STRATEGIC DEFAULTS REVISITED: SHOULD YOU STOP PAYING?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Mark, one of our readers, just pointed out to me that on YOUTUBE I have a video explaining tier 2 yield spread premiums that have been largely overlooked by virtually everyone. The premise of the piece on YouTube is “Are securitized residential notes already paid by tier two yield spread premium ?” Mark’s comment is “Have the notes on residential mortgage backed securities in full or in part ? This may mean that a strategic default does not make sense since the homeowner may very well be giving up on and abandoning a free and clear property that has already been abandoned by the creditor. Maybe it’s time to go on the offense ?”

My answer is that theoretically going on the offensive makes a lot of sense and maybe it is time to try that again. BUT, the track record of taking the banks on before any default has not been very successful except when a default occurs with only one “record holder” of the mortgage in the title registry. On the other hand there is more than one offense, and getting a full accounting for what happened to the money is likely to reveal some very fruitful results, both in terms of TILA violations and in terms of computing the real balance on the original obligation.

Here we have the transcript of my talk on YouTube: Keep in mind that this video was done before we had so much evidence that the securitization of loans was largely a hoax in which the loans were never transferred into any pool and that fact alone changes some of the legal conclusions — but not the factual conclusions regarding the money.

—————————————————————————-

Today we are going to talk about yield spread premiums. Many of you have heard the term used . I doubt if many people actually understand what it is. So I’m going to start with explaining each term .

First a yield is the amount expressed in either dollars or percentage that comes from an investment so for example if you were to purchase a bond in the market place for a thousand dollars and you were receiving 50 dollars per year as interest on that bond , then the yield on that bond would be fifty dollars and that would be five per cent of one thousand dollars so the yield would be expressed as either five percent or fifty dollars .

A yield spread occurs when there are two different loans . Basically the yield spread premium as you will learn in a moment is a device used in the marketplace and it has been used for quite some time by which the seller of a financial product steers you into a second product which is not as good for you as the first but it is better for somebody else.

So for example to put it in plain language if you have a five per cent loan that you qualified for and your mortgage broker steers you into a seven per cent loan so you are going to be paying higher interest its worse for you , better for the lender , the lender pays the mortgage broker an extra fee usually under the table which is called the yield spread premium.

The spread is two per cent in the example I just gave you. You have a seven per cent loan and a five per cent loan the difference between seven per cent and five per cent is two . That two per cent doesn’t sound like much but when you multiple it times an average of say two hundred thousand dollars that two  percent is four thousand dollars a year which over the life of a thirty year loan is a hundred and twenty thousand dollars .

Therefore the broker gets a commission based upon the present value of that $ 120,000. So this first yield spread premium which has existed for decades is something which the mortgage brokers have feasted on . It is supposed  to be disclosed to you in the good faith estimate and in your final HUD settlement statement at the closing and usually isn’t and is frequently the grounds for clawing back some money from the lender and potentially treble damages or interest and attorneys fees etc.

But there is a second yield spread premium which is largely unknown . It arose during the time that mortgage loans were securitized. Securitizing of a loan simply means that they were converted from just being a loan to being a security. That’s why they call it securitization.

The securitization of the loan causes a second sale to occur before it actually gets to the source of funding. Who is the source of funding on your loan when you’re loan has been securitized ? Well the source of funding is an investor or a group of investors who advanced money and received a bond a mortgage backed security which gave them ownership some percentage ownership in your loan and many others..

When they bought that pool of loans that included your loan they paid a spread but they weren’t told that in other words if they put up a million dollars the investment bankers on wall street for example might have only used $ 500,000 to fund mortgages . And the way they were able to do that was through the yield spread .

The investor thinking that they were getting a triple A rated investment grade security based upon a  Moodys rating or an S&P and insured by our famous AIG friends, was prepared to accept a return of perhaps five or six percent which was one or two percent higher than they could ordinarily get but the loan pool that the investment banker sold to the investors contained many loans that included ninja loans no income no job no assets sometimes resetting to as much as 18 percent .

If you put pen to paper and watch this video perhaps a couple of times that at the very beginning I made a point of saying that you could express the yield in either dollar terms or percentage terms so if the investor parted with one million dollars to buy the bonds and was expecting a five percent return and the investment banker went out and got very poor quality loans with an average of ten per cent interest .

The investment banker only had to use half of the money from the investor to fund the mortgages necessary to get the five per cent that the investor was looking for. Now that sounds confusing  I’m sure but watch the numbers .

If the investor gave a million dollars and he was looking for a five percent return he was looking for fifty thousand dollars. But if the investment banker gave out only five hundred thousand dollars in funding at ten per cent , there’s your fifty thousand dollars ten percent of five hundred thousand .

So the investment banker sells the five hundred thousand dollar loan to the investor for one million dollars and pockets five hundred thousand as a yield spread in that case the yield spread premium is roughly equivalent to the yield spread itself .

In the first instance where the old yield spread premium was paid the bank or lender would have paid the mortgage broker a little kickback or an extra bonus of a few thousand dollars for having steered  you into a higher yielding loan.

In the second instance the second sale itself is unknown to both the borrower and the investor and only the investment banker knows so what the investment banker does is create this spread and while there are some monies that are taken out of that spread in order to cover the investment with credit default swaps , insurance and with reserves, the bulk of the money went to the investment banker and frequently  can be found offshore in a structured investment vehicle.

The point of this that for those of you who get a forensic analysis or a truth in lending audit or whatever they want to call it , that second yield spread premium is not just a few thousand like the first one it is for a securitized loan and especially those that are subprime or alternate funding loans it is frequently a very substantial proportion or even a multiple of the entire funding of the loan. Now the reason that’s important was that it was undisclosed.

And the reason why that’s important is that because it was undisclosed and because the parties were undisclosed there appears to be a remedy in the truth in lending law which allows you to claw back your share of that money as a yield spread on the second level where it was sold to the investors. This may mean that the profit now it depends , loans vary as to quality and so you do need to consult with experts on this but generally speaking for general information purposes it may mean your loan was paid in full or in part or prepaid in part at the very start of your transaction when you first signed the papers .

At the very least it provides you with a reason in discovery or with a qualified written request or a debt validation letter to ask for a full accounting of all monetary transactions that relate to your loan or which relate to the pool in which your loan was located.

15 Responses

  1. […] STRATEGIC DEFAULTS REVISITED: SHOULD YOU STOP PAYING? Posted on September 11, 2011 by Neil Garfield […]

  2. There was a recent link on a post for a book on how to represent yourself in court. can someone repost the link. It was like 544 pages. Eighteen bucks.

  3. Todd,

    TILA and Amendment applies to all transactions. You are thinking of rescission and “NOTICE” of Cancellation – that applies only to refinances.

    TILA and Amendment demands identification of CURRENT creditor. Debt buyers love to only identify PAST creditors. All in violation.

  4. Does TILA apply only to second mortgages and refinances. I’ve been told this is the case, and doesn;t apply to 1st mortgages. Neil, what’s the truth about TILA and 1st mortgages. It would seem RESPA and TILA are separate but conjoined on a 1st mortgage transaction too.

  5. usedkar—very sad…my husband keeps saying “let’s go” also…but where? Mars? Seems to be the only place without corruption…

  6. I’m sitting here watching the 9/11 rehash, and the thoughts run through my mind about how insignificant all of us are. That is, we are all pretty “insignificant” as individuals. As we watched our country being attacked, and saw those buildings fall, we all took notice of what it meant to be an “American”. I remember it well. And in the days afterward, there began a cohesive contagion that drew “Americans” together.

    Now, those sentiments are quite different. Let me explain. My wife and I just had a conversation about her mother. Her mom and dad lived in Yugoslavia when World War II broke out and came to their town. Now we call it the “former Yugoslavia” (Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia). Bill Clinton came in and tried to settle the civil war built on old wounds by dropping bombs from B-52’s at 50,000 feet. What wounds, you ask? When the Nazis came the Croatians (Muslims) sided with the Germans. Just as the Grand Muhfti incited the Arab world to fight along side the Axis Powers, the Nazis encouraged the Muslims to kill Christians.

    This woman who gave birth to my wife was hidden from the Nazis under a pile of dead bodies while the Germans burned the rest of the family alive in their home. This scene was repeated throughout Europe. Sometimes in concentration camps, sometimes just on the hillside. The father was held as a prisoner of war even though he never touched a gun. Wherever the atrocities were committed, the wounds remained fresh even though generations had passed. What was misunderstood as “peace” was the Communists who installed Tito to rule with an iron fist. Tito kept the people (and the hatred) in check. It was “freedom” that allowed the people to take up arms against each other and divide the country into parts many years later. The Croatians were quick to start burning churches throughout the countryside and commence an “ethnic cleansing” of the area. These actions brought the Serbs to rise up and return the favor they owed the Muslims for over 50 years. Hence, Uncle Bill thought it best to drop bombs on the country to get “Monica Lewinsky” off the front page. That’s right, a distraction. There was no concern for 700 year old churches being destroyed. The concern was for himself. Kill people from 50,000 feet to “protect yourself”. What a guy. But I digress.

    The conversation turned to our predicament, much like the one you have. No money, house in foreclosure, unable to “make a living” since the economy tanked. My wife said: “My mother gave up everything she had to come to this country and make a life. A life for me. She would not recognize this country anymore. If we had the money, I would say ‘let’s go’. Let’s leave. This is not our country anymore.”

    I’m sad to say that she’s right. It’s not OUR country anymore…..because we, as citizens, have become insignificant. I can only hope that those who participate here and take their battles into the courtrooms of America can maintain their fervor for justice. We are our childrens only hope.

    God Bless America!

  7. @losingmyhomeinflorida —in case you didn’t see this—I am posting again:

    Unfortunately, your story is all too familiar.

    You are being lied to over and over by the banks…BELIEVE that.

    Collection rights are transferred—due to manufactured false default—insurance collected—with bogus note/mortgage refinance. Insurance fraud—last time I looked — is criminal.
    Debt buyers are continuing the fraud with bogus documents.
    Does your monthly statement say “debt collector”?
    AS IN:
    “This company is a debt collector and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. However, if you have filed a bankruptcy petition and there is either an “automatic stay” in effect in your bankruptcy case, or your debt has been discharged pursuant to the bankruptcy laws of the United States, this communication is intended solely for informational purposes.”
    That’s what it says on my “statement”.
    Did you refinance/purchase (subprime/alt a) ? Then you undoubtedly have unsecured debt—not a “real mortgage”…like credit card debt—truth being covered up.
    I am not an attorney—just a TOTALLY BROKE (thanks to all this fraud), consumer fighting back however I can against the lies…because even the attorneys don’t know what to do…at least not any that I’ve talked to…and the lovely courts are being PAID to push foreclosures through…NOT for being homeowner advocates…
    You can try this if you like—I have had some success with it:

    In addition to requesting in a QWR (qualified written request letter), for PROOF of a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and a Mortgage Loan Schedule and accounting of all of your payments on an actual balance sheet that an actual “loan” lies on (which they won’t be able to come up with because only collection rights were transferred after closing), you can send this—certified:

    (sample cease and desist letter):

    YOUR NAME/ADDRESS
    DATE
    SERVICER NAME/ADDRESS

    Re: servicer/bank name & account number)

    Dear _______________,

    Greetings!

    You are hereby notified under provisions of Public Laws 109-351— FDCPA–Fair Debt Collections Practices Act—that your services are no longer desired.

    1) You and your organization must CEASE AND DESIST all attempts to collect the above debt. Failure to comply with this law will result in my immediately filing a complaint with the federal trade Commission and this State’s Attorney Generals office. I will pursue all criminal and civil claims against you and your company.

    2) I am disputing the validity of this debt under the terms of the FDCPA, section 809, a-c.

    3) I am also quite concerned regarding the “threat” of “foreclosure” that you have been sending in writing to me—which is in direct violation of FDCPA, section 807.

    4) Let this letter also serve as your warning that I may utilize telephone recording devices in order to document any telephone conversations that we may have in the future.

    5) Furthermore, if any negative information is placed on my credit reports by your agency after receipt of this notice, this will cause me to file suit against you and your organization, both personally and corporately, to seek any and all legal remedies available to me by law.

    In conclusion, since it is my policy to neither recognize nor deal with collection agencies, i intend to settle this account with the ORIGINAL CREDITOR.

    Have a nice day.

    Sincerely,

    _____________
    _______________

  8. The certificate investors need to align themselves with homeowners (they are homeowners too). Sue the trustee banks and the depositors and the sponsor/sellers and the strawmen/broker/servicer/interloper fraudsters and the one million times the mortgage table funders. Demand the discovery and get to the bottom of it. The whole thing is going down anyway now one way or another so who gets saved? Save themselves along with the homeowners -consumers who are driving this Greater Depression that will last for decades or generations – let the fraudsters fail. Bigger fraud exists than underwriting risky loans and selling as AAA. (No mbs and the real reasons why no mbs). Here’s one investor lawsuit that mentions homeowners and mentions psa violations “backed by nothing at all” – maybe only one so far. Amended Complaint Knights of Columbus.

  9. It seems to me that there are even more nefarious uses of the yield spread premium.

  10. Three Reasons for Strategic Default

    by Mark Stopa

    I enjoyed this article from Huffington Post, entitled Three Sound Legal and Moral Reasons for Strategic Default. I particularly like number 2, especially the part that asks:

    how do you try the Federal government, mortgage industry, and media going back 100 years?

    Here’s the article. …http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-carroll/three-sound-legal-and-mor_b_882471.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=993684,b=facebook

    The standard justification is that “It’s in the contract that the bank gets the house if you default.” Actually, that clause is legally a remedy to a worst-case scenario — not an expected part of the deal. There are three much stronger justifications.

    The first is legal and moral: fraud. A huge percentage of the homes sold after 2000 were sold to unsophisticated buyers through a mixture of assurances that their homes would appreciate, could be used as ATMs in the meantime, and that there was no conceivable problem that the mortgage broker could not wiggle around to refinance the home again, usually at even better terms.

    Yes, many of the buyers were naive and reckless, and suffering both gullibility and cupidity. But the lenders were dishonest, and preyed on those exact weaknesses. Under these circumstances, the culpability falls on the professional.

    No, there is no solid legal case against the mortgage brokers, because there were probably no secret summit meetings planning a conspiracy, and probably not many incriminating emails either. There was simply the word on the grapevine, “Fannie Mae will finance anything! Commission times are here!” Nevertheless, whether or not a winning case can be made in court: lying to customers to make a profit, to the customers’ financial harm, is fraud. And substantial fraud in the course of a sale undercuts the standing of any contract.

    (As an added note, every mortgage broker who encouraged a borrower to lie on any loan application involving Federal funding — meaning almost all mortgages — was accessory before the fact to violation of Federal law USC 18, Section 1014. In other words, equally guilty.)

    The second is moral and legal: no living American has escaped a continual and confident advertising campaign stating flatly that buying a house is a sound financial investment, and a necessary or even assured part of planning a financially sound retirement.

    Pushing home ownership upon Americans as a good investment was not merely real estate agent hype: it was conceived and orchestrated by the Federal government in the early 1900s, pushed by realtors’ organizations, and trumpeted by media for nearly a century until the bubble burst. (Readably described online in Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth by Douglas French.)

    Americans were assured that a) a home was a winning investment, in fact the winning investment in modern America, and b) that they couldn’t lose. Americans relied on those assurances when they bought the homes. Now that the promise has proved false, they have every moral right to default, because the promised investment didn’t pan out.

    Again, no solid legal case, because there is no single defendant to put on trial — how do you try the Federal government, mortgage industry, and media going back 100 years? Nevertheless, in legal terms, equitable remedies come to mind, notably the doctrine of reliance. Reading the history of equitable remedy can give you a headache, but basically it means “fair dealing.” Fair dealing, the buyers did not get.

    (Lying to make a profit is not “just show biz,” unless perhaps you are selling tickets to a movie. When I bought my first house in the 1980s, I asked the mortgage broker what he thought of the neighborhood’s chances of appreciation. He answered, “I write mortgages. Ask your real estate agent.” In other words, “I don’t do hype.” Times had changed by 2000, it appears.)

    The third is morally repugnant: In 50 years of a more-or-less steadily rising real estate market, banks foreclosed on millions of homes, most of which were worth significantly more than the mortgage. The “defaulters” then were the laid-off, the divorced, and the ill edging towards medical bankruptcy.

    Though most states’ laws mandate that when a foreclosed home is auctioned off, the surplus should be paid to the homeowner, there is usually no surplus. This is because there are not many potential buyers with enough cash and nerve to appear at the courthouse steps and smack down a certified check for a house they haven’t even had a chance to inspect.

    So the houses usually went back to the bank for the amount of the mortgage, and the banks then flipped them for a profit, quite legally — after the auction was complete and the title had been transferred to them.

    This makes contract-thumping moralists more than absurd when they shriek “that the bank didn’t stand to gain on the appreciation, so they shouldn’t bear the burden of risking depreciation.” On the contrary, the banks did gain on the appreciation for 50 years; they lent out money on the assurance of their bean-counters that a certain percentage of tasty homes could be snapped up for nothing, and then perched on their spider webs waiting for the victims of misfortune.

    Today the banksters cry in their champagne about the collapse of American morals that they themselves never subscribed to. But the banks have long since gotten their pound of flesh. Now it is time to walk away from false promises, free the money locked up in homes, and let it escape from the mortgage bubble so it can flow back into the Main Street economy.
    Mark Stopa Esq.

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  11. Nancy Drewe’s “Tapeworm” analogy explained here—by former Assistant Secretary of Housing—must watch if you haven’t already:

  12. We’ve learned private corporations control Sovereign Governments. We’ve learned ‘TARP’ the forced interest payments due on the GOLD already pledged collateral back in 1990’s.
    That gold had my unique bond number from my birth certificates pledged as collateral c/o TRUST in Custody of US TREASURY. And when I signed up for SSN, my SSN was attached to bonds held for Social Security and I already was pledged to bonds for cash deals in which gold was pledged as collateral. Well I’m a resident and part of this mess. The ‘gold’ converted into ‘cash’ for ‘debt’ what debt? Financial exchange cash which Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae given to leverage more cash c/o more pledged assets c/o property of resident whose birth certificate part of bond debt just being born, whose SSN part of bond debt of the Social Security System. The ‘cash’ placed to trade over the counter in alternate investments at a credit risk the United States ‘could not afford.’ Now what!
    At birth, did the birth certificate attach my baby to the national debt? Yes. Is the US Treasury a Trust Company, YES. Was there once a $250K gold bar with my name on it? Yes. Was the debt of the US in the new Finance Universe leveraged buying ‘cash’ and converting cash into debt? Notes? Bonds? Now real estate of nation? Yes Now they need access to all cash related to heal industry of each consumer. Hello! Stop the world I want to get off now! The taking possession of property, both real and personal, by third party through deceptive acts normalized. Hey, what came first the cash or the debt? When did the US Treasury do business with the Federal Reserve and pledge all the gold? Clearly the 1990’s 10K by 10K, 8K by 8K, Ex-21 Subsidiaries, S-3 and S-3/A documents, exhibits, reveal the diversifications, mergers, acquisitions of alternate investments were ‘blessed’ taking possession of pledged collateral possession of real property already major defect in title c/o US TREASURY, c/o Federal Reserve deal.
    All mortgage notes were sold in bulk as mortgage-backed notes collateral ‘gold.’
    Before you ever asked for a mortgage, first-time buyers were actually ‘credit line increases.’ All real estate deals through the Alternate Investments pipeline of Alt-A Loans (non-conforming loans) and (conforming loans) were credit line increases and “Not a traditional Mortgage” unless you were with someone other than a National Bank Mortgage Servicer’s affiliate. If you had a state bank who held the ‘note’ and held the loan and documented any time the payments you were safe. But if the ‘note’ was purchased by a Mortgage Servicer’s national bank – a deal in which alternate investment pulled in the ‘Note’ not part of the ‘collection of notes’ you now would be and ever after the inflated appraisals were intentional to get cash into the depository of Trust Companies who do what they do take that cash, issue more credit whether its your checking account, you deposit $10K each month c/o paycheck, and sign an auto-deposit, the bank has custody of that cash in their name not yours, they lend back to you access to the cash. Get it. The cash taken immediately out of US into Finance Universe.

    What does this mean to you and me? Immediate Urgency to change flow of ‘cash’. Do you realize that every payment of every loan secured or unsecured feeds the tapeworm the big fat tapeworm in every state treasury, in every Registry of Deeds. How do we stop being mules for ‘money laundering’? When all of the cash payments going to current loans which include mortgages, credit cards, etc. paying ‘alternate investors’ are too feeding the bit-fat tapeworm daily draining the coffer’s.

    Cash, is what the TAPEWORM wants.
    Your ‘Note’ for your mortgage was purchased in 1990’s and any transaction since, a credit line increase. HELLO! Wake Up! What we don’t know is killing us!
    Refinances are ‘credit line increases’ increasing value of pledged assets, increase credit line -period. Hello wake up each residents with a loan ‘property’ lets start with (but include unsecured credit too – credit cards and credit line increases) all about purchasing cash taken out of nation immediately each day into Finance Universe one transaction at a time. The cash pledged in the accrual to a servicer c/o promissory note.
    How could Amy first time home buyer in MD paperwork reveal a refinance? Only if the ‘note’ already was leveraged as pledged collateral.

  13. While the “5% – 10%” example postulated in the Article seems to point to only sub-prime or alt-A loans being dealt with in this fashion, in fact most if not all “securitized” loans were handled this way, with what is more accurately called “the skim.” Here’s why:

    Remember the “source of funds,” the “investors.” Who were these people? I think of them as the “Bus mechanic’s pension fund of Oslo, Norway.” The Administrator of this pension fund is facing a Euro Bond interest rate of, at best, 0.5%. Now, a half a percent is not going to cut it; that pension fund has to find a much higher return. Problem is, the Euro Bonds are not returning anything. So he is approached by a “scout” from Wall Street who says to him: “hand me your hundred million, and I will get you 3%.” And this fellow from Oslo, what does he know? So he bites, and turns over $100 million to the shark. In return, the pension fund guy gets $3 million a year, and he is delighted. For him, that looks a lot better than the 500K he was getting before in the euro market.

    The Shark takes this wad of cash and flows it into the warehouser guys, who become the “table-funded lenders.” Think: Goldman Sachs funding Colonial Bank.” The Colonial outfits then flog the cash out through the front men, those minuscule outfits with the bizarre names like “Lime Financial” that in turn show up on your retail “Note” as the “Lender.” The “Lime Financial” Note says that you, the borrower, will pay 6% – a perfectly reasonable-sounding number. You, together with the other saps in this scheme, collectively chip in $3 million in interest on the pool money, which passes back through Colonial to Goldman to that pension fund fellow in Oslo.

    But wait a minute: at 6%, to generate $3 million needed for the scheme, you only have to have $50 million in play. What happened to the other 50 million?

    Answer: the bums at Goldman diverted it into their bankers’ bonus pool, which is why Goldman continues to be able to pay out $148 billion a year in bonuses when the rest of the planet is going broke.

    The mobster version of this is called the “vigorish,” or (in Jersey City or Hoboken), the “vig.” The fellows at Goldman Sachs being a tad more refined, it is now termed the “yield spread premium.” Same idea: a loan shark is still a loan shark. Once you figure out these Goldman guys are whores, the rest falls into place rather quickly.

    And because vast numbers of mortgages were issued and securitized at 6%, considered by retail borrowers a perfectly reasonable number, you can conclude that they were ALL a front for a skim, or “the vig.”

  14. Consider COMBO’s.

    Typical reason for a combo, the existing mortgage being refinanced higher than the 1st mortgage. The 2nd mortgage closed first with a debtor like Real Estate Owned Lender – REO Lender/Underwriter, third party retail transaction combo loan assigned MIN#. Combo loans, the first mortgage will be conventional and the 2nd mortgage will be non-conforming, the closing occurs under resale already to non-conforming third obligor added. During default, processof foreclosure, the Lenders Policy used to secure cash to write off RETAIL 2nd of Combo and reasonthey always firle the combo 2nd loan first on thehomeowners policy.

    The COMBO, 2nd, an inflated 2nd at Retail, will lead back to two loan numbers consumer was paying Mortgage Servicer of a national bank on 2 different loan numbers, and the MIN# contains the 10 Digit Sales Agreement number recorded in MERS and recorded in Register of DEEDS. But when the payoff occurs the writeoff that appears on consumer credit report is not recorded with Register of Deeds.

    HAMP ‘somebody’ playing REO LENDER taking cash which is not applied to P&I. Is given to third party – who? Trial payments ensure foreclosure imminient. During HAMP is another Lender’s policy issued to protect the new debtor who gets the cash,P&I still accured as default debt, servied by sub-servicer GMAC Mortgage Corp is Servicer Wells Fargo or Chase. HAMP sold as ‘shortterm’ investments? To who?

    Back to consumer credit report. The 3rd Party Retail Transactions -debtor – paid off during foreclosure per credit report. We need to say ‘paid off’ cause the consumer credit bureau reflects payable and receivable history.

    The Third Pary Retail MIN# we know Sales Agreement is between 2 parties, the REO Lender/Underwriter Servicer. That is the Servicer is the one who is listed on the homeowners policy in the first position as a lien holder and an insurance payment of ‘cash’ went to the subservicer GMAC Finance and what happens? Like in a Sheriff Sale, HAMP, there is a tempoary lender who would that be? That is the third party you mean? Right. What happened to the money?

    Consumer in MD right now, sits wtih bankruptcy auditor’s report that is incorrect and ‘double’ the amount due, the bankrtuptcy auditor of the court did not file the report — making fraud possible — if the report not filed no one will know about the two amounts. Luckily the consumer is a smart one and appealed and brining back into court before judge in an hour meeting all of the parties who will face frauds if the judge who was an alcoholic remanded from the case does not come back and the lawful judge looks at the evidence.

    Does consumer report reveal debt written off?
    The REO/Lender ‘WHO’ approved sale for what amount 2 days before closing at some value generated by a computer a year ago, REO LENDER’s ‘local robo-firm’ purchased the property as another debtor obligor during forced sheriff sale in a nonj-judicial foreclosure, the consumer seeks protection of bankruptcy court … meanwhile the appeal, the district courts ‘contractor’ who is that masked accounting auditor KPG? And why is the amount owed double placed in front of the court but is not ‘double’ inside CTS Link? And these additional debtors conjoined to the existing ‘debt’ makes for a very interesting 3 dimensional relationship of overcharging in a mechanized fashion during non-judicial foreclosures – bankruptcies being the standard route consumer will take to try and protect selves from ‘unlawful seizure.’

  15. Interesting. Consider ‘sheriff sales’ property already purchased by REO Lender/Underwriter Agreement where purchase price generated by ‘Bloomberg’ system $xxx,xxx.02 the cents a regulation of computer generated payments transactions executed through LPS,etc.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: