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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Chris has distilled the discovery requests down to what he feels are the essentials. My focus is evolving toward the actual money trail because I think it is there that we will find that no money exchanged hands in connection with documents purporting to memorialize a “transaction” in which the obligation, note or mortgage was “sold.”

Keep in mind that the discovery request might need to be directed to more than one party and if the party is not a plaintiff or defendant in pending litigation you might need to subpoena them. If  one of the parties was in bankruptcy, it has occurred to me that a good party to subpoena for deposition might be the U.S. Trustee in Bankruptcy. I would add the following:

  1. All wire transfer instructions relating to the origination and funding of the subject loan.
  2. All wire transfer instructions relating to any transaction in which the loan was sold or hypothecated.
  3. All purchase agreements relating to the sale of the subject loan.
  4. Any evidence of payment by any party relating to the origination or funding of the subject loan.
  5. Any evidence of payment by any party relating to transfer or sale of the subject loan.
  6. Any evidence of payments received by the creditor relating to either the subject loan directly or indirectly relating to the alleged pool of assets claiming ownership of the subject loan.
  7. All accounting information relating to the obligation due investors who purchased or advanced money into the securitized pool.
  8. All payments to any party made by the servicer relating to the subject loan. 
  9. All accounting records and work sheets relating to the creation of a loan receivable on the balance sheet of the loan originator.
  10. All evidence relied upon by the foreclosing party that the originator owned the subject loan at any point in time.
  11. Any evidence of payments received on behalf of the creditors.
  12. All evidence relied upon by the Trustee or any other party in the securitization chain that the preceding party owned the subject loan or any part of it.


You need to ask for the following documents in discovery:

1) All Loan Purchase and Sales Agreements from the time of the loan was funded to and including the present regarding my note and deed of trust.
2) A true and correct certified copy of my Note, endorsements, including the allonge;
3) Any and all transferring of servicing rights and loan servicing agreements during any time since the funding of the loan to and including the present;
4) True and correct copies of any and all Asset Pooling Agreements, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, and Power of Attorney, if any; and Affidavit provided by the Custodian of Records at any time by any servicer since the origination of the loan to and including the present:;
5) Any and all MERS agreement;
6) Any and all REMIC agreements;
7) Any and all Securitization Agreements at any time concerning my Note, Deed of Trust and Loan;
8) Copies of all applications and insurance policies issued and charged against the escrow account of the subject loan at anytime whatsoever regardless of whether or not credits been subsequently made;
9) Copies of all assignments of my note and deed of trust at any time whatsoever;
10) Copies of any and all Trust agreements, if any.


11 Responses

  1. Would like to add to the list —- ALL RECORDS since the purchase of your home from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. ALL RECORDS SINCE THE PURCHASE OF YOUR HOME.

  2. In pre trial discovery I requested much of this among other documents from the original party to foreclosure. Nothing was submitted, and the Judge did not require the party to cooperate. I reluctantly settled in the ongoing case that I had prior to the foreclosure action. The Judge upon his own, in the Civil action, me as plaintiff, required the substitute party, who referred to self as representative (a bond dealer as described to me, also known as collection company)to the Defendant in Foreclosure, also an “assignee” with questionable records who did not come public for one year, the same party I was denied by Judge in Chancery to join. This party was named by Judge in Civil Court for all intents and purposes to be the new holder. Illegitimate party made legitimate in my view, by the Judge. They now are making all stipulations in settlement, how did this all happen in my near 5 year battle for justice? I guess fatigue.
    After being denied the evidence of your article above, and much more between the two courts, Chancery and Civil, I now depend on this Judge, who claimed, in so many words, that I need not worry about any future party who may come along down the road with a claim to some ownership fraction in this soon to be settlement of both cases in which I receiving funds and the Bond company/Asset Collector taking my home.

    These facts seem like they would be very important to have in my case or others similar where there is a settlement and still so many facts unknown.

    If someone wanted to submit all documents for Mr Garfield to have as reference in cases that were pursued in court, how/where might he submit them?


  4. E.Tolle,

    The criminals have TAKEN OVER. That’s why the ONLY recourse (aside from suing…but we don’t have money for that), we have is to understand and act on our property rights with regards to the COURT OF RECORDS…

  5. @Stan Putra

    “Can I do this in small claims court? Can Discovery be made after the default?”

    Good question. I would also like to know what can and cannot be done in small claims court.

    See the link next regarding the request for rescission of the Notice of Default. No demurer is possible by bankster attorneys in small claims court and the homeowner is not are not asking for any monetary damages just rescission of the Notice of Default:

    check this out along with the comments questions and answers:

  6. Exactly john s. In my neck of the woods, the courts say, “Any disputes that arise between the mortgagee holding legal title and the assignee of the promissory note holding equitable title do not affect the status of the mortgagor for purposes of foreclosure by advertisement.” Try arguing the PSA to that judge. As long as the mortgage assignment is recorded to whatever bank wants the property, the foreclosure goes through, regardless of what happens upstream i.e. in securitization.

  7. @Carie

    The problem with the argument you post is, just like the fact that CUSIP holders are still getting paid (even when the borrower is not paying), and the courts don’t care about that, they ALSO don’t care about “rights” with respect to who is the creditor, who should be getting paid, etc.. as an abstract question.

    IMHO, there needs to be a peg to hang on that requires that question get answered, and without the ability of the banks lawyer (or a friendly judge) saying “who cares”.

    As an example, if an FDCPA claim can be brought (and there are issues with getting one to stand up), then *maybe* you can say the servicer is violating FDCPA in terms of who is owed what money. If servicer is advancing payments to trust who then advances to CUSIP holders, the “who” is the servicer. Yet they will claim it is the “certificate holders”.

    The discovery questions are all great, IF you can get to discovery.


    First, “certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.
    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights.

  9. Nice set of questions.I am going to trial as the PLAINTIFF, after 4.5 years of legal wrangling.I am against GMAC, Wells Fargo and CUNT.
    The usual suspects.$20,000 stolen at closing and $7,000 more for “forced placed insurance” even though I had a policy in place.
    My long and detailed Opening remarks can be summarized as:
    FUCK YOU! Or something akin to that.

  10. Neil
    Can I do this in small claims court? Can Discovery be made after the default?
    Racine WI

  11. Isn’t that what I’ve said all along? Cherchez la femme? No, I mean “follow the money”? Sorry, wrong language…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: