QUICKEN LOANS INFO SHOWS IT ACTED AS MORTGAGE BROKER WHILE COUNTRYWIDE WAS THE ACTUAL “SELLER” OF THE LOANS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF TILA, RESPA, AND UDCPA

Prospectus cwalt quicken loans originator

PSA CWALT

After years of pretending that it was “the bank” in loan transactions, the documents clearly show otherwise. Quicken was always a mortgage broker and it failed to register as such in each of the states in which it originated a loan. It lied to the borrower and lied to the other parties at closing when it represented itself as lender. The prospectus clearly shows that Quicken was simply one of many entities that feed Countrywide the loan information while Countrywide was not even mentioned in the disclosure statements, settlement statements, note or mortgage. Yet Countrywide is identified in documents obtained recently as the “Seller” of the loans into the securitization scheme.

BOA admits in recent letters to borrowers that it is only the servicer and not the owner of the loan and yet it intends to pursue collection and foreclosure on all loans it deems delinquent regardless of whether the loan was paid off by third parties.

Countrywide always maintained that the identity of the creditor was confidential information so it would not be required to disclose the securitization. Quicken and BOA denied there as any securitization of Quicken  originated. loans.

 

22 Responses

  1. New Century as well!!

  2. foreclosureinfosearch,

    Okay, cowboy, since you do not believe fraud, what are you selling — and for whom?? Pact with whom??
    Need I ask?? .

  3. I read the data very carefully and it helps me for may work. Actually i am a professional broker, this information is too good.

  4. Bill, I have a similar WAMU,FA. please contact me at damon715leo@yahoo.com I would like to learn more. thank you, Richard

  5. COMMENT – I also want to tell everyone that they are stating in this letter that we have to reply with-in 30 days if we dispute this debt or BOA will consider that we have validated this debt.

    REPSONSE – Woe, slow down there cowboy. Debt validation?
    Are you sure you’re not being copied on this document? What debt is the creditor collecting on? Are you a counter party to something that’s going on behind the scenes? Maybe there is more than meets the eye here….
    For me or anyone in the know to bark out the true nature of the debt collectors efforts is a breach of trust to the cases I am testifying in or for cases pending trial.

    The means and methods used to conduct business are so broad and far gone over into SEC securities laws and accounting rules that it’s hard to capture the true essence for the scheme.

    The institutional payers and corporate attorneys do not perpetrate fraud.
    Look –
    1. If you’re running around a public pool you will be cited and asked to stop.
    2. If you’re running to catch a bus is careful.
    3. If you’re running in a 10 K then go for it and do the best you can.

    Know what you’re looking at and be cognizant to the means and methods used to accomplish the opposition’s objectives and goals.

    It’s when you wear a swim suit in winter and run to catch a bus to visit an empty public pool – – – that is where you find that your conduct is really askew or improperly interpreted.

    Think, there is something far more reaching here under the FDCPA that is deceptive and does not meet the eye.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.Witness@live.com

  6. It is easy for Garfield to say that the documents were a fraud. But proving it to survive the Demurrer is completely different story. All the evidence would certainly appear to support the lender.
    So true …deceptive practices and obvious concealment for regulatory purposes and convenience is not necessarily a fraud. The risk of throwing the case to the DA or into an existing agency investigation is another concern that ties it up.

    Fraud is not the route to go anyway pursuant to an equitable claim ….maybe. Even the agencies will admit they pound on the defendants hard in the pleading simply to compel a settlement for their own budgetary reasons —-which makes their fraud claim a fine and slap on the wrist.

    Finally, the resources allocated to a civil claims defense attack is heightened by the risk of the fraud prevailing against corporate officers…. Also, beaware of using the words servicers . The are no servicing rights in these types of securties programs. Its called a Lock Box. MSoliman

  7. NEARLY EVERY FORECLOSURE YOU SEE WITH ANOTHER LESSER KNOWN NAME IS A RECOVERY DONE FOR RECOURSE PURPOSES. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE REST OF THE FORECLOSURES ARE FOR A RECEIVER , YOU THEN UNDERSTAND THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IS ALWAYS HIDDEN.

    THUS THE REASON MERS WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ITS WORTHLESS ADDED VALUE TO EACH FORECLOSURE AND TRANSFER WHILE PARTIES AVOID EVER RECORDING THE ASSIGNMENTS MERS HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO EXIST LIFE AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE ORIGINAL TRUST AND INITIAL DELIVERY

    MSOLIMAN

  8. Gene,
    I agree with you. I think that the article is attempting to say what you’re saying, just in shorthand form. But before we jump on Neil, let’s remember that not every article can cover every point in painstaking detail. Hopefully those embroiled in a fight with Quicken and find that they are dealing with the trust mentioned in the prospectus and psa (or a similar one) will have enough sense and stamina to delve deeper into the matter using this admittedly brief, not all-inclusive article as a jumping-off point.

    Neil is a hero, but he’s not omnipotent or all-powerful. As far as I’m concerned, this site has done more to help me in my fight than any other, and I didn’t get it all spoon-fed from Neil. I used it as a jumping-off point, which is what I assume everyone else here has done and is doing as well.

  9. zurennth,

    Here is the issue. To make such an argument, a homeowner has a heightened standard of pleading for fraud allegations. To reach the standard, one has to show substantial evidence. One cannot just say fraud. With what Garfield has posted, it does not exist. What would initially have to be done is:

    1. Find a loan that meets the criteria of being in Quicken’s name.

    2. Determine factually that the loan was in the Trust through the Mortgage Loan Schedule.

    At this point, Garfield has provided none of that information.

    Next:

    3. Prove that Countrywide had all the involvement and that Quicken was only a broker.

    4. Prove that the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement which would describe Quicken as seller is in fact fraudulent.

    5. Prove that Countrywide funded the loan through a Warehouse Credit Line.

    6. Prove that when Quicken is represented as the Seller on the Credit Line, it is a fraud.

    7. Provide a viable argument that the Repurchase Agreement in the Credit Line is not valid, and does not show that Quicken actually had responsibility for the loan.

    8. Show that Quicken is not paying interest on the Credit Line for funded loans that have not yet been sold to Countrywide.

    9. Provide an argument that the Note and Deed were fraudulent based upon Quicken being named and not Countrywide.

    To survive the Demurrer, these are the arguments that will have to be presented to survive the Heightened Pleading requirements. That is because you are fighting what the Note, Deed, Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and Credit Line Agreement say.

    Even then, the odds of getting a judge to accept such an argument would be very small.

    It is easy for Garfield to say that the documents were a fraud. But proving it to survive the Demurrer is completely different story. All the evidence would certainly appear to support the lender.

  10. Gene,
    I’m saying you are right–Quicken is not mentioned in the prospectus. Or the PSA. A quick “find” operation performed on the PDFs confirms that. However, the problem the article is pointing out is that either:

    a) Quicken SHOULD have been mentioned in the prospectus–which it (Quicken) isn’t, or:

    b) Countrywide should have been mentioned in the disclosure statements either instead of, or alongside Quicken, which it (Countrywide) wasn’t.

  11. Zurenarrh,

    Please show me on what page of the Prospectus that Quicken Loans is mentioned. If Quicken loans is not mentioned in the Prospectus, then where is the proof that Quicken contributed any loans to the trust?
    Or what actual loan did Quicken contribute?

    You have to be able to show that Quicken was somehow involved. if there is no reference to Quicken then how can you know it? How can you argue it?

    Show me the proof. Without proof, this is simply one persons word.

    Again, what page is it on?

  12. Can you imagine what would happen if every single homeowner with one of these “subprime unsecured debt collectors” (which is almost everybody),sent a letter of DISPUTE OF DEBT and CEASE AND DESIST…???
    And then sent a “qualified written request” (QWR) letter saying: Please send me PROOF of “conveyance to the “Trust”…

    Chaos!!! Mayhem!!!

    Well, I did both those things to my (fake) “mortgage loan servicer”, AND my HELOC…they have both been silent for a very long time…

  13. Gene:

    The article states:

    “The prospectus clearly shows that Quicken was simply one of many entities that feed Countrywide the loan information while Countrywide was not even mentioned in the disclosure statements, settlement statements, note or mortgage. Yet Countrywide is identified in documents obtained recently as the “Seller” of the loans into the securitization scheme.”

    The article doesn’t say that Quicken was mentioned in the prospectus, rather it says that Countrywide was not mentioned in the disclosure statements. The point is that Countrywide, who is mentioned in the prospectus, is not disclosed in the disclosure statements WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, which is what the posted prospectus/PSA is proof of. Or that’s what I get out of it, anyway.

  14. “Real Servicers of Trusts DO NOT FALL UNDER THE FDCPA ACT”

    I heartily disagree with this statement——-servicers contact borrowers and demand money. They typically disclose the fact that they are debt collectors in demand letters . I am at an absolute loss as to where this statement would find support except maybe in a servicers reply brief. please explain the basis for this misleading statement. If the servicer is not a debt collector then who is?

  15. People, will you please read the Prospectus before jumping to conclusions? Don’t just accept what someone says without reading the document.

    Nowhere in this document does the name Quicken show up. So how can one automatically accept that Quicken is anywhere involved? What evidence does Garfield show to support that Quicken is involved? Until he provides the evidence, you have nothing. And even then, it is questionable.

    What is worse is that Garfield even writes…..”The prospectus clearly shows that Quicken was simply one of many entities that feed Countrywide the loan information while Countrywide was not even mentioned in the disclosure statements, settlement statements, note or mortgage. Yet Countrywide is identified in documents obtained recently as the “Seller” of the loans into the securitization scheme.”

    Where is Quicken mentioned? I cannot find it at all.

    From the Prospectus:

    “Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. will be the sponsor of the transaction and a seller of a portion of the mortgage loans. The remainder of the mortgage loans will be sold directly to the depositor by one or more special purpose entities that were established by Countrywide Financial Corporation or one of its subsidiaries, which acquired the mortgage loans they are selling directly from Countrywide Home
    Loans, Inc.”

    This paragraph refers only to the Seller/Sponsor selling to the Depositor. Seller does not mean the originator of the loan. In fact, page s-49 provides the information that CW both originates the loans, and purchases from other entities.

    This is the problem when you allow someone else to interpret things for you, and you don’t verify what you are being told. You get questionable information and then pass it on as being confirmed and valid.

    Do the search for yourself. See if you can find Quicken named anywhere in the document. Try to find evidence of the participation of Quicken anywhere in the information provide, and then when you cannot, demand that Garfield provide supporting information for his conclusion.

    You try going into court based upon what Garfield has provided here, and the Opposing Counsel will eat you alive. That is because you have no proof to show that Quicken was involved. Again, demand the proof from Garfield.

  16. The way to go after this is a cause (or causes) of action for fraud by Quicken, then also a cause of Civil Conspiracy. If it can be proved that Countrywide was always the lender, always intended to be the lender and Quicken “posed” as lender, then there is a case. Then of course TILA, RESPA, etc. too.

    Look at the “loan number” on your pre-closing and closing docs (GFE, HUD, other waivers, etc.) and then look at your Countrywide account number. If they are the same….Bingo.

  17. scot

    I will try to get a copy into the site today. I may have to contact Neil to get this letter to this site.

    I also want to tell everyone that they are stating in this letter that we have to reply with-in 30 days if we dispute this debt or BOA will consider that we have validated this debt. This means that everyone who has BOA now as their “servicer” (really a debt collector of an unenforceable Note) has to contact BOA to dispute this debt or the debt is validated.

    VERY INTERESTING!!!!

    This new twist should have very important ramifications in the whole lending industry.

    note: this letter wants everyone to think they are a servicer, they are not, they are now a debt collector.

  18. Same thing with “Washington Mutual Bank. F.A.”. Behind the scenes discovery evidence shows this entity as “Washington Mutual – Premiere Mortgage Broker.” WMBFA merged with “Washington Mutual Bank” in January 2005, and officially dropped the “F.A.” and became just “Washington Mutual Bank.”

    However, WMBFA continued to originate tens of thousands of loans from 2005-2008 as a broker disguised as a “federal savings bank”. Just look at your notes and deeds. You can also check out my fresh motion for summary judgement filed in U.S. District Court in Montana, Case No. 1:10-CV-00119 Paatalo v. Chase et al.

  19. I saw this several years ago–that the news did not make sense. Good thing we have the Internet. Of course, I am in fear of the Internet being censored as well. Olbermann on his new show on Current TV last night talked about being blackmailed when he was working for Murdoch’s company. Very interesting since I do not see anybody else talking about it YET?

    As far as these documents that PROVE?? Quicken was the broker and Countrywide the actual CREDITOR/SELLER??, I have been waiting for three years. It is music to my ears. The best part is that there are documents to prove it. I hope nobody goes on a shredding spree.

  20. Can you please post the letter that BOA admits i to borrowers that it is only the servicer and not the owner of the loan and yet it intends to pursue collection and foreclosure on all loans it deems delinquent regardless of whether the loan was paid off by third parties.

  21. I commented on this in the last article on BAC but want to stress this information again.

    BAC Home Loan Servicing has transferred its servicing to its parent company Bank of America effective July 1, 2011.

    Yesterday, July 12, 2011, everyone received additional information from Bank of America. BOA is now disclosing that they are a debt collector and BOA even discloses who your “creditor” is. BOA gives the name of your Trust as the “Creditor” It is contained in the Fair Debt Collections and Practices Act and State law Notice part of the letter.

    This naming of the Trust is in every letter that I have been able to read.

    Real Servicers of Trusts DO NOT FALL UNDER THE FDCPA ACT.

    It appears that BOA has purchased the paper(notes) for pennies on the dollar in the open market and is now attempting to collect a debt making it appear that they are the servicer. As discussed before in this column, they probably always kept the Notes in their files.

    Other banks have transferred their “servicing” to the parent company also. Aurora and Chase.

    If the homeowner can now prove in court that the loan is unsecured will this new debt collector be able to get a judgement on the debt and then list that judgement as a lien on the homeowner and possibly the homeowners property? Could this prevent the homeowner from selling their home even if they win a quiet title lawsuit?

    Any comments on how this will affect any lawsuits going forward??

    Is this a positive or a negative for the homeowner????

  22. Murdoch
    A reader post on: http://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/2011/07/13/oh-roop-it-didnt-have-to-be-this-way/#respond
    Scared in US. | July 13, 2011 at 8:16 am |
    Post Host Goodman stated: “If the rising-star, take-no-prisoners Murdoch of yesteryear had faced the ailing Murdoch of today, we have no doubt what he would have done. Shown no mercy”.
    The reader spost follows and seems to possibly address many questions I have seen raised by the Living Lies comments. By way of background for US readers, the news of the last week is that a score of government officials, including the Press Director to the current prime Minister, numerous Scotland Yard investigators, and Murdoch newspaper employees high and low have been arrested in a widening scandal involving illegal wiretaps of cell-phones, office breakins, credit card identity thefts , and bribery–all apparently aimed at manipulating the conduct of senior UK investigators and politicians.
    Murdoch controls Fox News, Wall Street Journal and numerous other global newspapers—and broadcast television. The question is: “Why would this “business model” not apply here where his reach includes control over such figures as Palin, and who knows how many other US politicians and regulators. Is this the missing piece of the puzzle that has left us all wondering why the US elected and appointed officials seem to always jump the wrong way when it comes to protection of citizens’ rights in favor of financial interests? The disclosures of illegal surveillance and staff bribery on even the Royal family and a series of Prime Ministers is truly shocking. After all this disclosure, the only thing more surprising is that there is no hue and cry in the US where Murdoch’s reach is even longer? Is it that US politicians and regulators are so much more “clean” than UKs? Or that what Murdoch countenances in the UK never could cross the Atlantic Ocean—even thought the execs transfer with frequency? Maybe cell-phones and credit cards and bribery do not work the same in the Western Hemisphere?
    The reader posting from the Goodman site follows; If you readers wonder about this as I do please re-publish this mini-expose.
    “Finally. we start to see the extent of this [Murdoch news] perversion. About 6 months ago, I took to reading Financial Times after decades of following WSJ. I had begun to question the even-handedness of WSJ in the wake of the Murdoch acquisition –not because I was suspicious of Murdoch but simply because the coverage seemed one-sided. Bad news was suppressed —RA RA buy buy. As recently as this past weekend an article espoused the wonders of China growth while the prior day NYT disclosed the massive debt bubble supporting it–one concrete example.
    Over the past few years I also became more and more displeased by the disintegration of the televised US news services. There really is none. No balanced reporting. No Walter Cronkites left. The supposed news channels had deteriorated to MSNBC left wing ra ra or Fox’ right wing ra ra ENTERTAINMENT.–not news. Not that entertaining either.
    Then we hit the financial meltdown when apparent government misconduct and/or blundering, non-disclosure, etc seemed the rule of the day rather than investigation and outing apparent manipulated financial fraud. A true need for the 4th Estate [ie the FREE Press]–but none exists as it now appears.
    Simultaneously we see the Elliot Spitzers and less known Ohio AG Mark Dann, and maybe even Rangel start to take on the governmental investigations needed, and we see them almost immediately go down in flames on fairly insignificant albeit dumb personal screw ups that somehow became widely known and trumpteted more aggressively that the vital public functions they were attempting to serve.
    Now we see the UK original Murdoch business model exposed in scope –at least so far. a But aside from the unscrupulous digging which is sort of associated with investigative journalsim –but on steroids, there is the far more frightening implication of systematic widespread intimidation of politicians and investigators.
    So far the focus once again is on little fish–lowly UK policemen. A good start–but this vampire squid reach extends far beyond that little corner of tabloid journalism. As I noted above, my sense has been that the US news media has also deteriorated into tabloid journalism and the spectre of a wisespread Murdoch “business model” based on illegal invasive intrusion into personal foibles for the apparent purpose of intimidation of investigators and politicians seems unlikely to have been limited to the UK or one aggressive woman editor.
    A better term to be contemplating as I wonder day by day “Why no cry for inquiry in the US?” suggests some of the the nastier terms: blackmail, extortion, subornation of testimony, manipulation of markets –I could go on. It is not so much the devices employed to gather the news–which I could sort of excuse as aggressive journalism–it is the purpose and use of that information that is the real abomination. If this were a left wing operation that just disclosed who was sleeping with whom–it would be simple tabloid journalism,. but Murdoch had his hands on nearly the entire crop of Republican presidential hopefuls. Bad enough the free press exposure–that was scary, but when we add the prospect of systematic manipulation of information to intimidate if not blackmail members of both the US and UK governments that is another thing–an inexcusable damning thing.
    Now, the apparent forgetfulness of people like Fed reserve Greenspan–his inability to understand fairly obvious financial improprieties starts to take an ominous tone. Explanations of misconduct that seemed as if scripted by Fox right wing talking heads and editors now take on a new light–maybe they werein fact scripted by Murdoch’s political machine?
    Why 50 states AGs decide to settle abuses for millions of Americans without investigation, why the reason for Greek government profligacy is not part of the story, etc etc –now one HAS TO WONDER.

    Cellphones and credit cards in the US operate the same as in the UK, so do private investigators—but Murdoch’s political ambitions in the US –are even more intimately connected with the economic destinies of his subscribers and his advertisers. The US $$$$ at stake dwarf the so far tiny $$ involved in the UK. If these people will go so far as has been proven in the UK to sell a few papers, what would this global machine do to control a US election–to control the US Congress–more susceptible to this sort of thing due to the Committee structure of government? What would Murdoch do to own a President of the US? All we know is that his minions exhibited absolutely no sense of boundaries—rules made to be broken to please the top. And along the way, the 4th estate became the most dangerous branch of government in this media age.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: