REMIC VIOLATION: IRS PONDERS $TRILLIONS IN UNREPORTED MBS PROFITS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S COMMENT: There is little question in my mind that if the IRS persists in this inquiry they will discover $trillions in reported profits on which no tax was paid — intentionally by the persons and companies involved.

Just as importantly, the IRS at some point will thus announce that the REMICS don’t actually own the loans, that if the loans were transferred the investors own them via a taxable partnership rather than a REMIC, and that the handling of the money gave rise to trillions in unreported income — some of which is directly accountable as reductions against principal owed by borrowers but ignored by the banks in their quest to become America’s largest landowner.

The big surprise may come when and if the IRS determines that the partnership includes the intermediaries and not just the investors, which is what we have been saying all along here.

SEE FULL REUTERS ARTICLE AT IRS WEIGHS PENALTIES ON MBS TRUSTS

Exclusive: IRS weighs tax penalties on mortgage securities
By Scot J. Paltrow

WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:43pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Internal Revenue Service has launched a review of the tax-exempt status of a widely-held form of mortgage-backed securities called REMICs.

The IRS confirmed to Reuters that the review comes in response to mounting evidence that banks violated tax requirements by mishandling the transfer of mortgages to REMICs, short for Real Estate Mortgage Conduits.

Should the IRS find reason to take tough action, the financial impact could be enormous. REMIC investments are held by pension funds, in individual retirement plans such as 401(k)s and by state and local government entities.

As of the end of 2010, investments in REMICs totaled more than $3 trillion, according to data supplied by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

In a brief statement in response to questions from Reuters, the agency said: “The IRS is aware of questions in the market regarding REMICs and proper ownership of the underlying mortgages as set out in federal tax law, and is actively reviewing certain aspects of this issue.”

The statement said the IRS would not make any further comment. An IRS spokesman declined to say anything about the extent of the review, or whether the agency is likely to take action.

The review, however, is a sign that the widespread bank misdeeds in home foreclosure cases are spilling over to threaten the interests of investors in mortgage-backed securities. The banks originated the mortgages and packaged them into securities.

These banks’ transgressions, confirmed in court decisions and through recent action by federal bank regulators, include the failure to formally transfer ownership of mortgages to the trusts that invested in them and the subsequent creation of fraudulent mortgage assignments and other false documents.

These investment trusts already have suffered big drops in income because of vast numbers of mortgage defaults after the housing boom collapse. They have been hurt too because in an increasing number of instances they have been blocked by courts from foreclosing on defaulted mortgages. The courts ruled that because the trusts never received the required documents establishing that they owned the mortgages, they have no standing to foreclose.

36 Responses

  1. Nope. I just wanted to know how the S-3 would tell me whether or not the property had actually been foreclosed on, because that was my question! Now I have even more questions, like what is a “shelf company”.
    I have plenty of evidence, thanks to all the reading I’ve done here. (and two hundred dollars worth of printer cartridges) I just can’t find anyone who can tell me how to find out if the foreclosure took place.
    The property was removed from the auction list after I wrote to their attorney and accused him of being fully aware he was cooperating in fraud on the court. They haven’t filed any assignments, I have only received one notice of substitution of trustee, and that was for the HELOC, not the primary lien.
    It seems you are very agile when plowing through the mountainous document pile on the SEC, and frankly I am not. I’m sorry to be such a plodder, but when I don’t understand it’s not meant to irritate you. I think the same way I write…with adjectives and verbs and nouns, so when those posts you write are missing a few of those building blocks, it throws simple me into head scratching and confusion. I have no doubt that you know what you’re talking about, but it seems you didn’t quite understand my question. My apologies for being obtuse.
    Do you know how to find out if the foreclosure took place?

  2. NORA, YOU’LL HAVE TO START WITH THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A REGISTRATION STATEMENT ACTUALLY IS. THIS IS NOT HAND HOLDING THIS IS LEARNING.

    You need to read the definitions and learn to look at what they are actually doing, get evidence, catch them lying to the court.

    How are you going to know they are lying if you don’t know what they did.

    Do you really expect the S-3 to speak to you like You Tube?

  3. @Nora,

    You illustrate exactly one of my gripes: Nancy Drewe sends and posts a shit load of info but, to date, no one seems to know what to do with it, how to use and even whether it is really useful.

    @Nancy,

    Please drop the capitals!!!!!!!!!!! There is no reason for them and it hurts the eyes!!!

  4. @Nancy
    Ifound the S3, but it is largely blank! Cede, DTC referred to in various places, but what am I supposed to be learning from reading this? There are 177 pages–even longer than the PSA. It doesn’t name the trust, the certificate series or specific dates, it has empty brackets where that data should be. ??? I am at a loss as to how this document helps me find out if the banksters foreclosed or not. The specific loan information is not included, but offered through the mail from trustees listed addresses.
    Insurers of the loan pool are not named. Am I reading the wrong doc?

  5. The 8k has been removed, and I am still sifting through page after page of documents for the S3. I’m not familiar with the term, “shelf company”. Is the REMIC the same as the certificate series? The prospectus and supplement to the prospectus were an interesting read, too. Whole lot of fraud in them, written in legalese and I keep nodding off trying to read and reread.
    Thanks for the help, Nancy.

  6. NORA STOP READING THE INVESTORS PSA AND READ THE SHELF COMPANY PSA

  7. @leapfrog – I think your case is important. If B of A had been the plaintiff, than pursuant to was it Culhane, we were reminded that the court must rule on attachments to the complaint, not what is alleged in the complaint. In Culhane (again think it was), bankster 2356 alleged one thing but its attachments said otherwise, and the court went with the attachments and if I remember correctly, the court said bankster not entitled to SJ of course, and I said I thought the homeowner should be. The Culhane court might say there are still justiciable issues of material fact, and I would say no there aren’t. This to me was about the only noteworthy item in Culhane – the reminder regarding attachments. In your case, you’re the plaintiff in an AP and b of a did not file a poc to nail them on. But they did make false representations in their answer and kept you in court for those false representations $$$. You probably know what happens when this is allowed to pass uncontentested. B of A will wiggle, and do one of two things: make itself the proper party with some dance or certainly skate on the misrepresentations in its answer. Or they will allege an agreement with the real party heretofore unheard of. I think you are entitled to SJ because you apparently filed against b of a who is not who they said in the answer. I don’t know who else if anyone you named in your suit. Pursant to Rule 8, what is not denied in an answer is deemed admitted, but I don’t know what specific rule you could turn to regarding false statements in answers. Surely there are some. Maybe your attorney would file for sanctions and SJ. Or file another ap, just more typing and some more work, like service of the new complaint, than a motion in your existing AP, this time naming the (alleged) real party and b of a and john does 1 – 1000 and as for cause, state the false representations in B of A’s answer for starters and the real party’s misdeed in allowing b of a to make the misstatements, ala Nosek. You wouldn’t be entitled to SJ in your original complaint against any unnamed party, like the real party with interest in your note and home (who by admission or evidence is not b of a).
    But, sanctions can be a big stick.
    I am loathe to weigh in like this since I am not an attorney and you have one, but like I said, I think your case and ones like it are important. When a homeowner (or anyone) files an AP or any suit and is forced to deal with it emotionally, financially, and otherwise for an extended period because the other party has made false representations, that is just wrong and somewhere there must be laws to punish that behavior.
    If not, there’s no law imo.

  8. NORA ITS TIME
    LOOK AT THE ‘S-3’
    THE WHAT?
    THE S-3 ‘REGISTRATION STATEMENT’ FOR THE SHELF COMPANY

    THE WHAT?
    THE ‘SHELF COMPANY’ WHO PASSES CASH THROUGH AND IRS TAXES ARE REPORTED ELSEWHERE

    HOW DO i KNOW HOW TO FIND MY SHELF COMPANY REGISTRATION STATEMENT?

    LOOK AT SECINFO.COM
    LOOK AT 8K OF REMIC IF YOU KNOW THE NAME
    FIND ‘FILING COMMISSION#’
    CLICK AND FIND THE ‘S3′ AND S-3/A’ AMENDMENT

    IS THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT OF THE SHELF COMPANY ‘DIRECT LINK’

  9. THE ‘SPECIAL’ REAL ESTATE LAWYERS (SERVICE MARK) ARE NERVOUS! RIGHTLY SO.

    FRAUD REVEALED!

    WHAT WILL THE IRS DO? WILL THEY LOOK AT THE ‘FANNIE MAE ATTORNEYS’?

    IN THE LIMELIGHT YESTERDAY THEIR ‘BOSS’ LOOKING THE OTHER WAY AT THE REAL REASON THEY GET BIG BONUSES!

    FANNIE MAE ‘FEDERAL HOME LOAN CORPORATION’
    AS TRUSTEE FOR THE LOAN TRUSTS’ AND THEIR ‘SERVICER’ WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE….TOGETHER FOREVER.

    CONSUMER SIGNED
    THE PROMISSORY NOTE
    THE WHAT? PROMISE TO PAY A THIRD PARTY’S OBLIGATION.

    THE SECRET CLOSING
    THE WHAT? WHERE? AT THE LOCAL LAW FIRM OF THE ‘REAL ESTATE LAWYERS’ FANNIE MAE APPROVED LAW FIRM
    ACTING AS THE NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY PURCHASE RIGHTS TO THE ASSET — IN SECRET — CREDIT RISK WORTH THE BENEFITS AND FEDERAL EXEMPTIONS ATTACHED C/O SUPREMECY CLAUSE SINCE 2002 BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY PROTECTING ALL ‘AFFILAITES’ OF SERVICERS THE ‘TRUSTEE’S’ THE LAYWERS – THE SPECIAL REAL ESTATE LAWYERS WHO ARE HIDING ‘OUR’ MONEY.

    YOU KNOW THOSE INSURANCE ‘RIDERS’ AND ‘NOTES’ SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES?

    YOU KNOW THE FUNDS YOU ADVANCED WERE ‘ESCROW’ FOR THE INVESTMENT…SITTING WITH A TRUSTEE (WHOSE NAME YOU DON’T HAVE) SALES AGREEMENT SITTING INSIDE A REAL ESTATE LAWYERS FIRM YOU DON’T KNOW THE NAME OF
    AND NEVER WILL UNLESS …. YOU PAY ATTENTION TO DOCUMENTS FILED AND DOCUMENTS MISSING …

    THE ACTUAL DEFAULT (LATE PAYMENT) 91ST DAY ‘FANNIE MAE – FEDERAL HOME LOAN CORPORATION DBA WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE’ PASSES TO REAL ESTATE LAWYERS WHO ARE A FANNIE MAE APPROVED LAW FIRM ….

    BEGIN COLLECTING AS NEW DEBTOR THE DEBT TRANSFERRED FOR THE LOAN TRUST STOPPED RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE ‘TRUSTEE’ THE REAL ESTATE LAWYERS WHEN YOU STOPPED.

    (LOTS OF MONEY SITTING NATIONWIDE IN TRUST WITH THE ORIGINAL ‘TRUSTEE’ /SERVICER FOR LIFE OF LOAN WAITING TO SETTLE UP WITH THE NEW ‘TRUSTEE’ C/O THE NEW ROBO-FIRM BEFORE THE COURT. )

    THE BENEFICIARY/HOMEOWNER’ TOGETHER WE’LL GO FAR’

    HOMEOWNERS FORCED INTO DEFAULT,
    FORCED INTO FORECLOUSRE,
    FORCED INTO BANKRUPTCY OR HIT WITH CAPITAL GAINS FORCING BANKRUPTCY AND FORGIVENESS ‘MORE MONEY’ NOT PAID TO IRS! DEBT COLLECTOR FOR FEDERAL RESERVE. THAT MAKES SENSE.

    SO WHAT WILL THE FEDERAL RESERVE DO ABOUT THIS?
    THEY ARE THE BENEFACTORS OF THE ‘SECRETS’

    UNTIL…..

    UNTIL ITS TIME TO GET RID OF FANNIE MAE

    ‘TRUSTEE’ OF ‘LLC’ IS /ARE RELATED TO THE OBLIGOR OF THE DEBT AS ‘SERVICER’ AGREE TO PAY ‘MORTGAGE BANKER’.

    CONSUMER ‘DOES NOT OWN OBLIGATION TO LOAN TRUST’ PERIOD.

    THE SERVICER C/O REAL ESTATE LAWYERS (FIRM) IS.

    WHEN A CONSUMER LATE – NO FUNDS ARE FORWARDED TO TRUST FOR 2 MONTHS AND ON 91ST DAY ‘DEFAULT’ AND RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE ASSET OF SAME TRANSFER TO NEW ROBO-FIRM SPECIAL REAL ESTATE LAWYERS.

    FANNIE MAE OR FEDERAL HOME LOAN CORPORATION DBA WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE ….

    NORWEST ASSET SERVICES CORP (NASCOR) SUBSIDAIRY

  10. Yes, yes! I was trying to remember that phrase, thank you! I need to go back and refine the language in my pleading.

  11. Nora
    fwiw .. the term”perjury by inconsistent statements” applies.
    nail em and do not let up.

  12. The PSA for my “loan” clearly states that the Notes will not be endorsed, assigned or transferred physically: Isn’t this enough to put a total stop to any foreclosure? Well, between that and the fact the lien was never perfected.
    I closed with WaMu who was supposedly received by JPMChase in insolvency. JPMC claimed in one law suit that they had not taken possession of WaMU, and turned around and claimed that they had in another trial. Seems they change their story at will to achieve the desired outcome. JPMC filed a fraudulent foreclosure action against me, with a sale date of July 5th. I filed for and got a TRO (pro se) and their attorney quit based on the letter I sent him and the facts present in petition for TRO. Now they have a new, hungrier set of attorneys, but I have yet to hear if the foreclosure has taken place or not. I have my pleadings ready to go–how do I find out if the property has been foreclosed on? I received a property tax bill, but I’m not paying if the bank claims the house. Does anyone know how to find out the status of the property? Dolts populate the courthouse and prop records.
    I stated “wrongful foreclosure” but GA (non-judicial) also has “attempted wrongful foreclosure”, a minor adjustment to my pleadings before I file my offensive. Anyone?

  13. @leapfrog@ 11:25,

    The courts don’t offer you anything you don’t ASK FOR. If you want sanctions, petition the court for them and prove they’re due.

  14. HAH! Long time coming.

    Send to the Deficit committee — who did nothing, because they know nothing.

  15. ok finally——here you have it the penalty for missing loan schedules—no deferral of income–too bad the perps are all bankrpt—need to look at accounting firms

    —-so who was negligent when the perps violated the reps in the securitization docx and failed to include the manually filed “loan scedules”—–

    and/or failed to file the UCC sec state loan schedules–no trust corpus=no trust assets exempt at least if there was a trust–or just a set of collection accouts. there was attempt to follow the steps in the state law documents on file with SEC etc–so no trust–so no REMIC status so tax at every turn—tax on a closed transaction—–certainly a modification would trigger gain to the individual vulture investor-partner—there is where the tax liability rises in a partnership—individual level tax basis–pay 15 cents and modified to 35 cents on dollar –still taxable gain to vulture investor without cash flow to cover it

    phantom income—-need to make this a tax free exchange if a mod is allowed on re traded down property then the mod not recognized as income until cash flow is received—enable exchanges of properties as well as mods

  16. US BANK NA ‘TRUSTEE’ DURING FORECLOSURE
    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
    BEEFS UP THE BILLS PASSED TO ‘WFHM INSTITUTIONAL’ C/O RELS TITLE & SETTLEMENT SERVICES

    THE LENDERS POLICY WILL PAY THE UPCHARGES.

    P670-INVESTOR PROPERTY REPORT – LIST OF GRANTOR/GRANTEE LIFE OF LOAN $125

    WHAT DID WFHM INSTITUTIONAL C/O RELS CHARGE THE ‘OLD REPUBLIC – MERRILL LYNCH OWNERSHIP?
    NO THEY CHARGE YOU THE UPCHARGE AND AFFIX TO THE LOAN BALANCE AND CALCUALTE ‘INTEREST’.

    IF THE WHOLE LOAN IS NOT DUE AND CURRENT, WHY IS THE DEFAULT NOT CALCULATED AT THE ACTUAL ‘DEFAULT’?

    WHO PUT THE ASSET ON THEIR BOOKS? THE NEW DEBTOR OR THE OLD DEBTOR? NEITHER

  17. Your NOTE?
    I don’t think so….
    The ‘owner of the note’ beneficiary and/or trustee getting the interest benefits paid out by the securities administrator.

    That special somebody is not you!

    IS THERE ANYONE WHO FILED THE ‘OID’ WITHIN THE FIRST 3 YEARS AND RECEIVED BENEFITS? CAN YOU SHARE?

    The ‘trustee’ holding ‘title’ in the real world (Title Company?)
    and/or REAL ESTATE LAWYERS — the special kind

    If your NOTE and you filed the (OID) form within the first 3 years or from day note ‘purchased’ by undisclosed third party under Purchase Agreement – if you had claimed your right to benefits what would you have gotten?

    Who got in your place?

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

  19. IRS on prosecuting REMIC fraud?? hahaha this predator[irs] is slow.
    this is all vapor action ..vicks for OWS , any legal action will be against the ho moaner for participating in this fraud. fuk em!

  20. WordPress commenting/replying just plain sucks. Neil should upgrade to any better wordpress commenting features. For example, I should be able to reply to a specific comment. Instead, all the comments just stack on top of each other. Thats what makes it suck.

  21. johng: Thanks for the info, especially the links to the cases. I do have an attorney and it is in BK court and B of A never filed a POC, which they should have done, as the amount was contested. We’re in an AP now. I hope they will be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time and clogging up the docket, but I doubt it. If I were to pull a perjury stunt like this (lying in my answer that I do indeed own the loan), I’m SURE I would be punished by the judge – but they look the other way when the banksters commit the crime.

  22. In my case I know for a fact that US Bank tried to put my mortgage into the trust 4 years after the trust closed.Trust closed 5-30-06 and they tried on 6-2-10.What a joke how do you not know the trust closing date if you are the holder of the securtization for the trust?

  23. We need a central registry for the psa’s we get. Scribd, etc. won’t get it….too much other stuff there. One of you computer gurus should start a new website where searchable psa’s may be posted or at least linked.

    hman – you pose the questions many of us face. No short answer that I know of.

  24. @Ann

    Thanks. Did you read this post by Neil last week?

    WINNING FORECLOSURE TRIALS: BOA Loses Another One in Brevard County Florida.

    re homeowers offensive summary judgement?

    Wish for more discussion of this and how it may apply in other states……

  25. chris said:

    ‘That money should have been paid to the pool/investor/trust, etc…not the servicers”. Well, now, chris, that brings us to the 64k question, does it not?
    WHO got the insurance-by-any-name proceeds? If the banksters got it, WHERE did all the money go such that they needed TARP?

  26. @leapfrog – Nosek and Vargas were both bk cases and the sanctions were, if I remember, for filing false proofs of claim. In Nosek, the appeals court reduced the sanction amts which of course I thought was a crock. But if you show a court that making false statements is business as usual for a party, that SHOULD weigh heavily in favor of large sanctions imo.

    Here is the Nosek decision:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75039128/Nosek-Mem-Decision-for-Sanctions-Dkt-133-1

    I think you’ve got your deal in the bag and maybe you can find an attorney to help sort out the proper procedure to secure the win it sounds like to me you’ve got coming. Maybe not enter an appearance, but you might be able to find someone to give you direction on procedure?

  27. they haven’t arrested Corzine. you think they’re gonna enforce the law? Not to the benefit of borrowers they won’t! There is no restoration of equity without extinguishment of debt.

  28. old news

  29. BOOM, BOOM, BOOM- 2nd DCA Keeps Keeps Pounding Out The RULE OF LAW
    December 6th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog
    You gotta give it to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals, they keep repeating over and over….

    Summary Judgment means there are no issues of material facts…and here’s the kicker….WE EVEN MEAN THAT IN FORECLOSURE CASES!

    It’s like they’re saying….THE SAME LAWS APPLY IN FORECLOSURE CASES AS IN ALL OTHER KINDS OF CASES.

    (actually it’s not “like” they’re saying that…THE 2ND DCA IS SCREAMING IT…OVER AND OVER AND OVER)

    Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals really does shine out brightly as a powerful beacon of justice and advocate for the RULE OF LAW.

    This week’s example case is called, Bryson v. BBT….. But from now on, let’s refer to it as:

    BRYSON V. BAILED OUT BANK AND TRUST

    Because BB&T did not meet its burden of conclusively showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

    The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing irrefutably that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. See Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644, 645-46 (Fla. 2d DCA
    1995). “[I]t is only after the moving party has met this heavy burden that the nonmoving party is called upon to show the existence of genuine issues of material fact.” Id. at 646; see also Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966) (“Until it is determined that
    the movant has successfully met this burden, the opposing party is under no obligation to show that issues do remain to be tried.”); Deutsch v. Global Fin. Servs., LLC, 976 So. 2d 680, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The burden of proving the existence of genuine
    issues of material fact does not shift to the opposing party until the moving party has met its burden of proof.”); Berenson v. S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 646 So. 2d 809, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (noting that “the nonmoving party need make no showing in
    support of his claim until the moving party has, by affidavit or otherwise, completely negated all allegations and inferences raised by the nonmoving party”).

    On summary judgment, the trial court’s function “is solely to determine whether the record conclusively shows that the moving party proved a negative, that is,
    ‘the nonexistence of a genuine issue of a material fact.’ ” Winston Park, Ltd. v. City of Coconut Creek, 872 So. 2d 415, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Besco USA Int’l Corp. v. Home Sav. of Am. FSB, 675 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)). Where a
    defendant pleads affirmative defenses, the plaintiff moving for summary judgment must either factually refute the affirmative defenses by affidavit or establish their legal insufficiency. See Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009);
    Newton v. Overseas Private Inv. Corp., 544 So. 2d 224, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

    In numerous foreclosure cases summary judgment has been reversed because the defendant has pleaded lack of notice and opportunity to cure as an affirmative defense and nothing in the bank’s complaint, motion for summary judgment,
    or affidavits established that the bank gave the homeowners the notice and opportunity to cure required by the mortgage. See, e.g., Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 65 So. 3d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Konsulian v. Busey Bank, N.A., 61 So.
    3d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“[N]othing in Busey’s complaint, motion for summary judgment, or affidavits indicates that Busey gave Konsulian the notice which the mortgage required. . . . Further, Busey did not refute Konsulian’s defenses nor did it
    establish that [they] were legally insufficient.”); Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906.

    We reach the same conclusion in this case. The unauthenticated copies of default letters purportedly sent to Bryson by BB&T were insufficient for summary judgment purposes because only competent
    evidence may be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 698 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Tunnell v. Hicks, 574 So. 2d 264, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining that court could not
    consider certain documents in its summary judgment decision because “Tunnell failed to attach either document to affidavits that presumably would have ensured their admissibility”).

    At the summary judgment hearing, BB&T took the position that the letters were self-authenticating because they were the bank’s own letters. Self-authentication
    is a concept that, due to a document’s very nature of being notarized or certified in some fashion, eliminates hearsay and other extrinsic objections to admissibility. However, a document bereft of genuineness, such as a purported copy, cannot be said
    to be self-authenticating because extrinsic evidence to establish its truthfulness is still required.

    With this in mind, BB&T’s letters are clearly not self-authenticated. Hence, we reject BB&T’s argument in this regard. See, e.g., Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Merely attaching documents which are
    not ‘sworn to or certified’ to a motion for summary judgment does not, without more, satisfy the procedural strictures inherent in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e).”); Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 66 So. 3d 387, 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment of
    foreclosure where defendant asserted she had not received a notice of default as required by the mortgage and the bank had simply filed an unauthenticated notice letter). In this case, the letters at issue were not admitted by the pleadings, nor were they accompanied by an affidavit of a record custodian or other proper person attesting
    to their authenticity or correctness. See id.

    Finally, BB&T argues that it was entitled to summary judgment because
    Bryson did not file any affidavits in opposition or tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate to the court that a genuine issue of material fact existed.” BB&T has misunderstood the summary judgment standard. If the defendant pleads affirmative
    defenses, the plaintiff moving for summary judgment must either factually refute the affirmative defenses by affidavit or establish their legal insufficiency. Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906; Newton, 544 So. 2d at 225. “The burden of proving the existence of genuine
    issues of material fact does not shift to the opposing party until the moving party has met its burden of proof.” Deutsch, 976 So. 2d at 682. Because BB&T did not tender any competent evidence on the issue of Bryson’s notice of the default, it did not meet its
    burden of proof on summary judgment.

    Rhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/75038040/2DCA-Bryson-v-BBT-The-unauthenticated-copies-of-default-letters-purportedly-sent-by-BB-T-were-insufficient-for-summary-judgment%E2%80%9Deversed and remanded.

  30. leapfrog – I take it you are the plaintiff? I don’t know the answers but I can guess about why courts award banksters and their attorneys
    “instant karma”. That’s not accurate but the best phrase I can come up with to try to describe the credibility that gang does not have to earn in courts. I don’t think the country including our courts has been witness to this kind of rote fraud and perjury ever before in history and many of us are old dogs in most regards, meaning we change anything, including our perceptions, slowly. The court whether consciously or not starts at ‘what is before me is the truth’ when it comes to these institutions. Why then when the truth comes out do judges not connect the dots and see it was not the truth and act against the liar? Some have. Vargas comes to mind. Courts have a lot of inherent power – a lot, and they can exercise it sua sponte if they want to, which mostly they don’t by my observations. One of them is U.S. Section 105, I think. (I can’t find it as usual) And there are laws in place which a litigant may cite when seeking sanctions against liars. If you alleged B of A didn’t own your loan and had no standing, and B of a doesn’t own your loan, haven’t you won your case? That may not stop another party from coming after your home, but sanctions against B of A, which can be large, is a pretty big stick. In Nosek (MA), for instance, the court sanctioned someone and also someone else (forget who) for allowing a B of A to claim its loan was B of A’s. (wasn’t b of a, was someone else, like Norwest). I have a lot of Nosek docs (probably Vargas, too), and will give them to you if you want them. Maybe a roadmap for you and others.

  31. This is an old article from reuters. Been waiting for a new one. Reporters? They got Al Capone on tax evasion…..

  32. Thinking this issue is why the foreclosures have been allowed to run their course so to speak (as if there is an end in sight which there isn’t) and why all the big guys good and bad including judges and courts and govt all look the other way and why fraud transfers and fraud foreclosures and fraud sham mods and fraud foreclosure mill practices continue. Not in anyones interest to disclose the biggest fraud of all. Just forgive the back taxes to the pension funds and call the bluff and go after the rule of law already. Get the conflict of interest off the table.

  33. Once again, I have a problem with this story. The judges who have set aside foreclosures are minisule. Pennies on the dollar. This is not the reason pensioners have lost money. To claim this is the case is a false representation, by the editor of this story. And my research shows, very specifically, the deficiencies are/were insured. That money should have been paid to the pool/investor/trust, etc…not the servicers.

  34. I have a general question that is off topic from this one, but I’d like to know why Banksters of America have been allowed to drag my case out. In their original answer they stated that they “owned” my loan. One year later in discovery, ownership has proved otherwise and they are admitting they do not own it. Why have they not been sanctioned? Why do the judges presume these white collar criminal assholes are telling the truth? Why, why, why?

  35. This article is dated from April 2011. There have been crickets since then from the DOJ and IRS on prosecuting REMIC fraud.

  36. I read this on Matt Weidners the other day. I’m curious. How do you know if you’re note made it to the trust in the time frame? I’ve read many times that the notes never made it to the trust.

    How does one research this? I have my pooling and servicing agreement that says the same. I have a copy of my note that is endorsed to the “Trustee” not the actual Trust. There is an “undated” allonge with the note.

    So the trustee, Deutsche, who is claiming to be the owner (although not the creditor), can say it was transfered in the time frame. Does anybody know how to verify this? Does anybody know how to research if the note made it to the trust?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: