DALLAS COUNTY SUES DEADBEAT MERS, STEWART TITLE, BANK OF AMERICA, ASPIRE FINANCIAL

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

“So Dallas is suing MERSCORP et al, including big old Bank of America who is already on our death watch. And Dallas is going to win, meaning that county recorders across the country are going to make their claim for fees that are due, even if the transactions were fraudulent because they tried to use those transactions as a means to foreclose. And ultimately, the banks are going to cornered — not being able to foreclose because they did not pay their fees.

The banks were and are the deadbeats, but they had a lot of money and power which is now fast flowing away from them. Politicians have figured it out — run against the banks and you can’t go wrong. They’ll get more money and more votes from people and other interest groups running against the banks than doing their bidding. We might let organized crime thrive for a while, but we always take it down.”

SEE Dallas-vs-Mers-Et-Al

DALLAS SEEKS TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL

IGNORING MERS AND GOING STRAIGHT TO

BANK OF AMERICA, STEWART TITLE ET AL

EDITOR’S NOTE: Real change, real reform, real improvement are going to come from good people doing the right thing instead of standing by and watching their neighbors get clobbered, hoping and wishing that it won’t happen to them. So now protests and rallies are being held and they are growing. Over 2,000 people on Wall Street camped out and their voices are getting louder. Spanish citizens are banding together and forming a wall of bodies that the local,”Sheriff” refuses to penetrate to evict the homeowner. Leaders are rising to the top — people like Dan earl, Martin Andelman, Darrel Blomberg and others are not just actively helping their neighbors and their friends and those who find them pleading for help, they are making a difference.

Politicians are noticing that it is a pretty good bet to run against the banks since nobody likes them anyway and there is a special enmity that the citizens feel toward the banks, who have been draining the lifeblood out of our economy for over 3 decades. This time the banks went far enough for the people, the government and investors to strike back — giving restitution to the victims of the banks feeding frenzy.

Those victims are taxpayers, government agencies whose fees were not paid, regulators whose fees were not paid and who did not receive reports that were essential to orderly commerce, failure to record transactions in real property allowing almost anyone to wake up in the morning deciding to steal a house by asserting they are the beneficiary, filing a substitution of trustee naming someone that is in league with them, and then proceeding with the notice of sale, the auction and submitting a “Credit bid” that is as fake as a three dollar bill.

One by one, local government is getting the message — the banks owe them and they have nothing to fear from the banks. It is an illusion and a myth that the government can call the shots as we let them — because we  have long since withdrawn our consent to that. The budgets will be restored by government agencies tracking down the money that is due — not from new taxes — but normal fees and taxes required to perform the services that all of us need government to perform, like recording an interest in real property.

So Dallas has sued MERSCORP and some well-known shareholders seeking to recover its fees and restore its budget. Dallas has now made a statement that they will no longer underwrite the costs of the securitization scam and they want the money that the banks did not pay when they transferred interests in real estate repeatedly without ever recording the interest in the public records of the county in which the property was located.

They have a good case too. Because the trick the banks tried was to use some end user, the final nominee of the securitization process who would claim that they were the holder and owner of the loan so that a foreclosure could occur and another house could be stolen by a party who neither the loaned the money nor purchased the obligation. But now the banks have stepped on a rake because in order to give the “final nominee” the right to foreclose they must claim multiple transfers of the loan, none of which were reported on record. They want to use the county’s facilities to foreclose, but they don’t want to pay for the intervening transactions that they say gives rights to the the party foreclosing on behalf of the his hashed scheme.

So Dallas is suing MERSCORP et al, including big old Bank of America who is already on our death watch. And Dallas is going to win ,meaning that county recorders across the country are going to make their claim for fees that are due, even if the transactions were fraudulent because they tried to use those transactions as a means to foreclose. And ultimately, the banks are going to be cornered — not being able to foreclose because they did not pay their fees. The banks were and are the deadbeats, but they had a lot of money and power which is now fast flowing away from them.

Politicians have figured it out — run against the banks and you can’t go wrong. They’ll get more money and more votes from people and other interest groups running against the banks than doing their bidding. We might let organized crime thrive for a while, but we always take it down.

 

HERE IS THE BOMBSHELL — the model paragraph that will ultimately be the undoing of of the “Substitute trustees” the auctions, sales, deeds and evictions. When the full import of this paragraph sinks in, the banks will be left naked in the wind, revealed as common thieves who never loaned any money and who never purchased an obligation but managed to create an elaborate scheme to steal the homes in derogation of the rights of both investors and homeowners. In all the foreclosures, assuming the dubious proposition that the liens were perfected, the modification of the loan with a principal correction would have resulted in a better deal for the investor and the crush of evictions would have been reduced to a trickle because the deals would have been workable — something the original loans never aspired to as a goal, since the originators were after fees for closing not payback on the loans.

“PLAINTIFF  moves the court pierce the MERSCORP and MERS corporate veils and impose liability upon the Defendants Stewart and BOA as shareholders in MERSCORP for the activities of MERSCORP and MERS alleged herein. Recognizing the corporate existence of MERSCORP and MERS separate from their shareholders, including Stewart and BOA, would cause an inequitable result or injustice, or would be a cloak for fraud or illegality. MERSCORP and MERS were under-capitalized in light of the nature and risk of their business. The corporate fiction is being used to justify wrongs, perpetrating fraud, as a mere tool or business conduit for others, as a means of evading legal obligations, to perpetrate monopoly and unlawfully gain monopolistic control over the real property recording system in the State of Texas, and to circumvent statutory obligations.”

 

66 Responses

  1. I sent a QWR to US Bank and they gave me some documents that weren’t worth the paper it was printed on and was told that if I wanted anything further I would need a supena (sp?).

  2. Does anyone know how Stewart Title is involved other than being a sharehold of Mers?

  3. @ Carie’

    Also, you must research and see if you can file a quite title state claim lawsuit against Indymac since they are in some sort of BK.
    It can get complicated!!!

  4. @ Carie

    I agree with TNHarry that BK court is your safe and best bet.
    Federal court is a bear with strict timelines and the dreaded “meet and confer” requirement that can expose you to a rule 11 motion.
    Do not even consider pro se in BK or any court since your up against a power house of seasoned attorneys and one misstep can cause serious consequences.

  5. @carie – it’s all in how you frame the issue. frankly the way you frame the issue can make the difference between a win and a loss. that’s why i was encouraging you to be proactive instead of reactive. quiet title is one way you can go. claim objection/litigation in a bankruptcy context is another. in the BK option, you actually put them on the defensive – they have the burden of proving the validity of their claim and their right to said claim. the rhetoric about “free house” isn’t really the issue and you shouldn’t encounter that type of bias.

    either way is an option, and the BK method is probably the easier of the two. you still have to have something to hang your hat on to make the claim objection in good faith, but it doesn’t take much. keep it simple

  6. @ Carie

    Look for statutory or case law giving debtors that right. Then, if you find it you must plead injury.
    Actually, if you read your note it says something in there (first or second line) under “promise to pay” someone.
    Then TILA revised the law requiring notice of creditor.
    However, even if you win and they give you the name what have you won? The penalty is shit.

  7. Right—so what if we say:
    “Judge—I don’t want a free house—I just want to exercise my RIGHT to negotiate with my TRUE creditor—but they won’t let me find out who that is—or if there even IS one!!! Please, judge—I just want to find out who that is!”

  8. @ Carie

    I know!

    I believe that a debtor has a legal right to negotiate with his creditors.

    Here, we get to negotiate with someone with nothing to lose but late fees to gain.

    Good Grief

  9. If I asked for disclosure of current creditor—well, in my case anyway—it’s not an IndyMac servicer, it’s not Deutsche Bank, and it’s not some security investor—so who is it? This is what is driving me crazy…

  10. @ Carie

    My BK attorney mentioned that a debtor can file a 13 even exceeding the debt limits. Judges and trustees like to see an effort to repay debt. With that said, you might be viewed favorably and your claims taken more seriously then one who is just trying to get out of repayment.
    In any case, there would have to be an objection by a creditor to move you to a 7 or 11.

  11. BK court does have several upsides. if you successfully disallow their claim via objection, then 506(d) actually provides that the lien is wiped out as well. the claim objection is the hard part. once it’s proven, the lien stripping is a slam dunk.

  12. @ TNHARRY

    Yes, 13 is kinda cheap until you start disputing secured debt.

    The BK court is exactly the right forum for Carrie to bring her claims,
    However, it could get out of control and cost $100,000.00 or more to her attorney.

  13. i see why ch11 fees would be high, but can you not find someone doing no money down ch13s? that’s pretty standard in this region, which is admittedly across the country

  14. @ Carie

    Thank you for taking my warning seriously.

    You do have a chance in Ca BK court by filing a 13 or 11,
    however the attorney fees are high for the pleadings.

    After my case was dismissed I decided to use my mortgage payments to exempt my income on the BK means test and filed a 7 getting rid of all my unsecured debt and the legal responsibility of the refi home loan. Now I’m in a position to either walk away or renegotiate my loan, it’s up to the bank what they want to do.
    I hope this helps

  15. I talked to a couple of lawyers a year ago, and it was basically “Unless there is a precedent setting case in CA, you’re out of luck—-they have more money than God—so forget it.”
    So—how does one get a precedent-setting case? Gotta have money. I have no problem being in court…I just want something solid with regards to all this—but if they don’t let you demand discovery—what can you do???

  16. Thank you Tim. I was thinking my only real card at this point is BK.

  17. @ Carie

    You will need to point to at least one consumer injury case by Indymac that supports your theory.
    Indymac will remove your lawsuit to federal court and plead “no injury” and after dismissal will file a “Motion for Attorney Fees” and plead your lawsuit was filed in bad faith so you will not be able to discharge judgement in future BK.

  18. Yes, CA.

  19. @Tim, i thought California

  20. @ Carie

    What state are you in?

  21. I have a feeling they won’t be able to get their ducks in a row…but—I’ll think about it…

  22. it’s really all about strategy. you’ll be more in control and they’ll be playing catch up. if they’re as screwed up as they were when I knew them, why not catch them when they are unprepared as opposed to saving all of this for a counterclaim after they’ve gotten their ducks in a row and have initiated litigation against you

  23. Wouldn’t that make them try something?

  24. i’ve represented Indymac before. the people i dealt with didn’t really have a clue. so why not file the quiet title?

  25. Yes—IndyMac/Deutsche “trust” BS…I am just treating them like the unsecured debt collectors that they are…

  26. i do find it annoying but that’s not my point. i’m not trying to bait you. why not try it?

  27. I re-post because some people are new and some people that aren’t new are still in denial and it is important that the truth gets out…sorry if you find it annoying…but I am sick to death of the cover-up that has been going on for years.

  28. you obviously believe the subprime/unsecured theory is a good one and you’ve stated that you’re basically at a standoff with your mortgage company – not paying but they’re not doing anything. why not go offensive instead of waiting for them to act first? i assume that your loan was of the subprime variety to which the theory would apply?

  29. is that what you would do?

  30. i was just wondering why you haven’t filed a quiet title case using the subprime/unsecured theory you post 8 times a day.

  31. No—why?

  32. carie – what am i supposed to think about that statement? it’s akin to “have you stopped beating your wife?” i guess i would say that it is what it is. but it’s pretty much irrelevant in a nonjudicial setting.

    let me ask you this…do you personally have a case pending?

  33. tn—since you know so much—what do you think of this statement:

    “…just need courts to uphold consumer protection and disclosure of current creditor.”

  34. tnharry- I appreciate your candor. It doesn’t upset me a bit. I read an awful lot of case law, and the issue of standing encompasses everything I mentioned to you. How can a foreclosing entity (trust or bank as trustee) have standing to foreclose when they violated the terms of their own existence and procedures? Just because the judges didn’t know anything about this last year, doesn’t mean that they are all still in the dark. I would guess that I’ve read over 100 in just the last 6 weeks, a lot of them being reversals. And it doesn’t hurt that all the massive investor lawsuits are pointing out the same deficiencies. I would think that alot of these things are improperly pled by inexperienced attorneys, at least up until now.

  35. carie – fraud is one of those words that many use, few really understand, and fewer still can actually prove in a courtroom. sure there was some fraud out there, but it’s very fact dependent

  36. @ian – i talk about what i know, unlike some people. and in my current circles, the NY trusts, REMICS, etc. simply haven’t become relevant yet. judges don’t want to hear it and don’t care when they do. if that upsets you or others, too bad. i’m reflecting on my experiences and trying to relay helpful information.

  37. But, tn—I don’t believe they have a “security interest”—this is the heart of the fraud. Precedent setting fraud.

  38. tnharry- while I appreciate your straightforward discourse on courtroom proceedings, and various areas of law in general, I don’t see any reference to NY Trust Law, the Internal Revenue Code, PSAs, REMICs, MLPAs, GAAP, FASB, or anything else germane to the securitization, purchase, sale, default, or legal rights to mortgage notes, collection rights, and default debt. Why is this?

  39. @carie – the inclusion of the “debt collector” language does not automatically make one a debt collector under any laws. and unless you’re trying to create a claim under the FDCPA it just doesn’t matter anyway. and as I’ve mentioned a few times, enforcement of a security interest has been held to be not “debt collection”, particularly in non-judicial context

  40. Here’s a quote

    “Please note that Arora Bank is only the servicer of the subject loan, that the questions and allegations relating to the origination of the loan are not within its purview, and that in any event you should submit a loan modification application in accordance with the instructions provided.”

    It also states “Aurora Bank has the right to enforce the note evidencing the debt, and has the right to receive payment on the debt for and on behalf of the owner of the debt.”

    Like I said they provided a Copy of a note endorsed in blank stamped from my original (strawman, out of business) Lender and signed by one of their officers. Their is no assignment.

    Futhermore, I had a servicer Homecomings Financial before Aurora as well.

  41. Does your statement say we are a “debt collector” attempting to “collect a debt”?

  42. Thanks Carrie,

    Something to consider. Should I ask for the accounting from origination of my loan? That is my plan.

    My ideas are to claim non disclosure violations on Tila. Unrecorded instrument AZ statue is invalid, and Deed an notes have not been assigned.

    By Deutsche’s rationale anyone I give my “copy of the note” to can claim to be the note holder. Why not It’s endorsed in blank? Therefore I’m going to ask to inspect the original.

    Any other violations?

  43. Hello Carrie,

    Sorry if this posts multiple times but it keeps showing my comments as pending?

    Anyway, I sent a debt validation letter.

    Thanks

  44. Also, please scroll down and read ANONYMOUS’ answers that I re-posted…good info there.
    FYI—it is my personal belief that Deutsche does NOT “own” ANY fake loans…your “trust” is empty…
    They are lying to you—to keep the fraud from being exposed…that is the only way the banks are dealing with this…one of the reasons the market crashed today…and it’s going to get worse—because the lies keep coming—-with regards to the banks having no real assets…because of fake “loans”, etc.

    Tell them in writing that you want a full accounting of all your payments being conveyed to this supposed loan in a supposed trust…they will either ignore you, or make up a fresh lie…I guarantee it.

  45. What is a DVL, first of all?

  46. Hello Everyone,

    I’ve been reading awhile and here’s my first time posting. Can anyone help me with a response. I sent a DVL to my servicer Aurora Loan. It received a response from a Law firm representing Aurora.

    The letter reads “We include with this letter various documents verifying and evidencing the debt , including but not limited to copies of the note (endorsed in blank), security instument(DOT? Does not bear their name), Payoff statement, Payment history (does not go back to inception).

    Can anyone give some advice as to how to respond to this? Again I want to dispute their claims. Wasn’t there some disclosure issues?

    Also, the letter reads “The name of the current owner of the debt is:Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, in trust for, Residential Accredit Loans, Inc (GMAC?)

    I pulled up the PSA and it says Deutsche is the owner on behalf of the “certificate holders”. Should I ask for a list of the Certificate holders and claim they are not disclose the creditor? Tila violation?

    Your response is much appreciated,

  47. I think that people do forget because they are removed from the other side once they taste the fruitful life. I see it on a daily basis here in Southern Cal. I live near one of the wealthiest area in the country and just a few miles away, they are utterly oblivious. And yes some people just ignore things because it would remind them of an awful past, and perhaps their hands are tied because of their position.

    When you are in politics just like being a member of a cult, you are you and everyone else is them, the faceless masses. The banks are in a cult as well, they all belong to the same club, they may be all under the same ownership and who does not follow the cult rule, they get bought out or stolen period.

    WAMU became sloppy and did not do a good job of covering up their mess, that’s why we can fight, HaHa. I think some of these banks are a front like US bank for instance. How many assignment does it take to cover up the slop? God help us, we have a long way to go, I hope people who are helping us like Neil, Andelman and the like can grow and stay strong. May they all be blessed and may the faceless become stronger and fearless!

  48. (in case you missed it:)

    ANONYMOUS, on September 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm said:

    joann

    Yes — I am not an attorney. I have finance background that does not qualify me to give legal advise. And, nothing here that I say should be construed as legal advise — I have said this many times. However, been researching for years.
    The distinction here is between equitable and legal title – and, most importantly — debt collection — secured versus unsecured. Thus, it involves the “assignment” of collection rights — not NOTES as codified by the UCC (largely standard among states). .
    Courts have been in dark as to debt collection for years — thanks to Deregulation by repeal of Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities (Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in 1999 – signed by Pres. Bush Sr.) and by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 – signed by everyone’s favorite — Bill Clinton).(his good looks concealed).
    Once we had Deregulation — all records — not available. Why would any Pres. or Congress pass through such bill against the peoples rights?? They did — lobbying extreme. They thought it was good for the economy??? Do not think so — as now evidenced.
    We have few consumer protection laws against these monster bills — one being the FDCPA and — the TILA Amendment of May 2009 — passed by Congress — for the Congressional Intent to disclose the Creditor to homeowners/borrowers. FDCPA is tossed around in courts — but, TILA Amendment is yet to be plead in courts.
    Once someone else pays your debt — that party can hold you responsible (despite fact that they collect insurance — thus, duplicate collection). But, this is because we are dealing with debt collection — and deregulation — unsupported by divulged documentation. Problem is – joann — that debt collection to charged-off debt is NOT secured debt — should be easily able to go to BK and get discharged (or restructured if you choose). Because of deregulation, however, available information as to the current creditor and charge-off — is SIMPLY not available. So, borrowers/homeowners go into court fighting false creditor — with no published information as to the real creditor — due to, of course, deregulation.
    And, if you pay that false creditor — or negotiate with that false creditor — you still owe to the undisclosed creditor. All of which — should have — and could have been — discharged in BK.
    Congress voted down BK reform twice — which would have made disclosure of creditor easy — why??? lobbying — And, lobbying by who??? financial services debt buyers — protected identity — by DEREGULATION.
    As if Congress has not destroyed America enough — by giving away of American jobs and industry —
    Politics — donations — that is the culprit.
    And, America sits and waits to a return to normalcy. Not anytime soon. Hold onto your hats. Every 40 years — cycle.

  49. “…something the original loans never aspired to as a goal, since the originators were after fees for closing not payback on the loans.”

    Most not real “loans”…remember?

    ANONYMOUS, on September 22, 2011 at 5:52 am said:

    HMan

    “Courts have held mortgage servicer is a debt collector if it acquired “loan” while in default. This would be the case for subprime “refinances” – albeit – false default.
    Agree, of course, that not all loans were/are subprime. However, subprime was the catalyst for the financial crisis — by which its fraud caused “shock” to the system, eventually the economy, and which caused a spill-over of foreclosures. .
    Even if loan was not a subprime — at some point, servicer ceases making advance payments and loan is removed from trust by which servicer claims to be servicing for. At this point, servicer begins “collection” for another entity via derivatives/contracts. Thus, current creditor obligated to divulge itself byTILA Amendment — since a “sale” of collection rights has occurred. Current creditor also subject to FDCPA — but, you have to know who that current creditor is — in order to apply the FDCPA.
    In the past, GSEs easily disposed of non-performing “loans” — also by “credit enhancement” – whether a fabricated default or not. Today, 95% of all NEW mortgages are by GSEs. Much more difficult, today, to dispose of due to inability to perform insurance contracts — nevertheless, as conservator, that is the government’s goal — just as it is government’s goal by Maiden Lane.
    Distressed debt buyers have been heralded since the days of Alan Greenspan — when he praised their function after 9/11. And, this is why government is reluctant to help homeowners. Doing so would mean that “contracts” privy to secrecy by deregulation — would have to be exposed — and, would subject participating parties to litigation – including prior fraud upon courts. .
    Much could have been avoided had the government come in and “bailed out” homeowner victims – not the banks — at the financial crisis onset. As it now stands, many of those banks are in big trouble anyway — and the economy is not improving. Moody’s just downgraded the “too big to fail” banks. Cover-up at financial crisis onset — just prolonged the inevitable.
    Eventually, government will have to address the fraud — and uphold the law as to current creditor/distressed debt buyer — because situation is not getting any better. At that point, BK courts will be filled — as unsecured debt will prevail.
    Again, ask yourself, why did Congress vote down BK reform twice?? Because it would have just made BK too easy for homeowner victims.
    As it stands, however, do not need reform — just need courts to uphold consumer protection and disclosure of current creditor.”

  50. What’s also nice about this suit is that dallas county is where my fraudulent assignment was dreamt up and executed.

  51. Neil is right. That is one kickass paragraph. These banks are in fact monopoly men. To them, competition is a sin. MERS is nothing but a hijack of the public land records. Don’t mess with texas!

  52. Insanity, sloppiness, if I ran my business like that, I’d have closed shop in no time…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/meagan-mike-farrell-chase_n_974754.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%7C97967

  53. N.O.R.A. light,

    That is exactly what I don’t understand. I didn’t like the Bush because their perspective was naturally thwarted by the social class in which they were born (the famous silver “foot”, as Ann Richards described it…) Obama does not have that excuse: issued from a single parent’s home, reared on welfare and food stamps, he’s had to struggle and he knows what it’s like. To forget so easily where he came from is unforgivable. To lose all compassion under the circumstances is unacceptable. He didn’t do the job he set out for and blamed homeowners in large part for the bank failures.

    Boehner, who also came out middle class and had to struggle to go to school, didn’t hesitate to blame gran’pa and grand’ma for having bought into the reverse mortgage and having ran into financial difficulty. Unacceptable and cruel. Wherever I look, I don’t find one acceptable public servant, except, maybe, Schneiderman… It has to blow up in order to be redressed.

  54. tnharry said this won’t work. I believe he is mistaken. The comeuppance of the banks and their puppet MERS is coming sooner rather than later!

  55. So the banks are going to be held liable for their actions sooner or later, may be they are losing some cases here and there, eventually they may lose a lot more than that. The politicians on the other hand are just playing footsie, the’ll go with which ever direction the wind may be blowing or should I say they know how to follow the money. Either way it’s been the tax payers money all along just depends on who’s holding it over their head.

    I get asked all the time to donate $5.00 to my political party, the one that’s doing nothing to help me and the millions of others. So I sent them my opinion instead. I told them to speak to their friends on wall street to ease up on the home owners. I guess they forgot!

    Dallas county is doing the right thing, the investors are doing what’s right for them, and us the homeowners,(the other investors) are still paying for the county, for the investors and for the government, etc. We are investors too, our homes are our biggest investments, and lately it’s been trivialized by the institutions.

    Our president in his speech on the job act said that they’d help responsible homeowners, I don’t know about anybody else, I am very responsible. What I get out of his speech is banks can be irresponsible, but the people cannot. So for those who can afford to pay and had never been behind on their payments, they’ll have an extra $166.00 in their pocket every month to spend so the country can get back on it’s feet.

    I truly think and believe that people who never had to struggle to make ends meet, have no idea on how the average person lives. President Obama again pushed us down deeper into the sand and made us all feel bad and irresponsible yet his buddies on wall street eat a thousand homeowners for breakfast each day. When are we going to bond together as a whole, (UNITED HOMEOWNERS SUES BANKS FOR STEALING THEIR HOMES), one lump sum big huge law suit.

  56. Markets are crashing—the organized “mortgage” crimes are being exposed—

    The TRUTH:

    ANONYMOUS, on September 22, 2011 at 5:52 am said:

    “Courts have held mortgage servicer is a debt collector if it acquired “loan” while in default. This would be the case for subprime “refinances” – albeit – false default.
    Agree, of course, that not all loans were/are subprime. However, subprime was the catalyst for the financial crisis — by which its fraud caused “shock” to the system, eventually the economy, and which caused a spill-over of foreclosures. .
    Even if loan was not a subprime — at some point, servicer ceases making advance payments and loan is removed from trust by which servicer claims to be servicing for. At this point, servicer begins “collection” for another entity via derivatives/contracts. Thus, current creditor obligated to divulge itself byTILA Amendment — since a “sale” of collection rights has occurred. Current creditor also subject to FDCPA — but, you have to know who that current creditor is — in order to apply the FDCPA.
    In the past, GSEs easily disposed of non-performing “loans” — also by “credit enhancement” – whether a fabricated default or not. Today, 95% of all NEW mortgages are by GSEs. Much more difficult, today, to dispose of due to inability to perform insurance contracts — nevertheless, as conservator, that is the government’s goal — just as it is government’s goal by Maiden Lane.
    Distressed debt buyers have been heralded since the days of Alan Greenspan — when he praised their function after 9/11. And, this is why government is reluctant to help homeowners. Doing so would mean that “contracts” privy to secrecy by deregulation — would have to be exposed — and, would subject participating parties to litigation – including prior fraud upon courts. .
    Much could have been avoided had the government come in and “bailed out” homeowner victims – not the banks — at the financial crisis onset. As it now stands, many of those banks are in big trouble anyway — and the economy is not improving. Moody’s just downgraded the “too big to fail” banks. Cover-up at financial crisis onset — just prolonged the inevitable.
    Eventually, government will have to address the fraud — and uphold the law as to current creditor/distressed debt buyer — because situation is not getting any better. At that point, BK courts will be filled — as unsecured debt will prevail.
    Again, ask yourself, why did Congress vote down BK reform twice?? Because it would have just made BK too easy for homeowner victims.
    As it stands, however, do not need reform — just need courts to uphold consumer protection and disclosure of current creditor.”

  57. Bank of America @ $6.14

    Good Grief

  58. Finally, this is a great post – people will now move ahead to back that 5% that got into trouble on their loans, plus all of those that followed.

  59. Real Estate 101 real property recording law…send this to all the residential real estate giants (C-21, Coldwell Banker, ReMax, et al,) and get National Association of Realtors, California Association of Realtors to wake up and do their job. Kick out the sleeping judges and paid for politicians and honor the right to “Create wealth and security through ownership and investment in real estate!” KenJohnson@HOTMKT.com

  60. @Tim. Why is it such a hard question? I’ve seen lists of which states are judicial or non-judicial for foreclosures.
    http://www.all-foreclosure.com/help/procedures.htm

    I’ve seen lists of which states are recourse or non-recourse for bankruptcies.
    http://www.forecloseddreams.com/recourse_states

    I’ve seen lists of homestead exemption laws for all 50 states.
    http://www.legalconsumer.com/bankruptcy/laws/

    What I’m trying to find is no harder than those lists.

  61. I don’t believe there is a list state-by-state. I looked for one a while back and couldn’t find one. You will probably need to do your own individual research for your own state and county and find out exactly what needs to be recorded, when and how. In some states, the law states that the recording must be done within 90 days following assignment, transfer, purchase, etc. In others, the timeframe is different. The type of documents requiring recording also appear to vary from state to state.

  62. @ JACK,
    OMG
    No one person can clarify 50 state recording laws.

  63. Neil, you forgot the liabilities of Title Insurance Companies. They are also negligence of closing the houses and not finishing observing the end of the transactions where the money is going and lifting liens to be recorded at the county’s offices…. Many of the papers do not match/connect from the original loans. Their practices have been pretty shoddy.
    I have been wondering about the procedures that they take to insure all the deals for both lenders and borrowers.

  64. Can anyone clarify which states REQUIRE recording of mortgages/deeds of trust? My state says recording is optional, though there are incentives to record (e.g. race recording state, that is, first to record takes priority).

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

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: