WHEN WILL THE SERVICERS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

BY NANCY DREWE

Servicers play a big role in wrongful and illegal foreclosures.

When will the FEDERAL RESERVE, C/O OCC be accountable?

THE OCC has ’2′ bosses. Have you ever been in that ‘awkward position’? One has power and authority, and you are stuck between both with no authority have responsibility and accountability and no authority.

OCC a federal regulatory agency with Extraordinary powers from CONGRESS, under US CODE 2006 placed under FEDERAL RESERVE not part of Federal Government.

Chairman Bernanke of FEDERAL RESERVE oversees daily activities of OCC whose extraordinary powers ‘visitorial powers’ Supremacy Clause all Mortgage Servicers’ affiliates have privileges of national banks.

No enforcement of alleged unlawful business acts RETAIL period.

No enforcements results in ‘mechanized’ processing of harms against consumers who continue suffering nationwide repetitive harms in all 50 states, including misapplication and missing payments, if not attached to a national bank would not be white collar crimes rather criminal enforcement by Executive Branch in each county, state of the nation.

Does Aztec Foreclosure Services have their own properieatry software application for non-judicial states in which TRUSTEES who are alike REO brokers c/o robo-firms electronically reduce foreclosure timelines and errors using what software on the CLOUD with LPS, FIS, Fidelity, MERS, TD Services, …

U.S. Bancorp CDC Selects The Mortgage Office™ as its Loan Servicing Platform News Release at bottom of post

FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THIS GREAT ‘MICROSOFT OPEN PLATFORM’ SOLUTIONS SINCE 1996, SHAREOWNERS INCLUDING FREDDIE MAC AND FANNIE MAE, CHASE, GMAC, NORWEST CORP, WELLS FARGO, HAVE SO MANY ‘MISTAKES’ AND FORECLOSURES PROCESSED BY THEIR SERVICERS WITH SO MANY ERRORS, MISTAKES, ? .

HOW WOULD A TEMPORAY LENDERs’ SERVICER, SUBSERVICER, Master Servicer, misapply and/or just LOSE PAYMENTS MADE BY CONSUMERS AND LENDERS and INVESTORS who ‘GET AWAY LYING TO COURTS’ THEY HAVE NO DATA? Example: ABS’sTrust Accounting Software
and REO PROPERTIES, real estate transactions, ‘funds’ deposited by ‘borrowers’ commercial clients this means not ‘consumers’….

Use our Mortgage Accounting software to manage escrow and impound trust accounts, REO properties, real estate transactions and funds deposited by borrowers. Reconcile your trust accounts to your bank statement easily and automatically.

With the Trust Accounting Module You Can
•Handle, control and account for all trust monies received
•Meets or exceeds currently established legal and accounting standards
•Maintain any number of trust accounts with unlimited clients (sub-ledgers)
•Generate reports, reconcile bank accounts, issue checks and disburse funds
•Complies with Federal and State regulations including CA-DRE and B&P code
•Processes deposits, adjustment, computer and manually written checks
•Generates the Trust Status Report (RE 855) and Trust Bank Account Reconciliation (RE 856)
Compliance with the statutes and regulations that govern the handling of trust accounts is essential to the health of your business. Maintain your records properly by investing in a tool specifically designed for the lending professional.

View The Mortgage Office™ Hardware and Software Requirements

State and Federal Regulations Dictate HELOC / Revolving Credit
servicers provide borrowers with timely notices.
ABS’S HELOC/Revolving Credit module allows you to generate those notices as well as informative management reports at any time, quickly and with minimal input.

With the HELOC/Revolving Credit Module SERVICERS CAM
•Assess finance charges and generate billing statements in a single step
•Generate detailed account activity, summarized information and finance charge calculations
•Automate the entire draw process
For those of you with the added complexity of multiple funding sources, the assistant will accurately distribute mid-month cash advances to more than a single funding source or lender and prorate disbursements accordingly.

APPLIED BUSINESS SYSTEMS (ABS)

CAN ACH Express FIND LOST Payments inside the Automated Clearing House (ACH) ?

ACH Express module processes loan payments and interest disbursements electronically and the funds are transferred directly from/to your bank account. So how could money be missing? You know all of the many stories where final mortgage payment misapplied and property placed into forced default, or final loan payments of a refinance misapplied and property placed into false defaults.

With ACH Express SERVICERS UTILIZING ABS’s SOFTWARE MODULES CAN:
•Electronically collect borrower payments and directly deposit funds to your lenders
•Eradicate human error and late payments
•Save money by eliminating mailing labor and hard costs
•Process thousands of borrower and lender payments effortlessly
In the past, only the largest and most prestigious companies enjoyed the benefits of electronic billing. By using ACH Express your company will be perceived as innovative, technologically advanced, service oriented, and efficient; a company that your borrowers and lenders can trust.

Mortgage Pool Servicing
The Mortgage Pool Servicing Module is designed to automate the managing of pools, partnerships, REITS, Mortgage Funds, LLCs, MICs, and non-performing loan pools. With this module you can determine the value of the pool at any given date while taking into account such things as loan payments, advances, accrued interest, late charges and deferred interest.

With the Mortgage Pool Servicing Module You Can
•Service an unlimited number of pools and partners
•Easily accept partner investments, issue distributions and process withdrawals
•Produce on demand professional pool statements
•Run year-end reporting, including Section J of the IRS schedule K-1, 1099-INT, etc.
Take your loan business to the next level by producing professional looking, accurate and up-to-the-minute partnership statements.

View The Mortgage Office™ Hardware and Software Requirements

WHAT IS A THRESHOLD BROKER AND ‘DRE LICENSE?

If you are a Threshold Broker operating under your DRE license, this module produces the mandated RE881 and RE852 reports.

With the DRE Reporting Module You Can
•Ensure state compliancy
•Decrease your CPA auditing and preparation fees
•Prepare California DRE forms 881 and 852
Information collected through the Loan Servicing module is used to accurately produce all the statistical information required on DRE Mortgage Loan/Trust Deed Annual Report form 881 and the Trust Accounting Report RE 852 for multi-lender transactions

U.S. Bancorp affiliates utilizes all modules?
Applied Business Systems:

Default Service Tracking
The Default Services and Tracking (DST) module provides a bi-directional interface between your Loan Servicing module and participating default service providers in a real-time environment. The DST Module is an easy to use, accurate and robust way to manage loan defaults.

With the DST Module INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS/BANKS AFFILIATES, SUBSIDAIRIES Can
•Electronically transmit defaulted loans to the vendor of your choice
•Obtain Real-time bi-directional integration
•Dramatically reduce the error-prone tasks with paperless processing
•Request to start a foreclosure with one simple click
Until now, automated, integrated systems such as these have only been available to large banks and national servicers, allowing them to take advantage of the latest technologies and reducing their costs dramatically. With DST you have the same capabilities and functions and it is included free of charge with the Loan Servicing module.

ALL AN AFFILIATE WOULD NEED IS A MICROSOFT COMPLAINT WORKSTATION AND ADDITIONAL REQUIRED SOFTWARE:

The Mortgage Office™ Hardware and Software Requirements

Workstation Configuration •Microsoft Windows Desktop Operating Systems
◦Windows 7 (Professional, Ultimate)
◦Windows Vista (Business, Enterprise, Ultimate)
◦Windows XP Professional
•Processor Speed: 2 GHz or faster
•RAM: 1 gigabyte or greater

Additional Required Software •Microsoft SQL Server 2005 or 2008 (applicable to SQL server version of The Mortgage Office only)
•Microsoft Office 2003 or newer. Microsoft Office 2010 is ecommended. Home and Student editions are not supported
•Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 or newer

MSR’S – Mortgage Servicing Rights

Misconduct on the part of the mortgage servicer’s affiliates?

CONSUMER ALERT – What to do? What to do?

ALL NATONAL BANKS UNDER OCC WHICH IS UNDER FEDERAL RESERVE SINCE 2006, CONTINUE PREVENTING ENFORCMENT OF LAWS INCLUDING CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS, RETAIL TRANSACTIONS WHICH HARM CONSUMERS AS BORROWRS AS INDIVIDUALS.

The ‘Mortgage Servicers’ Affiliates c/o Subsidairies of the ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA dba Cornerstone in agreements with third party’s consumers and their attorneyh’s not investigating who the real party’s are standing before the courts.

Don’t assume the MSR’s have the right to do what they do to you.
How did they get the right and are they applying the cash you send them to the creditor who owns the mortgage note? How would you know when you don’t know who owns the mortgage-backed note?

You’ve made payments for 29 years to who? How come so many people are in court trying to get property taken from they by deceptive acts like the last payment not applied and a false default occurs and the servicer quietly takes over possession of property at sheriff sale. How does that happen? Or how have you been paying your mortgage paymetns for 15 years, go to take a refiance and find out you are denied because (4) PAYMENTS WERE MISAPPLIED AND SOMEONE SOLD THE SERVICING RIGHTS TO ANOTHER SERVICER AND YOU HAVE NO NOTICES, NO RESOURCE NO ONE IN THE COURT OR GOVERNMETN WHO WILL HELP YOU!

Do you make/made payments to Chase Home Lending, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Ameirca’s Servicing Company, GMAC,
Litton Loan, Bank of America, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, etc. (owns the note). Note is owned by another entity not the “servicer” you send your payments too.

Servicers are debt collector who by agreement with (…’master servicer’ and/or ‘servicer’ and or subservicers ) c/o servicing companies’ back offices do generate bills, answer phones, and collect via lockboxes monthly payments c/o processing centers who redistribute funds. The ‘endorsement’ of mortgage payment on back of a check payable to?

A servicer can be defined as the company responsible for the following items:

1. Sending out bills
2. Accepting payments
3. Applying payments
4. Handling the escrow account
5. Imposing charges and fees
6. Handling any bankruptcy claims
7. Carrying out foreclosures.

The significance of being a servicer is certain laws apply including RESPA – Real Estate Settlement Practices Act. Existing state and federal laws can be very helpful when dealing with a servicer that lies, adds bogus fees, misapplies money, etc.

Servicers play a big role in wrongful and illegal foreclosures

A contractual agreement where the right, or rights, to service an existing mortgage are sold by the original lender to another party who specializes in the various functions of servicing mortgages. Common rights included are the right to collect mortgage payments monthly, set aside taxes and insurance premiums in escrow, and forward interest and principle to the mortgage lender.

Investopedia Says:
The mortgage servicer must supply an annual statement outlining the duties that were performed. In return for this assistance, the servicer is compensated with a specific fee outlined in the contract established at the beginning of the agreement. Mortgage servicing rights can be bought and sold, resulting in the transfer of any administrative obligations.

Many vertically integrated lenders today will service their mortgages in-house, which means they will also own both the loan and the servicing rights. These firms will also save money in the process.

The business of selling servicing rights for mortgages represents a large business niche, and is a multi-billion dollar industry.

For example:
The Mortgage Office™ is a powerful suite of lending solutions. With our comprehensive core loan servicing products and robust add-on products, you can custom build the most powerful and personalized mortgage software solution for your business.

The Mortgage Office Gives You
•Powerful. No other mortgage management software can match the power and robustness of The Mortgage Office
•Flexible. From the most simple interest only loans, to the most complex commercial loans, our mortgage software is the most flexible in the industry today.
•Easy to use. From emailing statements, to built-in document scanning, most functions can be done in one click or two.
•Increased productivity and accuracy. Our mortgage loan software automates and streamlines the process of loan servicing so your business can run more efficiently
•Enhanced reporting and forecasting abilities. Management and investors get detailed daily, weekly or monthly reports. Choose from hundreds of built-in reports or create your own
•Federal and local compliance. Enjoy peace of mind during audits knowing that you are meeting or exceeding local and federal regulations
•Scalability. Only buy what you need — as your business and services grow, your mortgage software can grow with it, making it an investment that will serve you for the life of your business
•Live software support. Personalized service & support from industry experts

U.S. Bancorp CDC Selects The Mortgage Office™ as its Loan Servicing Platform
8/1/2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Read Press Release

LOS ANGELES, Calif., August 1, 2011 – Applied Business Software Inc. (ABS), developer of The Mortgage Office™, the leading loan servicing software solution for the lending industry, is excited to announce that U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corporation (USBCDC), St. Louis, MO, a subsidiary of U.S. Bank (NYSE: USB), has selected The Mortgage Office™ as its servicing technology to manage its growing portfolio of New Market Tax Credit related loans.

Charity Braden, Director of Investment Fund Management and Loan Servicing for USBCDC said, “We needed a more robust and flexible loan servicing platform to manage our growing portfolio of New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) loans and to replace the multitude of individual spreadsheets used to track loan activity and subsequent cash distributions. Another goal was to be able to track upper-tier leverage loans within the NMTC structure and to streamline the internal accounting processes related to all of these loans on one system, thereby eliminating duplicative work.

USBCDC found this flexibility with The Mortgage Office™ software, along with the added bonus of affordability. ABS agreed to develop modifications to their current system in order to address the specific requirements of the NMTC deal structure. This will allow us to better service our own Community Development Entity (CDE), as well as better service and expand its marketable 3rd party services. We couldn’t be happier – we’ve already received the major part of the scoped customizations!”

About U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corporation (USBCDC)
USBCDC finances community development and affordable housing projects through the use of New Markets Tax Credits, Historic Tax Credits, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and Investment Tax Credits in Renewable Energy. USBCDC is the most active New Markets Tax Credit investor in the country, investing billions of dollars nationwide in hundreds of transactions. These equity investments have provided much needed revitalization and new resources to communities throughout the country. It is a subsidiary of U.S. Bank, the fifth largest commercial bank in the United States, whose parent company is U.S. Bancorp. Learn more at http://www.usbank.com.

About Applied Business Software
Applied Business Software, founded in 1978 and creator of The Mortgage Office™, is a market leader and global provider of software systems and solutions to the lending industry. The Mortgage Office™ is a complete suite of software products designed from the ground up to specifically address the needs of those who originate and service loans. The Mortgage Office™ has consistently rated superior in design, system interface, expandability, and ease of use. This Windows application collaborates fully with the Microsoft Office suite of products and is designed to make loan servicing more profitable and your overall business run more efficiently. ABS is based in Long Beach, California. For additional information about ABS’s products and services, visit http://www.themortgageoffice.com or call (800) 833-3343.

Applied Business Software, Inc.
Jerry Delgado
President
(562) 426-2188
jerrydelgado @ absnetwork . com

U.S. Bancorp CDC
Clair Higgins Community and Media Relations Manager, USBCDC
(314) 335-3321

Loan Origination Software | Loan Servicing Software | Mortgage Pool Servicing | Trust Accounting Software | Escrow Software | ACH Software | ARM Software
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations | Construction Loan Software | Credit Reporting Software | Default Services and Tracking | DRE Reporting | Financial Calculator
Graduated Terms Mortgages | Line of Credit Software | Web Publishing Central | Blog

Example of Modules – Complete set of hard money documents for all 50 states, 2010 RESPA regulations; private lending solutions; speed-up origiantion process, close more loans, with less staff:

Loan Origination Software
The Loan Origination module is specifically designed to originate loans funded by private lenders. Our software produces hard money lending documents on a per state basis. For California loans, it produces all necessary disclosures required by the Department of Real Estate and complies with the multi-lender regulations for fractionalized loans.

With the Loan Origination Module You Can
•Generate loan documents — from processing to closing
•Speed up the escrow process and save underwriting time
•Better manage your loan pipeline and forecasting
•Create your own documents or modify existing documents
With The Mortgage Office’s Loan Origination Module you can close more loans in less time and with less staff, which is the ultimate goal of any loan originator.

33 Responses

  1. One more thing which no one seems to point out- a recent post stated that her lender had ‘gone under’. This is a good point. If some entity ‘went under’, then it wasn’t the lender, and, if said entity was identified as your lender on your closing docs, then you have a table-funded loan. Lenders (banks) don’t go under, or bankrupt, they go into FDIC receivership, and are then merged into another bank which isn’t in as bad shape. So, if your ‘lender’ went under, then it wasn’t a bank. Banks just don’t close up at night, never to reopen. Every time someone here states that their ‘lender’ went out of business, they should be corrected. As Neil says, over, and over, and over, these were all table-funded loans. Under TILA, the LENDER has to be identified, with the name of a contact person and phone number. Period.

  2. ian – the borrower should know if there were an original. Borrowers must be given copies of anything and everything they sign at closing. One problem, however, might be that some originators made the borrower’s copy package prior to the docs being signed, in which case the borrower would only have a copy of an unsigned document. Even given all the current bs, I can’t imagine a closing without the note signed. The note goes in the warehouse package and people would have been screaming and calling the borrower to come back in.

  3. johngault- I actually saw an allonge the other day, or a copy of an allonge, or whatever it was, and it looked like the paper was just taken out of the middle of a 500 sheet ream of stationery. No creases, no staple marks, no tape marks, no effort whatsoever taken to make it appear as though it was ever permanently attached to anything, anywhere.
    I have been meaning to put forth the conjecture, that, if anyone, anywhere, has what purports to be a copy of an original document, then there must have, at some time, been an original. What if there was never an original?

  4. @dcb – interesting – thanks. For the very first time in all the time I have been reviewing pleadings in cases, someone has submitted an allonge to a note from the original lender (think it was – have to look again) to the trust. As you know, most endorsements are in blank and we all know why they did this when they bothered with endorsements at all (not to mention the missing endorsements between the originator and the trust). It was signed by “Mary Smith” in her corporate officer capacity for abc. Then, same Mary Smith, now identifying herself, with no evidence of course, as an agent for the trust executed another allonge from the trust to yet another party (or was it blank -again, have to look – memory is shot) who is now after the home. And of course, declarations are involved. One of the p’ing matches is over the fact that the allonges are not permanently affixed as required.
    That’s not a new match – what’s new, at least to me, is that there is an allonge (or endorsement at all) to the sec’d trust. It looks to me like the banksters are testing the water.
    The homeowner’s attorney is not asking for discovery. He made a slight reference to Mary Smith’s authority being suspect. He is standing on the lack of the allonge being affixed to the note.
    It never ends………

  5. Nancy when you said “Servicers are debt collector who by agreement with (…’master servicer’ and/or ‘servicer’ and or subservicers ) c/o servicing companies’ back offices do generate bills, answer phones, and collect via lockboxes monthly payments c/o processing centers who redistribute funds. The ‘endorsement’ of mortgage payment on back of a check payable to?

    A servicer can be defined as the company responsible for the following items:

    1. Sending out bills
    2. Accepting payments
    3. Applying payments
    4. Handling the escrow account
    5. Imposing charges and fees
    6. Handling any bankruptcy claims
    7. Carrying out foreclosures.

    The significance of being a servicer is certain laws apply including RESPA – Real Estate Settlement Practices Act. Existing state and federal laws can be very helpful when dealing with a servicer that lies, adds bogus fees, misappliesmoney,etc.”
    Are you saying that a “servicer” as such also falls under STATE AND FEDERAL Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)???? If so do you know of any case law? I am interested to know that this is a fact as it would help many of us in other ways to file complaints in court related to foreclosure.

  6. @dcb – didn’t I read that a corporation with no registration in a foreign state may not sue or be sued in any state where it is not registered as a foreign corporation? If that is true, it would have dramatic implications, would it not? And if people receive HAMP solicitations from servicers wherein the servicer identifies itself as a debt collector as they appear to do, it’s my opinion those servicers should be licensed in those states as debt collectors. Seems to me identifiying themselves as debt collectors belies any claim they are anything else.

  7. BSE

    This is strictly as to subprime.

    They “refinance” the subprime “collection rights” — after they purchase them. So, get you to sign new docs — with a NOTE. Problem is the NOTE and Refinance were procured by fraud – invalid — and so were the collection rights. Think of this way — sort of like the “load mods” that are being offered now. No different.

    You cannot refinance an already default debt – all you can get is a “mod.”. And, not without fraudulent title — mortgage title in effect — non-existent. “Debt collector” — and that is all you had with subprime “refinance” — collects on false GSE default/reject — but, not for the GSE — they sold the “rights.” Debt collector — collecting on modified GSE default/reject debt. That is all subprime is about.

    Separation of “note” and “mortgage” — BEFORE the refinance —Invalid “NOTE” — not secured. . Note without a mortgage — unsecured.

  8. ANONYMOUS,

    The actual “debt” is charged-off — only collection rights survive. And, where collection rights are sold/transferred/assigned — is not available due to deregulation

    So the debt is charged off. then the note is longer in existence, correct ? But what about the obligation ? How do they sell collection rights ? ,
    Who gets to collect these rights if they can not show a holder in due course ? How can they collect on something that had been charged off and how do they collect on something that onces exitied and now is gone ?
    I am trying to understand…

  9. @ JG
    “trust trustee to hold them in trust for the benefit of the trust”

    Technically the trustee is the nominal owner “for the benefit ” of the various parties with an interest in the trust. The Indenture trustee in this case where there is a securitization.

    if I set up a trust [agreement] with a trustee for the benefit of my kids upon my death, the trust documents define the duties and compensation of the trustee–usually a bank and trust company. There must be a named trustee that can be changed under the terms of the trust agreement.

    In the past, we had corporate bonds payable out of proceeds paid by the corporate issuer and an indenture trustee that was responsible for receiving the and distributing the payments among the thousands of bondholders. The bonds were secured by real estate or chattels or even receivables. The trustee’s responsibilities also involved default —demanding insurance and selling the collateral. So I could place into the trustee’s hands a lot of properties –eg O&G properties. But there was a single corporate payer.

    The REMIC stuff simply expanded upon the old single payer concept and pooled several notes [simply secured by the RE] ie several payers on several intangibles –the notes. The RE deed of trust is a slightly different older concept not actually directly related to securitization–in a mortgage state its a bit easier to keep the two trust concepts from getting mixed up.

    The notes are the assets that are entrusted to the indenture trustee—and it seems to me that could have a separate trustee fr the deed—subject to instruction by the indenture trustee as to what to do in event of default—but that could vary by state i assume—maybe the deed of trust must run to the trustee with nominal ownership of the notes.

    This gets to the split between trustee of the note and separate trustee of the deed. in a mortgage state–the note and securing right travel together. A mortgage by itself is nothing–it is simply a way to enforce a note. The note is the true asset of value. The mortgage can be lost as by a quiet title–but the note cannot be cut off but by the UCC. This was lost along the way–the servicers wanted to use the naked mortgage to seize the home–without going though the UCC note presentation and proof. This was not an error–the servicer could BLUFF the homeowner and COURT into giving over title to a house by default–and still have the note. The note could be sold and presented for payment all over again by another “innocent ” buyer. Or a deficiency collected–or both.

    It is the note that is important–I might hold the note and receive an unrecorded mortgage and then pursue the unrecorded mortgage/deed of trust. I put my priority at risk by failing to record–the homeowner could remortgage or sell the property and all Id have would be the note–a general obligation of the debtor homeowner–on a par with credit card debt.

    In an extreme case, for which I was at risk, the purported holder attempted to obtain title to the house without giving up the note. the servicer rep assured me that they never pursued deficiencies [ie a claim on the note]–they know all about this stuff. However, if I had turned over the house w/o getting the note back—-and then moved to another state and died–the servicer [on behalf of the trustee holder of the note] could have sued my estate and claimed my life insurance. my estate executor would have had no defense–except to argue partial satisfaction in another state due to the surrender of the security–the house. Valuation issues then would become a major issue and the burden of proof would have been on my executor. of course the note and costs etc wouldv been exaggerated etc so basically the servicer would have double collected. Beware these traps readers. Iv had moronic attorneys talk about stare decisis etc—and its crap–if the servicer has the note as well as the property you are screwed [term of art here]. hes just waiting for you to die or come up with new assets and then hell reappear–many people will suffer this in future years.

    The servicer has a side agreement with the indenture trustee in a simple case. The side agreement may be called a simple servicing agreement or it may be called a PSA. The Indenture Trustee assigns certain of the rights under the trust agreement to the servicer—–or the servicer could be merely appointed as the agent of the trustee —-a difference w/o much distinction–but could have subtle implications that are not readily apparent to me offhand. Basically the servicer is the agent of the trustee.

    In my opinion the servicer could act as the agent and if hes got an agency agreement to prove it–he could stand in the shoes of the trustee–iv seen it both ways. Personally, I believe they use the trust /trustee as the plaintiff to complicate things and confuse the defendant as to the capacity. It is possible that the servicers’ capacity vis the trust does not actually exist—the servicer collects money and splits it up or pockets it and has no relationship with the trustee bank—certainly use of a big bank name as a trustee etc is more intimidating which is what its all about.

    the part that I do not believe has been adequately explored is the filing of the loan schedule with SEC and/or relevant Sec state UCC as specified under the trust agreement.

    I do not believe that the inclusion in the filing of a list of 10,000 properties is perfunctory. it is required as part of the SEC filings and state perfection of lien in the note and/or the actual title transfer of the note at the time the trust was open to have notes included–to provide finality to the investors in the MBS–as well as to provide notice to the note promisor that he owes money to the trustee. The rule is there–there is no specific explanationas to who is the intended beneficiary of the protective rule–but it seems to me that several parties are supposed to be able to rely on the representation in the SEC filings

    The worst originators ignored the rule. It is also significant that the worst servicers today seem to specialize in these unfiled loan lists.
    There were different aspects to robosigning–the robosigners dealing with unfiled loan schedules seemed to have been selected so as to ask no questions. I wonder why? perhaps the notes were ababandoned by the real owners–perhaps nobody knew who the trusts really were because the unfiled loan lists meant the MBS were really simply unsecured debts of the originator? Ababandoned in the bankruptcy–if so chances are that the proceeds are actually simply pocketed by the servicer–especially if he specializes in this type of collection.

    This is theft of a sort–but if the owner does not know it–is it theft?
    Servicers seem to have that view. Like finding a dollar bill on the sidewalk.

    If the trust rules were ignored but the servicer is a bank in house operation—that is audited and subject to SARBOX–i suspect the bank is actually attempting to allocate the proceeds to a trust. The independent servicers are the more likely to engage in the finders keepers almost-theft. this seems to be the unregulated hole–in my view finders keepers has been statutorily pre-empted by state escheat laws. if I make a note and a servicer “finds” it but cannot draw a clear connection to a trust via SEC filings the note should escheat to the state where the property securing the note sits.

    This is the simple answer—if the plaintiff cannot definiytively prove ownership, the state AG has the escheat claim and mods should be worked out with the state AG.

    If this is not the case–but the proof exists that the note supposedly went to a trust but the trust failed–then the arrangeent is not a qualifying REMIC–but a taxable event—-the mod is a taxable closed transaction. The vulture investor that has an ouside basis of 15 cents and receives a modidified note for 50 cents realizes and recognizes taxable gain. It is a partnership–the gain is spread across all the investor units. Most likely tax evasion occurring.

  10. Proof of massive bankers’ fraud. Originators all buried?

    PROOF THAT POTENTIALLY MILLIONS OF LOANS BETWEEN 2003 – 2007, WERE FRAUDULENT – BY THE BANKERS!??
    FHFA (and OFHEO) Legal Filings
    http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=110
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

    FHFA Filings in PLS Cases, September 2, 2011:

    Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC
    2. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………..41
    a. Government and Private Investigations Confirm That the
    Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
    Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting
    Guidelines………………………………………………………………………………42
    i. New Century Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines……….43
    ii. HFN Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines……………………46
    iii. MLN Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines…………………..48
    b. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further
    Shows that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines …………………….49
    c. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated
    in Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines…………………50

    Bank of America Corporation
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………45
    1. Government Investigations and Private Litigants Have Confirmed
    That the Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
    Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting Guidelines ………45
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..51
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………53

    Barclays Bank PLC
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………32
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
    of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
    to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..33
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines. ……………………………………………………….37
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..38

    Citigroup, Inc.
    B. The Originators Of The Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………45
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That The Originators
    Of The Loans In The Securitizations Systematically Failed To
    Adhere To Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………45
    i. Wells Fargo …………………………………………………………………………46
    ii. Countrywide ………………………………………………………………………..49
    iii. American Home …………………………………………………………………..50
    iv. Argent ………………………………………………………………………………..52
    v. WMC………………………………………………………………………………….54
    vi. Inflated Appraisals ……………………………………………………………….55
    2. The Collapse Of The Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    That The Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated In Adherence To
    The Stated Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………56

    Countrywide Financial Corporation
    B. Countrywide Systematically Disregarded Its Underwriting Guidelines …………….69
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That Countrywide
    Routinely Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting Guidelines ………………….70
    a. Investigations and Actions of Federal Authorities …………………….70
    b. Admissions in Countrywide’s Internal Reporting and
    Emails ………………………………………………………………………………..75
    c. Deposition Testimony of Countrywide’s Top Executives ………….78
    2. Actions Brought by State Enforcement Authorities and Private
    Litigants Have Corroborated that Countrywide Systematically
    Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………81

    Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………52
    1. A Forensic Review of Loan Files Has Revealed Pervasive Failure
    to Adhere to Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………….53
    (a) Stated Income Was Not Reasonable ……………………………………….55
    (b) Evidence of Occupancy Misrepresentations …………………………….57
    (c) Debts Incorrectly Calculated ………………………………………………….58
    (d) Credit Inquiries That Indicated Misrepresentation of Debt ………..59
    2. Government Investigations and Other Evidence Have Confirmed
    That the Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
    Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting Guidelines ………61

    Deutsche Bank AG
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………45
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
    of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
    to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..45
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..54
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………56

    First Horizon National Corporation
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………46
    1. First Horizon Home Loan Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting
    Guidelines ……………………………………………………………………………………..46
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..48
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquencies and Defaults Further
    Indicates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………50

    General Electric Company
    6. Falsity Of Statements In The Registration Statements And
    Prospectus Supplements…………………………………………………………………..26
    a. The Statistical Data Provided in the Prospectus
    Supplements Concerning Owner-Occupancy and Loan-To-
    Value Ratios Was Materially False…………………………………………26
    b. Owner-Occupancy Data Was Materially False…………………………26
    c. Loan-to-Value Data Was Materially False ………………………………28
    d. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans
    Systematically Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines………31
    e. Government and Private Investigations Confirm That the
    Originator of the Loans in the Securitizations
    Systematically Failed to Adhere to Its Underwriting
    Guidelines …………………………………………………………………………..31

    Goldman Sachs & Co.
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………54
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
    of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
    to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..55
    2. The Collapse of the GSE Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further
    Indicates that the Mortgage Loans Were not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………64
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquencies and Defaults Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………66

    HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………38
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
    of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
    to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..39
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    That the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..46
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates That the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………48

    JPMorgan Chase & Co.
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………….134
    1. Government Investigations and Private Actions Have Confirmed
    That the Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
    Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting Guidelines …….135
    iv
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………142
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines …………………………….146

    Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp.
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………66
    1. Government Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators
    of the Loans in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere
    to Their Underwriting Guidelines ……………………………………………………..67
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..74
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………77

    Morgan Stanley
    2. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………44
    a. Government and Private Investigations Confirm That the
    Originators of the Loans in the Securitizations
    Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their Underwriting
    Guidelines …………………………………………………………………………..45
    i. New Century Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines ………46
    ii. WMC Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines…………………49
    iii. IndyMac Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines …………….50
    iv. Wilmington Violated Its Underwriting Guidelines…………51
    b. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further
    Shows that the Mortgage Loans were not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ……………………52
    c. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not
    iii
    Originated in Adherence to the Stated Underwriting
    Guidelines …………………………………………………………………………..54

    Nomura Holding America Inc.
    B. The Originators of the Underlying Mortgage Loans Systematically
    Disregarded Their Underwriting Guidelines …………………………………………………38
    1. Investigations Have Confirmed That the Originators of the Loans
    in the Securitizations Systematically Failed to Adhere to Their
    Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………………….38
    2. The Collapse of the Certificates’ Credit Ratings Further Indicates
    that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in Adherence to the
    Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………………………………..43
    3. The Surge in Mortgage Delinquency and Default Further
    Demonstrates that the Mortgage Loans Were Not Originated in
    Adherence to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines ………………………………45

    The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
    Generally the same allegations as uniformally described above regarding the Originators’ systematic disregard for their own underwriting guidelines.

    Société Générale
    Generally the same allegations as uniformally described above regarding the Originators’ systematic disregard for their own underwriting guidelines.

  11. @dcb – that looks like good info. I need to read it 3 more times to get what is said. My question, though, centers around a note which did make it into a trust. I don’t think the trust owns the note. I think the trust only owns the rights to made payments by way of payment streams / return on investment in the derivatives. The trust, it’s been said here, can’t own the notes. That leaves the depositor or the trust trustee to hold them in trust for the benefit of the trust. So which is it? When a dot trustee holds title to real property (title-theory state), he holds it in trust for the benefit of the beneficiary and in the event of default, he is contractually (dot) entitled to garner the collateral for the beneficiary. *Does the psa or other governing document actually spell out a sec’d trust trustee’s entitlement to enforce the note and thus the dot (assuming it’s not bifurcated) for the benefit of the share investors?* Or is this entitlement given to servicers? If we want judges to understand these dynamics, we have to understand them ourselves. If it’s that one psa may say it’s the trustee with the gun and another which say it’s the servicer, those documents must be produced or a judge simply cannot be called upon to adjudicate anyone’s rights, or more to the point, a judge just doesn’t have the info he needs.
    Why is a homeowner to assume anything? A judge may not assume anything properly, either. What trust? What trust trustee? Last I knew, I got a loan with ABC Broker. I got a letter stating I should make my payments to XYZ, but ABC never told me XYZ was in charge if I default. The only document I have which addresses my default is the deed of trust to ABC Lender. My dot says the lender may tell the dot trustee to foreclose. I don’t see any reference to a servicer being able to foreclose. I don’t have any document which says GHI may sign documents for the dot trustee. If I don’t have it, the judge doesn’t have it, either. We don’t have to draw a map for them, which is what we inadvertantly do. My loan was with ABC. If someone else wants to foreclose, they need to provide me and the judge with anything I dont’ have which shows their authority to do so.

    Does everyone here understand that “MERS” assigns nothing? MERS does nothing, ever. It is only members who act in MERS’ name, such as in the execution of an assignment of the dot. The only court confronted with the true dynamic of these “MERS” assignments threw out the one in front of him (Koontz- take 5) calling it a sham because it was executed by an employee of a servicer/bankster, not a MERS’ employee. And this doesn’t consider the broken chain of title for the dot.

    The dot trustee should be given evidence that anyone, whomever, is the note holder and true beneficiary of the dot and further, he must be given evidence of my default. He can’t foreclose legally if he doesn’t have this documentation. Here I remind you if I may that the fc mills (not to be confused with dot trustees) are given passwords so they can get in the servicer’s database. They are given access to things they have no business accessing. They can pull an unrelated party’s social security number and confidential information, for instance, and they probably turn around and sell it to marketing firms. I don’t know who regulates that stuff, but they should be putting an end to it. AG?

  12. @bill kay – everyone in NV or any state where QLS is not registered as a foreign corporation with the SOS to do business in that state or specifically in NV where QLS was found (courtesy of attorney Geof Giles, I believe) to be an unlicensed debt collector should file a complaint with their Financial Institutions Division (by whatever name): QLS was forced to become licensed by NV as a debt collector, but since the division did not make that license retro-active, QLS imo may not proceed on pre-licensure actions.
    So if QLS as alleged sub trustee for a dot issued a Notice of Default prior to its licensure, bzzzt!: Not! They must issue a Notice of Default under their newly acquired license, which means START OVER. QLS appears to have yet another party (fc mill?) actually execute the NOD’s and Notice of Trustee’s Sale. As I’ve said, the ‘record produces no evidence’ of that other party’s authority to execute jack for QLS. For these reasons, imo, the NOD’s, etc. are fatally defective.

    Aurora Loan Services, LLC after swearing to be the rpii subsequently identified itself as a debt collector. ALS is not licensed, either, in Nevada and no doubt every other state as a debt collector. ALS is only registered in NV as a loan servicer. In order to ‘operate’ in any state, an out of state business must be registered in that state with the Secretary of State.
    It’s fairly easy to determine the status of one’s own nemisis. Go to the SOS’s website and search their name. A) If you don’t find your bankster, file a complaint with the secretary of state. B) Then file a complaint with the financial division (might be found under Dept of Business and Industry, like in NV) stating that the bankster is operating without 1) a proper registration to do business in that state and 2) as applicable, that the bankster is acting as an unlicensed debt collector. You can also file a notice of these objections to the foreclosure actions under your parcel number with the county recorder. See below.
    I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice. It’s just what I’d do. It isn’t complicated at all. You can probably do most if not all the complaints at the websites or at least download complaint forms there.

    I think it would be a mistake to think that SOS’s and state financial institutions’ regulators don’t care. They care. They want and need the licensing fees. If they were bombarded, as they should be, they’d also have to hire more people. If everyone files legitimate notices with county recorders, they’d have to hire more people, too.

    BTW, I would be dismayed to see our Postal Service be toast. If you agree, please buy greeting cards or something and mail them – quickly!
    You may not care today, but you may care tomorrow.

  13. @johngault,

    I think I know who you are. We have a bunch of people in common: Ashworth, Yarnall, Corena etc.

    Please email me: leavinglasvegas_2011@yahoo.com

    Keep up the fight!

  14. @JG
    A legally established trust that has been properly vested with title to property is the owner of that property–be it a note or a chattel or realty. A corporation may similarly be vested with title. A legal partnership may be vested with title. A joint venture nmay be vested with title. The differences in the organizational structures alter the legal liability to other persons of the entity holding title. As well–or more importantly, the form of ownership entity affects the taxability of the transactions which establish the vesting of title–eg non-recognition of gain etc.

    If the trust was not properly formed or the notes were not properly transfered over to the trust, then the trust may not be recognized by third parties and may lack legal significance even as against the promisor on the note. If a trust is entitled to special tax treatment–eg non-recognition—-and the state law indicia of ownership of the notes–corpus were not followed the trust is disregarded under state law and then the federal law follows the state–and the trust is disregarded for all purposes.

    Where the grantor –ahka depositor igorde the state law and/or failed to perfect the transfer by filing the loan schedule–specifying the notes transfered under the purported PSA –then the owners if they have any interest have at best an undivided interest as joint venturers under state law and a JV under state law is treated as a taxable partnership under subchapter K IRC. Thus the intial resale of the trust units are actually partnership units and tax arises on the transfer—-and the subsequent modifcation of the loan/note or refi is a closed transaction whch triggers tax as calculated by reference to both the partnerships original cost basis [inside basis] AND the outside basis of the individial partners –investors. There are sweeping effects of the failed trusts—-large liabilities triggered at every juncture. unexpectedly. Many of the purported trusts established by option one and old ahmsi were not properly vested—–loan lists not filed with SEC nor in at least one case with the SEc State UCC perfection–that certainly alters the priority of creditors of the partnership /failed trust and its not a REIT nor REMIC.

    tax evasion may be a motive– it is hard to undestand why so many significant errors occurred systematically–more than just a hurry

    the investors under the trusts /partnerhips have lost priority–to gneral crditors of the depositors –the notes remained the assets of the originators unless conveyed according to the psa–or if secondary evidence exists that indicates that a transfer took place but a trust nmeeting state and irs requirements was not vested properly or was a mrer sham–then the nasty tax efects occur

    this is where the frauds occurred –not the robosigning–the robosigning was just a WAY TO CONCEAL THE UNDERLYING WEAKNESS—-

  15. Is a securitized note yet a negotiable instrument? One party owns the note, but another has the right to payment. (And is this the true dynamic – does one party own the note while another has the right to payment?) Does anyone own a note after securitization? Does the note still exist when the rights to payment has been modified by those rights’ conversion to stock derivatives? How could any singular party be a ‘holder’ of such an
    instrument when the party who owns the note has no right to payment?

  16. August 12, 2011

    Nevada Dept of Business and Industry
    Financial Institutions Division
    2785 East Desert Inn Road
    Las Vegas, NV 89121

    attn: Paul Ashworth

    re: QUALITY LOAN SERVICES

    Dear Mr. Ashworth,

    Quality Loan Services was the recipient of a Cease and Desist order
    from your division in October of 2010.

    Quality Loan Services, a foreign corporation on information and
    belief with no registration in Nevada, issued a Notice of Default in a foreclosure action allegedly instituted by MERS in 2008, at a time when QLS was unlicensed in Nevada to do so.

    The Financial Institutions Division issued the Cease and Desist
    Order. In that QLS now purports to proceed on action begun prior
    to its licensure, it’s our opinion your division should enforce
    its own ruling. In the instant case, that would mean as far as
    our understanding goes that your division would issue a Cease
    and Desist order against the activity begun pre-licensure and
    apply any warranted fines and penalties for non-licensed activity
    prescribed by the laws of the State of Nevada, and that it is your
    duty to do so, i.e., enforce your own edict.

    It may be that certain parties will ultimately be found in legal
    positions to foreclose on the property as well as many, many
    other properties in Nevada. Those lawful positions may not be
    found, however, in the absence of compliance with, as it
    concerns your division, your own ruling which was not made
    retro-active.

    Any legitimate parties to foreclosure actions begun by unlicensed parties must begin anew in full compliance with the licensing requirement imposed by your division. As it relates to Quality Loan Services on the singular issue of licensing, now that QLS has obtained that license, it must proceed anew, starting with a proper, lawful Notice of Default, notwithstanding the fact that QLS is not properly registered to do business in Nevada with the Secretary of State.

    Further, these parties attempt to avoid Nevada’s mandates for
    mediation, mandates which were added to Nevada statutes subsequent
    to the 2008 foreclosure actions. The continuation of unlicensed
    activity seeks to vitiate our rights and those of all persons
    similarly situated in Nevada and avoid the laws of Nevada.

    We are not at this moment knowledgeable about all the ramifications
    to other parties for their appointment of an unlicensed party to
    act as a debt-collector and to continue on those actions, and thus respectfully reserve comment other than to say, if we may, such
    appointment and continuation is legally errant, and demonstrates those parties’ efforts to avoid the laws of this state.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    ______________________________

    John Q. Homeowner Jane Q. Homeowner

  17. @ anon

    excuse my inexect language “endorse the note over to a collection agency—cant assign a note per se—can assign certain contract rights but UCC has codified this particular type of contract right and specified the manner of assignment –ie by endorsement

  18. @ Anonymous

    I do not understand,
    is not available due to deregulation.
    what is not available—-i understand that an owner of a note can write down or write off the debt and assign the note to a collection agency—but a debt w/o a note is no debt at all–UCC —it is irrelevant to the obligor what was happening in the back office re valuation–witness greece

    i do not understamnd the trailing comment however

  19. FRAUD FIGHTER- you have your facts backwards. The PSA or trust docs prohibit a NON-PERFORMING (defaulted) loan from being assigned into the trust. See Judge Schack (Kings County, NY) I do believe that he was the first person in the USA to take note of this glaring deficiency. And since all “notes” are fraudulently assigned to the alleged “foreclosing trust” just prior to the foreclosure action, this is another reason why all foreclosures directly contravene the laws currently in place.

  20. @tenna

    Typically the investor is a passive trust or beneficiary of a trust–or could just be a holder of a note as a corp that contracts with a combo atty collection agency to make the filings and even the calls—-the plaintiffs love to draw the distinction that they have to be in direct contact with the debtor to be subject to FDCPA——but if the 3 have a common purpose and know what each is doing–its a syndicate—and if its illegsal its a criminal syndicate

    so if i borrow money from the godfather and promise to pay him $$$ at usurious rates in an illegal loan, and he has an atty file a claim to seize my assets and just to make sure that i havent hidden it somewhere the atty goes and hires a thug to break my legs–and relates it to the godfather who suggests a name–all three are involved in a conspiract to loanshark–and if they do it to 3 people its RICO——its that simple

    lets not elevate these people out of this scenario—because this is what they do and what they are–and the realtor that sells the asset seized with knowledge of the forced delivery–of the extortion is also part of the conspiracy–a RICO participant–only question is whether its knowing or unknowing by realtor–but if there is a pattern its a question of fact for the jury as to whether its reasonable to believe the realtor did not KNOW

  21. AP # 423-56-089-555

    1234 Main Street
    Still an American Town, NM 55555

    A foreclosure was started in May of 2008 on this property. A
    Notice of Default was recorded on May 5, 2008.
    A substitute of trustee was allegedly done to Quality Loan
    Services, a California Corporation on information and belief
    with no corporate registration with the Nevada Secretary of
    State to conduct business in Nevada.
    The substitution of trustee was recorded by another party and
    recorded six weeks later on June 19,2008 in the records of the
    Clark County, NV Recorder’s Office.

    The record produces no evidence of anyone’s authority to make the

    substitution.
    An assignment of the deed of trust to Aurora Loan Services, LLC
    was not found in the records of the Clark County, NV recorder’s
    office until March 16, 2010 with an execution in December, 2009.

    The 2008 Notice of Default is defective.

    The Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee’s Sale were not executed
    by parties to the documents; the record produces no evidence of any
    right or authority to execute these instruments for the named parties.

    The record does not support any actions currently being
    undertaken by any of these parties. There is no compliance
    with either contractual provisions nor the provisions of
    the laws of Nevada.

    The issues listed are not exhaustive. The parties signing
    below intend in and by this notice to preserve these issues and
    any others relevant hereto and their rights accordingly.

    ________________________________ ___________________________

    John Q. Homeowner Jane Q. Homeowner

  22. ANONYMOUS & tnharry

    How can we prove that the debt was charged off?? Have you or anyone ever been able to prove this to a court??

    Is it charged off in a double set of the books that no one can ever see or is it in a rule or law that they have to do this. Someone wrote in that it is against the SEC to sell a performing note into a Trust.

    I really need to have as much proof as possible before my hearing in one week. I had a hearing last month and when I said that the Note no longer existed, I could not back it up with any proof. Or I didn’t explain it correctly.

    Help!!! Help!!!!

  23. APN: 423-45-089-555

    Recording Requested by
    John Q. Homeowner and Jane Q. Homeowner

    After recording, send to
    1234 Main Street
    Still an American Town, NV 55555

    August 11, 2011

    _________________________________________________________

    NOTICE is hereby given of the claims, information,
    preservations and reservations
    in the attached affecting the real property commonly
    known as

    1234 Main Street
    Still an American Town, NV

    and by legal description:

    THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) of the

    Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 18, Township 49

    North, Range 35 East, described as follows:

    Lot Four (4) as shown by Map Thereof in File 24 of

    Parcel Maps, Page 83 in the Office of the County

    Recorder of Any County, Nevada.

    _________________________ _______________________

    John Q. Homeowner Jane Q. Homeowner

  24. tnharry

    You are correct — collection attorneys — by law — cannot purchase debt. But, they can invest in affiliations. However, they are not the debt buyer — they act on behalf of the debt buyer. But, rarely disclose that party.

  25. there’s an ongoing misunderstanding about collection atty=debt collector=bought the right to collect for pennies on the dollar. those are not same thing

  26. Louise

    The actual “debt” is charged-off — only collection rights survive. And, where collection rights are sold/transferred/assigned — is not available due to deregulation.

    That is the big problem.

  27. This is really the crux of the problem today. These operations–in particular the independents are not going to be investment companies etc——but they are the entities that assign note collection rights to thers–that have opportunities to ivert monies, abuse homeowners, distort Congressional intent–or simply ignore it. They contract the robo-signers [See AHMSI vs LPS for example], they contract with property pteservers that strip homes–they make sweet heart deals with low ball buyers –they refuse modifications, they predate homeowners at every level. They avoid regulation across the board–but they deserve regulation more than any other group. The private ones can avoid Sarbannes Oxley—-they have the info on homeowners that can be used to damage their credit ratings–they often are related to the predatory originators and even the fly by nite securitizers. [See for example the now defunct [old] AHMSI.

    They are interstate even international—-they have the greatest ability to do the most harm–but nothing seems to be aimed at them. Nothing seems to be considered to rein them in–they contract the worst of the lawyers—they defraud the courts—but they simply are ignored. It eludes me why? As largely unregulated entities, they can engage in a variety of abuses—make facilitating payments and corrupt the system. The near invisibility suggests that they are the source of the worst corruption–that banks use them to do the real dirty work while maintaining credible deniablity. In order to attribute the awful practices of the servicers to the banks that de-stabilize the whole system, one must prove conspiracy–RICO—-hard to accomplish and just the use of the terminolgy makes the homeowner sound like a wacko—but its the basis of the whole operation.

    The servicers deserve a special set of regulations aimed at them–that reflects their role as dirty-doers. Today the FDCPA seems the only brake on them–and difficult to prove and very small teeth. The rest of these rule changes simply obscure the true source of the abuse—-all the rules in the world on banks are meaningless if these devils’ disciples are not drawing fire directly and with nasty sanctions—-these ae the people that hire the thugs–that actually threaten and intimidate–not white collar victimless money crimes but truly organized crime using thugs and extortion.

  28. Louise right and the important use of the ‘vernacular’ in accordance with the laws that govern the release of that information or you get no response.

    Creditor
    Temporay Lender
    ‘Purchaser’ c/o TRUST custodian Non-Deposit Trust Company Non-Member to paid cash to bank closing agent c/o Depositor who sold loan 0123456789 and the Temporary Lender signed as Aales & Servicer Agreement through which they ‘co-signed’ if you will the ‘borrower’s’ promissory note already approved, upon signature of borrower cash Passed from ‘TRUST’ account of some pension fund of some teachers union perhaps and that cash passed to Depositor. If Wells Fargo & Chase c/o Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp. Any affilites of national banks c/o MERS which follow Chase Manhattan Bank NA, ….’Mortgage Servicers’ affiliates all (appraisers, temporay lenders – underwriters – title agency – title insurance company – etc.)

    Ask for evidence will require INJUNCTION ! What to do what to do?

  29. Remember, when you send a Hitler letter to any of the servicers a/k/a debt collectors, you are asking for EVERY transaction related to your debt, the ORIGINAL BLUE INK SIGNED NOTE or credit card contracts, the correct account numbers from the inception of the loan/debt. If they do not have them, they are screwed. Debt collectors buy the right to collect, not the actual debt. They are notoriously bad at document management.

  30. Can anyone give me the exact definition of a “Beneficial Holder?” I don’t seem to be able to locate a legal definition.

  31. FREDDIE MAC’s ‘partner’ Chase Mortgage Corp, merger with Chemical Bank, U.S. Trust Corporation acquisitions, divestitures, NACOR joint venture with Wells Fargo 1996, Norwest Mortgage, Inc. and GMAC Mortgage Corp of IA since 1995, c/o GMAC RFC all partners c/o Wells Fargo & Co) don’t forget these important ‘playes’ in the amended complaint….

    Read the case on the blog for the blogger deserves the ‘read’ on their own website posted 2011-09-03 16:33 ‘Now the game gets interesting 9/2/2011:

    by Karl Denninger
    in Foreclosuregate
    “Here It Comes” (RICO Case Against JP Morgan/Chase)
    Thirty-two Plaintiffs have filed a multi-count Complaint in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida against JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance, LLC. The Plaintiffs retained Jeff Barnes, Esq., whose Firm, W. J. Barnes, P.A., filed the action last Friday.

    The 29-page Complaint alleges several causes of action including violations of the Florida RICO Act, and requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief on a national level to halt all Chase-related foreclosure activity in the eight (8) separate states in which the Plaintiffs reside. The Complaint alleges a pattern of criminal activity on the part of JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance in connection with the institution of both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures, including but not limited to the filing and recording, in the public records, of forged and fraudulent documents; fraudulent collection activities; intentional misuse of the MERS system; and the intentional misrepresentation, in foreclosures across the United States, that Chase is the “successor in interest” to Washington Mutual Bank when in fact Chase itself has affirmatively represented, in multiple Federal court filings in different states, that it is NOT the successor in interest to WaMu, and only purchased certain defined assets and liabilities from the FDIC as Receiver for WaMu
    The issue here appears to be that JP Morgan has been running around suing people for foreclosure alleging that it is the successor in interest of Washington Mutual (remember WaMu, the bank that got me interested in writing in the first place when they were paying dividends out of capitalized interest? Yes, them.) when in fact all they acquired was certain defined assets and liabilities on a strict and written schedule from the FDIC.

    The FDIC, of course, is the actual “receiver” when a bank fails – they “take it over” and then do whatever – in this case, parcel out the assets and liabilities for whatever they can get. This was one of those “forced marriage” deals but it appears that Chase did not acquire the firm “in toto”.

    ‘Ya can’t sue over something you don’t own, basically, or so the allegation is, and yet it is alleged they have and are, repeatedly and knowingly.

    Oh boy…..

  32. Embarrassing each time my thoughts while researching are posted.. Aking questions while synthesize factual data reveals answers to the conundrums consumers facting. I collect information and these are ‘notes’ that lead to important information.

    Example: During the enforcement of the Patriot Act 2001, how did all of the ‘cash’ get taken out of ‘trust’ custody c/o Non-Deposit Trust Company Non-Member – Account Holder of a ‘commercial checking account’ deposited into an ‘Originator as Seller’s Depositior’s commercial checking account? one mortgage at a time, and harm the economy heard around the world September 2008?

    Read Eule’s important case in which the regulators of safe and sound community minded reinvestment of bank deposits governed away peoples dreams, lives, and runiation of a nation?

    The cash was laundered into cash deposits and the cash deposits were moved out of the nation. because the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and his highness himself, the Child of the Federal Reserve since 2006, placed and enforced OCC Visitorial Powers (under Supramacy Clause) protected all ‘Mortgage Servicer’s Affiliates of National Bank’ for example, ‘exemption’ cash transactions attached to ‘mortgages’ exempt from being recorded under Patriot Act 2001 regulations – exempt – all of the cash’ transactions purchaser and seller, for example, all of the cash receivables from payment processing lockboxes, all of the cash prefunding which paid commissions – huge commissions to Depositor, Master Servicer, Underwritiers who claim to have purchased the certificates, claim to have placed in exchange for cash placed into the ‘prefunding’ of each ‘loan trust’ cash deposits …. hmmm where did the cash go.

    According to research of Chase Manhattan Corp, merger with Chemical Bank, US TRUST CORPORATION, the cash deposits are immediately moved out of USA into other accounts worldwide for a day up to 90 days up to 9 months and ….

    According to the FFIEC . GOV report 5/1999, Chase Manhattan Corp, the fair haired child of the Federal Reserve c/o Freddie Mac, did have ownership of ‘Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., was an RSSD ID of Chase Mortgage Corp thur May 1999, and did ‘MERS” follow the national bank’s parent as an affiliate of the Federal reserve system? As a data processing Service Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. in VA, along with FREDDIE Mac in VA, did release the 2003 MERS National Registry version 1.0, in which the OWNERS agree (FREDDIE MAC, Chase Manhattan Corp, Chemcial Bank, U.S. Trust Corp, Norwest Corp, Wells Fargo & Co, GMAC, Wilmington Trust dba Wells Fargo Bank NA’s affiliates include Aurora Loan Services –Deutsche Bank Trust Americas, DBT Co LTD a Non-Deposit Trust Co Non-Member, formely dba Bankers Trust until 2002 when OCC bullied its supreme extraordinary powers before the Kings of foreign nations they would protect the cash transactions of the Federal Reserves Private Wealth invested in infrastructure of North America c/o Finance Universe.

    MERS Members able to do business in all 50 states, US Territories across North America as an affiliate of a national bank, under Visitorial Powers of Office of Comptroller of Currency c/o Federal Reserve who ‘blessed’ the alignment of the originators and servicers during 1990’s all ready, integrated, across Finance Universe, to move cash from Alt-A Loans also known by Government Sponsored Entities to be NON-CONFORMING and placed inside of — ‘carefully’ placed inside of (no disclosure) into Alternative investments by 2000 consumers believed the hype, spin, commercial advertising of Chase, Wells Fargo & Co, GMCA, FREDDIE MAC, Federal Home Loans Corporations (12 Banks), Freddie Mac’s Financial Investor conduits, MERS MEMBERS, all national bank affiliates, Together We’ll Go Far! aided by FREDDIE MAC’s fair haired child and close partner Chase and Chase’s partners c/o Norwst Asset Securities Corp ‘NASCOR’ in which (Chase, Wells Fargo & GMaC) with Microsoft attached to consumer ‘deposits’ safe and found banking practices c/o wild wild web, into the Finance Universe c/o MSN . COM a ‘trade mark’ c/o Home Technologies,,Inc, (joint venture) born and diversified 2000-2001, one year, into multiple IPO’s and private ventures which include Lenders Processing Services a division of DOCX,, mergers, acquistions, divestitrures, of all the Lawyers Title Services bank closing agents, all fo the title agencies, all of the title plants, all of the title & settlement services c/o Mortgage Servicers affilaites of national banks did and do harm the economy.

    2003 the esclation of cash being laundered attached to ‘mortgages’ which are attached to Mortgage Servicer’s Retail Transactions, c/o Sales & Servicing Agreements, the ‘cash’ deposits attached to a ‘loan’ that is forward sold c/o Seller’s Depositor who lised over financial exchange is a Registrant one who is responsible for the ‘cash’ deposits c/o the Account Holder of Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp formerly known as Norwest Asset Securities Corp, who takes all ‘cash’ deposits attached to ‘mortgage promissory notes’ already co-signed by the Temporary Lender who ‘approved’ the non-conforming loan and became the named party of the only statutoory assignment filed with the County Clerks throughout the USA, and that Temporary Lender a ‘Mule’ to move cash from ‘TRUST’ custoday in which the Institutional Investors’ -Non-Depsoit Trust Compnay Non-Member ‘withdrew cash’ out of its ‘commercial checking account’ — Where did that cash come from? CALPERS PENSION FUNDING?, California Division of Corporations PENSION FUND? FUNDS for Municipal Bonds of each municipality of each state of this once great nation soon to ‘pretend’ to take back c/o the regulatory agencies put in place who oversw the snakes inteh grass? Seriously can you rest at night with the Snakes in the Grass? The Sitting President of the United States who walked in and promised to make a difference, to believe we could change and move forward – did not mean ignoring the money laundering, not looking at the RETAIL TRANSACTIONS the SOURCE of the ‘cash’ which 2003-2008 was a Tsunami and taking of possession of property of third parties ‘purchasers’ personal property ‘cash’ from other funds of other investors, attaching to infrastructure of national banks and federal banks approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the fair haired child of the Federal Reserve, 2006 forward the child of the Federal Reserve, no longer the step-child of Congress, adopted’ legally the boss with extraordinary powers, to ‘ignore’ all retail transactions ALL RETAIL TRANSACTIONS, did I say that yet ALL RETAIL ‘MORTGAGE’ Servicing Agreements c/o national banks and federal savings banks of Lehman Brothers Bank FSB and Wells Fargo Bank NA, and Bear STearns Alternative Investmenets were not subject to regulatory oversight of ‘other’ federal regulatory agencies, any did I say any affilaites of ‘Mortgage Servicers’ who are the only contact a consumer as borrower signing the only statutotry Assignment filed with public office connects ‘borrower via Loan #’ , Seller ordering the sale fo the loan accepting cash c/o Depositor ‘Registrant of SEC who takes cash passed from ‘TRUST’ whose funds sorry whose ‘cash’ not the cashof the ‘Account Holder’ DBT Co LTD a New Jersey Non-Deposit Trust Company classification of the Federal Reserve who moved millions, billions, of ‘cash’ its was in ‘custody’ of as a TRUST COMPANY, attached that cash designed for a Loan, classified as a ‘mortgage’ c/o Mortgage Servicers’ affilaites of national banks ‘Exempted’ from money laundering regulations did I say that is but fore , henceforth, the escalation of MERS COMMERCIAL, the shakeup ‘win’ for Mortgage Servicers affilaites ‘commercial clients’ attached to a national bank or federal savings bank, the FInancial Holding Company Parent whould take ‘cash’ in custody of a ‘Trust Company’ and pass the cash to the ‘Trust Fund’ depositor of the pending REMIC purchase order sheet in whcih a seriies of loan# are affixed to the ‘cash’ ordered out of the DBT Co LTD Account Holder – Non-Deposit Trust Co Non-Member the cash remitter ‘ordered by the Tempoary Lender’ the payee the ‘national bank’s affiliate closing agent in New Jersey where there is no ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA’ and place cash into ‘depositor’s hands’ c/o Mortgage Servicers RETAIL ‘mortgage promissory note’ already co-signed by Temporay Lender ‘approved’ on behalf of the ‘borrower’ already taking personal property ‘cash’ out of ‘accounts’ the TRUST COMPANY held in trust for PENSIONS FUNDS, MUNCIPAL BONDS, etc., and laundered the money in a commercially promoted come play with us offer to all to al to al to all small business entities ‘REO brokers, dealers, distributors, dealers, who are ‘affilaites’ of antonal banks and pay fees to become affiliates. In 2005, Wells Fargo recognized to be the #1 Small Business Entity faciliator – who took severance money of employees laid off authorized with credit lines by Wells Fargo Bank NA, JPM Chase NA, Lehman brothers FSB, Citis NA, … jumped on board of the ‘train’ that self-destructed September 2008.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: