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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Anyone who has entered into mortgage modification process with BOA or any other bank acting as servicer or otherwise knows the story. The Bank does everything it can to delay the process until the borrower gets into serious trouble and then the bank claims that the home should be foreclosed. There are thousands of stories of homeowners who honestly and justifiably believed they had a modification only to find out that the Bank foreclosed anyway. Judges are getting very tired of this pattern and even the most conservative pro-bank judges are starting to lose patience.

Their story about not receiving or losing the papers is a big lie. Paperwork is the backbone of every balance sheet in banking. They didn’t lose it and they did receive it. “The dog ate my homework” can only work so many times.

Now homeowners have a cause of action for damages and other relief for this predatory behavior. Like the JPM employee reported, the banks consider themselves in the foreclosure business not the modification business. Why? Because they want the house. If they had any money in the deal they would want the modification inasmuch as they could salvage more of the loan, and escape the necessity of maintenance, taxes and insurance. But they don’t have any money in the deal, and they never did. What they want is a free house, using trickery, fraud, forgery, fabrication of documents and outright lying to both the homeowners and the courts — and their lawyers know it.

They are taking advantage of the fact that the investors don’t want the house, they want their money back from the “sale” of bogus mortgage bonds. So with the creditor expressing no interest in enforcement, the bank says “why not”? So they pose as the creditor and foreclose on 5 million homes in the largest land grab in history.

Remember this: if you don’t get an agreement to clear title, your modification is worthless. A judgment should be entered confirming the settlement and confirming the status of title or signed and sealed by a judge. Otherwise when you go to sell the house, you’ll discover you can’t, because you can’t convey clear title. Reports are pouring in of settlements with these banks who don’t own the loan, don’t have any paperwork, and don’t have anything to show an inquiring eye when, where and how much they advanced any money to fund the loan. The settlements are getting larger and larger but hey are all sealed, for the moment, under confidentiality agreements.

Our efforts are getting traction and producing results in expanding scope and numbers. Keep at it.

Bank of America Loses Bid to Dismiss Homeowner Mortgage-Modification Suit

By David McLaughlin – Jul 6, 2011

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) must face claims from homeowners who accuse the biggest U.S. bank of failing to honor agreements for modifying their mortgage loans, a federal judge ruled.

Homeowners who say they met requirements for permanent modifications under contracts with the bank can proceed with their cases, according a decision filed today by U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel in Boston. Zobel dismissed some claims against the bank.

“The complaint meticulously details each plaintiff’s initial and ongoing compliance with all conditions,” Zobel wrote.

The complaint consolidates 26 cases originating in 19 states that were transferred to federal court in Boston, according to Zobel’s decision. The homeowners sought loan modifications from Bank of America under the federal government’s Home Affordable Modification Program, which is aimed to lower payments for borrowers and help them avoid foreclosure.

“BOA’s general practice and culture is to string homeowners along with no intention of providing actual and permanent modifications,” according to the complaint.

Bank of America sought to dismiss the complaint. Shirley Norton, a bank spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the bank is pleased that four of eight counts in the complaints were dismissed.

‘Second Chance’

“The decision will give hundreds of thousands of families a second chance at permanently lower mortgage payments,” Gary Klein, a lawyer for the homeowners, said in an interview.

The complaint separated homeowners into two groups. One covered homeowners with loans serviced by Bank of America who didn’t get temporary modifications, known as trial period plans, which can lead to permanent modifications. Zobel dismissed their claims, saying they lacked standing.

The second group covers those who obtained trial plans and were entitled to permanent modifications at the end of the three- or four-month period, Klein said. Under the trial agreements, Bank of America is required to offer permanent modifications to borrowers who adhere to the terms, according to the complaint.

“The decision can also be used by families who have lost their homes even though they were entitled to mortgage- modification agreements,” Klein said.

The case is In re Bank of America Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation, 10-md-02193, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in New York at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at


57 Responses

  1. i agree with A man. there is no end in sight of the pain this has caused so many people.

  2. ON my1098 tax papers Bank of America NA is listed as the RECIPIENT’S/ LENDER in 2009 and 2010. I receiced the same letter. Countrywide modified my loan with a10 year interest only step rate. I was very happy with it. Bank of America will not acknowledge my documents stating I was BEHIND 25 payments. Then at the medeation I didn’t enough for them to assist me. Why because they wanted to add $30,000.on to the principle

  3. Pls were are you located…?
    What’s your phone number…?

    I need your help…!!!


  5. Does anyone have the fax number to send a letter to the BAC. Unfortunately my children had fun with the letter and I am trying to piece it together. BAC of course didn’t have it on file. How convenient. Thank God for this site.

  6. Louise says “Regarding the issue of “debt collector” in the BofA letter, a debt collector is most likely a servicer and not a creditor.”

    It was weird because I know the difference and legal responsibilities of each (RESPA vs FDCPA) and in this letter they claim to be a “debt collector” and refer to FDCPA specifically. They are clearly TRYING to avail themselves of servicer status so they have no legal duty to reply to QWRS as collector not servicer BUT they also claim to be a servicer.

  7. Regarding the issue of “debt collector” in the BofA letter, a debt collector is most likely a servicer and not a creditor. There needs to be a creditor (investor, so-called original lender) and a servicer. A debt collector is not a creditor. The law says that they have to tell you that they are a debt collector which brings them under the FDCPA. There are rules under the FDCPA and since servicers and debt collectors operate outside th law, you can go get ’em. Go to Google and type in FDCPA and read carefully.

  8. Bob, excellent letter to BofA. A friend submitted a QWR to them and they have yet to respond. The time frame has passed. I will have to look at the notice he received and see when his 30 days is up, I think it passed but I advised him that the QWR was already disputing their claim of interest and he will use that if need be. The next thing he plans to do is to attempt to quiet title. I would like to see some successful outcomes from this route as I believe this is the only way to extinguish the fraud. I read lawyers are so afraid of quiet title actions

  9. Linda, doubtful tha BofA has the proper docs to pursue f/c. The paperwork was most likely done by robo-signers and if they submit it it is fraud on the court. The Servicers must be careful now that all this has come to light. Every doc they submit can be used against them by a judge that ‘gets it’ (judge Schack). Further if the judge approved the f/c based on fruadulent docs he/she is complicit in the fraud. You might want to consider taking back possession of your house. They love those vacant houses and buyers that don’t contest the fraud.

  10. I can’t get them to take my house. BOA has ‘scheduled’ auction every month for 8 months now. With no fee money for a loan mod, I left the property by the first scheduled auction date last December. BOA doesn’t understand why I left. Simply put, when you tell someone to get out, generally that means to get out. I feel like I’m in the Groundhog Day movie with these recurring forclosure notices….

  11. I received a letter of transfer from BAC to BOA NA but have not received a letter from BOA NA. Wonder what that means??

  12. Fuckin’ A Karen S and Bob M! Resistance is victory!

  13. I suggest everyone challenge BOA and the debt. You have thirty days from the date of the letter. I sent my letter of dispute in this morning.
    Something fishy is going on and the language of the notice of transfer is over and above what is required for notification. If all would like, I can post the industry standard for the notice.
    Do not let that letter go unanswered. Here is a copy of my letter sent this morning.

    Bank of America, N A
    Customer Service, CA6-919-01-41
    Attention: DVN
    P. O. Box 1140
    Simi Valley, CA 93062-1140

    RE: Account Number ********* Debt Disputed

    Dated: July 8, 2011

    To whom it may concern:

    I dispute the alleged debt you say I owe. I do not owe you or Bank of New York (BONY) a dime, not one cent.
    As a matter of fact and Law, you owe me money because you have unjustly enriched yourselves at my expense were you had no legal right.
    I want all the wet ink documents associated with this transaction made available for my review.
    This includes the six year late Option 2 Beneficial Rights Transfer from BAC Home Loans Servicing LP the purported investor, to the purported NEW Investor, BONY on December 17, 2010 which you claim is the original purported investor. This also includes the Allonge to the Note which was never permanently affixed to the note. I might add that this transfer took place the day after a Federal Judge denied BOA’s Motion to dismiss in my case. This was a fraudulent transfer and an attempt to commit fraud upon me and the United States District Court of Massachusetts.
    As a matter of fact, I would like an explanation as it relates to that transfer. If BONY was always purported to be the original investor and all rights in the note and mortgage were mandated by Law to be transferred to the trustee for CWMBS CHL Pass Through Certificate 2004-29, in 2004 and were not, how could they create securities for which they had no legal right to create said securities?
    If all rights were transferred to BONY in 2004, why the need to transfer them again in 2010?
    Do not take me for a fool.
    At a minimum I require the following wet ink documents be made available for my review:
    Transfer of Promissory Note for Each Transaction

    Negotiable instrument under Article 3 of the UCC must be transferred by:
    1) Endorsement
    2) Delivery of the instrument
    3) Acceptance of delivery

    Transfer of Mortgage for Each Transaction

    The Mortgage is a real estate instrument Subject to the statute of frauds and must comply with local real estate law and Transferred by:
    1) Written assignment
    2) Delivery of the instrument
    3) Acceptance of delivery
    4) Recording of transferred mortgage

    In order to prove these processes took place,
    produce documents to prove the Following:

    1) Transfer from Consumer to Broker
    2) Transfer from Broker to Warehouse Lender
    3) Transfer from Warehouse Lender to SIV
    4) Transfer from SIV to the Depositor or Sponsor
    5) Transfer from Depositor or Sponsor to Trust

    The documents that are need in order to demonstrate
    this process took Place for just one Transaction at a minimum are:

    1) Four assignments and deliveries and acceptances of the Mortgage
    2) Four endorsements and deliveries of the Note
    3) Eight separate notarizations
    4) Eight UCC-1 financing statements
    5) Four recordings
    6) Four filing and transfer fees

    I have already checked every location for these documents including a complete UCC search, the word here would be, Void, the search is void that any such documentation exists; it does not exist at the registry of DEEDS, it does not exist on MERS, nor at the many Secretary of States.
    Further, to claim I owe you or BONY a debt, is a violation of your Consent Order BOA entered into with the FED, the OCC and the US Treasury Department on April 13, 2011.
    Call me when you have gathered the above documents so that I may inspect and copy them.
    You have created a cloud on my Title and owe me clear title and $247,000.00 plus cost and fees, plus statutory fines and penalties and treble damages for you failure to respond to two Demand Letters pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 93A § 9.

    Sincerely yours

  14. I too was curious as to who FNMA ACT/ACT is. Well it isn’t a “who” it is a STATUS see

    from what I have gathered if a loan is removed from a MBS trust because it is in default, it may end up with this status

    So I guess what they might be saying is that Fannie becomes the note holder after default and loan has been pulled from MBS pool.

    Don’t they lose standing to foreclose if note was acquired note after it had gone into default?

  15. Regarding the BofA letter. They use the ‘debt collector’ language on their modification paperwork too. I believe every BofA loan got the same letter. What is the reason, I think they are wondering how many people are paying attention and will actually question them but imo it is somehow supposed to ‘fix’ their problem. The first thing I thought of was how this will affect current litigation. The lawyers need to answer that one.

  16. Bob M. @1:25. Perhaps that is the reason for the Public Notice that was linked by Syl. Chase is trying to make those Satisfied Loans unsatisfied so they can transfer them to the Trusts. They may be attempting to go in time so they can get the paperwork to the Trusts, (better late than never). The Investors want to see proof of what they didn’t get and their only proof right now is a Satisfied loan. Meanwhile homeowners are getting their old loans back after they were paid off.

  17. Syl, interesting Public Notice. Wonder what that is all about. They are trying to fix all the Satisfactions that were filed in error. Chase further states that the debts still exist and they are the holder of the Note. My question would be: why were the Satisfactions filed. I understand this attempt to correct if they were robo-signed, but they are actually going further and saying the loans still exist. Were these refi’s or f/cs. Why are they reclaiming the loans. And that pesky Note problem pops up again.

  18. […] 8 Jul MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR'S NOTE: Anyone who has entered into mortgage modification process with BOA or any other bank acting as servicer or otherwise knows the story. The Bank does everything it can to delay the process until the borrower gets into serious trouble and then the bank claims that the home should be foreclosed. There are thousands of stories of homeowners who honestly and j … Read More […]

  19. All the loans are unenforceable because the banks lent their credit and not their money. It is time to “pierce the corporate veil”. Pretender Lenders like Countrywide never lent their own money and I have contracts and the commitment schedules for Billions of dollars as it relates to Countrywide. All the money came from foreign banks, including the Bank of Australia. Here is just one Schedule. These are the true lenders.
    Commitment Schedule
    Continuing Lenders
    Royal Bank of Canada $ 200,000,000
    Barclays Bank plc $ 200,000,000
    BNP Paribas $ 200,000,000
    Credit Suisse First Boston acting through its Cayman Islands Branch $ 200,000,000
    Lloyds TSB Bank plc $ 175,000,000
    Danske Bank A/S $ 150,000,000
    Dresdner Bank AG, New York and Grand Cayman Branches $ 150,000,000
    The Bank of Nova Scotia $ 100,000,000
    Commonwealth Bank of Australia $ 100,000,000
    Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd. $ 100,000,000
    Rabobank $ 100,000,000
    Societe Generale $ 100,000,000
    The Toronto-Dominion Bank $ 100,000,000
    WestLB AG, New York Branch $ 100,000,000
    Bayerische Landesbank $ 100,000,000
    Bayerische Hypo-und and Vereinsbank AG, New York Branch $ 100,000,000
    US Bank, National Association $ 50,000,000
    Calyon New York Branch $ 25,000,000
    Bank of Hawaii $ 25,000,000
    New Lender
    Merrill Lynch Bank USA $ 300,000,000
    TOTAL $ 2,575,000,000

  20. Maybe this is why I have no less than 6 presidents of boa trying to offer me a mod i was denied on and that is after a npv inputs letter was 200 days late amd contains wrong info. DAM it wears me but its Gonna come down.

  21. phantom –

    CW BANK could be Countrywide Bank.

  22. Bob, I charged as “breach of fiduciary duty, slander of title, and WOCCA (state RICO). Can’t wait for the answer to this one.
    A-Man, they’re going to impeach him over this Mexican arms deal. Give it time.
    …had an interesting conversation with the PMI provider today. It seems things aren’t always what they seem to be. more later, it’s a secret right now.
    hey Louise! thanks for everything! hope all is well.

  23. Debt Collectors

    The is an equitable loan but no legal binding obligation enforcable against the borrower.My work in capital markets lived by the creed – time will cure all sins. Time in a securities workout is in reverse- a time warp by advantage.

    Therefore, if a conventional loan and orginal borrower obligation exist it is secured by a lien. The lien is a security – Ask Lein G.! If there is a lien there is a security . How do you register a security in a security . Ask Max. A security offered for securities secured by the collateral deposits as a security against Real Property – “Cite the code – bring me case law – get a life ! Learn to add counsel !

    The debt is owed to the pledgee by the depositor . The depositor is the primary debtor. There cannot be two debtors to a transaction . There is no nominee or convetional foreclosure in a pledged assets structured financing arrangement.

    The debt is not the borrowers obligation . The debt is lost to the counter parties and primary debtor . The debt collectors are re-establishing the charges and write downs for filing purposes and to allow the orginal understanding to prevail under MERs.

    Its a sham – yes. Fannie and Freddie have done it for 50 years.

    Recent news – In a case I m testifying in the trustee, attorneys have brought in their own attorney to defend and counter argue . Now I have to testify against the oppostions expert- a Wall Street Guru. (I’m loving it. )

    Their counsel by the way is not that bad – The Dean of a major University law school .

    Let’s get it on and over with !
    Release that lien ! (Make him stop)

  24. is this the multi-state class action in federal court?

  25. If you received a mod that your lender required you to pay a upfront fee of $1,962 dollars to receive the mod. Does that mean you have no legal recourse if the lender did not even own the loan?

  26. Looking for an opinion only. My loan is with BofA and I work at Bank New York Mellon and BofA knows that (I’m not a servicer). Don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but BofA has not given me any trouble and when my mortgage is past the due date-16th, calls are very professional and understanding. Do you think it is professional courtesy? I’ve been investigating/reading about all these mortgage issues and fraud and I KNOW my note and mortgage have been separated. BofA sent me a certified copy of my note and there are NO ENDORSEMENTS and I have documentation that my loan has been sold/transferred to three other companies before BofA. Maybe they know that I know….

  27. what about the folks who were duped into a loan mod with a company who cant prove they own the note or mortgage? they use the mod as if its a whole new mortgage contract then turn around 5 months down the road and use it to foreclose on you. where is their relief?

  28. My wife pointed out that this letter is exactly like the one we got from another entity at the beginning of our foreclosure nightmare, i.e., we are a debt collector, you owe this entity, here’s how much you owe, etc. Can they really be trying to foreclose AGAIN, using a different entity, DURING my lawsuit with these jokers?

  29. Anyone see this one? Its enough to make your blood boil:

    “A federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co of violating U.S. racketeering law by conspiring with Bernard Madoff to further his Ponzi scheme.

    Thursday’s decision, in a case brought by a Florida partnership that invested with Madoff, came less than two weeks after the trustee seeking money for Madoff victims separately filed an amended $19.9 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan, accusing it of enabling Madoff’s fraud and ignoring red flags.

    The trustee, Irving Picard, is trying to use the same racketeering law to recover as much as $58.8 billion from dozens of European defendants in his largest Madoff lawsuit.

    In Thursday’s decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of New York rejected an allegation by MLSMK Investment Co that JPMorgan violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by conspiring with Madoff to “fleece” customers, and failing to freeze his accounts.

    MLSMK, based in Palm Beach, Florida, said it lost its $12.8 million investment with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC when Madoff was arrested on December 11, 2008. It sought to hold JPMorgan liable for conspiracy under RICO, which allows treble damages, by aiding and abetting Madoff’s fraud.

    But Judge Robert Sack, writing for a three-judge panel, said a federal ban on civil RICO claims based on securities fraud also covers aiding and abetting claims.”

    What federal ban on RICO claims? What has that fascist SCOTUS done to us now?

  30. I received the same letter today from BAC. also , a friend did as well. Line 2b – AA MSTR / SUB CW BANK. I tried to google and hits come as : Australian Bank

  31. Dispute the debt within 30 days under the FDCPA. Ask them to tell you who the creditor is. The note has been split from the Mortgage or Deed of Trust and, therefore, the note is null and void. Note not placed in the trust claiming to own the Note. Also, trust is defunct pursuant to Pooling and Servicing Agmt & NY Trust law and loss of tax exempt status.

  32. Please add me to your blog email list so I can get the daily mailings.
    Thank you,
    Scott Deming

  33. What is the likelihood that “FNMA ACT/ACT” is not even a real entity? Or isn’t YET a real entity?

  34. Can’t find it at either…

  35. Never once in the long paper trail established in my lawsuit has the name “FNMA ACT/ACT” come up.

  36. I’m guessing:

    Asset Collateralized Trust
    Asset-Backed Collateral Trust

    Ummm…don’t know, but pretty sure the “T” is for “Trust”?

  37. surely it means something involving Fannie Mae, but i can’t find it either yet

  38. Neil,
    Do you have any info on what “FNMA ACT/ACT” is? I think I agree with Soliman. This is big…at least it seems to be…

  39. Google “FNMA ACT/ACT” and you get 4 hits. One for a site called “beingmiddleclass” that I have to sign up for.

  40. I don’t know, tn…the entire letter is about how they are a debt collector and that they’re required to inform me of that…

    Wait–I didn’t read the fine print. The letter goes on to say that:

    “Please note that unless Bank of America, N.A. is listed in 2(b) as the creditor of your loan, Bank of America, N.A. does not own your loan and only services your loan on behalf of your creditor…”

    BoA is not listed as my creditor, “FNMA ACT/ACT” is. What does that mean? About to Google it…

    Hold on though–the letter is telling me that the debt will be assumed to be valid unless I dispute the validity of it in writing in 30 days. This is insane–surely they know I have sued them and that I have been through this with them multiple times?

  41. That statement means nothing more than their corporate legal dept has requested a very conservative and cautious addition to their correspondence. The “mini Miranda” warning is just a CYA and generally can’t be used against someone to establish that they are in fact a debt collector.

  42. Just got a letter from BAC Home Loans Servicing re: the transfer of the servicing of “home loans” from BAC to Bank of America, N.A. Very intriguing sentence in the letter:

    MSOLIMAN- This is what was anticpated for two years now and blows open the entire matter of secretive business dealings and counter parties agreements that surface now as a culminating element in support of claims

    It is the evidentury needed to close out many of these consumer claims and is meritorious to the allegations. It is what I spoke of with Washingtons office for member bank complaince for the FDIC.

    Its huge. Take them out now!


  43. It appears that JP Morgan Chase is looking to expunge 100’s of it’s own “erroneously” filed Satisfaction of Mortgages in Suffolk County NY via advertised legal notices through the infamous Steven J. Baum’s office. This is only one county, what next and what does this mean??

  44. It appears that JP Morgan Chase is looking to expunge 100’s of it’s own “erroneously” filed Satisfaction of Mortgages in Suffolk County NY via advertised legal notices through the infamous Steven J. Baum’s office. This is only one county, what next and what does this mean??

  45. Bloomberg Editor

    The reported story is close in detailing subject matter …but missing the substantive facts. The case is plead on more hearsay than the Judge can stomach.

    The facts in the matter are far reaching and the MODIFICATION process and procedures implicate deeper pockets and
    greater liability than one can see at this time . The point if got across is the scienter necessary for class merit.

    This is a matter that offers as its nexus elements deep within the arguments that are causal to establishing damages versus soured unrippend claims. If read at face value the story contradicts equitable rights and claims for damages. Loan Mods are more appropriate for damages claims and must be aligned with factors and circumstances still hidden from sight.

    We have answered questions as to the purpose of 1) offering the Loan Mod and 2) Reasons for its denial . Our office has on file evidentiary and other supporting collateral to evidence concealment and conditions precedent missing from the arguments – needed to establish DAMAGING missing links in this matter. THE REAL PARTIES INTEREST IS NOT REVEALED AND MOTIVATION FOR ABSTAINING OR OBSTRUCTION REMAINS INPLEADING UNCLEAR. That missing piece HEREIN ARGUMENTS is what we are citing as critical to this MATTER HEARD .

    Press : For more information contact us at expert.witness@live .com / Tel 213-880-6288

  46. Just got a letter from BAC Home Loans Servicing re: the transfer of the servicing of “home loans” from BAC to Bank of America, N.A. Very intriguing sentence in the letter:

    “Under the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and certain state laws, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. IS CONSIDERED A DEBT COLLECTOR.”

    It also contains the standard debt collection language:

    “Bank of America, N.A. is required by law to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt…”

    So did I get this because I am in a lawsuit with them or is every person who has a “loan” with BoA getting this exact same letter? If the latter is the case, is that not an open admission that Bank of America doesn’t own any of the so-called “home loans”–they are merely trying to collect the debt for a party besides themselves?

  47. I have a case pending in this court. Let me see if I can explain why they do what they do. In Most cases any loan written since 2000 has been securitized.
    In order to modify a mortgage, the servicers must purchase it from the trust, in other words it must be removed and paid for it at full value. See any PSA and the loss mitigation clause.
    Further, to modify your loan they would have to have the legal right to do so, they do not.
    Why don’t they have the legal right to modify? Because all the pools are empty for many reasons but the most important one is that the trust or the trustee were never sold the loans, note and mortgages as mandated by the PSA and New York Trust Laws. In most all cases the loan sellers maintained some form of dominion and control over the note and mortgage contrary to law.
    All interest in the notes and mortgages had to be sold and transferred to the trustee for the benefit of the certificate holders. No entity could ever maintain any control over the note and mortgage other than the trust per the trustee on behalf of the certificate holders. To understand this you would have to read the New York Trust laws, FAS 140, IRS 860, and the PSA. I know it’s a lot of reading but it is a must. 80% of all trust, are common law trust, created under NY law. The other 20% are governed by Delaware Statutory Trust Law Title 12, Ch. 38. Make no mistake; you are a beneficiary to the trust.
    Because they failed to follow the basic rule of law, all mortgage backed securities are worthless because no one had the legal right to create said securities.
    So the 64 dollar question is how does a bank purchase something that isn’t there to purchase?
    They can’t. Therefore in most cases they cannot legally modify your loan; however, in some cases they do it anyway; Further complicating the clouded title issue. But for the most part they just jerk you around until you ultimately walk away, short sale the home or worse, they foreclose once you are at the end of your rope.
    I have sent something to Neil and I wait to see his analysis on the doc I sent him. It is prima facia evidence that in my case as in most, the trustee never had legal control over my note and mortgage and moreover, the note and mortgage have been bifurcated (separated) from birth and therefore, unenforceable. The note and mortgage can never be separated; the mortgage must follow the note without exception. See Carpenter v. Longan and every case cited thereafter.
    This is certainly a conundrum but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The tide is turning and in the end we, the average citizen, will win the day. I am just an average guy with average intelligence, but I have been fighting for over two years and will not capitulate. This is war and the enemy shall be laid to waste where I find them, on the battlefield.
    Bob M

  48. livinglies

  49. I think it is time to Impeach Obama. Also to invoke International Law if it applies. It is time to impeach Governors etc….


  50. Yep, Ditto, they are doing to you what they have been doing to the people who have been trying for a (fake) loan mod…because every single thing is laced with fraud and they are buying time so the statute of limitations runs out…

  51. I faxed a short sale packet 9 times to America’s Servicing Company (WF) and was told they never received it. The supervisor told me that all I got was a confirmation of a signal and not that the fax actually went through. I also sent it certified mail several times. Absolutely unbelievable the lies that come from their lips.

  52. ‘zactly, cubed…oooooooooooooo that would lead to “moral hazard”…
    hazard this, freaks!

  53. “The settlements are getting larger and larger but hey are all sealed, for the moment, under confidentiality agreements.”

    yah why? They don’t want to let the cat out of the bag.

  54. “Why? Because they want the house. If they had any money in the deal they would want the modification inasmuch as they could salvage more of the loan, and escape the necessity of maintenance, taxes and insurance.”


    If it was a real loan, why with their compound interest and all and whatever numbers you want to use, lets say a $200k loan gives them $500k over the 30 year period or whatever the numbers work out to be. That is 300k profit times how many loans they supposedly have on their books. Are they not in the business of making loans?

    Not anymore, they are the business of brokering loans to MBS ABS trusts so Wall Street can trade it.

    Banksters ——-Fuk’in Dicks. I’m tired of you A$$holes. As far as I’m concerned TNHARRY, they are all crooks and don’t give me some heart throb story on some of them are ok. Bullcrap.

  55. There is no loss of paperwork. They have it all. They just tell you that. Send everything certified mail and return receipt requested and then fax it several times and save the proof of the fax.

    They do not want to modify anything. They are really not entitiled to modify–they don’t own the loan. They want to foreclose even though they do not sell the houses frequently. More than half the houses are not sold and just sit there an deteriorate, but they can stay on their books as an asset. The banks are having problems with assets–they don’t have enough assets. Recently, we have seen the requirements for the banks changing–that they must have more in reserve. This cuts into their business–too bad. Actually, the homeowner’s best bet is to sue the pretender/lender in state court for Quiet Title. Good luck everybody!

  56. This should also apply to short sales. Their loss of paperwork is very selective too.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: