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



Hopefully any securitization search will include all public records information that either name or describe your loan, and any information public or private that contains clues to what was done with your loan, who funded, it, and whether the receivables from your loan were mixed with receivables from other parties.

Remember: The fact that a document names or describes your loan does Not mean that the loan is in the pool or trust that is described. To the contrary, it appears as though no loans were actually transferred to a pool or trust unless and until one or more of the following had occurred:

  1. The loan account has been declared in default(remember that a declaration doesn’t make it so. Most borrowers accept the declaration as true because they know they have not made some payments. Those Borrowers don’t know or are ignoring the fact that many parties were promising to pay the obligation, and many of those promises preceded the application for loan, much less the loan closing).A securitization search will reveal the facts necessary to know or provide a reasonable basis for the belief that the loan payments continued to be made after the declaration of default (usually by the servicer) or that the trust or pool was dissolved and reconstituted under a different name and different documents.
  2. Foreclosure proceedings have begun either privately (non-judicial) or in the public records (judicial).
  3. The pretender lender has been ordered to either show the documentation or drop their foreclosure, and the Order was from a Judge of competent jurisdiction.

NOT ALL SECURITIZATION SEARCHES WILL PRECISELY NAME THE TRUST OR POOL: If the loan has traveled through Fannie, Freddie or Ginnae for a guarantee, it has been securitized but those entities, which are now essentially government agencies nationalized because of the mortgage crisis do not provide access to the secondary market information and even if you pay them, you will get very shallow data. Thus the analyst can see that the loan was definitely securitized or claimed as securitized, but he/she cannot report on the exact name of the pool or trust. The purpose of those entities is stated in their charter to be the facilitation of securitization of loans in the secondary market. The same is true for private deals which are not really private since they mostly involve public companies, but they are equally difficult to get a precise reading on the identity of a trust that or multiple trusts that could be claiming an ownership of the loan. It is behind this curtain that it was easiest fro the banks to change a few data points about the loans and sell them multiple times into multiple pools.

If the search does not produce the name of the pool trust, doesn’t that mean the search was useless and I lose (the bank wins)?

NO. The actual name of the trust or pool is irrelevant. What is important is that the loan is shown to be more likely than not claimed to be securitized. If the loan was claimed as securitized THAT MEANS you can shift the burden onto the pretender lender to prove its status and offer up real non-fabricated, unforged documents.It means that the receivable from your loan (your payments) was mixed with receivables and guarantees from other parties (other borrowers, insurers, counterparties etc.). It means that the promise to pay was changed from just your promise to a combination of promises from multiple people and entities, some of which were created solely for the purpose of serving as vehicles for the scheme of securitization. AND THAT MEANS the pretender creditor must sort it out— not you.

But that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem. Because on private deals, the pretender will come in as though there was no securitization when you know there was. So you need as much evidence as possible to show that the loan was probably securitized — so a Judge will believe that there is fire behind the smoke and not that you are just trying to use civil procedure and discovery to delay the proceedings.

Is it better to have the name of the trust or pool than not to have it?

Opinion is split on this. For obvious reasons it is better to have the goods when you are asserting something as a fact to the Judge. But most Judges now know there is an issue with securitization. I believe that even if you have the name of the trust, you should not use it until you are forced to do so. The reason is that as a practical and tactical matter the more evidence you present the more you own it.

By presenting evidence of the securitization of the loan, you are playing into the hands of the pretender. You are accepting the burden of pleading and proving a case that is in reality a simple denial of a case that has either never been filed (non-judicial) or which has been filed with unsupportable allegations. Under the theory that if you use it you own it, your strenuous efforts to show that the loan WAS securitized will bite you in the behind when you defend the case on the basis that the transfer was never made.

My opinion is that it is better to say that the evidence will show that the receivable was not treated in away that is consistent with the pretender’s allegation that they are the creditor, and that the lien was defective or was rendered ineffective by the conduct of the parties.

Then what is the value of the securitization search?

If you don’t use the securitization search in tandem with a loan specific title search and get a thorough analysis of the highlights in the broken chain of title and how those defects appeared, then you are not using the securitization properly. The point is not to show that the loan was securitized and that securitization is evil. The point is to show that the lien in the public records of the county in which the property was located is invalid, unenforceable or void. The title search will show the current status of title tot he property as it appears in the public records. The analysis of that title will show the weak points in the title, whether there are clouds on title, title defects, breaks in chain of title etc. The securitization analysis also takes the facts as we find them, and then explains how the tittle defects came into being.

The securitization report and analysis makes sense out of a situation that is totally  counter-intuitive. Why would a bank intentionally lose money on a loan? That is the question in the mind of the Judge. It makes no sense. And in fact, no bank would intentionally lose money on a loan. So what is happening here? The answer lies in securitization or the intent to create the appearance of securitization, to be more precise. Through securitization neither the loan originator nor any of the securitizing parties had any money in the deal, nor did they have any risk of loss.They had no risk of loss because they were not using their own money or credit. Each party in the securitizing scheme was a paid service provider; each was paid for the same service: to create the illusion of a normal mortgage loan transaction.

Thus the securitization report and analysis is essential element in the foundation of any case for damages or injunctive relief. It explains why a lender would go out of its way to inflate the appraisal on the property being used as collateral for the loan. Thus it lies at factual foundation of a claim for appraisal fraud. It explains why a lender would avoid the task of using underwriting standards developed over centuries to determine creditworthiness and viability of a loan. The originating lender was not in fact making a loan. In fact, in most instances it never handled the money for the funding of the loan even as a conduit. Thus the securitization report and analysis forms the factual foundation for the holy grail of mortgage litigation: Quiet Title.







17 Responses

  1. John,
    the bond holders receiving your payments show that YOUR loan is current. The lenders call this YOUR obligation, but really it is THEIR obligation (see the section of your note titled “Obligations of Persons Under this Note” …
    The servicer(s) and trustee have been added as obligors to your obligation. The trust is solely obligated to make the payments to the bond holders. See UCC 3-602(a) …

  2. Omg my typing so sorry I’m blind too lol
    supposed to say purchased new builds at around the same time I’m sorry folks

  3. Greg ALL my neighbours purchased stcxninglstdd ptice it was developer driven thst same developer company has a origionatir pretender lender company they gave big incentives to go with their lender who pre qualified” innthe first place it is a huge community all overbid close to 1m now with half if that sims had income yo hold on some dud not either way we srexsll underwater or ” foreclosed ” upon via wild deed process per se

  4. Securitization was needed so that a bank could take the money of 10 of your neighbors and give it to you to fund your purchase at the inflated price. MERS was needed so that, once the inevitable default occurred, the bank can take your house without having to show that it invested a dime into the loan.

  5. Let’s hope to God Senator Levin doesn’t get bribed:

  6. Info re. Deutsche Bank Sued For Fraud by AG—don’t know how I missed this:

  7. Dear Carie, Please communicate with Paula Rush an expert on heloc’s to insure success. It’s 4th quarter and you need to call in the best quarterback! with the offense and defense expertise who wrote the plays in the playbook since 2006.

    Paula Rush

  8. A Must Read!!!!!!!

    Office of Comptroller of the Currency signs Cease and Desist Order with MERS Corp.

    Philip Kramer Weighs in on latest settlement agreement between the U.S. government and MERS Corp.

    Calabasas, CA (PRWEB) June 03, 2011

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has just signed a Cease and Desist settlement agreement with MERS Corp (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems).

    Among other things, the Cease and Desist order finds, “We have identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, compliance, legal and reputational risks to MERSCORP and MERS, and to the participating Members

    .” (OCC No. AA-EC-11-20; Board of Governors; Docket Nos. 11-051-B-SC-1,11-051-B-SC-2; FDIC-11-194bOTS No. 11-040; FHFA No. EAP-11-01)

    Noted attorney Philip Kramer, a senior partner at the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow provides insight, “MERS Corp is the owner of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS),

    one of the cornerstones of the current banking crisis. In order to cut up loans and move the pieces around the world at the speed of electronics again and again and again, until no one is sure who owns what, financial institutions have been using MERS as the “beneficiary”,

    a legal term which in practical terms means they are entitled to foreclose on behalf of the lender – except MERS is nothing more than an electronic database.

    They are often named as beneficiary. However in order to legally be named as beneficiary they would have had to put up funds on the loan. Not to mention the fact that the recordation itself is not even official. BUT most importantly, MERS is never a Holder in Due Course.”

    Philip Kramer goes on to observe that, “We’re a nation of laws. Everyone knew that MERS didn’t have the right to appear as a beneficiary, but it would have been inconvenient to act on this because MERS was in widespread use throughout the banking industry.

    It was wrong, wrong, wrong, but everyone was doing it. Just like they were doing ‘no-doc’ loans and other sleights of hand. Just like the banks were doing so many bad things to homeowners. All they wanted to do was increase their profits – no matter who it hurt or how wrong their practices might be.”

    The full text of the consent decree can be found at the following URL:

    PHILIP A. KRAMER is the senior partner of the Law Office of Kramer & Kaslow, in Calabasas, California. Kramer & Kaslow is Martindale Hubbell “AV” rated. Mr. Kramer is a perennial recipient of the prestigious “Southern California Super Lawyer” award.

    Mr. Kramer received his undergraduate degree from Ohio State University and his Juris Doctorate from the Catholic University of America, in Washington, DC. His practice emphasizes commercial litigation and trial advocacy, with a concentration on business litigation, and real property matters. He has prosecuted and defended cases for over twenty five years.

    Mr. Kramer is a licensed real estate broker and has spent considerable time providing legal services in connection with real estate issues relating to loan modification and loss mitigation, land use and zoning, environmental issues, easements, construction and development, finance, and landlord tenant matters.

    Mr. Kramer is admitted to practice before all courts in the State of California, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Military Appeals. Mr. Kramer has tried in excess of 200 cases. He has appeared on nationally televised programs regarding pre-trial procedure and trial strategy and has appeared as a guest lecturer on topics ranging from constitutional law to trial practice, and Mr. Kramer frequently lectures on a broad spectrum of various legal and business issues.

    Mr. Kramer also serves as a Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles Superior Court and as a Mediator.
    Mr. Kramer is also a past president of the Los Angeles West Inns of Court, a national organization dedicated to bringing professionalism and civility back into the legal profession. He also serves on numerous Boards of Directors and serves as an officer in many companies. For more information call (818) 224-3900 or visit
    For the original version on PRWeb visit:

    Visit for Breaking News Details

    Read more:

  9. The judges receive huge fees that support their income from foreclosures. and very little money from the general fund something like ten percent. I am not sure where I saw the article, or I would send you a title to look at. They have a huge incentive to foreclose, besides the champaign money. With that partiality it should be inlegal for a jusge or judges to rule at all especially to give out summary judgment. Summary judgment takes your Constitutional due process away from you. It is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. They throw you out before the discovery process and by a judge that is partial to receiving funds to keep her or his court open and their employment and retirement. NO jury by your peers and no chance for discovery and as you can see !!!!! The judges dont even read your case, they just say off with your head, and rule you right out of court without due process. And you do not get a refund for the court fees you paid to get a due process. The judge has decided before your case reaches their hands that you own and you are a dead beat and you don’t deserve a house or a fair trial. That is why so many cases are in the Appeals courts. The judges in the Appeals courts are not partial like the district and Superior courts judges are. I asked a judge on my house case to recuse herself three times and to remand my case to Superior court for lack of standing. She absolutely defied my request and I had good reason. She is involved with in another case I have that is a long story, and that I am fighting with a corrupt mayor, and I have material proof of fraud upon the court. And she had to have understood and recognized the fraud. To long a story and it isn’t about mortgge fraud. Wrong topic to go into it.. She gave me five days to get a signature to her on my case and I am sure I did not leave it off. However I got the notice two days after her dead line (on my mortgage) and I got it in immediately with a letter of notice that I did not receive her notice until after her dead line and she threw my case out over it. I am in the Appeal court now.

  10. If you are looking for fraud ROBO signers to match your documents. type in mortgage servicing fraud and go to the article that is: fraudsters & co-conspirators and scroll down to the ROBO signers and then go to the top of them and click on for more. This web site has an alphabetical order for everyone to post their names of the notary, the employee signing as the lender and the employee signing as asst. sec for MERS. Scan your entire document to submit for everyone to check yours and if you find one that matches yours you can copy the entire doc to prove the fraud. They take turns signing as notaries and employees of MERS and employee of the lender. There are no asst . sec that work for MERS, so all asst sec are fraud, You just have to cross reference documents until you find your match and you can go into several counties and type in MERS and find matching ROBO signers that are a conflict of interests and prove fraud that you can match yours to eventually. Type in depositions of R.K Arnold and William Hullsman and read their depositions. They have no employees at MERS.

  11. Lot’s of tools. But the first step is to get the Judge to hear the case. So far – NO sucess.

  12. neil
    does the min # on the deed of trust before you arrive to sign it ; indicate the loan being sold forward?

  13. How long is or was filing Quiet Title good for in Calif.? Is there any other defense, with years after the home is sold to another? Please don’t say fraud or predatory because no lawyer will go after it unless you have a small fortune. One lawyer said you must have equity damage to sue. But duh? Who has any equity.

  14. sorry for the re-post—

    New court docs from California case:

    QUESTION:– Does anyone know if “fraud in the factum” is the way to go with regards to the non-disclosure that the “loans” at signing were not really loans—just a “fake securitization vehicle”, and it in fact NEVER made it into a “trust”—as per the PSA???
    I see in another post (Richard S.), where the judge entered a default judgement in his favor, full nullification of banks security interest in his property, full repayment of all payments over the last 6 years (assuming from time of “loan” assignment to REMIC trust?), attorney fees and a fine on them.

    I will be doing a Chap 7, and I will be treating both my HELOC and my 1rst (securitized) “loan” as UNSECURED.


  15. Neal

    OK – remind me please!?

    If I could actually show that the bond holders are receiving a payment specifically stated as one against my loan – and I am not making the payments to the servicer – what does that do for me?


  16. What about credit card?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: