IMPERFECT LIENS TRANSFERRED BY IMPERFECT MEANS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

FANNIE MAE: Servicers Required to Report Title Defects and “Repurchase”

EDITOR’S NOTE: STEP BY STEP, the noose tightens. 

Fannie Mae bought nothing and they know it. And they bought it from someone who had bought nothing and knew it. Nobody cared while the money was flowing. Now with the water level falling, the stumps are showing and the results are catastrophic for banks and servicers who thought they had beat the system.

Under the new rules, effective October 1, 2011, servicers must examine and report on the status of title, especially those that are supposedly in delinquency, default or foreclosure. Of course we know they won’t. But, it being a rule from the the Federal government and all, what is to stop you from asking in discovery for their report which is due before they continue to initiate foreclosure? Will they  fudge that too? Will it be signed? By whom?

If title is bad, which is the case in probably 98% of all cases, then the obligation to repurchase applies, according to Fannie. The money isn’t there to “repurchase” an empty bag, so then what? The aggregator that “Sold” it was merely saying they were selling it without ever having it. The originator never had it to begin with, which is why the mortgage is not attached to the land as a perfected lien. STEP BY STEP.

  • So who has a lien? Answer: NOBODY. There is no lien.
  • Who owns the obligation from the borrower? Answer: the partnership of investors whose money can be traced to funding the mortgages.
  • Who owes the investors the money that wasn’t used to fund mortgages? Answer: investment banks who sold them bogus mortgage bonds.
  • Who owes the investors the rest of the money that was lost? Answer: lots of people including rating agencies, auditors, and other enablers.

SEE FANNIE MAE servicing guidelines svc1108

Title Defects
With respect to each first lien mortgage sold to Fannie Mae, the following warranties, among others, are made to Fannie Mae:
    that the mortgage is a valid and subsisting lien on the property,

    that the property is free and clear of all encumbrances and liens having priority over it
except for liens for real estate taxes, and liens for special assessments, that are not yet due
and payable, and

that the mortgage and any security agreements, chattel mortgages, or equivalent
documents relating to it have been properly signed, are valid and their terms may be enforced by us, our successors and assigns.
Announcement SVC-2011-08R    Page 23
If loans referred to foreclosure cannot proceed because of title defects,

    the servicer must notify Fannie Mae of the issue, and

    Fannie Mae reserves the right to require repurchase of such loans if the defects are not
resolved within 90 days of the attorney’s (or trustee’s) discovery of the defects or, at Fannie Mae’s option, to pursue other remedies, including the assessment of compensatory fees for the delay caused by the title defects.
Delays by title insurance companies in processing and resolving claims, or disputes with title insurance companies over coverage issues will not excuse the servicer from its repurchase obligations or prevent the imposition of compensatory fees.

113 Responses

  1. Предлагаем услуги: аренда техники, аренда самосвалов, аренда трала, аренда экскаватора колёсного, аренда фронтального погрузчика, аренда автогрейдера, аренда бульдозера, аренда катка дорожного, аренда автокрана, аренда асфальтоукладчика, аренда фрезы дорожной, аренда длинномера, аренда бары, аренда гидромолота, аренда бетононасоса. Также вы можете заказать у нас грузоперевозки.
    В нашем арсенале есть и продажа щебня, а еще строительство. Наш офис находится в Ярославле.

  2. […] Like this: Like Be the first to like this post. Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | Bad Debt Reserve, bankruptcy, bonds, borrower, collection agency, countrywide, Cross Default, Debenture Redemption Reserve, Default Risk, derivatives,disclosure, Fixed Income, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures,fraud, futures, Leveraged Loan, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, Non-Performing Loan,Personal FinanceRelated Terms, principal, quiet title, Redlining, rescission, RESPA, securitization,TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND « IMPERFECT LIENS TRANSFERRED BY IMPERFECT MEANS […]

  3. WOW!!! We keep asking when banksters and attorneys will go to jail for what could be the most historic PONZI SCHEME known to mankind? Is it because they know something most homeowners & investors don’t? Well the article I just read has shaken me to my core!!! Will someone PLEASE confirm that this is article is NOT TRUE? Check it out and let me know your thoughts..

    Perjury is not enforced in Civil Court –
    http://www.court-house.com/?p=11

    Judge’s Letter –
    http://www.court-house.com/pdf/judge_stuart_letter.pdf

  4. I am so very happy that this issue/question has been rekindled as I do not pretend to be anything more than an observer or maybe a lurker.
    I do appreciate the ability to sit back and learn about what I had perceived to be questionable issues and to find that others find them questionable as well.
    Thanks
    So, as you were.

  5. I said: “I don’t know that alienated rights in a note “un-bifurcate” a note.”

    I don’t know that re-acquisition of alienated rights in a note “un-bifurcates” a note.

    Does anyone have an opinion as to whether or not the split of the ownership of a note and the sale of the right to payment bifurcates a note? Does it destroy the note at least as a negotiable instrument? It has to, imo, because say LBHI owns the note (in the case of bailment to the trust), but has sold the payment rights. LBHI may no longer by endorsement issue/affect any right to payment to another party. I’m good with you think this is nuts, but if not, does a trust, which owns the payment stream but not the instrument itself which creates the debt, have a right to enforce anything? I’d say, no, it doesn’t. So is this a better argument than the note didn’t make it into the trust, which takes discovery? How could we more readily establish the bailment (and ‘bifurcation’) of the note now that it is allegedly the sec’d trust trustee allegedly coming after our property (read servicer)?

  6. IN RE ABBOTT (S.D.N.Y. 5-4-2010)
    In re Suzan Roberta Abbott, Chapter 7, Debtor.
    Case No. 09-37125.
    United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, Poughkeepsie Division.
    May 4, 2010
    “Counsel advised the Court of the meaning of the stamps: “After
    the note was executed, there was an endorsement. The endorsement
    went from Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, to Lehman Brothers Holding.
    And that’s the first endorsement that you see. Then there’s an
    endorsement in blank, from Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. And that
    is the second endorsement that you see. And that is what you see
    when you have foreclosures, they want it endorsed in blank.”

    The counsel referred to above is Aurora Loan Service’s, who as servicer alleged to be the party entitled to enforce a note with a blank endorsement. ALS led the court to believe that LBHI was the note owner and had endorsed the note in blank for Aurora’s benefit so ALS could foreclose as holder. The truth is the note was endorsed in blank because the note had been securitized by LBHI. If the trust owns the note, and it isn’t just a bailment, then the trustee, if anyone, should foreclose. LBHI had no authority to authorize ALS to foreclose in lieu of the sec’d trust trustee because LBHI has alienated its interest by the blank endorsement to the trust, evidencing the sale of the note to the trust which is garbage because if the note were sold to the trust, the endorsement should have been to the trust. They didn’t want to do this when the banksters started foreclosure because at that time, they knew they were going to rely on
    (alleged) possession of a bearer note for enforcement and further rely on MERS as to the collateral instrument.
    If on the other hand, possession of the note is a bailment and was held by the trustee’s custodian as a bailment, the note is still owned by LBHI who no longer has an interest in the payments because it sold those rights to the investors in the trust. In order for LBHI to regain those rights, LBHI would have had to purchase the note from the trust and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that this had occurred. Without regaining those rights, neither LBHI or its minion, ALS, was entitled to payment on the note. This is why I don’t think these notes remain negotiable instruments:
    one party actually owns a note with another having the exclusive right to
    payment, and even if LBHI had repurchased the payment rights from the trust, I don’t know that alienated rights in a note “un-bifurcate” a note.

    I might be out to lunch, but if there’s merit to this, it’s worth exploring.
    The rules on the books regarding notes are archaic. They don’t contemplate securitization nor any of the ways a note may actually have been paid off by third parties nor the possibility that notes themselves have been bifurcated (I don’t know a better word), which heretofore I think was an unthinkable concept. If the judiciary doesn’t get these ‘new’ issues brought about by securitization, they need to get educated imo.

  7. Right on, Louise. All they care about are the “numbers”—not people.
    Everything is backwards in this world…It’s like Suze Orman always says: “People first—then money, then things…boy, do we have a long way to go…

  8. From Thomas Jefferson:

    The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
    >>> Thomas Jefferson

    Also,

    When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
    >>> Thomas Jefferson

    Also,

    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

    All are good, but #3 is most meaningful – don’t you think?

  9. The reason banks are leaving these houses in limbo and not bidding on them is that the houses can stay or their “cooked books” and look like an asset. The banks are misrepresenting what their assets are in order to stay viable. They are all on the edge of bankruptcy or have already been nationalized by the bailouts.

  10. E. Tolle:

    Hey, I am sorry I misunderstood you. When we invoked the 4 year statute we wrote a simple page and a half letter and attached the documents supporting the claim. We did not handle this in court and it took about 5 weeks to resolve it. If the suppport is there, then it will work.

  11. E. Tolle:

    I agree 100% about the political leaders, but it was their words today and believe it or not, that was the only event I watched. It wasn’t about the Presidents – it was about the great men they talked about and thank you for your comments. Not published yet.

  12. @ John Gault, thanks for the comments. I think abuse of process might be a tough row to hoe, who knows anymore. But I agree that I should re-examine laches. It’s been a while since I’ve been down that path, which makes it all the more relevant….it’s looking more and more like a viable approach. I have a feeling that with the increased litigation coming to a bankster near us all, the already very lengthy delay that everyone is experiencing in the foreclosure process can only lengthen further. This will increase the odds that laches will become a much more accepted defense against these criminal acts. The statute of limitations should kick in for many folks as well. Let’s hope. And here’s hoping that people become educated enough to fight these issues.

    @ Joyce, very well said….I agree wholeheartedly. As to the case you were referring to concerning SOL, was that published? I’m discovering that anything going against the banksters is getting swept under the rug, while the bad stuff is front and center. But it is nice to hear that there was something raised concerning the PSA that spooked them. We need more of that. Lots.

    I’m also hearing from several credible sources that the banks aren’t showing up when a logical defense is set in place. This makes sense from a business model standpoint….i.e. if you can take somewhere in the neighborhood of the upper 90% range uncontested, why break a sweat? I’ve also heard that the really good deals are heavy on the non-disclose factor, which we’d all find ourselves signing off on, even though it’s kinda’ treasonous in a way if you know what I mean. But we’re all so beaten down that you can’t really expect any one of us to take a grenade for the whole platoon.

    As to Biden et al, I can’t bring myself to watch our so-called leaders anymore. Watching them, I’m constantly reminded of the look the other way approach to governing that they’re all pulling on us….it makes the veins on my neck bulge like Vesuvius. They can all kiss my ass. They’re traitors in the worst way, and deserve to spend time in the pokey with the banksters. Each and every one. Toss the key and turn out the lights.

  13. Joane and Carie:

    Although it is not possible to go that route if we are to address our demise in a lawful way Joane, I just loved the way you put it. How creative. Also, Carie, there are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of organizations that say they want to do something and are attempting to individually, but they have to come together. We had a good idea of what was going on way back when, but no one did anything to cut them off at the pass.

    I hoped that some of you on this blog heard the speeches by Bush and Clinton and Biden at the 93 Memorial event in Pa in memory of those who died on 9/11. The speeches were warm and very meaningful and Clinton talked about how those remaining at the Alamo admitted to themselves (that they were going to die) and then proceeded to take on the enemy knowing they could not win that fierce battle, but pave the way for a later one that would be successful. He also talked about another event 2500 years ago, the Thermopagai, (Persian) about how those 300 fighters fought the battle against thousands and that they knew they were not going to win either. And then Biden talked about The War at Lexington and I believe he quoted a general from that battle that said, if there is to be a battle, then let it begin here. It was very moving. I may be off on my facts here abit, but it was very very moving. These people did not forget what they were fighting for and they preserved it for those yet to follow.

    These messages were just another sign that the people need to know that there will be a time in their lives when they simply must step up hopefully through peaceful means to join together to win their battle and they are now so embroiled in. And let’s be clear, the banks have paved the way for the American people that can only lead us down a path of despair as our children and our children’s children make their way. The very fact that what the financial sector has drained from the American people, their right to justice in most of the courts and the loss of homes by those who did nothing wrong. We don’t have to keep hearing what has been done to us by the financial sector, but what we do need to hear is, what are we going to do about it?. Something to that effect.

    Where are our leaders? Where is our place at the table?

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to get this off of my chest.

  14. This whole mess is an unending nightmare of anxiety and worry. Carie I appreciate your posts because you put into words what most of us are thinking. Joyce you’re right we should ALL unite. In fact I think we should unite with thousands of other homeowners and become our own Ro-Bo signers and get out our stamps and seals and get busy stamping these Notes “paid in full” and then Release the “Liens” on these Mortgages. Then we can just say that MERS assigned us the authority to do so (after we paid the small fee of course). It may work and it may not, but at least it would level the playing field. Not to mention it would keep the foreclosure mill attorneys busy trying to find out what’s real and what’s fake. Kinda like we’re doing now.

  15. Carie:

    Thank you. Of course we all know, that they do not want the whole truth out and that everything possible is being done by them to make sure tht it does not. That was not the point or the issue. Until that “proprietory information” is available and can be acted upon, no homeowner should sit in waiting without taking whatever possible opportunities they may have to keep his home. The people of America have not done what they needed to do and have allowed the feds to make such agreements.

    Without even looking for proprietory information from the banksters, I still believe that it is a matter of compiling all of the evidence and support that each victim of the greatest heist of the American people can prevail because in this country, the financial sector, the banks specifically, have failed to follow the laws that make it possible to do business in the United States and as such, the people have not taken that support and evidence and put it to better use. I somehow am under the impression that you believe we have to see their information to prove wrong doing when in fact, our files are flooded with certain facts that would require the lenders to cough it up if they are to prove they have not violated the rights of the consumer. Cease and desist of the banks could result if the people will bring their evidence forward to one facility who will have a leader capable of making such evidence work for our favor. I am sick to death with the proprietory reasoning. That may fly with what the AG’s and FEds are attempting to do. But the people, surely, there must be a way they can, as a unified group, fully empowered, to do something on their own. . You may know the answer yourself.

    Without their unified assistance which over the past several years many, long before you came to this site, begged the people to join together and to unify to make it happen. There were no leaders to take on the task and as such and as I said over two years ago, by not speaking up, they would allow their rights to be negotiated by those that will not be able to do so to the satisfaction of the victims or who do not intend to take the culprits to task. And still we wait while some people such as yourself continue to say again and again and again that which you believe has happened but we are at the mercy of others in the government and we have not done that which was necessary to overtake and demonstrate that we cannot tolerate the actions of the banks. Please understand that because the feds have not acted, it appears on the surface that we are now operating under the rule of the banks, not the rule of law. The feds can negotiate until the cows come home, but there is no way to get past how they have failed this country as a whole.and now we sit while they set up agreements that allow the culprits to continue to avoidance of telling the whole truth.

    No each and every loan must be looked at, there is no question. And we must not forget the rule of law nor should the culprits who have so taken this country to this demise be allowed to get a pass, which appears to me to be happening.

    Thanks also to Anonymous who contributed so much to this blog and who has many times plead the need for the people to unify. And it just hasn’t happened.

    No plan, no strategy by the people to make any plan a success because the people really do believe the banks have and will continue to control us and the government.

    Thank you for your contribution.

  16. “Freddie Mac is the compliance agent for non-HAMP servicing/foreclosures. Non-Hamp means not Freddie/Fannie loan. All the data is considered “proprietary” — by an agreement between Treasury and Freddie in 2010 — all information complied in a mortgage data-base — that is proprietary and cannot be revealed.

    …there is a NJ case — In matter of foreclosures — in which Freddie refuses to divulge info to the court because of the Treasury agreement — and that the information in proprietary.”

    Joyce—proprietary—meaning “we don’t want the whole truth out”…I’m sure you can understand WHY they wouldn’t want the whole truth and nothing but the truth exposed…but, my source has the physical proof—and is working to expose—but must go through certain channels… obviously, much being done by “powers that be” to obfuscate…

    Homeowners continue to be victims—perpetrators continue to go free…

  17. Hey Carie:

    It is called watching your back while all of the others continue to hear your message and go about their normal activity without acting on what you and others have had to say. I do not question what you are saying for the most part, but there has never been one case put on the table for the homeowners to see what your support for all of the claims which you are making and the claims which others are making.

    One must address each and every issue. Based on the documentation by the lender, this client is proceeding to utilize the state law in several ways and it certainly cannot harm his intentions to protect his rights as far as I know. If indeed as you say and claim over and over and over again, then the consumer will have to wait to see what those in control of the wrong doing will do about it. You continue to state the claims, but the feds or AG’s whomever and the oversight committees have not yet come to a decision about how this entire mess will be cleaned up or even if it will be cleaned up. If you can get your claims before the court or someone who will go after your claims, then great. So far, if it is out there, I am only hearing your words on this blog. Let us know how that comes out. Certainly, we want to support you in your claims if there is solid proof that this is exactly what is happening or at least whether or not those in authority will do something about it such as offering an opinion of why you are not correct. We get nothing on either side.

    Until it is proven and action taken by those in authority as to a final decision about how it will be handled, then most consumers should use what they have at their disposal in the meantime even though as you said there is no valid lien, etc., and that they can’t perform. They can perform and they can respond to the four year statute. They want us to believe that all the liens are valid, etc., but again, the proof of your scenario is not there for the consumer to act on even by himself.

    I appreciate very much your input, but it is almost becoming an “in your face” approach and that is just not necessary. I know you are trying to speak to all of us who supposedly do not know what we are doing, and you are trying to help, but I keep hearing the same thing over and over without support of it. Have you made these claims in court or anywhere in a government hearing or just what are we to depend on other than your scenarios which again, appear to have some merit.

    So many times you have made the claims and they do appear to have merit, but your claims have not been acted on by any authority that I am aware of. What do you suggest other than keeping on keeping on. If you were facing an opportunity to invoke the four year statute, would you not move on it as a backup plan, just in case, you are proven wrong or the government agencies end up giving all of the banks a pass? I am not an attorney but presume that you are so your input is valuable.

    Thank you

  18. @A Man—your money is going to a debt collector of unsecured debt.

    @Joyce—the “lender couldn’t perform”—because they are impotent…because it’s unsecured debt…

    reposting my earlier post:

    Utter insanity…that’s what happens when you try to cover up fraud—over and over and over…and over again.

    Don’t you get it? All this blah blah blah of fake assignments and notary fraud and QWR’s not being answered and faked documents and bifurcation and MERS crap and endless litigation with banks and Wall Street and investors and SEC crap and “wrongful” foreclosures and no “loans” transferred to the trusts and PSA’s not followed and no mortgage loan schedules and no mortgage loan purchase agreements and servicer transfers and foreclosure mills and chain of title crap and filing a “lost journal” and who owns the note and quiet title crap and attorneys who don’t know jack and on and on and on and on…
    All because a few brilliant sociopathic materialists figured out how to pretend to have real mortgages securitized—but in actuality created securitization of collection rights (ONLY)—on false default debt.

    Just so a few A**HOLES could make a LOT of money.

    And here we are…tons of unsecured debt and everyone in denial.

  19. E. Tolle:

    The key to this case was the fact that Plaintiff (borrower) sued the bank over a state violation that the Plaintiff believed the bank did not want to address in court so they purposely delayed any action on the suit until they were forced by the court to do so.

    Had the Plaintiff (borrower) filed a bk in response to their f/c attempts, the clock would have stopped; however, if the case is in appeals, the lender had the right to file suit against the borrower, but never did.

    The lender did it to themselves when they delayed the case for the first two years because they did not want to address the borrower’s claim in the court room. Millions in loans were sold via PSA’S and they guaranteed certain applicable law would be followed, but then the lender could not perform.

    Good luck to anyone going this route. Second lien holder produced a paid in full statement and a recorded release of lien from the current note holder of which was verified through chain of ownership report. Hopefully the first lien release will be provided soon.

  20. Lisa:

    It is my understanding that if they did file suit in the required time frame of two or four years, whatever, after acceleration of your note and they filed after the expiration date, your SOL HAD RUN, and you may be able to go back and make your SOL Claim. You need to check on your state law, but once the SOL runs, it runs, and if they did not file on you until after the expiration period, then their suit may not be allowed. There will be case law from your state to back up your particular circumstances.

    Anonymous or E. Tolle may know the answer to this question but it all goes to state law. Once the SOL runs, it runs and they cannot change that. They may think you don’t know any better so they caught the error themselves and filed hoping you would not realize that they missed it.

    Certainly worth your getting an opinion on it. Good Luck to you.

  21. Joyce,

    I am well past my states 6 year SOL … ‘they’ filed suit in Feb. 2010 lost SMJ and then withdrew their claim in April 2011. Does the SOL start over after ‘their’ suit was filed?

  22. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  23. @E Tolle – maybe look at abuse of process? I’d take another look at laches, too, if the bankster were in a position to move and didn’t. But if your state has a 6 yr sol, maybe of no use as you surmise. Surely there is some basis in law to hang your hat on with an underlying theme that finality is appropriate. Course, you’ll have to fight the well you got to live in the home free all this time argument. Unless someone has been thru it, they just don’t know what it’s like to be in limbo for such an extended period.

  24. @E Tolle – I’m pretty sure it’s at fnma’s website. Well, the original manual is probably not, altho it’s prob on line somewhere. But all the updates are there and they go back quite a ways – enough to be pretty informative.

  25. Or maybe to the pool at the YMCA?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

    Or maybe we could all end up at the Ymca with or Toxic Trust pool.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  26. The Question is?

    Where did and where will my loan payments go?

    To the Trust to the servicer to my creditor? or creditors?

    Follow the money?

    NEVER AGAIN

  27. Joanne asked:

    Why would Citi Mortgage Inc. transfer my mortgage loan servicing to Carrington right in the middle of my application for a loan Mod?

    That’s a 64,000 dollar question and when we know the answer, we’ll know something. A friend of mine who was in default was working on mod with B of A (an old CW loan) and all of a sudden, he got a notice that Bony Mellon was the trustee and the servicing had been assigned to another company, also.

  28. Even a noteholder may not assign a collateral instrument to itself. MERS certifying / straw officers are an abomination and a sham, but even if they weren’t, it is the last noteholder and beneficiary who should be executing an assignment to the new noteholder, not the current (purported) noteholder to itself, and that is what’s going on.

  29. @dan-o – of course it’s crap. Instead of focusing on the robo-signing aspect, it might just be best to state that the joe schmoe who executed a particular assignment is not a MERS’ employee. He is a law firm employee who was appointed for a fee to MERS with no diligence or oversight and he has no personal knowledge of anything. My gut reaction is to say of course this is a conflict for a law firm to assign a dot to its client. Before making that statement, best to have ammo at the ready, like case law on conflict of interest. All these banksters are doing self-assignments and this needs to be pounded home to the judiciary. I think they have no choice if they want to steal your home because who else is going to sign these assignments? Think about it…….
    And they are all trying to skip the chains of title. I posted* a form of protest regarding foreclosure ‘irregularities’ which is akin to the one I actually recorded *for informational purposes only.
    I am still looking for people to join my complaint in NV with the Dept of Business and Industry Financial Institutions Divisions against Quality Loan Services for attempting to proceed on pre-licensure actions.

  30. @ Joyce,

    Thanks Joyce, I thought you were referring to the SOL, but wasn’t sure. I’m four years into a six year SOL with no action followed through by lender. Two expired liz pendens. I’m starting to believe that there’s a defense out there somewhere that wouldn’t be SOL (not hit yet), wouldn’t be laches (too novel as yet IMO), but would somehow show harm or other detriment due to inability to act or move forward, or some similar concept like the bank screwed the pooch by not acting in a reasonable time frame or were unreasonable with multiple filings with no action etc. The property value has decreased by 50% while the clock ticks away. Any ideas? Anyone? Is there anything that comes to mind where the judge would simply say, “You people lost your chance. Next!”

  31. THIS IS LONG…PLEASE PRINT AND STUDY…knowledge is power…

    “There are millions of mortgage loans in valid traditional mortgage-backed securities trusts.. Valid securitizations included mortgage loans securitized into Freddie/Fannie sponsored trusts. Thees loans were compliant as to loan limits, debt to income, risk, etc (although by repurchases now know many F/F loans not valid). The security investors in F/F securitizations are NEVER considered the creditor to borrower. The security investors just receive pass-through of cash flows while the home owners are paying.. The mortgagee to borrower is the originator that sold the loans to Freddie/Fannie. However, there is question that F/F should be the mortgagee because loans were sold then sold to them. Whether or not F/F is mortgagee/creditor — or the originator — the security investors are NOT mortgagee/creditor — and, not either is the trust or trustee — or servicer. Security investors do not sign satisfaction/discharge of mortgage when F/F loans are paid in full.

    When loans in F/F REMIC trusts (also used to be called PCs) —default for 3 months — the collection rights to the loan are “swapped” out (sold) to the servicer. Most of the servicers had agreements with F/F to purchase default loans — this was called “credit enhancement” — a form of insurance that passed any losses on defaulted loans from F/F back to the servicer. Sometimes, F/F would sell these defaults to servicer on an individual basis — and sometimes F/F would wait and “pool” the defaults to sell as a portfolio to either servicer or other “credit enhancer” to their trusts. But, this would NOT affect security investors — as the original trust — with thousands of other performing loans would stay intact. Once the servicer purchased the collection rights — they would sell collection rights at a discount to debt buyer “investors.”

    This is where big problems started – with subprime securitization– 100% of which were refinances. This means at some point, these “refinances” were a prior F/F loan that had been charged-off and removed from F/F trusts. And, when the charge-off and removal occurred — only collection rights survive. Thus, the subprime refinances were simply modifications of collection rights – certainly, they were not a new mortgage — as the subprime refinance originator falsely portrayed to homeowners — because the borrower still owed on the F/F default loan — even though the servicer purchased the default loan from F/F – the borrower still owes — but not a mortgage — only on collection rights. The borrower cannot get a new mortgage — all they were getting was a modification of collection rights to a default loan. Most often, homeowners were not even told they were in default on F/F loan — credit reports would not reveal. And, as the demand for subprime “refinances” increased — servicers started manufacturing defaults to meet the demand.

    The “investors” in these subprime “refinances” — were debt buyers of the collection rights from F/F. And, if there was a subsequent refinance — of collection rights the “investor” may or may not change. There is no dual funding — just because some cash was provided to the borrowers by the “investor” debt buyer — in “cash-out” — does not mean that the securization of collection rights “refinances” — was split. The subprime securization was funded by the debt buyers “purchase” of collection rights — thus, the debt buyers “investments” (hence the word investor) was the money they put up to purchase the collection rights from the servicer — who purchased from F/F — and any additional cash paid out to borrower —— the whole “collection right” bogus loan is securitizaed with subsequent derivative Security Investors receiving pass-through of cash flows. But, the security investors to these (bogus) trusts are NOT the creditor/mortgagee — just as security investors to F/F were never the creditor/mortgagee. And, just as with F/F — once these subprime “refinances” became delinquent — the servicer would advance payments to trustee for security investor pass-through for a certain amount of time — until the servicer deems the loan not collectible — at which point the servicer ceases making advance payments and the collection rights to that loan are also swapped out of the bogus subprime trust. Note — there is no change of security hands with a “swap out” — swaps are contracts –not securities. Securities can only be on current cash flows. Once the current cash flows cease — there is no more security — that is when contract swap comes in.

    Also, note that the credit enhancement mezzanine tranches were funded first — these subordinate tranches represent the right to “collect” on collection rights — and the only funding was the purchase of collection rights. Banks were/are the debt buyers — until they dispose of collection rights to a another party. The upper tranches (falsely rated as AAA to A1 etc.) — thus, the cash pass-through tranches — were owned and kept by the security underwriter subsidiary to the bank. Then, the both the mezzanine and A tranches were repackaged into CDOs — to be sold as pass-through to derivative security investors.

    As to AIG — and any other “security investors” — these security investors — who are different from the debt-buying “investors” — are suing on the marketing of fraud in the securities themselves — that is — that the securities were derived from bogus “loans” — which they certainly were. But, these security investor lawsuits can never directly sue against the borrower — because security investors are NEVER the creditor. These security investors sue on the investment income lost because of fraud — and they sue the bank perpetrators.

    Remember, if security investors are naming themselves as the creditor in foreclosures (which would be false — but assume for a moment that it is valid) — then they are collecting damages by the foreclosure itself. The security investors cannot then go and sue the security underwriter for MORE damages. This would be collecting damages — twice — dual damages.. And, would be fraud upon the courts. “

  32. E Tolle: Four year statute of limitations. Each state allows the statute of limitations but may only allow 2 years, 4 years, etc. Party must file suit against the debtor once the note has been accelerated up to four years, or the lien becomes invalid. They cannot enforce the power of sale as the contract is invalid, but they can collect on the note because it becomes unsecured as I understand it. Please research the state law to confirm.

  33. MSoliman–
    As far as the funding date on my WAMU loan I was going by the allonge stapled to my returned docs. It is all Wells Fargo but states funding date as approx 3 weeks after everything was signed. Now at this point since that loan was paid and docs sent back to me I feel I am safe. But what are the chances that my first with GMAC found to have FreddieMac as investor(via the MERS investor search) thais was never disclosed was delt in some way to BofA in the refinance but never paid off or even disclosed to FreddieMac, therebye split and thereby the reason for the second loan #

  34. Your Honor:

    Fannie Mae bought nothing and they know it. And they bought it from someone who had bought nothing and knew it. Nobody cared while the money was flowing.

    Judge: Have you considered investing in some new luggage for your anticipated travels.

    Anything Fannie MA or Freddie Mertz “kisses” is instant value to a charged off certificate. Look I don’t go out of my way to harass anyone here Mr Editor. But My Lord – Huge , monster argument to be made for here for GSE (owned now by the FED) having discriminated against minorities alleged for having endorsed “certain” loans that the President himself said DO Qualify for Modification.

    As he also said – “…if your loan is not insured by Fannie or Freddie -“Pay your Bills”. NO MOD

    Ouch! NAACP is looking at this I am sure.

    Problem is Fannie and Freddie are the only loans that do not require the same “to and from” securitization smoke and mirrors of a non agency loan. If the GSE kissed the certificates its rated .

    Now why are only 10% of the 400 files I have seen with Fannie / Freddie claims the best of the rest properties, in upper white affluent neighborhoods, Seattle (R Jones Esq. ) Utah and Rhode island (G Babcock Esq -)

    This is the missing piece of the puzzle under capitation and subrogation claims alleged brought by the government in foreclosures THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE claims brought against US BANKS, (until awarded after sale) or SOMALIAN BANKSTERS and now brings into question the FDCPA and JUDICIAL PRANKSTERS

    There is more , way more , more than meets the eye here folks!

    expert.witness@live.com

  35. @ Joyce Cauthen,

    Joyce, you said, “That’s okay, because of that little gift, the lenders were so busy filing Msj’s and delaying, they forgot to sue the borrower. We were able to invoke the four year statute.”

    What four year statute are you talking about here?

  36. meaning….with a reference to the location of that statement where Fannie distances itself from any agency….

  37. LL disableddad [Q] Washington Mutual 2ND /15yr Mortgage-Received original blue ink docs from Wells Fargo after 2007 payoff. Also discovered that loan wasn’t even funded until a month after consummation.

    M.Soliman

    Loan funding is something that the lay person confuses with the secondary market. The funding date is evidenced by an ABA wire and shown as the settlement date. Loans are delivered into the secondary on the cutoff date. The loan is then officially assigned to the successor in interest upon the closing date. If your loan settled on the month prior of the cutoff date your looking at the difference for settlement and purchaser wire received to sweep the banks lines.

    [Settlement _Dt] – [Cutoff_Dt] = Accrued Interest Carry
    [Cutoff_Dt] – [Statistical Ct.Off_Dt] = 30 days**
    [Cutoff_Dt] – [Close_Dt] = 30 day

    ** Gestation period of time used to prep transfer and rate assets/ Duff & Phelps Moody s etc.

    Argument Rated : C-

    Merit & Value: Not much there – Banking transfer and secondary seller closing requirements. Parties to sale are assignees under MERS alleged to acted in coordination; may not necessarily be construed to have acted as one in the same party.

    Cigar Rating * * Weak
    ————————————————————————————-
    Cigar Rating: (Lenders Fear factor)

    * * * * * Household Prevails/ Ruled w/ Prejudice.
    * * * * Household Prevails ; Denied a Release of Lien
    * * * Lender Motion for Summary Judgment denied
    * * Weak / Prepaid legal balance 0.00
    * Anonymous testimony / Twink Defense

  38. @ Joan or anyone:

    Does anyone know where to find the Fannie Mae servicer guide in totality that was referenced earlier in this thread? I’d love to have the whole deal.

  39. Neil G.—you said:

    “Who owns the obligation from the borrower? Answer: the partnership of investors whose money can be traced to funding the mortgages.
    Who owes the investors the money that wasn’t used to fund mortgages? Answer: investment banks who sold them bogus mortgage bonds.”

    Again we say—no “mortgages”—AND:

    “If the security investors have any issues with the pass-through derivative securities they purchased, their target is the security underwriter… not with the borrowers.
    Continued confusion regarding “investor” and “security investor” is counter-productive.”

    Please start telling the whole truth.

  40. It must have been cheaper to purchase servicer rights for debt collection, than to purchase the mortgages. They knew the mortgages were invalid and worthless .The servicers were in control of defrauding the investors and homeowners and added up all those service fees to screw both sides of the fence, then unlawfully were able to steal the houses and gained the HAMP money and fees. What a rip off. Litterally bulling people out of their houses and ruining their lives and livelihood. It is not that our government made mistakes or were deficient, they were crooked. This is a well planned crime to steal all the wealth. They never cared if the houses rotted or where riddled with pest. They could care less if it was all bulldozed and turned into condo’s and even worse just vacant property or ruins. The money and power was all they cared about. Besides why purchase mortgages when they could steal the houses for free and flip them they thought. Not to many sales I understand. More smart people know not to trust the banksters, nor to purchase stolen houses. Who would purchase a house without an attorney present? A house you may never be able to own. Then get screwed and put through hell by the gansters.

  41. What additional course of action can be taken if a Servicer violates a TRO. Our home was sold at a Trustee sale back to the bank. The servicer was serve with TRO and Lawsuit and their law firm said they never receive the TRO.

  42. Carie—YEAHHHH!, WHOHOO!, YEAHHHAAA
    Thank you, that made ME feel better Keep Smiling Everybody

  43. And after just reading what Mark Stoppa said—I rest my case…

  44. Utter insanity…that’s what happens when you try to cover up fraud—over and over and over…and over again.

    Don’t you get it? All this blah blah blah of fake assignments and notary fraud and QWR’s not being answered and faked documents and bifurcation and MERS crap and endless litigation with banks and Wall Street and investors and SEC crap and “wrongful” foreclosures and no “loans” transferred to the trusts and PSA’s not followed and no mortgage loan schedules and no mortgage loan purchase agreements and servicer transfers and foreclosure mills and chain of title crap and filing a “lost journal” and who owns the note and quiet title crap and attorneys who don’t know jack and on and on and on and on…

    All because a few brilliant sociopathic materialists figured out how to pretend to have real mortgages securitized—but in actuality created securitization of collection rights (ONLY)—on false default debt.

    Just so a few A**HOLES could make a LOT of money.

    And here we are…tons of unsecured debt and everyone in denial.

  45. To the site:

    Fairway Advisory Council is not currently active and has ceased its counseling services for which they do not or have ever charged anyone. However, once in a while, as we read this very valuable site, and thank Neil for his contribution to so many, I do attempt to help from time to time anyone that appears to be trying desperately to get good information about the loan servicing technique. We do not solicit any future inquiries but will on rare occasion help someone who may be in need.

  46. disabled dad: You may wish to write to me:

    My email address is Joyce@fairwayadvisorycouncil.com Contact me and include your phone number and I will call you. Perhaps I can help you interpret what the servicer and note holder are attempting to do or have already done. This is a non profit organization.

  47. Foreclosure Cases – What’s the Rush?

    Posted on September 8, 2011 by Mark Stopa

    One of my biggest frustrations as a foreclosure defense attorney is watching judges take it upon themselves to prosecute foreclosure cases that banks seem perfectly content to let languish.

    In Hillsborough County, for instance, a new Administrative Order authorizes judges to adjudicate motions in foreclosure cases without a hearing. Unfortunately, many judges see this as a “free pass” to deny homeowners’ motions, and grant motions for the banks, without notice, without hearing, and without explanation. It’s ironic, actually – many consumer advocates complained about the senior judge system, but, candidly, I greatly preferred the senior judge system, at least in Hillsborough, to what we have now. When the senior judges were in place, at least homeowners got hearings. At least homeowners felt like they were being heard. Now, it’s rare, at least in Hillsborough, that anyone even pretends that homeowners’ arguments are being considered. It’s pushing a boulder up a mountain just to be heard.

    Meanwhile, in Manatee County, a new Administrative Order requires that homeowners set hearings on their motions as the motions are filed, and some judges have threatened sanctions for failure to comply. As a litigator (and not just a foreclosure defense attorney), I find this procedure terribly misguided, particularly since it only applies in foreclosure cases. To illustrate, when I sue an insurance company and it responds with a motion to dismiss, do you think there is any procedure requiring the insurance company to set its motion for hearing right away? Heck no. I represent the plaintiff, so if I want to advance the case to judgment, I have to set the motion to dismiss for hearing. That’s standard fare in the court system. Yet, in foreclosure cases in Manatee County, when a homeowner files a motion to dismiss, he/she is required to set the motion for hearing. Why? Because the courts are concerned that foreclosure cases aren’t being adjudicated quickly enough? I’m sorry, but that’s not a good enough answer, for two glaring reasons.

    First, why is the court system bending over backwards to push through foreclosure cases but not any other types of cases? Are banks somehow deserving of special attention? The entire concept (that a special procedure would be employed only in foreclosure lawsuits, to the systematic betterment of one side) is, respectfully, offensive. Judges are supposed to call balls and strikes, like an umpire in baseball, not employ widespread, systematic procedures for the benefit of banks.

    Second, when are the courts/judges going to realize that the only ones trying to move these cases quickly are the courts/judges themselves? Generally speaking, banks aren’t killing themselves to obtain foreclosure judgments and acquire title to properties, especially when competent defense lawyers are throwing up bona-fide roadblocks making it difficult for the banks to prevail. In fact, this article in the St. Pete Times appropriately describes how banks often refuse to take title to properties even after they’ve obtained a foreclosure judgment.

    Think about that for a minute. The bank has won the case, all it has to do is set the foreclosure sale and become the high bidder (and take title) or let someone else be the high bidder. But the banks are systematically refusing to go through with these sales.

    Respectfully, shouldn’t this be a wake-up call to all of our courts? Why are the courts implementing all of these procedures to accelerate foreclosure cases when the banks aren’t even taking properties? Why are Hillsborough judges refusing hearings to accelerate cases when banks don’t want title? Why are Manatee judges requiring motions be set for hearing right away when banks don’t want title? What, exactly, is being accomplished here? Who is this helping?

    I wish I had answers to these questions, but, clearly, there are no answers. Instead, I’m left to lament how I have to prosecute cases when I represent plaintiffs, without any assistance from the courts, yet when I represent homeowners, the courts often take it upon themselves to help the banks prosecute the cases to judgment (even when the banks don’t want title to these properties).
    Mark Stopa

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  48. tnharry,
    I apologize for my comments, but it seems that you are not understanding the questions-If you read what I wrote my ? is If GMAC was the lender and at no point was I or anybody else aware that the loan was later sold to Freddie Mac and serviced from the beginning by Homecomings. Then I refinanced my 1st and 2nd in 2007 with BofA , 2nd being with WAMU. Full Reconveyance from GMAC and from WAMU. But GMAC didn’t own my loan and I never got any original docs back from GMAC like I did with WAMU. So conceivably my 1st with GMAC that was sold to Freddie MAc is still in play. But BofA (supposedly and without any notification from them or Freddie Mac0 sold my loan to Freddie Mac and this was only discovered with the servicing change done in Nov 09. The previous month, Oct 09 BofA changed my loan number. Here’s the kicker The only TILA I ever saw and got was the 30yr fully amt loan fixed at 6.5%. No documents (yr end escrow, etc) ever stated anything any different. Then with the servicing change 2 yrs later BofA states that I have a 30 yr Interest Only loan at 6.875%.. Now I have to look at this carefully. I now have 2 loans attributted to me with 2 different loan numbers. I spent 6 months sending QWR’s (4) without any response. The local BofA branch Manager could not find the first number in the system. With noone at BofA responding to letters.calls. emails I quit paying and told them I would continue when they answered my questions. They never did.
    They started foreclosure with fraudulent docs(no actual name of creditor , forgery of BofA VP that had not worked there since 2008,done by trustee that would not become trustee for 2 more months) Since new loan number did not become reality until Oct 09 I have 3 yrs(8/12) to rescind the way I read it. As well as having tolling on my side since they didn’t make it known until Nov 09.
    Plus the notary LIED FRAUD on the original docs with her acknowledgment of the date of signing. the acknowledgment in my docs sent to me after signing is blank her acknowledgement is dated on a day I could have never been there. I requested copy of journal knowing she would not provide because she was lying. Guess what? She lost that journal. Only one lost in 32 yrs. I followed up with SOS office 5 months later as she said she would have to file lost journal. She never did, so I filed complaint. 4months later I checked on complaint. SOS said they had not gotten to it yet. Checked Online Notary list. The notary has a new number.
    Now you know most of it.
    So I need yours and any others help here. Is it possible that the loan with GMAC that had an undisclosed assignment to FreddieMac never came out of Freddie Mac to be involved in the transaction with BofA in the refinance especially so knowing that my original docs never came back to me as the docs in the 2nd mortgage did and that Freddie Mac is indicated as the owner now and there was never any assignment from BofA who is now trying to foreclose and wont answer my very extensive 32 page QWR sent with the latest servicing change.
    WHEW!

  49. Assuming the loans being discussed are the ‘servicing loan receivables’ resold. The defaults. Fannie purchased knowing that note and accrual were separated and reason selling back is they know they can’t in the light of day do nothing about hiding that egregious fact.

  50. Christopher King thank you for another great production.

  51. to Neidermeyer:

    So correct, even though the attorneys for the lender had the note, they did not own it and it appears their foreclosure attorney coughed up an allonge assigning it to them. Unfortunately, the foreclosure attorneys picked up the wrong assignor – they did not own the note, but they got their msj anyway because the judge refused to look at the chain. That’s okay, because of that little gift, the lenders were so busy filing Msj’s and delaying, they forgot to sue the borrower. We were able to invoke the four year statute.

  52. @dad – umm, ok. i didn’t suggest it was a stupid question and was trying to help. good luck to you i guess…

  53. @leapfrog – i post when other comments or the articles interest me or when i’m directly responding to a comment to or about me. why do carie, nancy drewe, and soliman post so often?

  54. tnharry,
    I asked my question because it is not something covered anywhere that I have looked over the past 2 years. If you think that it is a stupid question then blow it out your*** you pompous bastard.

  55. @dad – is BoA in fact foreclosing? i didn’t see that in your initial post. if so, why are you making the connection that they are foreclosing the loans that appear to be paid off and not the refi that you obtained with them? if they are foreclosing on the refi, then you will need to deal with that. but if they are foreclosing the prior loans that were paid off through the refi, then your releases/reconveyances should provide a complete defense or basis for a restraining order.

  56. “I posted the excerpt from the servicing guide as information to help homeowners in foreclosure. Why do you post comments so often on this blog?”

    Thank you, Joan! And the last question is indeed the million dollar question – inquiring minds would like to know…

  57. Mr. Garfield, Esq. You are right on. I disclosed this mystery SEVEN years ago in my lawsuit 04CC11080. I had discovered the criminal scheme 2002-3.
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/12-3-09-salessi-revelations-of-2008-collapse-in-2004-lawsuit1.pdf

  58. tnharry-
    You are obviously missing the point of my question. If GMAC never RECORDED AN ASSIGNMENT TO FREDDIE MAC (Iknew nothing about this sale of my loan and Homecomings was my servicer the whole time) and then I refinanced my 1st and 2nd with BofA and received FULL RECONVEYANCES from GMAC 1st and WAMU 2nd (with wamu returning docs,but not GMAC) and then finding that FREDDIE MAC is owner of my loan, AGAIN WITH NO ASSIGNMENT RECORDED NOR WAS THEIR EVER A DOCUMENT RECORDED REMOVING OWNERSHIP or TRANSFER FROM FREDDIE MAC/GMAC loan that was paid off So could BofA possibly be attempting to foreclose on something that they never owned?

  59. @joan – it’s an interesting theory, i’ll grant you. but a core component of servicing a loan is the ability to enforce the obligation via foreclosure, and there MUST be some other parts of the guide that would address those rights and responsibilities. could you link to the whole guide? that statement makes sense in an effort to shield them from liability from acts undertaken by the servicer, but i don’t think it would work in court. the nature of the relationship and the acts performed by the servicer necessarily require an agency relationship.

  60. @cheryl – you can worry all you want, but i’d also wave that release in the face of anyone seeking to come after you later on. are you currently facing foreclosure or collection by another entity? if not, then i’d say that you’ve won for now, Linda Green or no Linda Green

  61. @zur – i’d have to agree with that, but we’re also looking at one paragraph taken out of context. i have to think that elsewhere in the servicing guidelines it sets out exactly how they are to service loans, including how to deal with default and what authority they have to act on their behalf.

  62. tnharry-

    I have a release signed by Linda Green. Does that mean it is valid? The refinance loan was though a lender in Ca who did not have a license to operate. I found on MERS that the investor of this bogus loan was BOA. They have 2 different MERS Nos. for 1 loan and the note date was not the same as the note date on the refinance. But I shouldn’t worry????

  63. @tnharry,

    Gosh, I thought you were a pro at this. The implications here are far more than “handbook” notations. Obvious to most of us, agency and assignment are central to foreclosure on securitized loans. If the servicers are suing in their own name on Fannie Mae loans, and they are not agents, assignees, or representatives of Fannie Mae, then they do not meet the requirements of the UCC as the person entitled to enforce. A servicer might “hold” a copy of a note, and might even forge a mortgage assignment, but that does not mean it is the party entitled to enforce. Servicer “customary or standard of practice” does not take the place of law affecting real estate. Countering your conjecture with my conjecture, I believe the court would agree. If, that is, this issue is challenged competently before the court.

    When the Fannie Mae independent contractor (who Fannie Mae says is not its agent or ASSIGNee) ASSIGNS the Fannie Mae mortgage to itself by its own attorney (who claims to be a vice president of MERS), then the servicer’s right to enforce the note and mortgage should be challenged.

    This is a Fannie Mae bombshell, in my view, because far too often borrowers are just accepting that the servicer is an agent or assignee of Fannie Mae, yet its servicing guide plainly states to the contrary.

    Sure courts might, and do, disagree on most defended positions in any kind of case…or they simply abstain from discussing legal issues not raised.

    I posted the excerpt from the servicing guide as information to help homeowners in foreclosure. Why do you post comments so often on this blog?

  64. Joan,
    That IS a bombshell! Thanks for sharing! TN, I don’t understand how you don’t see that as a bombshell. If a servicer is not an agent or an assignee, then they are obviously not empowered to do anything for the note holder, despite their claims to the contrary. That’s huge! And Fannie Mae change their tune in court, but that only makes presenting their written policy as evidence that much more damning. They will obviously be asked if they were lying in their servicer manual about servicers not agency/assignee status, or if they are lying in court when they try to say that servicrs DO have such status. That’s my opinion, anyway.

  65. Bart, you win the crazy, random posting award for the day.

    Drewe and Dad – if you have the reconveyances (which are essentially releases), you have no issue. They are full protection from anyone down the road. There’s not a monster behind every door. If there is no immediate problem, why make one?

  66. I also want to clear up the thing with westboro….. that is a work place,lawn boy lives at the address that people keep trying to sell, and lawn boy is a good person, mislead perhaps while I was in the hospital, but really taken for a very wild ride by some “famliy” members in pretense of helping him but really helping themselves. I wont be speaking of this anylonger here, but needed to air out and this is very mortgage related. also, clarification on the heating 3k, that was the plumber not the oil man. Thank You Neil, and no I am not unglued so put down that phone!

  67. disabled dad – I’d be worried. Too many have lost the kitchen sink just because the last payment was misapplied. Qualified Written Request Under RESPA, in accordance with laws of your state, seeking disclosure of all payments of principal and interest.

    Was GMAC LLC always your Servicer?

  68. @disableddad – i’m not following that question. you say you have a recorded reconveyance for each loan paid off. why are you concerned that loan wasn’t paid off when you have a release for it? you’re golden against anyone claiming to be collecting it later.

  69. i’ll have some bread with that spam please

  70. Below is the info I gleaned from the MERS/Investor info page. This really brought back the questions I had about not receiving any documents in return for my 1ST mortgage. I’m sure somebody here knows the answer. Question posed at the bottom of page.
    MERS INVESTOR SEARCH–1ST & 2ND Mortgages PAID OFF w/2007 BofA REFINANCE

    *Washington Mutual 2ND /15yr Mortgage-Received original blue ink docs from Wells Fargo after 2007 payoff. Also discovered that loan wasn’t even funded until a month after consummation.
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Additionally, borrowers wishing to learn the identity of their loan’s investor must confirm their identity by entering their last name or corporation name as well as their SSN or TIN. If this information does not match the information contained in the MERS® System for the borrower of the loan, the investor information will not be displayed. Borrowers should verify the results with their loan servicer.

    Servicer: FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank
    Phone:(800) 848-9136
    Monroe, LA

    *GMAC 1ST /15yr Mortgage-Did not receive original docs after 2007 payoff, even after request
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    Additionally, borrowers wishing to learn the identity of their loan’s investor must confirm their identity by entering their last name or corporation name as well as their SSN or TIN. If this information does not match the information contained in the MERS® System for the borrower of the loan, the investor information will not be displayed. Borrowers should verify the results with their loan servicer.

    Servicer: GMAC Mortgage, LLC
    Phone:(800) 766-4622
    Waterloo, IA
    Investor: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
    __________________________________________________________________________

    BIG??-I don’t have any assignments recorded that indicated GMAC transferred/sold or ? my loan to FHLMC Freddie Mac. In 2007 refinanced with BofA, in Oct 09 they changed my loan#, in Nov 09 when my loan servicing was changed from BofA, NA to BAC Home Loan Servicing, FLHMC LBAC 133 was the indicated as my loan owner AND THERE STILL ISN’T ANY ASSIGNMENT. I received a RECORDED FULL RECONVEYANCE for each loan that was paid off w/refi. Was my loan ever transferred to BofA?
    Could my GMAC loan still be out there and it was not refinanced at all, since they wouldn’t send me the docs after the PAYOFF?

  71. If you plan to sue anyone; or defend yourself in court or just want to be able to understand how the Court system and the lawyers work, you own it to yourself to buy this book, only about $19.
    This book will reveal to you the mystery of the Legal System and how to use it to your avantage. It is written by lawyer Paul Bergman with layman language so everybody can understand.
    http://www.nolo.com/products/represent-yourself-in-court-RYC.html
    Prepare and present a winning civil court case!
    Sometimes it makes sense to handle a court case without an attorney. Learn about acting as your own lawyer in Nolo’s easy-to-use, plain-English guide, Represent Yourself in Court.

    This book breaks down the trial process into easy-to-understand steps so that you can act as your own lawyer — safely and efficiently. Find out what to say, how to say it — even where to stand when you address the judge and jury. Get details on how to:

    file court papers
    handle depositions and interrogatories
    comply with courtroom procedures
    pick a jury
    prepare your evidence and line up witnesses
    present your opening statement and closing argument
    cross-examine hostile witnesses
    understand and apply rules of evidence
    locate, hire and effectively use expert witnesses
    make and respond to your opponent’s objections
    get limited help from an attorney as needed
    monitor the work of an attorney if you decide to hire one
    Whether you’re a plaintiff or a defendant, this book will help you confidently handle a divorce, personal injury case, landlord/tenant dispute, breach of contract, small business dispute, or any other civil lawsuit.

    The 7th edition has been revised with the latest rules and court procedures, and includes updated information on electronic discovery rules and fax filing procedures. Plus, you’ll get enhanced materials on court assistance for pro per litigants and an expanded discussion of self-representation in bankruptcy court.

    ISBN 9781413312690
    Pages 544 pp

  72. @carie – ok, i’ll bite…what is a Mortgage Database Proprietary File as discussed in your posts, and have you seen one?

  73. Global stocks tanking…told you so…
    Thanks to the greedy bastards…
    That started this whole thing…

  74. I just got back from my daily visit to area 51…

  75. sorry,tn—what would you like to talk about?

  76. it’s sad to see that carie is no longer in control of herself but has become a drone for soliman…i rather enjoyed our discussions

  77. “. ..Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and Mortgage Schedule cannot be proven…
    …once all proprietar­y “records” are finally divulged, subprime refinancin­g fraud is exposed — game over for those who are still trying to making a buck on the fraud.
    …securitiz­ation of fraudulent “collectio­n rights” — was a scam from the onset — never MBS — get your heads out of MBS — these “refinance­s” (not actually refinances­) — were “loans” REJECTED from traditiona­l MBS — credit enhancemen­t was created from layers of mezzanine tranches for credit default swaps — (purchase of collection rights) — and were NEVER secured mortgages. This is what caused the financial crisis FALL. Understand that subprime securizati­on was manufactur­ed securitiza­tion fraud.
    …the direction in courts — has been fraud upon the court — over and over — and, this is finally surfacing. There was no “funding” — PERIOD. —- All that existed was a purchase of collection rights from GSEs — by which “purchase” was covered by insurance for fabricated default and rejects.
    …if you want to say that any borrower is responsibl­e for any non-”funde­d” loan — that fabricated “funded” loan is unsecured — because there was NO VALID MORTGAGE.
    …There is NO lender. NO LENDER. NO FUNDING — NO MORTGAGE — Just your good “ole” debt buyer shyster — for unsecured fraudulent collection rights.
    Proof?? in the mortgage data base proprietar­y files.”

  78. what about that is a bombshell regarding the fraud? that may be their position in the handbook, but i suspect that courts would disagree. and i further suspect that they take a contrary position when it suits them. not sure that helps or hurts very much

  79. I am a novice in understanding much of the fraud, but this seems to be the Fannie Mae bombshell to me. If your blood isn’t boiling already, then this should do it:

    Lender Letter LL-2010-11 of October 1, 2010, on Page 1:
 Servicer’s Basic Duties and Responsibilities:

    Servicing Guide, Part I, Section 202: Servicer’s Basic Duties and Responsibilities and Section 202.04: Written Procedures:


    “As provided in the Servicing Guide, servicers service Fannie Mae mortgage loans as independent contractors, not as agents, assignees, or representatives of Fannie Mae. The servicer needs to maintain the discretion to apply appropriate judgment in dealing with borrowers and loans on a case-by-case basis, consistent with Fannie Mae’s servicing policies.”

    There you have it: Servicers are not agents, assignees, or representatives of Fannie Mae. They are independent contractors. Period.

  80. @neider – but that’s making a different argument than dan-o was making. his point (as I read it at least) was that the mill atty shouldn’t be signing the MERS assignment. I happen to agree with him on that. what i suggested is the justification that the mortgage company makes when engaging the atty to do so. now you’ve taken the position (somewhat out of context) that the mortgage company isn’t the valid noteholder. making that assumption, i would agree with you and I think most people would. i didn’t read his issue so much as dealing with a valid noteholder as opposed to whether the mill atty signing for MERS was proper.

    what if the entity directing the mill atty was the servicer? does that change anything in your opinion?

  81. @joane – i believe those files are located in Area 51 in the same file drawer containing the documentation about the fake moon landing, the memo of the plot to assassinate Kennedy, and the blueprints for the alien spaceships that crashed

  82. TNHARRY ,

    I believe the keyword in Dan-O’s reply was VALID in the term “valid noteholder” ,, that anyone can hold a note ,, I can hold the keys to your car , I can hold a beautiful piece of art in a gallery ,, but “holding” the object in my hands does not mean that I own it or even if I had a receipt for purchase that my ownership is valid … what if that piece of art was stolen before I bought it? We must challenge even little things because if we give up a multitude of little things then we end up in a position where we cannot attack the big things with credibility…

    And creating an assignment out of thin air is NOT a little thing…

    Lest you forget : http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/10/01/docx-lps-price-list-any-documents-you-want/

  83. Very good info. Neil hell I need an admin. to keep track of it! Meanwhile I keep on here, short film about Judge Landya McCafferty’s back-door silent, hidden recusal.

    Also another Judge McCafferty does jail time for fixing cases.

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/09/kingcast-presents-short-film-about.html

  84. Mortgage Data Base Proprietary Files? Where do I find these please.

  85. Yes, this please. Excellent idea:

    neidermeyer, on September 9, 2011 at 9:42 am said:

    “Neil ,

    I have a request that I hope you will entertain.

    Could you whip up a cookbook type document to approach court ordered mediation with addressing standing and documentation questions… It would also be good to have a “what to avoid” page or two so that people don’t hurt themselves.

    Thanks.”

  86. Thank you Carrie Are there forms of the letters I should be sending? Wish we had you in Oklahoma! All the foreclosure mill attorneys here, just point to “Power of Sale” clause in the Real Estate Mortgage. And, they say it is the “Note” they sre enforcing and that the “Note” and Real Estate Mortgage are NOT Seperated?

  87. Interesting comments. I am a real estate lawyer in Austin Texas

  88. Neil ,

    I have a request that I hope you will entertain.

    Could you whip up a cookbook type document to approach court ordered mediation with addressing standing and documentation questions… It would also be good to have a “what to avoid” page or two so that people don’t hurt themselves.

    Thanks.

  89. “. ..You should be preparing to demonstrat­e that the loan was not validly conveyed to any Trust (which they were not). Do this by requesting the Mortgage Schedule which should accompany the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) — and the MLPA cannot be an “intent” to sell — it must be validly executed and notarized (we know about those notaries). And, importantl­y, if MLPA and Mortgage Schedule can be proven, servicer must prove that all default payments have been paid to the trust on borrower’s behalf. If not, loan has been removed from the Trust with collection rights sold/swapp­ed to a Third Party…
    …They have NO RIGHT to foreclose—I believe they are in DIRECT violation of FDCPA by even threatening to foreclose on UNSECURED DEBT. Send CEASE AND DESIST/DISPUTE OF DEBT and demand FULL accounting–with Mortgage Loan Purchase agreement and Mortgage Loan Schedule (they don’t have unless fraudulently fabricated!!!), —send letters to ALL addresses—certified—and to any fax numbers you have. State TILA, RESPA, and FDCPA laws…
    Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are on to their lies and fraud.
    “…parties here working for the crooks —some here trying to make a business on fraud against homeowners. It simply is not acceptable.
    Second, once all proprietary “records” are finally divulged, subprime refinancing fraud is exposed — game over for those who are still trying to making a buck on the fraud.
    …securitization of fraudulent “collection rights” — was a scam from the onset — never MBS — get your heads out of MBS — these “refinances” (not actually refinances) — were “loans” REJECTED from traditional MBS — credit enhancement was created from layers of mezzanine tranches for credit default swaps — (purchase of collection rights) — and were NEVER secured mortgages. This is what caused the financial crisis FALL. Understand that subprime securization was manufactured securitization fraud.
    …the direction in courts — has been fraud upon the court — over and over — and, this is finally surfacing. There was no “funding” — PERIOD. —- All that existed was a purchase of collection rights from GSEs — by which “purchase” was covered by insurance for fabricated default and rejects.
    …if you want to say that any borrower is responsible for any non-”funded” loan — that fabricated “funded” loan is unsecured — because there was NO VALID MORTGAGE.
    …There is NO lender. NO LENDER. NO FUNDING — NO MORTGAGE — Just your good “ole” debt buyer shyster — for unsecured fraudulent collection rights.
    If anyone here chooses to think otherwise — you are — and have been — barking up the WRONG tree — and not battling the battle that needs to be fought.
    You are, instead, feeding the “investors” to falsified collection rights — and giving credibility to a loan that is not a loan — and not a mortgage.
    You are feeding the homeowners to “wolf” debt buyer “investors” — as they prefer to be called.
    Proof?? in the mortgage data base proprietary files.”

  90. Hope this doesn’t sound to stupid, but here goes: When my loan closed at American Guaranty Title Company 10-2005 the title company gave the seller a check for $215,000. The check was a check from American Guaranty Title Company. My docs show CIT Group as the Lender. Would CIT be the Co. that wired the money for the closing to pay the seller? Or are you saying it was probably someone else? If so, how do I find out who? Thank you All

  91. Thank you, ANONYMOUS.

  92. Why would Citi Mortgage Inc. transfer my mortgage loan servicing to Carrington right in the middle of my application for a loan Mod? Since I was 4 months delinquent at the time of the transfer, would’nt that make Carrington a Debt Collector? Everything from them has the Mini Miranda. I checked FNMA & Freddie Mac websites and neither of them is the owner of my loan?

  93. FURTHER—NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE OR ITS DEALMAKING ENTITY NEW CENTURY CAPITAL CORPORATION TYPICALLY MADE
    LOAN POOL SALES DEALS AT AROUND $1 BILLION DOLLARS EACH.

    THAT WOULD MEAN THAT HAD THEY BEEN REQUIRED TO REPURCHASE AND THEY HAD THE LIMIT OF ONLY HAVING TO REPURCHASE 2% OF THE BILLION DOLLAR POOL—-THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO COME UP WITH ONLY $20 MILLION ON THAT BILLION DOLLAR DEAL.

    UNFORTUNATELY OR FORTUNATELY FOR THEM, DEPENDING ON HOW ONE LOOKS AT THIS, THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH CASH RESERVES —SO HEADED STRAIGHT FOR BANKRUPTCY COURT WHERE THEY REMAIN SOME 4 YEARS LATER!!

  94. @Bart – who are you talking to? it looks like you’re having a private conversation on a public forum

  95. LET US NOT FORGET THAT MANY OF THE ENTITIES WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO ‘REPURCHASE’, DECLARED BANKRUPTCY, SUCH AS NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND ITS SUBSIDIARY HOME123 CORPORATION.

    SO THEY CANNOT NOW ‘REPURCHASE’ A DARNED THING.

    AND IN FACT THESE TWO CLEVER COMPANIES HAD A REPURCHASE LIMIT CLAUSE THAT STATED THEY NEVER HAD TO REPURCHASE MORE THAN 2% OF THE LOANS IN ANY ONE POOL THEY SOLD.

  96. The “investment banks” were the investors — the lender. The “bonds” do not change the status of the investor/lender — it simply passes through current cash payments by the “investor” to the security investors – who are NOT the lender/creditor. Further, once a servicer ceases making advance payments — the loan is liquidated from the pass-through trust.

    See complaint filed in USDC for Minnesota –MASTR Asset Backed Trust 2006-HE3 by US Bank, NA versus WMC Mortgage Corporation and Equifirst. If the loans had been repurchased — as US Bank, as trustee, is demanding — there would be no complaint. The “loans” are liquidated from Trust — Why?? Because there is no longer a current cash flow on these liquidated loans.

    See #28 — Quote

    “indeed, at issuance, in August 2006, the Trust’s original total loan balance was $555 million from a total of 3,067 Mortgage Loans. However, as of June 27, 2011, over 45 percent — i.e., $257 million, or 1,374 Loans — of that loan balance had been liquidated because of the pervasive fraud and misrepresentation in the loan applications. Moreover, over 30 percent of the remaining Mortgage Loans in the pool are delinquent in payment as of the date of this filing.”

    UBS — is the Depositor and Security Underwriter in this particular Trust instance. UBS is the “investor” — thus, lender/creditor until UBS disposes of the “liquidated” loans to a third party. Again, “loans” are liquidated when the servicer ceases advancing payments. US Bank, NA acts on behalf of the investor — not the security investors. If the security investors have any issues with the pass-through derivative securities they purchased, their target is the security underwriter — not with the originator WMC or Equifirst — and not with the borrowers.

    Continued confusion regarding “investor” and “security investor” is counter-productive.

  97. on those photo’s, all the computers were thrown away I guess becase I could not find them, But most of the sittings should already be in the CD files.See there was alot of pillfuring and alot of things I never found.and to someone else this may have seemed to be rumbish.

  98. while I am on this roll…. My Bussiness… yes the one that I lost while in that darned hospital for months, that I did ask people in there to help me with but it was never implemented….. just like the theivery of property while I was there, but I know that this was all part of the plan.And no, my daughters do not know anything…. a mere coincedence of that title anoncement, but very funny. Buy the way….I do have everyone’s CD’s still on those photos, yea, you did not lose them, I have not been able to get to that task but I will, promise:)

  99. Oh, I forgot something…..heating man was only 3k left and would not come back to finish some stuff up, overly padded that “amount due” and put it in court while I was in hospital, I have all the original proof.And this gravel thing, It was paid thur the contractor so any thing he did not pay you you need to settle with him. That’s another whole situation that contractor and most of you know that.

  100. Since the homeowner is pretty much the only valid holder of the title, they should forgive the debt and give the houses back to the homeowner free and clear. Quiet title looks like the only way to straighten out the title. The banks are not going to do that. The homeowner has to.

  101. now that was strange……

  102. maybe you’re right if they aren’t the noteholder. why do you make the assumption that they are never the noteholder though?

  103. Good Morning Neil and let me thank you for all the teaching on ownership of Title, fatal defect’s of title reduring it impossible to be “sold” at auction and imperfected liens. This teaching is something that every one out there should be learning so I am today posting this weblog address on the board at the local Post Office for all to understand and maybe take this information to understand how they can possibly help themselves. All of you need to get out your “mortgage” documents and really examine them from the teaching on this site, go thur all the old posts and the articles but please pay attention to Neil’s comentary’ s at the top of each post.What happed in my situation should never happen to anyone. Although mine is extreme and I do hope none of you ever have to go through something like this, I am not going to be pushed to the point of madness anylonger. The people found in this took great effort in concert to push me to that level. Imagine yourself at the dunking tank at the fair, being dunked over and over again with out being allowed to come up for air….. now I think you got it.I am writting this post today because of the rumors that have spread that I screwed people. People have been uneducated of the truth and have picked up on alot of outright lies. I payed close to 1 million dollars over the last 7 years as “payments” and this was ALL out of me. Lawnboy’s sister’s have some real mental issues as they somehow think they have been screwed. So let’s do an accounting. There was a 40k passbook at the time of Lawnboy’s take over as power of atty after mom’s ceribral event that rendered her unable to care for herself. We took her home and I took care of her directly for two and a half long years in her home.The 40k was spent as follows, 10k funeral, 10 k taxes and insurance the remaining 20k utilites, car insurance for montly expenses,the money was spent on her as it was HER money.After a about a year of caring for her 24 hours a day 7 days a week, We found a program that allows people to stay in their homes as long as they can and the provision of a day care program monday thur Friday was part of the plan. We put her in this program so I could possibly return to work, and yes we know she did not like it there but we had no choice as we really needed my income.The center took all of her monthy income, just like a nursing home would as it was set up to be of benifit to just keep them at home with family care as long as possible . So with the 40k spent on Mom and now the center taking all her income you can see there was nothing left.I personally provided all her direct care for the 2 and a half years she was cared for at home, I slept on her sofa and my own family still lived at our house. I had no time off execpt for 1 weekend by sister number 1 and 2 days during 1 week by sister number 2. This was over 2 and a half years. They went on with thier lives with work, family and vacations. When it finally became to much for me as I was burnt we placed her in a nice area nuring home and I went to work there to oversee her care till her death and they did provide good care and I am sorry if sister’s came in and caused troble in both places but it was not ever me.Sister’s never came to the house to visit Mom, but sister number 2 would go to the center from time to time but I belive caused troble there.And yes, I loved it there. And there is Hippa so it was never mentioned.If the private care that was provided by me directly for free was billed it would come to 509,600.00 thousand dollars at say 40 dollars an hour. This was for 10 hour days overnite monday thur friday and 24 hours each and every satuday. I did not include the time that was a full 24 hours times 7 days a week for the 1st year but it would have been somewhere around 349,440.00 thosand dollars.This would have been an expense of 859,040.00 thousand dollars if added together. So now you all have some real truth in the matter. Sister’s have been brain washed by thier own thinking that somehow they were screwed so they went to levels so extreme that I have learned that I am still in a state of numbness.So now you can see the multi layers of this that took place. And by the way,framer was paid ,gravel was paid, no worker was screwed.Oil man is on a payment arrangment and that 1 lawn mow will be taken care of as well. I hope this clears up some rumors,we did not do anything to any one.

  104. According to mers rules only a valid noteholder can cause an assignment to be made by a mers signing officer so when they sign absent a valid noteholder that is fraud.

  105. @dan-o – the mortgage company grants them a limited power of attorney to execute the assignments on their behalf. the theory is that the MERS powers the mortgage company has are delegated to the mill atty. i don’t believe that to be valid, but that’s their theory at least. as to the characterization that it’s manufacturing evidence, that’s a much more fine line. when you get down to it, almost all evidence is “manufactured”. a letter is written, a contract is drafted, a photograph is taken, etc. not illegal per se. changing or otherwise modifying documents to be used as evidence may be a different story though.

  106. Yes, repurchase is required on every broker/originator loan: however, as you now know, hundreds, perhaps thousands of these little broker companies signed these agreements, but had no way to repurchase any of the loans. So the banks, along with other larger mortgage banking teams, took the loans and then sold them to Fannie. Even the investment banks could not handle the repurchase of the loans, but they could at the time we were originating and funding prudent underwritten loans, even on subprime.

    There is no other way for the feds to get back the 1.3 trillion they purchased in F & F securities back in early 2009, except to ask the banks to repurchase them. WE don’t know yet do we where that 1.3 trillion came from since no was appeared to be aware that the feds had done that. Where was that money booked, since no budget for 2009 forward was ever produced. I still which someone who knew the real story about this could let us know as it has never been clear how that purchase took place.

    Moving the liability back to the banks is the way I believe it is to be handled and then, perhaps another bailout of taxpayer money will go to help the banks recover. Again, just a thought of what could possibly be. Either way, the taxpayers would be unhappy with the result unless we are assured no taxpayer ever used again to give to the banks. The bad loans do need to be repurchased by Fannie and Freddie, but we all know, that F & F knew exactly what kind of loans they were getting. The very sad fact of this is even when a homeowner was in trouble and we showed that the loan had been falsified and the borrower entrapped into the loan, F & F never backed up the person, only the servicer and the original lende.

  107. how can a foreclosure mill attorney pose as a mers signing officer and assign a mortgage to their clients enabling them to foreclose? isnt this manufacturing evidence? illegal?

  108. Back to basis? Good thing. Next: forbid attorneys from touching anything that isn’t strictly “law”. Most of our ills come from them. Everyone in Congress is an attorney. Ou President is one too. They’re everywhere. They mess up everything. No common sense, no moral sense. And they breed like rats!

    I once read a history book stating that in San Francisco alone, there are as many attornys as they are in the entire country of Japan… I would tend to believe it.

  109. Repurchase agreements have always been part of PSAs and also every mortgage broker/originator/”lender” agreements.

  110. the “GSE Business Model”. Who are the players and who recieved the beneficial interest.

  111. It was always standard procedure and as far back as I can remember from 1966 to 1995, that before any loan was sent to the attorneys for processing for foreclosure, and before any notices of demand or acceleration were sent out, that each file was reviewed by the servicing unit to assure that if theloan had been sold from the time it had been originated, and most had, that a check list was provided to assure which assignments were in the file and that they had been recorded.

    When the foreclosure attorney processed for foreclosure, they would simply order a title report update to assure it matched up with our records. It was so easy and now just look at the mess we have because it was all turned over to attorneys who had no idea whether the loans had been sold or not.

    This procedure is nothing new, but one that was eliminated to eliminate addtional cost.

    Intentional, yes.

  112. And what about all the foreclosure that have already taken place? How will they resolve those title defects? Will the banks have to file Quiet Title suits? That sounds very costly. Maybe they should offer us a “signature incentive.” Maybe they should return our houses.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: