BOA FUNDS MORTGAGE ON STOLEN HOUSE AND BLAMES BORROWER — FIRST AMERICAN TITLE DENIES LIABILITY

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

DISCOUNT FOR EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION RUNS OUT ON JUNE 22

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR 2 DAY GARFIELD CONTINUUM CLE SEMINAR

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

SEE VIDEO: HOW COULD THE TITLE COMPANY AND BOA CLOSE ON A LOAN WHERE THE BUYER DID NOT GET TITLE?

At first blush this story seems like a standard scam story and an unfortunate couple who bought the house, spent money on upgrades, paid all their mortgage payments and are now told they are faced with eviction from a home this is not theirs. But where is the title insurance protection that should be present? It is exactly where I told you it would be. The title companies, this one is First American, are denying coverage. The thief in this case is not a securitization party but the effect is the same. BOA is telling the couple that if they don’t pay the mortgage their credit will be ruined.

So they have a mortgage without a house. How is that possible? I’ll tell you how. The old owner abandoned the house allowing a scam artist to pretend to be the owner because the old owner was not around and didn’t care. Hmmmm. Wait that sounds familiar.

In the securitized mortgages, the investor has abandoned their claim against the “borrowers” and they are suing the investment bankers instead. That creates the same void as this scam. Only in “securitized” loans the scam artist that pretends to own the loan is a bank or some “bankruptcy-remote entity” that was created to serve the bank. Did you even wonder why the Banks went to all the trouble of inserting “bankruptcy remote” straw-men at loan closings? I think it is because they knew from the start this was eventually going to blow up and collapse.

The title company didn’t give a damn as long as they got their fee for the closing so they never did the work they were supposed to do. BOA didn’t care because they were not using their own money or had changed their habits because they usually don’t use their own money or credit. So these people got screwed by the title company and the “lender” who by the way does not have a perfected lien on the property (just like the “securitized” crap they sold to borrowers and investors).

Isn’t this interesting? Now BOA must figure out a way to resolve this without conceding that if the documentation was not in the chain of title as recorded in the title registry, there is no mortgage and thus nothing to foreclose. If this goes to court, BOA has a real problem, doesn’t it. They want to say that the borrower still owes them the money that was in fact funded AND they want to have a lien, but they can’t so they can’t foreclose. Thus this is exactly the same as ALL securitized loans.

The defects in the chain of title and the obvious shell game of names is not merely a technicality — it is the bedrock of a stable marketplace where if you buy something you should be getting clear title to it. The title company now says they are not liable for misrepresenting title. That the contract for insurance merely represents the risks they were willing to take and that if there was fraud in the title chain they are not liable. So what we have here is that no matter how many precautions the buyer-borrower takes he can still get screwed by the big guys. This isn’t caveat emptor (buyer beware) this is buyer be screwed.

And THAT is why the corrupted title mess extending to more than 80 million real estate transactions involving residential swellings cannot be solved — the players don’t want to solve it.

33 Responses

  1. I read the blurb from the 10k quoted. What were we supposed to get from it? It seemed pretty basic and bland to me.

  2. Interesting comments from (10K Annual Report) of Landamerica Financial Group

    ‘TITLE INSURANCE PROTECTS POLICYHOLDER FROM RISK OF LOSS FROM EVENTS THAT PREDATE THE ISSUANCE OF POLICY. ‘THIS DISTINCTION UNDERLIES LOW CLAIMS LOSS EXPERIENCE OF TITLE INSURERS AS COMPARED TO ‘OTHER’ INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS.

    ‘JUDGMENT ERRORS’
    ‘MISTAKES IN TITLE SEARCH AND EXAMINATION PROCESS’
    ‘ESCROW PROCESS’
    ‘HIDDEN DEFECTS SUCH AS FRAUD, FORGERY’
    ‘HIDDEN DEFECTS SUCH AS MISSING HEIRS’

    TITLE INSURERS INCUR CONSIDERABLE COSTS RELATING TO ‘PERSONNEL REQUIRED TO PROCESS FORMS, SEARCH TITLES, COLLECT INFORMATION, AND PREPARE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENETS AND POLICIES.

    TITLE POLCIY CAN BE ISSUED DIRECTION BY TITLE INSURER OR INDIRECTLY ON BEHALF OF A TITLE INSURER THROUGH AGENTS WHICH ARE NOT THEMSELVES LICENSED AS INSURERS.

    WHEN A POLICY IS ISSUED BY ‘AGENT’ THE AGENT GENERALLY PERFORMS THE SEARCH (BY APPROVED ATTORNEYS) EXAMINES THE TITLE, COLLECTS THE PREMIUM, AND RETAINS PORTION OF PREMIUM. REMAINDER OF PREMIUM REMITTED TO TITLE INSURER AS COMPENSATION FOR BEARING RISK OF LOSS IN EVENT A CLAIM IS MADE UNDER POLICY. % RETAINED VARIES. TITLE INSURER OBLIGATED TO PAY TITLE CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF ITS POLICIES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT ISSUED ITS POLICY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH AGENT.

    Amount of insured risk equal to purchase price of policy ‘face amount’
    Title insurance policy face amount of the loan secured by the property.

    IS THE ‘TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY IN COURT?

    INSURER IS ALSO RESPOSNIBLE FOR COST OF DEFENDING INSURED TITLE AGAINST COVERED CLAIMS.

    INSURER’S ACTUAL EXPOSURE – AT ANY TIME – SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE ‘TOTAL FACE AMOUNT OF POLICIES IN FORCE’ BECAUSE THE RISK ON AN OWNER’S POLICY IS OFTEN REDUCED OVER TIME AS A RESULT OF ‘SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS OF THE PROPERTY’ AND THE ‘REISSUANCE OF TITLE INSURANCE’ BY OTHER TITLE INSURANCE UNDERWERITERS, AND THE COVERAGE OF A LENDERS POLICY IS REDUCED AND EVENTUALLY TERMINATED AS A RESULT OF PAYMENT OF THE ‘MORTGAGE LOAN’

    BECAUSE OF THESE FACTORS, THE TOTAL CONTINGENT LIAIBLITY OF A TITLE UNDERWRITER ON OUTSTANDING POLICIES CANNOT BE PRECISELY ASCERTAINED.

    ‘alleged negligence in search, examination or closing, alleged improper claims handling and alleged bad faith – damages alleged in such claims arising outside insurance contract may often exceed stated liability limits of policies involved.

    LAWYERS TITLE, IN ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, SUBJECT TIME TO TIME TO THESE TYPES OF CLAIMS

    LOSSES TO DATE NOT SIGNIFICANT BUT AS DECLARED IN 1997, LAWYERS TITLE EXPERIENCED SEVERAL LARGE CLAIMS RESULTING FROM AGENT ESCROW DEFALCATIONS, AND AS A RESULT OF EXPERIENCE IN THOSE CASES, HAS PUT IN PLACE MORE STRINGENT AGENT QUALIFCIATION AND AUDIT PROCEDURES.

    ——————————————-
    discussion on Title Operations ….higher claims provision ratio in our Title Operations segment, (3) we recorded a legal accrual for two class action lawsuits, (4) we incurred incremental costs to close offices in response to current market conditions, and (5) we incurred a charge related to the prepayment of certain senior notes. Pretax operating losses were offset in part by continued strength in the commercial real estate market, proceeds from a lawsuit settlement, and growth in the default services line of our loan servicing business. As conditions in the real estate market became increasingly difficult in 2007, we aggressively sought to

    Create you own secinfo.com account. login. then paste url and you too can review the Subsidiaries 10K of Landamerica Financial Group INC formerly Lawyers Title Corp. ‘FIND” button in a relational database takes away all of the ‘pain’ if you will!

    http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Documents.asp?CIK=877355&Type=EX-21
    Landamerica Financial Group Inc
    ‘EX-21’ Exhibits: Subsidiaries of the Registrant
    12 Exhibits · Click on an Exhibit to view it

    2/28/08 ‘10-K’ 12/31/07 2 / 7 ‘EX-21’ … HTML
    2/28/07 ‘10-K’ 12/31/06 2 / 7 ‘EX-21’ … HTML
    3/9/06 ‘10-K’ 12/31/05 6 / 11 ‘EX-21’ … HTML
    3/11/05 ‘10-K’ 12/31/04 7 / 12
    ‘EX-21’ Subsidiaries of the Company HTML
    3/12/04 ‘10-K’ 12/31/03 8 / 13 ‘EX-21’ … HTML
    3/26/03 ‘10-K’ 12/31/02 4 / 7 ‘EX-21’ … HTML
    3/29/02 ‘10-K405’ 12/31/01 10 / 11 ‘EX-21’ … 4
    3/28/01 ‘10-K’ 12/31/00 7 / 8 ‘EX-21’ … 4
    3/28/00 ‘10-K’ 12/31/99 12 / 14 ‘EX-21’ … 4
    3/30/99 ‘10-K405’ 12/31/98 7 / 9 ‘EX-21’ … 4
    3/27/98 ‘10-K’ 12/31/97 9 / 11 ‘EX-21’ … 3
    3/26/97 ‘10-K405’ 12/31/96 4 / 6 ‘EX-21’ … 3

  3. Prosecuting Wall Street investment banks and their “geniuses” is not only a matter of democracy, but more importantly, it is about survival of America that we all love…and the only path for our kids’ future.
    However, there are two Registers of Deeds who are demanding answers from MERS, BofA and the rest of them. They’re the first in the nation to say NO to fraud and robosigning and they need our help: http://tinyurl.com/3qsu87x

  4. First American was always one of the best – I hope they are not resorting to denying claims that they should be paying if legal claim made against them.

  5. I’m not so sure Neil actually watched the video. Nowhere did it say the title insuror is denying coverage. In fact, it suggested that 1st American is trying to remedy the issue. There’s been a recent theme on the site that title insurors have claimed that they will wash their hands of claims. However, there has been no evidence in support and this posting is in direct contradiction with the video on which it is based.

  6. To add to the scenario as to Kemp, an attorney posting in the comments section at Levitin’s site Credit Slips concerning allonges posts that they have 100% certainty that GMAC’s loans are stored in a repository in MN. They are not delivered to the trust. FWIW.

  7. @usedkar – and look at the comments today on the newest post “Strategies Pleadings…”. very strange exchange going on there between me and Louie Hammer. any comments?

  8. @usedkar – doesn’t the thing about holding the notes back fit right in with what we learned in the Kemp case about C’wide/BoA never transferring the notes?

    as to the other part, was it their judgment that was vacated or your judgment? either way, I think my take on it would be that a vacated judgment theoretically never happened, so there should and could be no res judicata effect.

  9. just got an e-mail from an attorney I contacted, and he states that “I’m done” because of the previous “lost” foreclosure case. If the Plaintiff vacated the judgment pending a “modification”, and I come back into court with “fresh claims maturing after pleading”, would I get “res-judicata’d” out the door? I am anticipating a motion to dismiss based on that claim.
    If so, what next? Punt?

  10. “Both consumer and courts are without accurate business statements for with intent all of the affiliates, title and settlement agents as trustee and trustor thwart due process of law and are securing lowest level lien position for (debt collector) as servicer who is without proof they are the Note Holder in Due Course in the Chain of Title ‘A’, to ‘B’ to ‘C’ to ‘D’. Is the ‘Trustee’ the SERVICER’s substitute? As ‘D’ and how did ‘D’ get the title reconveyance from?”

    harry, this is what caught my eye. If what she says is true, the bank never securitized the loan and indeed recorded the lien to secure the servicer at the outset. The note never traveled, the mortgage was never assigned, all held back in anticipation of the borrower default when the rates increased.

  11. i don’t understand why Neil keeps bringing title insurors down with the banks and servicers. for one thing – the words title company and title insuror are used in his articles and commentary as though they mean the same thing and refer to the same people. they do not. generally (at least in my neck of the woods), the title company conducts the closing, does the title search, and issues the title policy as agent for the title insuror. the title insuror is either First American, Fidelity, etc.

  12. @usedkar – not sure what you wanted me to comment on. the post from Mary had some sort of definitions intermingled with a lot of editorial comment. I’d love to see the unedited version to comment. the google link seems to be broken now

  13. J Cauthen

    I don’t trust any of those institutions or their capacities to prevent further devastation to “the little people.” But I respect your knowledge of the players

  14. I was just laughing when FAF caught in negligence and breach of contract…. I have got the similar problem with other too big to fail title insurance company. They denied my claim to protect me at the time of lawsuits. They are the same as mortgage servicers. They are CUTTING CORNERs. As Neal’s article from the past. The title insurance companies do not check where all the funding of the money goes after the closing. Many of the liens are still ON. And many of new home owners do not know about it especially for short sales.

  15. @Mary: now it makes sense

    tnharry? counselors? any comment on this one? sounds to good to NOT be true.

  16. Great great post – thanks to Saveamericaone – I wish I had the energy.

  17. Dear Dan-O see Jack Murray American Title Law Library & First American Title find on Google and you’ll have access to real estate glossary meanings.
    Branch: A subordinate or division office of First American Title Insurance Company, as opposed to an affiliate, agent, subsidiary or underwritten firm associated with the Company.
    Closing: The financial procedure in real estate sales process, where the sale and pertinent loan are completed by the execution of documents for recording. In some areas, this procedure is known as the closing of escrow.
    Bona Fide Purchaser: One who buys property in good faith, for fair value, and without notice of any adverse claim or right of third parties.
    Close of Escrow? Is there an Escrow Account with ‘Mortgage Note Owner’?
    Close of Escrow: The date the documents are recorded and title passes from Seller to Buyer. On this date, the Buyer becomes the legal owner, and title insurance becomes effective.
    Cloud on Title: An irregularity, possible claim, or encumbrance which, if valid, would adversely affect or impair the title.
    At what point is there a Breach of Contract: Failure to perform a contract, in whole or party, without legal excuse between consumer and? Who?
    Collateral: By or at the side, additional or auxiliary. Mistakenly used to mean collateral security.
    Collateral Security: Most commonly used to mean some security in addition to the personal obligation of the borrower.
    Commitment: A binding contract with a title company to issue a specific title policy, showing only those exceptions contained in the commitment and any intervening matters after the date of the commitment and prior to the effective date of the policy. The commitment contains all information included in preliminary title report, plus a list of the title company’s requirements to insure the transaction. It also includes the standard exceptions from coverage that will appear in the policy.
    For example, consider BUYDOWN: A payment to the lender from the seller, buyer, third party, or some combination of these, causing the lender to reduce the interest rate during the early years of a loan. The buydown is usually for the first one to five years of a loan. *(See also: Certificate Backed Mortgage.)
    Certificate of Title: In areas where attorneys examine abstracts or chains of title, a written opinion, executed by the examining attorney, stating that title is vested as stated in the abstract.
    Beneficiary, Trustee & Trustor refers to definition of “Deed of Trust or Trust Deed”: A written document by which the title to land is conveyed as security for the repayment of a loan or other obligation. It is a form of mortgage. The landowner or debtor is called the “trustor.” The party to whom the legal title is conveyed (and who may be called on to conduct a sales thereof if the loan is not paid) is the ‘trustee.” The lender is the “beneficiary.” When the loan is paid off, the trustee is asked by the beneficiary to issue a “recon” or reconveyance. This reconveyance corresponds to the release that the holder of a mortgage executes when the mortgage is paid off. The dictionary of First American Title Insurance Agency available
    Whether on the phone or the internet, YOU as a consumer, an individual are unsafe and should not virtually inquire for in 30 seconds or less, your information placed into the database sold to affiliates who will contact you control the property held in their ‘trustees’ and ‘trustors’ name insuring the DEED OF TRUST who must control the next title policy in the chain of title related to the starter.
    Starter: A copy of the last policy or report issued by a title insurer which described the title to land upon which a new search is to be made. In some states, this is called a back title letter or back title certificate.
    Once your property reference (address) placed inside the wholesale and retail pipeline, they have all of the relevant information in their databases, CREDIT FACILITIES Plants; Title Plants already placed public county recorders information inside their own databases, MERS, LPS, DOCX….
    An innocent ‘mortgage inquiry’ places in the fact of whoever contacts you the real ‘trustee’ – ‘trustor’ – whose already in control of the ‘deed of trust’ and will continue to control the deed of trust through deceptive acts and taking possession of your property in a larcenous manner as their own.
    ‘LENDERS’ & ‘SERVICERS’ & ‘Title Agents’ take possession of residential property in a larcenous manner prior to consumer closing during origination for their benefit not yours!
    WARNING: Silent owner of the mortgage note not at the closing table and not in court did in a larcenous manner sell the rights to third parties, over and over; each transaction clouds deed of title.
    The title agency has a limited liability to protect the lien before the court when liens are placed on the property. The dictionary used here refers to TRUSTEE — – trustor of what? Deed of Title.
    Who will pay court expenses to protect deed of trust claims over the Deed of Title considered only when claims are processed by the robo-law firm.
    Who is in court as the Plaintiff? I’ve heard over and over nobody knows who is the real plaintiff? How is this possible? We don’t ask for Name Affidavits!
    Reconstituted servicing agreements when ‘mortgage note owner’ conveyed ‘mortgage notes’ as ‘assets’ of the ‘Issuing Entity’ during Closing Date, agree it’s the ‘Servicer’ who will pay the non-performing loan, agree that another national banking association will be sent into the front lines of a contested foreclosure or bankruptcy. The servicer the lowest on the totem pole as servicer, debt collector, of literally an unsecured debt, for they neglected to record their lien position except for the title agency and title insurance policy certificates of insurance. The servicer’s are trying to reclaim property to collect on their 30 year agreement to collect P&I. If consumer wins causes of actions that will prevent servicer from collecting claims we have to use court!
    Research reveals each additional ‘Title Policy’ and ‘endorsement’ Agreement with each party in the chain of clouded Title over the ‘DEED OF TITLE’
    What does the ‘lender title policy pay for that the consumer forced to purchase at during ‘mortgage closing’ of refinance, for example.
    Both consumer and courts are without accurate business statements for with intent all of the affiliates, title and settlement agents as trustee and trustor thwart due process of law and are securing lowest level lien position for (debt collector) as servicer who is without proof they are the Note Holder in Due Course in the Chain of Title ‘A’, to ‘B’ to ‘C’ to ‘D’. Is the ‘Trustee’ the SERVICER’s substitute? As ‘D’ and how did ‘D’ get the title reconveyance from?
    The leg work for data resources unlimited for the SERVICER through the title agency all who have UTLS for example another form of LPS and DOCX ‘ United Tech Lenders Services whose private members control the authority of anyone to change any documents at will to correlate to the lies regarding the property.
    At the end of the day, when a consumer defaults (late payment) the robo law firm will file claims to ‘Old Republic’ for liens placed against the property by the robo law firms. For example, on the Lis Pendens, if your robo-law firm who filed the complaint with the court listed any additional parties on the Lis Pendens who are not you! as judgments they will file claims with the Title Corporation who insured protecting the lien! Oh yes – what you don’t know does hurt you over and over and over again.
    What will the title corporation do? At what point do they defend or not defend the ‘trustee’ or ‘trustor’ of the title policy who agreed to protect and defend ‘temporary lender’ from encumbrances?
    ‘Settlement Agents’ during Origination take property into pipeline conduits. Origination is the secret closing period where Lenders and Title
    Agents deal with the DEED OF TITLE Trustees / Trustors (to procure cash ultimately for the ‘owner of the mortgage note’.
    OVER SEC the MEMBERS of the private financial exchange use the term ‘Trustee’ but that is a total different party to the consumer as individual. OVER SEC the ‘Trustee’ will insure at a higher level the cash deposits converted into securities as stocks governed by the (S3) (S3/A) SEC Forms.
    The takings of residential property from consumer unrelated to the consumer as a person. Rather the loan number is actually a Sales Agreement and/or Purchase Order, ten digits which are insured that procure cash and cloud tiles on deeds of trusts for fees paid by the owner of the mortgage note who is not at the closing table with the consumer and title agency).
    The settlement agent sells consumer policy and turns over some of the premium to the Title Corporation each limiting exposure of liability, each handler ultimately responsible for clouding the title in collusion with temporary lenders who secure servicing rights to collect monies from borrowers.
    Before funds are distributed to consumer in a refinance, for example, the funding is sent to settlement agent of title agency and deducts from the funding HUD costs for the title insurance from the ‘personal distribution of funds now personal property of consumer.’
    Public Records: The transcriptions in a recorder’s office of instruments which have been recorded, including the indexes pertaining to them.
    Deed: Written document by which an estate or interest in real property is transferred from one person to another. The person who transfers the interest is called the ‘grantor.’ The one who acquires the interest is called the ‘grantee.’ Examples of deeds are grantors’ deeds, administrators’ deeds, executors’ deeds, quitclaim deeds, etc.
    The deed to use depends on the language of the deed, the legal capacity of the grantor and other circumstances.
    Trustee & Trustor refers to definition of “Deed of Trust or Trust Deed”: A written document by which the title to land is conveyed as security for the repayment of a loan or other obligation. It is a form of mortgage. The landowner or debtor is called the “trustor.” The party to whom the legal title is conveyed (and who may be called on to conduct a sales thereof if the loan is not paid) is the ‘trustee.” The lender is the “beneficiary.” When the loan is paid off, the trustee is asked by the beneficiary to issue a “recon” or reconveyance. This reconveyance corresponds to the release that the holder of a mortgage executes when the mortgage is paid off.
    Reconveyance: An instrument used to transfer title from a TRUSTEE to the equitable OWNER OF REAL ESTATES, when title is held as COLLATERAL SECURITY for a debt. Most commonly used upon payment in full of a trust deed. Also called a deed of reconveyance or release.
    Collateral: By or at the side, additional or auxiliary. Mistakenly used to mean collateral security.
    Collateral Security: Most commonly used to mean some security in addition to the personal obligation of the borrower.
    Reinsurance: A contract which one insurer makes with another to protect the first insurer, wholly or partially, against loss or liability by reason of a risk under a separate and distinct contract as insurer of a third party. Reinsurance differs from coinsurance in that, in the case of reinsurance, only one insurer has a direct contractual relationship with the insured, and that insured (commonly referred to as the “lead insurer”) purchases reinsurance in order to lessen or spread the risk. The “lead insurer” will assume a risk up to a limit (the amount of which is referred to as the ‘retention’) and any loss which exceeds this limit would be borne by the reinsurers. In the case of coinsurance, each coinsurer has a direct contractual relationship with the insured, and the risk is shared in agreed-upon proportions from the first dollar of loss.
    Title Insurance: Insured statement of the condition of title or ownership of real property. For a one-time-only premium, the named insured and their heirs are protected against title defects, liens and encumber existing as of the date of the policy and not specifically excluded from it. In the event of a claim, the title company provides legal defense from the policyholder and pays any covered losses incurred as a result of such claim.
    Title Search: A review of all recorded documents affecting a specific parcel of land to determine the present condition of title. An experienced title officer or attorney reviews and analyzes all material relating to the search, then determines the sufficiency and status of title for insurance of a title insurance policy.
    Title Report or Preliminary Report or “PRE”, or “PRELIM”:
    A written report issued by a title company, preliminary to issuing title insurance, which shows the recorded condition of title of the property in question. See Commitment.
    Subordination Agreement: An agreement by which one encumbrance (for example, a mortgage) is made subject to another encumbrance (for example, a mortgage made subject to another encumbrance (perhaps a lease). To ‘subordinate’ is to ‘make subject’, or to make of lower priority.
    Sale and Leaseback: A situation in which the grantor in a deed to a parcel of property sells it and retains possession by simultaneously leasing it from the grantee.
    Constructive Notice: Notice imparted by the public records of the county where documents entitled to recording is recorder.
    Search: In title industry parlance, a careful exploration and examination of the public records in an effort to find all recorded instruments relating to a particular chain of title.
    Commitment: A binding contract with a title company to issue a specific title policy, showing only those exceptions contained in the commitment and any intervening matters after the date of the commitment and prior to the effective date of the policy. The commitment contains all information included in preliminary title report, plus a list of the title company’s requirements to insure the transaction. It also includes the standard exceptions from coverage that will appear in the policy.
    Coinsurance: Ordinary coinsurance is defined as a transaction under which each of two or more insurers assumes a designated portion of the liability for the total risk and is liable for only such portion of any loss beginning at the first dollar of loss. (See Reinsurance.)
    Covenant: (1) A formal agreement or contract between two parties in which one party gives the other certain promises and assurances, such as the covenant of warranty in a warranty deed. (2) Agreements or promises contained in deeds and other instruments for performance or nonperformance of certain acts, or use or nonuse of property in certain manner.
    Conveyance: An instrument in writing, such as a deed or trust deed, used to transfer (convey) title to property from one person to another. Title: (1) A combination of all the elements that constitute a legal right to own, possess, use, control, enjoy and dispose of real estate or a right or interest therein. (2) The rights of ownership recognized and protected by law.
    Starter: A copy of last policy or report issued by a title insurer which described the title to land upon which a new search is to be made. In some states, this is called back letter or back title certificate.
    Defective Title: (1) Title to a negotiable instrument obtained by fraud; (2) Title to real property which lacks some of the elements necessary to transfer good title.
    efect:’A blemish’, imperfections, deficiencies. A ‘defective title’ is one that is irregular and faulty.

  18. Does anyone here have a list of the robo signers that appear to be in Chicago.?

    Thanks

  19. Ahhh … here we are talking title issues again. The commentary is on point here.

    We are seeing more Carpenter v. Longan decisions being put forward to the courts and judges are starting to listen. The case I’m involved with in Washington State moved into the discovery phase when the state judge denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Chase, Quality Loan Services, MERS). Now they’re hinting at settlement? Go figure. Another quiet title action was settled in South Carolina last week … my network is reporting in that we have another suit filed in Nashville and another wrongful foreclosure suit in Nashville in the works.
    Another quiet title action is being filed in Kansas City with another one to follow as an adversarial proceeding in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Sadly, one federal judge in Phoenix managed to 12(b)(6) one of the cases I was working on. All the rest of them (dozens) are still in play. http://www.cloudedtitles.com

    I will be on The Power Hour again on June 29th at 8:00 a.m. CDT. You can hear the broadcast in streaming audio at http://www.thepowerhour.com.

    The issues surrounding clouds on title and the subsequent marketability of property will last into the next 40 years at the rate we are seeing. Upcoming announcements in the works … title companies issuing those declination letters I talk about in Section 12 of Clouded Titles. Former AG joining our network soon.
    A lot is happening … now is NOT the time to go out and buy foreclosed property.

    I have formed DK CONSULTANTS LLC for the purpose of training paralegals and consulting attorneys in legal actions around the country. At some point, I will be doing chain of title assessment (COTA) classes … email me if you’re so inclined to learn about a new and upcoming way to earn a living. We are looking at several million QT actions being filed across the country in the next decade alone!

  20. We had a case in 1987 where an originator sold the loans to three different investors and it took almost ten years for everyone who was harmed to get compensated. It all came out when the 80’s went bust and the title company did resolve most of the claims that were involved in this particular issue. I am sure of course that the title companies went after the mortgage company who originated the loan under their company insurance coverages.

    The reason we came up with the plan in 2007 was because we knew full well insurance could not cover the losses. But the feds came up with their worthless recovery plans which have done nothing to resolve the current and ongoing crisis.

    This comes from allowing the very people who created the mess to continue as everyone on this site knows instead of seeking answers from people who have been in the trenches for years and had already worked through such issues.

    Oh well.

  21. Hi Marie:

    In my book, someone who intentionally sets up a system on such a large scale guaranteeing something and not providing it may be a breach of contract to you, but I am trying to get some feed back from our district attorneys here. Yes I know about all that you mention here, but it is theft to a degree. I know about the claims and that there is not sufficient money to honor all, but it could be better than what they are getting ready to cough up for the AG settlements, etc. Who is looking after the homeowner now from the title company point a view as you mentioned.

    We had a plan in 2007 that would have to a large degree put us on the right track to cover these kinds of issues. In 2009, a title company out of California wrote about what was going on and no one paid them any attention, so even when the good title companies tried, it was tough to get the word out there about what was going on. Besides, these people have to pay for what they are doing and it should not be just a select few. They all played a part. We faught the title companies in the 80’s and you are right, it was not an easy task then and won’t be this time around.

    I have enjoyed your posts – thanks for your input. Even after 50 years in the mortgage business of originating, servicing, buying and selling portfolios, quality control and due diligence, with this new regime of lenders (sons and daughters of the 80’s probably), I am learning something new every day, thanks to people like you and your input. Keep up the good work. Working as chief financial officer and in a managerial and supervisory capacity over numous loan servicing and originating companies – this business now appears to have been gutted.

    Frankly the title companies I worked with back in the 80’s and 90’s, attempted to settle claims – they were not in the business of screwing the homeowners or the lenders as the case may be. As a liason for the secondary in the 80’s, and trouble shooter with investors who purchased portfolios similar to these, we worked out those problems and most homeownrs did not lose their homes.
    Same went for the loan servicers and the investors they serviced loans for.

    We worked diligently with attorneys in those days to make sure consumer needs were met and for the good of the people and the financial entity. Now, the attorneys are making out like bandits because they either kept quiet or in some cases may have enhanced the originators desire to offer the dangerous programs in the first place. Oh well, what do I know?

    Now it is a different ball game. I have been out there since 1964 and life was great – that is until 1995 – when second chance car dealers decided to sell Wall Street on a program of second chance home financing and then the Congress took away the oversight that was needed in 1998 in the Clinton administration. Both parties carried it out. Nothing new here.

  22. Mr Bryl

    I have very similar scenario, Option one orig in 2005; in 2009 Ahmsi assigned to DB, difference is Ahmsi/DB “foreclosed” in march: Linda green, tywanna Thomas, robos, Chris Ivey notary (license since revoked)

    Qwr response states Ahmsi took over as servicer to option one. Carefully does not state it was successor in interest as asserted in assignment.

    Any thoughts on getting this undone?

  23. J Cauthen

    Taking money for services not provided is breach of contract, not theft

    No way to get such a settlement. And if there were such a settlement, what happens to the homeowner. Screwed again of course because it would necessitate a limitation on individual claims and recoveries.

    You are talking about millions of individual claims. Insurance is a calculated risk. There isn’t enough money to cover all the losses that will surface. The title companies will resist until rescued. There’s lots of precedent for bailouts, isn’t there…

  24. I cannot imagine the title company will be able to get out of this one. Not that they might not be able to prevail later in a lawsuit against the other players.

    But how can they possibly get out of paying the homeowner whose interest they insured? I think they are stuck. If not their insurance is worthless and their business is toast. They *have* to quiet the title.

  25. Bryllaw is pleased to report — Virginia: Deutsche Bank disappears after homeowner challenged its authority to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure by attacking what appeared to be a fraudulent document styled as a deed of appointment. AHMSI also claimed to be involved as a “servicer,” but just like Deutsche, it could not show sufficient interest in the property to establish itself as a party entitled to appoint a substitute trustee under the Virginia Code.

    Our two primary avenues of attack were to challenge (1) the authority of Deutsche to appoint a substitute trustee (the first step in a non-judicial foreclosure) and (2) the ability of Deutsche to show any interest in the property it sought to take. On both counts, neither Deutsche nor AHMSI was able to produce even a scintilla of evidence that would be sufficient to withstand the challenge.

  26. Correction – $100 Billion – and we could trade out the foreclosure inventory to those who lost their homes for one in the inventory through a voucher system – that is if the consumer agreed to it.

    This whole thing could have been resolved two years ago, but the agenda to foreclose the homes and resell would not have become a reality for the lenders who appeared to be bidding on them and getting them free and clear. How come the investors are not crying for the heads of the Wall Street boys that were putting these deals together. Foreclosed homes (although most probably not legal) would belong to the investors – the certificate holders, right? Just need to be clear and perhaps all of us are just not understanding it.

  27. The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, together with the State Title Boards need to make an immediate investigation (which I am sure they have done already) to challenge the title companies across this nation.

    I have thought long and hard about where the money needs to come from to resolve this issue and to properly compensate those that have been harmed.

    it is not through some phony worthless settlement by the AG’s or the FDIC, etc., but a settlement reached by the banks, title companies, appraisers, auditors (independent and private), ratings groups, Attorneys, NAR, realtors, National Mortgage Bankers Group, those non profits claiming to protect the consumer that took gov funds but did nothting substantial to stop the demise of), and of course Wall Street. If they all had to pay an aggregate amount, this issue could be resolved and with the contributions from each, we could take care of the matter. I bet we could come up with about $100 million real quick.

    How can a title company not honor its liability – taking funds for services not provided is theft.

  28. A New York appellate court has ruled against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), increasing speculation about the role that possible re-foreclosures may play in a still-brittle market. It’s the latest in a series of suits involving MERS, which was designed to allow the industry to fluidly and inexpensively transfer millions of mortgages from note-holding banks and institutions via an electronic system. MERS’ own proposed rule prohibiting banks from foreclosing in its name – a central part of the controversy – remains in the works. from DSNews….

    Another small but decisive victory

  29. Everything in this industry is a scam,backed by paid for and to benefit the banksters gangsters.Innocent people are still being dragged into this mess due to lack of expierence and unwillingness to do thier home work.I truly feel for this couple but anyone who buys a house in this current market is looking to be taken.Wake up America home ownership is nothing but a scam.Pay attention or you will find yourselves right where all of us are.It’s not a pretty picture.

  30. can someone explain how the title companies can own mers (as shareholders), sell title policies to consumers, and when MERS screws up the title deny converage to the consumers those policies are meant to protect? dont the title insurers have a conflict of interest here? how can they treat their insureds fairly and impartially when they have a stake both in MERS and also in not paying the claim? it seems like the title insurers have 2 shots at screwing consumers right out of the gate by collecting premiums on policies they never intend to honor. isnt that in itself fraud?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: