Arizona Hears Oral Argument

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

People are asking what I think after hearing the oral argument. Not much time here to go into detail but these are my impressions:

  1. Oral Argument is only about 10% of the case. The rest is the briefs and the record on appeal. The briefs for borrowers were excellent but the record on appeal apparently was lacking some needed objections on evidence. Projecting a decision from oral argument is unwise. Their questions could relate only to those things that they wanted to eliminate from consideration.
  2. The agreement that Deutsch was the real creditor was a patent example that nobody understood securitization.Unless the Vasquez case is one in a million, Deutsch did not own the debt, never did, and was never the lender. I think the Court is likely to use this agreement against the issuing a ruling that could have had better and more far reaching consequences. The whole point is that there is no basis to suppose that Deutsch was the owner because there was no evidence that it ever conducted a transaction in which it was other than a conduit or courier. This leaves both borrowers and prospective lenders or buyers in the dark, requiring the word and “indemnification” of an entity that might not survive the next financial storm.
  3. The agreement that the remedy for ruling in favor of the borrower was re-noticing the sale was a missed opportunity to remind the court that Arizona has judicial foreclosure. Here was where the point should have been made that on-judicial foreclosure opens the door for mischief. If there is even a possibility that a party could achieve ownership over property on which it could not prevail in a judicial foreclosure, the loophole should be closed. The court could rule either way. Saying that the remedy borrowers are looking for would produce a de minimus effect the Court could say it isn’t worth construing the statute other than the way the banks want. Or they could say that since the remedy is readily available and non-judicial foreclosure needs to be followed to the letter, the recording of the assignment must be a prerequisite. More likely the Court will tell the legislature to do something about their statutes which will give the banks more opportunity to write their own ticket, since our legislature in Arizona is essentially run by the banks.
  4. It was nice that one of the justices threw a bone to borrowers saying the equities favor the borrower.
  5. It was nuts that the bank’s attorney came up with a whole new set of duties for the Trustee involving handling money paid by the borrower. If the Court thinks about this even for an instant, it demonstrates the fallacy of the bank’s position and represents somewhat of a breakthrough for the borrowers.
  6. The oral argument by all parties lacked clarity. Nobody said exactly what they wanted from the court. In Q&A after the oral argument, the Chief Judge made a point of that (in general).
  7. The assumption that everyone understood securitization was clearly evident and evens stated at one point. The fact is that their incorrect and naive assumptions about securitization led them all to believe that the original lien was perfected (without anything in the record determining when the alleged became the creditor and how that was accomplished. It resulted in the opening for the bank’s attorney to talk about negotiating bearer paper in the abstract when the PSA required non-bearer paper with recourse. Thus the bank attorney was able to talk in the abstract about perfecting an interest on transfer by mere delivery when the situation in fact did not fit the bearer paper transaction scenario.

All of this suggest, that the attorneys and the parties in law enforcement need to learn more about securitization and it is the reason why our COMBO report is so important in developing a record so that on appeal these traps can be avoided. what the Az Supreme Court will do is anyone’s guess. But I doubt if the opinion will be broad, being narrowed by the fact that Deutsch was considered a known creditor and that the borrower had actual notice of Deutsch with the first notice of default.

33 Responses

  1. Yes, tn—he seems to understand the PSA issues:

    TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011

    FDN’S JEFF BARNES, ESQ. ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE IN MICHIGAN; CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT REPORT HIGHLIGHTS ILLEGALITY OF ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE LOANS TO TRUSTS WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH POOLING & SERVICING AGREEMENTS
    FDN’S JEFF BARNES, ESQ. ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE IN MICHIGAN; CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT REPORT HIGHLIGHTS ILLEGALITY OF ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE LOANS TO TRUSTS WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH POOLING & SERVICING AGREEMENTS FDN’s Jeff Barnes, Esq. has been admitted to the Washetnaw County, Michigan Circuit Court pro hac vice in connection with defense of a foreclosure involving a securitization. He is assisted by local Michigan counsel James Fraser, Esq. On the subject of securitization, we have obtained a copy of the November 16, 2010 Congressional Oversight Panel’s Report examining the consequences of mortgage irregularities.

    The 127 page report discusses assignments, MERS, the problems with “robo-signers” and other document infirmities. We find very significant the matters on page 19 of the Report, which state as follows regarding assignment of mortgage loans to a securitized mortgage loan trust: “As described above, in order to convey good title into the trust and provide the trust with both good title to the collateral and the income from the mortgages, each transfer in this process required particular steps. Most PSAs [Pooling and Servicing Agreements] are governed by New York law and create trusts governed by New York law. New York trust law requires strict compliance with the trust documents; any transaction by the trust that is in contravention to the trust documents is void, meaning that the transfer cannot actually take place as a matter of law [citing relevant provision of NY Estate Powers and Trust Law section]. Therefore, if the transfer of the notes and mortgages did not comply with the PSA, the transfer would be void, and the assets would not have been transferred to the trust. PSAs generally require that the loans transferred to the trust not be in default, which would prevent the transfer of any non-performing loans to the trust now. Furthermore, PSAs frequently have timeliness requirements regarding the transfer in order to ensure that the trusts qualify for favored tax treatment.” This is what we have been arguing for years: that purported transfers of toxic, non-performing mortgage loans into a trust beyond the trust closing date and without strictly complying with the mortgage loan conveyance proviions of the PSA are void and of no force and effect, regardless of who attempts to make the transfer (e.g. MERS, who cannot make the transfer in any event for other reasons). The United States Congress has confirmed this. Perhaps more members of the Judiciary will ultimately come to the same conclusion.

  2. @carie – jeff barnes seems to get it. have you spoken to him?

  3. And, BTW, usedkar—

    NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH CRIMINALS. PERIOD.

  4. Wow…now I understand who the real “clueless chump” is.

    And by the way—hello? There NO ATTORNEYS WHO “GET IT”.
    Your long rant about what you have been through proves it.

    Pat and usedkar—I hope you 2 will be very happy together.

    The rest of us are on the side of JUSTICE.

  5. usedkarguy, I have no clue what you’re talking about. I never mentioned any of the items you mentioned, save for Pat’s a bank bitch. He DOES NOT represent otherwise on his site.

  6. for whom the bells Tolle, not everyone has fraud or appraisal issues. There are a lot of prime borrowers who are now sucked into this because of unemployment, sickness, etc. Bond insurers, servicers, and investors cannot allow all these loans to just default. There is a good reason to try and make non-performing loans perform. Has my perspective changed? Yes, somewhat.
    I am sure Patrick would acknowledge that some loans are predatory and deserve some kind of setoff, but the laws of equity preclude a borrower from defaulting and getting that “free house”. I think Patrick, playing a bit of “Devil’s advocate”, helps keep everyone focused. Just because you don’t like HIS position, that doesn’t mean he’s a bankster. There are two sides that must find agreement. Reading his site, he represents both (at one time or another).
    And THAT alone does make him evil. You guys better wake up and smell the shit. You’re up to your neck in it.

  7. This site needs to call the gost busters. Shame on you all.

  8. Lest we forget: from In re Walker (CA)

    “Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.”

  9. Pat wrote:

    You and the others can cling to your beliefs.

    Why thank you Pat….that’s mighty sporting of you. I’ll do that. I’ll continue to believe, unlike you, that what we’re really dealing with here are non-mortgage backed securities fraudulently packaged and sold by criminals whose greed knew/knows no bounds.

    I’ll go on believing that people like you, who are, in your own words, “assisting the banks to not just defend against the [homeowner] lawsuits, but to also allow for a lender countersuit to be initiated”, are soon to be carted off in leg irons for long stays in the Graybar Hotel for the heinous crimes committed towards your fellow citizens.

    I’ll cling to my belief that you and your banker friends are highly corrosive and are tearing at the very fabric of our democracy, not just causing great harm to families nationwide, but that you and your buddies are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people who found themselves desperate and despondent through no fault of their own. Average people who suddenly found themselves outgunned by a little moron who understood just enough about the law and had a cheesy website and a little home office, just enough to sell his wares to the criminals perpetrating the most insidious fraud ever undertaken on such a massive scale.

    And since you’re not an attorney but are putting yourself out there as someone who may help a homeowner to achieve a modification of a fraudulent mortgage, this just might be enough, I hope, to lock you up for violating the MARS statute or worse down the road. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

    Where was I yesterday you ask? Researching how to take scum like you off the streets. It’s what drives me these days. I grin at the thought of having you locked up with a huge sex starved guy who’s Grand Momma got tossed from her home. That should do just fine!

  10. usedkarguy, you seem like a bright guy, and yet you don’t get who this guy Pat is. He’s a bankerboy whose sole purpose is to aid and abet the fraud. Don’t believe me, click on his name and read his webcrap. He’s a small time peddler of cheap wares trying to make a buck off of the crime of the century. He’s only here to stay abreast of the defensive posturing, nothing more.

  11. and Hman, it’s called “public/private investment partnership”. The public assumes all the risk and the privateers reap the profits. Think “Sun Trust”.

  12. Patrick, I know this is a dead thread, I hope you see this. I have watched people demonize and berate you after providing factual, intuitive remarks regarding the situations presented. I can only wonder why you stick around, but I think it’s because you are truly concerned about these folks in distress. I, too, wandered in here in August of 08. I knew nothing. Now, I know something. I know that all the bullshit arguments won’t win a court case. It’s standing to foreclose. Period. Research provides lots of information regarding the who, what, when, where, how, and why. But if the Court refuses to take notice of what the homeowner brings to the hearing, the defendants’ goose is cooked. A judge doesn’t have to take notice of anything, unless it conforms to the rules of evidence and can be substantiated. The esoteric will not be judicially noticed!

    And let’s get to “understanding”, Carie. Understand that without a qualified attorney presenting an argument that is backed by case law, you’re screwed. The guy in the $1000 suit has a leg up on you. HE’S IN THE CLUB. YOU’RE NOT!

    What do you say when the judge retorts “…the date of the assignment is irrelevant. Until the legislature changes the law here, recording is irrelevant. Did you pay your mortgage or not?”

    “Uh, uh, I couldn’t because the rate went up and….”
    “Well of course it did, dummy! You had an adjustable rate loan, didn’t you? That’s not the banks fault! Enter the order, counselor!”

    I’ve been beating my head against the wall for three years now. I have over 10,000 pages of reference materials, court cases, “The Securitization Comptrollers Handbook”, UCC law, state statutes, and you know what it got me? A messy family room? I’m looking at sanctions for “frivolous pleadings” by a judge who just got “a great re-finance offer from Wells Fargo”. Now, I can try to convince a judicial commission that the bench has been tampered with by those actions; do you think THEY CARE???? NO, THEY DON’T! It’s money and power and re-election campaign contributions and….case law? One of these things is not like the other…….

    I interviewed over twenty attorneys. They all told me “I don;t know WHAT you’re talking about!” A couple said: “HEY! You already won! You lived in your house three and a half years without making a payment? You’re a fucking genius! It would have cost you $15,000 to have me do that for you!” yeah, yeah. I’m a genius alright!

    At the last court appearance, while waiting for our case to be called, and sitting through closing arguments from another case (for two hours) my attorney said “You see that guy with big briefcase? And the other guy? That’s $1300 an hour sitting there burning gas at this stoplight! These guys hate you”. And let’s not forget the $35,000 in legal fees they suffered defending counterclaims in the foreclosure case, and the $50,000 in unpaid interest.

    Yeah, I know. I’m a genius. Now I make a full time job out of pounding attorneys generals, FBI agents, Department of Justice employees, notary divisions of state governments, district attorneys, governors, representatives, senators, and other disinterested parties with e-mails about fraudulent affidavits and wire fraud and mail fraud and…., what’s the use? Nobody cares, right?

    Now I don’t care. I don’t care if the judge hits me with fines. I don’t care if the attorney general of Maryland gets pissed off at me. He’s a criminal if he lets the Wells Fargo document factory in Frederick keep putting out these fraudulent affidavits and assignments of mortgage. I certainly don’t care about this house anymore. I hate it. I can’t wait for the eviction notice after the sheriff’s sale so I can go rent some dump for $750 a month and live like a schmuck again. A happy schmuck with no mortgage.

    But I do care that some poor sap like me is going to try and fight a National Bank in county court pro se and try to be an attorney, a securities expert, and then get his lunch handed to him.

    A word to the wise: find an attorney who “gets it” and don’t waste your time with this “do-it-yourself” shit. It’s not worth it.

    And thanks to Harry and Patrick for trying to “keep it real”. You guys are the champs. The Caries and the Cubes and the others are just chumps.

  13. E Tolle,

    You and the others can cling to your beliefs. Just don’t drag innocents that don’t know any better down with you. It is not fair to them.

    BTW, where were you yesterday? I was in court testifying as an Expert Witness in a case against a broker. I will be in another court on Wednesday, same thing.

  14. Pat, and I suppose you’d appoint yourself to the board of the Ministry of Truth who would do the “policing” on Living Lies….since you hold yourself in such high regard?

    Do yourself and all a favor and seek professional help. There are medications available that I’m sure would prove beneficial to you. While many people suffer from delusions of grandeur, you’re obviously suffering from delusions of adequacy. And you fool no one.

  15. usedkar—it’s not my problem if you can’t understand something.

  16. Maybe if there was an attorney who really knew what he was doing with regards to all this—and not just making it up as he went along—while taking people’s money—we wouldn’t have any issues here.

  17. Usedkarguy,

    I started coming to this website in 2008. At the time, it was one of a very few websites that addressed foreclosure issues.

    The information was relevant, especially in that the foreclosure industry was “new” for most attorneys and people. Neil provided needed information about the securitization process and other issues. He addressed TILA, RESPA and other important statutes.

    His seminar in Napa in Jan 2009, confirmed to me that I correctly understood the securitization process, though I did disagree with his conclusion. I also found “errors” in his interpretation of some TILA statutes, specifically where 226.34 was concerned. He was correct when he said that it required that a lender must determine the ability of a borrower to repay a loan, however, he erred in that the statute only applied to HOEPA loans, and this was not mentioned. (The pretender lender argument was another which I have time and again rebutted using relevant TILA statutes.

    In 2010, the website went completely “bonkers” with all the theories presented that had no valid claim or proof to argue. And, it has become increasingly worse.

    Attorneys who are fighting foreclosure daily view this website as a joke now. They recognize that there is very little useful information presented any longer. Useful information would be recent court cases that are reported, and little or nothing else.

    Homeowners who come here, especially those who are just beginning to face foreclosure are being mislead by the theories. They believe the garbage being posted, and call attorneys or me and want to fight foreclosure using the arguments. When they are told that the arguments are useless, the call other attorneys until they find one that will take their money and their case. Many times, I have received calls months later telling me that they wished that they had listened to me. Financially, they would have been much better off.

    This website needs true “policing” so as to return to its original purpose of being a website providing legitimate information on foreclosure. That way, a homeowner can weigh the options available, and then decide on a course of action that is best for them.

  18. I think this site has gone to shit. Know-it-all parrot Carie, I can’t read anything you post, as it is all useless crap. change the name to CarieLies, why don’t you? And these arguments from ANONYMOUS will never win a court case. Take all this conjecture and stick it in a can and ship it.

    Any of you visitors who walk into court spouting the garbage that currently permeates this site are toast.

    What was once a great idea has been hijacked by a bunch of know-nothing blabbermouth amateurs.

    No lawyers here. And the ones that are get harassed for being “banksters” and “spies”. Get real, people.

    And get a lawyer. Going in and trying to use “How to Represent Yourself in Court” and you’re gonna get your lunch handed to you. You’re out of your league. This isn’t small claims court! Don’t think you’re gonna walk into court and hold some $750 per hour attorney at bay. Their $200,000 education will trump your pipe dream in ten minutes. Wise up!

    An Neil, you’ve unleashed a monster here. Better get control. This place is a train wreck.

    Adios!

  19. Thanks Ken—good luck.

  20. Thanks for stiring the pot. At least something is cooking here. I hope my attorney can figure it out and use it. If the gov. US is selling off homeowners debts to collection outfits, it might be better for the gov. US give the discounts to the homeowners as reduced principle and charge the difference to the bank. Skip the collections and stop foreclosures.

  21. And, here you go enraged—or should I say–attack poodle—in case you missed this from ANONYMOUS:

    “…then the question is — were these EVER even valid derivative contracts to valid securities??? Well, the security investors — they say not valid securities. If you do not have valid securities — you do not have valid derived derivative swap contracts. And, if you do not have valid derivative swaps — you have nothing — and no current creditor.
    Why?? Nothing valid to begin with. And, oh how foreclosure attorneys just love to ignore derivative contracts —- Swap out of collection rights — SEC will confirm. Okay — so why do these “trustees” — only to securities — feel the need to falsely attach derivatives to false foreclosure security claims??? That is what they are doing in courts — without divulging the swap “contractor.” In fact, they fail to even acknowledge — that derivative contracts exist. Maybe, that is because — they never really did — because was never valid securities to begin with — by which derivatives could be derived .
    And, another problem is — security investors — never mind derivative contract holders — are NEVER the creditor. Nevertheless, derivatives are a means of transferring collection rights. Derivatives are NOT pass-through — there is no current cash pass-through on derivatives. Thus, can only be legal title acquisition -not security equitable beneficiary pass-through. — and no trustee involved — since no security is in question. Then, the issue is, secured versus unsecured — at this point — unsecured — charge-off — to falsified loan — falsified securities — and falsified derivative contract. Oh — but those derivatives are in the trillions. .
    But, this is the problem — trustee will not divulge. No court has addressed — it is time for addressing. If need to bring in BK — do so.
    Use FDCPA — and TILA Amendment — for fraud in identification of CURRENT creditor. And, fraud upon court — if necessary.
    That is the only law consumer has on side.
    “Swap-out” — the SEC told me –years ago — is how collection rights are removed. SEC did not know at that time — that subprime refinances — were nothing more than collection rights (false default debt) — to begin with…”

  22. Dylan Ratigan explains the money corruption:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#44645552

  23. Your questions WERE answered—it’s not my fault if the article disappears before you see it. What the hell is your problem, anyway?
    Why would I respond to you at this point when you are being so rude?
    Give me a break.

  24. I don’t read morse.

    And I never pretended knowing anything I don’t. Anone can have all the proper arguments and still blow the best case in the world. And anyone who seems to know all the arguments but is unable to articulate them in such a fashion that anybody could understand is absolutely assured to blow his case. What I said stands: one needs a strategy and a few solid facts from which he won’t depart to win a case. Running all over the place about securitization or the lack thereof, throwing all kinds of generalities without specifics and being snide and condescending is the best formula to be summarily dismissed with prejudice (meaning without any chance to ever plead your cause again).

    I am in favor of QWR’ing every entity involved in anyone’s mortgage. I strongly recommend to everyone to investigate his/her own mortgage and gather (and preserve) every single document uncovered. Yet, unless one can prove the accuracy of any affirmation, it is not worth making and it can even prove dangerous.

    And Carie, what you don’t appear to know (and I expect trial attorneys with experience to back me up on this) is that, in civil court, what you need is the “preponderance of the evidence” (meaning it is more likely than not to be true for the matter at hand, i.e. your own case, based on the evidence introduced by both parties to date). Make sweeping statements purporting to be true for EVERY single mortgage and profer generalities and, all of a sudden, the judge will hold you to a much higher standard of proving it to be true for ALL, EVERY and NONE. Your evidence is good only for your own case. Your statements are good only for your own case. Qualify it as such. Start generalizing (ALL, EVERY, ALWAYS and NONE) and you seriously expose yourself to having to prove what you alleged. Judges put parties on the spot for less. It is their job.

    Judges have also very little patience.

    From what I understand, you’ve played your cards well thus far for what your own case is concerned, i.e., no one has come after you yet for payment. I congratulate you for it. It takes dedication and commitment and 95% of the people foreclosed on didn’t fight: they simply folded. I only wish you held the victory in your hands before embarking on a campaign of advice to anyone new to this site. As far as I can tell, you still have a long way to go in your own case: have you successfully quiet-titled? Have you even started the procedure? Have you found enough problems with your file to attack on Tila, Respa, unjust enrichement, conversion and what not (you can do that by yourself but, so far, you’ve been mum about it…)? From your posts, I don’t get that. Actually, I get someone who is stinking mad at the whole world and doesn’t think straight. Not the kind of impression anyone whants to make on a judge…

    I keep believing you are not well-positioned to advise anyone else. You ramble a lot but very little substance to it and very little reasoning. So if your nose gets bent out of joint, so be it. I personally believe that we have a responsibility for everything we say or write. And we have a responsibility to correct statements we know to be either untrue or unproven. Yours ring true “to some extent”. Quite a few of us are waiting for your proof.

    As a matter of fact, you were asked specific questions by several of us, readers. All they got was the same song.

  25. why then, under Anon’s scenario, isn’t Maiden Lane the creditor and entity entitled to foreclose? assuming of course that they gave value for the transfer from the trust to them

  26. Thanks, HMan.

    This is just for you, enraged—in case you forgot:

    ANONYMOUS, on September 19, 2011 at 7:23 pm said:

    enraged,

    Oh – no no – no. Trusts were set up as waterfall structure. Once that waterfall structure in gone — the trust is gone. It is called a “trigger event” — ie — default for the trust. A certain percentage of loans defaulting — triggers the default event — swaps kick it. Trust is dismantled — no servicers any longer conveying any “advance payments” — it is over — gone — done — KAPUT.
    But, you ask a very good question — where do the loan cash payments — for borrowers still paying — despite massive default trigger — GO??? Not to that Trust — most likely went to Maiden Lane — ultimate purchaser of default Trust remnant tranches. All of which were restructured into a BIG government Trust — sold to — you guessed it — default debt buyers — with collection rights attached.
    That Trust – you think still operates — is in no where man land — tranches long restructured — and governed by the US government.
    Hmmmm—- government just waiting for those “restructured” to default. But, you have to remember — securities holders are not the creditor — despite security restructuring — collection rights remain elsewhere — and if “bank” could not dispose of those collection rights — government is here to help. That was the goal — and continues to be the goal. — clear the balance sheets. Unfortunately — for some banks — not happening.
    Title — not a concern to US Government. At least, not yet.

  27. A few important and good news:

    Ky AG joins Schneiderman. I think we’re at 7 ouf of 50.

    Fannie Mae cited for having failed to stop robo-signing.

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/foreclosures/index.html

  28. “…The Depositor owns the Trust — and while the Trust was performing – the Depositor, on behalf of the Trust would be the party to bring the action. However, these Trusts have now been brought back on parent corp. (to Depositor) balance sheets because the Trusts as “off-balan­ce sheet” SPVs — have been effectivel­y dissolved. The only tranche holders to remnants of the Trusts is the US Government or the Depositor (parent) itself. 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.”

    @ enraged—my PSA has NO Mortgage Schedule and NO Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement.

    So—what now—if you know so much?

    Uh huh…I thought so.

  29. A YEAR LATER AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED—

    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/04/family_files_lawsuit_against_b.html

    “…It’s like the Wild West right now in the foreclosure industry,” he said.

    Deutsche, however, said it played no role in the dispute, and that the alleged actions came under the purview of American Home Mortgage Serving, which took over service of the loan from Ameriquest.
    Deutsche acts as a trustee and has an administrative role in such cases, but has “no beneficial ownership stake or interest in the underlying mortgage loans,” spokesman John Gallagher said.

    The trust company holds legal title for the benefit of investors.
    Gallagher said loan-servicing companies, not the trustee, “are responsible for foreclosure activity, maintenance of foreclosed properties and resale of foreclosed properties.”
    A spokeswoman said they could not comment.

    I STILL don’t understand how a servicing company is getting away with stealing homes—with NO PROOF of an original creditor getting any kind of benefit from the foreclosure.
    Why can’t attorneys figure this out?

  30. Damnit Carie, learn how the systems works before shooting your mouth off and insulting anyone who tries to put some sense into you. Once you have claimed, for the millionth time, that trusts are empty, securitization is flaud, banks are crooks, etc. (old, rehashed litany), what have you accomplished? Other than mislead people into believing that claiming what you claim will set them free?

  31. Hello Carrie,

    I’m not in the industry and I’m not an attorney so I don’t claim to know the law. This is my opinion of who would be the “creditor” based on my logic and limited understanding of securitization.

    If I borrow money from my Mom to buy a car. I then secure a loan with the money my mom leant me. I am listed on the title of the car and the loan paperwork.

    The bank that I borrow the money from does not care that the money is a loan from my mom because her name is not on the title or the loan. It is a seperate (contract) loan appart from my loan with the bank.

    Therefore, I believe the depositor who deposited the money (althought it is certificate holders money) would be the owner.

    Again I don’t claim this to be correct this is just my opinion. Applying this logic what happens if the Depositor (GMAC) went out of business? Does the government now own the debt? I think so.

  32. Securities investors are NOT THE CREDITOR…

    Deutsche Bank is NOT THE CREDITOR.

    WHO THE EF IS THE CREDITOR???

  33. http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/04/27/deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-foreclosed-hired-a-company-to-trash-out/

    Deutsche is NOT a CREDITOR…even their spokesman admits to it—why aren’t his words being used in court???

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: