Cleveland, OH

    Chicago, IL

    MARK ZANIDES LAW OFFICES- a Former US Asst. Attorney General in the Bay Area.
    Santa Ana, CA

    Cape Coral, Florida

    Haddonfield, NJ

    Los Angeles, CA
    Las Vegas, NV.

    We are currently only working in these state right now in Oregon Massachusetts, Florida, Illinois, New York and California, where our counsel is Mark Zanides, a former US Asst. Attorney General in the Bay area. We are being as conservative as we can in this area to make sure that we have all of our ducks in a row. We don’t take on a property until we analyze the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and have a good handle as to the underlying issues with the mortgage.

    We cannot help everybody, we do not work with GSE loans as they do not have the same improprieties as the privately secured bond trusts and they do not have the same type of guarantees that come along with government loans.

    Listen Ladies and Gentleman, this is a true way to fight these lenders, our team is experienced and we want to help.

    We will not be successful 100% of the time, however if we are careful with analyzing the characteristics of the underlying loan, we should be able to increase the likelihood of potential success, based on the current case law in each respective state, which is changing every day. The homeowner will have the option of staying in the home at a below fair market value rent during the litigation process. Our law firm & partners will only litigate through our program, To be considered into our program email me at: leave your contact info so we may send you the program packet.

    B. Michael White
    Big Blue LLC

  11. I am watching the same thing happen right next door on as far as assignments, etc.

    The homeowner chose to walk after trying to shortsell for over a year. They left the state over a year ago.

    They originally had Quicken Home Loans, which is where the DOT / NOTE, along with MERS sat. Mysteriously, in March of this year, there was an substitution of trustee assignment filed moving past all the others granting from the homeowner to TD Service. Four days later, a deed of trust assignment was made to Federal National Mortgage. Then in June, a trustee sale, which was supposedly taken back by the bank……..Fannie Mae. All of this is WRONG!!

    Now, a young family buying their first house is scheduled to move in this week, not knowing that the title to their new home is SHOT!!!

    I can’t believe our government is just letting these banks sweep this crap under the rug.

    QS2 (Quantitative Sucking) is underway all over again. They won’t stop until all the money is gone from the middle class and all the property is gone as well.

    I don’t know about you, but this ain’t the change I think those who voted for Obama (OneBigAssMistakeAmerica) had in mind.

    They are going down soon!

  12. Going out of my mind here in Houston TX, Harris County. Bank of America sent a copies of my documents after sending a qualified written request. I asked them to tell me who owned the loan or the promissory note. You see, my D/T has Grantor (Me) Grantees are filed with Harris County Clerk’s Office as America’s Wholesale Lender, CTC Real Estate, and Mortgage Electronic Services (MERS). After sending the QWR, Bank of America I receive a copy of documents from them which included the promissory note of the 80/20 loans. These notes are still under the lender America’s Wholesale Lender.
    I sent another QWR asking them to please tell me who owns the note being as on MERS it state’s Bank of America services the loan but under two different investors Bank of America N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellons, I do not see how America’s Wholesale Lender could be the holder of the note. I questioned this and Bank of America came back with this answer. I quote from the letter I received
    the “Owner” of this loan is Bank of America, whose address is 225 W. Hillcrest Dr., Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 and Bank of America
    services the loan on behalf of the owner. I am so confused because none of these assignments are visible from what is filed at the Harris County Clerk’s office. They also advised me in the letter that they feel they are abiding by the RESPA laws and have not violated them.
    I am so confused and still feel that my Deed of Trust/Promissory Note is not legal as far as assignments to the deed of trust and the deed of trust is clouded with improper information.

  13. The letter states you must dispute (in writing) the debt to Bank of America within 30 days or it becomes valid debt……Come on!

  14. I got two of those letters one saying it was selling to Bank of America Home Loan Servicing and then another this last one saying it was selling to Bank of America N.A. as of July 1, 2011. Home has been in foreclosure for over year and was to go up for Auction Last Nov 18, 2010. Nothing happened. Then we get this letter in the mail after we called the bank to make sure we got our tax forms for the 2010 tax year. They paid the taxes on the house but the HOA slapped a lien on the house for past due fees. They can all rot in hell I won’t pay them a cent they can ruin my credit if they like I will eventually be able to buy another house if I so choose. When I got the mortgage I told the broker I did not want a loan from countrywide I got us bank, when I refinance I didn’t tell her I didn’t want countrywide because I thought she would know since we already had this discussion. She got the loan through countrywide. Shortly thereafter my loan was transferred to Bank of America. I despise BOfA and would never choose to do business with them. Just be cause a bank can sell a loan shouldn’t mean that they can do so without your permission. Who you choose to do business with should be your choice not someone else’s. I requested a loan mod was first told didn’t qualify because we were too upside-down. Second time we were told we didn’t qualify because we made too much money. I’ll be damned if I am stuck in a house I hate and was mislead into buying until I die because I could sell it. Finally we tried a short sell they refused to do that as well. So we just walked and are still waiting for them to do whatever. I am considering doing a deed in lieu of Foreclosure. I doubt that they would accept that either. Then they called the Insurance company and told them that the house was empty and our ins cancelled the policy due to occupancy. Then BOfA send us a letter telling us that they have been informed that our policy had been cancelled and they if we didn’t get new insurance on the home they would force insure at 1900 which would be added to our debt. There is only one thing I have to say to that. BoFA is just the slime on the bottom of the fish tank for the way they handled this debacle. I refuse to be put into my grave early for the stress and uncertainty that this bank would seek to inflict on me and my family in order to get us to pay. They can shove it.





    Raj Date is top contender for CFPB director job: congressional source

    Friday, June 10th, 2011, 12:31 pm

    Former banking executive Raj Date is currently the president’s top pick to fill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s empty director post, a congressional source said Friday.
    The CFPB declined to comment when asked about Date and the director position. The bureau goes live July 21.
    While Elizabeth Warren, the architect of the bureau, remains a popular choice among progressive policy groups and CFPB supporters, ongoing criticism of the agency that Warren helped shape has dogged the Harvard law professor for months.
    On the surface, Date appears the opposite of Warren, given his background in banking. He formerly served Deutsche Bank Securities as managing director of the financial institutions group and Capital One Financial as senior vice president for corporate strategy and development. He also joined Cambridge Winter Center for financial policy, a nonprofit that defines its mission as “fostering a rational and informed discourse on U.S. financial institutions policy.”
    “It makes sense politically,” said University of Houston Law Professor Jim Hawkins, who has studied the CFPB. “It is a way to choose someone who is really close to Warren, but maybe not too close. I think the big difference is that she never formally worked in the industry. She is an academic. He is an industry person who later formed a nonprofit.”
    While the president’s consideration of Warren for the post riled critics who saw her as an academic with no real-world banking experience, the criticism surrounding Date could be just as potent, sources say.
    Despite his business pedigree, one source said “frankly, he doesn’t pass the smell test, there are doubts about his conflicts of interest that have been raised in the past.”
    One of those doubts surfaced last October when The New York Times reported Date’s previously worked at a firm that arranged low-doc loans for borrowers with troubled credit histories.
    At the same time, supporters of Date rejected the article and instead pointed to his research, where he pushes back against excessive Wall Street pay and addresses negatives tied the financial bailouts in the report, The Killer G’s.
    “If he is nominated, it is going to be a nonstarter,” one source told HousingWire.
    Even still, a party familiar with the matter said the argument against the CFPB and director post “is not about one person.”
    “The whole thing has to be rearranged, and the president is not going to do that. From a macro-perspective we do not want a single person running the agency,” according to the source.

  16. Thank you for all this Valuable information! Contnue the fight!

  17. When I think of Brian Moynihan or Barabra Desoer, I think of the song by John Lennon called Piggies:
    So if it walks like a piggy, talks like a piggy, by golly it’s a PIGGY!

    BofA and it’s CEO Brian Moynihan reminds me of that song by John Lennon and George Harrison titled “Piggies” I invite you to listen to this song on youtube and see if it appropriately fits.
    Have you seen the little piggies
    Crawling in the dirt
    And for all the little piggies
    Life is getting worse
    Always having dirt to play around in.
    Have you seen the bigger piggies
    In their starched white shirts
    You will find the bigger piggies
    Stirring up the dirt
    Always have clean shirts to play around in.
    In their ties with all their backing
    They don’t care what goes on around
    In their eyes there’s something lacking
    What they need’s a damn good whacking.
    Everywhere there’s lots of piggies
    Living piggy lives
    You can see them out for dinner
    With their piggy wives
    Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

    When I filed my lawsuit against Bank of America, I thought of the many others out there in the same situation. It was then that we decided to educate the public on what these piggy banks are doing, as well as unite us all together as one voice. Please help me turn this David vs. Goliath modification process, into a Goliath vs. Goliath.
    Please stand with me and Brookstone Law Firm, and send an email to Bank of Abusing America that states that we will no longer tolerate their potentially illegal, fraudulent, irregular and abusive business methods.
    So please send your email directly to Bank of America and include the following:
    1. Your name
    2. Your complaint concerning your experience with Bank of America.
    3. Please end your email “I support John Wright vs. BofA Lawsuit!”
    4. Please send a copy of your email to
    5. Please send your email to BofA CEO Brian Moynihan:
    I have created for all of those who have been abused by Bank of Destroying Americas potentially irregular, fraudulent and simply abusive home loan modification process.
    Divided we might have fell America. UNITED WE MUST STAND!
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
    John Wright

  18. What specific documents should be asked for from BAC or Bank of America?

  19. DO NOT GO TO FEDERAL COURT! Avoid at all costs–go file a quiet title, declaratory judgment, negligence, slander of title claim in state court and avoid those TILA, RESPA and any other federal claim which gets you nothing. Fed courts do not have authority to enter a TRO to sop forecosure. Fed Courts do not have the grounds to cover an in rem property action such as quiet title and declaratory judgment. A well pled qt/dc action gets a clear title in your name with a note that is worthless. What more can you ask for–some garbage claims under some garbage fed law? You go into foreclosure, your fed court cannot enter a tro–no authority. You obviously don’t talk to any lawyer knowing what the”h” he/she is doing.

  20. What would the letter to the Service asking for documents to show the servicing transfer?

  21. Issuing Entity “Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-1; 2005-2; 2005-3; 2005-4

    10K Annual Report for 2005-1 12/31/2005 of
    ‘Asset Backed Notes’

    c/o Countrywide Home Loan Servicing LP
    “Trust” is a Statutory Trust formed under laws of DE

    “16th century concept of property being held in trust by one person for the benefit”

    Delaware Statutory Trust (“DST”)
    Separate Legal Entity
    Statutory Trust Act has express authority to…
    as related to 12 Del. C. 3801 et Seq. in 1988…
    Registered Agent for service of process …

    Trust Agreement 3/18/2005
    CWABS Inc as Depositor,
    Wilmington Trust Co, ‘Owner Trustee’
    Bank of New York, Certificate Registrant
    Certificate Paying Agent “Trustee”
    Issuance Asset-Backed Notes
    Indenture (Trust & Trustee)

    OWNER Trustee ‘Wilmington Trust Co’ Parent is M&T Bank Corp (RSSD ID 1037003)
    Assets of Trust serviced

    ‘Servicing Agreement

    3/18/2005 (TRUST) & Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP Master Servicer, Trustee (as Indenture Trustee”

    Why did SEC grant CWMBS, Inc. ‘relief’ on compliance “Relief Letter” 2/3/1994? and why related to 2005 10K?


    State of Delaware
    Business Entity Search

    Encore Credit Corp Net Int. Margin Trust 2003-1
    File: 3668709 6/11/2003
    Registered Agent: BNY Mellon Trust of DE
    100 White Clay Center 102
    Newark DE 19711

    Encore Credit Receivables NIMS Trust 2005-4
    File# 4064115 11/21/2005

    Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-1
    File Number 3940148
    Statutory Trust: 3/15/2005
    Registered Agent: Wilmington Trust Co
    Rodney Sq N 1100 N.l Market Wilmington DE 19890

    Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-2
    File Number: 3975359
    Statutory Trust – 5/24/2005
    Registered Agent: Wilmington Trust Co
    Rodney Sq N 1100 N Market, Wilmington DE 19890

    Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-3
    File Number: 4022693
    Statutory Trust: 8/30/2005
    Registered Agent: Wilmington Trust Co. (Use 9113495) Corporate Trust Admin
    1100 North Market St
    Wilmington DE – New Castle

    (Only DE Business Entities with ‘Receivables’ in registered name)

    ‘Statutory Trust’ of DE enabled by State government?

    BNY and Wilmington Trust Co as owner of (first-named) all Receivables, Notes, Asset Backed Securities, Mortgage Asset Backed Securities, Certificates?


    FFIEC.GOV (44 Institutions match Wilmington Trust’

    FDIC Certificate#680
    RTN: 031100092


    WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY (3315349) WILMINGTON DE Domestic Entity Other

    State Member Banks
    This subset includes all commercial banks that are state-chartered and members of the Federal Reserve System. Commercial banks include all BIF-, SAIF-, and BIF/SAIF-Insured commercial banks and industrial banks. (Please note: Effective March 31, 2006, the FDIC merged the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) into a new fund, the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). All institutions carrying BIF, SAIF, and BIF/SAIF insurance were transitioned to DIF accordingly.)

    Parent: M&T Bank Corp
    Buffallo New York (1037003)
    nufacturers and Traders Trust Co
    M&T Financial Corp (1037012)
    01/30/1992 Sussex Trust Co acquired by
    Wilmington Trust Company
    10/11/2007 changed from Non-Member Bank to
    State Member Bank
    12/31/2008 Moved to 1100 N Market St

    (Parent 12/31/1990 First Empire State Corp 1037003) Buffalo NY
    22 Institution include M&T Venture Corp
    M&T Discount Brokerage Services, Inc
    First Operations Resource Williamsville NY
    Thrift Info Systems

  22. John defined ‘proper’
    Agreements allow Master Servicer to transfer to any servicer subservicer
    Indenture Trustee in control over Master Servicer if Master Servicer Replaced.

  23. Hello everyone

    I too received the below notice.

    The question is….why are they doing this? Let’s not rehash the obvious, instead – why would they be transferring the servicing to BofA proper? What’s the game they are playing?

  24. Bank of New York, Encore Captial Corp, Wachovia Secfurities … Countrywide, Option One … HomeEQ ….

    Ponzi Scheme (fraud disguished as investment opportuntiy). I do believe this ‘Issue’ reveals how investors paid early and why they put skin in the game.

    It’s called Ponzi scheme “ENCORE CREDIT RECEIVABLES 2005-1 Issuing Entity
    Fictitious name for Registrant ‘CWABS, Inc.’
    (Asset-Backed Notes) (no securities except for poor subordinated group sold after the fact certificates they would receive limited payments)

    Is this a windup? The act of bringing something to an end. concluding part; a conclusion of feeding the beast?

    Form 15D filed under Rule 15d-6 only (2) Holders of record as of the ‘certification date’ your Robo CERTIFICATE SIGNATORY: Leon Daniels 1/24/2006 (all receivables would be booked in 2005 for this transaction?).

    Who said Wachovia only dealt with World Bank?

    Notes (1 Year or less) UNDERWRITER purchases from SELLER (eg JM Morgan Securities from JP Morgan Co Inc) assets of bank.

    Notes – Receivables – Encore (Co-Lead Managers (Underwriters) Countrywide Securities Corp & Wachovia Securities)

    ( Notes are assets of the holding co of bank in their name…)

    One can have profit on paper because all ‘payments are income’ and ‘receivable of $1,600,000,000 huge! and part of the room with a view ‘demise’ of ponzi running out of steam with intent did they post on paper asset knowing they organized to go broke ‘and parties would not be paying their bills… need to see actual financial statements to figure out what is really happening.

    Indenture Trustee: Bank of New York

    Indenture Trustee: The Bank of New York will be the Indenture Trustee under the Indenture and the Servicing Agreement.

    that Payments under book-entry format, to beneficial owners of Book-Entry Notes will be forwarded by BONY to Cede & Co.

    c/o DTC and DTC may only act on behalf of Financial Intermediaries, ability of beneficial owners to pledge Book-Entry Notes to persons or entities that do not participate in DTC may be limited – potential investors may be unwilling to purchase nots for which they cannot obtain physical notes.

    Note: Search by fax# on google to get some very interesting hits related to BONY and the mess which harmed the economy finally tying in for me the relationship at the higher level over Wells Fargo.
    HSBC to BONY to WFC.

    Regarding BONY (Indenture Trustee) is a big deal based on what I’ve just read in

    Notes Exchangeable by Indenture Trustee,
    Bank of New York, 101 Barclay St NY NY 10286 (Attn: Corporate Trust MBS Administration)
    212-815-3236 Fax 212-815-3986

    The Depositor CWABS Inc and Seller ECC Capital Corp may maintain other banking relationships in the ordinary course of business with the Indenture Trustee Bank of New York.

    Indenture Agreement BONY &3/18/2005 Between Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-1 -Issuer: Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-1

    Thank ‘God!’ an ADHD personality put together ENCORE Credti Receivables Trust 2005-1 Issuer!$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=1321027

    Note Owners (will not be Noteholders as defined in Indenture)

    Anticipated that the only Noteholder of the Notes will be Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC

    Financial Intermediary: Maintains beneficiary owners account for such purpose.

    Financial Intermediary is not a DTC participant.

    DTC New York chartered limited purpose trust company performs services for its participants some of which own DTC (record) book entry note positions held by each DTC participant its own account or nominee for another.

    Cede & Co. not under SEC.

    SUB-SERVICER: Option One Mortgage Corp subservicer all mortgage loans in accord with subservicing agreement.

    Subservicer: Option One: a California corp headquartered in Irvine CA incorporated in 1992, receiving applications for mortgage loans under regular lending program 2/1993, began funding mortgage loans indirectly 2/1993.

    Option One principal business Origination and sale and servicing of non-conforming mortgage loans. Optin One wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R Block Inc.

    Foreclosed Loans means the principal balance of mortgage loans secured by mortgaged properties the title to which has been acquired by Option One, by investors or by an insurer following foreclosure or delivery of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

    “Recoveries” are recoveries from liquidation proceeds, deficiency judgments
    and MI proceeds

    Seller Repurchases ‘representations and warranties’

    (Seller repurchases such laon from trust fund 100% of unpaid…)

  25. We received one of those letters. BAC HLS filed a fraudulent mortgage assignment and allonge saying it owned our mortgage and note March, 2010 and filed a foreclosure after refusing to produce to us who the noteholder was several months prior, (so we refused to pay them any $ until they could). It was an AWL/CW loan originally. Of course, we never received any assignment notice. They refused to produce docs for months, would not answer interrogatories or admissions. Finally, we got the judge to compel them to give up their robosigners for depo and he added that they could not file a summary judgment motion until they did and gave them 4 weeks. Within 2 weeks, they filed a dismissal. That was over 2 months ago and they are again harassing us with statements that BAC HLS services the loan for the noteholder without referencing who that might be. Of course, the fraudulent mortgage assignment says it’s BAC HLS. The QWR response says it’s Fannie Mae and when we noted the discrepancy (with the QWR attorney), he refused to even acknowledge our numerous letters by certified mail, email and fax. We are pretty sure that it is neither (combo search and said our interrogatories were irrelevant and too burdensome). We will file our federal lawsuit before July 1st, because this recent letter shows that they are definitely up to something new. Educate yourselves and good luck fighting the banksters!

  26. By the way, here is an EXACT copy of what they are sending. They do lie!

    We want to let you know that effective July 1, 2011, the servicing of home loans by our subsidiary—BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, will transfer to our parent company—Bank of America, N.A. Any home loan you have with us that is currently serviced by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is affected by this change—i.e., any loan where you make payments to “BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP”.

    What this means for you:

    If you pay by check on or after July 1, 2011, please make checks payable to “Bank of America, N.A.”
    Effective July 1, 2011, your monthly statements will show “Bank of America, N.A.” as your loan servicer.
    We will notify property insurance carriers of this change; however, we recommend you review the next policy renewal notice you receive after July 1, 2011, to verify that the “Mortgagee” for your policy has been updated to reflect “Bank of America, N.A.” If your policy has not been updated, please contact your insurance carrier to ensure the update is made.
    Your account number(s) will remain the same.
    The terms and conditions for your loan(s) will not change.
    If you make automated/ACH payments or you make payments through Bank of America’s or another financial institution’s online banking service, continue to make payments as you do today. No actions are required on your part to accommodate this transfer.
    The customer service toll-free numbers, fax numbers and mailing addresses will remain the same.
    Online Banking access to your account(s) will remain the same.
    Your privacy elections will not change.
    For customers discussing, applying for, or involved in any Loan Modification, Repayment Plan, Short Sale, Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, or Foreclosure

    This change will not impact any current discussions, applications, approved arrangements or proceedings in these areas. However, if you are currently in a repayment plan, trial modification or permanent modification, check payments made on or after July 1, 2011, should be payable to “Bank of America, N.A.”

    Legal Notice(s)*

    As a result of this change, we are required by law to provide you with the legal notice(s) listed just below. No action is required on your part in response to the notice(s), but we recommend you retain a copy of the notice(s) for your records.

    Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Servicing Transfer Notice

    Thank You

    We appreciate the opportunity to serve your home loan needs. If you have any questions or need assistance regarding this change, please call us toll-free at 1.877.488.7812 between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern, Monday through Friday.

    Please Note: If there are other borrowers on your account(s), please share this information with them.

    * If an attorney represents you in connection with your Bank of America home loan(s), please provide your attorney a copy of this letter and any legal notice(s).

  27. “We received the same letter from Bank of America about the transfer effective July1, 2011. In our letter they said they were the “mortgagee”. he records at the county recorder do not reflect this. Why would they make this statement?”


  28. We received the same letter from Bank of America about the transfer effective July1, 2011. In our letter they said they were the “mortgagee”. he records at the county recorder do not reflect this. Why would they make this statement?

  29. Bob G.

    When you said:

    “Crucial question here: ASSUME for the moment that I can establish that all NY RMBS trusts were void ab initio.”

    Can you share a bit more on this? Please e-mail me as I am interested in this……


  30. Reasonably — servicer contracts are for collection rights transfers only.

    Ever wonder why subprime refinance only included disclosure of “servicer rights” transfer?? Because — that is all they were — a transfer of collection rights “servicing.”

  31. BDTL

    Why is the ownership important? Can’t imagine the IRS taking down what the govt spent a trillion propping up

    Wish I understood even half of this I feel like Alice in W .

  32. Yes, what indeed are they transfering, the servicing contract? It can’t be anything more… as another commenter said, ‘they can’t transfer what they don’t own’ i.e., the note.

  33. Good post over on Naked Capitalism on lawsuit against LPS, 19 confidential witnesses, all former employees, some with supervisory positions, spill the beans. Corroborates everything discussed here, including DocX shenanigans.

  34. Yes, BOA was the pretender lender, but the foreclosure actioin included a copy of the note (of course), endorsed in blank and undated so I don’t know when the transfer(s) / assignment(s) were made, but the plaintiff now tells me they don’t hold the note. Fine by me.

  35. BSTL

    Maybe held at some time — not necessarily NOW.

    Bob G.

    I do not know — but stand by premise that it is Depositor that owns the trusts. Thus — my guess — the Depositor.

  36. ANON

    Crucial question here: ASSUME for the moment that I can establish that all NY RMBS trusts were void ab initio. Under that scenario, WHO would be liable to the IRS for the 100% tax on noncompliance with 26 USC 860A-H?



  37. We rec’d such a letter and don’t consider it much more than smoke or a shell game as BOA’s own atty informed us in response to a QWR that Freddie Mac held the note…

  38. Gwen Caranchini,

    Show me the QT case wins. Search LEXIS all the time — not seen one. But, maybe I missed it. Would be happy to look at any decided case you can provide. Need those decisions.

  39. Gwen Caranchini,

    Respectfully disagree. MERS is in trouble. MERS is dependent on securization — and private securitization not being revitalized anytime soon. The one party I will not ask — is a banker.

    And, Quiet Title — is only available IF you can get a judge to sign on. I support Quiet Title — but depends greatly on the judge. Unfortunately, not always granted — more often NOT granted if in default.

    You have not been reading my posts — have long been saying securitization is fraudulent — and can be proved – as Ibanez and other cases reflect. Fraudulent conveyance.

    Have tried to communicate with you — but you were busy. Believe me — I know what is happening in litigation – and more.

    Wish you the best. And, again, support QT — but only if you are lucky to get a judge that is not following disposition by precedent cases.

    Fraud beyond QT and beyond securitization “chain.”.

  40. Anonymous you are dead wrong. Mers is not going away and if you are litigating and in the trenches litigating and watching what mers is doing you would know that–so obviously you are not litigating because you are clueless. MERS by a paper filed in the last two weeks is just regrouping. MERS is not going away–ask any banker–they all say mers is just retooling but staying. Look at the way MERS answers lawsuits and what they are doing in lawsuits–they are actively seeking affirmative decisions. Quiet title is the way and only way to go on these–they deal with agency issues and build on Carpenter v. Longan (1872 U.S.CT) and Ibanez. They are straightforward and the judges “get” agency. They don’t get the securitization and UCC arguments which are contorted and make no sense. If you can’t explain it in 5 minutes to a judge don’t argue it. Trust me I have argued enough to know that. Your comments just demonstrate you are still buying into some form of securitization–and securitization has not won one case– QT is winning cases

  41. As a realtor sadley watching this happen to so many people I am glad to have found this site. We can not get our clients banks to talk to us very often, we wait weeks for answers and then we take steps backwards due to incompetence of the servicers. It is a living nightmare…..for all of us.

  42. Bob G.

    Solely the security investors. This is what “pass-through” is about. As I have been saying over and over — there is a difference between “investors” and “security investors.” The government is holding the bogus (dead) pass-through securities — derived from the tranche certificates– derived from collection rights — that are held by “investors” — that are NOT security investors. “investor” (not security investor) role comes in at default — when there is no longer a “cash” pass-through subject to IRS taxation. And, surprise, surprise — many big banks were debt buyer “investors.”

    Of course, this would be a long-term gain on “investment” – not income (short-term)— and gain would be substantial in foreclosure as collection rights were purchased dirt cheap. Foreclosures gains as investment are subject to strict rules for REMICs — time is very limited to be considered a cash pass-through. Almost impossible for foreclosures to ever be considered a cash pass-through by REMIC standards. And, all has been repackaged by government — making time factor not only impossible — but not relevant due to repackaging.

    And, another “of course” — what does the IRS know?? They are supposedly now investigating REMICs — whose remnants are now with government. IRS has missed the boat. But if it were YOU — different story.

    Servicers and trustees have no tax liability. UNLESS the servicer has legally purchased collection rights – and parent original debt buyer investor – then subject to long term gain. (trustees do not purchase) – would be a conflict of interest.

    But, when servicers purchase default collections rights out of trust (actually swapped out) , and, therefore removed from Maiden Lane “securities”, servicer may – or may not be – acting for itself (really parent). Under either case — they are NOT an interest pass-through security investor — and would NOT be responsible for such pass-through (current income) taxation.

    However, it servicer’s parent bank sold the distressed collection rights to another entity — it would be that entity that is subject to long term gain on the foreclosure proceeds. If they did not sell — would be a likely loss to the bank. (THIS IS WHY THEY SELL COLLECTION RIGHTS). For an independent servicer (not a subsidiary of a bank) — that entity may be impossible to ever trace – they will tell you that it is private information.

    Assume they tell the IRS that it is “private” information too. IRS needs to wake up. And, we have national security issues that must be addressed – as to whereabouts of proceeds.

    Business as usual — in Washington. They just want all of this — to “GO AWAY.” But, not going away.

  43. Dave Krieger,

    Not trying to discourage Quiet Title — I support it. Just trying to stay one step ahead. Need to do that.

  44. Dave Krieger,

    Which “investors” are you referring to?? The tranche certificate debt buyer holder — or “security investors” pass-through CDO investors?? In reference to subprime?? There is a distinction.

    Problem with the county courthouse — is not what you see — is what you get — BUT – what you see is really fraudulent. Leave it that way — it remains fraudulent.

    MERS — on it’s way out. No one should buy a home with mortgage title anyway affiliated with MERS. If borrower cannot refinance — no new homeowner should take on this risk. And, as to owner’s policy insurance — if you suspect fraud — policy will not pay. Everyone suspects fraud.

    Hearing from some in know — that government will wave wand to fix mortgage title issues. Maybe.
    And, how will Quiet Title then proceed??? Have to attack the fraud in the process. Government can “fix” anything they want — anyway they want.

    Stay too focused — remain a target.

  45. Thank you, Dave, for taking time to write this. You blew more wind into my sail! I bought your book and will dig into it again.

    You wrote:

    “Your evidence is found in the local records in your county courthouse. It doesn’t matter what freaking letter you got from some banker as to its claimed interest in your loan. It’s what’s on file at the courthouse that matters.”

    The court house record now shows a MERS AOM to BAC because of the foreclosure pending against his property. The transfer letter came seven months after the case was filed. I’m not sure how that will wash. Hopefully, I can find a lawyer who knows about quieting title to help my friend. He is an elderly gentleman who has limited means to help himself.

    Keep fighting, folks!

  46. At the end of the day, it does NOT matter to you or your case as to who did what to whom on Wall Street. Investors bought non-recourse bonds. For all purposes, they lost money on the deal. For those who think the trustees and the servicers have something to do with pass-through, I suggest you spend a few days at your local law library and research the fundamentals of trusts. Trustees and servicers are managers that have no tax consequences, except to pay whatever mere pittance comes to them in “fees and bonuses” they collect as individuals. This is why corporations are trustees folks. They get to write off over 350 deductions … hookers, booze, coke, all the other stuff we know went on down on Wall Street.

    At the end of the day, what in the hell does that do for your case? Nada. Nothing.

    Your evidence is found in the local records in your county courthouse. It doesn’t matter what freaking letter you got from some banker as to its claimed interest in your loan. It’s what’s on file at the courthouse that matters.

    On another note … for those of you that think you can go online and buy someone’s “form pleading” as to quiet title actions, you are sadly mistaken if you think you are going to use this form and end up like that Arizona homeowner did.

    BANKS AND MERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO DEFEND QUIET TITLE CLAIMS!!! Their attorneys obviously fell asleep in property law as well. Those who specialize in property law know what I am saying, but they are the last ones to be hired to go in and represent a bank. Most of the good ones represent title companies. We see the same gobbledygook in the many cases I am currently assisting attorneys on … the banks and MERS all claim that what’s on file in the courthouse records is “superfluous” and doesn’t matter to them. Well folks, I hate to say this but you’re all sadly mistaken. It has everything to do with conveyance of title … otherwise, you would not have had this issue rear its ugly head in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case!

    The securitization advocates will all claim that it’s a victory for securitization. If you read the first few paragraphs of the slip opinion, does it say anything about the fact that U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo Bank came in and told the land court they owned these properties because of securitization on Wall Street? Nope. The opinion clearly states that both entities came in to file QUIET TITLE ACTIONS!

    The problem is … had they done chain of title assessments like the ones I do … they would have discovered that they put the cart before the horse … something I’ve known long before the Ibanez decision was reached. I’m finding the same garbage in a lot of other chain of title assessments, parallel to Ibanez, because banks don’t care about your chain of title.

    If they can get your house, they’ll just find some ignorant title agent who wants their business to whitewash over the title and call it a day. This cannot be allowed to happen. Tens of millions of titles in this country have clouds on them because of MERS and the banks.

    The next thing MERS will do is attempt to blatantly circumvent and defeat the Deed of Trust Acts in your State (if your state operates under one of these). Trustees are a necessary party, despite what MERS argues, through operation of law, because they are on the contract (your Deed of Trust) and they must be made a party because they are involved. Whether they breached fiduciary depends on their behavior leading up to the action being filed. There is case law to back up the trustee’s behavior.

    If you haven’t seen hordes of bankers being rounded up and imprisoned, it’s because they control the general scheme of things. As long as your government allows them to do this, because after all, Congressmen and AG’s need campaign contributions too, the only difference that can be made is when we as individuals stand up and fight the good fight. The other part of the equation is … to know when and HOW to stand up and fight.

  47. Something is definitely brewing behind the scenes. Does anyone know yet what is going on with the odd transfers?

    My friend’s mortgage that transferred last month to BNY Mellon from BAC (with the servicing remaining with BAC) has been transferred again. Today, he received a notice that BAC has transferred back to BOA, NA. Maybe someone is trying to build a title chain? The home is in foreclosure, so I think it’s too late. The AOM after foreclosure recorded the mortgage assigned to BAC/FKA Countrywide, which of course, was supposedly done by MERS.

    What point would there be to transferring a second mortgage like this when the home is already in foreclosure? He also got a notice that BAC has transferred the first mortgage back to BOA. BAC filed the foreclosure suit, so does that mean BOA will have to refile?

    Any payments on both loans are to go to BOA, N.A. now.

  48. ANON

    Are you sure of this:

    “Thus, Maiden Lane investors are responsible for reporting income distributions — monitored by Maiden Lane managers — such as distressed debt buyer Blackrock.”

    Do the servicers or the trustees have any tax liability here, or is it solely the investors?

  49. So the irony continues to fester…

    How do they TRANSFER what EVERYONE KNOWS they DO NOT have?

    IMHO – they are attempting to cover up their FRAUDULENT NOTES that were ROBO-SIGNED already – thus quasi-justifying a copy of the forgery creating the fraud. In other words, if they cannot create a chain of title – then RE-CREATE one using copies and make this one APPEAR as if they are from a real BANK. This will usually give more reason for the judge to turn another BLIND-EYE…

    I mean – hey, if it looks like a bank owns the magical-note – then surely those are deadbeats trying to game the system… such is Americon-justice…

    They are simply rigging the system for the next wave of foreclosures. Again, how can they Transfer what they do NOT have? I have TWO copies of our Note – I wonder how many they have now..?

  50. Thanks Gwen, for the info about MERS. This brings up a question about where Carpenter leaves mortgages assigned to MERS.

    For instance, an Oklahoma appellate court held that it was impossible to separate note and mortgage, citing Carpenter, and that a MERS’ assignment was of no effect. It did not elaborate further as to where that leaves “MERS” mortgages.

    Does Carpenter mean that the MORTGAGE or the ASSIGNMENT of the mortgage is a nullity? Grammatically, it seems to say the latter.

    Regardless, does the Carpenter ruling mean that MERS drops off as a non issue (the court ignores) but the note carries the mortgage with it because the original recorded lender’s rights would remain without regard to MERS? Would that mean when the note is indorsed in blank, the party that simply possesses the original note indorsed in blank is the owner with standing? And that only homeowners with notes indorsed to a specific financial institution that is not the servicer that sued would have a valid argument about standing?

    The Oklahoma appellate court held that the party in possession of the ORIGINAL note has standing to foreclose, because a MERS assignment is of no effect. Further, if this is correct, then does that mean if a note is indorsed in blank, then the note is payable to the bearer, even if someone found it behind a file cabinet?

    If this is the crux of the MERS matter, then why would the servicer need to transfer the loan back to BOA? Or in my friend’s case, back to the second mortgage investor.

  51. Bob G.

    Problem is that the remnants of the trusts have been resecuritized into “MAIDEN LANE.” Maiden Lane acting as one big massive CDO — for former tranches that have already been “closed” by derivatives swap-out. It is shares in Maiden Lane that are now sold to distressed debt (pass-through) investors. How this is even possible — I do not know. But, it was a government response to an unprecedented situation. These “investors” know it is all “Junk” — but some are still chasing the higher yields since interest rates so low.

    Thus, Maiden Lane investors are responsible for reporting income distributions — monitored by Maiden Lane managers — such as distressed debt buyer Blackrock.

    Remember — these are only “repackaged” “securities” (if you can even call them securities- actually just repackaged cash flows to “collection rights”) — and these “security” investors are NOT the creditor.

    The debt collection rights remain elsewhere — either with the bank as the original debt buyer — or passed onto another debt buying entity.

  52. Should have said “difficult,” not “different”…

  53. I also want to thank Gwen for posting that because I had begun to lose my mind going over and over that line of thought–losing my mind because it’s so simple yet seemingly so different for the robed ones to understand. Her corroboration is comforting.

  54. I totally agree with Gwen. MERS claims it holds DOT/mortgage, while other parties take the Note. Per Carpenter v. Longan (US Sup. Ct. 1872), this is not possible because the Note and DOT are inseparable. MERS admits it cannot transfer Notes–EVEN IF AN ASSIGNMENT FROM THEM SAYS JUST THAT.

    In my opinion (not a lawyer), MERS cannot be a beneficiary/mortgagee, and language stating as much in a DOT/mortgage is false, thereby voiding those documents (in my opinion). The reason MERS can’t be a beneficiary/mortgagee is because MERS did not lend the money and therefore is not entitled to the security interest. That of course goes back to Carpenter, which also states the the Note is “essential” but the mortgage is only an “incident” to the Note. So the party named as lender on the Note is AUTOMATICALLY the beneficiary/mortgagee, even if the security instrument (DOT/mortgage) names a “separate corporation” as the beneficiary/mortgagee. By naming a separate corporation as beneficiary/mortgagee–in my opinion–the banks are knowingly committing fraud and violating disclosure requirements.

    A lot of people remark that judges don’t want to “open the floodgates” by ruling against MERS–you know, because then ALL borrowers with MERS will want their houses free and clear and God knows we can’t have that. However, I think that ruling against MERS is actually CLOSING the floodgates that were opened when MERS began operation a decade or so ago. Carpenter has been the law for 140 years, while MERS has been in operation for 10.

  55. ANON

    Thanx for the TILA cite.

    Question for you: If the REMIC is a bust, who in that chain of title is responsible for the 100% tax on the interest distributions per 26 USC 860 A-H?

    Is it the investor certificate holders, the trust, the trustees, the securitizers? If it’s the trust, where do they get the money to pay the tax?

  56. Ginger and Concerned and everyone else: MERS can’t convey anything. Mers has split the dt from the Pn when it assigns and that is a violation of Carpenter v. Longan (1872 U.S.SCt case) Note beomes a nullity. End discussion. Watch too–in my own case, the recorded docs show Aegis assigning when Aegis was in bankruptcy and had already sold the ntoe to Merrll Lynch. ML never appears in any recorded doc whatsoever. Additionally, with these securitized loan you better check out if the REMIC has lost its tax exempt status–if it has it is questionable whether your trust can hold the note legally. that’s it–llisten to dave krieger on power hour–he’s the only one out there who has got the quiet title issues down along with a declaratory judgment action. Securitization analysis does not get you what you need–analysis of the title does–no agency–no ownership. Split the dt/ from note, note is gone. Yeah I got my letter too==but MERS is the one that is beginning to come out of the closet–they are worried about those decisions finding it does not have the right to do anything–including disclosure. Watch MERS folks

  57. Thank you, Concerned. I’m muddling, all right. Just when I think I have it straight (I am reasonably intelligent), I find out I don’t understand at all. I believe this is by design–complexity covers the fraud, even for the courts.

    I have a copy of my friend’s mortgage and note. Both show Lender One (a corporation)/dba Lender Two (a wholesale mortgage company). Two or three payments after closing were paid to Lender One Corp. (no mention of the DBA entity in the payment instructions). After the first few payments, my friend received notice that payments should go to CW. In 2008, BOA sent notice that payments were to start going to BOA, later to BAC.

    The recent notice says the loan has been transferred to BNY Mellon–which is identified as the NEW CREDITOR. Servicing is still with BAC, as with the first mortgage, so why was the second mortgage transferred to the new creditor or investor–or whatever BNY Mellon is–but the first mortgage was not transferred to Fannie Mae?

    My friend’s first mortgage has the same chain of transfers as the second mortgage, except Fannie Mae is supposedly the investor.

    My friend received a QWR reply last year stating that BNY Mellon is the investor for the second mortgage, so seeing BNY Mellon show up was not surprising. But why now? Why at all?

    The county records showed both mortgages at closing were assigned to Lender One./dba Lender Two…and MERS. I learned yesterday that Lender One has never been registered in his state, but the “DBA” entity is registered. He was instructed to pay his first three payments to Lender One (with no mention of the DBA).

    The first mortgage is in foreclosure, so an assignment out of MERS to BAC/(fka) Countrywide is now recorded.

    The transfer notice states that the promissory note is in the new creditor’s possession or with its document custodian. The first mortgage foreclosure firm says it is waiting to get the original note (first mortgage) from its document custodian. It has been waiting since late last year.

    With other reports of recent transfers, I am very curious about why the SECOND mortgage transferred back to the investor. The property is in process for foreclosure, so why does it matter to transfer the second back to the investor at this point? Allegedly, the second mortgage went into default along with the first.

    Could it be that there is a proof issue with the FIRST mortgage, so perhaps the first mortgage suit is going to be withdrawn, then the second mortgage could foreclose. The property would likely sell for at least three times the second mortgage balance. The second mortgage would be fully covered (as opposed to being extinguished in foreclosure on the first) and the rest of the proceeds from the sale could go toward the first mortgage and legal fees.

    Is this logical?

  58. @ Ginger,

    You are muddling the separate tasks of the investor or Trustee for the investors (BNY Mellon) with the servicing.

    The loan would have named a LENDER on the face of the Deed and the NOTE. That same company should have been reflected as the Lender in the initial recording with the county Recorder’s office.

    The servicer is not named on the Deed or the Note, as a rule.

    There might have been a document that separately stated where initial payments were to go. That would have been the initial servicer.

    The ‘local lender’ you reference might have only been a mortgage BROKER if the recorded loan does not match that name.

    BNY-Mellon does not do any of the servicing so you will always see some other company as the servicer.

    Most likely the loan has been securitized with BNY-Mellon actually only the Trustee for the REMIC trust.

    You need to find out if the ‘investor’ is really BNY-Mellon vs some REMIC.

    Has you friend checked the assignments that are recorded with the county?

    I have read of assignments that were SUPPOSED to be to the “trustee for the REMIC trust” that were instead done in favor of just the Trustee. The impact of that was the loan could not be foreclosed by the Trustee. [But I have also read of cases where the properly designated REMIC Trustee still did not have the power to foreclose because it was not a power given to the Trustee in the PSA agreement.]

    So please separate the SERVICER moves from the ‘Lender/investor’ moves.

    The difference in the two roles is HUGE. In some cases, two branches of the same company were supposedly in both roles. CW and BAC both were or are servicers. Both also actually held some of the loans as the investor.

    Beware if there really is some ‘other’ LENDER initially named on the DEED and the NOTE. Check to see if that LENDER was registered with the state at the time. See if it is still in business. Check to see if it was in business at the time of the transfer out if it’s name. If MERS is used to transfer but the company is no longer in existence, they are BLUFFING with the transfer. MERS can not be a nominee for a company that no longer exists. MERS can only do what that company would have been able to do at that time. If the company no longer exists or went bankrupt, then MERS can not sign as the nominee. ALSO, if the company was never a registered lender or never incorporated as the company named on the Deed and Note, there are big problems. That is known as attempting to loan money in the name of a TRADE-NAME or a fictitious business name. It will lead to a BIG problem for that ‘LENDER’.

    Should you find such a loan, a quiet title against that particular loan should be done. With CountryWide, be on the lookout for any loans written with the LENDER named being “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation”. It has to be the Corporation, not the “CountryWide D/B/A America’s Wholesale Lender”.

    If your friend has both a first and a second, you need to act appropriately for the status of the first mortgage however.

  59. Mr Garfield or anyone

    On the other hand….

    How is it that the SEC shows AHMSI purchasing servicing accounts from Option One when Opt1 went OOB in 2008? If the PSA dictates transfer protocols, how could this huge amount of business be purchased and sold with tacit SEC approval/oversight? Should One assume there was some sort of formal approval required and given by the trusts?

    Or am I totally misunderstanding this process?


    From the cases I am currently working on involving Bank of America, Bank of America Home Loans (BAC) is a subsidiary that services the alleged loans, whether ultra vires or not. One might be correct to assume that this apparent “transfer” was attempt to make the Borrower believe somehow that BAC actually owned the note, when in fact, it was misstating its interest in all of this.

    Smoke and mirrors, friends. This is the misdirection that Bank of America is using in its court cases. We are uncovering robosignor fraud and title problems throughout the litigation process. By misdirecting a consumer into believing that BAC could actually own a note, without proof of transfer in the county land records is ludicrous at best.

    Speaking of county records … when’s the last time you were in there, pulling your documents and getting certified copies for a chain of title assessment.

    Dave Krieger will be on The Power Hour again, discussing these new developments, this coming Monday (the 23rd) at 9 a.m. CDT. You can hear the broadcast in streaming audio at

    More information will be forthcoming on this topic, at

    Chain of title assessments are key to showing a title company you’ve got “issues”. This is also important in proving there are enough issues to defeat a summary judgment motion by a Court!

  61. Mr Garfield

    My gratitude for your pointing out something that was right under my nose–but I didn’t “get” it, now I do.

    pretender servicer AHMSI claimed in their 2009 assignment of my DOT dating from 2005 to DB that they were the successor in interest t”originator/servicer” option one.. Very bold

  62. When Bank of America transferred loans to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, some of those loans were in default…when you transfer a loan in default, it makes the servicer subject to the FDCPA.

    If Bank of America was the original lender on the paperwork, then transferred Servicing to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and now is transferring back to Bank of America, (AND the loans were sold) does this make Bank of America now a debt collector under the FDCPA?

  63. Never had a loan w/ BoA or Countrywide, so I was surprised to receive a NOD from BofA, NA. I’d been fighting GMAC, LLC for over 3-years and this is the 1st time BofA’s name came up. Of course I am challenging them as well. I don’t know how to order a title report, but I will before the day ends.

  64. Bob G is this what you are looking for?
    Buried in The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which the President signed into law in 2009, is an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that calls for a notice to the consumer when a ‘mortgage loan’ is transferred or assigned.  The provision appears to be effective immediately, and violations are subject to TILA liability.

    The text of the provision follows:
    SEC. 404. NOTIFICATION OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE LOANS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 131 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1641) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    NOTICE OF NEW CREDITOR.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other disclosures required by this title, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including—

    (A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor;

    (B) the date of transfer;

    (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor;

    (D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and

    (E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.

    (2) DEFINITION.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘mortgage loan’ means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.’’.

    (b) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—Section 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘subsection (f) or (g) of section 131,’’ after ‘‘section 125,’’.



  65. OMG

    A large bank is doing some adminstrative work and they MUST be acthing fraudulent. What a waste of pixels this story is.

    IF you have no freaking evidence then stop speculating about crap.

    as for the other idiots attracted to the story because of the potential conspiracy..

    We know the banks are going to be fined. It’s just a matter of the size of the theft now.

    What a bunch of fucking clowns.

  66. WASHINGTON — A set of confidential federal audits accuse the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans, four officials briefed on the findings told The Huffington Post.

    The five separate investigations were conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general and examined Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial, the sources said.

    The audits accuse the five major lenders of violating the False Claims Act, a Civil War-era law crafted as a weapon against firms that swindle the government. The audits were completed between February and March, the sources said.

    The internal watchdog office at HUD referred its findings to the Department of Justice, which must now decide whether to file charges.

    Quick! Read the rest here:

  67. neil
    “could be alleged as ultra vires” this has the potential to render “cause to be filed” as with intent to defraud
    would be felony charges.. plausible deniability is diminishing rapidly. this also leads to the law firms as trustees in a grave position.

  68. and G-d hardened the Pharoahs heart.

    They are about to fall big time.


  69. I just got a notice from these fraudsters (Bank of America) advising me that as of July 1, 2011, my loan is now officially with Bank of America NA. Same thing but I think that Bank of America (BAC) is trying to dump “bad loans” into another account and they are disguising it with this. I am suing these low-lives anyway so they can dump my loan where ever they want but it will not minimize the fact that they committed fraud.

  70. Would be nice if all the other banksters could rot in that cell with him…ahhhh, nice little fantasy….


  72. Just one small piece of the Deutsche Bank criminal pie:

  73. leapfrog–it’s interesting that you get a monthly statement. I don’t, which I find odd. They said I don’t get a bill because of the lawsuit I’m in with them, but I think the real reason is because the loan has been paid off. I have one credit report that lists BAC in the “closed account” section of my “creditors.”

  74. They are getting more and more desperate. They will make more and more silly mistakes.



  75. Thank you – Abby!!!!!

  76. Bank of America NA — and other NAs — default debt buyers — acting for WHO??? Themselves — or another??

    Bob G

    As I told you — not in useless Dodd-Frank –rather, in TILA Amendment.

    Starting to cook. Keep up the fight!!


  78. I just got a letter today but they foreclosed on me about 1 ½ years ago.

    About 2 months ago I get this letter stating something to the affect that I was such a good customer and so on…. and after checking out my credit report, it’s listed in there that the BOA account was closed due to bankruptcy. I did file but did not go bankrupt on the house. I was advised to walk so I did. I would love to see them all go to jail and never get out, its taking too long for anything to happen and it’s the customers that get hurt.

  79. Pay Attention Please very important to many consumers: ‘CMMC’

    Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation
    (Parent JPM)

    in Agreements with Norwest Corp in 1996 its newly acquired affiliate, largest producer of non-conforming mortgage products…. Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV’s) joint ventures …

    As related to
    Norwest Asset Acceptance Corp (no 10K’s)
    Filings by: Wells Fargo Asset Securities (no 10K’s)
    Formerly: Norwest Asset Securities Corp 7/17/96 and 6/11/1996
    7485 New Horizon Way
    Frederick MD 21703
    Jurisdiction: DE
    IRS 52-2049703
    Asset Backed Securities SIC Code 6189

    c/o Norwest Mortgage, Inc.
    Formerly Known As:
    Directors Asset Conduit Corp 7/31/97
    343 Thornall Street, 5th Floor
    Edison, NJ 08837
    (908) 906-3909
    (6) SEC FILINGS 7/31/97 to 5/13/98
    Norwest Asset Acceptance Corp Ass Bked Cert Ser 1998-He1 Tr
    (Filer) (Owner)

    Filing Agent: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 1/6/94 to 5/11/11

    Norwest Bank as Master Servicer of Mortgage Loans under PSA SERVICING
    and is obligated to make payments of principal and interest on any Mortgage Loans to the extent in the PSA (Reconstituted Servicing Agreement)

    Norwest Asset Securities Corp
    and Structured Asset Securities Corp

    WFC and JPM – who controlled real estate industry thru? Structured Asset Securities Corp?

    Norwest Asset Securities Corp, a DE corp, proposes to issue and sell as UNDERWRITER certificats … issued under PSA, as depositor, Norwest Bank Minnesota NA, as Master Servicer and as Trustee.

    Norwest Asset Securities Corp – Certificate of Incorporation
    The purpose for which the Corporation is organized is (a) to
    purchase or otherwise acquire, own, hold, sell, transfer, assign, pledge,
    finance, refinance and otherwise deal with (i) mortgage loans, certificates or
    other securities issued or guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage
    Association, (ii) mortgage loans, certificates or other securities issued or guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association,
    (iii) mortgage loans, certificates or other securities issued or guaranteed by
    the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, (iv) deeds of trust, mortgage loans,
    mortgage participations, mortgage pass-through certificates or collateralized
    mortgage obligations issued by any person or entity or other types of mortgage-
    related securities including residual interests, (v) direct obligations of, and
    obligations fully guaranteed by, the United States of America or any agency or
    instrumentality of the United States the obligations of which are backed by the
    full faith and credit of the United States of America, (vi) certificates
    representing interests in the principal and/or interest payable on any of the
    foregoing and (vii) such other securities and investments as may be permitted by
    or acceptable to the applicable nationally-recognized statistical rating agency
    or agencies referred to in subsection (b) of this Article 3; and (b) to issue,
    offer, sell and own one or more series of mortgage pass-through certificates,
    collateralized mortgage obligations, mortgage-backed bonds or other debt or
    equity securities (the “Securities”) representing ownership interests in, or
    collateralized by, any of the foregoing, related property and/or collections and
    proceeds in respect thereof; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the acts and activities and
    exercise of any powers permitted in subsections (a) and (b) of this Article 3
    shall be limited solely to matters (1) related to the Securities or (2) related
    to such other similar transactions which do not result in a downgrade by the
    nationally-recognized statistical rating agency or agencies which will rate,
    upon issuance, each series of the Securities of the ratings accorded to such
    series of the Securities; and (c) to engage in any activity and to exercise any
    powers permitted to corporations under the laws of the State of Delaware that
    are incident to the foregoing and necessary or convenient to accomplish the

    (h) The Corporation shall not form, or cause to be formed, any subsidiaries.

    (i) The Corporation shall act solely in its corporate name and
    through its duly authorized officers or agents in the conduct of its business,
    and shall conduct its business so as not to mislead others as to the identity of
    the entity with which they are concerned

    Corporation to have a perpetual existence

    Incorporator: Stephen D Morrison 1/28/98 As Signatory (Director, Officer, Attorney, Accountant, Banker, Agent, etc.)
    “Stephen D. Morrison” has been a Signatory for/with the following 2 Registrants:
    Norwest Integrated Structured Assets Inc [ formerly Norwest Structured Assets Inc ]
    Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp [ formerly Norwest Asset Securities Corp ]

    Norwest Integrated Structured Assets Inc.
    Norwest Structured Assets Inc. 12/12/96
    c/o Norwest Bank Minnesota NA
    11000 Broken Land Parkway
    Columbia MD 21044

    Mailing Address:
    c/o Norwest Structured Assets Inc.
    5325 Spectrum Dr
    Frederick MD 21703
    Jurisdiction: DE IRS 52-2009776

    AW – Withdrew from SEC above

    Left active for 25,839 SEC Filings 3/10/98 to 5/4/11 including Sequoit Mortgage Trust 2011-1
    as Filder, as Owner as Filing Agent

    Norwest Asset Sec Corp Mort Ps Thr Cert Ser 1998-1 Trust – Registrant
    c/o Norwest BGank Minnesota NA
    1100 Broken Land Parkway
    Colbumia MD 21703
    NO IRS#
    Incorporated IN NY and yet there is no business entity for this ‘Issuing Entity’ transactions flow through. (1) 10K 3/25/1999
    Form 15-D filed
    Suspension of Duty to File Report

    REDACTED: DJL Commercial Mortgage 1998-cf1

  80. BOA was recently dismissed from the CW securities suit. If these transfers could be related to title on the CW loans, how does BOA defense in this suit play out?

    “Bank of America said in its August 20 filing that Countrywide remained a separate, wholly owned subsidiary of the bank and that, as a parent company, it can’t be held liable for the mortgage lender’s alleged wrongdoing.

    “U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer granted Bank of America’s request to dismiss the claim against it on grounds that it can’t be held liable for actions of a unit, according to an April 20 order filed in Los Angeles.

    “The investors failed to show that two separate transactions in 2008, whereby Bank of America, through a subsidiary, acquired and transferred the Countrywide assets, were a “de facto” merger, Pfaelzer said….

    “…Shirley Norton, a spokeswoman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, said in an e-mailed statement that the bank was gratified by the judge’s decision after determining the bank and “NB Holdings should not be required to answer claims that it succeeded to the legacy Countrywide entities’ liabilities by virtue of allegations involving, among other things, the merger transaction with Countrywide Financial” and the bank’s purchase of some “legacy Countrywide assets for value.”

    If there was no proof of defacto merger and BOA is not responsible for CW liabilities, then how can it claim CW assets and collect payments?

  81. One of my friend’s got a notice of transfer of his second mortgage to BNY Mellon, but oddly, servicing remains with BAC. How would that fit this picture? It was closed in a local “lender’s” name, then a couple of months later went to CW and then BofA/BAC Servicing. BAC alleges the loan in default for 10 months.

  82. Where in Dodd-Frank does it say the servicer has to tell you who is the real creditor?

  83. A recent previous response on this website mentioned that as of May 01, Chase Home Finance, LLC was merging with JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., but CHF has been claiming for several years that they were the sucessors of a merge and that’s why they were filing the foreclosure complaints in CHF’s name. CHF’s lawyer in court stated that they didn’t need an assignment(because of the merger that happened before ’09 ?). This again smells like s***, but the judges are so used to smelling it that their sense of smell is completely gone. Of course, this would not be another ” Fraud Upon the Court ” because nearly all the judges are full of it.

  84. The last several stories have found a way to work in a plug for the title reports sold by the site. Starting to get a little smarmy Neil…

  85. Zurennath: I wonder if I’ll get one of those. We’re suing them right now and the only thing we get is a monthly statement telling us “this is not a bill, but just for your records” & nothing else. So now I will have another shell-game MERS transfer, lol. First it was ABC/AHMSI (now BK), then CW, then BOA, then BAC and now back again to BOA?

    Wonder if they had Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas or John Kennerty, the other burger-king robosigners or perhaps MERS new outsourced India operation working overtime to “officiate” the transfers? Hahaha.

  86. Neil–I got such a letter. Here are some relevant quotes:

    “We want to let you know that effective July 1, 2011, the servicing of home loans by our subsidiary–BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, will transfer to our parent company–Bank of America, N.A.”

    It specifically addresses “customers discussing, applying for, or involved in any Loan Modification, Repayment Plan, Short Sale, Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, or Foreclosure” and tells us this:

    “This servicing transfer will not impact any current discussions, applications, approved arrangements or proceedings in these areas.”

    Payments are now to be made out to “Bank of America, N.A.” and sent to an address in Simi Valley, CA.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: