Bank United Offering Deficiency Waivers, Cash for Keys

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Bank United Offering Deficiency Waivers, Cash for Keys
by Mark Stopa Esq.

http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2012/01/bank-united-offering-deficiency-waivers-cash-for-keys/

I’m pleased to report that I received settlement offers from Bank United today in three different foreclosure cases. Each offer entailed: (1) a deed in lieu of foreclosure; (2) a deficiency waiver, and (3) $3,000 cash for keys, given when the homeowner vacates the home and leaves it in broom-swept condition. Perhaps better yet, each offer was totally unsolicited and did not require any financial disclosures.

Bank United is a small bank, so its cases constitute a small portion of my caseload and foreclosure cases in general. However, this is another illustration that if you defend your foreclosure case, and force the bank to prove its entitlement to foreclosure, then the bank may get frustrated, give up, or simply decide it’s better to settle.

Also, I’ve been arguing for a long time that financial disclosures are not required for a deficiency waiver, and these settlement offers are another illustration of that. Banks may want financial information, but they don’t need it. Hence, if a bank is forcing you to provide financial information so it can “evaluate” whether to give you a deficiency waiver, you should think twice – it may well be evaluating your financial situation so it can better assess how to collect from you.

Mark Stopa Esq.

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

 

64 Responses

  1. Dear Niel:

    OCWEN and Duetsche Bank National Trust Co are having a 3rd party contact me and offering cash for keys and I told them their offer needed to be 5 or 6 figures and they have not called back but have only sent a letter. There is no lender/mortgagee and DBNTC is only a note holder as discribed in the doucuments. UD trail set for 1-27-12. We will see if the CA judge will do the right thing.

  2. @ALL–Implications of DILs and the BankUnited control-group offshore hedge fund “syndicate.”

    THIS COULD BE LIKE WATCHING “THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY” IN SLOW MOTION
    BankUnited’s Cash for Keys offers to Homeowners: Are the offers credible? Is this a risk to FDIC?
    BankUnited has a turbulent past as a predatory home-lender, FDIC takeover—followed with the first acquisition of a US bank by a syndicate of offshore hedge funds—largely with FDIC cash and guarantees of the value of home-loans held by BankUnited and syndicate-controlled affiliates.
    On Sunday January 15, 2012, frequent poster on Foreclosure Defense matters, and respected Florida foreclosure defense attorney, Mark Stopa, disclosures with respect to recent offers made to Florida homeowners-borrowers to give up deeds in lieu of foreclosure, possession of their homes, and releases of liability for predatory conduct—all in favor of “BankUnited” in exchange for $3000 cash for keys, and BankUnited’s legal promises to forgive them of debt in future. If the promises fail, the transaction may more closely resemble a sale of the house by the homeowner for $3000.
    Thus BankUnited’s financial stability and its credibility are of critical importance to homeowners’ decision-making.. If BankUnited asserts a right or makes a promise of current right to seize, as well as future conduct, can a homeowner dare rely on those representations and promises? To answer these questions It is necessary to review BankUnited s recent history and associations with a syndicate of offshore hedge funds, and current government scrutiny focused on this particular group in recent days. What role does the “Deed in Lieu” play in enabling the claims the syndicate makes for FDIC insurance for every house they can cause to become vacant ASAP? Is it effective public policy that effectively converts Florida, and possibly, New York home value into offshore cash holding accounts?
    The Federal Reserve has requested unprecedented financial information from the control syndicate operators. The syndicate have chosen instead to rapidly, within a few weeks, sell the bank, or its assets, to apparently unsuspecting buyer banks including Canada’s Toronto Dominion. Bids have been requested due today—January 17, 2012.
    FDIC has only recently been embarrassed by this syndicate’s $2.2 billion profits in an initial public offering of common stock in January 2011, only 18 months after the midyear 2009 bailout. The bailout consisted of coincidentally [?]an FDIC up-front payment of $2.2 billion, plus an FDIC guarantee of value of $10-12 billion assets—including its home-loan portfolio. Other federal agencies’ exposure is not known. Is HUD also subject to claims? Are all taxes paid or secured on these recognized and unrecognized gains?
    It is a time for exercise of carefully measured caution by all interested parties—as the syndicate withdraws money from this FDIC honeypot called BankUnited by seizure of homes.
    At the end of the day, one might wonder if it is appropriate government policy to pay a syndicate of questionable offshore hedge funds to dispossess US homeowners. Should the FDIC insurance payments be placed in escrow until all the comparative rights are carefully weighed and verified? Is it not most important if the syndicate’s controlled entities erroneously and negligently manage to acquire title to homes and drive the homeowner into the street through subtle intimidation and ambiguous representations? Will not the liquidation of homes— strongly motivated by FDIC payments— contribute to risk that the syndicate will divert or convert those funds and decapitalize the bank. Would that not place at risk the large numbers of elderly Floridian depositors that constitute the depositor market expressly targeted by the syndicate? If there is excessive removal of funds by the syndicate through this device, will it not endanger the elderly depositors? Is there increased risk of a second bail-out because of this? Should FDIC take the incentive out of this rush? Should FDIC deposit funds in escrow pending resolution of issues that linger behind aggressive liquidation of bank assets?
    HEREINBELOW IS ATTORNEY STOPA’S POST; AND AN ANALYSIS OF RISKS, EXCERPTED AND CITED GOVERNMENT AND PRESS SOURCES.

  3. THIS IS LIKE WATCHING “THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY” IN SLOW MOTION

    UnitedBank’s Cash for Keys offers to homeowners: Are the offers credible?
    On Sunday January 15, 2012, frequent poster on Foreclosure Defense matters, and respected Florida foreclosure defense attorney, Mark Stopa, posted the following disclosures with respect to offers made to Florida homeowners-borrowers to give up deeds in lieu of foreclosure, possession of their homes, and releases of liability for predatory conduct—all in favor of “BankUnited” in exchange for BankUnited’s legal promises to forgive them of debt in future.
    Thus UnitedBank’s financial stability and its credibility are of critical importance to homeowners’ decision-making.. If UnitedBank asserts a right or makes a promise of current right to seize, as well as future conduct, can a homeowner dare rely on those representations and promises? To answer these questions It is necessary to review UnitedBank’s recent history and associations with offshore hedge funds, and current government scrutiny focused on this particular group in recent days. What role does the Deed in Lieu play in enabling the claims they make for FDIC insurance for every house they can cause to become vacant? Is it effective public policy that effectively converts Florida and New York home value into offshore cash holding accounts?
    At the end of the day, one might wonder if it is appropriate government policy to pay questionable offshore hedge funds to dispossess US homeowners—or should the FDIC money be placed in escrow until all the comparative rights are carefully verified. Even if the entity manages to push the current owner out through intimidation and abuse? Should FDIC take the incentive out of this rush?
    Hereinbelow is Attorney Stopa’s post;
    “Bank United Offering Deficiency Waivers, Cash for Keys
    by Mark Stopa Esq.
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2012/01/bank-united-offering-deficiency-waivers-cash-for-keys/
    I’m pleased to report that I received settlement offers from Bank United today in three different foreclosure cases. Each offer entailed: (1) a deed in lieu of foreclosure; (2) a deficiency waiver, and (3) $3,000 cash for keys, given when the homeowner vacates the home and leaves it in broom-swept condition. Perhaps better yet, each offer was totally unsolicited and did not require any financial disclosures.
    Bank United is a small bank, so its cases constitute a small portion of my caseload and foreclosure cases in general. However, this is another illustration that if you defend your foreclosure case, and force the bank to prove its entitlement to foreclosure, then the bank may get frustrated, give up, or simply decide it’s better to settle.
    Also, I’ve been arguing for a long time that financial disclosures are not required for a deficiency waiver, and these settlement offers are another illustration of that. Banks may want financial information, but they don’t need it. Hence, if a bank is forcing you to provide financial information so it can “evaluate” whether to give you a deficiency waiver, you should think twice – it may well be evaluating your financial situation so it can better assess how to collect from you.
    Mark Stopa Esq.
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com
    Who is the most concerned about Information Disclosure?
    Attorney Stopa’s post refers to simple Florida homeowners’ problems with repetitive demanded detailed financial information—the collection agencies’ oft-seen repetitive loss of information provided. The frequently heard “lost the file” excuse to seize homes by foreclosure. However Attorney stopa’s concerns about information disclosure are felt more profoundly by another set of players. The bank owners. The federally insured BankUnited has become controlled by a cluster of murky offshore hedge fund operators and owners. But it appears that the offers are more closely tied to the reluctance of this unique group of FDIC bank owners of to disclose their financial information. Disclosure could create risk of prosecution for crimes which would be revealed, and/or perjury. It might even raise questions about the disclosure of relevant information filed with SEC in connection with an IPO in late 2010 as well as a XMAS merger in 2011.
    Attorney Stopa published some simple facts and potential offered options for homeowners—with a tenor of caution. It was overall neutral—recent vintage—something deserving study. It was not a wholesale endorsement of signing whatever documentation a collection agency doing business under the aegis of “bank” might lay upon the table before a homeowner. Rightly so—for any attorney to do so would be malpractice. There may be traps in the paperwork. Even some foreclosure defense attorneys can overlook nuances which can exact great tolls on ex-homeowners unexpectedly in the future.
    Is there a Marketing Movement Underway?
    The plan immediately found online proponents— unknown site contributor(s)—who asserted in essence that this was as a great new opportunity for homeowners to escape the rigors and costs of foreclosure defense. There was no analysis of risks. This had the trappings of the implementation of a combined public and government relations plan to present the set of offers in the best possible light. The PR aims to induce, if not intimidate, homeowners to transfer their homes to Bank United or its assignee. In essence, the vague outline suggested is that a homeowner transfer her home to this entity or its assignee in exchange for promises. It remains unclear who will make the promises? Whether the promises will be enforceable, legally and practically ?Is it certain that BankUnited has the power to make the offers? The business environment in which these offerings are taking place is critical to the durability and credibility of those promises.
    Background: old Bank United Failed
    The backdrop is significant in setting the tenor of this deal-making. The trademark “Bank United” has a tortured and unique past. Bank United suffocated from losses on its own predatory mortgage loan products. Like WAMU, AHM etc.
    According to a Supplemental FDIC release dated January 26, 2011,
    “•BankUnited failed because it was a badly deteriorated institution with significant problems, primarily due to heavy use of non-traditional mortgage products.
    •Over 60% of the loans in BankUnited’s portfolio were pay-option arm mortgages. BankUnited (prior to failure) was the country’s second largest writer of these types of mortgages” http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09072a.html
    Other predatory lenders of this ilk either went bankrupt or were acquired by Big banks. However –unique to regulated banking—the purchase of control of this subprime bank’s assets was by a syndicate of unregulated offshore hedge funds including : ”Carlyle, Blackstone and Wilbur Ross”, per Reuters as published by New York Times. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/silver-lining-in-f-d-i-c-s-bankunited-deal
    Ross’ syndicate had already sounded out a smaller Florida Bank target.
    According to an article in South Florida Business Journal by Brian Bandell , Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, Ross is targeting elderly Floridians to increase his access to low cost cash deposits.
    “Restructuring specialist Wilbur Ross runs New York-based W.L. Ross, which is buying a majority stake in First Bank & Trust of Indiantown. Ross said that bank wouldn’t be part of BankUnited. Instead, the new holding company will have W.L. Ross, Carlyle and Blackstone as the largest investors, and the other groups as minority partners, he said.
    ‘While the asset side of the bank has been very problematic, Florida, because it has so many prosperous retirees, has a good deposit base,’ Ross said. ‘The growth opportunities in Florida, with internal growth and further acquisition growth, are very considerable.’”
    However, the South Florida Journal report was premature. The Ross syndicate had already focused on bigger game; BankUnited.
    “Palm Beach billionaire Wilbur Ross last year announced a deal to pay $7.3 million for 68 percent of the bank’s shares, but the deal later fell apart as Ross focused on his stake in much larger BankUnited of Coral Gables.” http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/well-known-treasure-coast-bankers-plan-to-take-732059.html
    GOVERNMENT ROLE IN UNITEDBANK OPERATION to January 16, 2012

    The syndicate took control in mid-2009 with help from FDIC
    From FDIC “open site” in respect of the end of “old” Bank United:
    “II. Press Release
    The FDIC has issued a press release (PR-072-2009) about the institution’s closure. If you represent a media outlet and would like information about the closure, please contact David Barr at 202-898-6992.”
    May 21, 2009
    According to this FDIC “Release” May 21, 2009 ; the buyout group “ownership includes WL Ross & Co. LLC; Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C.; Blackstone Capital Partners V L.P.; Centerbridge Capital Partners, L.P. LeFrak Organization, Inc; The Wellcome Trust; Greenaap Investments Ltd.; and East Rock Endowment Fund.”
    The deal was generally described in that release; “BankUnited, a newly chartered federal savings bank, acquired the banking operations, including all of the nonbrokered deposits, of BankUnited, FSB, Coral Gables, Florida, in a transaction facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
    Bank United, FSB had assets of $12.80 billion and deposits of $8.6 billion as of May 2, 2009. The new BankUnited will assume $12.7 billion in assets and $8.3 billion in nonbrokered deposits. The FDIC and BankUnited entered into a loss-share transaction and will share in the losses on approximately $10.7 billion in assets covered under the agreement. The loss-sharing arrangement is projected to maximize returns on the covered assets by keeping them in the private sector. The agreement also is expected to minimize disruptions for loan customers as they will maintain a banking relationship. BankUnited will recapitalize the institution with $900 million in new capital.” http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09072.html

    One might say that FDIC “bailed out the defunct predatory bank by guaranteeing much of its assets—home-loans? Put backs? FDIC then Media Contact: David Barr (202) 898-6992, Cell: (703) 622-4790. E-mail: dbarr@fdic.gov
    The syndicate began “cashing in” on the banks assets and FDIC bailout by year-end 2010
    By late 2010, barely 18 months after the FDIC bailout, press accountsrevealed BankUnited’s plans to make an Initial public offering [IPO] of common stock by the hedge fund group owners:
    “… it is not going to look pretty for the F.D.I.C. when BankUnited goes public, which it can do from late next month under the deal it brokered 18 months ago. Investors including Carlyle, Blackstone and Wilbur Ross plugged $900 million of new capital into the bank. That equity is almost certain to be worth a multiple of what they paid. “ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/silver-lining-in-f-d-i-c-s-bankunited-deal
    FDIC’s 2009 Release is today supplemented by information relating to new ”BankUnited IPO Supplemental Fact Sheet, January 26, 2011” That further discloses the sale by the control group of shares to the public. The control group retained majority control. http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09072a.html
    Per FDIC, “the initial set of investors will retain at least 67% of their initial investment in the company after the IPO.” [ibid]
    However they appeared to walk away with nearly all their investment back, according to WSJ,
    “…about 86% of the shares slated to be sold were from its investors. The BankUnited investors include big names such as financier Wilbur Ross and private-equity giants Blackstone Group, Carlyle and Centerbridge. Their combined take from the IPO: roughly $2.2 billion.
    A caveat: The figures here are based on the shareholders’ stock holdings disclosed in BankUnited’s most recent regulatory filing. The company last night sold more shares than expected as part of the IPO – 29 million compared to the expected 26.25 million. It’s unclear for now how much of the extra stock sold came from Ross, Blackstone et al. We’ll update this post when we know more. In any case, these guys did great.
    Together with other investors including banker John Kanas, the investing foursome bought BankUnited last year in a $945 million deal, taking the failed bank off the hands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The FDIC, which agreed to reimburse the new owners for up to $10.5 billion in future loan losses, and gave them $2.2 billion in cash upfront, will collect at least $25 million from the IPO.”[emphasis added]
    http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/01/28/bankunited-ipo-who-got-rich/
    By year-end 2011, the syndicate began to acquire other banks
    More recently the control group—through UnitedBank— expanded its ownership and plans to acquire more US banks—now into New York from Florida—both states rife with foreclosure predation.
    Per a December 22, 2012, Press Release by BankUnited it happily announced the approval of shareholders of the target: Herald National Bank (“Herald”) (NYSE AMEX:HNB) of a takeover by Bank United.
    “Herald National Bank Shareholders Approve Acquisition by BankUnited, Inc.
    MIAMI LAKES, Fla. & NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Dec. 22, 2011– Herald National Bank (“Herald”) (NYSE AMEX:HNB) and BankUnited, Inc. (“BKU”) (NYSE:BKU) announced that today Herald’s shareholders approved BKU’s acquisition of Herald through the merger of a subsidiary of BKU with and into Herald. Holders of 14,172,596 shares of Herald common and preferred stock, representing over 83% of the shares of Herald stock entitled to vote on the matter, voted to ratify and confirm the Merger Agreement dated as of June 2, 2011, by and between BKU and Herald, as amended (the “Merger Agreement”). Subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions contained in the Merger Agreement, BKU and Herald expect to complete the merger during the first quarter of 2012” http://ir.bankunited.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=89487&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1642531&highlight=
    The Smell of Rotting Fish from the offshore syndicate is too much for Federal Reserve? The FDIC?
    However per more recent Press reports, this addition of a New York Bank was too much for the Federal Reserve—and probably the New York State Attorney General. It remains unclear if the Florida Bank –New York bank merger will be completed.
    “NEW YORK | Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:26pm EST
    NEW YORK (Reuters) – BankUnited Inc’s (BKU.N) private equity owners have put the Florida bank up for sale and have hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) to run the process, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday…. BankUnited has already proven to be a blockbuster deal for the private equity firms. When the company went public in January 2011, the private equity investors saw the value of their initial investment of $900 million nearly triple at the IPO price of $27 per share….
    …A second source familiar with the situation said some of the private equity owners were only too happy to consider a sale, given the extent of scrutiny from U.S. bank regulators and the uncertainty about whether the tax cuts instituted under the Bush administration 10 years ago would be extended beyond 2012….
    …At BankUnited, regulatory scrutiny translated to the U.S. Federal Reserve asking for an unprecedented amount of disclosure, such as asking for personal financial statements from every partner at all the private equity firms that had invested and not just the executives involved in the deal, one of the sources said….” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/14/us-bankunited-idUSTRE80D01J20120114
    The disclosure requirements would have applied to Wilbur L. Ross, among others. Ross also controls American Home Servicing Inc. [AHMSI]. This entity is by its own claim one of the largest subprime foreclosure operations and homeowner collection agencies. Ross purchased defunct old AHM’s “collection rights” out of the AHM bankruptcy estate in late 2007—well before the BankUnited foray. The acquisition in bankruptcy is a common denominator. The use of offshore monies is a second common feature. W.L. Ross himself is a 3rd commonality. Aggressive collection practices are a 4th common feature. The deed in lieu is a 5th. There is a visible thread of continuity—of pattern.
    AHMSI has reputedly used the Deed in Lieu strategy before— to the dismay of homeowners who found the promises of debt release to be ephemeral. Indeed in one case, after the homeowner handed over possession, AHMSI double-counted a single debt in credit bureau reports—in tandem with double-counting collection accounts on its own records. The homeowner was left with no home, and two bad credit accounts disclosed to the credit world, instead of a bargained release. AHMSI accounting aberrations and double counting is not unusual—but as a private company—the conduct is not scrutinized.
    One might say of the seemingly covert BankUnited-AHMSI offshore hedgefund syndicate: “If we cannot keep this hand in the government’s pocket, let’s grab as much as we can, run and sell the rest to somebody who can”??
    Why Would A Deed in Lieu Be Good for BankUnited’s Control Group—Bad for Most Others
    When the homeowner hands over a deed for keys she does at least four things:
    1. Eliminates title issues—the property is now worth substantially more than comparable foreclosure REOs held by big banks for investors. This is very good for the control group about which the Federal Reserve is so suspicious
    2. Vacate quickly on a date certain. The control group likes this too.
    3. Abandons all legal claims against BankUnited and its contractors. Icing on the cake.
    4. Enters into a confidentiality agreement to maintain secrecy from others—agencies and civil claimants
    What does she obtain on closing day—the day SHE puts her hand to paper to sign the deed.
    1. A promise that the counter-party whoever that may be on that day-will not pursue her for a deficiency, without a performance surety bond, or real economic opportunity to complain if the promise is broken.
    2. A date certain when she must become a dispossessed tenant—lose her furniture, appliances, pets, local schools
    3. At least one or two black marks on her credit record that will prevent her acquisition of a home, other than by tenancy, for at least 7 years
    4. A tight gag, and permanent risk of infringement of the secrecy imposition
    What does the syndicate get out of the DIL deal ?
    1. A house which they can sell quickly.
    2. A locked in loss in the firesale which converts immediately into FDIC cash reimbursement.
    3. Wide legal defenses against all manner of predatory conduct as to this homeowner
    4. An opportunity for unknown related parties to cherry pick the seized properties at a fraction of value in a super-distressed market.
    5. An opportunity to renege on the promises and seek to collect on deficiencies in exchange for corrected credit bureau reporting.
    6. An opportunity for undisclosed affiliates to buy homes below fair market value—while reselling to foreign speculators at prices the syndicate would not offer the current US homeowners in possession.
    WHERE THERE ARE SEVERAL ROTTING FISH THERE IS AN EVEN STRONGER ODOR.
    The homeowner gets an elusive deal at best
    There is no guarantee of performance by a deep pocket—no performance bond to assure naked promises by people that the Federal Reserve does not trust. She may not even know who owes her the duty to remove the liability from her record. A broad confidentiality agreement will destroy her ability to prove up satisfaction or release to the credit bureaus.
    The Syndicate Skins FDIC Yet Again?
    The FDIC will in effect remit checks or credits to United Bank or its assignee for the benefit of the control group, as losses are recognized. The losses are not recognized until the mortgage loan is rewritten, or the home sold. United Bank and its successors-assignees will receive more money from FDIC, faster by a speedy fire sale of homes acquired through Deed in Lieu of foreclosure, than it would if the notes were simply rewritten at the same value as if the home were sold. The difference is in the questionable hedgefund owners’ affiliates’ ability to cherry-pick homes and resell them to Canadians and other foreign interests. One overriding question is whether the apparent capital strip that could follow liquidation by Deeds in lieu— by sale of homes at firesales– and resultant claims against FDIC will leave the residual bank undercapitalized. Could the bank of the elderly Floridians once again be at risk? Could the deposits be at risk once again.
    The Syndicate Would Rather Run than Disclose
    What other interests are they concealing? What entanglements do they already have? What other organizations do they control? What other disclosures were falsely made to foreign governments and/or IRS which would put them at risk if corrected to meet the bright light shone upon them in the past two weeks?
    What’s Next?
    Bloomberg reported on January 17, 2012, that Toronto Dominion Bank [TD] and BB&T are reviewing the acquisition of the syndicate interest to enable the hedgefunds to preserve their aura of secrecy.
    “PHILADELPHIA, Jan 16 (Reuters) – BB&T Corp and Toronto-Dominion Bank are among the suitors in talks to acquire BankUnited Inc, according to a report by Bloomberg news. PNC Financial Services Group Inc also may bid for the Florida bank, according to the report. BankUnited has asked for offers by Jan. 17 and told potential buyers it’s seeking to finish the sale effort within about two weeks, the report said. BankUnited, BB&T, TD and PNC could not be immediately reached for comment…”

  4. The photocopy of the Note sent to you in response to your QWR often has an endorsement on the last page “Pay To _________Without Recourse.” That endorsement proves that the bank cashed out the Note as if it was a check, rather than a promissory Note. Whether they sold it to another bank, (they are all connected in a matrix of deceit) or sold it to the Fed for federal reserve notes (legal tender) they used this exchanged currency to create a demand deposit on which they drew a check to pay off the previous owner of the property, claiming that money as their own.

    All the straw men inserted to confuse the issues of fact do is increase the odds that the bank will steal another house that they didn’t lend any real money on, by obscuring the true issue; who is the creditor? They’re a diversion to keep the court focused on the reported default that results in a win for the bank.

    Now the answer if you can read and interpret what you read is, that there is no creditor. Your Note created the money that created the “loan” so there is no true creditor. The fraud the bank committed to deceive you into thinking they loaned you currency, will ultimately be unraveled and your property will be returned to you free and clear, and no one will convince me otherwise. Modern Money Mechanics2 by the Chicago Federal Reserve is out of print, but you can find it online, and you owe it to yourself to wade through the 50 pages that will open your eyes about the creation of money under the Fed Res system.

  5. The recorded deed of trust is not signed by the “lender” and the copy of the copy of the note offered in court by the forecloser – if you even get that far in non-judicial – is not signed by the “lender”. How is either doc bearer paper? How was that sold or negotiated by anyone?

    When the trust is the purported forecloser – how and when they bought the mortgage does matter to real property law but ignored because if its MBS as all for last decade were – its deemed too complex and irrelevant for all concerned – just as banksters wish all concerned to believe.

    How and when the trust who is foreclosing received actual ownership of the asset or if never received ownership of the asset does matter to real property law. Complex details of securitization are not needed – There is a Trustor and a Beneficiary -Who is the beneficiary and what is owed to him and is he the one who is actually foreclosing or not? Not complex. Making it so is a mistake. …. Ignoring it altogether is also a mistake.

    Judges are going by real property law so they think. Ignoring the identity of the beneficiary who has a secured interest is at the root of the injustice along with all of the other.

    Seems like the arguments should be “simply” made on several burners – if a judge doesn’t get it from one angle – he can get it from another angle.

    They can’t get past the free house. How about I wish to pay the beneficiary. This entity and that entity are not the beneficiary. This entity might be the beneficiary but here is the proof that there is a true doubt about this. He must show me his ownership and how much I owe him and show that my payments or any other payments from any other source that reduce my balance have reached him. The beneficiary may be unidentified. He needs to be discovered if this is the case. If I have paid the wrong person this must be made right to the party I owe and to me.

  6. Where there is rotting fish there is a strong odor.

    BankUnited Explores Sale
    Lender Reverses Course After Fed Asks for Principals’ Financial Information.

    BY ROBIN SIDEL AND GINA CHON
    Just last month, BankUnited Inc. Chief Executive John Kanas and his private-equity backers were gearing up for an acquisition spree. Now they are trying to sell the bank instead.

    The Miami Lakes, Fla., bank hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to advise it on a possible sale, said people familiar with the matter. A possible sale of BankUnited comes just a year after a group led by Blackstone Group LP, Carlyle Group LP, Centerbridge Partners LP and WL Ross & Co. took BankUnited public in a $780 million initial public offering.

    The about-face came after the Federal Reserve requested personal financial
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204542404577159020440528932.html

    By Paritosh Bansal and Greg Roumeliotis

    NEW YORK | Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:26pm EST

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – BankUnited Inc’s (BKU.N) private equity owners have put the Florida bank up for sale and have hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) to run the process, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

    BankUnited was approached by more than one strategic bidder, prompting the review, and a decision on whether a sale takes place could come in the next two weeks, one of the sources said.

    The private equity owners of BankUnited, which has a market value of about $2.3 billion, include Wilbur Ross’s WL Ross & Co, Blackstone Group LP (BX.N) and Carlyle Group CYL.UL.

    BankUnited has already proven to be a blockbuster deal for the private equity firms. When the company went public in January 2011, the private equity investors saw the value of their initial investment of $900 million nearly triple at the IPO price of $27 per share.

    A second source familiar with the situation said some of the private equity owners were only too happy to consider a sale, given the extent of scrutiny from U.S. bank regulators and the uncertainty about whether the tax cuts instituted under the Bush administration 10 years ago would be extended beyond 2012.

    At BankUnited, regulatory scrutiny translated to the U.S. Federal Reserve asking for an unprecedented amount of disclosure, such as asking for personal financial statements from every partner at all the private equity firms that had invested and not just the executives involved in the deal, one of the sources said.

    Both sources, however, warned that there were no guarantees that a deal would be reached.

    BankUnited, Goldman, the Fed and all private equity firms declined to comment.

    Shares of BankUnited closed up 5.7 percent at $24.48 on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday.

    The consortium of private equity investors, led by veteran banker John Kanas, bought the assets of a failed Florida bank of the same name during the financial crisis in May 2009. Kanas had earlier run North Fork Bancorp for about 20 years before http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/14/us-bankunited-idUSTRE80D01J20120114eventually selling it to Capital One (COF.N).

    The deal, which came with certain protections offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, led to a rush of other private equity and hedge fund investors looking at investing in the sector and prompted regulators to put in stricter rules to govern such investments.

    BankUnited has more than $11 billion in assets and more than 90 branches and focuses on commercial banking. In June, BankUnited agreed to buy New York-based Herald NationalBank.

    Bloomberg earlier reported the news of BankUnited’s sale process.

    (Reporting by Paritosh Bansal and Greg Roumeliotis in New York, and Jochelle Mendonca in Bangalore; Editing by Bernard Orr and Carol Bishopric)

    Bank United, FSB had assets of $12.80 billion and deposits of $8.6 billion as of May 2, 2009. The new BankUnited will assume $12.7 billion in assets and $8.3 billion in nonbrokered deposits. The FDIC and BankUnited entered into a loss-share transaction and will share in the losses on approximately $10.7 billion in assets covered under the agreement. The loss-sharing arrangement is projected to maximize returns on the covered assets by keeping them in the private sector. The agreement also is expected to minimize disruptions for loan customers as they will maintain a banking relationship. BankUnited will recapitalize the institution with $900 million in new capital
    http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09072.html

    From Reuters Breakingviews:

    At first blush, the anticipated initial public offering of BankUnited looks like a deal that could leave Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, red in the face. After all, she sold the bank, with $13 billion of assets, to a group of private equity heavy-hitters in May 2009 for a song. While it’s not yet clear how much those investors will make, any profit will sound indecent next to the F.D.I.C.’s projected losses on the deal.

    But Ms. Bair need not be embarrassed. As one of the first big rescue operations of the banking crisis, the BankUnited deal served to pique investor interest in the banking sector. That arguably helped to reduce overall losses to the insurance fund, whose ultimate backstop is the American taxpayer.
    True, it is not going to look pretty for the F.D.I.C. when BankUnited goes public, which it can do from late next month under the deal it brokered 18 months ago. Investors including Carlyle, Blackstone and Wilbur Ross plugged $900 million of new capital into the bank. That equity is almost certain to be worth a multiple of what they paid.
    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/silver-lining-in-f-d-i-c-s-bankunited-deal/

  7. @Enraged
    You are almost 100% correct, and you truly see the way. The thing is though, a Note is NOT a check. A check is bearer paper if endorsed, and it functions LIKE MONEY, but it is not money. A deposit of money makes the check good. (if there was no money on deposit to back the check, it would not be redeemable for the cash on the face) The Note is an IOU which you yourself cannot use as money, because the bank forbids you to. But THEY use your Note like it was money and it in fact is to them, because they can sell it for Federal Reserve Notes which are used like money to create a demand account or transaction account, and this they claim as their own. There’s where the fraud lies, in the conversion of a Note to legal tender or checkbook money or money of exchange. This is why they guard this information!

    Judges I’ve observed in court don’t want to learn “securitization” just like many attorneys don’t. They do however fully understand contract law and they can apply these statutes correctly. For a contract to be binding, both parties have to provide something of value, and you my friend are the only one who suffered an actual loss. You suffered many losses, in fact; down payment, monthly payments, escrows, closing costs, insurance and the list goes on and on…

    The bank left you in the woods with your bag,
    Supposedly hunting for Snipe,
    While they made off with your house and your home,
    And anything else they could swipe!

  8. @Nora,

    My point, forever… All that talk about securitization, pretend lender and the likes is counterproductive and I keep harping on it: judges don’t get it any more than we do. It is not their thing. Their thing is the law and its applications.

    The best possible case must be simple (If I gave you a check made out to you, who can depositi it? Now, suppose your secretary takes it and signs her name. Can she deposit it? Can she take that check I signed and gave you and “transfer/assign” to someone else? Well, a note is a check. It’s a promise to pay exactly like a check. Etc. Etc.)

    Those guys keep drowning in a flea spit, for Pete sake! We must keep it the most simple we can. Otherwise, the judge gets all bent out of shape and thinks you trying to get one over him. Look at the case law: when the banks’ attorneys start talking down to judges, that’s when they get in the hottest water! Remember Boyko, in Ohio? “Judge,… you don’t understand…” Didn’t go over too well.

  9. @DCB,

    I did accuse you a while back of not being an authentic attorney but… didn’t I apologize something like… 4 times already?

  10. @ Enraged

    Now that you mention it….I haven’t seen carie for a bit. Pray she and others are alright. Or send out an SOS.

  11. @ E. Tollie & DCB

    The decision to read is http://www.scribd.com/doc/57764888/Bank-of-NY-v-Silverberg.

    Not in NY?? MER’s “as nominee” does an assignment to or from a “Trust” governed by the NY Trust Law.

    Thing (Marvel comics) – “nuff said”.

  12. Oh, forgot my point: Don’t take the “cash for keys” offer. They can’t legally foreclose on you and they know it, so they’re trying other ways to get illegal Title. Everything that has been done to date can be overturned in a court of law for simple contract breach by the bank. Ever notice that they don’t sign your contract? That’s because if they did, they would have to fulfill it. They have no intention of fulfilling their end of the bargain, they just want your Note which represents the equity in your home, which you signed away for NOTHING.

  13. The best target would be one that would be disposable—not take down a bank and then have to recapitalize it. Some big loud vulture hedge fund type that is old—so youngsters would get chilled–see the old man go down, when all thought he was too smart too many friends. Too connected. Somebody that they can make an example of that is not too American—some international financier—-not well known–if he were too public–itd look like it took too long–and most have been cleansed with holy water.

    Somebody that the US bankers think is an upstart—-outsider–somebody to throw under the bus–that cant rat on them.

    Somebody they can tie into some really unsavory street stuff that people can understand–?????

    Hard facts not the squishy paper shuffling.

    Somebody who as a foreign financier has got his hands in the govt pocket—and can pin a track record on—–somebody big to feed to the press in Sept–October—-some internatl fraudie stuff–some offshore moneylaundering stuff—offshore money-shuffling captives in caymans and bermuda. Somebody who owns a small bank or two.

    Funny how the Canadian–US— Bermuda—and other offshore treaties allow cash to flow around with no withholding. Go to and from non-treaty countries by using Canadian and UK booking offices.

  14. Look people…you are being distracted by all these trusts, security terms and baffling transaction- doublespeak and time stepping by the banks. Please read the Chicago Fed Res book, Modern Money Mechanics.

    If you are facing a court date and you still have doubts that you were defrauded by your bank WHO LENT YOU NOTHING, then you still have time to screw your head on straight.

    Here is what bankers did to you: They took your promissory note and they converted it to LEGAL TENDER. If you look at the last page of the photocopy of your Note the bank sent you, you will quite likely find a stamp or endorsement showing that the bank gave up the asset. Even if you don’t have an endorsement, you are aware that the bank can’t furnish the original note, aren’t you? That’s because they don’t have it. “Why don’t they have it?” you ask. They SOLD IT, that’s why. They exchanged your Note (your promise to pay) for federal reserve notes. They opened a demand account in your name without your express permission (fraudulent conversion) and instead of crediting that DA with the money they received for your Note, they claimed that money as THEIR money, and used it to pay the person you bought your home from, “the seller”. So you see that the bank used your Note to create money, THEY LENT NOTHING OF THEIR OWN, and therefore your contract is NULL and VOID, for lack of consideration.

    You guys get this now? The bank used you as A DEPOSITOR, and by selling your Note they created money with it, and they didn’t lend you their own money or their other depositor’s money, they cheated you by loaning you money created by the sale of YOUR NOTE!

    They use checks to cover their fraud, and forged your signature on the bad check they wrote to pay off the seller. Not only are they a complete fraud, THEY KITE CHECKS! You lost the equity in your home to the bank, who PAID NOTHING FOR IT. If they paid you nothing for it, then they have no loss, and if they have suffered no loss, they have no interest in or right to claim Title! It’s a whole lot simpler than you have been led to believe. They are still leading you by the nose down the garden path of securitization, because they know they can get these foreclosures past a judge if the judge just plain doesn’t understand how banks create money or operate in total fraud.

    RICO, Usury Interest, Fraudulent Inducement, Theft by Conversion, RESPA violations, TILA violations…these all apply. Having tried to collect unlawfully on a debt through the mail should get them ten years or more in jail, but they have so successfully pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes, the corrupt banks just keep getting all these free houses, and now they are dozing them, donating them to charity and discounting them to try to cover their tracks.

    So now a few of you are going to say, “well that must not be illegal, or the banks wouldn’t have been doing that for two hundred years.” It is quite illegal, and there is no statute or law anywhere that gives them the authority to change the contract, forge your signature or do business this way. They learned this from The Goldsmiths. Find the Memorandum Of Bank Fraud by David Mack and the case law, First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, Case No 19144, state of Minnesota, December 7th, 1968.

    The jury found for the homeowner. No money was lent, no loss was suffered, and the bank could not foreclose BECAUSE THEY LENT NOTHING. You guys are squabbling over stuff that isn’t important. The banks have gone to great lengths to obtain title to every farm, home, ranch, business and apartment without risking a single penny, or paying a single cent for this real property, and they are sitting at their carved mahogany desks laughing at us, folks.

  15. Small guys—-question is will they use him to roll on next tier–they must get to the room full with goldman or whoever was running that pump—-tape them talking about it.

    Fed govt is so slow and tangled up–its almost inconceivable a jt task force that is not directly centered on one target—these financial guys use same defense as the zebra—-a whole heard that look alike and make a person dizzy watching em run by. Only can grab the stragglers–the big ones are in front running fastest–dodging and weaving.

    it would be well if they just looked a bit at the ones who are trying to siphon off fed money right now—–not zebra—–there are some tigers mixed in there that have stopped to feed on liberty. Agencies can put the scope on them.

    I am deeply thankful for the post re Liberty offers–now iv got the picture.

  16. I don’t know the particulars either DCB. It was a link from Truth-out.org. All they said was:

    “In Citigroup v. Smith, 2011 NY Slip Op 52236 (U) (December 13, 2011), the mortgage document acknowledged that MERS was not the lender, but was “a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” The court held that since MERS was not a party to the underlying note, when it assigned the mortgage to plaintiff Citigroup there was no assignment of the note; and “a transfer of [a] mortgage without the debt is a nullity and no interest is acquired by it.”

    I do know that that’s the same county that Judge Shack is from, and he’s welcome around my campfire any day. Just plain black-letter law….no frills.

  17. I must be dreaming….this is the NY Times oped?

    What is needed is leadership by President Obama on this issue. He should form an interagency task force to investigate and pursue potential civil and criminal wrongdoing by institutions and people whose conduct in the mortgage chain had the greatest economic impact.

    That would mean focusing on the large banks and their top echelons. The investigators would need to include the departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, the S.E.C. and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as bank regulators, with the formal co-operation of the most aggressive state attorneys general. The task force would need a leader with the impulses of a crusading prosecutor.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/opinion/on-the-trail-of-mortgage-fraud.html?hpw

  18. @ ETOLLE —just so I am sure what I think im seeing here is the court taking action to respond on its own to benefit the defendant. Was there a hearing?
    Was this a technical foul by failure to file a written answer but perhaps argued in a hearing?

    It would be a lot of work for the court to push through a file w/o reason???

    Am I getting it?

  19. I wonder what’s in the water in King’s County New York, and can we get it shipped? I’m thirsty for what they’re having.

    http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_52236.htm

  20. @ENRAGED
    Was it you who accused me of being an unlicensed attorney in abrupt manner–something about “outing me” ——

    To the other point; I have knowledge that FBI etc run search engines that search out certain actions and words which they deem threatening to persons in high office. I understand that your word order was not threatening–but I spent several years learning how to read alpha numeric character strings and its just best not to use certain words together on open sites. I should have just said that i suppose.

    I am not overly paranoid–

    Sure there are moles–and there are marketers–and you can bet that GS has about 100 of them on this deal. Their clients expect it.

  21. @E. Toile,

    Don’t let DCB watch it. That kid, at the beginning said something like: “It should be a government for the people and it’s not. It’s wrong and I think it’s really DANGEROUS.” That statement is borderline criminal and DCB is gona drop a nervous poop over it…

  22. @ CHAS et al
    The FT announced the Goldman design for the sale of Liberty several days ago–and across all news sources. There are various accounts of the transaction. By crossreferencing all the references, my sense of the transaction is that OLD Liberty was one of the meanest predators in the Southeast. It was a burnout origination company–designed to operate as disposable tool of a predatory securitization organization. It differed from other predatory originators primarily because it maintained some small activity of deposit-taking. That entitled it to FDIC insurance. The loan-making operation got nailed in a liquidity squeeze because it got caught with low quality inventory–being severely overleveraged Florida homes. The fast growth operation appears to have been a short-term high-profit, predatory loan-predatory securitization division. That division created the defective inventory of mortgage-notes. For some reason to be determined this “burn-out” division was financially integrated with the parent and deposit operations. It is a strage way to compartmentalize department failures. The result was that FDIC sold the assets to the very first group of hedge fund operators. This is a test case. These offshore hedge funds demanded that FDIC insure the assets–directly or indirectly—the predatory loans, possibly collection rights. So FDIC is going to pay to them bargained percentages–probably 100% of losses sustained on disposition of those assets.

    Apply this to one hypothetical—-they receive FDIC insurance payout on the difference between a Fla.[related party?] firesale and the full principal owed.
    They probably can [credit] bid back in on the sale for 15 cents. Or through another offshore-backed or Canadian affiliate –of selected inventory. So they can speed things up such that FDIC pays them the loss on the day of sale. If properly implemented by GS they should get a cash credit/check for the loan loss for 85cents —before they even have to write the check to buy your house at 15 cents. The irony is that they receive 5 times the value of the house in cash immediately which they can take offshore–and still own the 15 cent house.

    The key here is that they need closed transactions ASAP–to make the FDIC insurance claim. [This resembles the claim AHMSI made that was refused by the regulator in the TXS District Court. Is there a common denominator there–similar anomalies-federal claims in respect of predatory loans] .

    It would seem easier for them to sell the house to the occupant to “close” the transaction–at FMV–say county value—-to simply attain the reimbursed federal loss. However that would not optimize the transaction—they want to sell the house at 35 cents to cash buyers. At this time that means Canadians. If GS was up on its game it would have a dual citizen Canadian realty company to peddle the inventory this Spring. They will make very large and quick profits on your house before the market flattens even unto Canada–ie before election. They are also pumping this as PR—offering to allow you to walk away from a deficiency because they get FDIC insurance and very large profit. Generous of them.

    You could probably pay for the house pmts yourself if they modified and took the loss that way. But to modify you instead of the Canadian would cut the cash flow to them to a mere 70 cents from FDIC– instead of 70 [85-15] plus another 35 from the Canadian buyers. Obvious why they arent offering to modify.

    They are either planning on retaining the toxic loans probably to include a broader swath than those that are already in trouble–probably all “at risk”.

    This is misuse of federal funds.
    This is a test case.
    The hedge funds bought this entity with FDIC backing–now to be cashed in—then did an IPO a year or so ago. They now want to liquidate this investment and run with the money so they can reinvest it in bottomfeeding as the ecomy bottoms out.
    This loan strategy is part of the resale of this entity. They need to estimate the cash flows and demo the plan to new investors. Not a good time to go public so must be a big bank. This is about valuing a deal.

    This results in the eviction of Florida residents en masse in order to resell their homes to foreignors–do they have a Canadian entity in real estate? What about FAS’ parent? Maybe fit the bill? What is that name–what is their record of operations in the US?

  23. Speaking of credibility, it’s great to see Bill Moyers back, and what a way to kick off his show:

    http://billmoyers.com/episode/on-winner-take-all-politics/

  24. @DCB,

    And there’s something wrong with you… You call people “mole”, you accuse them of being “borderline criminal” and to work for Goldman or be under contract. Isn’t that pushing the paranoia a tad far?

    Doesn’t do much for credibility…

  25. @DCB,

    I don’t try to guess your motives for sitting in front of the computer. I’m way past trying to guess other people’s motoves.

    What your last post tells me is that you have cash to “pull out” if the Greek debt causes the Asian markets to “open this way or that tonite”. That’s pretty cool… for you. It may not be worth much but, apparently, you’re still able to plan ahead and you seem to have something left to fall back on…

    In case you don’t know, very few among us have much left. We are holding on by the skin of our teeth. I, personally, don’t have the proverbial pot left to piss in and I expect that I am not the only one… In one of his interviews with Mandelman, Marc Dann (or was it Matt Weidner…? You should take a look at his blog. I would qualify it of… inflammatory, at times. He still hasn’t been shut down, though) said something extremely relevant: “People don’t have anything left. And because they don’t have anything left, they have nothing to lose. I am extremely concerned that, if drastic measures are not implemented fast to stop foreclosures, we will end up in a civil war. In fact, I don’t even want to think how bad it will get.”

    I don’t invent it. And the interviewee is not the only one having voiced that concern. So, whatever I write makes very, very little difference one way or the other: whatever must happen will happen.

    Fear of danger doesn’t exclude danger. I refuse to be afraid. And I refuse to be shut up by fearful people. I’ve lived in enough countries and seen enough civil wars to get a pretty good feel for what is in store here.

    My posting that several recent articles report record gun sales for 2011 is far from criminal: I posted Ron Paul’s but do your research. Other respectable sources confirm it. My telling Obama to pay attention to it because, whatever happens under his watch will be his responsibility is not criminal. I think you’re a tad too paranoid for your own good…

    Oh, and BTW… From what I understand, banks and government agencies do monitor this site regularly. And that, whether or not I post anything. So, I won’t stop. And the way I see it, whatever I do or don’t do, one thing is absolutely sure: the end of the road is death. For me, for you, for anyone and everyone. I won’t shut up. What’s the risk?

  26. 🙂 more 🙁 pop 🙂 corn 🙁 please 🙂

  27. @CHAS

    “If you want to talk theory…”

    I am not speaking of theory…. but fact. You better re-read what I have stated very carefully. No matter who you are or what interest you have. The deed in lieu lends itelf to more abuses than I have mentioned. It is a trap–for the unwary—-enter with extreme caution. For fools rush in where wise men and angels fear to tread. These servicers —especially idies like this beast—will give no quarter—the view of the CEOs in the sector is that it is inherently wrong for a borrower to walk away without being pilloried. And worse to walk away with anything of value at all.

    This whole deal is ginned up to facilitate a sale of that entity–for a huge profit. its been all over the papers for days. Every DIL they get means more $$$ to the sellers. Then its up to the shakedown crews to claw back what they “promised” to give up. We are not dealing with either moral beings nor lawful ones. We are dealing with entities and people who recognize no authority–respect nothing—have no reason for being except to acrete wealth beyond the greed of Midas.

    FDIC should investigate the transaction and the sellers–guaranteed them over $1 billion in loss offsets on the buyout of liberty–so they need to accelerate the losses now to trigger and cash in on their FDIC “insurance”. It is a bait-n-switch. And Im not buying your story. not for a minute–not after the statement that the treatment the DIL giver gets is same as missing a few months payments–you are either a mole [not very good one] or one simple and innocent person. Your writing style suggests the former rather than the latter.

    This whole thing smacks of another huge ripoff of FDIC. How much will they claim? They want to lock in their losses ASAP–then monetize that loss before anybody figures out what they are doing–then they will pursue the deficiencies. After eection –after they get payout from FDIC. Why –because they can. And it is their nature.

  28. DCB.

    Take your frustration out on the likes of Bank of America etc not on me. I am not your enemy. Your enemy, the banks, is my enemy. You are answering questions with further questions. All I am saying is that a real post about a real outcome is instructive to people here. If you don’t like that option don’t choose that path. Easy to criticize but what alternative path can you suggest?

    I agree they are pretender lenders. I agree it is unconscionable that Wells Fargo/ Fannie Mae bailed out by us will not reveal the true creditor or trust as in my case. That is why I have taken my steps to try to come up with the best path for me in crap situation.

    Hopefully I don’t have to make that decision for several more months but the option of DIL without a deficiency in my case may be a least worst case. Getting $400k off my financials if I have to is ok.

    I don’t think its appropriate to speak of malpractice when you are not familiar with the case and/or lawyer.

    Once again I am not your enemy. Neither is a foreclosure defense lawyer with whom you are not familiar.

    If you want to talk theory etc like many do here I don’t know what ‘investor’ means when FMae says they are the investor in my loan (meaning I don’t believe them). I also have read the FM PSAs and they speak of FM guaranteeing a pool of loans that were converted to certificates for investors (assuming they made it into a pool which they did not). Also says that FM alone will advance those payments. I don’t see how you get from my loan to FM investor and you get to a default when FM is guaranteeing (now via FHFA/tax payer) the investor in the certificates.

    I did not pledge to pay on a note to some FM certificate holder (or 300 of them for that matter).

    Also note FM is now suing the likes of Deutsche Bank for $200 billion dollars for crap loans like mine. So in theory I say to FM go get your money from DB before you come to me.

    So yeah I get it they are pretenders and the whole thing was a mess. I am out personally hundreds of thousands of dollars but like everyone else I am searching for least worst path.

    Hopefully the securitization issues continue making their way into more cases and improving our chances for some kind of better relief. Hopefully the outcomes will improve.

    C

  29. @ CHAS
    “credit is already damaged by not paying for several months.”

    So in your view, if the servicer totally screws up a person’s credit by placing duplicated debts –one defaulted and resolved by deed in lieu, and another as “at risk” on a credit report—– and by publishing a “confidential” resolution to a contested foreclosure as being “unsatisfactory” or “adverse” with a —“deed in lieu” comment —on the client’s record for 7 years—all that has pretty much the same effect as missing a “few months payments”. Thus the homeowner who settled on the basis you have offered up—is not damaged if these negligent misrepresentations and forbidden disclosures are made by this friendly servicer. Nice to know that the servicer here is reserving those options.

    Why do servicers insist on punishing people like this? Why cant they be honest during negotiations [?] and allow that at least some are injured and entitled to setoff? Why override agreements to later punish people who resisted on a reasonable basis–but then accepted your deal?

    Why should a confidentiality agreement presumptively apply to homeowner disclosures but not to servicer disclosures? or as you have apparently reserved–maybe a disclosure–but no harm?

    I think that your perspective is extremely enlightening and everybody on this site should carefully evaluate that view.

    However, so much for a clean walkaway. It would be malpractice to suggest this resolution to a client, unless you were advising a servicer.

  30. It’s a real lawyer with good reputation in FL. with real outcomes. You don’t have to be insanely rich to want to try to get a $150K deficiency waived. credit is already damaged by not paying for several months. I will let it go now. I just think it is instructive to speak of real outcomes. This site has a plethora of information and has really opened my eyes but there is a lot of conjecture here with few solutions offered. It does serve to allow us all to vent which is good also.

  31. @chas404,
    If they actually keep their promises—and forget that “buy new house” if they ping you with a DIL–its seven years as if full bankruptcy
    If a person has assets worth protecting outside bkty——-then better spend a sizable chunk on a really good atty —cause otherwise you are simply clearing their title for them–if you dont have assets to protect then make them foreclose—ding the title

    im really appalled by the urging to jump in the empty pool—you work for goldman? or just under contract?

    why if they screw my client on such a deal will they treat others better?

  32. @ Enraged
    Lest you all think Im just sitting here playing on this computer–im also carefully searching for any sign of any agreement on Greek debt that would cause the Asian markets to open this way or that tonite–tomorrow may be the last day of the economic world as we think we know it—and if the slide starts it may be time to pull cash out asap–or buy on the dip—-but how deep will be the dip

  33. Different outcomes for different situations.

    This lawyer is known to stall banks for 2 to 4 yrs and fight aggressively. So u stall 2 yrs and u take this deal IF it fits you. Given the horrendous situation I think it is a decent outcome. Way better than getting taken for a modification ride and/or having to deal with short sale issues and having a real estate agency negotiate your deficiency waiver etc.

    Homeowner example with $400k debt and house worth $250k and OTHER assets worth protecting… $150K deficiency which can be pursued in FL. Homeowner goes to rent and/our purchase new more affordable house in the future. Takes $400k off financial statement and relieved of $150k.

    Lawyer writes/reviews deficiency waiver this is not a standard cash for keys deal and servicer does not review financials. I imagine lawyer has errors and ommissions insurance if the servicer screws the deal RE true creditor.

    I get what everyone says about standing and true creditor. I personally believe that the deal should be RESCINDED and homeowner given credit for junk fees and interest etc (and not the TILA BS rescission either). However, in Florida judges are holding 15 minute trials and you fight the best you can.

    In my view, taking $3k, walking away from $400k debt of which $150k is upside down and moving on with your life is a pretty good deal for some people.

    For others, it is better to hold out and benefit from the $2k per month staying in the home and continue fighting.

    Winning your $150K back in equity may seem more just but realistically I don’t see that happening yet. There have been very very few cases of that.

  34. @DCB,

    I got you. Thanks for the warning.

    Here is something quite positive, though. And I think it is full of wisdom.

    http://4closurefraud.org/2012/01/14/george-mantor-an-optimists-guide-to-2012/

  35. @ CHAS

    the problem here is basically lack of baragaining power and experience–the servicers know ALL the angles–have tested these solutions on others—you have none of these advantages and few attys either yet——iv seen these solutions abused horrifically

    beware——your premise,
    ” release from deficiency–what if thatr fails–after you give up title and possession—you have no more leverage —–i agree its not good to stand in front of a train—-but dont rush to dive into an empty swimming pool either

    these servicers have only one mission–squeeze money out of you—irrelevant if they cost you a million if it benefits them 50 cents—irrelevant if it kills you–solong as they escape unscathed —and their successes at escaping have only encouraged them to be ever more aggressive

    this scam–seize the house by inducement of promises will only get sinister after election–thats when they will be back to pint out the T not crossed–the I not dotted–the reason why they should not be bound to waive the defociency—if they cant put up a bond then there is a reason

  36. @enraged

    Use of ceratin words in connection with certain names can trigger automated watchers’ attn and risk reports–do you understand what im saying—not to be offensive to you or anyone

  37. Again different outcomes for different people. Key benefits are 1) defiiciency waiver and 2) not submitting financial info. If you are in it for the long haul this is not your option. Most likely those taking this have stayed in the house not paying for quite some time. I think it is beneficial to hear about these real outcomes for those of us facing the unkown.

  38. @DCB,

    I can understand people becoming scared but I don’t think ignoring the writings on the wall will make them go away…

  39. @ ENRAGED
    depite your frustration,
    please respect all of us here—-do not post things like this here–its borderline criminal–go to a gun site if you feel compelled to exercise speach at the borderline—- its not appropriate here

  40. @chas

    You are absolutely correct–if you know what to bargain for, and get it–like a real release–like a proper treatment on your credit report

    but i urge all people to look carefully for an atty that does not want to run his own fee mill–selling you down the river with no life preserver

  41. I realize that it is Ron Paul’s website and it is anything but objective. That being said, it is not the only site that reports records firearms sales in the past 12 months. That should tell us everything we need to know.

    It is coming… President Obama, please take heed. Whatever happens under your watch, your family and you will own it for decades to come. You can either listen to the 99% and order a national foreclosure moratorium, along with investigations and prosecutions of banksters, or… you can keep hand picking your cabinets directors directly from Wall Street. Your choice.

    http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/06/10/firearms-sales-exploding-12th-straight-month-over-month-increase-since-2010-and-154-since-2000/

  42. @all

    ” if this is a win for Stoppa?”

    i dont know if he considers it a win or a reported fact which can be anything after scratching the surface–but i think he should come back on this site and explain the downsides adequately—may take some time to think that out–if havent dealt with this before

    stopa—look carefully please–consider the impact from all perspectives—what if? how will a release of damages be treated as consideration–is it calculable–is it a deed in lieu of foreclosure or a deed plus damages in satisfation of note

    this s very important—iv seen a situation where one of these players just screwed the homeowners royally on one of these —clean credit record promised for release—but not only kept the full loan amount on the record as still owing “open” as one acct—had set up a second acct which they described as “closed” with “adverse” result being a deed inlieu—-

    this was not slander of credit–it was assasination of credit —-victims dint find out that the “resolution” was reported as adverse [against servicer’s representations–which was to be a clean record] until their son was rejected for a cosigned student loan —–and cant pay for next semester in college—more than a year after the “clean” walkaway

    answer—–sue the attorney for malpractice, file charges with bar association, and let him pay the kids college

    the great benefot to defense attys here –no offense intended stopa—is that they can churn through a bunch of clients with little effort annd quick fees—vs fighting foreclosure

    and it might not be a bad solution if you were dealing with honest people

  43. We’ve lost a few regulars in the past weeks: Carie, Cubed2k and a few more who just happen to be in non-judicial states.

    I sincerely hope they’re alright.

  44. @west coaster, “demanded I also sign a general release”

    thus they want a release from damages—but if you “rlease” them—–how would they report that to the credit bureau as “satisfactory” as in if paid or offset by damages–or as if screw you with an “adverse” rating–you partially paid by deed in lieu—and maybe even still owe money

    based on what i saw of the offer–its pretty much in their discretion–even though they want a release of damages –when it comes time to report it to credit bureaus and/or irs–its a forgiveness of indebtedness –if you are lucky and they actually release you

    and what if they destroy your credit record–what then?

    what if they do not remove the debt from your record what then/

    you may end up giving up your home for no consideration at all—with these people that is a real possibility—-apparently this cleansing is so they can convert the accounts into reo–then cash–probably the deal to sell the outfit involves the current vulture owners retaining all accounts that are distressed—so they will say anything goldman suggests to seize cash—the ownership of reo and bank may get sold and resold——collection rights

    any atty signing off on this should be susceptible to malpractice unless he takes great care

  45. The banks are (finally) starting to hurt. Not yet enough, in my opinion.
    Whoever is in a position to simply sue the servicer, just do it. Force the bank’s back to the wall, force the bank to prove its case against you and don’t back down.

    Keep in mind (for those who have been able to find a competent attorney) that, when you pay yours between $700 and $1200/mo plus contingency 10% or 20% of the settlement and attorney’s fees, banks pay about that much AN HOUR in defense costs.

    It doesn’t take long for the bank to eat the house in legal expenses. Multiply that by the number of people willing to go all the way and we’ll be inflicting serious damages.

    We don’t have anyone to count on but ourselves. Government won’t help. Our justice system won’t help. Go for broke… for both parties. Insist on a drawn out, lengthy and costly battle. Eventually, the banks will back down and walk away. They’ve caused so much damage to our economy as a whole, it coa’t get much worse for us. It must get so much worse for them that they end up forced to fold.

    That’s the only way.

  46. Oh, and by the way, I got all 3 of these offers from my crooked ass, no soul, servicer just by not answering their phone calls for 60 days.

  47. So now the banks don’t get the house for free, we are gonna really teach them a lesson and start making them pay $3000. for a house now??? That’s BS!! You don’t need a lawyer to get any of those settlement offers from a bank. All it usually takes is a QWR!!

  48. Realistically folks this can be a good outcome for someone trying to protect other assets from a large deficiency let’s say $100K or so as many have. Is it ideal? No. Given many people’s circumstances I think it is a positive outcome.

  49. Throw every rock you can and defend your homes. it is best for you and best for America. This illustration of what to do was no defense. WOW!

  50. I agree, if this is a win for Stoppa, I would not want him to be my attorney. This is a complete slap in the face. And yes i would demand proof of authorization to represent before giving any financial info to anyone. This is identity theift by them if they are a fraud party with no authority to reprepresent misrepresenting whom they are. Object to misrepresentation and proof of authority to represent the alleged debt you do not owe. I a am not an attorney this is what I would do. I would represent myself rather than be lead to the slatter by an attorney that lead me to handing in the keys to the felony that vicimized me and caused my income to spiral down and out of control and is the reason for lost income and the intended alleged default to steal my house. So the house is not free, it is two or three thousand dollars and that is not a steal? What about the victim? Victimized again. That is half a payment on one month of my house. Then no house when the owner ons it as a matter of law. VOID PSA VOID REMICS, Breach at inception of the loan, TILA laws violatied and massive more crimes committed, and they get away with the victims house for two to three thousand. What about the lawyers fees the victim has to pay. This is a crying shame!

  51. This doesn’t sound like any deal I would take and if I were this attorney I sure as hell wouldn’t be “bragging” about it. I was offered $2,200 cash for keys, but Chase demanded I also sign a general release. I signed only the cash for keys offer and received no cash. Of course they received no keys either!

  52. This is crapola. No deal of any kind especially from a thief

  53. As for the defiency…the banks created the situation…deficiency my a$$. Let them eat it. Getting to angry to post. Whew!

  54. Exactly Peter! My down payment of 50k, 25,200k in payments and the upgrades, from a 25 year old house of 75k and I will give you the house.

  55. Wait…really? I don’t see this as a win of any kind. Get me my $140,000 “good faith” money, my down payment and my monthly payments that went free to the bank instead of the investor, and then you could feel proud.

  56. Spare me!!! What a load of “you know what”!!

  57. They are trying to sell that bank–goldman—-its got a lot of dirt on it or the vultures would not be sitting on it——there is no way i would give them anything in exchange for a promise unless its assured by a large bond from an unrelated entity——

    this is a trap–to what agency would one write to stop the sale? to describe abuses in other controlled entities by the owners—

  58. Not trying to be a dick here, but for a lousy 3000 dollars, I would rather tear the place down and I will even leave the broom for them.

  59. Blackstone Group LP, Carlyle Group LP, WL Ross & Co. and Centerbridge Capital Partners LLC still hold stakes in the bank totaling more than 50 percent, based on regulatory filings compiled by Bloomberg

    ?????????

  60. @ Stopa —-Bank United owned in part by ________———what if they dont keep their promises–your client loses a house and gets a promise that you may later have to enforce—–be very careful—something about “beware greeks bearing gifts”

  61. When you get a letter like that, politely write back, say the Offer is quite interesting, and to do due diligence on acceptance of their new Offer, would the writer please send you copies of the policies signed by sureties and guarantors on the mortgage-guaranty policies of insurance the “named lender” and their apparent successors took out, since the premiums for these policies were paid from your closing monies, together with a print-out showing how the proceeds were applied to their claim of your indebtedness.

    The reason for doing this in a very polite and circumspect way is to be able to (1) introduce your Letter to the Court later on, to demonstrate that you are a reasonable person; and (2) to demonstrate that by not replying (or by obfuscating the issues) the “bank” is hiding from you and the Court the fact that the supposed “debt” is factually all paid off by the mortgage-guaranty insurance policy, that you paid for but the contents of which were hidden from you – and the remittances from which were never credited to the loan.

    Readers should also know that some Insurers, hit by huge claims that are rendering them insolvent, have hired Investigators that are calling up the original borrowers to inquire as to the circumstances of the loan manufacture. If the Investigator determines that the Loan was generated using fraudulent information created by the broker [a common enough occurrence] then the Insurers are refusing payment. While a refused payment of insurance does result in your loan balance remaining, or remaining higher, it also establishes “Lender Liability” and raises that issue before the Court. the Court is not going to raise lender-liability issues for you; so ferret it out and put it in your suit Pleadings, either when you sue the bankers or as an Affirmative Defense.

    My motto: drown the bums in lawsuits. They are pond scum.

  62. […] Visit site: Bank United Offering Deficiency Waivers, Cash for Keys […]

  63. I received a cash for keys offer. The front of the letter was stamped, in 4 places “cash for keys’. I made numerous calls and complained to the USPS about the representation and derogatory stamps all over the envelope and subsequently mailed it back to the attorney with a viable threat about the way it was presented, through the mailing. Everyone in town knew what was going on. It was humiliating and deceptive, at the very least. My offer was $500, to sign a deed in lieu of foreclosure. I don’t think so. A mere pittance after 75k in upgrades, down payments, and 3 years of mortgage payments made and their refusal to accept my payments to get current. As far as I can see, getting your signature and release of the property goes a long way to cleaning up that title. As you are a party of interest on the deed. They can go to hell…they want my signature, they will have to do a lot better than that.

    On a personal note: I like the guy who bull dozed his house into the pool. The house has lien, they do not own the house in its entirety and many of them have no right to anything, as they have loaned nothing.

    My $.02

  64. Settlements? With whom? I just don’t get it!

    Neil’s site appears to have been overtaken of late by a collective sense of almost religious fervor, like things are starting to happen and it’s only a matter of time now. Case in point, the posting and re-posting of “Civil War Erupts On Wall Street”, which purports to signal the beginning of the end of Wall Street, as if they’re all savagely ripping each other to shreds and the battle is finally won for the hapless citizens. BTW, the major suits mentioned as just being filed, the $196 billion suits against the 17 banks are from nearly a half year ago, and the rest of the stories are old as well. There’s nothing new there that I can see.

    The reality is that we’re simply at the tail end of a self-imposed holiday season slow down in foreclosures, as Fannie and Freddie believed, rightfully so, that the thought (or visual) of tens of thousands of bodies piling up on curbs in the cold across America while there’s supposed to be nothing but Christmas cheer this time of year just might prove to be bad press for their cause, that cause being to fraudulently foreclose upon many millions more Americans while no one is looking. And you know what? Their plan is working just fine.

    But quite the opposite of the hopium being passed around on this site, the truth is that the stopper is about to come out of the self-enforced holiday foreclosure moratorium, flooding the realty landscape with millions more fraudulent and heinous acts from sea to once shining sea. Why? Because they can. They still have marching orders from on high…..from Obama….the Treasury….the Fed….Congress…..the regulators….what in the world makes anyone here believe anything has changed for the better?

    This is all just wishful thinking, thinking that’s been clouded by “cost of doing business” lawsuits. Of course bank A will sue bank B for issues in MBS quality, there’s money to be had. But, no one’s being carted off to jail. The fraudulent foreclosure industry isn’t being shut down, it isn’t being called out for what it is; a crime against humanity, a terrorist act against the citizenry greater than al Qaeda could have ever devised. Yes, some of the government agencies are suing the banks, and there are incestuous suits tossed back and forth, but has anyone seen busloads of indictments handed out in the process? No? Any outrage on the Hill? No? Obama appointed who to be his new chief of staff? And as to all the lawsuits, don’t forget a very important fact here….THE BANKS GET THEIR MONEY FROM US FOR FREE!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: