IDENTITY THEFT: THE HEART OF THE SECURITIZATION SCAM

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

YOUR SIGNATURE WAS WORTH $TRILLIONS — MAYBE IT STILL IS!

There ought to be a law against that! Oops, there is a law, in fact many of them. The thief gets your credit card information etc. buys a TV and you get the bill. Nobody would argue that the thief should go to jail. Sometimes the thief simply sells your information to others who will use it to obtain something for value and lay the bill at your doorstep. Nobody would argue that both the thief and the buyer of your identity should go to jail. What happens if the thief is a Bank?

In securitization of debt that is exactly what happens. It’s not that securitization of debt is a bad thing. What was bad was the way the banks handled it. They took your signature and without your knowledge or consent used it to obtain credit, money and undisclosed profits and loss mitigation money (insurance) to reduce the balance owed to the investor creditors. What they didn’t do was tell you they received that money, nor did they tell you that the investor creditor had been paid down on the balance due. They kept the money — which they were able to get because of your signature on some loan agreement that was either a credit card, student loan, auto loan, mortgage loan, or some other debt.

Sometimes the investor creditor actually received the money and sometimes they didn’t. But in all cases either they received the money or their agent received the money and if the investor didn’t get it, that is a matter between them and their agents. If you pay the bill, you are paying the same obligation twice — but because of the asymmetry of information, you only know about one payment — the one you made.

Lending laws vary from state to state but the underlying theme is that borrowers are customers just like any product and as such they have a right to choose with whom they do business. They also have a right to know the details of the deal — what the fees are and what compensation is being received by the various players that participated in advancing credit to you. So for example, if you knew that the fees and profits from your signature was going to produce large amounts of money to the participants in one deal offered to you, you could shop around and see if there is someone who doesn’t work that way and by eliminating some of the middlemen and hedge products, your rate or other terms might be more favorable.

Now the industry has laid the bill at your doorstep, no matter what type of loan you have. They have received money they have not disclosed and they haven’t done the accounting: how much of the money they received should have been credited against the amount owed to the investor creditor and how much of that reduction in the amount owed to the creditor should be allocated to your loan? We don’t know because the Banks are not talking. The reason is that they have concealed this money under the label of trading profits when in fact it is just plain theft. You are being told to pay a bill that has already been paid. The investor also might be deprived of money that has been paid toward the obligation owed to the investor creditor.

In the mortgage industry, where these issues have received the most attention, it has been obvious that the Banks were playing fast and loose with the money and the documentation. The trail of money and the trail documents are two different paths each having little similarity — when they should obviously be identical. Those paths lead to different places with one “creditor” showing up as the holder of the paper and the other real creditor merely holding a right to an obligation that has been obscured by the middlemen.

The interesting thing about all this is that the paperwork does matter and so does the law. Title to real property can only be “clear” if the title registry shows an unbroken chain and there are no facts known that would lead anyone to believe otherwise. It is now apparent, thanks to MERS and other diversions of paperwork, that title to the property, the documents and the money obligation are all different and cannot be corrected without some new instrument(s).

That’s where you come into the picture. In order to straighten out the problem, the investors must be  given credit and money for what was received on behalf of the loan they made to a “Trust” or other special purpose vehicle. And if the creditors want a claim that is enforceable by reference to a document, then they need your signature — again, this time with feeling —- i.e., after full disclosure of what they did and negotiating with you for the value of your signature instead of merely stealing it for their own purposes. This is the reason that BOA is experimenting with the cash for keys program where they pay as much as $20,000. What they are really purchasing is not just your keys, but your signature so now they can claim that what they said is at least now true even if it wasn’t true when they said it.

What is the value of your signature? I would argue that you could use several possible indices. If you have already been foreclosed and evicted then perhaps the value is at least the value of the house at the time of the new transaction. Perhaps the value would be computed based upon participation in those “trading profits” in which they pocketed money belonging to the investor and which should have been credited to your loan account. Or possibly the value is tied to the total value of your claims and counterclaims whether filed or not — for slander of title, predatory lending, deceptive lending, quiet title etc. Whatever the value might be it must be worth a fair amount of money if BOA is offering up to $20,000.

This isn’t theoretical. At my suggestion American Homeowners Cooperative is going to launch a service where borrowers (past and present) can offer their signatures for sale on current or previous loans. Hedge fund managers see this as a way of betting against the validity of mortgages and betting against the validity of the paper being used to enforce the obligation. We’ll find out soon enough whether the buyers of these signatures will pay enough for the borrowers to sign yet another group of documents that assigns and releases their claims and either clears title or starts a new claim without any of the dirty laundry that is currently attached to securitized debt. Stay tuned. This should be interesting.

35 Responses

  1. Listen, you Wider dude or whomever is trying to bash defense attorneys or make a case for the banksters about notes. If you’re trying to say notes were assigned in bulk contractually, let’s say we take your word for it for a moment. That means that some honky documents longer than Gone with the Wind bear the evidence of a note’s transfer. I guess we need them, then. Please don’t forget to include ALL the agreements (psa, purchase agreement, master servicing agreement, and would you be so kind as to throw in any guarantees and insurance policies?)
    But, here’s a question: which side of their faces, then, are banksters talking out of when they say otherwise (“We’re going with the UCC and the blank endorsement!”) to get out of production when making off with our homes? The homeowner had nothing to do with the way banksters decided to do such transfers. Don’t want to produce half the Pacific NW forests in paper? Waa-elll, I guess your clients should have formulated a different business model. But they did, so fork over the paper.
    They had to craft all those docs to make their deals work, but now they want to rely on the default UCC? Sort of schizophrenic (read dishonest and bs), isnt’ it? Keep talking.

  2. I’ll tell you why//////////////

    why would you pay interest to bankers?

    Bankers want this so they do no work, as in exchange of product. But they want to only collect interest for you doing the work and paying back. And via contracts, if you do no work and pay back, we the bankers get your collateral because we have lent you money, which was created out of nothing,,,,,,,,,,nor other depositor money was lent, but you think it was, leverage,,,,,,,,,,,,

    and this is outright thief but you don’t realize it…………

    stay away from the banks………………you can borrow money from others if you need to………………..

  3. while this guy has it right some what and sees the corruption, gold or silver is not the answer…………..the answer is to have the Government be the Federal Reserve System of Banks,,,,,,,,,,you get that,,,,,,”BE” ………..as per the constitution, you get this,,,,,,,,the Government is supposed to BE the one with the right to coin money and the value thereof,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not the banks or the IMF or the World Bank,,,,,,,,,,,but the Government……………that is their job, not the bankers,,,,,,,,,,why should interest be paid to a private or public company for issuing money via loans or debt when the interest can be paid to the government to fund it’s operation for the people electing the representatives, why would you pay interest to bankers? Why?

  4. The root of all evil is money———

    but the actual root of all evil is “bankers” (big National & Global Bankers) creating money via loans, via book keeping entry, via promises to pay,,,,,,,,all out of nothing but book keeping entry,,,,,,,,,,,,and the evil is getting people, the 99% to think they have borrowed money,,,,,,,,,,when in fact the money is not borrowed, but lent into existence, created by signing a contract, and this is called the fractional reserve system of banks…..a system………a system of leverage which was taken over in the USA by the Federal System of Banks so it could reap the benefits of interest (or profits) when in fact any government could be the Federal Reserve or Central Bank and those interest profits could fund the Government and thus no taxes. But, have a central bank and you have debt slavery via taxes….all created by big banks……….why do some states have no income taxes? Why is the state of North Dakota not in the mortgage mess?

    Why are some local banks not in the mortgage mess?
    Why are the big banks in the mortgage mess?
    Why are local credit unions not in the mortgage mess?

  5. @johngault and others

    ever here the term “Monetization of debt” ?

    well here it is and consider your dollar bills in your pocket, your mortgage notes, your car loans, your student loans, your credit cards——–

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization

  6. and when you realize the bankers have in fact not lost anything,……….and maybe you realize they have only lost profits,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ———————————

    And if you realize the bankers took over the power of creating money from the Government in 1913……………….

    why you realize all have been corrupted…………….

    And Mark Levin and Hannity have been duped. So called Conservatism.

  7. @Johngault………

    thanks for replying back, I appreciate that.

    You need to get yourself hatted on how money is created and a little bit of history on it.

    May I suggest you read Web of Debt by Ellen Brown, and the Creature from Jekly Island by Griffen. You can also do a research on the web like Where does money come from. Web of debt I got from my local library.

    Now, you have to get past conspiracy theories that may cloud your judgement. Web of debt is an excellent book and it is long. But you will find you will not put it down once you start reading it. It is different than what you might think at first, she is a lawyer ellen Brown.

    Also, look at Ben Still videos on the net regards money.

    And I tell you when you realize that the Federal Reserve System of Banks even admits that all money in the USA, your money in your pocket right now that says at the top on it “Federal Reserve Note”, is a note, a contract, a debt instrument,

    and the note is based on debt, and the debt is based on a promise to pay, a IOU, and it is all book keeping entry of debits and credits………and you and I pay interest on it one way or the other,,,,,and the other is inflation…

    and then when you realize it is really created out of nothing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why you realize it is made SERIOUS, but it is made SERIOUS for who’s benefit…………..and that would be the bankers, the IMF, the World Bank…………….and when you realize the interest you pay on a loan which the principle was created from book keeping entry and the principle was not in fact borrowed, but created by your signature,,,,,,,,,,,why you realize the bankers get interest money from not lending savers deposits but simply book keeping entry……….and when you realize the bankers have in fact not lost anything,……….and maybe you realize they have only lost profits,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  8. Neil its time to round up the dead cattle My foreclosing trust is MLMI 2006 HE-3 LET THE INVESTORS SEE THE TWO SIDED COIN THE PLAN B THAT WALL ST HAD SERVICER FRAUD THAT WAS THE GUARENTEE THAT THE SECURITZATION WOULD AND BET AGAINST IT TO WIN. INVESTORS NEED TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE THE CASINO RIGGED.

  9. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: American Homeowners Cooperative, AMGAR, bankruptcy, BOA, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, identity theft, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  10. From Max Gardner from what he says (I think he said this) is the majority of psa’s in the alphabet thing someone linked here at LL:

    “2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. (a) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund, and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, hereby accepts the Trust Fund.”

    This is no where near hoyes’ quote. Hmmm…..I suppose they are written differently (psa’s), but these differences are kinda….HUGE.

    I have been trying to get my head around just what that 2.01 (Gardner’s) means, what’s the bottom line. The dot trustee, for example, holds either legal or equitable title in trust for the trustor (borrower) and the beneficiary. When payments aren’t made (“old” days, pre-third party payments mol), the ben can tell the trustee to DO something, foreclose, mol.

    So if we apply those facts to the sec’n trustee and its trust, what does that look like? But, wait! The depositor is selling, etc. its interest, etc.in the TRUST FUND to the trustee for the benefit of the CH’s.
    Okay, I put the title -equitable or legal – into the trust (the trust in deed of trust, the trust created by the dot) for the benefit of the beneficiary to the dot (as opposed to the sec’n trust fund’s beneficiaries, identified as CH’s). The dot spells out what’s gonna happen to my property if I don’t make good on my note. How’s this trust “fund” work and where’s it spelled out?

    I can’t go any further because by itself, that paragraph discloses almost nothing, at least to me. I can’t even define a “trust FUND”, except the kind I wish I had. I give. What’s a trust FUND, as denoted in 2.01? If I had the kind of trust fund I know about and wish I had, then I would have some money, generally. Someone deposited some moolah in a trust FUND for my benefit. Yahoo! If me grandpappy had put his vintage autos in a trust for me, I would have some assets, but those aren’t “funds”. Well, that thinking was a dead end, so i went and looked up the definition of a ‘trust fund’ and it may include other property (besides money) and that may be “financial instruments”.

    So, back to 2.01. The trustee holds the trust funds, now identified as the notes and maybe dots the depositor has put in the trust fund, in trust for the CH’s. (That is, if the other provisions are followed, which they weren’t and as a matter of law imo, these omissions should be enforced in courtrooms as the fatal errors they are for all those folks (so sorry, pensioners, etc.) and wrong parties shouldn’t be making off with our property. Our hands are clean as to those errors – SOMEone MAY have a right to come after us, but people who should lose because of those “errors” are not to benefit as if they hadn’t happened. It’s called telling the truth and let the chips fall where they will. The investors are not without recourse / remedy – they can go after the parties who made the warranties that the events happened, and God speed to them)
    Assuming for s & g’s the loans were in the trust funds held by the trustee in trust (all “paperwork” done) for the CH’s, then what?

    A dot trustee is empowered to foreclose in the dot itself, but if a sec’n trustee is the party to tell the dot trustee to foreclose, where’s the doc which grants him this authority? And if it exists in legitimacy-land, why all this hiding behind MERS all this time?

    Okay, the f/c’s done by MERS were done so they didn’t have to admit their failures in doing the “paperwork” and no doubt to obscure other stuff.
    I haven’t gotten very far and I am presuming even then that this 2.01 is representative of most 2.01’s. Yeah, we could just stop at they didn’t do what they should have and that’s their big trip with all the lies, but I don’t think that will get us what we need. We need to stay on this to see where it leads. If we understand better, we can better frame our issues for courts without writing a tome they don’t wanna read and might leave the banksters the wiggle room they are enjoying right now. We need to frame arguments so that the judge will see he does not have the facts ncessary to make a legitimate determination.

    We all know there is something systemically wrong here when the facts and our RIGHT to defend our homes depend on the understanding (think Harvard) and admission of not one, but a series of tomes and documents to define the parties and their rights. This is such major crap. I just don’t believe it’s reasonable to see it as anything but.
    Whether or not a party is the bomb should be apparent from the note and deed of trust, as well as any of public record. Until then, we can try to whittle down what a court must know to make an informed decision.

  11. johngault
    if you want to really see what the banking metaphor means.

    start here… its a long treasonous journey , but in order to comprehend & appreciate [my god what an oxymoron!] the evil nature of the family hierarchy of world control . The last century of mass manipulation is diabolical , frightening , depressing .
    http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_ch_01.html
    Secrets of the Federal Reserve
    by Eustace Mullins

  12. e tolle – oh, yeah – Mers bites.
    MERS HAS TO GO

  13. RdHoyes said:

    “In fact, the PSA required the full chain of endorsement

    and also required the depositor (the C party) endorse the note to the trustee (it is New York trust law requirements, not specified in the PSA, which would call for the final endorsement to be to the specific trust, not just the trustee.”

    Is that true, about the final endorsement to the trustee, especially as a NY trust law requirement? Anyone know? Point to this alleged NY trust law so the rest of us don’t have to make a career of it? If this is true it’s great, but we’ll never win on stuff we blabber that would kill our credibility in a NY
    minute. Hoyes, how about you? Anyone think this is mis-direction?

  14. Bank of New York, Respondent,
    v
    Stephen Silverberg et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

    Beautiful piece of work here….one to frame and admire. Mers bites. The court says:

    This matter involves the enforcement of the rules that govern real property and whether such rules should be bent to accommodate a system that has taken on a life of its own. The issue presented on this appeal is whether a party has standing to commence a foreclosure action when that party’s assignor—in this case, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS)—was listed in the underlying mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording, but was never the actual holder or assignee of the underlying notes. We answer this question in the negative.

    ~ Big Snip ~

    MERS purportedly holds approximately 60 million mortgage loans (see Michael Powell and Gretchen Morgenson, MERS? It May Have Swallowed Your Loan, New York Times, March 5, 2011), and is involved in the origination of approximately 60% of all mortgage loans in the United States (see Peterson at 1362; Kate Berry, Foreclosures Turn Up Heat on MERS, Am [*5]Banker, July 10, 2007, at 1). This Court is mindful of the impact that this decision may have on the mortgage industry in New York, and perhaps the nation. Nonetheless, the law must not yield to expediency and the convenience of lending institutions. Proper procedures must be followed to ensure the reliability of the chain of ownership, to secure the dependable transfer of property, and to assure the enforcement of the rules that govern real property.

    Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing. Thus, the order is reversed, on the law, and the motion of the{**86 AD3d at 284} defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing is granted.

    http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05002.htm

  15. @cubed2 – Fraid I don’t know what you mean.??? I read your post. YOU are much more sophisticated about the banking system than I am. I am just holding on to my hat trying to follow your stuff, like the post about bank credit. All I really know about that is the statement, “banks may not lend their credit” and I only know those words by chance, having run accross them in some old case, think it was. I understood you to say that’s all they really did or even still do, but we repay the loan with currency. You said everything got messed up in 1913, and I take your word for it, because I don’t know ANY of that stuff. And you are saying people with nothing invested are spinning gold out of that nothing, on the backs of American efforts. And if I got it right, you think something can be changed systemically to fix this. And then the old rumors about a Trilateral Commission come to mind for some reason. I don’t know any more about that, either. Just the same rumors everyone heard.

    But I can say this as to the same write-off taken 5 times by different companies. oh,hell they could just MAKE UP a loan and write it off these days. Wouldn’t surprise me if they 1) did and 2) could get away with it. But, someone could figure it out. The IRS comes to mind.
    They can do audits til the cows come home, and as I always say, here’s
    my 10.00 to help pay for it. It’s a daunting task, but I don’t know that it’s impossible. The only thing which would make it truly impossible is if the IRS does not want to figure it out for the same reasons the criminals aren’t punished by the people who could see that they are. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I have to contemplate what looks like our government and this country being captive of WS (literally – by this I mean it could be worse than it even appears), I honestly vacillate between some serious anger and other emotions and a strong desire to find an island to drink my own stinking mojitos. Here are the choices the way I see it: our politicians are spineless whimps or we have in fact been captured like the king on a chess board by a criminal element. And while I’m at it, if the latter is true, Obama knows it because he is no dummy. On the other hand, if the former is true, he’s in the whimp category.

    I just read that AIG repaid a gazzillion dollars. I give, where’d they get the dough?

  16. @johngault,,,,,,,,,,,

    will you answer me with one of my posts. And if you do not, why not?

  17. @johngault

    you said

    “If those criminals sold the same loan (not just sub prime) into five different deals, because who would know,”

    ———————–

    It is complicated for the simple reason that “no one” will figure it out.

    And “no one” means your common man thinking I got a loan and if I didn’t pay on it, I guess I give up because I have not paid. and thus Judges figure the same.

  18. anon – # 4 of my ‘guesses’ doesn’t work. It wouldn’t do for a collector to go after a borrower for the old money when the borrower is making payments on the new loan, or even if not.
    If those criminals sold the same loan (not just sub prime) into five different deals, because who would know, I wonder if they are expensing one loan five times with different “loan numbers”. Or heck, five differrent parties could be writing-off the same loan. Some of this has always been possible, I think, but this gang looks like it would do ANYthing. It’s not like the IRS has an internal search engine to coss-reference property addresses or anything at all and they don’t usually get the ‘worksheets’ for those returns, anyway.

  19. and the banking system has succeeded in getting the people to not trust government thus not trust government to issue the money via credit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is the ongoing sub·ter·fuge, and it has been happening here in the USA since 1913.
    How come some states have an income tax and some states do not?

    ——————————

    anybody answer me with the above statement>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  20. sub·ter·fuge
    Noun:
    Deceit used in order to achieve one’s goal.
    A statement or action resorted to in order to deceive.

  21. GIVE ME A FUk’in break Neil,

    you said above:

    “In securitization of debt that is exactly what happens. It’s not that securitization of debt is a bad thing.”

    It’s not a bad thing.

    Yah right,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,how come the mess now, when nobody knows who owns what,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but yet you yahoo’s on wall st keep trading bullshit and keep selling the bullshit to pension fund managers……………….snake oil has been around a long time.

    WHEN WILL YOU WAKE-UP. It is all trading and has nothing to do with the real stuff,,,,,,,,,,but it has everything to do with the real stuff………..

    why, because the real stuff is traded by exchange of a real product and a real service,,,,,,,by people working and exchanging money……….but enter loans or IOU’s,,,,,and all that gets converted to paper, to agreements on paper and signatures which then get traded as IOU’s….on wall st………but the people trading the IOU’s never produce anything that exchanges back to the signers of the IOU’s …….but you think they do….and the people who sign the IOU’s always pay to somebody,,,,,,,,,,but the receivers of the payments or IOU’s never really exchange back but you think they do……….because you are using the product or service on a loan basis or IOU. But there was never any money lent, only credit was given…………and the credit now becomes money, so no money was lent. It was created the moment you signed and started making payments. This is the special power banks have and it is called fractional reserve banking. But it is only special power in the meaning that only banks can do it. You and me can not do fractional reserve banking. So banks can create money from your promise to pay, your IOU’s and can collect interest for lending money but it is really just credit.

    But, what if the Government can do that, and the interest they collect is what will fund the government. Substitute Bank with Government.

    When was the Government taken over,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,? This would be 1913 when the Federal Reserve SYSTEM of banks was passed as law….as law to create credit or money……….it’s a system……………….

    Why on earth would any government need to borrow money to fund itself when it can issue the money? Any Government on Earth can lend money via credit, collect interest and fund itself by the production of the people working the land and resources of the land and the services generated by such. And thus banking is a good thing from that point of view. And if the Government can create money via credit and charge interest,,,,,,,,,,,why would it need to have an income tax?

    But if you can convince a government to fork over the money creation process and call it free enterprise and collect interest under the guise of lending depositor or savings money, when if fact the bank creates it, and it has nothing to do with deposited money but you state in a rule it does, called reserve amount, why you can get rich off of other people working. This is called debt slavery. But it is all hidden under the guise of free markets in the banking system.

    But the present time banking system has corrupted government and it’s representatives by passing the laws it wants passed, and the banking system gives money to the government, via lobbyists, to get new rules passed,,,,,,,,,,,and then the people think government is corrupt and the government should not be trusted,,,,,,,,,,,,,and the banking system has succeeded in getting the people to not trust government thus not trust government to issue the money via credit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is the ongoing sub·ter·fuge, and it has been happening here in the USA since 1913.

    How come some states have an income tax and some states do not?

    How the state North Dakota is not in the banking mess created by the bank system and wall street?

  22. anon – we all know that aint my thang, but why do you say the gse’s charged off performing debt, debt with no default? You use accounting terms like “current cash”, which it took me a while to realize meant
    well, i think, payments as/when made.
    Even tho this isn’t my ‘deal’, I could see that ‘old’ debt was included in new notes, and those notes were (99.9999999999% likelihood) sold as if all the debt were new.. The ones who got majorly ripped there would be anyone who got shafted out of payment on the ‘old’ debt when it was
    charged off.

    Your beef is that the old debt was expensed, written-off, and therefore only collection rights sold. If only collection rights sold, unsecured debt?
    Except for the huge fraud, the portion of the refi which was new debt would be secured. So, if a 100k new note, but 50k of old debt from original loan is part of that, only 50k, the new money, should be secured.
    One of my problems, for instance, with all this is I can spell ‘election of remedies’, well enough to be proverbally dangerous, but I just don’t get how one may make one election, i.e., take a write-off, and then get another remedy, that is, sell the debt one already expensed. But i’m not an accountant, either. If the write-off results in a (I’m making this up)
    20k tax savings, maybe I CAN sell the other 80k (in a legitimate deal). Aren’t there any accountants here?

    But back to the gse’s or someone artifically showing default on a loan,
    why would they do it? Guessing: 1) they get to expense it 2) they stop
    what you call “current cash” to its rightful recipients 3) the old debt is
    repackaged with the new debt to yet more hapless ‘investors’, and 4)
    they also sell the collections rights on the old debt, right or wrong, and 5) they might get default insurance…….? Oh, dear! Dang. That’s all pretty cold. These are my best, uneducated guesses on the ‘why’.
    Yours?

  23. johngault,

    You are correct — quote — “Each seller hereby: Sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys TO THE DEPOSITOR…”

    And, Depositor OWNS the trust — all must be in order from A to Z — and, only CURRENT cash is passed through to security investors.

    Now — there are TWO stand-out problems with the whole scenario — 1) nothing properly conveyed 2) Derivatives are not part of the trust
    Nevertheless, derivative holders consider themselves — “INVESTORS.”

    BUT, the biggest problem as to subprime refinances — is that the so-called “mortgages” were never mortgages at all. Why? Because the GSEs that previously owned the mortgages — had charged them off — and sold collection rights to the charged-off debt (thank you for them — to insurance coverage). So, subprime mortgage nothing more that reaffirmation of the collection rights (exactly what they are trying to do with current attempted modifications.) But, these false loans masqueraded as a “mortgage.”

    How do we know this??? Well — have to get the records — AND — they exist. Ask yourself one question — how did banks get control of GSE mortgages???? Can anyone find out when their “loan” ceased to be a GSE loan??? Very difficult —- but — at one time it WAS a GSE loan – if not a new purchase — and new purchases have their own problems.

    This is for subprime refinances. How do you know that your loan was a subprime refinance???? You do not. You have to know — was your loan EVER a GSE loan???

  24. What adds up is some form of bailment (if that) of the loan documents, artfully and imo criminally worded to conceal a willfully-made rather large misimpression: that the sec’n investors were buying into MORTGAGE backed securities. What, then, did the investors pay for? I stll think it’s legitimate to ask what is the status, the nature, of a note owned by
    one party but the rights to payments are owned by others.
    Hoyes, mind if I ask: did you leave anything out? Maybe there’s some language in that section the attorney left out in his article. It looks like that article was written as a sound board to elicit argument. But got me why exactly.

    But, if what I, a non-lawyer, could fashion from the material is the jig, we care a lot because, if the depositor owned and owns the loans, who got insurance-of-any-kind-benefit, than those loans are paid off or reduced.
    Wasn’t it the depositors who bet against the loans they apparently made the investors believe they owned? Or was it the sponsor who then gave the depositor its cut, out on their yachts as they drank mojitos?

  25. Lordy, aren’t there inconsistancies, statements at odds with each other?

    1a) “Each seller hereby: Sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys TO THE DEPOSITOR…”

    and then “The documents shall be delivered to the Master Servicer before the cut-off date”

    1b) “SELLERS by such deposits have conveyed to the Trustee for benefit of Certificate Holders all right, title and interest in and to the mortgage loans” these look more like choices (as in pick one), 1a and 1b, not statements which flow and lead to a rational conclusion.

    And / or, together, do these two statements read that the seller has conveyed loans to the Trustee by way of the seller’s transfers to the DEPOSITOR? Seller by such transfer to the depositor has somehow conveyed these loans to the Trustee? Sounds like some space-age miracle to me. That or Pig-Latin.

    Wow. Never minding that transfer in regard to negotiable instruments such as notes (which would be an integral part of a loan) has a peculiar definition, those guys are geniuses! The seller sells, etc., to the Depositor, and the docs go to the Master Servicer (sans an expressed, and necessary, agency appointment because agency when it comes to real property interests may not be found impliedly.) This recitation somehow leads to a conclusion that the loans are conveyed to the Trustee for benefit of the Certificate Holders. Pig-Latin. Anyone surprised? It looks to me like this is part of the language used to cause sec’n investors to believe they had interests they didn’t” Mbs’s.

    I know I’m no authority on the UCC, but still, wt heck? This article is saying the UCC is default law, which even I know is true, thanks to a fairly recent but slight education. (thanks, justian). So someone is alleging the notes as part and parcel of the loans were actually assigned in lieu of endorsement. Maybe. But, the 64k question remains: to whom? This Pig-Latin does not add up. And the UCC does not control deeds of trust.
    Based on the language, I would say the depositor if anyone was assigned the notes. A note is personal property and does not by itself impact an interest or title to real property, unlike a dot.

    Would have been swell if the guy who posted this had differentiated who was saying what so one need not play sleuth to figure it out.

  26. Law.com – Oakland Police May Have Violated Policy, Lawyers Contend

    Cynthia Foster ContactAll Articles

    The Recorder

    October 26, 2011

    Print
    Share
    Email
    Reprints & Permissions
    Post a Comment

    John Burris, Oakland lawyer
    Image: The Recorder

    SAN FRANCISCO — The Oakland Police Department may have violated a 2003 agreement for handling street protests when it descended on an Occupy Oakland street protest Tuesday night, say lawyers affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild. That group, which is offering legal advice to protesters arrested Tuesday, helped draft the 2003 policies on how to manage crowded protests, including appropriate use of rubber bullets, tear gas and other less-than-lethal forces.

    Rachel Lederman, a San Francisco solo who is affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild, said that the OPD violated “pretty much every aspect” of the Crowd Control and Crowd Management Policy, a 23-page police training document created as part of a class action settlement in a 2003 case brought by protesters at an anti-Iraq War gathering at the Port of Oakland.

    “In adopting [the policy], they’ve acknowledged that it embodies principles of how the police can act without violating people’s constitutional rights,” said Lederman, who said the guild is weighing legal action against Oakland. “It’s a really specific framework for police to follow the law.”

    Lederman said that, until recently, the policy seemed to be working.

    On Tuesday, OPD officers raided an Occupy Oakland encampment in front of City Hall, dismantling tents and arresting protesters who had been camped there for weeks. Later, when the protesters tried to re-enter the area, the police action turned violent. On Twitter, protesters said the police used tear gas 10 or more times on the crowd.

    Tuesday night “was the worst nightmare,” said civil rights attorney John Burris, who is in talks to represent some arrested protesters and said that “on its face” it appears the policy was violated.

    The OPD is no stranger to suits over its tactics. Around the same time as the Port of Oakland settlement, Burris represented Oakland residents victimized by corrupt cops known as “The Riders.” Those residents filed a class action against the department and the city settled for $10.5 million. As part of the settlement, the city signed a consent decree, agreeing to a 5-year federal monitoring of sweeping internal police reforms.

    Lederman is also suing the OPD in federal court for allegedly abusing protesters who gathered when BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Lederman says OPD violated the consent decree by, among other things, keeping protesters arrested for misdemeanor-level offenses in temporary jail holding areas for more than 24 hours with no overnight accommodations.

    Lederman said the National Lawyers Guild may fold Occupy Oakland litigation into the existing federal case.

    “They’re supposed to use the minimum amount of force and intimidation,” she said. “They used the maximum.”

    One protester, according to Lederman and The S.F. Examiner, was hospitalized for a skull fracture after being struck by a tear gas canister.

    Lederman said tear gas, flash bang grenades and other less-than-lethal crowd dispersement techniques are not meant to be directed into crowds or used in crowded areas. Instead, they’re meant to be deployed away from crowds as means to redirect the flow of foot traffic. “You’re never supposed to throw those things at people,” she said.

    OPD did not return requests for comment, but did say in a press release that protesters had thrown “large rocks and bottles” at officers, prompting the use of the techniques. Lederman estimated that as many as 115 people were arrested, adding that she believes many of the arrests were unlawful. Eleven people will be arraigned Thursday. The rest have been released and are scheduled to appear in court next month.

    Alameda County District Attorney spokeswoman Teresa Drenick said the DA has yet to make any charging decisions.

  27. Dishonest, Flawed Defense of Mortage Securitizations
    By Aaron Wider

    / PRBuzz / April 18, 2011 — Transfers make a conceptual error similar to that of the paper my colleague thrashed. It makes a very long and impressive sounding rebuttal of the line of argument made with increasing success by attorneys in court that the parties to the mortgage securitization failed to take the steps required to convey the borrower promissory notes and related liens (technically, the mortgage or in some states, the deed of trust) to the securitization entity, a trust. But as we will show, the arguments made in the article are simply irrelevant.

    Let’s start from the top of the article, since the efforts to misdirect start there:

    There is a tremendous amount of public commentary these days about possible defects in foreclosure proceedings commenced by loan servicers.

    Notice how the problem is framed as relating to “public commentary.” There is no acknowledgment of the fact that many judges have dismissed foreclosures because the party attempting to foreclose was unable to prove it had standing, or that the servicers themselves have admitted to problems (albeit of a type they are trying to pass off as merely procedural, that of the use of improper affidavits). In fact, there are problems with foreclosures that have been surfacing in courts all over the US, to the point where the media has taken notice and the servicers have had to take action to address a particular type of abuse. After a few words about affidavits, we get to this:

    Within this overall dialogue, however, more fundamental issues have been raised challenging both the validity of the procedures used to convey mortgage loans into securitization trusts and the qualification of the securitization trusts as a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) at the time those trusts were formed. These statements are false and misguided.

    The reasoning behind these statements appears to be as follows: (i) in order to satisfy procedural requirements in connection with foreclosure, certain steps may need to be taken in order to document the ownership of a mortgage loan by the securitization trust, and (ii) since not all of these steps were taken at the time of the securitization, the securitization trust must not own the mortgage loan. This reasoning is faulty, because some of the steps that may be required under applicable state law in order to bring a foreclosure action are not required to transfer ownership of the mortgage loan.

    The purpose of this article is to refute these challenges to the efficacy of mortgage loan transfers to securitization trusts. Simply stated, the industry standard procedures used for decades in transferring mortgage loans to securitization vehicles comply with the well-settled principles of law governing the transfer of mortgage loans, and therefore are effective to transfer ownership of the mortgage loans.

    Accusations like “false” and “misguided” imply that what follows is gospel truth, or at least defensible. Yet instead what we provide is a series of arguments that are at best narrowly accurate but irrelevant. One can only conclude the intent of the article is to mislead.

    The article never directly recites the argument made here, which is that there is substantial evidence that in many cases, the notes were not conveyed to the trust as stipulated. As we have discussed, the pooling and servicing agreement, which governs who does what when in a mortgage securitization, requires the note (the borrower IOU) to be endorsed (just like a check, signed by one party over to the next), showing the full chain of title. The minimum conveyance chain in recent vintage transactions is A (originator) => B (sponsor) => C (depositor) => D (trust).

    The proper conveyance of the note is crucial, since the mortgage, which is the lien, is a mere accessory to the note and can be enforced only by the proper note holder (the legalese is “real party of interest”). The investors in the mortgage securitization relied upon certifications by the trustee for the trust at and post closing that the trust did indeed have the assets that the investors were told it possessed.

    Effectively, what the article endeavors to do is focus attention on aspects of the law that might be helpful to the securitization industry but are not germane. For instance, relies upon “general custom and practice in the sale of mortgage loans” and the UCC, which is the Uniform Commercial Code (which has been enacted in all 50 states, with relatively few state-level idiosyncrasies).

    But rub comes not from the legal considerations surrounding note/mortgage conveyance, but the particular stipulations of the pooling and servicing agreement, which all the parties agreed to. And it is also clear that the provisions of the PSA trump the UCC.

    Article 1 of the UCC allows the parties to an agreement to vary the terms (Ie deviate from the UCC) by agreement. The key points of the germane section:

    1-302 Variation by Agreement

    (a) The effect of provisions of this Chapter may be varied by agreement.

    (b) Good faith, diligence and reasonableness are the only terms that may not be changed by agreement.

    (c) The presence of the words “unless otherwise agreed” does not imply that other provisions of this Chapter may not be varied by an agreement of the parties.

    That means the UCC governs only with respect to issues not varied by agreement in the PSA.

    Section 2 of the PSA stipulates provisions that deviate from the UCC. Typical provisions:

    Section 2.01. Conveyance of Mortgage Loans.

    Each seller hereby:

    Sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the depositor, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of such seller in and to the applicable mortgage loans.

    The sales shall be as provided in this agreement.

    Delivery shall be on or before the applicable cut-off date

    The documents shall be delivered to the Master Servicer before the cut-off date

    The Master Servicer confirms that all sellers have made such transfers and deposits before the cut-off date¡

    Sellers by such deposits have conveyed to the Trustee for benefit of Certificate Holders all right, title and interest in and to the mortgage loans

    It is also very clearly provided for an unbroken chain of assignments and transfers thought the parties (the A-B-C-D or more cited above). The use of intermediary parties between the originator and the trust, with a “true sale” occurring at each step, was intended to create FDIC and bankruptcy remoteness. The investors (who are called the certificate holders in the PSA) did not want a creditor of a bankrupt originator to be able to seize notes back out of the trust.

    Some PSAs allowed for each party to endorse in blank, but the note still had to have endorsements by all the parties in the conveyance chain, while others stipulated that each endorsement had to be to the next party in the chain. However per NY trust law (and New York law was chosen in the vast majority of cases to govern the trust), the final endorsement had to be to the trust, not in blank.

    The “unless otherwise agreed” language in Article 1 means you cannot rely on perfection solely by the UCC. It also means possession of the original note does not prove either ownership or perfection.

    In a private label RMBS transaction, the relevant contractual agreement is typically a pooling and servicing agreement, which conveys the mortgage loans from the depositor to the trustee on behalf of the securitization trust. Another relevant document could include a separate mortgage loan purchase agreement, under which the mortgage loans are sold by the sponsor to the depositor immediately prior to the sale from the depositor to the trust, with representations and warranties that are assigned to the trustee. These documents contain clear granting language that conveys ownership of all of the seller’s “right, title and interest in and to” the mortgage loans to the trustee on behalf of the securitization trust. There is a schedule or exhibit to these documents that specifically identifies each loan sold under the agreement.

    Note that none of this acknowledges the requirement of the PSA that the note be endorsed to show the full chain of conveyance. Also observe the emphasis on these documents contain clear granting language that conveys ownership…”. The documents cannot alone convey ownership; the stipulated steps also have to be completed. The article does acknowledge the importance of delivery of the note in the following section, but again fails to address the PSA issues:Physical delivery of the mortgage note to the purchaser or its agent, together with an endorsement of the note by the seller in blank, are also key components in the sale of mortgage loans for several reasons. As we indicated, many PSAs required specific endorsement (to a particular party), not in blank, so this is inaccurate (except as far as describing “general custom”). The article repeats its assertion about endorsements in blank (note the section we boldfaced):

    Notes may be delivered to the purchaser with an endorsement in blank. It is common for a mortgage note for a mortgage loan that has been sold to have stamped on it an endorsement to the effect of “Pay to the order of _____________, without recourse”, signed by the originator or a subsequent purchaser. Such an endorsement has the effect that any subsequent transfer of the note presumptively only requires physical delivery (i.e., with no additional endorsement). Therefore, where there are successive purchasers to a note, the endorsement in blank by any prior holder is a sufficient endorsement for purposes of the most recent purchaser.

    As we indicated, that’s rubbish. The boldfaced language falsely claims that if the note was endorsed by A in the prototypical A-B-C-D chain we set forth earlier, then D could rely simply on the endorsement by A. In fact, the PSA required the full chain of endorsement and also required the depositor (the C party) endorse the note to the trustee (it is New York trust law requirements, not specified in the PSA, which would call for the final endorsement to be to the specific trust, not just the trustee).Some other assertions are matter of fact, not law, and SNR Denton appears not to be on top of the facts:In private label RMBS transactions, the prevailing and nearly universally-followed practice has been for the endorsed notes to be physically delivered to the trustee, or to a custodian as the trustee’s agent, at the closing of the securitization.

    First, we’ve had industry executives of large “private label”, meaning non-Fannie/Freddie originators say the notes were never conveyed from the originator, and not simply for their bank, but across the industry. It appears they were conveyed only when someone needed to foreclose, which was well after the closing of the trust. Second, there is ample evidence in court across the country of out of time assignments. of the note and the related lien being assigned to the trust shortly before a foreclosure action was commenced, in some cased, even afterwards, so again well after the closing of trust. If you parse the piece carefully, its contentions hinge on these arguments, which in turn hinge on ignoring key provisions of the PSA and not integrating New York trust law considerations. It ends on a indignant tone, and amusingly, resorts to the new preferred bankster line, “loose lips will tank the markets”:

    We believe that the recent allegations of possible wholesale failures to convey ownership of mortgage loans to private label RMBS trusts are baseless and unfounded. All parties to these transactions, including issuers, underwriters, trustees and investors, clearly intended that the transactions convey ownership of the loans to the trusts, and appropriate steps were taken to effect such conveyance in accordance with well-settled legal principles governing transfers of mortgage loans. Any attempts to assert otherwise today are inaccurate and uninformed, and, if left to stand unchallenged, could cause substantial and unwarranted harm to the economy.

    These arguments are “baseless and unfounded” only if you do readings of the law intended to favor your clients and ignore ample evidence in past and present court cases. doesn’t like what it I suggest it take up the matter with the judges who are looking at the evidence and the terms of the PSA and are in a fair number of cases ruling against the servicers and trusts for having failed to prove their standing to foreclose.

    To put it another way, if this is the best defense a leading law firm in the securitization industry can mount, it shows they have a weak case.

  28. Need your opinion on this article.

    Dishonest, Flawed Defense of Mortage Securitizations
    By Aaron Wider

    / PRBuzz / April 18, 2011 — Transfers make a conceptual error similar to that of the paper my colleague thrashed. It makes a very long and impressive sounding rebuttal of the line of argument made with increasing success by attorneys in court that the parties to the mortgage securitization failed to take the steps required to convey the borrower promissory notes and related liens (technically, the mortgage or in some states, the deed of trust) to the securitization entity, a trust. But as we will show, the arguments made in the article are simply irrelevant.

    Let’s start from the top of the article, since the efforts to misdirect start there:

    There is a tremendous amount of public commentary these days about possible defects in foreclosure proceedings commenced by loan servicers.

    Notice how the problem is framed as relating to “public commentary.” There is no acknowledgment of the fact that many judges have dismissed foreclosures because the party attempting to foreclose was unable to prove it had standing, or that the servicers themselves have admitted to problems (albeit of a type they are trying to pass off as merely procedural, that of the use of improper affidavits). In fact, there are problems with foreclosures that have been surfacing in courts all over the US, to the point where the media has taken notice and the servicers have had to take action to address a particular type of abuse. After a few words about affidavits, we get to this:

    Within this overall dialogue, however, more fundamental issues have been raised challenging both the validity of the procedures used to convey mortgage loans into securitization trusts and the qualification of the securitization trusts as a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) at the time those trusts were formed. These statements are false and misguided.

    The reasoning behind these statements appears to be as follows: (i) in order to satisfy procedural requirements in connection with foreclosure, certain steps may need to be taken in order to document the ownership of a mortgage loan by the securitization trust, and (ii) since not all of these steps were taken at the time of the securitization, the securitization trust must not own the mortgage loan. This reasoning is faulty, because some of the steps that may be required under applicable state law in order to bring a foreclosure action are not required to transfer ownership of the mortgage loan.

    The purpose of this article is to refute these challenges to the efficacy of mortgage loan transfers to securitization trusts. Simply stated, the industry standard procedures used for decades in transferring mortgage loans to securitization vehicles comply with the well-settled principles of law governing the transfer of mortgage loans, and therefore are effective to transfer ownership of the mortgage loans.

    Accusations like “false” and “misguided” imply that what follows is gospel truth, or at least defensible. Yet instead what we provide is a series of arguments that are at best narrowly accurate but irrelevant. One can only conclude the intent of the article is to mislead.

    The article never directly recites the argument made here, which is that there is substantial evidence that in many cases, the notes were not conveyed to the trust as stipulated. As we have discussed, the pooling and servicing agreement, which governs who does what when in a mortgage securitization, requires the note (the borrower IOU) to be endorsed (just like a check, signed by one party over to the next), showing the full chain of title. The minimum conveyance chain in recent vintage transactions is A (originator) => B (sponsor) => C (depositor) => D (trust).

    The proper conveyance of the note is crucial, since the mortgage, which is the lien, is a mere accessory to the note and can be enforced only by the proper note holder (the legalese is “real party of interest”). The investors in the mortgage securitization relied upon certifications by the trustee for the trust at and post closing that the trust did indeed have the assets that the investors were told it possessed.

    Effectively, what the article endeavors to do is focus attention on aspects of the law that might be helpful to the securitization industry but are not germane. For instance, relies upon “general custom and practice in the sale of mortgage loans” and the UCC, which is the Uniform Commercial Code (which has been enacted in all 50 states, with relatively few state-level idiosyncrasies).

    But rub comes not from the legal considerations surrounding note/mortgage conveyance, but the particular stipulations of the pooling and servicing agreement, which all the parties agreed to. And it is also clear that the provisions of the PSA trump the UCC.

    Article 1 of the UCC allows the parties to an agreement to vary the terms (Ie deviate from the UCC) by agreement. The key points of the germane section:

    1-302 Variation by Agreement

    (a) The effect of provisions of this Chapter may be varied by agreement.

    (b) Good faith, diligence and reasonableness are the only terms that may not be changed by agreement.

    (c) The presence of the words “unless otherwise agreed” does not imply that other provisions of this Chapter may not be varied by an agreement of the parties.

    That means the UCC governs only with respect to issues not varied by agreement in the PSA.

    Section 2 of the PSA stipulates provisions that deviate from the UCC. Typical provisions:

    Section 2.01. Conveyance of Mortgage Loans.

    Each seller hereby:

    Sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the depositor, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of such seller in and to the applicable mortgage loans.

    The sales shall be as provided in this agreement.

    Delivery shall be on or before the applicable cut-off date

    The documents shall be delivered to the Master Servicer before the cut-off date

    The Master Servicer confirms that all sellers have made such transfers and deposits before the cut-off date¡

    Sellers by such deposits have conveyed to the Trustee for benefit of Certificate Holders all right, title and interest in and to the mortgage loans

    It is also very clearly provided for an unbroken chain of assignments and transfers thought the parties (the A-B-C-D or more cited above). The use of intermediary parties between the originator and the trust, with a “true sale” occurring at each step, was intended to create FDIC and bankruptcy remoteness. The investors (who are called the certificate holders in the PSA) did not want a creditor of a bankrupt originator to be able to seize notes back out of the trust.

    Some PSAs allowed for each party to endorse in blank, but the note still had to have endorsements by all the parties in the conveyance chain, while others stipulated that each endorsement had to be to the next party in the chain. However per NY trust law (and New York law was chosen in the vast majority of cases to govern the trust), the final endorsement had to be to the trust, not in blank.

    The “unless otherwise agreed” language in Article 1 means you cannot rely on perfection solely by the UCC. It also means possession of the original note does not prove either ownership or perfection.

    In a private label RMBS transaction, the relevant contractual agreement is typically a pooling and servicing agreement, which conveys the mortgage loans from the depositor to the trustee on behalf of the securitization trust. Another relevant document could include a separate mortgage loan purchase agreement, under which the mortgage loans are sold by the sponsor to the depositor immediately prior to the sale from the depositor to the trust, with representations and warranties that are assigned to the trustee. These documents contain clear granting language that conveys ownership of all of the seller’s “right, title and interest in and to” the mortgage loans to the trustee on behalf of the securitization trust. There is a schedule or exhibit to these documents that specifically identifies each loan sold under the agreement.

    Note that none of this acknowledges the requirement of the PSA that the note be endorsed to show the full chain of conveyance. Also observe the emphasis on these documents contain clear granting language that conveys ownership…”. The documents cannot alone convey ownership; the stipulated steps also have to be completed. The article does acknowledge the importance of delivery of the note in the following section, but again fails to address the PSA issues:Physical delivery of the mortgage note to the purchaser or its agent, together with an endorsement of the note by the seller in blank, are also key components in the sale of mortgage loans for several reasons. As we indicated, many PSAs required specific endorsement (to a particular party), not in blank, so this is inaccurate (except as far as describing “general custom”). The article repeats its assertion about endorsements in blank (note the section we boldfaced):

    Notes may be delivered to the purchaser with an endorsement in blank. It is common for a mortgage note for a mortgage loan that has been sold to have stamped on it an endorsement to the effect of “Pay to the order of _____________, without recourse”, signed by the originator or a subsequent purchaser. Such an endorsement has the effect that any subsequent transfer of the note presumptively only requires physical delivery (i.e., with no additional endorsement). Therefore, where there are successive purchasers to a note, the endorsement in blank by any prior holder is a sufficient endorsement for purposes of the most recent purchaser.

    As we indicated, that’s rubbish. The boldfaced language falsely claims that if the note was endorsed by A in the prototypical A-B-C-D chain we set forth earlier, then D could rely simply on the endorsement by A. In fact, the PSA required the full chain of endorsement and also required the depositor (the C party) endorse the note to the trustee (it is New York trust law requirements, not specified in the PSA, which would call for the final endorsement to be to the specific trust, not just the trustee).Some other assertions are matter of fact, not law, and SNR Denton appears not to be on top of the facts:In private label RMBS transactions, the prevailing and nearly universally-followed practice has been for the endorsed notes to be physically delivered to the trustee, or to a custodian as the trustee’s agent, at the closing of the securitization.

    First, we’ve had industry executives of large “private label”, meaning non-Fannie/Freddie originators say the notes were never conveyed from the originator, and not simply for their bank, but across the industry. It appears they were conveyed only when someone needed to foreclose, which was well after the closing of the trust. Second, there is ample evidence in court across the country of out of time assignments. of the note and the related lien being assigned to the trust shortly before a foreclosure action was commenced, in some cased, even afterwards, so again well after the closing of trust. If you parse the piece carefully, its contentions hinge on these arguments, which in turn hinge on ignoring key provisions of the PSA and not integrating New York trust law considerations. It ends on a indignant tone, and amusingly, resorts to the new preferred bankster line, “loose lips will tank the markets”:

    We believe that the recent allegations of possible wholesale failures to convey ownership of mortgage loans to private label RMBS trusts are baseless and unfounded. All parties to these transactions, including issuers, underwriters, trustees and investors, clearly intended that the transactions convey ownership of the loans to the trusts, and appropriate steps were taken to effect such conveyance in accordance with well-settled legal principles governing transfers of mortgage loans. Any attempts to assert otherwise today are inaccurate and uninformed, and, if left to stand unchallenged, could cause substantial and unwarranted harm to the economy.

    These arguments are “baseless and unfounded” only if you do readings of the law intended to favor your clients and ignore ample evidence in past and present court cases. doesn’t like what it I suggest it take up the matter with the judges who are looking at the evidence and the terms of the PSA and are in a fair number of cases ruling against the servicers and trusts for having failed to prove their standing to foreclose.

    To put it another way, if this is the best defense a leading law firm in the securitization industry can mount, it shows they have a weak case.

  29. I have found that there is truly a difference between the Government, Wall Street, the Banks, and Prostitutes…At least the prostitutes are honest.

  30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP3oRwXI558 These bankster guys are scum!

  31. Neil- the UCC states, (maybe someone can help out with the section)”all payments made on an obligation reduce the amount owed on that obligation by the amount of the payment, even if the payee is a stranger to the transaction”. This reinforces your post that the banks aren’t talking, telling homeowners what has been paid on their “obligation” such as it is.

  32. I have two investment properties that may fall in this category. They are both with BofA. David

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: