Faulty Foreclosures Present Systematic Breakdown and Big Risks for Buyers


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


Faulty Foreclosures Present

Systematic Breakdown and Big Risks

for Buyers

Editor’s Comment: 

The reality of the system of wrongful foreclosures is being revealed piece by piece as officials examine the filings from pretender lenders. It is plainly obvious that even the “technical” so-called errors are revealing systemic fraud. The result has been people laughing all the way to the bank, with property title in hand that carries presumptions of authenticity simply because it resulted from a foreclosure auction — even if the auction was faked, rigged and a credit bid from a non-creditor was accepted.
Nobody is saying yet that 80% of the foreclosures were so wrong that the property title should revert to the foreclosed homeowner and that those who thought they had title arising out of the foreclosure or from a bank or REO company (another layer controlled by the banks) are in for a rude awakening. Sorting out these title problems will be a virtual industry in coming years as homeowners, illegally foreclosed and evicted from their homes start making claims in larger numbers for return of title and possession. There are many who have already done so and been awarded both title and possession. 
The writing is on the wall and those who don’t read it do so at their own peril. Many people who rode out the recession with money in the bank are buying up properties and renting them out. If the property legally still belongs to the original homeowner, then the title, the possession and possibly the rent collected may be the source of considerable liability for people who think that wrongful foreclosures are not their problem. They would be right if they obtained title as a bona a fide third party purchaser for value — without notice — but the information about fraudulent foreclosures has been in the public domain and the tracing of title is fairly easy if you stick to the simple requirements of law. 
The culprit in these resales of “foreclosed” property are the title insurers, some of whom were active players in MERS. They are smart enough to avoid liability arising from claimed securitization of loans that were never actually securitized and were never properly documented. The relevance is that strangers to the transaction were the source of foreclosures and alleged modification procedures on loans they neither owned, funded, nor did they possess any agency authority to do anything on behalf of undisclosed principals.
There are those who have successfully negotiated the proper terms of exclusions and exemptions in title policies, but they are few and far between. The fact is the title company will deny that their contract for insurance ever covered the securitization risk because they specifically excluded it from the policy. The only real possibility of holding the title companies liable is through their agents who produced a title report. That may well be a novel issue in litigation. 
So the message for people in the business of buying foreclosure properties is to use an attorney who understands the process of securitization, who knows how to protect your rights when the old homeowner comes back with claims and who is willing to negotiate with the title underwriter for a policy that is worth the paper it is written on. Remember, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. 
The banks and government are trying to paper over the problem with a whole layer of third party purchasers so they can claim later that the homeowner can only claim monetary damages. But the law is clear in most states. You can’t deprive someone of title to their own property by fiat. If it were otherwise then the moral hazard we have already seen played out in the housing market will get worse as more and more players enter the market knowing that the worst that can happen is they might need to settle with the old owner for money. Our economy depends upon certainty of title and there are rules about how we establish that certainty. Those rules were broken by the banks and now they must be subjected to the consequences of those actions. 
The bottom line is why should a perfect stranger be allowed to take your property and then be allowed to claim that they were somehow allowed to use fabricated documents containing false and fraudulent declarations of fact, forgeries, and misrepresentation of authority. Homeowners were thus led down a rabbit hole where they thought they were seeking modifications from authorised parties, they thought they were paying the right parties, they thought they owed money when the money had already been paid. The answer from the banks, servicers and others who participated in these false transactions is forget about it. 

High error rate in S.F. foreclosure study means

trouble for state

Originally published Saturday, March 3, 2012

The review found that signatures of some original owners of loans were missing and that affidavits were not filed showing lenders had contacted borrowers to discuss their options 30 days before a mortgage default notice.

The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — More than 80 percent of residential mortgage loans that have gone into foreclosure in San Francisco have missing documents or signatures or otherwise violate the law, according to a review ordered by the city assessor.

The results hint at potentially broader problems with how foreclosures have been handled since the collapse of the housing market.

While many of the errors were technical and related to paperwork, the problem shows the state needs to change its antiquated real-estate regulations, Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said.

“The whole process … is absolutely, 100 percent broken and not working for any of us at this time,” Ting said. “These rules were made for people who walked or rode their horse to the bank.”

The review found that signatures of some original owners of loans were missing and that affidavits were not filed showing lenders had contacted borrowers to discuss their options 30 days before a mortgage default notice.

The review was conducted by Newport Beach-based Aequitas Compliance Solutions. The company looked at 382 of the city’s 2,405 foreclosure sales between January 2009 and October 2011.

The report said it was possible that homeowners were accused of defaulting on loans that they had never agreed to in the first place, and were being foreclosed by lenders that didn’t own the loans.

“How can we expect homeowners to have a fighting chance of saving their homes when they can’t even find who currently owns their debt?” Ting said in a statement.

The report was not aimed at individual lenders, but the system in general. It suggests similar problems could be found elsewhere in the state, Ting said.

He said it would be up to the District Attorney’s Office and state Attorney General’s Office to determine whether the violations were prosecutable.

Richard Green, director of the University of Southern California’s Lusk Center for Real Estate, said he would like to see similar audits done in other California cities to confirm San Francisco is not an isolated case.

But considering the high rate of errors with foreclosures in the city, which suffered a comparatively mild downturn when the housing bubble burst, Green said he would not be surprised if the audit’s findings foretold a broader problem.

“Mistakes happen. But it’s the robustness of this happening. It’s that it’s happening over and over again,” he said.

70 Responses

  1. @ again, Carie

    “I am SO ashamed of my country…”

    Lady, that doesn’t sound like you. The “country” is “the PEOPLE”. The American PEOPLE – as a whole – are very decent, hard-working, honest and a God-fearing people. They’re proud, arrogant, and a lot of times just plain ignorant. I love them and I know you do to. We just have to wake them up.

    You’ve been through and are still going through a lot. Sit back, relax, put your feet up, grab an ice cream cone or tootsie roll pop. Figure out how we can push our foot and leg a little bit further up Wall Street’s behind. They’re already in there and are not coming out. So, go get your wool and knitting needles and take names (Charles Dickens, “Tale of Two Cities”).

  2. @ Carie

    “Does anyone here know what might happen if my Grant Deed (which shows me as sole owner) is re-recorded as a “name correction” AFTER the new Trustee’s Deed is recorded?”


    Would the foreclosure buyer have to bring you back into court on a quiet title action to clear your “re-recorded name correction” deed and regain possession? I know YOUR list of affirmative defenses would reach to the planet Saturn.

    Know of a vacant, abandoned building with MERS and securitized RMBS Trust defects. Think I’ll put your question on the end of a fishing line and throw it in the ocean. See what bites. Keep you informed.

  3. @Scott Bishop,

    So sorry to hear of your situation—my heart goes out to your family…unfortunately, your situation is unbelievably TYPICAL. I am SO ashamed of my country…these people are disgusting and will have to answer to God eventually—and it’s not going to be pretty…’cause He’s not happy… Utter chaos and complete lies on every level with regards to all this…you can’t trust anyone or believe anyone…such a shame. I wish I knew what to say to help you—but I don’t. I hope your lawyer knows what he’s doing. God Bless.

  4. By Scott Bishop,  Sun Mar 4 2012, 19:21
    One small step for homeowners. Here is a story that is playing out in the next 48 hours.

    We qualified for this program in Texas a few months back. Our payment dropped from $2,350 a month to $1,350 for the next six months. We paid $1,200 in cash to wells Fargo and told them to direct deposit the remaining $150 from our account at wells Fargo. When we went to make the next months payment we were informed that the direct deposit bounced due to NSF. The NSF was caused by someone stealing my wife’s wallet and going on a shopping spree. Once we found out that wells Fargo would not accept payments any longer due to this issue we filed a police report, the money was returned to my wife’s account and the person responsible was identified and arrest warrant was issued. However wells Fargo refused to accept payments and that forced us into foreclosure. We applied for loan modification and were told by wells Fargo that our home was set for sale and was going to be sold at auction the first week of February 2012 unless we came up with $17,650. We called them told them we had the money asked where to send it. Wells Fargo told us to hold on to the money that they had put the sale off till the first week of march due to the fact that it looked like our loan modification was going to go thru. We found out 10 days ago that due to our inability to pay the mortgage thru the unemployment program we were denied the modification. We now had ten days to come up with $22,500 now quite a jump for thirty days! Our house is up for auction Tuesday and my wife, my four children ages 18-16-16-15 and myself have been left with little options. My oldest son is disabled with a terminal blindness disease and wells Fargo could care less. We still have the $17,650 plus some but 48 hours left even Fannie Mae said sorry but wells Fargo has spoken. Our only option at this time is to retain council and look further into why the account went into NSF after the deposit was made or find a way to stop the sale. It was not our fault the payment didn’t clear, they don’t care. They gave us hope then the price went up past our means they have now shattered our lives. I do want to mention that in the last few days I have researched the county filings and to my surprise our home was never posted for sale in February 2012 as wells Fargo had told us. I guess they thought $17,650 was out of our reach then when we offered the money to settle the price rose above our means they did post our home for auction. We have close to $100,000 in equity so it’s not worth losing our home for that little amount let alone ripping my family roots up in this manner. I WILL NOT go down without a fight! I did not start this fight but as god is my witness and partner, Wells Fargo pissed off the wrong man!
    Follow up as of 3/12/2012
    As stated they did post our home for auction. Our attorney did get a district judge to sign an order and filed it in the clercks office march 5th to pull the home off the sale for march 6th.
    We officially served the substitute trustee the order papers the morning of the sale before the auction started. Now these are a district judges orders not to sale due to an illegal posting/sale. The trustee for Wells Fargo sold our home back to the bank anyway! My 16yr old daughter was home last week, yes the week of the sale, and was given an eviction notice and questioned about who resides here, are we getting ready to move, all the questions I would guess they should have asked an adult. My children had no idea any of this was going on. Afterall there was no need to discuss it, we have a court order in place. Now one six days after the sale, that includes last weekend, we recieved a letter from Wells Fargo giving us notice to vacate within 3 days! On Thursday after the sale on Tuesday Wells Fargo contacted my wife and apologized, said that the sale would be resended and they were going to reinstate the note for us they just needed two more items of paperwork. They should have had enough paperwork since we had to send them three complete sets due to them losing all the paperwork for the loan modification process. At advice of council, my wife e-mailed the contact at Wells Fargo the next day requesting what documents they needed. They e-mailed a response, they were sorry but the phone call yesterday was a mistake and that the sale stands and the eviction process would continue.
    I liked your letter just thought you would like to hear our story from here in Texas!
    Thank You for your time.



  6. @ foreclosureinfosearch

    Agreed about the QWR, but some of them provide a lot of information, when compared to your own documents. A QWR is real easy to file, but you must do more.

    With my QWR, they gave me an accounting of the “mortgage” they modified…by giving me an ARM in lieu of a 30 year fixed rate @ 5.75%. When I checked the loan accounting they sent…guess what? The payments collected were being distributed as the 30 year loan with principle and interest…in other words, on paper, the modification was never realize and accounted as the 30 year loan. So, in court this is not a legal modification and again, they have no authority to give one…just another piece of the “authority” puzzle. The judge can and should “void” any modification to my loan, which what this about for me. I never asked the loan be changed…they did it on their own, running up fees, interest and their legal charges, as well as my own to over $20,000…Go Figure!

  7. You had 30 days to file your claim, I for one begged you to forgo the QWR The miserable advice given here has got to suffer from some sort of literary malpractice. You had 30 days to file your claim and instead filed a QWR, attacked MERS and questioned the assignment …. You don’t believe me of course not…..

    .believe the IRS capital gains charges to subrogation, first right of refusal . . . . it’s called a 1099

    try reading the CCP in California – what a fool believes

    Give that home away …. msoliman

  8. @All,

    Once again, I realize that this info comes from a fringe website with theories to which I don’t suscribe. That being said, until mainstream media start braoching the subject, I will keep informed, regardless how weird the source, so long as I can verify the original info. It’s already a good thing that some “elightened” people put together a compilation of that kind of data. Again, we don’t get half as much from mainstream media…

    Updated 3/9/12 Huge amount of resignations today. Special thanks to Gabriel at http://www.facebook.com/MassResignations.

  9. On July 12 2007, My husband and I went to close on a new home from Hovnanian.
    Donna K. McDaniels Demello was there, and said she was the escrow agent.
    She told us that the “Builder had changed the lot number” and that the lot we had thought we were buying the past six months, LOT 107, was now actually LOT 256.

    She showed us a grant deed that conveyed LOT 256 to my husband for $10.000 months earlier right after he gave them a check, (we did not know they had placed the words “LOT 256” and cashed it in January)

    Donna told me as that “I was not named on the grant deed, that they had to have my husband sign two deeds of trust on lot 256 as sole and separate property, and then they would have me and him sign two deeds of trust as married.” and they had four loan numbers, one on each deed of trust, a first and second in his name, and then a first and second in both our names.

    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE was Setting us up in loan fraud, and stealing our identity to purchase lot 256 as a straw man.

    Then the next day, the 13th, they created a grant deed that conveyed LOT 107 to us, and then on the 16th, they lured us back to the office, and a notary asked us to “Swear” and give an OATH” that we had signed the deeds on the 12th, and of course we did, so we swore, and she had us sign the same exact notary journal that Donna Demello used.

    What they then did was FORGE our names to a set of Deeds, for LOT 107, and then they placed the name of the notary from the 16th on them, and her name was INTENTIONALLY the same almost as Donna K. McDaniels Demello’s and this notary’s name was Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo!

    Then when I later asked my senior husband (upon seeing lot 107 stuff again) “Hey I thought the lot number had changed?” He in declining age, said, no, it was always lot 107.

    Now here two years into litigation, the Court still refuses to hear me, and allow a trial, because I am pro per.
    The ONLY deeds we signed were LOT 256, and this is NOT RIGHT!
    Our rightful property of LOT 256 has been taken from us unconstitutionally.

    They framed my husband, made me think he did this willingly for over two years, and they ARRESTED Donna K. Demello for over EIGHTY OTHER STRAW MAN LOANS. She is Still FREE, her son goes to HARVARD. One of her close relatives is an UNDERWRITER at WELLS FARGO, and another is a financial advisor.

    The forged deeds of trust, they also placed the loans that were on the first set for LOT 256, so we were actually paying on that home.

    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE DID THIS, and this is outrageous that I cannot be heard in court, and that court will not allow me to amned my complaint to state the true name of the escow agent on the 12th,
    FATCO knew by lacing the similar name of the other Donna on the forgeries, that I would name the wrong person, and I did, and then she has been pretending to be the escrow agent, bit she is an imposter.

    The FDIC, has conspired in this scheme with FATCO and this is wring that my government is allowing this to continue, and the court tells us we HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SUE!

    Faulty loans+ Faulty foreclosures!

  10. @ tnharry

    As long as it stays that way. I do not feel comfortable, with anyone using the same name, even though I am aware people have the same names, most web sites will not allow exact names to be used.

    Your opinion is fine, but I want make sure of anything should stated here, that is not my sole opinion, there is another here, by the same name. I do not totally trust anyone, in this situation!

  11. @anonymous

    I need to ask you a question about something you wrote here.

    My alleged loan was for a new purchase, full doc, fixed interest rate. I asked for closing instructions for my loan, which, for those who do not know, is not the same as the package given to the borrower after the closing. In the closing instructions is an agreement, signed a month before my closing date, that a lender (unnamed in any of the closing documents) would lend XXX dollars. The amount was an “up to XXXdollars” amount, not an amount matching my loan amount. That “up to” XXX dollar amount was about $40K more than my loan amount.

    I had no knowledge of this lender until four years later in discovery. It was also curious that I went to a mortgage broker, who was paid a mortgage broker fee, and the party I thought was the lender was paid a BROKER fee too. This shows on the HUD settlement statement.

    Is that what you mean by there was no lender? If so, would the note and mortgage be void ab initio? Has anyone been successful with this defense argument?

  12. C’mon tnharry, admit it….I know you did it! 🙂

  13. @Chris – the existence of another Chris in the world somehow equates to a breach of your personal information?!? that’s awfully misguided. and it’s not as though it appears to be a provacative posting. it seems awfully benign to be an alleged hack…

  14. @Chris,

    It keeps happening. People show up once on this site using someone else name and never return. Happened to me too a couple of weeks ago. No need to worry… Lots of loose cannons out there.

  15. @ All

    Chris, on March 8, 2012 at 7:37 pm said: “What I find curious about this blog is no one is talking about the statute of limitations. You go on and on about the wrongful foreclosures, title”, etc….

    This is not the Chris from NC with various posts over time…I did not write this! Watch….it appears my personal info has been breached!

  16. @BSE,

    I you look at the list of who resigned, you start seeing that investigations have been undertaken. That’s a start!

  17. So the FEDs investigate a college basketball player for shaving points..But they do nothing to investigate the scum that created a device to steal trillions from innocent people.

  18. Taking up speed. And check this out: 4 guys from today are… in the US of A…


  19. Can somebody explain this ucc3-301 and how to defend it.



  20. FIRE Edward DeMarco !!!!!

  21. James,

    First you have to find out whether is was a valid negotiable note to being with. If you had a subprime refinance or new purchase, it was not a valid note. Why? Because there was no mortgage lender. This is the major issue that has been avoided here.

    Subprime were rejected mortgages, there was no “lender.” Subprime was a transfer of collection rights. All notes refer to a “lender” — there was no lender. Collection rights transfer do not require a lender. Further, these types of “notes” were subject to numerous conditions, which negate negotiability.

    We are talking collection rights ASSIGNMENT — not valid mortgage notes. .

  22. @joanne

    I am not a lawyer, and I am not offering legal advice. I have studied the UCC and find it confusing on some points, but very clear on others.

    The UCC does refer to a copy of the note, but it is important to distinguish that when it refers to entitlement to enforce, it states that the party entitled to enforce must to be IN POSSESSION of the INSTRUMENT. The UCC defines its use of the word instrument as NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. A copy of a note is not a negotiable instrument. Even a nonholder with right to enforce, must be IN POSSESSION of the instrument.

    Most, if not all, states allow a copy of the note to be attached to the original complaint, but if the plaintiff cannot prove when and how it came into possession of the original note, its claim to be holder of the note is unlikely to establish standing to bring suit, if contested. If the defendant fails to press these facts in discovery, or when a nonjudicial foreclosure prohibits the defendant from doing so, then the servicer usually gets away with a simple copy. If the defendant does not object, then the Court accepts the copy of the note as authentic (regardless of how easy is it to alter a copy of any document.) If the defendant objects to the authenticity of the plaintiff’s evidence, then the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Negotiation is all about indorsement and delivery and both are provable. The delivery receipts should be available.

    It is understandable that the plaintiff’s legal counsel would safeguard an original note, since it most often is indorsed in blank–payable to the bearer–but at some point the plaintiff should be forced to submit the original note to the court. Do we shoot ourselves in the foot by not asserting our right to the return of the original note or a bond from the plaintiff for the amount of the judgment, to avoid multiple claims? In times past, relinquishment of the original note was expected and demanded by the Court before judgment was rendered.

    Another argument about the note, especially a lost note, was presented when a supreme court decision was handed down in the past few weeks stating that if no note is filed in the suit, then the obligation for the debt remains, but the mortgage is most often unenforceable because the material terms of the note are not ascertainable by the mortgage contract alone. This is especially true in the uniform FNMA mortgage contracts. The FNMA mortgage requires minimal details about payment terms of the debt, and by contract law is not enough to enforce the security instrument. This decision certainly begs to question Florida’s pending law that will not require even a copy of the note to be filed to foreclose.

    Another issue to consider is the briefly-mentioned statement in the PEB updated report last year which warned that we “should not assume that every mortgage note is negotiable.” Huh?

    Oh well, a discussion for another time. 🙂

    If we can hang on and keep fighting, some of us will see changes that just might help some of us save our homes.

  23. What I find curious about this blog is no one is talking about the statute of limitations. You go on and on about the wrongful foreclosures, title, etc., but I believe the courts are going to throw out most of these claims on limitations purposes and bona fide purchase status. There are some states such as Mass. that have thrown out the Bona fide purchaser argument, however, in the more conservative states i.e., republican states, I believe you will find the court’s will only allow compensaton and not return of the property, and I also believe they will find a way to throw out the claims on limitations. There’s already limitation periods in Texas for wrongful foreclosure and fraud, and I believe those will be the vehicles to throw out the claims.

  24. I sent him and his lawyer an email with Neil’s comment above…funny how they never respond to me…probably think I’m nuts—or they’re a little scared…? Nah.

  25. @dee

    The trustee’s sale was 12/21/2011 and the “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale” was recorded on 01/04/2012. The “Grantee” was Steve Leitner—a real estate investor who is trying to kick me out of my home with his attack lawyer. His sale signs are all over the neighborhood…guess he’s got this one wrapped up.

  26. It is time for the country to start fighting the title companies who
    knowing issued policies for forged and fraudulent properties in order
    for the title companies to receive illegal fees.

    In 2008 , when Astoria Federal S&L’s new attorney admitted that
    they never owned my two condos when the banks previous corrupt attorneys auctioned them off and it was indemnify, Indemnify Indemnify and the title companies are stepping in.

    Here in lies the problems for the true homeowners.

    Thomas Malone, attorney for Fidelity National Title and his partner in crime David K Fiveson of a sham title company he calls Coronet Title
    paid a bribe to Judge Alice Schlesinger of NYSC for her to rule It wouldn’t be right to oust their clients, they like the property.

    We need more judges like Arthur Schack and less like Alice Schlesinger.

  27. boots- that’s the spirit! You can probably find that the ‘original lender’ went bankrupt years ago, throw that in their face too. Ask to see the credit bid info, see who is on the newly laundered title, etc. Make life miserable for the people in your recorder’s office. But make sure you smile while you’re doing it. Here’s another tip: whenever you talk to these people, don’t look them in the eye, look at either their right ear or their left ear, or switch from one to the other. Do this while you’re gesturing, nodding your head, raising your eyebrows, etc. After awhile they begin sobbing and collapse in a pulp-like heap on the floor.

  28. 66 government resignations in the last 6 months. Check out the number of “corruption”, financial scandal” and my favorite one: “personal reasons”…


    The clean up is general…

  29. correction pls.

    FEBRUARY 2011.

  30. last february 2012, i went to san mateo county recorder’s office in ca. to complaint about the fabricated documents recorded on recorder’s office. the supervisor told me their office is not an investigative branch and they will only record documents based on the procedure rather than the legitimacy of the recorded documents.

    San mateo county recorder’s office in Ca is a scene of a crime even when i told them that the auction bidding is rigged and the one who got the bidding never pays transfer tax, their reasons is that it was the original lender who won the bids. i think the person who runs this stinking recorder’s office should be booted out from his office . calling mark church.

  31. @ carie

    How long did it take for the debt collector’s to file a new deed of trust with the county clerk after the auction?

  32. @Bart

    You’re confusing me. You say “do not move”…but we have no choice when a real estate company buys the house at auction and records the Trustee’s Deed…the sheriff WILL come…how can we “not move”?

    Does anyone here know what might happen if my Grant Deed (which shows me as sole owner) is re-recorded as a “name correction” AFTER the new Trustee’s Deed is recorded?

  33. P&M: Sudiman leaves Deutsche
    08 March 2012

    Johan Sudiman has resigned as director of the distressed loans desk at Deutsche Bank. Sudiman is said to be heading to a US bank and will remain based in Asia.

  34. Keep teaching about those credit bids Neil, no money down means no sale, title is property owners, not a reo company.proof of original title still intact is sweet on top for the property owners. Do not move.

  35. Another big resignation…

    Interesting. Apparently, some of those are actually court ordered. When are we going to do that too? Or is the entire Goldman Sachs borad leaving by court order?

    Raza, who learned everything to know about banking in the UK, had a 3 year contract with NBP, staring in April 2011. The least we can say is that he didn’t last too long…

    KARACHI – The President of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) Syed Ali Raza has tendered his resignation with immediate effect, the industry sources told Profit. They said the federal government has accepted the resignation of Raza whose immediate sacking had been ordered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its January 14th decree. The apex court’s order came in view of the banker’s appointment as President NBP for the fifth consecutive time.
    Also, the bank confirmed the reports by sharing a materilal infomration with its shareholders at the country’s three stock exchanges in Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore on Wednesday. “The federal government has accepted the resignation of Mr S Ali Raza,” said bank’s secretary SM Ali Zamin, in a notice to the Karachi Stock Exchange here. Raza, a senior banker, stepped down as a chairman Board of Directors of the bank with immediate effect, the secretary said.

  36. carie and tnharry

    just a bit more further thinking….beleive the codes in non judicial were meant to be strictly enforced when there is no judicial review in order to protect the trustor equally along with beneficiary only we have a situation where the courts are not doing this except for a few judges rulings here and there hit or miss.

    If a “true and correct” copy of the note cannot be produced and recorded chain of title is challenged in court see UCC Permanent Editorial Board Draft report on what is needed to be recorded in non judicial to protect the interest of beneficiary sworn under penalty of perjury ect…

    Anyway seems to me if they produce something bogus or incomplete (as in original copy) or nothing at all there is then recourse to challenge it even prove fraud if it exists (and that is why they don’t answer but seems to me no response can be also be brought up as a red light in court as well – why no response).


  37. carie and tnharry

    just thinking

    “a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or
    other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto”

    I am reading the code to be:

    “with any modification thereto”
    to mean endorsements alonges ect.

    “true, correct, and complete”
    to mean as it stands today…

    copy of wet ink note as it appears at the time of the request for the beneficiary statement….simple request

    Think about it – what was the intent of the law or of the code – beneficiary statement has to come from beneficiary – if mortage is sold and there is a new beneficiary there is an ADOT and note is endorsed and delivered to new beneficiary (ADOT says so) and entitiled person has a right to demand it from the beneficiary – otherwise why have a note at all – trustor can demand to see the note as described in the code- who is the maker after all? I know the courts are not doing this but I don’t think attorneys use this code either or demand the benefciary statement including the note – just don’t think that was the intent of the law to make who currently owns the note irrelevant to the maker.

    I think a few people have been successful with this in CA and received a “complete” copy of updated wet ink note not just original computer copy the servicers send in answer to qwr. I think it has to be done according to the request for beneficiary statement described in CA code 2943

  38. Consumer Financial Protection Complaint forced insurance

    Case number: 120305-000236

    Describe what happened so we can understand the issue…
    Reference #120210-000250 companion complaint.
    I have made a complaint against Onewest.
    Now in retaliation they have force placed insurance that is 3x the amount being paid. [Pages 1-3.
    My policy has not changed since origination of the loan.[page 4]. Paid quarterly.
    My policy was paid current and they were noticed.
    Now they have forced the insurance and cancelled my coverage. [pages 5-6]
    Indymac knew, knew now, should have known, my coverage was the same and the copy was sent to them.
    The refund check sent to me for the 3 months payments that were current.
    The have been the beneficiary and knew it was paid.
    I feel it may be related to the other complaint.
    Which part of the mortgage process is your issue related to?
    Making payments
    This is about Other
    Do you believe the issue involves discrimination? Yes No
    On the basis of
    Exercise of rights under the consumer credit protection act
    What do you think would be a fair resolution to your issue?
    Make appropriate corrections including reinstatement of my present insurance that they were responsible for cancelling.
    Contact information
    Mailing address
    I am filing on behalf of Myself
    Property address is the same as mailing address.
    Information about the company
    Indymac Mortgage Servicing/OneWest Bank
    PO Box 10051
    Florence SC 29502-0511
    United States
    Supporting documents
    •  indymac insurance complaint.pdf (414.71 KB)
    •  indymac letter in response to Consumer Financial Protection Com.pdf (45.64 KB)
    •  indymac and balboa fraud.txt (11.22 KB)
    •  balboa uamc policy LISTING UAMC AS BENEFICIARY.txt (4.95 KB)
    Auto-Response03/05/2012 10:19 AM
    Thank you for contacting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    We have received your complaint (Case number: 120305-000236) and will send it to your company as soon as possible.

    You can track your complaint at: https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/account/complaints/list.

    In the meantime, if you’re having trouble paying your mortgage and want to be connected to a free, HUD-approved housing counselor, call (855) 411-CFPB. Special assistance may be available to military members or veterans.

    Thank you,
    Consumer Response Team

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    (855) 411-CFPB (2372)
    Customer Brian Davies via Web03/05/2012 10:19 AM
    Reference #120210-000250 companion complaint.
    I have made a complaint against Onewest.
    Now in retaliation they have force placed insurance that is 3x the amount being paid. [Pages 1-3.
    My policy has not changed since origination of the loan.[page 4]. Paid quarterly.
    My policy was paid current and they were noticed.
    Now they have forced the insurance and cancelled my coverage. [pages 5-6]
    Indymac knew, knew now, should have known, my coverage was the same and the copy was sent to them.
    The refund check sent to me for the 3 months payments that were current.
    The have been the beneficiary and knew it was paid.
    I feel it may be related to the other complaint.

  39. @hman ,

    You should be able to get a copy of the “FULL CLOSING FILE” from the title/closing company YOU PAID THE CLOSING COMPANY .. IT’S YOUR FILE .. I have mine and it clearly shows funding from an undisclosed source (warehouse line BofA) and 5 different HUD-1’s !! (they kept fudging things around…) … came to over 150 pages..

    ALL ,

    There is a foreclosure in my neighborhood that I would like to screw with ,,, I have the listing agents name … The foreclosure was definately bad ,, based on DocX docs that were withdrawn and replaced with better forgeries that addressed the objections of defendants counsel.. I would like to put the realtor on notice that any buyer of this house is at risk and get them to drop the listing… we need to attack these from all angles .. we MUST make stealing homes unprofitable. Neil or any other lawyer .. What should I say and should I send a copy to any licensing organization for realtors at the same time?

  40. @joann – that code section you refer to doesn’t say anything about original notes. in fact, the part you quote from very clearly refers to a copy….

  41. I have generally thought that the Californians did not fight very well, they do not seem to get it right, Millie did most of the right things she did fight well in my opinion anyways.

  42. Carrie,

    I have copies of my notes too. The first one Aurora sent me was indorsed in blank. Then a law firm representing Aurora sent me a note that had multiple indorsements and an allonge. The allonge was a POA giving Aurora “authority” to act as Deutshce’s behalf.

    They also sent me a collateral file. In the file is the same note only stamped with the title companies stamp? I asked to inspect the original note at a local Deutsche or Aurora Branch in my Area. I sent them a check for $200 to cover any shipping expenses. They sent me the check back stating they did not have to provide me with the original unless we were in discovery.

  43. I meant “kept” hounding him…

  44. @joann

    Oh, I have plenty of copies of the note and the DOT…I’m talking about the ORIGINAL note.

    And, the servicer sent me that letter about “proceed with foreclosure’ AFTER the house was sold…because I kepy hounding him about ownership…

  45. What do you think would happen if someone slapped a mechanic lien on a home that none of the parties were around? A contractor has to give any party with an interest in the loan a notice that they intend to foreclose.

    How would they send notice to a defunct lender/title company? Also, if the title company is the trustee on record who would they give notice to to process the foreclosure?

    Say the lien was for $20K Could the homeowner show up at auction and bid the money? If they were the highest bidder (Cash) would they get the house? Would the DOT be rerecord with no lender?

  46. @jg

    Yep—the foreclosure mill sent me a “response” in writing when I cited (in writing) the FDCPA with TILA Amendment, and the fact that I had the right to know who is my real creditor/owner—and that it is illegal for a debt collector to foreclose and sell a house…they sent that response I posted in writing, through the mail…due to the fact that those answers were lies and they sold my house based on those lies—isn’t that wire or mail fraud??? Among other things???

  47. @carie

    “California code does not require that we provide you with the original promissory note, or evidence of it’s location, in order to proceed with foreclosure…”…Does anybody out there know what the heck “code” he is referring to?”

    Would like the answer to that question myself (could have to do with timing – when in foreclosure process requested???).

    Only CA Code I am aware of says exactly the opposite and they have 21 days to provide it or there is a statatory penalty:

    California Civil Code Section 2943(b)

    “(b) (1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall,
    within 21 days of the receipt of a written demand by an entitled
    person or his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver to the
    person demanding it a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or
    other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto, and a
    beneficiary statement.
    (2) A request pursuant to this subdivision may be made by an
    entitled person or his or her authorized agent at any time before, or
    within two months after, the recording of a notice of default under
    a mortgage or deed of trust, or may otherwise be made more than 30
    days prior to the entry of the decree of foreclosure.”

  48. Suddenly and conveniently 200 or more years of law is “antiquated”. give me a break , who are they fooling?

  49. @carie – did they put any of that about mers being your original lender/creditor in writing to you?

  50. @enraged – I’m with you. That’s an odd comment and it’s very disheartening; it does appear to be posturing for some future bull.
    Is this a trick? Is the real take-away from that audit “the system is antiquated”, not the failure of the banksters to follow protocol, nicely stated? And I suppose “they” have just the cure, aka a national electronic registry? Californians got to pay for this? I hope we’re wrong. If not, people should be screaming angry.

  51. There are 2 unsatisfied Bank liens prior to her purchase, one recorded contractor lien after purchase against previous owner on title. After her purchase .. MERS, Home123, REO Properties Corp.and DB Structured Products. Yes … she has a a Great Attorney for the last 4yrs. But never the less …. her options are limited without a long lengthy lawsuit. Her balance is 78,000 on a 148,000 property. She has a good management job and she has no debt other than a 16,000 balance on her student loan. She wants to sell and carry over her equity. But she Can Not! She can only sue …



  53. “While many of the errors were technical and related to paperwork, the problem shows the state needs to change its antiquated real-estate regulations, Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said.

    “The whole process … is absolutely, 100 percent broken and not working for any of us at this time,” Ting said. “These rules were made for people who walked or rode their horse to the bank.”

    Here is the problem: once it has been established that the system is “antiquated” (which it isn’t. It is made for a systematic and thorough recording of land ownership and protection of landowners from speculators and thieves!!!), some “new and improve” system will be designed which we completely fail where the old one worked. This is the kind of statement that i find ominous.

  54. just FYI:

    carie, on March 8, 2012 at 10:32 am said:

    This is what the servicer said when I asked him who owns the promissory note and WHERE is it?
    “California code does not require that we provide you with the original promissory note, or evidence of it’s location, in order to proceed with foreclosure…”
    Does anybody out there know what the heck “code” he is referring to?
    Notice he never answered the ownership question—just says “your loan was pooled into the mbs trust, blah blah blah…”

    carie, on March 8, 2012 at 10:24 am said:

    This is the vulture debt collector (Aztec foreclosure company) that LIED to me when I asked them in writing who is creditor/lender (under FDCPA)—listen to this stupid, blatant LIE–they said: “Your original lender/creditor was MERS…your current creditor/lender is DBNTC (the Deutsche Trustee of the MBS trust)”…TOTAL BS—every word.

    Look how many thefts/sales they have lined up:


    Feel free to write a nice little letter telling the the assistant vice pres and the assistant secretary—Robbie Weaver—how you feel about all of these thefts:

  55. Kathy,

    My lender/Broker/Title company are long gone too. Only parties left on my DOT is me and our buddy MERs. Mers claims a totally different party not on the DOT is the owner/servicer. The fact that the seller was also the lender. Well that seems very problamatic. Not sure what to do in that instance? Quiet title? Fraud?

    IMO Fraud is very hard to prove. You have to prove intent which is very difficult. Maybe she could try and track down an ex-officer of the broker/lender. The party on the DOT. If successful maybe she could have them sign a quit claim or try to find them in default?

    Just my opinion? I’d say try and find a competent attorney but it looks like they’ve already been down that road. Also, trying to find an attorney to sue an attorney would probably near impossible. I know a lot of people have bashed attorneys but I’ve been very happy with mine. I had 4 consults before I found an attorney I like. I have been in the home almost a year and a half with no payment. I’m pretty certain I’d packed my bags already with her.

    This may happen anyway but at least I’m not going to make it easy.

  56. @ Jim

    It is to my understanding the AG settlement clears way for the banks to forclose on properties with bad titles from 2008-2011. But it does not address the foreclosures prior to that. This still leaves homeowners paying higher intrest rates because they can not refi … and for those who want to sell …. not even an option! And those who are paying will eventually pay off the debt and find out the title is corrupted .. i.e… only good for a rental. People are being made FORCED LANDLORDS and they do not even know it yet. When you leave this home to your children as part of your estate … they then become FORCED LANDLORDS … because they can no more pass on a good title than their parents could. What a tangled Web they weave ……

  57. Unfortunately the same people who own and control the banks, own and control the media. This story will get out only if we get it out!

  58. Wake up. States like Massachusetts are legislating away former owners rights; they are proposing to clear title to foreclosed properties by statute, declaring new owners have the rights of a bfp

  59. hman
    You have a good point, but what if the title co. went belly up with the broker, originator, servicer and lender. She will never receive a Good Tile, she will never legally own what was sold to her. The party claiming to be the seller/owner was also the “hidden lender”! She was advised to sue her closing attorney for failure to do his job … but trying to find an attorney to sue an attorney is impossible! How is it possible that she legally owes the debt? (unsecured or not). When she will never own the home.

  60. Mario

    Are you talking about trying to claim property via adverse possession? I’ve looked into this in AZ. There was a couple of requirements. You had to be living in the home openly. You also had to be the party maintaining and paying the taxes for 3 years. You also had to be have an adverse claim to the party on title.

    This is why this scenario didn’t work for me. I’m on the title. I can’t be adverse to myself. However, after a foreclosure when you’re removed from title this might work? I don’t know any other states requirements but I believe some states only require 2 years of taxes.

    I also looked into bonded title. No joke the company said that it would be almost 25k! It is 2.5%-10% of the original note amount. Times 2! This option wasn’t worth it for me. Rather take my chances with an attorney.

  61. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, affidavits • attesting • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • fabricating • false information • false sworn documents • foreclose • illicit business practices • improper statements • imp, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  62. I’m not sure how you would be covered by the title policy? The title policy only protects against prior errors in the chain of title. Not what happens after you close. If there was issues MERS etc…prior I’d imagine you’d have a leg to stand on. Also, if the title company knowingly recorded/identified the wrong party as the lender I think you would have a case.

    How could you prove this? I’ve seen people ask for the funding/wire instructions from the title company. Has anyone done this? Does the title company have to give you this information? I know many people have stated that only collection rights were assigned. In my case I did a cash out refi and took out $100k. That money was put into my bank account?

    Where did it come from? I think somebody somewhere had some skin in the game.(Investor money advanced by the securitization trustee to the originator? IDK?) I have a copy of the wire but it doesn’t say anything about where the money came from other than from a chase checking account. This is why I think wiring instructions would be very beneficial if it conflicted with the DOT.

  63. Question: Will my attorney have any luck bringing the SF report to the judge to stop the sale of my house–last month my attorney told me to file a bk because the judge would not grant a tro the first time he tried. Alameda County, California. Please advise. thanks.

  64. Well if the titles are flawed, any person including the previous homeowner can simply occupy the house, making a claim to the court with intent to gain legal stated ownership of subject property, right?

    I mean if a house is vacant for more than 12 months and the paperwork is messed up any person can gain title to that property and own it, its just common sense I think.

  65. Oh I might add my grandparents family also got wiped out by the Deutche Banksters

  66. Yeah but who has the money to fight the banksters? People that lost their homes are already desimated by the time they loose their homes or lost jobs and move to another region.

    Sort of like my family in Poland My grand parents lost all their belongings houses properties businesses. Did they see a dime? No.
    Only the German Jews got some of their money back.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: