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

EDITOR’S NOTE: The investors put up the money for the funding of mortgage transactions with BOA and other investment banking operations brokering the deal. Now BOA is about to pay the largest settlement to investors so far. The real question is that if the investors were the real creditors, which they were, then the obligation from borrowers should be prorated downward. If BOA is buying these pools that were never filled it doesn’t mean that the pools gain any more credibility as having the assets claimed for the pool than they had before.

And if BOA wants to move into the shoes of the investors they are faced with the same conundrum that the investors had when they decided to abandon claims against homeowners and seek redress from BOA, to wit: do they really want to move directly into the line of fire of a hail of defenses, affirmative defenses and counterclaims for predatory and fraudulent lending? And is there anyway that they can say that their claim was secured when the loans were never transferred by proper documentation or delivery?

This is a classic PR move for Wall Street. This is a fake scenario in which the true liability is being masked by a friendly deal. They are taking hundreds of billions and probably trillions in liability and attempting to distill it down to what appears to be a large a number but in reality is less than 1% of the total liability. This isn’t the end of it even if they want it to be.

But in the meanwhile, brokers and investors will be hearing what they want to hear and BOA stock will inch up a bit.

The reality is that these bonds are worthless  and always were worthless. Any balance sheet item anywhere is a fake if it is based upon mortgages or mortgage bonds whose value is derived from mortgage loans.

The loans were not originated in a standard contractual manner — the borrower and the lender were shown, and each agreed, to two different sets of documents. They treated the loans as if they were transferred but never actually transferred them. So the mortgage was invalid at inception and even if it wasn’t, is not perfected as a lien. The amount due is clearly effected by these settlements, but more than that, we can see that the investors as creditors have clearly abandoned their claims against the so-called borrowers.

Breaking News: BofA Close to Reaching $8.5 bn Settlement with
BlackRock, PIMCO (100th Post)
Posted By igradman On June 29, 2011 (12:10 am) In allocation of loss,
balance sheets, banks, BlackRock, BofA, bondholder actions, contract
rights, Countrywide, damages, demand letter, Freddie Mac, investors,
Kathy Patrick, lawsuits, liabilities, loss estimates, PIMCO, private
label MBS, putbacks, RMBS, settlements

As part of the Subprime Shakeout’s 100th Post (woo-hoo!), I bring you
an analysis of some big, breaking news: today, the Wall Street Journal
reported that Bank of America was closing in on an agreement with the
investor group led by Kathy Patrick to pay $8.5 billion to settle
claims over mortgage backed securities.  If true, this would be the
largest MBS settlement to date arising out of the mortgage crisis.

I first reported on this investor effort back in October 2010.  You
can find my initial take here, a link to the demand letter sent by
Patrick here, and a link to the response fired off by BofA here.
While we heard early in 2011 that the parties would extend all
deadlines while they negotiated, we had heard very little about the
progress of these efforts until today.

While the details of the purported settlement are sketchy, the WSJ
report states that the current investor group includes 22
institutions, including BlackRock, PIMCO, the New York Fed, MetLife
and Freddie Mac, which collectively hold $56 billion worth of
mid-2000s vintage MBS.  Though it did not report on any impending
settlement, Bloomberg also published an article today on these
negotiations, and stated that the value of the securities at issue was
$84 billion, while the original principal value of the securities was
$182 billion.  While it is not entirely clear how these numbers line
up, my best guess is that the investor group holds approximately $56
billion of the $84 billion outstanding.

What’s also unclear is how much of the reduction in the value of the
bonds at issue is as a result of pay-downs and prepayments, and how
much is as a result of the trusts taking losses on foreclosed
properties.  Thus, it is difficult to assess what percentage of
potential damages from investor claims is being born by BofA under the
settlement.  My initial reaction is that, while the absolute dollar
amount sounds large, this settlement is ultimately fairly small
compared to the potential damages.

This result would be consistent with the consensus among commentators
regarding this investor group, including some of the comments
contained in today’s Bloomberg article and my initial take on this
effort: namely, the investors involved have significant other business
dealings with BofA (a.k.a. conflicts), and thus would not seek an
aggressive settlement.  At the same time, BofA has exhibited a growing
interest in resolving its legacy RMBS liability, and thus would be
interested in entering into a sweetheart settlement with a prominent
group of investors that would set a precedential ceiling on future
recoveries and discourage other investors from coming forward.

Without seeing the terms of the settlement and the details of the
group’s holdings, it’s impossible to know what claims are being
released in this settlement and how the proceeds are to be shared.
For example, if the group is being paid outside of the trust
waterfalls, and thus receiving the entire $8.5 billion, then the
investors would actually be recovering much larger proportion of their
potential damages (while potentially throwing the other investors who
did not participate in the settlement under the bus, either by
purporting to release their claims, or by making it impossible for
those other investors to gain standing to sue).

However, sources have indicated that the settlement funds will
actually be paid into the trust waterfalls.  This would be ostensibly
more equitable, in that all bondholders would be entitled to receive a
share of the settlement proceeds, depending on their seniority.
However, query how equitable it really is for a portion of the
bondholders (and most likely the senior portion, since these are
primarily institutional investors) to set the settlement amount for
the rest of the non-participating bondholders, and to receive the
lion’s share of the benefits based on their more senior bond position.
Whether the investor group could or would engineer such a settlement
remains to be seen.

Regardless, the fact that these investors got any money at all out of
the nation’s largest bank, let alone a material dollar amount, might
actually encourage other investors to come forward.  A settlement of
this size would reveal that BofA’s initial rhetoric, that it would
fight these claims tooth and nail until they were forced to pay, was
just that–empty rhetoric.  For example, BofA CEO Brian Moynihan stated
during the company’s third quarter 2010 earnings call that, “we will
go in and fight this.  It’s worked to our benefit to—we have thousands
of people willing to stand and look at every one of these loans.”
Further, this settlement undermines BofA’s recent estimate that the
cost of its legacy RMBS putback issues would not exceed $10 billion.
BofA cannot seriously assume that this is the only large investor
group with which it will have to tangle over defective Countrywide

The simple truth is that investors have significant amounts of viable
repurchase and Securities Act claims stemming from their purchase of
Countrywide-issued or originated MBS, and BofA will be forced to
confront many additional claims by investors in the coming years.
These additional investors might not have the same level of business
dealings with BofA and thus might be willing to take more aggressive
steps in pursuing reimbursement for its losses.  In that case, BofA’s
strategy of creating a lowball settlement to discourage investors from
coming forward might end up backfiring and further eroding the already
strained capital on BofA’s balance sheet.

Article taken from The Subprime Shakeout –
URL to article:


65 Responses

  1. I sit corrected. It was at yahoo finance provided by smartmoney.
    Here’s the link:

    Looks like applications are only being taken thru July 22.

  2. More Money for Struggling Homeowners
    by AnnaMaria Andriotis
    Wednesday, June 29, 2011
    at Money

    According to this article, HUD is offering up to 50k to homeowners to catch up on or make their payments. Each year you stay cool on your home, HUD forgves 20% of the interest free “loan”. The author seems to think this could leave borrowers in worse shape than they’re in if they sell the house or don’t then stay current and lose the house. Apparently, if that happens, the gimme funds turn into a loan after all, but not the 20% for each year you stayed / maintained the house.

    Use the money – hurry! do your best, and well, if that doesn’t work out, there’s always bk. At least you’ll have a home for while.
    What I can’t figure is why I didn’t know this. Did any of you? When my computer jammed as I was reading Money’s, I had to search again and found a less detailed article at Bloomberg from August of last year.

    It does irk me, tho, because there are strings and HUD or someone is getting in the act ,it appears, to see that the money gets used to catch up and or make your payments. Is this a new concept, strings, one which wasn’t available when the TARP and HAMP gimme funds went out? And if YOU blow it, then it’s a loan?

    I haven’t got a clue how this is going to work for people who are in f/c. Will the bankster stay the action pending your application process for the 50k? Got me. But the people who have or are implementing this program likely know.

  3. J V Eck

    What a great ilustration. If only there were some cohesiveness to this “war.” And more intelligent publicity But most people I talk to either are clinging to their budgets for dear life, or they don’t have the will to fight. I haven’t found one person who watchedthe 60minutes piece on Linda Green and DOCx

    And although I know a lot more now than I did 6 months ago, I doubt that I can do battle on my own while working a sixty four hour work week.

    Unfortunately we are far away from the critical mass of fighters needed to vindicate your illustration.

  4. @ tnharry – you are incorrect, at least in my state anyway. i can walk into court and file a criminal complaint against anyone. the court then schedules a show cause hearing before a magistrate who then decides if there is enough evidence to go to trial. sorry, but citizens can file for a criminal complaint, you are wrong.

  5. I am reminded of an interesting “war game” played out in the Navy. One group was the Red Team, representing and pretending to be the Iranian Navy in the Straits of Hormuz, and the other group was the Blue Team, representing the U.S. Navy. The various U.S. boats – frigates, cruisers, and so forth – had heavy weapons with radar targeting systems, and the anti-missile “mini-gun” that fired from six rotating barrels. The Commander of the Red Team anticipated that none of his gunboats could possibly get through the defenses of the Blue Team – those were well-planned. So the Red Commander launched a vast number of small inflatables with outboards, able to run at 50 mph, and sent 50 of them at once against each of the ships of the Blue Team (each inflatable with a simulated demolition charge). The vast number of targets overwhelmed the radar-guided defenses of the Blues, and the Reds sank the Blue ships (admitted with a few losses).

    What lesson do we learn from this? Although you may be able to chip away at the banksters and New Yorkers and glean the occasional victory, they will still prevail over the vast number of foreclosures as their resources, and their game plan, is so well financed. What they do not factor in, and cannot factor in or defend, is a vast number of “rubber-dinghies” with demolition satchels coming at them in a swarm. Success comes from swamping the bums with an unending wave of lawsuits. When everybody sues, then they lose. The pond scum is not set up to defend against tens of thousands of suits. They can only defend – and have worked into the business model the minor costs – a few suits (some of which they can walk away from).

    Meet a New Yorker? Sue him. He’s scum anyway.

  6. @carie,

    The $5-$20 billion dollar settlement refers to the AG talks. Although being touted as a homeowner settlement deal, history shows us how bogus that is. The AGs will get new office furniture and computers, along with a trip to the AG convention in Vegas next year. Drinks on the house.


  7. Carie

    For any recovery from that settlement (homeowner) I’ll bet you ll have to prove you weren’t in default according to their definition. That’s a joke. And no doubt your right to sue will be foreclosed along with your house

  8. Apologize if this is off subject and general knowledge but I don’t understand: can entity be holder of the note if it’s lost? My nemesis has alleged both: in the assignment abd qwr response stated they hold the note and at foreclosure alleged it was lost…..

    Can anyone relieve my ignorance

  9. Dan Fitzpatrick of the Wall Street Journal was on the Martin Bashir show yesterday on msnbc talking about the B of A settlement for investors, and he mentioned that there will probably be a 5-20 billion settlement coming for “homeowners wrongly foreclosed on”…does anyone here know what he’s talking about?

  10. @ Gwen,

    Sure you’re right. B of A is now prepping for reaching into these defunct trusts, blowing the dust off of the old loans, and freshening them up a bit with new allonges and lost note affidavits….there you go…good as new….de javu all over again….trust and contract law be damned! Little things like legal constructs never stopped them before….why start now? Especially when the raping and pillaging is going so well….and BTW, I’m not here to complain, I’m building a defense.

    As a result the settlement includes a promise to hire additional “subservicers” to speed up the foreclosure process for high-risk loans. That means Bank of America borrowers whose foreclosure have been on hold may now see the process accelerated.

    “Living with the uncertainty of foreclosure can’t be a pleasant experience,” said Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. “The sooner we can deal with that overhang the better for the economy.”

    Gotta’ love the lack of any semblence of humanity or sincerity on the part of that slimeball Dubrowski. The overhang he’s referring to here is millions of hard working Americans who bought a little slice of the American dream, which B of A advertised from the rooftops just a few short moons ago. The blatant disregard for consumer laws and homeowners rights as it relates to the entire practice of foreclosure, as if anyone in the business needs anymore practice, let’s just say that Countrywide and B of A have honed it down to an artform as well as a science.

    If Americans would just awaken to what’s going on around them…..the knowledge that B of A and countless other “New Yorkers”, as Jan van Eck refers to them, Wall Streeters, are taking what is not theirs to take….they’re robbing as if by gunpoint from those who have already lost nearly everything already.

    I’d like to see the PSA that states that B of A can come back after years; into trusts that they didn’t even originate the loans for, and decide to remove them. How can they do that? Because the notes are endorsed in blank….and nobody is watching….it’s free money! You take those over there! I’ll take these! It’s like putting 6 year olds in charge of the fudge. Honor system? Yeah, right! There is no honor among thieves.

    I’d also like to see where in the Red Oak Merger of Countrywide it states that B of A will receive dominion over the notes. From what I can glean from that merger document, stock was transferred, but everything else was kept bankruptcy remote. That means that agency would need to be established in courts before anything, which is not happening…why? Because the lawyers involved were able to keep the merger’s terms so cloudy as to fool even an M&A firm.

    For the OCC, the Fed, the SEC, the FHFA, the FDIC, the Administration and the CONgress to sit on the sidelines while they KNOW exactly what’s going down is the BIG OUTRAGE! It’s not going to change until America has its own uprisings. Austerity? Austerity is nothing compared to being stripped of all funds and then being forcefully removed from one’s home. I believe the Constitution says something about that….something about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….nothing about being robbed in daylight while the lawmakers look the other way.

    I’ll uprise on a moment’s notice if it means their downfall. Damn the fallout. Let Wall Street eat the austerity.

    Just read the settlement agreement which is posted on DINSFLA and privage blogs. Also read Huffington Post and McClatchey comments: they all say the same thing: BOA now gets to do whatever with these loans that are part of the settlement. (By the way they are all trusts beginning with CW____). So as I said before, they are now going to foreclose or resell these notes to debt collectors or better yet resecuritize them. The comments out there also agree as the settlement says and BOA reps are saying, we can no go forward with foreclosures! Hey folks don’t you understand its all about the bottom line–take the foreclosures off the books and their stock goes up. Sell the notes that are dead and your stock goes up as you get more money on the books. Resecuritize these notes and yo make more money. WATCH THE STOCK THIS WEEK–bet it goes up! Get over your conspiracy and everything else theories–this is what the settlement was about–the BOTTOM LINE!

  12. Okay, there were thousands of cases where “MERS” never assigned the dot to anyone – in fact, it foreclosed in its name. Well, the servicer actually did which is legally skewed, because then the principal, the alleged agent’s member, acted in the name of its alleged agent= the principal acted as the agent of its alleged agent.)

    Under the MERS’ mechanisms, if a servicer wanted to f/c in MERS name, the servicer was to be holding the note, that is, be in physical possession of it. (that doesn’t or may not even really square with the real meaning of ‘holder’). If the servicer were not warranting to MERs that it was in possession of the note, the servicer could not f/c in MERS’ name.

    By way of the straw officer at the member’s (the member employee slash straw MERS officer), MERS then allowed its members to claim at least possession of the note as an element of its right to f/c.
    So, to see if the note and dot are then ‘held’ by the same party (“MERS”),
    which, again, was a MERS requirement to foreclose in its name, I guess the answer turns on whether or not this alleged possession of the note by the straw officer at the servicer’s legally constitutes possession by MERS. I don’t think it does, so in all those cases, the note and dot were in fact bifurcated, rendering the note unsecured or smililarly unenforceable against the collateral.
    So the inquiry is: did the (alleged) possession of the note by the servicer’s employee constitute possession by MERS? In a fairly recent case, I think it was Koontz, the court called even the assignment which had actually been executed by the member employee (as is true in all “MERS” assignments) a sham because the member employee was not an employee of MERS. Does this not lead to a reasonable conclusion that courts when presented with the real facts surrounding alleged possession of the note by “MERS” under the auspices of its straw officer at the servicers would find against such possession by MERS?
    If courts find against this possession of the notes by MERS, then MERS truly foreclosed, allowed its members to foreclose, in its name with only an alleged interest in the deed of trust, which when separated from the note is a worthless piece of paper.

  13. This is just the weakest slight of hand I ever seen, but it looks to the normal eye like they did something. Neil and everyone else listen up!! Bank of America can NOT buy back anything. The so called investor had its chance when the trust purchased the assets, to look and do its due diligence to see if there really was a loan and if they had legal standing!!

    This is called the representation and warranties that triggers the buy back clause. The trustee in this case is bank of america signed off said all the loans are good, collected servicing fees and transformed into a servicer and is NO LONGER THE SELLER. Hence no liability can be put on them for anything, remember the note is stamped “without recourse” so there is no recourse for the investor. The trustee does not own the assets, the trust does. Remember the trustee only just has major voting rights so no one can overturn the trustees action.

    The trustee filed the 15d with the sec making the trust no longer registered. Now the trust is not a corporate body anymore, meaning that it can not be label a person in the eyes of the law. It can not sue or be sued.Checkout case law and you will see its true, but people miss this simple little hole in there defense. Trust can’t speak for something unless its a person or corporate person. If they try, dismiss them on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They can not take control of the res. This is why trustee say we don’t own nothing we are working for the investor, because they don’t own anything.

    What bank of america is doing in this settlement is paying out the so called investor of the servicing portfolio. The major investor knows that this is the only source of money, the servicing fees. Hence the reason why now BOA said that it will now be able to speed up foreclosures. No one is now attached to the servicing fee revenue. This is not secured
    debt but unsecured.

    What they just did in this settlement was separate the QFC (which the trust does not legally have) from the Non QFC (servicing rights unsecured debts only thing they ever had you wouldn’t be able to beat them in bankruptcy court on standing if they really had a QFC). This site really needs to start teaching people the meaning between the two. With this defense the courts can not try to use the “you promised to pay” routine. Again this is a fake slight of hand trick that everyone can clearly see if they look right you can see the papers is up there sleeve. GOD bless.

  14. Jan van Eck,

    you wrote:
    Simon’s analysis is incorrect. It is not that “someone” needs to file suit; it is that “everyone” needs to file suit. the business model of all these outfits includes a certain amount to defend suits. What it does not include is contingencies for “everyone” to file suits. You slay the beast with a thousand cuts. not one big hack.

    You are right on the money ,,, What were Custers last words…

    “Where the F*CK did all these indians come from”

    The Indians changed tactics ,, they attacked en-masse and didn’t retreat when their casualties started to mount … Custer couldn’t forsee the change in tactics from the old hit and run.

  15. @neidmeyer, your deal would likely require the testimony of a gazillion dollar securities expert. Sooner or later, we need to get there. This person has to be unimpeachably brilliant. Oh, and charisma would be good. I sound flippant, but I’m serious. That’s what it’s going to take to thaw the judicial ice. Find one and tell me where to send my 10.00 contribution toward his or her fee. I’m really not kidding. There are enough people who have been messed over that we should collectively be able to amass a substantial war chest.
    Find the guy 1st and then Neil and all the other f/c websites can start an escrow account managed by an independent company mutually agreed upon at an independent escrow website.
    Then a group of known attorneys working for homeowners pick the ‘test’ case. Need a few appeal guys in the mix.
    Ta da!
    I don’t know that I agree the notes are paid in full, since I’m no expert, in fact, pretty lame in that area. But I’ve always felt there is something hinky about securitization, that the note and the certificates can’t co-exist. I believe they’re converted, which maybe does mean they’re paid, but like I said, over my head. Sometimes I have even thought the notes are actually cdo’s with the investors, the investors actually making an allegedly secured loan (notes n dots as collateral) to the depositor or whomever, but cant square that with the requirement that the sales of the notes be “true sales”. That’s the trust law, right?
    Course if that were true it would make the Great Olive Oil Scandal look like a tea party. Actually, what’s known that’s going on now does that.

    At any rate, I was hopeful of garnering a few more comments about what I also hoped is a here and now sustainable cause of action, a path back to the lost homes of so many: the no-bid credit bid.

  16. @e tolle – re five course meal – good one.
    So let me then say we’ve all been you know what’d and not even kissed.


    ” we can see that the investors as creditors have clearly abandoned their claims against the so-called borrowers.”

    The “Investors”, PIMCO & BLACKROCK, get their money, those that run those investment houses, no matter what happens. As Jan Van Eck pointed out 2-25. Those that run those investment houses DO NOT CARE about the Individual mortgage debtor, that is not the issue.

    Your shining armour, waiting for “Investor” lawsuits will not result in a resolution for you. Their resolution will have no bearing on your individual situation. None whatsoever.

    You need to take matters in your own hands.




  19. from Neil’s article:

    “The real question is that if the investors were the real creditors, which they were, then the obligation from borrowers should be prorated downward”


    Not to get a free house, but principal reduction. RIGHT?

    So the bank is off the hook for the interest stream money to the “Investors”,


  20. same shit happened during the DEPRESSION.

    I remember it well.

  21. “so people’s solution is to work harder, get a second job, wife and husband both have to work…they have kids………how do these people find the time to educate themselves, to know the truth, maybe their solution is the path of least resistance is to simply not fight.”

    The people are in too much debt and they figure they owe somebody. Right?

    So if dumb oh me figure this out, don’t you think somebody else did sometime ago. Like those issuing easy credit.


  22. Jan van eck’

    “Those readers who would wish to be apologists for Servicers or New Yorkers should keep in mind that the New Yorkers do not and never did have any of their own money at risk; ”


    “So the Note is sitting there in some vault down at the Trustee office (i.e. at Deutsche Bank or Credit Suisse) and the bums that work there have figured out that these Notes, although paid, are not stamped “paid,” and also that the original signers (the Obligors) do not know or understand that Wall Street in its machinations has insured these instruments. So they go and take the Notes for themselves, and sue on Note, and the local Judge down in the County Court House has no clue, so you get tossed out of your house (paid-for house, no less) and it gets flipped by the New Yorkers for more billions – for themselves.”


  23. Gwen.

    I care to differ on some points.

    “That’s what I am tired of–those of you who rant and rave against the system and don’t try to change it. ”

    I disagree. At least these are communicating, and that is the first step. Having some balls to at least be pissed about it.

    “The problem with a lot of people is they are not educated and they don’t understand the system and they don’t want to learn about the system and why it is broken. That is what gets me. You don’t get to bitch if you don’t educate yourselves.”

    That is the problem. Also, people have to work, and work. And if they got caught in the trap of debt, WHICH WAS ENGINEERED AS EASY CREDIT during the 1990’s and 2000-2010 era, hook line and sinker,

    so people’s solution is to work harder, get a second job, wife and husband both have to work…they have kids………how do these people find the time to educate themselves, to know the truth, maybe their solution is the path of least resistance is to simply not fight.

    Jamie Diamond, CHASE CEO, statement of not too long ago, it is a gift that we foreclose and you get out from the debt………..what’s he really saying………walk and your debt is forgiven………it’s easy………ha, we get to resell your house for profits…………..but you are free………

  24. With respect to the inquiry as to how the “managers” of hedge funds out of Greenwich CT are paid, the formula is pretty much standard: it is 2% of the capital entrusted, plus 25% of the “profits.” Known in the trade as “2 and 25,” you see it everywhere. Thus, the hedge fund managers, by confiscating 2% of all the investors’s capital for themselves each year, guarantee themselves a lush return for their efforts, even if the Fund tanks. The Managers do not have to have their own funds at risk.

    I did not, do not, and shall not, suggest to anyone that they “stop paying” on any mortgage. Remember that LivingLies got started with folks who were being screwed over and had, for whatever reason, either stopped paying anyone or were having their payment remittances returned by the servicers, who were preferring litigation. Obviously, once you are cast into this Hall of Dantes, your ability to kiss and make up with the New Yorkers is limited. Those readers who would wish to be apologists for Servicers or New Yorkers should keep in mind that the New Yorkers do not and never did have any of their own money at risk; as for the Notes, to the extent that any of them made it to the Indenture for securitization, those that went into default were paid off by the credit-default-swap insurance companies – typically AIG. So taking your property and selling it is “pure profit,” nothing more than a property grab for quick flipping to provide a ton of cash for the Bonus Pool. Those doing this are fully aware that it is a fraud, and also know that the Courts are (historically) bogged down in focusing on the “paperwork,” so by manufacturing Assignments and Substitutions (with the mills doing these by the tens of thousands each month) the paid-off Notes can be converted into serious money – for themselves. Why? Because when the Note is paid by the insurer, the insurance contract is without subrogation; the Note does not transfer to the insurer in exchange for that payment. So the Note is sitting there in some vault down at the Trustee office (i.e. at Deutsche Bank or Credit Suisse) and the bums that work there have figured out that these Notes, although paid, are not stamped “paid,” and also that the original signers (the Obligors) do not know or understand that Wall Street in its machinations has insured these instruments. So they go and take the Notes for themselves, and sue on Note, and the local Judge down in the County Court House has no clue, so you get tossed out of your house (paid-for house, no less) and it gets flipped by the New Yorkers for more billions – for themselves.

    Try to understand this: these people are pond scum. They are the whores and liars of the planet. The “in crowd” consists of about 3,000 men, all Jewish, all New Yorkers. These are the descendants of the immigrants from Poland and Eastern Europe whose parents and grandparents came to New York in poverty, and this crowd has determined that they will not live in the poverty of their fathers – so they go steal from the “goyim.” That, in their mind, is perfectly acceptable, because there are only two groups before God: the Chosen, and the goyim. You, chum, are the goyim, so you (and your house, and your credit card balance, and your auto, and your bank account) are all fair game.

  25. This is off topic here but has anyone here received any assistance from legal aide??? LMAO

    What a joke that is. Every legal aid group I contacted referred me to another legal aid group that pretty much did the same. In the end, I was given the number for a lawyer referral.

    Is April Charney the only legal aid attorney willing to do something other than pass the buck?

  26. @ Gwen,

    We don’t know squat about litigation because we have not studied or practiced law. You have, therefore, you are at a great advantage. Your earlier remark could be discouraging to pro se litigants that find themselves in this situation by no fault of their own.

    You are right that we must arm ourselves with knowledge and not act out of emotion. Emotional outbursts are not going to get the court’s attention. Knowing laws and rules might. We must all stay focused on the facts and not the theories that are floating around.

  27. To all those who think I am against ALL pro se litigants: you are wrong. What I am against is pro se litigants going into the courtroom not knowing what they are doing and ticking up the judges and ending up with bad decisions. I disagree with jan–we don’t need to all stop paying our mortgages because that will only piss off the powers that be more. You need to seek change incrementally and you need to understand what you are doing. Screaming profanities, arguing some “libertarian” epithets etc etc makes us all look like nutcases. I work for lawyers who are working for clients around the country–most of my work is pro bono and I try to help as I can. I am pursuing my own case pro se as a former litigator because literally no one does this in Kansas City at all so there is no one to hire. But I see time after time postings where litigatns rant and rave about the system and have violated the rules of the system. If you are going to do this–read the rules and follow the rules. If the rules are too complicated get help but don’t rant and rave and say the rules favor the defendants. I litigated for 30 years and I won consistently against GM, Sprint, the FBI, the CIA, the Catholic Church, every metropolitan area in the kansas city area, every branch of the military, most of the hospitals, most of the big lawfirms, even sued some judges and won. It can be done with lots of hard work and countless hours in the books. I did it alone. But ranting and raving gets you no where. That’s what I am tired of–those of you who rant and rave against the system and don’t try to change it. I’ve got a brother in law on wall street who has big bucks, but he could have been mega rich if he broke the rules. He did not.The problem with a lot of people is they are not educated and they don’t understand the system and they don’t want to learn about the system and why it is broken. That is what gets me. You don’t get to bitch if you don’t educate yourselves.

  28. Jan Van Eck is right. Unless ALL homeowners unite and stop paying their mortgages and/or engage the banks in litigation, we cannot expect to make an impact.

    When I went to file my Answer to the Unlawful Detainer, the court clerk remarked that she doesn’t see many answers to UD complaints. That tells me that few people in my area are even bothering to put up a fight.

    @ Gwen,

    I cannot afford an attorney. Heck, I was barely able to afford the filing fees to answer the complaint. I might not be the sharpest pro se litigant, but, I am making a stand. I am going to raise the issues in a court of law, for whatever that’s worth. Nobody can take that away from me. If the courts turn a blind eye to the fraud, well then shame on them. That is out of my control. I will know that I tried and I will be content to walk away knowing I will no longer owe them the debt. I wish I could see their faces when they realize how much they’ve spent on fighting us for our little fixer upper! LOL

    It’s unfortunate but the reality is that most homeowners lack the resources to retain an attorney and will most likely walk away. The rest of us have no other choice than to represent ourselves.

  29. United we stand divided we fall.


  30. sorry misspelled your name Cubed2K

  31. cube2k White man speaks with forked tongue. Just ask the Native Americans about Andrew Jackson and he was not from New York.

    But he studied to be an Attorney.

  32. Jan Van Eck:

    ” Everybody is screwing over everybody else. Hey, it’s New York; why should anyone be surprised? This is the way New Yorkers behave. Try to let that sink in, and you go a long way to understanding how this all fits together. New York is a cesspool of pond scum.”

    that’s right.

    And who are the investors – from this case: Pimco And Blackrock.

    So who run’s those outfits? Those that run those unfits – how do they get paid? Whose money are they investing? Those that are running those Investor outfits – what do they personally have to lose? What is the percentage of the MBS settled upon here out of the whole Pimco or Blackrock fund?

    Who are the actual investors? Those that gave their money to Blackrock & Pimco for investing.

  33. My point is there is finally a monetary amount to how much the Banksters (BofA) owe the investors and it is 2 cents on the dollar.

    The Judges now have a number they can work with. Prior to the Settlement the Judges thought that BofA owed the whole $442B dollars.

  34. Hey, dan-o
    Guess what—that “assignment to a securitized trust” is bogus because…there is no trust—trusts are and always have been EMPTY!!!!
    EVERYTHING the servicers do is fraudulent…EVERYTHING. Because it started out as fraud the minute you signed your name on the fake loan.

  35. My math is from the article in the huffington post and WSJ. Bank of America owes $442Billion if they settle for $8.5Billion that is 2 Cents on the dollar.

    Jan Van Eck A negotiable instrument, if unpaid, is enforceable for the face value by the Holder. Forget about the Law for a minute. In reality everything is negotiable. Take it from a person who sits Shiva. Regarding all the people who have sided with the Banksters I hope especially the Jewish ones (Because they should have known better), that they get double the punishment of a non Jew. I am saying it as a Jew.

    Up until now the Banks owed the whole $442B to the Investors. So the Judges really had there hands tied. Now if they settle for $8.5B the judges can (hopefully) with a clear conscience give us a break.

    The Judges now have the proof that BofA got a break why not give the borrower a break.

    Now you can go to the judge and claim with receipts “unjust enrichment” if it gets to that point.

    Regarding the rest that they ruined our lives etc…. in reality unfortunately I do not believe that will ever pay us back.

    I hope I was able to make my point of view clear.


  36. @dan-o, citizens don’t file criminal charges against one another, the state does. and good luck with trying to convince your local authorities to file charges

  37. slightly off topic, but i have a question. am i entitled to bring criminal charges against my servicer in addition to a civil complaint? i live in mass, and im not sure if i can take both avenues. the short story is my servicer lied to me when they gave me an “in house” modification. they induced us into the agreement under the pretense they were acting on behalf of our lender. well, little did we know our lender of record had been bankrupt for almost 4 years when we entered into this contract. we also discovered that the servicer had named themselves as the lender and holder of our mortgage, even though there isnt a shred of evidence they were ever either one of those. when we found out the servicer balked at every question we asked. they took it a step further by assigning it to a securitized trust within 6 months of magically becoming our lender and holder of our mortgage through fraud. there are a few criminal statutes here in mass that make it illegal to dupe people into contracts. im seriuously thinking about walking into the court house and filing a criminal complaint. they did steal the title to my house, and defrauded me by lying about who they were working on behalf of and what their motivation was. right?

  38. The analysis of A-Man is incorrect. A negotiable instrument, if unpaid, is enforceable for the face value by the Holder.

    Simon’s analysis is incorrect. It is not that “someone” needs to file suit; it is that “everyone” needs to file suit. the business model of all these outfits includes a certain amount to defend suits. What it does not include is contingencies for “everyone” to file suits. You slay the beast with a thousand cuts. not one big hack.

    to E. Tolle: I have not analyzed the Pimco Pleadings so I am reluctant to make definitive statements on that suit. However, just generally, if the argument is that the loans were bogus” due to inflation of appraisal” and so forth, then the counter is that a sophisticated investor like Pimco/Blackrock should have done their own due diligence. More interesting is the situation where the loans were never even in the “pile” when the investors bought the certificates, as now seems likely. At that point, an argument can be advanced as to “unjust enrichment,” i.e. Bank of America took their cash but did not offer anything in return. Unjust Enrichment claims do not attract punitive damages, however. Still, remember that these wars are all over stuff that emanated from Countrywide, which was rife with criminal misconduct. what remains undisclosed by BofA is whether yet once again there is some form of credit insurance to protect them from the suit claims. Maybe there is; maybe there is not.

    The distortion “on the mortgagor’s side” would not be the flip of the above. Rather, the distortion is that the “Note” as signed does not represent the actual parties to the transaction, as the “lender” on the Note did not put up any of their own cash. that was borrowed or advanced by a front outfit that remains in the shadows. Typically, for an outfit like IndyMac/OneWest, that outfit was Colonial Bank. In turn, Colonial got the cash from “someone else,” who in turn got it from the “syndicators” or “traders” such as Goldman Sachs, who in turn got the dough from the dummies running the pension funds. Everybody is screwing over everybody else. Hey, it’s New York; why should anyone be surprised? This is the way New Yorkers behave. Try to let that sink in, and you go a long way to understanding how this all fits together. New York is a cesspool of pond scum.

    to “Carie;” drop me a note to with your name and address and scans of your Document Trail and I can take a look at it to see what can be done. No promises; I am routinely swamped. I might be able to put you in touch with a local attorney who can help you.

  39. @ A Man,

    What do you mean the investors backed off? They got an $8.5 billion dollar settlement, and the last litigation reserve statement I saw was from late 2010 which showed around $865 million for the entire quarter. Underreserved? So yes, theoretically they’re broke, but they have friends in high places who have a track record of riding to their rescue…a.k.a. the Fed and the Treasury, who are willing to give them stuff at zero percent, then buy stuff back from them at 5%….what a great gig!

    I wish it were as easy as calling up the office of the president of BAC and offering pennies on the dollar. No offense A Man, but I think, knowing these ***holes, that that move’s not on their gameboard. I can buy that strategy for 2nds, everyone knows those are so far underwater as to need scuba gear.

    The other deal here is the stench from the 800 lb. elephant in the room. Everyone from CONgress to the regulators know that all of this crap from Countrywide was not only worthless, but caused great harm to the American public. Anyone in their right mind knows that cell doors should slam behind those responsible. One can only imagine that Mozilo has something on someone in high places….how else could so few screw so many without a five course meal being served?

  40. bytheway ,

    lets take my loan … one small loan among about 3000 in a trust of $675M … here’s how it worked ..

    1.) company OOMC “originates” but in reality they are just a second level of broker collecting a fee because a 3rd party BofA via their credit line at Mellon Pittsburgh is the true source of funds…
    2.) company OOMC should have a true cash sale to related company OOMAC (depositor to the trust) but in reality there is no sale or even an assignment … because they do not own the loan , BofA does
    3.) Company OOMAC places the notes in the trust , trustee WF shirks their responsibility and does not even ensure the documents are physically delivered. in reality they have almost no role , OOMC is the servicer.
    4.) OOMAC sells $1m in “certificates” “backed” by the notes to OOMC and $674M to 6 different “underwriters” ,, the underwriters are the real money in all of this , OOMC and OOMAC and WF are really just peripheral to this level … The underwriters get various percentages of the float … lets say 20% or $135M of “certificates” to sell … THEY ARE FREE TO SET WHATEVER PRICE THEY WANT … This is the Tier2 BUT THE REAL STORY IS THAT THE NOTES ARE NO LONGER COLATTERAL FOR THE HOME LOAN

    *** ADD TO THIS THAT 80% of the $675M was from prior years failed TRUSTS and CERTIFICATE OFFERINGS where the remnants were bundled up in what is commonly called a CDO squared or a rollup … These were fully paid for originally and were paid for a second time by insurance and swaps … they were written off as worthless and then reincarnated as a new security… THE UNDERWRITERS SOLD $674M of SECURITIES THAT WERE CREATED WITH ONLY ABOUT $150M of “NEW MONEY” ….

    (offensive joke follows)


  41. Jan, yes, I did know that the “debt” was paid already…and sorry, I did confuse you with Gwen, who said “…pro se are causing problems…”
    I desperately want to “defend my home from the fraud” by legal “form” that you say the judges like…why can’t attorneys figure out how to do that?
    I don’t want to destroy my house like you say…I want to stay here with my children who were lovingly raised here, and I WILL figure this out and litigate them into the ground with whatever it takes and with every breath I have because I’ll be damned if I’ll let the bad guys win.

  42. E. Tolle in my opinion the investors backed off because BofA is broke. They dont have the money.

    What this does for the borrower is you can now tell the judge that BofA pretty much purchase the loans at about 2 pennies to 3 pennies on the Dollar. So they must sell you back your loan at the most at 2.25 to 3.25 cents on the dollar. Otherwise BofA enjoys “Unjust enrichment” Then you can decide if you want to pursue other avenues, which I do not think at this time the Judiciary wants to deal with.

    This also opens up the door for people making their payments to buy back their loans at pennies on the dollar.


  43. I don’t understand this at all! How can the investors make any money? What about all the people that have lost their homes? What happens to them and where is their payout?

  44. Jan van Eck, is their any correlation with these revelations as they might pertain to the borrower side? If these deals were “indefensible” on the investor side, it doesn’t take much algebra to believe that it’s the exact same thing from the borrowers side. The argument from Pimco/Blackrock was that the loans were bogus, i.e. not worth the paper they’re written on due to gross distortions of incomes, inflated appraisals etc. The million dollar question would be….how does one prove the same distortions on the mortgagor’s side? Any ideas other than the normal route of begging the courts for discovery?

  45. You are being caught up in the classic Indymac-OneWest- Douche Bank fraud scene, with thousands of participants. Nothing you describe is anything new. These three players are open and notorious for perpetrating these frauds with utter impunity. I assume you are in California (where this trio is most active). Note that your loan is already fully paid. DB was notorious about buying credit-default swaps (insurance) on everything they touched. DB knows full well that your note is paid, but also knows that it was not paid ‘by you.” And since you do not know it was paid (until now, when I just told you), you do not attempt to defend your home from their fraud. And it is fraud, of course, since they have already collected for the loan from the insurer, and now want to take your house also so that they have more moolah for the bonus pool.

    I never said pro-se is a bad way to go. It is a perfectly valid way to go (you have me confused with others that post here), but you do have to understand that the courts have long ago surrendered “substance” (what was once quaintly called “equitable”) for “form.” Judges like “form” because then they do not have to think, and can rule against you on form and not have to actually write a reasoned Decision based on the substance of the case.

    Your problem is that you are up against the absolute worst players in the industry. The real first-tier serious pond scum. You probably cannot save your home from the scum, but you can certainly make it expensive for them, in addition to the usual tactics of stripping out the fixtures, removing the toilets and pouring cement down the drain pipes all the way to the septic tack, and using a chain saw to cut through 1/2 of all the rafter and internal joists to force whoever takes it away from you to go replace each beam individually. [You don’t fire the place or use a bulldozer as they have force-placed insurance on those losses]. What you can do is litigate them into the ground, with vast amounts of filings and pleadings and discovery demands. In the end, you will cost them far more than the house could ever be worth. In the Cold War days, they called it “detente;” “We don’t get it, and you don’t get it either (the house).”

  46. Thanks, Jan.
    My “loan” (fake loan), situation is like what we have all been talking about here:
    1. We got the (fake) Loan (with MERS as “beneficiary”), from IndyMac FSB—(now defunct…bought by One West?) in 2006…paying a “servicer” (unbeknownst to me), monthly for years.
    2. Had severe drop in income beginning of 2010.
    3. Inquired re. “loan mod”…was told “must be in default to qualify”.
    4. Defaulted…sent “mod” paperwork and called a MILLION times…total bunch of CRAP, of course severe stress…
    5. Couldn’t believe how people trying to get mods were being treated, started digging on the internet, found Neil’s site and others and started learning the TRUTH.
    6. After paying ONE “trial mod payment” in April, I asked servicer for PROOF of CONVEYANCE to the Deutsche “trust” INDX 2006 AR19 (whom he said in an email “owns” my “loan”),…haven’t heard from him since…haven’t given them another dime.
    7. Took another trip out to my county recorders office yesterday…nothing recorded since my NOD in Oct 2010.

    So, where is the lawyer who can help me keep my home and get all the money back that the servicer illegally took from me?

    Millions of people are in my situation…and they have no money…so they are kicked to the curb and then thrown under the bus.

    You say “pro se” is a terrible way to go—but there are sadly no other choices for the “little people” at this time.

  47. The proposed litigation settlement that Bank of America proposes with the entities that purchased certificates issued by bank of new York Mellon as Trustee is an effort by BofA management to end the litigation exposure created by the mess at Countrywide – and that is all it is. BofA was naive in the Countrywide purchase: they bought an entity that was generating vast amounts of mortgage paper that in turn (in theory) was peddled at large profits. In reality, as BofA has now found out to their chagrin, the Countrywide exercise was a fraud, with “loans” being packaged and pre-sold to “investors” who had already put their money into the pools long before the loans were even made, much less placed into the trusts (if they ever made it there at all). The investors were in effect buying into a “blind pig,” with no idea what the loan portfolio or loan quality would be. the litigation issues are: what was told the investors, and did they rely on what was told them to their detriment?

    None of the settlement will touch anything that BofA itself participated in – only the Countrywide shambles. I predict BofA will never yield on its own originations. the Countrywide stuff is indefensible, and attempts to convince any jury in the US that Countrywide was an honorable outfit into which investors or anybody else should place their faith, trust and confidence is untenable. Since they cannot possibly prevail at the jury level attempting to defend Countrywide’s behavior, you might as well settle. At least it gets you off cheap.

    As to Miss Carie – there is ALWAYS a further defense. even hopeless cases can be turned around. But it takes work. Best place to start is with an independent analysis of your loan situation.

  48. I regret to say that the posters here are incorrect in their analyses, as is Neil.

  49. Gwen—YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! I wish to GOD I wasn’t “pro se”—the problem is–we are BROKE and the attorney’s are still fumblingly figuring it out as we speak!!! The last attorney I spoke with told me “The banks have more money than God—unless there is some precedent setting case in California, there isn’t anything I can do”.
    Well, thank you very much.

  50. im sorry you are all missing the point here–its not about the little guy. Its about the massive fraud on the investors. And the gov and media are not all wrong–you guys have got to get out of the conspiracy mode and look at the forest and not the trees. This is about getting the stock up and getting rid of the investor lawsuits which are dragging the stock down and is a drag on the balance sheet. Its stupid simple and don’t try to make it more than it is. Besides the fact most of you have not got a clue about actual litigation–you think you do–but you don’t and you don’t understand the courtystem. That’s the problem here –pro se litigants who don’t understand what or how to do this making bad decisions in court and causing bad problems.

  51. johngault,

    “If what Gwen says here is true, with my earned cynisism, I wouldn’t be surprised then if B of A paid for or promoted the suit against itself.”

    With my new found view of things – what ever the media or gov’t says, think the opposite——-

    you are correct.

  52. And furthermore, I don’t know that res judicata’s tenets would apply in a non-judicial foreclosure where there was no litigation to start with. Maybe it only applies to actual litigation. I don’t know. Maybe someone else here does.

  53. If what Gwen says here is true, with my earned cynisism, I wouldn’t be surprised then if B of A paid for or promoted the suit against itself.

  54. @neidmeyer- yes, I believe all that, but try to get the judiciary’s head around it. So I look for other avenues, and in this case it’s that nothing was paid for the trustee’s deed, so homes supposedly foreclosed on maybe weren’t foreclosed on. Reasons to set aside a foreclosure are still evolving, and I am hopeful this may be one – a path back to their homes for people who have lost them. They could not possibly have alleged the credit bid was a no-bid prior to the act, so I don’t know how it could be any form of
    res judicata.
    If the non-owning holder of the note has been assigned the dot by MERS (aka member-employee) or anyone really, are the note and dot not also bifurcated? The non-owning holder may have rights of enforcement, but he is not the owner. In which case the dot was assigned to someone other than the owner, splitting it from the note and its ownership. But that may not hold the same water as the no-bid because one might have made this allegation prior to the “foreclosure”. e tolle, Db?

  55. So basically BofA is declaring bankruptcy without going bankrupt. The investors know they cannot get anymore out of the Bank.

  56. So basically they are buying the back the loans for approximately 2 or 3 cents on the dollar.



  57. I just pray that there are tons more of investor groups out there waiting to sue BOA. In my view BOA has fallen hard and away from their original bellicose stance of ‘we will fight till the end’ because they never wanted to get into any kind of discovery. Sure they want to get this stuff behind them, but they definitely do not want any meaningful discovery.

    Someone needs to decline the settlement altogether and carry forth and sue to a jury trial so that all the discovery can proceed. That someone needs to have some deep pockets, which increases the likelihood that they will, in reality, settle like the rest of the investor groups.

  58. neidermeyer, could you please explain further….your explanation of the stock and loan situation? Are all banks/lenders doing that scenerio? Could you please explain in more detail for us. thanks

  59. My take on this is quite simply the banks had to get their balance sheets up and corrected and their share price up. As long as they had these non performing loans and lawsuits they could not get that done. What has this settlement accomplished? Well besides the huge attorneys fees going out and let me tell you I am betting you they are huge, they now get to start foreclosing again and/or selling off the individual notes. They could not do this before because it played into the investors hands who were saying the trusts filled with these worthless notes were in fact worthless. Now with the settlement they can do two things: first they can restart foreclosing and writing off the bad notes that were in the trusts, and/or they can sell off the notes to new holders who of course will not be in the chain of title and will further screw up the chain of title who will seek to collect on the notes for less than the face value. Watch for this or watch for a whole new round of loan mods that are much better than they were. The reason will be that these new holders bought the notes for pennies from BOA. Watch for other like settlements. What does this accomplish? Reduces the number of mortgages to be serviced and the costs of servicing (but note that BAC was transferring to BOA servicing alraedy to reduce these costs). Reducing the bad debts on the balance sheets causing the stock to go up. Gets rid of huge attorneys fees. Makes them look like the “good guy”–unfortunately further screws up the title.

  60. johngault,

    I think you’re on target … with that line of reasoning , however I feel that the better attack is going right to the heart of the matter where the notes are converted (and in the process the notes are paid in full) to create stock certificates… a $250,000 loan becomes 1000 shares of stock , par value $250 … the bank holds say 25% as it’s own for reserve requirements and reprices the remainder at lets say $500 a share and sells that through to the investors ,, that is where Neils infamous tier2 ysp comes in…

  61. Are they really investors? These “investors” built nothing, somebody else took the initial risk when it came to building the buildings that the new investors wanted to take part. Those who took the initial risk are the real investors.

    It’s this type of name deception that is half the problem. The more apt and credible name would be “re-investors” since the new investors simply wanted to make money off of a sure thing and in many cases had access to large amounts of capital, and nowhere to put those funds unless they wanted to risk their funds in new ventures.

  62. Are they really investors? These “investors” built nothing, somebody else took the initial risk when it came to building the buildings that the new investors wanted to take part. Those who took the initial risk are the real investors.

    It’s this type of name deception that is half the problem. The more apt and credible name would be “re-investors” since the new investors simply wanted to make money off of a sure thing and in many cases had access to large amounts of capital, and nowhere to put those funds unless they wanted to risk their funds in new ventures.

  63. I have to throw this out: Under Veal, a holder of a note who is not the
    owner does not have the benefit of the collateral, for one thing.
    While the non-owning holder may be entitled to enforce the note, he can’t be described as the creditor since he neither extended the credit nor is the current creditor, is this not correct? If he is not a creditor, how is he able to make a credit bid at the f/c sale? If he were not entitled to a credit bid, then there was really no consideration paid , none, not one dime, for the trustee’s deed. In which case, there should be trouble in River City. Does a trustee’s deed require consideration? I don’t know why it wouldn’t.
    And moving on to the next consequence, of what value would this be to the homeowner who lost his home to an improper credit bid which was really no bid? Would the homeowner have standing to sqwauk about this? I would think so, since if there were no consideration and consideration must be paid, is the trustee’s deed invalid or just plain void and the homeowner still owns his home?
    I may not have framed this just right, but I think it’s in the hood. That or it’s way past my bedtime again.
    We all know what I think about MERS, right? But what if “MERS” has (allegedly) assigned the dot to the non-owning holder? Does that change the fact that otherwise the non-owning holder does not have the benefit of the collateral for the note? I was good to go, I thought, until I considered the (bs) the non-owning holder. Did the Veal court say or mean to say that such an assignment would be of no consequence? Or is it waaay past my bedtime and it’s apples and oranges? ish.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: