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

Interesting procedural issues coming up in Arizona Courts. First WAMU asks the Court of Appeals to depublish its decision that possession of the note was not necessary, meaning that the decision would apply ONLY to that one case and not serve as precedent for other cases. That is a pretty favorable ruling for the Banks. WAMU doesn’t exist anymore. Why would they want it depublished? People should realize this is oral argument, not a decision, which could come in weeks or months.

My guess is that they don’t think it will withstand the test of time or a Supreme Court review or the review of any other court. If the party foreclosing doesn’t have the original note than anyone could have it. You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other. If anyone could have it then anyone could foreclose based solely on instructions to the trustee on the deed of trust or the filing of a foreclosure lawsuit.

If anyone could foreclose then anyone has a right to title — ANYONE. This opens the door for some creative procedural issues that could be raised by homeowners or friends of homeowners. The specifics of those strategies I don’t write about. That is why I have One on One time conferences for one hour with lawyers and their clients. So on reflection then maybe the lawyers and the Banks realized that the decision fell into the category of “be careful what you wish for.” So they could be thinking that this decision is an eventual win for borrowers regardless of how it ends up — overruled or followed by other courts.

The other move was rebuffed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The certified question for review in Hogan v Washington is “Can a lender foreclose its deed of trust without owning the note which the deed of trust secures.” Now THAT is a bit of a sticky wicket and could account for the move by WAMU to have its winning decision in appellate court depublished. There are many issues that could be discussed deriving their interest and value from the question itself. I’ll discuss a few of them.

  1. The meaning of “lender.” It is unclear whether they are presuming that the forecloser is a “lender.” Or perhaps the homeowner already waived that issue by accepting the forecloser as a “lender.” That would make the forecloser a creditor. Thus the issue of whether they can foreclose without some documentation might be moot. But we know that they are not assuming the forecloser is a creditor because a creditor would have and own the note. In turn, that would appear to eliminate referring to the forecloser as a “lender.” That is what the appeal is about. So why do they refer to the forecloser as a “lender?” Is it because they just using a shorthand way of referring to the forecloser? If so it is either misleading or it is telegraphing that they intend to rule for the forecloser because they are presuming factually that the forecloser is the lender or creditor and simply does not have the paperwork. By reducing it to a paperwork issue it is easier to say that we are not going to hold up an orderly system of disposing of distressed properties because of minor deficiencies in paperwork.
  2. What it means to have possession of the original note. The possessor could be a bailee, holding it for someone else with no powers to do anything but deliver it, or a holder by virtue of some agreement or a holder in due course in the case of a sale of the note. The real issue is is the money. If the facts as presented or presumed have the forecloser losing money as a result of the borrower not paying, then the decision is most likely going to run in favor of the forecloser and could be worse: the court may state a presumption that the party who gives an instruction to the trustee on the deed of trust or who files suit is in fact the holder in due course. That would make the possession of the note irrelevant unless the homeowner could show that the actual possessor was not a bailee but was a party claiming rights under the note — something that actually isn’t so hard to do as it might sound in the case of securitized loans.
  3. What it means to not have possession of the original note. If the forecloser does not have physical possession of the note the forecloser, at a minimum, is obligated to tell the court where it is and why it isn’t in the forecloser’s possession. In fact the trustee’s obligation of due diligence requires it to have this information before obeying instructions to send out a notice of default and notice of sale. Further, the failure of the forecloser to have physical possession of the note gives rise to a question of fact. This brings up the thorny issue of whether loans claimed to be securitized CAN be foreclosed using the power of sale in a deed of trust or if they MUST be foreclosed judicially by a lawsuit. How would the trustee, exercising due diligence determine who was right, who was credible and who was lying through their teeth. Is the trustee empowered to conduct some sort of hearing? What are the rules?
  4. What it means to own the note. If the forecloser actually owns the note, then the likelihood is that the forecloser has every right to foreclose or sell the property by whatever means are legally provided in the state in which the property is located. The issue of fact is whether the forecloser is the owner and that is determined by whether there was a sale of the note or if the note is still owned by the party that originated the mortgage and whose name is shown as payee on the note. My review of hundreds of these chains of documents reveals thousands of documents referring to a transaction that never occurred. Transfer of the note without consideration (payment) is a transfer of convenience and creates a bailee rather than an owner — unless the recipient receives the note to secure yet another loan to the transferor, in which case it is a bailee with an interest which might be the same as a holder but not be the same as a holder in due course.
  5. What it means to not own the note. If the forecloser does not own the note, it is possible to construct a scenario in which the property could be foreclosed but it seems unlikely that the procedures contained in the power of sale would be sufficient to cover that situation. Hence, in my opinion, a forecloser who does not own the note might initiate foreclosure proceedings, but only by disclosing the principal for whom the forecloser is acting. This assumes that the non-owning forecloser has possession of the note. If the non-owning forecloser does not have possession of the note and they cannot account for where it is, the foreclosure dies right there and then. The sticky wicket here is who can bid as creditor at auction? The answer is always the creditor. If the creditor does not submit the credit bid, and the forecloser does so instead without the bid being on behalf of the creditor and the deed issued to the creditor (assuming the identity of the creditor has been established) then there is no valid sale unless the bid is paid in cash.
  6. What it means to foreclose the deed of trust. Most courts say that a deed of trust is no different than a mortgage. And indeed the terms are often used interchangeably. But in Arizona and other states some distinctions have been drawn, making the foreclosure a private sale to which the homeowner agreed and therefore there is no requirement of due process. Such decisions in my opinion are wholly wrong and unconstitutional. I predict that at some point Arizona or some other non-judicial state is going to state unequivocally that the power of sale does not take precedence over due process and that if the forecloser cannot demonstrate a prima facie case in judicial foreclosure, then the notice of default and notice of sale are invalid, as is the auction and any deed ensuing from the bogus auction.
  7. What it means that the deed of trust secures the note. This seemingly innocuous and obvious question leads to some very thorny issues that the courts so far have been loathe to consider. The fact is that under all laws, the obligation of the borrower arises upon receipt of the loan whether documented or not. A borrower cannot escape repayment simply because it wasn’t in writing but the terms that a court might impose might not be what the lender had in mind. Notes are not actually secured even though we say they are. It is the obligation that is meant to be secured. The note is evidence of the obligation and is presumed a true and correct representation of the agreement of the parties unless challenged for good cause. The problem is in the wording of the deed of trust or mortgage. The mortgage is incident to the note, it is often said and so stated in the mortgage or deed of trust. But what is obviously meant is that it secures the obligation by collateralizing through a lien on the home. The reason there is a problem is that the obligation in most cases arises between the party who loaned the money (an undisclosed remote investor) and the borrower, while the note refers to a transaction in which the loan originator loaned the money to the borrower. Thus the note is incorrect in its identification of the lender. The novel issue that will eventually be presented and considered by the court is whether the obligation is secured by the mortgage or deed of trust or if the security agreement has been eviscerated by the incorrect identification of the lender (which is a violation of the Truth in Lending Act). Another possibility is that the parties might be given the opportunity to reform the instruments to conform to the facts. The sticky wicket there is the effective date of that new instrument as amended by a court of law in a venue of competent jurisdiction. At a minimum, this would mean that the entire process would be renewed from scratch including the right to rescind.
  8. Where is the obligation in this discussion? THAT is the essential question. In the end the only thing that matters in commerce is getting paid. If the party who loaned the money does not get paid that party in our system of government has an absolute right to get a judgment for that money which is unpaid upon presenting proof that they are a creditor, that the loan was made, that they are going to lose money if the home is not sold for their benefit and that they can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the balance owed after all appropriate credits is $X, for which they demand judgment and sale. The sticky wicket here is that the parties to whom the obligation is owed have mostly abandoned their claims against homeowners and are pursuing claims against the investment bank that sold them the certificates that gave them an undivided interest in the loans. Eventually the Courts will come to terms with this fact and determine how or whether there should be any right to collection for or on behalf of a creditor who has not asked for affirmative relief but upon request from a third party who has their own reasons for demanding the relief sought (foreclosure). And lastly, the Courts will be required to deal with the definitions and procedures for allowing a “credit bid” under such circumstances where the creditors do not want the property and do not authorize that the property be taken in their name or on their behalf. This will probably lead to cash bids that will be very low and start rising as homeowners realize that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

57 Responses

  1. ANONYMOUS- Thanks for the info as why we’re here to learn about all the lies. Like in both of my notice of defaults, Ocwen states,

    we are the owner or the servicer of the loan-as to interpret-pick one. Not one word of the name of the “stock” my supposed notes were in.
    SUCH trickery. My thoughts still go to pushing the title co’s info even if I have to threaten FOIA. It seems easier-as to contract law and the fact they have given me some information like the wired transfers and lenders instructions. Next, I plan on having a meeting with them. Got nothing to lose. What do you think? .

  2. colleen

    On track. But, Ocwen has all records since the purchase of your home. Do not let them tell you otherwise.

    FALSE — DATA is there.

  3. @Enraged & Colleen

    Thank you for responding this case gives me the information I needed.

  4. @Dee,

    From what I understand, Texas is a whole different animal from my state. I’m in judicial. I believe Texas isn’t.

    I hate to do that to you but… I can’t help you. You probably need to consult an attorney and i don’t know any in Texas who has had any success in foreclosure defense. Have you checked Mandelman for referrals? On this site, you need to wgae some kind of membership to get names.

    You know what I would do? I would start looking up: “Homeowners wins against bank in Texas foreclosure”. Then, i would refine the search to include “Ocwen”. Once you have a few cases, assuming they exist, look up the attorneys defending the homeowners.

    That’s a place to start.

    Are you anywhere near foreclosure? Remember: time is of the essence if you are.

  5. there’s more…….
    I have 4 checks on our credit reports from all 3 reporters stating blank as to being acknowledged. Meaning we sent the checks in, but NO ONE endorsed them! And of course ocwen doesn’t have the first year of the accounting of our loan. Just those 4 right after the Bankruptcy started. Over 10 thousand dollars not accounted for-OH and there’s so much more to it……

  6. @dee
    I too have a back dated assignment from mers that ocwen stole.
    All proof of fraud. With the “lender” filing BK 11 6 months after we closed. ALL of their docs are false. So, what is Texas doin about it?
    So far, nothing.

  7. @Enraged

    Texas! I would like to know can Mers transfer a Note and Deed of Trust several years later after the original lender filed bankrutcy?

  8. @Colleen,

    I didn’t lose it. In fact, I discovered it after I had already sued the servicer in federal court. Since I am not paying and my intent is to obtain from the servicer that he simply go away, if I get that much plus statutory damages for Tila, Respa, Fdcpa, etc., I’ll be good. Otherwise, am I going to look into it more deeply? You betcha!

  9. @Dee,

    I read your post a few times but I didn’t see any question. So, I didn’t comment on it.

    The thing about it is: which state are you in? The fact that you have MERS means nothing in some states and can’t be used as a defense while in others, MERS not being the payee on the note, it can’t assign anything.

    Did you have a specific question?

  10. @ Enraged or johngault

    Lender A filed for Bankruptcy May 21, 2006 however, our Assignment of Note and Deed of Trust effective date was April 1, 2008. The Assignment was not notarize until September 17, 2008. Therefore, did Lender A Bankruptcy Court grant Mers authority to execute such assignments. Lender B attorney stated ( MERS was the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust for Lender A and its successors and assigns, which includes Lender B. Lender B was authorized to act under the Deed of Trust to enforce Plaintiff’s indebtedness.) Lender B attorney is alledging Mers had authority from Lender A to assigned our Note and Deed of Trust to Lender B.

  11. johngault,
    Your preachin to the choir my friend! WHERE AM I? TEXAS!
    and yes, I know.
    And Enraged,You win! I thought I had a doozy with my lenders being also the title insurer-thanks, YOU CRACKED ME UP! Really, yours is pretty good! Did you lose it as I have and I just mean that as in temporarily.
    I WILL GET IT BACK. MY Neighbor there, actually told them on there last “walk through” that the people WILL be getting their note back. The judge actually wrote in his rulings that after 90 days, OCWEN must give the original note back.
    We’ll let you know.
    John, On our deed it’s a general warranty deed with vendor’s lien done in the best of years …06′. Have you seen one? If not I’ll send it.
    I also have acknowledged this deed and claimed it-so no one else can have it till I CHOOSE TO SELL IT AND NOT BEFORE.

    Three years and 2 foreclosures plus a bankrupcty and ALL of our personal indoor and outdoor furniture and a fully furnished beautiful home (as they took it all and left it all for the new folks) Just on one home.
    No, as I will be sueing just don’t know how yet.

  12. Well Johngault,

    I did some research and was unable to find any specific law in which to actually sink my teeth. I have the info, I have everything printed out and when time comes, I intend to raise the issue. Do I see a conflict of interests? You bet.

    What I found interesting is that the founders opened first the title insurance company, in the late 1990sy. Then, they opened the lending office at the appropriate time (early 2000s). The good thing, though, is that they apparently failed to play by the rules in several states and ended up banned or heavily fined. As an attorney told me: “Im surprised they’re still in business…”

    Well, not for much longer if I can help it.

  13. enraged – pretty sure that is a prima facie conflict of interest and I’m almost positive that should have been disclosed to you. I mean, I suppose a lender could be the title insurer, but still that relationship
    should have been disclosed. I think. There was a big ruckus with a title company a few years ago for illegal kick backs and or fee-sharing.
    If lender received any money, even from its own title company, their xxx is grass, as I recall. Title companies are regulated by the agency which regulates other insurance companies, I think. Been awhile!
    Like the insurance commissioner or something like that. But believe me, they are regulated by SOMEone, and if I’m right, that might be a pretty big stick since an audit would likely reveal other fee-sharing.
    Can’t frame a thing like that as blackmail, of course.

  14. colleen – what state are you in? I’d sure like to see a copy of the doc you’re talking about. There should be no ref to a lender, mortgagee, or the man in the moon in a warranty deed. You would find that language in a trust deed or a deed of trust or a mortgage.

    Starting many years ago, the lender, who was also always the beneficiary in the dot, was casually referred to as the mortgagee. But in truth, a beneficiary of a dot is not a mortgagee:

    The term “mortgagee” is inappropriate in a deed of trust.
    The term “mortgagee” is used to describe a party in a
    TWO-party instrument: lender, who owns a note and a lien
    on real property securing it, and the borrower. It has NO
    application to a deed of trust. The major differences between a mortgage and a deed of trust are

    1) the mortgage has two parties and the dot has three,

    2) a mortgage is a lien whereas a dot is a title – transfer,
    (which invokes the statute of frauds)

    3) the mortgage requires judicial foreclosure whereas the
    deed of trust does not,

    4) the reason the dot does not is because a) either legal or equitable title has already been transferred for the benefit of the dot beneficiary, and b) the dot has a third party, the trustee, who is
    empowered by the deed of trust to foreclose on CERTAIN
    conditions without going thru thru courts.

    The deed of trust was originally formulated and legislated to do away with the time and costs of judicial foreclosure required in the enforcement of mortgages, including the borrower’s lengthy right of
    redemption. In other words, and I hope to make this clear, your honor, the deed of trust came about to make it easier for lenders to foreclose on homes when default has occurred.
    It was a gimme, a privelege, which did not really benefit the borrower, altho with the usual tap dance, the bankster will claim it made loans cheaper. As if. Some, most, states adopted the deed of trust. A few didn’t and they still use the two party mortgage which requires judicial foreclosure. I’m no expert on lien-theory states. Maybe they require judicial foreclosure, also.
    Deeds of trust themselves have different legal ramifications: lien-theory or title-theory. Why one state chose to be lien-theory and another chose to be title-theory, I don’t know. If lien-theory states require judicial foreclosure, my guess is those states wanted the added protection of court confirmation fpr foreclosure.
    So, in the deed of trust, a third party was introduced, the dot trustee. He is not the minion or agent of the beneficiary – he is
    a party to a document legislated, and his job is to protect the interests of both parties. Otherwise, a trustee isn’t necessary – they would have just said heck with judicial f/c, and we’ll let the lenders foreclose without any oversight. But, no. That’s not what was said
    or intended. The legislation knew that without the trustee, the neutral third party, there would be too much chance of error and abuse by lenders. Little did they know! The good men and women involved in the initial legislation of non-judicial foreclosure by way of the deed of trust would croak if they knew what is going on
    today. They would say fuggedaboutit, we’re having nothing
    to do with this. I’m as serious as a heart attack. It is an outrage and nothing short. I am so not blowing my horn: I only know these things as a result of a lot of specific studies. When our judges went thru law school, real estate was only a small part of what they had to study. So they probably just don’t know a lot of stuff we need them to know.

  15. @Johngault and Colleen,

    You win! I thought I had a doozy with my lenders being also the title insurer (same founders, same officers, different Inc.) but I guess yours are even better.

  16. johngault,
    great analogy!- I have a thought to you to take a look at your grant/warranty deed. On ours, “lender” specifically state to hereinafter called “mortgagee”. Do you think to confuse?
    with the “vendors lien”-being called the deed of trust?
    ALL seperate entities?

  17. hman,
    I got all my info from stewart title. They emailed in piece meal.
    At one point, they kept saying they don’t have it sense huricane Ike wiped out the paperwork-palease-give me a break!!
    I kept pushing because on their policy they state WE have a file on you if there is any information you need just let us know!-SO?
    push it!
    And get this,-My “closer” was my my escrow officer, title officer, she double witnessed her own signiture AND was our notary!
    she was busy-we saw her a little while ago and SHE will be next!

  18. What the dot trustee should get is the note with all endorsements and the dot with any and all assignments (which should have been recorded). There’s no reason a borrower should not get copies of the note with its endorsements, at least on request. (Ftr, ask your trustee in writing certified mail for the documents he has relied on in coming after your home.) As to the assignments, the borrower must have notice of anyone’s claimed interest in his real estate and
    how they got it. The final endorsee on the note should be the same party with the final assignment of the dot. Without notice, nothing
    is enforceable against a homeowner’s property.

    The trustee’s job for one is to receive and review the allegedly defaulted note and all endorsements, the deed of trust, (if he doesnt’ already have certified copies of the originals, which imo as the trustee he should have gotten upon his initial appointment or sent to anyone upon this substitution) and all assignments of
    the deed of trust. The trustee must ascertain that the party telling him to foreclose is the right party. There is no reasonable argument
    against this. Today’s trustees are not doing any such thing, and that is one of our CORE problems. This failure is right there at the
    heart of what ails us. They don’t get much of anything.
    What they get, I’m told, is a password for the servicer’s database to go in and find the default $$ in the database. (And it’s my
    understanding this gives them carte blanche access to other borrower’s private information, including social security numbers, which for all I know, bad apples would sell.) There is no regard given by the trustee for who owns the note and has rights under the dot. If he doesn’t get the documents, he simply cannot know
    this. How could he, your honor? This is the point to make to
    the court. The trustee seems to be relying solely on the default showing in the database at the servicer’s.

    Given that up until mid 2010, MERS made no attempt to show the noteowner (or whatever they are calling anyone) in its own
    database, which information was made as a strictly voluntary entry by its members with no oversight in the first place, it could not be
    said that trustees have ever had or do have other sources of information beyond the default figures $$ shown in the servicer’s system. Even if a trustee could have or could now access
    noteowner / investor what the heck information in MERS’ database, by its own admission, MERS does not stand on the accuracy of that

    “DISCLAIMER: MERS makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or reliability of the information provided. MERS disclaims responsibility or liability for errors, omissions, and the accuracy of any information provided.
    MERS does not input any of the information found on the MERS® System, but rather the MERS Members have that responsibility regarding mortgage loans in which they hold an interest. Users of
    this information have the responsibility to verify the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information. The information does not constitute the official legal record and is for
    informational purposes only….”

    (show the above to your judge)
    No strictly voluntary or otherwise database is a substitute for the UCC as it applies to notes and the statute of frauds as it applies to deeds of trust and their assignments. There is law or there isn’t.
    There is also no reasonable argument that such reliance (on MERS’ “records”) by a deed of trust trustee, a party with such an important task, would be appropriate.

    The trustees are vulnerable to lawsuits for breach of the ficuciary imposed by the deed of trust or alternatively or additionally for
    violation of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

    The trustee may only act for the beneficiary of the deed of trust, who to gain the benefit of the collateral instrument, the dot, must also own the right to payment evidenced by the debt instrument, the note. The dot only authorizes a trustee to act for the proper party. It does not authorize him to act for anyone else aka

    The trustee cannot do his job without the requisite evidence. The issue then, of course, becomes what evidences anyone’s rights and I opine it’s the note with all endorsements signed by people whose authority is not assumed but is properly evidenced (evidence means something is evident, does it not?) I sometimes say ‘the record does not produce evidence of this or that’. If YOU can’t see it, neither can the trustee or a judge. One reason, but only one, I’m mentioning this is because banksters are having their own employees execute multiple endorsements as officers of this or that company along the note’s way to securitization five minutes before they are forced to produce the note with zero evidence of that authority to endorse (because there is none).

    The trustee not fulfilling his obligations is the start of foreclosure bad news for homeowners, otherwise known as wrongful
    foreclosure. If all the rules had been followed by the lender, its successors and assigns, the trustee could and would be given the appropriate documents he is IN TRUTH to be given to perform
    his duties. This is only logical.

    Today’s players didn’t follow the rules and cannot produce these documents for the trustee.
    So today’s trustee’s are acting as mere collection agents for strangers, strangers even to the trustee. We need to call them on this.

    The deed of trust is a three party instrument and the instrument was created that the trustee would act on behalf of the other two parties – the beneficiary and the trustor (borrower) – so
    lenders could skip judicial foreclosure – with the ‘aid’ of the trustee, a neutral party.
    Someone is getting the benefit of this change away from judicial foreclosure and it isn’t the homeowner. The homeowner is hardly getting the benefit of the bargain when a trusted party, the trustee, is not doing his job. Part of his job is to protect the borrower.

    When trustees abandon their duties to the deed of trust, they should be called out in whatever manner possible, starting with dereliction of duty and breach of fiduciary.
    Imo MERS enables and participates in a lot of bad acts, but that is no excuse for the trustee not fulfilling his obligations to the terms of the deed of trust. He just canNOT do this when he doesn’t get the documents. These trustees need to be nailed for breach of fiduciary when they cannot produce evidence they are acting for the proper party. They are far from bit players; they are major players because it’s their mandate to follow the terms of the deed of trust, to protect the very significant interests of the other two parties, and if they did, strangers wouldn’t be making off with real

    You won’t find these things in any statute. IMO if you want to bring these issues before a court, “issues” being defined as the trustee
    shirking his duties to the dot, you can reasonably stand on two things: the language in the dot which only authorizes a trustee to act for the beneficiary (not a pretender) and logic.
    Logic dictates that a trustee cannot do his job if he does not ascertain that he is being asked to foreclose by the proper party.

    I suppose if one really wanted to go the distance, one could ask (certified mail) the trustee what inquiries he made regarding third
    party payments on one’s note and what responses he got.
    I’m not an attorney. This is not legal advice.

  19. @johngault

    Yes, that’s exactly what the judge said. Its on transcript in response to allegations in Adversary Proceeding. I simply alleged the lender on face of note did not lend anything. The judge took that and made his commentary, but without citations. I am, however, prosecuting this in a Motion to Reconsider which is up for BAP appeal. Two actions, same judge.

    My job is to feed the judge laws, and decisions. I agree, the undisclosed lender argument is now quite common and now frequently alleged. There should be some case law on the matter. California case law, Tila, and Fed?

  20. hman – I’m a little confused by your questions, which is not at all to say they aren’t good ones. The sec’n trustee is not a neutral party where you, the borrower, are concerned. If he has a fiduciary, and as a trustee he does, it’s not to you – it’s to someone else. The deed of trust trustee is supposed to be a neutral party and imo has a dual fiduciary to the other two parties to the dot, borrower (trustor) and the beneficiary. That has been turned into a joke, however. You won’t find it in a statute, though. Where it likely will be found is in the committee notes when the deed of trust was legislated as a collateral instrument avoiding judicial foreclosure, when deeds of trust replaced mortgages in many states. Here is one case on point:

    One court, in Lewis v Jordan Investment, Inc., 725 A.2d 4955 (1999), recognized the long-standing tenet that a trustee has a dual fiduciary:

    “A trustee of deeds has the fiduciary obligation to comply with the powers and duties of the trust instrument, as well as the applicable statute under the District of Columbia Code. Perry v. Virginia Mortgage & Inv. Co., 412 A.2d 1194, 1197 (D.C. 1980) (citations omitted). THIS COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT TRUSTEES OWE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO BOTH THE NOTEHOLDER AND THE BORROWER. S&G Inv., Inc. v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 164
    U.S. App. D.C. 263, 270-71 n. 21, 505 F.2d 370, 377-78 n. 21 (1974)”

    This is not binding in all jurisdictions. It’s interesting to note the court said the ‘noteholder’, not the beneficiary, but I also note this case was decided before “MERS” came along, back when the noteholder was also the beneficiary and shown accordingly in public record. Go to yahoo, type in “lewis v jordan investment” and the decision will come up at a couple sites. I haven’t read it lately, so if you see anything ‘interesting’, tell, tell.

  21. David, now that’s interesting: Your judge said abc could only transfer the interest it had. If the obligation is actually owed to xyz who funded the loan, (but is it since they are not named on the note? – I don’t know) then abc might have had nothing to transfer. If abc had nothing to transfer, what is the value of their initial endorsement on the note? Generally, that initial endorsement would be (from abc) to xyz. This may be a case of first impression for all I know, or then again, maybe not. I suggest a lois law account (or try to get access to westlaw or go sit in a university law library). I’m thinking surely for whatever reason(s), there is a case or two where someone’s brother got named on a note or like that and the argument made it to court. If all the people here who are looking for relief in this vein all researched this issue, there’d be a strike imo. You can share an account $$ if you don’t log in at the same time.

  22. If you have NO case law in your jurisdiction to support your arguments, you should really take a long look at what you are asking the judge.

    SOMETIMES you will have to make arguments that are a matter of first impression but these are still supported in PART by case law and most of the time best left for attorneys to argue.

    The judge is going to be very hesitant to make decisions of first impression, even more so when the person making the argument is Pro SE. You can’t just make up stuff because you THINK you have an argument off of YOUR INTERPRETATION of laws/statutes or some of the babbling idiots on the Internet.

  23. Also,

    What about a trustee’s fiduciary responsiblities. My understanding is that they are supposed to be a “neutral” 3rd party on a DOT. Where is this stated? I have looked up requirements in AZ statues and haven’t found anything specifically addressing this.

    Does anybody know where it is state in Federal, State, UCC etc. where a trustee on a DOT is to be an impartial party?

    My thought is if this can be proven or is law wouldn’t the Trustee on most securitized loans be a conflict of interest? In my case they never directly answer if they are the creditor but say they are the “owner”. These are 2 different things. They are claiming to be the “owner” and the PSA stipulates on behalf of the investors while the MERS database names them as the “Investor” on behalf of the Trust.

    Isn’t that a conflict of interest? How can they be the “investor/owner” and the trustee? What need would there be for a DOT? Might you be able to petition the court to have the trustee replaced on a conflict of interest? Additionally, would it be possible to force them to close judicially in a non-judicial state with this argument. I think if you could accomplish this you might have a good shot.

    Any thoughts please share! Thanks in advance and Happy New Year everyone!

  24. Hello Colleen and David,

    I did a “cashout refiinance” at closing. I have a copy of the wire for the funds I received. Hopefully, this will prove useful in some way. I believe my “lender” was simply a broker. The only problem I see with this is the wire occured several days after closing.

    Where/how did you get the wiring instructions?

    Where did you get the canceled checks?

    Abstract of title? From the title company?

    Is this information available? How do you get it? or is this only through discovery?

  25. @colleen


    Like johngault said, third party lending was the rule. No one even thought about it. The lender on face of note was nothing more than a broker.

    The evidence is easy to get, but you may need discovery. Prosecution is the challenge.

    Anyone else want to chime in on this? Tila, Federal Reserve regs, case laws?

  26. David,
    I too have proof of third party, undisclosed lender in form of ABA wire, title co. receipt Plus all the ckecks written against this fraudulent bank account created by the escrow officer! Also the lenders instructions and I’ve recently asked for the abstract of title from them.
    Yes, they balk and tell lies to me to not give us this info, but they eventually do. What am I gonna DO with this info?
    SUE the crap out of them-
    Because I didn’t get this info till after the foreclosure, sale, and the fact that people bought my home now sense last July.
    I do plan on getting my home back and I to am working at how to…if you you want to contact me leave me your email. glad to see another with this info……

  27. @
    Johngault &

    “What will a court say about abc being on the note when xyz really funded it?”

    I have the evidence before a court of equity. The judge is concerned and has previously stated that If the lender on the face of the note did not fund the note, then they could only transfer the rights it had. The ground work is done. The judge thinks this is a legal problem. The other side has to brief this issue of their claim on a note that was funded by an undisclosed party.

    In anticipation, I’m looking for the legal arguments to move the judge to act. It’s often stated here that “the note does not describe the obligation”. The judge is not interested in abstractions and legal theories. To rule against a Wall Street Bank, now before the court, the judge needs laws, cases.

  28. Nora C, — ha ha

    Explained many times here — few pay attention – too busy running. Sort of like a horse running with blinders on. Blinders also known as blinkers or winkers. Need to get the blinkers off. .

  29. […] 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, HOGAN, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WAMU, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  30. @foreclosureinfosearch at 5:43

    Hah! funny. Maggots clean up, I get it. But how do I get the judge to order discovery on that ABA wire, cause I need that.

    (You sir, are salubrious!)

  31. David

    The notion of a failed proper disclosure is correct to that extent that it violates Reg X and Sec 8. Or does it? If you avoid the “bait” claims for disclosures — which is lost to a term or staute of limitations , what emerges are the de facto arguments.

    Cubed 2k is someone I want for sure if I am caught in an ambush behind enemy lines. But the rage is clouding your internal brilliance (which I do see quite often).

    There is no pretender lender. Actually what you have is somthing we intend to bring into an adversery in “Garolaga Vs CWHL” 2011 as a defacto beneficary .

    Defacto beneficary amongst emerging entities under a privately held business combination sheme. trust and trustee

    Point is where one trustee to a deed handed trust property “shares” to another, who proceeds to apply it to his own uses “trust shares back to mortgage” and then decamped. It was held that under the circumstances the entrusting of the proceeds in this fashion to one of the trustees constituted negeleigence on the part of the other and that he was liable to make good the loss.

  32. @david – don’t have any answers for you, but I sure as heck hope you are able to get it before the court. I am a former ‘lender’. Been years now since I got out. We were very ‘straight’ and also didn’t do subprime, for example. Every loan which closed with my company’s name on the note was funded by some other company – yes, the wire to title (with some exception when we had our own warehouse line). I saw nothing untoward about it and at the time, there was really nothing untoward about it – no harm was caused or intended to the borrower. That has all changed, imo. Harm is being intended and caused to the borrower. For one thing, the very entity which created the loan program and underwrote the loan file (which is not the entity which originated the loan file) is now claiming it has no liability for all the bs like RESPA and TILA violations, ridiculous appraisals, etc. Believe me, when a company is going to fund a loan, they don’t do so without looking at every, every thing, including the final Truth in Lending Reg Z, which ftr is where borrowers will find cause for rescission (and courts are now ruling ‘tender’ is not required until the alleged current lender has done x,y, and z first). And also ftr, from the cases I reviewed a couple years ago, it looks like the clock starts ticking on the date of the discovery of the violation, not some 1 or 3 year time and bzzt! times up.
    What will a court say about abc being on the note when xyz really funded it? Got me, but-and-so like I said, I hope you are able to get it before the court. Will a court say ‘ that’s interesting, David, but how were you harmed by this?’ Got me. Is damage a necessary element
    to achieve what you hope? Got me, but I would think you need to know before you bring this issue before a court. People posit here that it’s the death-knell for the loan if the note does not describe the real transaction: got me. It’s likely true, but I can’t explain why if so.

  33. @Lone Wolf

    Um, that’s a terroristic threat, and you put yourself in jeopardy when you do that! While it might be very satisfying, and OMG do they deserve it, you can’t do that stuff without running the risk of getting “suicided” or “disappeared” now that they’ve put NDAA on the books! Be careful. Let’s just put them in jail, not us.

  34. Mr G said:

    “What it means to own the note.

    If the forecloser actually owns the note, then
    the likelihood is that the forecloser has every
    right to foreclose or sell the property by
    whatever means are legally provided in the state
    in which the property is located……”

    This is a fact not even remotely in evidence and
    is only true if 1) a deed of trust (AZ is a title theory state) follows the note which imo it does not, unlike the “mortgage” in Carpenter,
    or 2) if the noteowner is the recipient of a bona fide assignment of the deed of trust, which written assignment is mandated by the statute of frauds if nothing else.

    2) They want the Wamu deal unpublished because
    MERS’ assignments are in a matter of time and
    course going to be outlawed as the illegitimate
    docs they are, and so the banksters will struggle, shall we say, with the deed of trust assignments: there won’t be any. That will leave
    them to stand only on alleged possession of the notes. My guess is they want possession of the notes to be the one and only controlling factor as they (banksters) are forced to move away from
    the non-existant and impossible assignments of the dots. (They will then posit the dot follows the note so what the heck, who cares about the deed of trust and its assignment?)

    3) The post draws a distinction between the note and the obligation it evidences, which is no doubt true. But there is no law, none, per se whereby a court will determine that what should have been done (a note should have been signed, a borrower meant to give his home as collateral, Mary gave Sue Ellen 5.00 for the wagon but Mary didn’t get the wagon) will be or is done. This is strictly an equitable remedy, and on occasion, courts do impose an equitable remedy. It may be possible that a court of equity may
    find in favor of the obligee when the obligor has received the benefit of the bargain, but the adjudication’s source is found in equity, not in statute (and such an adjudication may have a
    different bar than if it were of a statutory nature. I can’t remember.

    But, there is NO equitable remedy available for a thing which is statutory and has not been done. An assignment (or any conveyance of an interest in real property) is regulated by
    statute: the statute of frauds. And just because one statute says an assignment needn’t be recorded doesn’t mean the damn thing
    didn’t have to be DONE. And if there’s no notice by recordation or SOMEthing, an assignment is not enforceable against the homeowner.

    4) Mr G said regarding mortgages and deeds of trust:

    “But in Arizona and other states some distinctions have been drawn, making the foreclosure a private sale to which the
    homeowner agreed and therefore there is no requirement of due process.”

    There is a distinction between a mortgage and a deed of trust, and it’s a mighty distinction I have cited many times.
    There is NEVER a time when there is NO requirement of due process. WithOUT due process – in any regard, in any case before any court – there is no law and there can be NO meaningful
    determination / adjudication – ever. To borrow Mr G’s words, the ‘sticky wicket’ is what constitutes due process. That’s the inquiry. Further, “there is no trial without discovery”
    (the banksters know this and that’s one reason they file all those mtns to dismiss/ summary judgment).
    No individual in this country may lawfully be stripped of his property without due process.
    Woefully, this centuries-old tenet of the law – the inalienable right to due process – has been trampled and spit on by banksters and the
    judiciary alike… the bankster with malice and the judiciary by ignorance, well as to judicial ignorance vrs malice, one can only hope.

    5) Credit bids….grrr….got that one pegged, Mr. G, UNless a contract which is not ever (not ever) in evidence gives a third party a right to make a credit bid for the creditor. I have never seen such a contract, nor this credit bid issue in the small print of any other contract and I doubt they exist other than in the imaginations of the banksters.

  35. Millions Of Americans Are Realizing They Can Default On Their Mortgage And Live Scot-Free For Years

    Mandi Woodruff|Dec. 29, 2011, 9:02 AM|9,622|69

    An Absurdly Low Number Of Foreclosure Sales Were Completed In 2011

    If you’re planning on ditching your mortgage payments and letting your home fall into foreclosure, now just may be the time to do it.

    Thanks to record long waits for foreclosure reviews this year, 40 percent of homeowners in default have been sitting pretty in their homes for the last two years without paying a dime, CNN Money reports.

    And they know exactly what they’re doing.

    Read more:

  36. Why don’t you do that yourself, wolfie, and let me know how that works out? Leftist pussies? nice try, asshole. You want us to *67 and make a phone call? Letter bombs? How about some fake bombs?

    Now here’s a guy who wants somebody to do something stupid. He’s a baiter. He’s a master. He’s a master baiter. Don’t buy into this one, folks.

    Neil, send me the ISP, I’ll give it to my friends at DOJ.

  37. ANONYMOUS, on December 29, 2011 at 7:47 pm said:

    Peace Happy New Year

  38. Is anyone able to comment on this?

    “The reason there is a problem is that the obligation in most cases arises between the party who loaned the money (an undisclosed remote investor) and the borrower, while the note refers to a transaction in which the loan originator loaned the money to the borrower. Thus the note is incorrect in its identification of the lender. The novel issue that will eventually be presented and considered by the court is whether the obligation is secured by the mortgage or deed of trust or if the security agreement has been eviscerated by the incorrect identification of the lender (which is a violation of the Truth in Lending Act).”

    I have proof of third party, undisclosed lender in form of ABA wire, title co. receipt and need to know how to prosecute. Case laws?

  39. Certain Wall St firms go down only because all insiders agree to such event happening to let the People know.

    You have to think like a criminal. You have to assume that viewpoint. A criminal is one who wishes to get something from nothing. This is not to be confused from one who wishes to buy low and sell higher, which is free market.

  40. if you got mortgage thru a broker, who thru broken chain then passed it on to soverign bank, who then thru broken chain passed it on to wells fargo , who is now just the servicer and never passed it onto fannie mae who is the investor……who in this clusterfuck has standing to foreclose ?????

  41. npv-

    “Not enough money on the planet to unwind that mess.”

    But of course———-it’s all leverage

    I had a stock trading account with 10 to 1 leverage.

    If right on a stock trade, you make big bucks. If wrong, you are in debt.

    To what or wh? Just book keeping entry. Not actual money lent.

    Banks do not lend your money deposited with them. But you think they do. Nor do any Wall St firms, lend any money.

    Funny, but you are on the hook if it doesn’t go right in trading. But yet they never lost anything because, really, no actual money was lent, only leveraged money was lent. Nice deal for those that issue credit.

    Stay away from the banks when it comes to borrowing.

  42. Come on Neil, the Fed Reserve has already expanded the definition of “lender” to be the creditor, according to the TILA, and the creditor is not the one standing in the court. Fed Res Opinion is NOW codified as rule to the TILA. And, creditor is not the servicer, and is not security investors, and not trustee for security investors. Creditor is not the REMIC, or any other pass-through.

    Must we all bring actions under the TILA??? Or will attorneys and courts finally get it?? Hope you have this in your seminars.

    And, Trespass Unwanted has an excellent point — you pay anyone you do not owe—– and you still owe it!!!!

    And, foreclosureinfosearch, has good points. Question to him is — how did it get that way (as to analysis) in the first place??? Go back, cowboy, go back even further. Talk again then.

  43. As I stated in a previous article. It is not about mortgages or notes, it is strictly about cash flow.

    Jamie Dimon made the United States Taxpayer eat 30 billion in losses through Maiden Lane LLC (you at least think they would have been more creative than using their street address), which absorbed the Bear Stearns debacle. The 30 billion had nothing to do with mortgages or notes. It was the cash flow that would be lost on the pools over until the trust(s) matured. They keep us focused on mortgages and blah blah blah, because they do not care about the mortgages, they are gone and stripped out through MERS.

    They are focused on cash flow because they FED wouldn’t let them hit the the swap provider. The Fed [errant] thought they had controlled the the unwind and fear by clamping down on the one bad apple. Turns out they were all bad apples and the counter party risk runs deep. The swaps are tied to synthetic swaps and the chain of derivative exposure is far more convoluted then titles.

    Second, they cannot go back because none of the lenders except the Seller / Donor bank conveyed. When this is all exposed folks will see the assets / mortgages were never assigned to any pools, just cash flow. The mortgages still sit on the balance sheet of the N.A.

    That is exactly what HARP is about – rebuilding Title on the folks who will default in two years when we are dealt the next leg down. The public sector demise. it’s coming folks. HAMP is about the same thing, fix some of them, get some cash flow to cover balance sheet liabilities (i.e taxes and insurance) and rebuild an equity claim for federal court. They know where we are headed, they just need to do some housekeeping with the asset chain first. Just look at a HAMP modification and see who the lender is after the trial period. Hell, look at any of them to see who the lender is. Take Notice that it is not the certificate holders.

    its really simple guys – tell Congress to enforce FASB 2008 Mark Rules and the banks go away the next day. Not enough money on the planet to unwind that mess.

  44. We the people need to change the rules?

    How do WE do that?

    We don’t need those banks to change the rules?

    How come they can change the rules, and we can’t?

    Why fight the rules, why not change the rules, or the Federal Reserve System of Banks?

  45. I’ll tell you who debt collectors are………..

    they are the so called free market enterprise system created after the S&L crisis, after Glass Steagal was repelled. They are the hidden cops on the beat, created to keep you in line and keep you paying on those so called money lent, but just wall st created paper to trade. They are funded by wall st and others are allowed to enter in to call it a free market. They have changed the BK laws to keep you paying on defaulted debt that is written off the books, but nevertheless sold for pennies on the dollar so as to create another profit source. Junk Debt Buyers are buying junk,,,,,,,,,it’s a word created to confuse, it ain’t junk,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,because enter in the court system,,,,,,,,,,,,and now it is a windfall, as 95% of the people dont fight or can confront going to court or can afford a lawyer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it ain’t junk debt,,,,,,,,,,it means windfall………..

    There you go.

  46. Soliman

    as you state below-

    “SEC. 301. Gain or loss from sale or exchange of certain preferred stock”

    STOCK, stock, stock, stock, stock——–
    equals===================WALL STREET

    God damn it———–

    There you go——

    Wall Street is the MASTER…………

    No doubt about it————-

    AS you state and quote in your posting……….SEC. 301. Gain or loss from sale or exchange of certain preferred stock

    It’s all RULES based on Wall Street trading………………

    And here we are trying to figure it out, like wow dude, who created the rules, wow dude,,,,,,,,,I think Wall Street created the rules back in 1913 and wow dude they have been adding to the rules,,,,,,,,,,,,but enter in Consumer Protection Rules……….that makes me feel good, we got Protection from those evil bastards,,,,,,,,hey who are those that we need protection from? Where did they come from? And how is the Government doesn’t know about them?

    Oh, that would be the Government, people we hired to protect us, I guess protecting us from the lenders of money, but those money lenders are the Banks. Holy Cow Batman, say question. Why do we need protection from the banks? Why do we need rules? Why do we need protection from money lenders who are approved by the Government to lend money?

    Why do we need debt collector laws? Why must a debt collector now only call between 8am and 5 pm or whatever the stupid rule is? WHYYYYYYYYYY?

    I’m sorry I’m being a two year kid that asks Why? all the time.

    So tell me why we need protection from a debt collector? Who is collecting a debt for another?

  47. NG-why do they refer to the forecloser as a “lender?”

    One is a creditor to a commerical obligation NG The other is to a mortgage.

    The other you say – what other ?

    There’s a reason for the world, you and I …and no assignment .
    Moot argument preacher.


  48. Cracks me up………….

    why in the world, the whole wide world,,,,,,,,,,,do we, the people have to go thru all this crap…………to figure it out,,,,,,,,,,,who owns what really, was it legal, was it just, was it moral…………..what are the actual exchanges of money, was money lent, was it credit, was it promise to pay??????????????

    what a world we live in thanks to Wall St from the year 1913……….thank you very much………..

    what a game,,,,,,,,who can get away with what if it is written or not or simply a play on words, double meaning of words………..and the courts rule by past rulings……..who made them GODS.


  49. Anyone want to talk about jurisdicition ….

    Regulatory authority.—The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate may prescribe such guidance, rules, or regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

    (f) Effective date.—This section shall apply to sales or exchanges occurring after December 31, 2007, in taxable years ending after such date.

  50. How, how do they dilute equity into common and common into preferred. How How does he know they ask

    They ask where, where does Fannie and freddie fit is to the sin —…Beth I hear you calling – But I am heading out to boot camp sweets; Now as for the questions you left from your arguments…I beleive the following my find you peace.

    SEC. 301. Gain or loss from sale or exchange of certain preferred stock.(a) In general.—For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, gain or loss from the sale or exchange of any applicable preferred stock by any applicable financial institution shall be treated as ordinary income or loss.

    (b) Applicable preferred stock.—For purposes of this section, the term “applicable preferred stock” means any stock—

    (1) which is preferred stock in—

    (A) the Federal National Mortgage Association, established pursuant to the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq.), or

    (B) the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, established pursuant to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), and

    (2) which—

    (A) was held by the applicable financial institution on September 6, 2008, or

    (B) was sold or exchanged by the applicable financial institution on or after January 1, 2008, and before September 7, 2008.

    (c) Applicable financial institution.—For purposes of this section:

    (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the term “applicable financial institution” means—

    (A) a financial institution referred to in section 582(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or

    (B) a depository institution holding company (as defined in section 3(w)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(w)(1))).

    (2) SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN SALES.—In the case of—

    (A) a sale or exchange described in subsection (b)(2)(B), an entity shall be treated as an applicable financial institution only if it was an entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) at the time of the sale or exchange, and

    (B) a sale or exchange after September 6, 2008, of preferred stock described in subsection (b)(2)(A), an entity shall be treated as an applicable financial institution only if it was an entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) at all times during the period beginning on September 6, 2008, and ending on the date of the sale or exchange of the preferred stock.

    (d) Special rule for certain property not held on September 6, 2008.—The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate may extend the application of this section to all or a portion of the gain or loss from a sale or exchange in any case where—

    (1) an applicable financial institution sells or exchanges applicable preferred stock after September 6, 2008, which the applicable financial institution did not hold on such date, but the basis of which in the hands of the applicable financial institution at the time of the sale or exchange is the same as the basis in the hands of the person which held such stock on such date, or

    (2) the applicable financial institution is a partner in a partnership which—

    (A) held such stock on September 6, 2008, and later sold or exchanged such stock, or

    (B) sold or exchanged such stock during the period described in subsection (b)(2)(B).

    (e) Regulatory authority.—The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate may prescribe such guidance, rules, or regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

    (f) Effective date.—This section shall apply to sales or exchanges occurring after December 31, 2007, in taxable years ending after such date.


  51. Why is the IRS issuing combo 1099’s under “A” for Abandonment and “C” for cancellation of debt. This esecially in a non judicial “one action state”. They email and say answer that …please answer that!

    Under TARP / SEC. 118. Funding.
    For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the

    ** proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended or obligated by the Secretary for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses,

    ** shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure or obligation. ***

    You cannot foreclose without a liquidation of stock .The stock converts the equitable interest in title held bare andlegal back into debt by novation or recapitalization. This one begat that and that one begat this and low and behold ….you got yourself back into a mortgage and they are foreclosing . Been on Wall Street for 20 years and I dont understand any of this fitted sheet.

    Now, here I sit under the laundry mat vent baking the cookies of discontent. Then while leaving my soul I say . . . . Why or how can they take bare and legal title to the home …

    I say to issue a five year Bond through foriegn banks like Duetsche Bank, HSBC and Barclays Bank. Now, as Bob the builder says – How does he know this..How. I got to know how?

    Well Rob Bob who ever you are – read this – (from TARP)

    SEC. 112. Coordination with foreign authorities and central banks.
    The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

    But as the Attorneys in Sac and Michigan pointed out – how …how does he know. He is nuts I tell you …He cannot know…he is crazy . Where does he comeup with this five year bond…james bond

    Well my JD’s from Hades , read up , suppp

    SEC. 134. Recoupment.Upon the expiration of the *** 5-year period ***** beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, (rollover) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall submit a report to the Congress on the net amount within the Troubled Asset Relief Program under this Act. In any case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt.

    Next – where do we find “conversion sufficient to convert debt to equity —Never mind – Forget it ..

    RESPA, TILA, apple pie, appraial Fraud and Fila…yeah there you go . Go plead that …

    Not licensed to practice law. Only a licensed attorney knows for sure and can represent your interests in a court of law. Contact your state bar for more information.

  52. Sounds like a reason for this maxim:

    “Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give. ”

    Kind of puts a homeowner in a catch 22 with the Legal Maxim if they do not owe someone who does not have a note and don’t want to pay them because that means they would know they don’t owe them and are giving them the money.

    Kind of puts the judges in a bad way to rule that One must pay someone they don’t owe because that someone doesn’t have the note. Whoever pays by mistake (even by judicial mistake) what he does not owe, may recover it back.

    Yes, lets see how this works since there is no ‘rule of law’, and judges have created law from the bench.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent People

  53. US Homeowners are Economic Maggots.

    Here is the crux of flux for making an argument

    ABA Wire = Mortgage
    Mortgage = debt
    Debt = WH Lines
    WH lines = Receivable
    Receivable = basis in assets
    Basis in assets = equitable interest
    Equitable interest = Consideration
    (someone stop him – censure him …Crabby please)
    Consideration = common stock
    Common stock = diluted preferred stock
    Diluted preferred stock = 10 X Value

    $100,000 per loan = $1 million Hones, Bones, BoNY,
    Bank of New York, FHLBB (call the rip off report)

    Every foreclosure starts with a new Mers Loan.
    No Mers Loan is a flat market
    A flat market is no robust condition
    No robust condition is to the presidents a call to HARP

    HARP is therefore necessary to foreclose on homeowners.
    (Please, God someone ..make him stop . Stop him – homes can be saved…Ahhh)

    US Foreclosure – you’re only as good as your credit score and your home..with or without you …there is still a home.

    US Homeowners are economic Maggots.

  54. Are you all leftist pussies? Write these bastards tell the that you take this personally and are going to take them out , put the fear of God in them , grow a pair

  55. This sounds great! wish they would hurry and make a decision before i lose my house in AZ !

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: