ROBOSIGNING IN RESALES AND REFINANCING: MASSIVE TITLE PROBLEM

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

In reviewing the title chain going back further than the current homeowner in foreclosure, I discovered some familiar names, like Linda Green, who signed a satisfaction of mortgage on one deal that was “refinanced.” Up until now, we have been focused strictly on the current customer who is the current homeowner or last person to own the property before it was sold at “auction” for a “credit bid.”

The reason we limit our search to a specific loan (which is why it is called a loan specific title search) is that going back further takes a lot more time and work, it is more expensive, and the Judges wrinkle their noses at the prospect of dredging up old transactions in which the homeowner in front of them was not a party. But like it or not, these findings indicate that Judges are going to need to take a close look at issues, if they are presented to the Judge, when there is a question of clear title back before the current homeowner got involved.

Based upon my sampling, it would appear that the use of “surrogate signors” (robosigners) was pandemic in the processing of transactions in which there was a sale of a home or refinancing of a home in which the “old” mortgage was replaced by a “new” mortgage. It makes sense since the old originator was often not even in existence at the time of the new transaction.

The “old” mortgage appears to be signed in many cases by a party that is a known robosigning name, in which it is doubtful that that Linda Green signed the document, doubtful that whoever did sign the satisfaction of mortgage on the “old” loan ever had the authority to do so, or ever knew what they were signing.

It gets worse. If the sampling is correct, then that means the payoff on the “old” mortgage went to the wrong party and the entity that signed the satisfaction of mortgage (or release and reconveyance in non-judicial states) was also the wrong party. That means there is a giant hole, not just a break, in the chain of title. It also means that for those who entered into such transactions, they might think they only have one mortgage, but they might have two or more mortgages that remain unsatisfied in their title chain.

The title companies are well aware of this issue, based upon my interviews with people who are in the title business, including the head of one title company. Whose obligation is it to clear the title and when should the effort be made to clear the title? Normally the industry practice is to take care of title problems as soon as they are discovered to avoid consequential financial damages to the homeowner when it comes time to resell or refinance the property. This process could take years of litigation. The old title policies don’t contain exclusions for securitization claims, so you can apply pressure to them to clear up the problem. But I already know that the line they are going to use is that “we did not insure that risk.”

The buyers of foreclosed properties should look carefully at the title policy they are receiving. It is almost guaranteed that the title policy excludes the risks outlined in this article. You need to argue for removal of those exclusions from the commitment and the policy. It is unfortunately necessary to check on the title company and order your own title search from someone who understands about robosigning, title, and securitization. Going back to previous owners is more expensive than the usual loan specific title search we do. So we are working up a service that fulfills this need in the least expensive way possible.

In the meanwhile, if you want your title policy analyzed by one of our experts, you can write to neilfgarifeld@hotmail.com and you will be given a quote for the work to be done. It will include a title search going back in time to as far as the 1990’s and an analysis of the documents of record to detect any potential problems in the title chain caused by claims of securitization. Your attorney, if you have one, should be questioned before you enter into any of these transactions. If he or she is unfamiliar with the issues of robosigning, securitization and fabricated documents, you made need to search for someone who does understand it.


21 Responses

  1. Agenda 21 Coming Soon To Local Communities All Over America
    By Michael, on December 23rd, 2012
    Have you ever heard of Agenda 21? If not, don’t feel bad, because most Americans haven’t. It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 counties (signed into “soft law” by George Bush Sr.) and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits. In 1994 the President’s Council for Sustainable Development was created via Executive Order by Bill Clinton to begin coordinating efforts at the Federal level to make the US Agenda 21 compliant.

    US Government and Private Sector Invest in Agenda 21 Light Rail Systems
    Susanne Posel
    Occupy Corporatism
    September 27, 2012
    In Portland, Oregon, a recent vote on the construction of a light rail system that would stretch across the state will use federal funding to continue the construction of this high-speed transportation system. A loan from Bank of America was obtained by county commissioners for $19.3 million to cover the $1.5 billion project.
    In Ballard, Washington State, a $6 million study will be conducted at the taxpayer’s expense to devise how receptive Washitonians will be toward having a light rail constructed that would connect certain Seattle neighborhoods such as the University District, Northgate and Roosevelt.
    Detroit, Michigan will see the privately-funded light rail system begin construction as US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood concluded his visit to Detroit with his group of private investors. Called M-1 Rail, this endeavor is being sustained by contributors such as the Kresge Foundation, Quicken, Compuware, the Penske Corp., Wayne State University, Detroit Medical Center and Henry Ford Health System; as well as federal funding and tax credits to the state. LaHood is pushing the necessity of this transportation system as a connection between regions and a starting point for regional concepts to replace independent states in the psychology of the general public.
    A report published by Thomas A. Garrett, a senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Missouri describes the necessity of light-rail systems throughout the continental US as a sound economic development. Garrett explains that: “the idea that rail transit can promote economic development with the cooperation of city officials and private developers is known as transit-oriented development (TOD). Although TOD is one goal of any public transportation system, officials see light rail as a particularly amenable tool for spurring economic development.”
    Using the false reality of job creation, citizen preferences of trains over personal cars, mitigation of air pollution and alleviating traffic congestion are justifications that coerce the general public to support the construction of light-rail systems in their communities. The truth is that these expensive endeavors create solvency of citizens and state governments to the construction and operating costs of light-rail systems. Sacramento, California is spending $18 million and Portland, Oregon is spending $24 million. Passenger generated revenue will not make a feasible return in profits. There must be another reason for this sudden push for high-speed rail systems to litter the American landscape.
    The high speed railway is the brainchild of America 2050 , a non-governmental organization that supports Agenda 21 policies in the US. The latest initiative of these globalists is called “rebuilding and Renewing America” which is a response to forcing high-speed rails instead of investing money into repairing roads, bridges and current infrastructure.

  2. pacific standard time nevada

  3. @SH

    Just out of curiosity what time zone are you in?

  4. Nevadas AB 284 robosigning law has helped the banks delay their losses and caused a bump an artificial bump in prices.
    http://www.shortsaleczar.com/ab284-short-sale-cash-back.html

  5. @MD I understand—too well–i would recommend that you preceed all letters and filings with or to anybody with a statement to that effect–state the source of the fmv–and the calced amount—-eventually there will be a review as to whether or not the reviews and treatment were rational—-not adversely affected by the self interest of the intermediary servicer collection agency—-representing only collection rights usurped from investors

  6. @ DCB- Yes I could afford that payment! The modified trial payment I paid on time for 18 months was more than that. WHAT LENDER???????????The mortgage is a Countrywide, American Wholesale Lenders loan! So many things wrong!!! If you saw the title and securitization audit you would not be asking me if I could afford the FMV payment. The whole thing should be null and void! I understand my frustration is the same as many. There are just so many of us who cannot get help. So many who cannot afford a lawyer and the banks and title companies count on IT! They lie right to you basically with the attitude, get a lawyer. I’m in SC.

  7. @MD

    I do not mean to be callous. but you are expressing same same frustration as millions. mosrt readers here too.

    I have an academic question:
    What would you like for the lender to do?
    Can you afford a pmt that would amortize the current FMV of the house over 30 yrs at 4%?

    Im trying to get a sense of what their most worthy rejections look like?

    what state are you in?

  8. My title insurance covers defective title and they denied my claim….Said it was my fault because I signed the mortgage…..that all of the twisted crap the bank did to my title I basically agreed to by signing the mortgage….So sick of the lies and the bullshit and no consumer protection…I’m no better off than when I started fighting all of this more than 2 yrs ago. Except I have been diagnosed with EXTREME ANXIETY…

    BOA sent me a packet saying my last 2 options are deed in lieu or short sale. Its all a bunch of BS…I refuse to send them mountains of paperwork for either one of these fraudulent offers so that in the end they foreclose anyway because of FDIC…They used a signature of mine to transfer my loan from BAC back to BOA NA!

    All of that done after I had never been late on a payment on my home and they told me I qualified for a modification and would be permanently modified after 3 trial payments. You know, that whole circus..18 on time payments later DENIED…I have learned so much! I also know the cash for keys, deeds in lieu, short sales they are offering…well I researched complaints online and the same BS…fax and re-fax paperwork…These programs are nothing but smoke and mirrors…I have reached out to many lawyers….NONE are interested in taking my case! My credit is ruined, BOA turned me into them last summer. The phone rings at least 10 times a day….I refuse to listen to the BS anymore. I spent $$$ on a title and securitization audit that makes it clear to me the level of fraud but it cannot help me when I go to court when they foreclose.

  9. Why the Fuss, What the Funk, Where’s the Fraud or better yet “Who’s the Fool”. I say “WTF” to my esteem counselor in deposition.

    They call and say – you’re the only case to remand in CA history and it cannot be published therefore worthless.

    I say . . . I appreciate that.

    Gag Me Bubba Gag it

    They call and say – 24 wins NOW 25 COMBINED TO DATE. They say, the court erred. I say “perhaps” and then say .. .I do appreciate that.

    Some say of 25 years experience in the secondary and capital markets…so what. Shoe salesmen, IT specialists and even those admitted to bar say….show me the cases, case law they say. . . I am a case so show me a case.

    Now now ….ya all settle down

    They cite the complexity of the steeped statute of frauds and failure to name a fiduciary by all other standards – who is in fact a fiduciary at time of the borrowers grievance . . .

    while they fail to see accounting is an “instant” undisputable fraud where entered onto public reporting requirements.

    So they talk about Robo and Bobo the assignee, Harry having met Sally, UCC, ABC and 123, consumer gender, the great pretender and title bender, Calamity Wide Homegrown Links and BofA or Broke out of America, judicial standing while carving and sanding . . . The PSA NBA and MTA at shoe sales and boot camps, audits by Nellie, peanut butter and jelly . . . They call to inform and write to incite economic hatred…..and then say ….

    Who, who are you and How, How does he know!

    I am no legend and I assert no “grip off” of MS Fruit with a link or thread. And I am not ever offered a open arm welcome here …that’s for sure….

    But I am here to say —–You did it. YOUR DONE YESSSSS

    You’re walking on air. By Hook crook nag or “Gag” it is you who ordered this moment in the sun. Neither of us can take anything away from the help of those who helped you sue – the quarterback.

    There, is the party you brought in to take over. It was after the system and subject of the disclaimer requirements broke you and lets us both down…there we came back – But you came back …you not I or anyone else

    . . . And now look – You **prevailed***.

    My dear, its signed sealed and delivered and yours. Nothing else here matters – you’re free to go now. It doesn’t really matter. They won’t listen anyway ….no worries. My involvement makes you guilty by association. LOL

    Enjoy your new dawn and day in the spotlight. Now you can close this nasty and vile book and never ever look back again. As for me, I’ll be here . . . as long as I am still allowed to post ….drop by and say hi sometime. But do move on as this is not the way a Life was ever meant to be lived

    Congrats …let this gavle drop – Done

    you did it!

  10. Neil, thanks for responding to my question in the previous post. I will organize some information and ask you what you can do.

  11. 1st thing is demand attys put poas on record–that will help—unsinged is toilet paper

  12. Does anyone know if my copy of the nod needs a signature. It isn’t signed and Recon trust is named as an agent for the beneficiary which is mers. any help Thanks Bill

  13. ? Should I admit we owe this debt below or change the language

    However, this assertion is totally flawed because Plaintiff has never asserted that he does not owe the debt evidenced by the Promissory Note, and in fact admits that he executed the Promissory Note. See Plaintiff’s FAC, § 4.2, p. 4. Rather, Plaintiff’s core argument on this issue as clearly articulated in his FAC (and now reiterated in his SAC), is that none of the Defendants have ever provided a shred of proof to establish that the Plaintiff owes the subject

  14. On the one hand how the heck to do they securitize loans with no title policy? On the other hand they never check anything and/or the loans never get processed via the PSA anyhow.

    Also we know that if they are willing to cut out $30 worth of recordation costs via MERS they would LOVE to cut out $1500 per loan by buying out Stewart and somehow hiding this.

    The problem that I have caught them in whether it is a lender policy or not (WF and Stewart try to claim I have A. no title claim and B. lender’s policy not owners)… I have persisted into getting this to the FL dept of insurance because the title agent STOLE $1500 which is right on the HUD1 sheet. As I explained over the phone. There either exists a current title insurance policy or there does not.

    It really makes me think there is something bigger underneath all this.

  15. There is something going on with this title insurance. in my case i had stewart title owners policy at $250k via ABC small title agency in FL. interesting although i did not chose them I ended up with a refi with ABC title agent again and a $312k refi lender Stewart policy.

    Funny thing i have found out later is that Stewart says they have no policy which means that ABC title (now defunct) may have walked off with my $1500 premium (Stewart will be liable for this). Wells Fargo (who owns 23% of stewart) responds by telling me go pound sand via QWR.

    I filed insurance fraud with FL and they are investigating. I am 99% sure there was never a policy funded (per my papers and per pestering a Stewart Ins investigator/rep).

    Leads me to believe what the Anonymous character here says about recycling the prior $200k loan although in my case my previous loan was purchase and non-securitized/non-MERS (I think).

    But at the very least I think can sue for $1500 plus interest plus QWR fines for WF.

    $1500 is nothing in money terms but I think it demonstrates what was going on in terms of scalping fees etc and the obligation/paperwork not being what it was presented.

    I also have used this as my basis to withhold payment because they wrecked the title chain so badly.

    I would like to demand that they repay me and/or correct the chain of title and put a title policy in place (which I will have a field day with of course at this point).

    Other borrowers should check their lender policies especially in Florida.

  16. @NPV

    “why would the lender require their own title policy? Because that is what they assign along the chain to keep the money in the system. ”

    Are you stating that there are two title insurance policies–one with the owner as named beneficiary, with the lender as co-beneficiary to the extent of his lien?—and another directly payable to the lender and his successors?

  17. Court Order for CHASE HELOC Consumer :

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/10/WaMuClass.pdf

  18. Great follow-up article. As you are now discovering after Matt’s eye-opening piece. “You need look no further than mutual indemnification and why they do it. Who is Stewart going to sue, fidelity? That is why when a refinance is done they are not intently issuing a new policy. They are reissuing a policy on a refinance and old issues that arise are covered under mutual indemnification which reverts back through all the refis to the owner policy, and they will simply say it was an exception and omitted from coverage because it occurred after the owner policy.

    That is the key part everyone misses. They make you buy an insurance policy for the owner and the lender? Why? The policy for the homeowner would be paid out and the Note and Mortgage would still have to be satisfied by the Obligatory that executed the Note, or would they? Ask yourself, why would the lender require their own title policy? Because that is what they assign along the chain to keep the money in the system. You can’t assign an owner policy to a successor when nothing of value has been conveyed from inception.

    Most important, as this article now makes clear and by how far Neil’s search goes back, you can see that the fraud began many years prior to what we currently focus on. In fact, it began with Drexel back in 1986. Don’t be victim, you are being defrauded!

  19. but they might have two or more mortgages that remain unsatisfied in their title chain.

    And the original notes may be floating out there ——

    quiet title needed—its the cure–must name the state vis escheat to cover your bases

  20. Neil,
    This is what I asked about a year and a half ago.

    I noticed after reading this blog for months I should go look at the documents in the court for my home. I did new purchace in 2005 and a refi in 2007 same broker. I noticed the satisfaction in the file for the refi was Docx and had two popular robo signers on it and I wondered then if I had two loans floating out there rather than one.

    The “What if was to great!!!”

    Thank goodness for me I claimed Chapter 7 in 2008 so as the judge says I am no longer personally responsible for anything on this property. The fact remains I still live here and would love to keep the home and pay my obligation but to whom is the question. I never reaffirmed and will not for the over inflated value and fraud. The pretender lender just auction it off this past spring and took back through “Specified Bid” per the auctioneer and no one bid so it went back to the bank for for 1/2 what they wanted from us on an Option Arm Loan. Neil I seem to remember to make sure you question the Motion for Relief of Stay but it was to late for me I had already been through the process. That is when I decided to research and fight and that I have.
    I remember my Title Policy when I purchased new was with Stewart Title and when we did the refi the lender suggested we just us that policy since the house was only two years old and we were doing a refi. It will be interesting to see if I can see if they will pay to clear my title if I prove wrongful foreclosure by a non-party of interest.

    For many of us the only way out of crushing tax penalty will be Chapter 7. I always said I would never do that, I also never ever in all my 30 years of homeownership thought I would ever miss a mortgage payment. Well times change! These past few years have been humbling and painful but it is the best thing that ever happen to me. I have found I have a limit of no return and they pushed me with their lies and fraud. I am willing to fight the fight for those who cannot or will not.

    I will fight even if it takes everything I have!

  21. I filed a claim on my title insurance because I looked at the land records and noticed that when we bought the house and a satisfaction of the previous owners mortgage was recorded it was done so by a mortgage broker who gave them the loan, but the loan had changed hands at least once and the broker couldn’t possibly release the mortgage because they hadn’t held it in years. I called the broker and they denied they released it, in fact they said they sold it to bank ” A” immediately after origination. I called bank A and they said they sold it to us bank as soon as they got it from the broker. So I googled the names of the people who signed the release and yup, they are with us bank. So why would us bank discharge the mortgage in the brokers name when the broker no longer held it? I would say this is a title defect, no? I informed my title insurer and they said it wasnt a defect and denied the claim. Their argument was because us bank was a mers member, as was the bank they bought it from as well as the broker, then the discharge is ok. Well, the broker denied any knowledge of mers and also denied membership in mers. so if the originating broker denies involvement in mers but the previous mortgage states that mers is the nominee for them, doesn’t this mean the mortgage is a lie? How can mers be their nominee if they are denying involvement in mers? And how can us bank discharge the mortgage on behalf of a broker who is now at least twice removed from ownership? And lastly, how can the title insurer keep a straight face when saying the title isn’t garbage? By the way, there are no recorded conveyances in the land records. None of what I’m being told happened is on record. .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: