BOND VS NOTE: THEY DON’T MATCH UP ON PARTIES, AMOUNT OR TERMS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

WHY BANKS WON’T LET INVESTORS MEET HOMEOWNERS

To answer a torrent of questions from lawyers, law professors and pro se litigants, let me say, in lieu of attempting to call back to hundreds of people, that the following answer to one such homeowner should set you in the right direction.

Now that they have committed themselves you are in a better position. Get the OCC consent decree against BOA and Wells and apply it to your case. example, as per US Bank attached. See also recent article on blog regarding Article 9 UCC and the recent RICO action against Chase. Follow the Chase case. The memos will be good.

BECOME A MEMBER SO YOU CAN JOIN IN ON THE DISCUSSION. Get COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS, and if we find the precise loan pool, then let’s see if it is a trust and let’s get the LOAN LEVEL ACCOUNTING. Also, if you can afford all this, you should get Forensic Analysis and Book a one hour appointment with me — but you MUST have an attorney on the phone with you for the conversation — someone who is licensed and in good standing in the jurisdiction in which this action is pending.

Just remember, if they said it, it’s probably a lie. The lawyers make it sound more threatening than it it really is.

Start at the beginning: is there a loan obligation? Answer is YES, a loan obligation was created when you accepted the benefits of the funding of the loan. Any other answer destroys your credibility.

is there a mortgage? Answer is YES a mortgage document was created and executed by the homeowner (YOU). Any other answer destroys your credibility.

Did the mortgage attach to the land as a perfected lien? Answer is NO because they faked the closing using straw-men without disclosing the lender. Any lien to be perfected must disclose the party from whom one would get a satisfaction of mortgage because (Article 9 UCC) they own the debt. This was not the case with Argent, who merely sat as a placeholder for an undisclosed lender consisting of a partnership of investor/lenders who were never disclosed either by description or name. Since Argent didn’t make the loan and nobody else was mentioned in the mortgage (deed of trust) who DID fund the loan, the mortgage exists as an unenforceable agreement predicated on false information fed to you by Argent and their representatives.

Is there a note? YES and it was signed by you but the likelihood is that the original cannot be found and anything proffered as the original is probably a recent printout from a color printer. This show me the note strategy is stretched pretty thin, so unless you got them really good on a fabrication, skip it.

MOST IMPORTANT: Does the note state the terms of the deal? NO it does not. The lender received a mortgage bond for an amount of money different from the amount loaned to the homeowner, payable by parties other than the homeowner, payable on terms that were different from the terms expressed in the note given to the borrower to sign. The homeowner was given a note that was all pretense as to parties and terms. None of the terms of repayment promised to the investors were disclosed to the borrower. The borrower never learned that he was part of a large group of obligors (payors) on conflicting obligations that often directly violated the terms of the written note itself.

The two agreements (bond vs note) don’t match, as to parties, amount or terms. Therefore while the obligation (the loan) exists, it is NOT described in any single document, nor can it be described without resorting to parol (evidence outside the four corners of the document) evidence as to the money trail and the document trail.

The lien could have been perfected if the parties, amounts and terms were disclosed to both the investor/lenders and the homeowner/borrowers but the players didn’t want to do that because they were hiding obscene profits from both contrary to the truth in lending law and the representations made to both the lenders and the borrowers. [PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT: IF THE BORROWER SENT A REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN THE LOAN PAPERS, WHAT WOULD THE BANK HAVE WANTED?]

This is general information and not a legal opinion. You should NOT act upon anything contained in this email without consulting competent legal counsel. Always consider the possibilities of Chapter, 7, 11 or 13 bankruptcy protection inasmuch as the Bankruptcy courts have far more familiarity with perfection of liens and priority of claims than the usual judge sitting on a state court bench.

18 Responses

  1. And, OF COURSE—you can site TILA Amendment:

    ….”The May 2009 TILA Amendment — with accompanying Federal Reserve Opinion (now law) –demands identification of the creditor. The Opinion states that security pass-through investors are NOT the creditor. At most, certificate holders to trust may possibly be considered creditor — and those certificate holders are limited in number. By the Amendment, the creditor with the largest positional interest — must identify itself as the creditor — that is most always the security underwriter (actually parent corp.).
    But, trusts are only for current cash pass-through. If servicer does not advance cash payments, loans are “swapped-out” of the trust — via swaps or third party contract. Servicer determines when loan is deemed non-collectible — at which point servicer stops advances. Derivatives and contracts are NOT part of the trust. At this point, loan is charged-off with only collection rights remaining.
    Of course, all this assumes that loan was not in default at origination — which subprime “refinances” were. That is, by fabricated GSE default/non-compliance. . .”

  2. 1. Look up FDCPA—-Fai­r Debt Collection­s Practices Act.

    2. Does your monthly statement say: “We are a debt collector attempting to collect a debt” ANYWHERE??­? And is it being “collected­” by a SERVICER??­? If so, then it is MOST LIKELY unsecured debt because of the fake mortgage FRAUD.

    3. The laws of the FDCPA allows you to send CEASE AND DESIST letters and DISPUTE OF DEBT—-forc­ing them to identify the true lender/cre­ditor that your monthly payments are going to—-not just a servicer/d­ebt collector—­-YOU MUST DEMAND THEY CEASE AND DESIST ALL ATTEMPTS TO COLLECT ON THE DEBT—-then say “I intend to settle this account with the ORIGINAL CREDITOR.

    4. Because of the FRAUD AT ORIGINATIO­N of your “fake loan” (if it was subprime), they cannot come up with a MORTGAGE LOAN SCHEDULE OR A MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT…­or even a ledger and balance sheet proving your payments are going to an actual, verifiable LENDER/CRE­DITOR.

    5. I asked for these things in a QWR—Qualif­ied Written Request—-l­etter, and they have stopped billing me for my FAKE mortgage…w­hich is actually like credit card debt—-coll­ection rights sold over and over…

    6. So, I am NOT an attorney, but you can challenge them and FIGHT BACK—-QWR and CEASE AND DESIST/DIS­PUTE OF DEBT—-it’s your choice…I choose not to pay for fraud on an unpreceden­ted scale…

  3. Google FDCPA

  4. Can someone please explain what are the rights of debt collector after they purchase a “charged off debt”. Do they step into the shoes of the creditor who has the power of sale, or are they limited to collecting an unsecured debt? Please answer, thank you!

  5. Neil,

    It is NOT a mortgage if it is a MOM “mortgage” – never was – MERS has no pecuniary interest in the debt. By legal definition MERS is not a mortgagee despite what the paper says. See Vermont Supreme Court decision stating exactly that (Court got standing and real party in interest wrong in the decision but Court came out and flatly stated that MERS cannot be a mortgagee under Vermont law since they have no rights to the debt. MERS only interest is a recorded interest in the land, not the debt. So a MERS mortgage NEVER attached attached to the debt ab initio. Contest whether it is a valid mortgage at its most basic level in all judicial foreclosure states.

  6. IF the ORGINATOR is our of business can you bring the Claims of not diclsoing the true parties to the borrowers against the new party attemtping to foreclose and collect on the note? Also bring TILA claims?

  7. Good one…problem is, I already have this fantasy of Blankfein dressed up like Bozo the clown, complete with the crazy red hair reflecting off his chrome-dome—with a firing squad at the ready…as he cowers and pleads for his life…

    sigh…

  8. His next painting should of ALL the “Too Big To Fail” banks burning with the TILA Amendment written in bold letters beneath…hmmm….

  9. carie,
    Do one of Lloyd Blankfein as Mao Zedong

  10. http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190570913537#ht_500wt_949

    Here is what the artist said about his “bank burning” painting:

    ” I think this painting is really touching a nerve so I’m putting it up for auction. It’s getting a lot of publicity which I’m very excited about! It started out as a simple urban landscape painting for a series of artworks depicting banks on fire. But then after a few hours the police arrived and took my information inquiring as to whether I was a terrorist. Click here to read my blog post about that: http://alexanderschaefer.blogspot.com/2011/07/chase-bank-painting-en-plein-air-and.html .

    I got a bit of publicity about the whole affair, but then three weeks later two officers showed up at my home for further questioning and you can read about that here: http://alexanderschaefer.blogspot.com/2011/08/chilling-effect-on-speech.html

    At that point things have snowballed. The LA Times called for an interview and then ran an article about the entire story of this painting so far. Click here to read the article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bank-painting-20110828,0,4395501.story

    It’s also been linked to the Keiser Report who have planned an interview with me next week: http://maxkeiser.com/2011/08/28/alex-schaefers-depiction-of-a-chase-branch-going-up-in-flames-drew-the-attention-of-l-a-police/

    It’s amazing the speed news spreads and I’m very glad to be moving people with my artwork and for the support for this issues the painting is bringing up! I plan to paint more!”

  11. carie,

    Not an attorney — has to be plead — or will ignore — I have seen some judges give pro se “pointers” — but, this was not pro se.

    tony — that is opportunity to go to Supreme Court. Conflict among Circuit Courts and, also, this case has great interest for public policy.
    Attorneys should go to the Supreme Court — and even though TILA Amendment is not plead — can claim decision is in violation of.

  12. cubed2k—that is AWESOME!!! $25,000 for a painting of Chase Bank burning!!

    I sell my own paintings on eBay…maybe I should do one of Jamie Dimon with a Hitler mustache… ?!? Any other suggestions???

  13. ANONYMOUS—
    Why don’t judges go by the TILA amendment? If it isn’t pleaded, do they just pretend like it doesn’t exist???

  14. The 9th circuit has always been the weakest of the circuits. So this case will have no weight barely on anyone. See the loop hole in this is that when other cases went in the favor of the home owner, 9th circuit and other circuits said we don’t follow each other, or that they don’t have to. Also the 9th has always put a foot in there mouth.

  15. CALL TO ACTION! PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TODAY!

    Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    We are about to get MASSIVE , CRITICAL SUPPORT FOR THIS EFFORT, but we need to make one more push to get a few more signatures!

    Your response has already been overwhelming and we have captured the attention of Moveon.org.

    PLEASE LOG ON HERE AND SIGN THIS PETITION!

    http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

  16. Cervantes v. Countrywide, 09-17364, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — just decided — not good.

    The continued emphasis that security investors “funded” and “own” loan harms the ability to win in courts. This is a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which harm done affects nationally.

    Although the court states that homeowners were aware of MERS role, the court wrongly assumes that “lender/creditor” does not have to be identified.

    Again and again — May 2009 TILA Amendment — and Fed Res Opinion specifically states: (note covered person expands the definition of creditor — who MUST be identified — 12 CFR Part 226 Regulation Z).

    “To become a “covered person” subject to Section 226.39, a person must become the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation. Consequently, Section 226.39 does not apply to persons who acquire only a beneficial interest in the loan or a security interest in the loan, such as when the owner of the debt obligation uses the loan as security to obtain financing and the party providing the financing obtains only a security interest in the loan. Section 226.39 also does not apply to a party that assumes the credit risk without acquiring legal title to the loans. Accordingly, an investor who purchases an interest in a pool of loans (such as mortgage-backed securities, pass-through certificates, participation interest, or real estate mortgage investment conduits) but does not directly acquire legal title in the underlying mortgage loan, is not covered by Section 226.39.”

    The only place to appeal this decision is the Supreme Court of the US – which is extremely difficult. Let’s hope another Federal Circuit Court comes down with decision that is in conflict with the 9th Circuit. Hope attorneys do a better job. Get “beneficiary” — “security investors” — “financial interest” –as lender/creditor — out of the argument — it is wrong and doing extreme damage.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: