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

  1. What is the name of the pool
  2. What is the EIN of the pool
  3. Who actually acts in the capacity of Trustee in that they report and/or distribute funds
  4. What IRS Form is used to send an end of year tax statement to investors in the pool?
  5. How many parties are identified as trustees or fiduciaries in the formation of the pool.
  6. Same question but this time “in the operation of the pool.”
  7. Does the pool still exist
  8. Does the subject loan exist in the pool? How do you know that?
  9. Is the person answering these interrogatories personally familiar with the facts arising from the origination of the loan?
  10. Is the person answering these interrogatories personally familiar with the facts rising from the origination of the pool?
  11. Is the person answering these interrogatories personally familiar with the facts arising from the operation of the pool?
  12. When was the pool created? As what type of legal entity?
  13. when is the first time anything was filed with the IRS requesting or declaring REMIC status?
  14. What was the date cut-off date applicable under the REMIC statute?
  15. What was the cutoff date under the PSA?
  16. Was the subject loan transferred into the the pool before or after the cut-off date?
  17. If after, please describe the circumstances?
  18. Under what laws was the pool created
  19. What kind of entity is the pool?
  20. Is the Pool filing as qualified for REMIC status?
  21. When did it file for REMIC status
  22. What form was used to report to the IRS for the tax years 2006-present
  23. Is FANNIE an active Trustee? What are the duties of FANNIE and did it perform any of those duties.
  24. Identify the person at Fannie that is in charge of performing trust duties with respect to this pool, including name, status, address, telephone and email address. If the person has not been the same since inception of the pool, identify each person that was employed by FANNIE acting in support of the duties of FANNIE as a Trustee or fiduciary.
  25. Who was the underwriter of the Bonds that were offered to investors?
  26. IS FANNIE an owner in the pool
  27. Is FANNIE an owner of the pool
  28. Is FANNIE the owner of the subject loan
  29. IS the pool the owner of the subject loan
  30. Was ownership of the pool ever changed?
  31. Was ownership of the loans in the pool ever changed
  32. Was the ownership of the subject loan ever changed
  33. Identify all documents of transfer by which any party other than the originator claims to have acquired an interest in the subject loans with sufficient specify such that it would satisfy the requirements for a request to produce.
  34. Where are those documents
  35. Who are the people who actually have custody or control.
  36. Through what kind of account are payments, proceeds, receipts and distributions processed? Who is the owner of said accounts? What persons are signatories on said accounts? By whom are those persons employed? Do such employees operate according to a contract or manual? Where is that manual. Do they operate according to their employment contract? Who are the parties to said contract? Where is a copy of the employment contract? To whom do they report in FANNIE? Do they report to anyone else?
  37. What statements of distributions and receipts does FANNIE prepare?
  38. What statements of receipts or distributions does FANNIE send?
  39. To whom are statements sent?
  40. what is the EIN of Fannie? Does it have more than one EIN? Does it maintain multiple EIN for trusts for which it is the trustee? Does it have subsidiaries or affiliates?
  41. Identify the person or persons having possession of facts and reports showing all receipts and disbursements relative to the pool as reported to investors.
  42. Did the pool receive any benefits or proceeds from insurance or bailout, TARP, credit enhancements? When? How much?
  43. Has any inquiry been made as to whether third parties received such benefits from TARP, bailout, insurance or credit enhancements where such receipts were related tot eh status or claimed contents of the pool?
  44. If such proceeds were received by third parties relating to assets of the pool or the status of the pool, explain how those proceeds were reported to investors and how they are allocated as to each investor.
  45. If such an allocation as made tot he pool, and to the investors, explain how those proceeds were allocated toward the obligations of borrowers in loans contained in the pool
  46. If no such allocations were made, explain the legal reason why those proceeds were not used as  the basis for allocations to the pool, the investors and the borrowers.
  47. If no inquiry was made, explain why no such inquiry was made, who made the decision and whether there are any documents that can be identified with specificity that reflect the decision to refrain from such inquiry.
  48. Including all receipts and disbursements received by or on behalf of the pool, what is the balance due of the subject loan that is due to the investors and how did you compute it? Who did the computation? Where is this person and what is his/her address telephone number etc.
  49. Is the balance due to investors different than the balance claimed as due from the borrower? IF yes, explain why
  50. Has any settlement occurred between the pool, the trustees or servicers of the pool and the investors? When? What were the terms? What document reflects such settlement.

13 Responses

  1. Sal

    Yes — have heard about this. But, who were the real victims???? Those that did not earn the return they were promised — or the homeowner borrowers?????

    No question for me — the homeowners were the victims. Look — you can try to earn whatever you want in the investment market. Court precedent mandates that due diligence precludes recovery on “bad” “choice” investments. Settlements are occurring to avoid discovery — because all has already been predetermined by precedent law — security investments are RISKY.

    The question is NOT — whether security investors were defrauded — security investors are considered to be — “sophisticated” in the eyes of the courts. The question is — were the SUBJECTS defrauded — the subjects being the homeowners. And, yes — they were. And, — they are NOT sophisticated by the eyes of the court.

    The only reason that investors (not security investors) are getting away with it in courts — is because they are defrauding the courts as to the identity of the real current creditor/investor.

    This will NOT last — it is a matter of time. Unfortunately, too many will be lost until the fraud is exposed. But, — it will be eventually exposed. .

  2. Federal Judge Roasts SEC for Supine Citigroup Settlement
    MANHATTAN (CN) – With obvious relish, a federal judge held an SEC attorney’s feet to the fire for proposing a settlement with Citigroup that represents a fraction of an alleged $600 million mortgage fraud and does not require the bank to admit wrongdoing. Citigroup sold $1 billion in mortgage-backed CDOs, which a Citigroup trader called “a collection of dogsh!t,” while secretly shorting the securities.
    SEC attorney Matthew Martens urged U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff not to factor the public interest into his decision on whether to approve the deal.
    “That’s an interesting position,” Rakoff replied with acid understatement. “I’m supposed to exercise my power, but not my judgment.”
    The SEC on Oct. 19 accused Citigroup Global Markets of hyping and selling roughly $1 billion in residential mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations, while secretly selling the CDOs short.
    Citigroup Global Markets is Citigroup’s principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary.
    According to the SEC complaint: “One experienced CDO trader characterized the portfolio as ‘a collection of dogsh!t’ and ‘possibly the best short EVER!’ An experienced CDO collateral manager commented, ‘the portfolio is horrible.'” (Punctuation as in complaint.)
    The SEC offered to settle with Citigroup for $285 million, with $95 million going to the victims.
    But Judge Rakoff said that the “net effect is you’re only returning a small fraction of what investors were allegedly defrauded.”
    Typically, investors could sue for the difference. But the SEC’s allowing Citigroup to neither admit nor deny wrongdoing complicates things, Rakoff said.
    “They remain unproven in a court of law,” Rakoff said, adding with faux naïveté: “Correct me if I’m wrong. … It was my understanding that anyone can make an allegation.”
    Martens replied that the complaint’s allegations were detailed enough to eliminate doubt to the public.
    Rakoff tested that theory by asking Citigroup’s attorney Brad Karp whether the bank’s press department would admit guilt.
    “We do not admit the allegations,” Karp said, adding, to laughter in the courtroom, “but if it’s any consolation, we don’t deny them.”
    Rakoff said he would not “get cute” and ask what percentage of the allegations the bank would admit because, “I don’t have a microscope that looks at objects that small.”
    Martens stood uncomfortably as Rakoff described presiding over other financial cases in which defendants take “the proverbial slap on the wrist,” while “their PR machines” attribute the decision to settle to avoiding “the costs of litigation.”
    Martens said the terms of the settlement prohibit Citigroup publicists from denying their guilt.
    But Rakoff blasted the SEC for allowing defendants to ignore court injunctions, using the violations as a “bargaining chip” and “another weapon in our pockets in settlement talks.”
    “We’re not really serious that we would bring these folks to task,” Rakoff said. “You didn’t say, ‘Judge, they’re flouting your order.'”
    Martens replied: “We categorically reject that.” He said SEC attorneys would send a judge such a letter if a bank’s violations were egregious enough.
    “Hope springs eternal,” Rakoff said, quoting Alexander Pope.
    Rakoff wondered aloud why SEC prosecutors described the allegations in the complaint as “negligence.”
    Paraphrasing the complaint to omit the profanity, Rakoff asked Martens whether the SEC complaint had quoted Citigroup executives as calling the CDOs “real dogs,” then summarized several allegations.
    Martens rephrased Rakoff’s summary with more technical and euphemistic language.
    “So it’s what I just said?” Rakoff said.
    “Yes,” Martens acknowledged.
    With that, Rakoff stopped grilling the prosecutor, but warned him not to get “too comfortable” as he moved on to Karp, Citigroup’s lawyer.
    Rakoff asked Karp whether the settlement’s gag order would prevent Citigroup from denying their guilt if investors sued them.
    Karp replied that Citigroup would be “free to use any and all defenses.”
    “We’re as innocent as lambs,” Rakoff said.
    When asked what in the settlement would deter Citigroup from another alleged fraud, Karp replied that the contract included a consent decree with strict oversight.
    “Is this another, forgive me, window dressing?” Rakoff asked.
    Karp insisted that there would be “strict accountability going up the chain.”
    Though skeptical of the proposed settlement, Rakoff reserved decision on it, saying he would issue a written opinion.

  3. Please add me to your daily postings.

  4. Please add me to your daily postings

  5. Please add me to your daily postings

  6. Please add me to your daily postings

  7. Please add me to your daily postings

  8. joann

    Cannot work with Quiet Title — if prior discharges were false.

    Neil — how do you get to pick a judge that will allow these questions???

    By ROGs??? Has anyone seen answers to ROGs?? Your are lucky if you get the real name and address of the party responding.

  9. Ian—

    The “answers” you will get will be:

    1. Vague

    2. Non-committal

    3. Robot-like

    4. Lies

    or…they will simply ignore you.

    I have asked ALL the pertinent, important questions…a million times.

    This is their favorite answer: “We are doing everything legally. We will be responding to your questions in a formal response.”


    Or, they send you ’round and ’round in circles…because they have been getting away with it for years…they FORCE you to give up or go to court.

    How do we fight back—or “bear down”–as Neil says?

    The people with the least amount of money and resources are the ones left in out the cold.

    The attorney I talked to said: “We have to educate the judges.”

    This is where we are.

  10. What is the best way to present these questions? Working on declaratory relief to quiet title. Have NOD original defunt lender and original trustee deed of trust. Have assignment recorded simultaneously – successor (who is servicer only and can make that point effectively I beleive also qwrs produced conflicting results for “investor” and can show that as well) assigns to named trust closed five years ago with successor securitized trustee bank named . 1, 2, or 3? 1. Send it first in qwr to who – the servicer or the securitized trustee bank? 2. include in a “request for production” filed with the complaint? 3. write it into the complaint (re default is not coming from first hand authority from beneficiary and beneficiary is not named on NOD) and footnote it as an exhibit as example of questions needed to be answered to determine if there is a default to beneficiary? I know I know Need attorney. No money.

  11. Hell yeah! Nail ’em down! Don’t let ’em play semantic games!

  12. Hmmm, if I send this letter to the servicer or foreclosing attorney, it will probably get shot down. Do we save these questions for a hearing?

  13. NEIL- NOW YOU ARE FOCUSED! A great post, most of these questions cannot be truthfully answered by the servicer, foreclosure mill, “trustee”, “creditor”, “holder in due course,(if there is one). I am anxiously awaiting part II of this post, now to whom do you address these questions, at what time, and what do you do with the answers.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: