Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm
|
|
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688
|
NEW! 
Editor’s Comment:
The number of people passing up the administrative review process is appallingly low, considering the fact that many if not most homeowners are leaving money on the table — money that should rightfully be paid to them from wrongful foreclosure activity (from robo-signing to outright fraud by having non-creditors take title and possession).
The reason is simple: nobody understands the process including lawyers who have been notoriously deficient in their knowledge of administrative procedures, preferring to stick with the more common judicial context of the courtroom in which many lawyers have demonstrated an appalling lack of skill and preparation, resulting in huge losses to their clients.
The fact is, administrative procedures are easier than court procedures especially where you have mandates like this one. The forms of complaints and evidence are much more informal. It is much harder for the offending party to escape on a procedural technicality without the cause having been heard on the merits.
The banks were betting on two thngs when they agreed to this review process — that people wouldn’t use it and that even if they used it they would fail to state the obvious: that the money wasn’t due or in default, that it was paid and that only a complete accounting from all parties in the securitization chain could determine whether the original debt was (a) ever secured and (b) still existence. They knew and understood that most people would assume the claim was valid because they knew that the loan was funded and that they had executed papers that called for payments that were not made by the borrower.
But what if the claim isn’t valid? What if the loan was funded entirely outside the papers they signed at closing? What if the payments were not due? What if the payments were not due to this creditor? And what if the payments actually were made on the account and the supposed creditor doesn’t exist any more? Why are you assuming that the paperwork at closing was any more real than the fraudulent paperwork they submitted during foreclosure?
People tend to think that if money exchanged hands that the new creditor would simply slip on the shoes of a secured creditor. Not so. If the secured debt is paid and not purchased then the new debt is unsecured even if the old was secured. But I repeat here that in my opinion the original debt was probably not secured which is to say there was no valid mortgage, note and could be no valid foreclosure without a valid mortgage and default.
Wrongful foreclosure activity includes by definition wrongful auctions and results. Here are some probable pointers about that part of the foreclosure process that were wrongful:
1. Use the fraudulent, forged robosigned documents as corroboration to your case, not the point of the case itself.
2. Deny that the debt was due, that there was any default, that the party iniating the foreclosure was the creditor, that the party iniating the foreclosure had no right to represent the creditor and didn’t represnet the creditor, etc.
3. State that the subsitution of trustee was an unauthorized document if you are in a nonjudicial state.
4. State that the substituted trustee, even if the substitution of trustee was deemed properly executed, named trustees that were not qualified to serve in that they were controlled or owned entities of the new stranger showing up on the scene as a purported “creditor.”
5. State that even if the state deemed that the right to intiate a foreclosure existed with obscure rights to enforce, the pretender lender failed to establish that it was either the lender or the creditor when it submitted the credit bid.
6. State that the credit bid was unsupported by consideration.
7. State that you still own the property legally.
8. State that if the only bid was a credit bid and the credit bid was invalid, accepted perhaps because the auctioneer was a controlled or paid or owned party of the pretender lender, then there was no bid and the house is still yours with full rights of possession.
9. The deed issued from the sale is a nullity known by both the auctioneer and the party submitting the “credit bid.”
10. Demand to see all proof submitted by the other side and all demands for proof by the agency, and whether the agency independently investigated the allegations you made.
If you lose, appeal to the lowest possible court with jurisdiction.
Many Eligible Borrowers Passing up Foreclosure Reviews
By Julie Schmit
Months after the first invitations were mailed, only a small percentage of eligible borrowers have accepted a chance to have their foreclosure cases checked for errors and maybe win restitution.
By April 30, fewer than 165,000 people had applied to have their foreclosures checked for mistakes — about 4% of the 4.1 million who received letters about the free reviews late last year, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The reviews were agreed to by 14 major mortgage servicers and federal banking regulators in a settlement last year over alleged foreclosure abuses.
So few people have responded that another mailing to almost 4 million households will go out in early June, reminding them of the July 31 deadline to request a review, OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard says.
If errors occurred, restitution could run from several hundred dollars to more than $100,000.
The reviews are separate from the $25 billion mortgage-servicing settlement that state and federal officials reached this year.
Anyone who requests a review will get one if they meet certain criteria. Mortgages had to be in the foreclosure process in 2009 or 2010, on a primary residence, and serviced by one of the 14 servicers or their affiliates, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank and Wells Fargo.
More information is at independentforeclosurereview.com.
Even though letters went to more than 4 million households, consumer advocates say follow-up advertising has been ineffective, leading to the low response rate.
Many consumers have also grown wary of foreclosure scams and government foreclosure programs, says Deborah Goldberg of the National Fair Housing Alliance.
“The effort is being made” to reach people, says Paul Leonard, the mortgage servicers’ representative at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group. “It’s hard to say why people aren’t responding.”
With this settlement, foreclosure cases will be reviewed one by one by consultants hired by the servicers but monitored by regulators.
With the $25 billion mortgage settlement, borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure will be eligible for payouts from a $1.5 billion fund.
That could mean 750,000 borrowers getting about $2,000 each, federal officials have said.
For more information on that, go to nationalmortgagesettlement.com.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: administrative procedures, administrative review process, auctioneer, Bank of America, Bryan Hubbard, Citibank, credit bid, creditor, debt, default, foreclosure process, foreclosure reviews, fraudulent paperwork, homeowners, independent foreclosure review, JP Morgan Chase, judicial, Julie Schmit, Money on the table, Mortgage, non-creditors, NONJUDICIAL, OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, possession, pretender lender, procedural technicality, restitution, Robo-Signing, secured debt, securitization chain, substituted trustee, Substitution of Trustee, title, unsecured debt, Wells Fargo, wrongful auction, wrongful foreclosure |
@Linda: did you submit to OCC or to independent foreclosure review? 2011?
Enraged –
I am far from a defeatist. Like you, I went on the attack before waiting for BOA to come after me. I feel that is the best way. I have been fighting BOA for 4 years now. They will do nothing. There should be a statuatory limit for banks doing nothing. There is no loan out there that can be found after Neil’ securitization and title search.
I submitted my paperwork and the OCC gave it to Wells Fargo, who did not own my loan, though they bought it in a credit bid and sold our home. Wells Fargo just ignored my complaint/appeal and left me a phone message that the foreclosure and eviction were valid. Wells Fargo never sent me their findings in writing.
Wells Fargo/Wachovia just ignored the foreclosure review paperwork, the same way they ignored the administrative process and the modification. They just do NOT care. So what’s the point?
No matter what this cabal owns you cold: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild01.htm#Ministry%20of%20Justice-%20American%20Bar%20Association
Albert,
You may not be able to save the house but there are a few things you can do to inflict a maximum of pain to a maximum of people.
1) The person who conned you into signing the paperwork. I believe you said she was a realtor, right? File a complaint with the reator association of FL. Name names and be specific. File with BBB as well. Even if any statute ran out, BBB may still put a bad mark behind that person’s name.
2) Are there any documents with an out-of-state address or notary? File there too.
3) Any law firm involved involved in your paperwork? Out-of-state? file a complaint with the Bar of each state involved.
4) Have you paid any attorney to help you and they failed to do the work? File a complaint with FL bar (those do get investigated)
5) Definitely file with OCC.
6) File a complaint with that new outfit created by Elizabeth Warren (and run by Richard Cordray. Forgot its name. Something consumer).
7) Write ot Obama. He won’t do anything personally but your case will be “escalated” somewhere: it is an election year after all and FL is a swing state. Don’t underestimate the weight of politics.
At this point, what you want is buy some serious time until you can find representation. Go for it: pester everyone who is someone. From what I understand anyway, Fukushima isn’t doing very well, it’s still leaking like hell, the ground has sunk underneath, the concrete underneath is fully liquefied and there have been 4 earthquakes around Honshu in the past couple of days (my nephew is there. His government strongly advises people to leave, even those 300 miles away). Your problem may very well become suddenly completely secondary and you might be able to stay in the house forever…
Accomodator, Arranger, may be affiliates, subsidiaries and Closing Agent post-production contacts Accomodator, Arranger for next set of instructions
Originator is SELLER and purchaser of Title Commtiment Sales Contract see
http : // http://www.scribd.com/doc/94575269/RESPA-COMPLIANT-TITLE-INSURANCE-COMMITMENT-SYSTEM-Pat-20050060203-Title-Commitment-Selected-Clauses-Process
guest protectusresidents@verizon.net
i will try stopa , lisa kindly gave me some attorneys but are really really expensive…linn has 18mil of calls 🙂 i doubt she can take care of our small problem … : (…i wrote her and no response to this day . i undestand that.
same with wildner …to busy…
i checked and there is no deed transferring all to my brother ….
“sit down with one of the big shots and ask what you can actually do and how. ”
we did that with the last law firm gavbe them all PROOFS folder and gave them all the errors we found in the documents…guess what….when we went to get the documents back…the folder was the same way we left it…not even opened…exactly the same way….
let’s see if mr. stopa wants fight back for us..you know what is the real problem?…..
MONEY..its all about MONEY…….. since this property cost was 100k
and NOW its 20k ( pretenders “paid” 10k at credit auction)…they can see is not even worth it to represent us…is not a big money deal here…
your right …i will try stopa and see if he can work that way..
that’s why nobody wants to take the case….even with the blatant fraudulent evidence…..( im not just writing desperate, i been researching a lot ) … i have more than 200 assignemts with the same forged notary (mismatching original signature ).
i have 4 mismatching notary sigantures in affidavits
several flaws in the process too..
and this law firms DID NOTHING … i read some caselaw where having LESS evidence , even having the real notaries and all the stuff were dismissed with prejudice for fraud…..
incredible….
also wrote Neil but he is also too busy…(undesrtand that too 🙂 )
let’s see …nothing is final…..even if they evict us…i will see the way to fight back….they already stole one house where my other brother was for 15 years…with shapiro & fishman fraud and famous liquenda allotoy, mark bishop robosigner…….
thanks for you posts
==============================================
“enraged, on May 22, 2012 at 3:28 pm said:
@albert,
Don’t lose hope.
Have you contacted Mark Stopa for pointers? Matt Weidner? Lisa Epstein? Lynn Szymoniak? I understand you got suckered out of thousands but you can’t not do something. You can’t afford not to ntake action.
Imagine if you had enough info to actually file for quiet title? Wouldn’t that literally kill you to learn you could have, after the fact and once your have lost it all? Even if you don’t have enoughy to actually hire an attorney, sit down with one of the big shots and ask what you can actually do and how. Ask him even if he would review your filings and represent you just in the courthouse. What do you have to lose?
Lynn said she was investing her whistleblower award into the fight to help homeowners.
So long as you are alive, there is always something you can do and someone you can reach.””””
==============================================
@Cheryl,
You can ask anything from anyone. Whether or not they’
ll send it is another story but don’t start out defeatist. For Pete’s sake, ask!
@ nancy drewe,
“… IF YOU CLOSED WITH A NUMBER AFFIXED TO MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST YOU CLOSED WITH AN ORIGINATOR WHO WAS ARRANGER, ACCOMODATOR, IN AGREEMENT WITH INVESTOR WHO PURCHASED YOUR NOTE…”
What if someone had documents that prove exactly what you wrote here? Would the documents be mere trivia in the whole ponzi scheme–not helpful for defense at all–or should homeowners demand all documents related to the closing from the closing agent?
It seems to me that an undisclosed sale before closing would violate Reg Z, but does securitization rules or UCC trump Reg. Z?
Someone wrote about the pro tanto discharge on this site recently, and I think it might apply if a side agreement was made.
I would be extremely grateful to know your thoughts about this.
Is there some way I can contact you off this site?
You cannot ask the closing companies for any documents because they were in on the scam with the Bank.
All $$ long gone to these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqpr830xB0
@dee,
This link had changed, it’s in scribd though. I hope it helps.
http://www.scribd.com/romulo_fontes/d/49973828-tdsml-homeowners-rights-foreclosure
@dee,
Most non-judicial states have attorneys that don’t practice in Real Estate Law. Others will eat up the money spending time in the ‘law library’ trying to study.
If they lose the case, which they don’t guarantee they will win, then they offer to represent you on ‘appeal’ (as long as you have money).
Once you lose on appeal it’s pretty much a done deal.
The judge’s contract / judgment supercedes any fraud.
It’s like they made the first contract on fraud and won, and you make the second contract to expose it and if you don’t do a good job raising the issue of what was fraudulent, then by your agreement the case is final, unless you can afford to keep moving up and then what you argued on appeal is all you can bring to the table, you can’t introduce a new argument or extra evidence.
Imagine having 5 days to file an appeal after losing a case, unless it’s already written up in case you lose, you don’t have enough time to put it together.
Prior to that, being pulled into court against your will and having a judgment made against you doesn’t stand where fraud is involved.
If you hire an attorney he represents a person.
Legal dictionary says a person is a natural person, but for statutory reasons a person is a corporation, an association, a partnership, etc.
Courts are judging statutory things and the parties are the definition of the person for statutory reasons.
Notice a bank is not living..so it is represented.
An attorney will provide the same ‘type’ of ‘equal’ representation on your side.
Unless you’ve studied redemption, strawman, jurisdiction, contracts, admiralty jurisdiction, the Law of One, creditors in commerce, and read the Window of Opportunity info from Hidden Hand, you are kind of behind the curve on the rules of this land we live in.
People have audios on the internet, but the ‘gurus’ teach just enough to not teach ‘the whole answer’.
The mind is able to put ‘truth’ together but the only way it can do that is if you live, breathe, think, and do things in truth. Your vibration moves into the higher frequency and things will just ‘resonate’ with you. As if the universe turned on a truth detector because if it doesn’t vibe with your vibrations, you’ll know it’s not true.
You’ll just ‘feel it’.
That settlement doesn’t vibe.
By design all information we need to learn while here (this time) is not all in the same place. That’s why we are told to ‘seek and ye shall find’.
Everything we read and hear is not true either. There is some distortion, even in this communication because I can’t say everything and what I do say, you’d only comprehend based on what you already know, if you don’t know you’d wonder why I typed something like giving a definition of person that is not websters or on the internet or telling you what an attorney represents, but not explaining further.
I have learned that I too can commit a ‘trespass’ if someone doesn’t know something and I just ‘hand’ the information to them on a platter. It’s like giving a loaded wep-on (spelled wrong on purpose), to a child.
It will do what it does, but if they don’t know how to use it, it can also cause them more harm for having it.
I wish I could help further but I know of no attorneys to represent anyone, and I don’t know on purpose.
I cannot support the act of ‘representation’, since I know the ‘Law of One’, and about contracts (verbal, written, and gesture), etc, about this world.
Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent State, allodial, in Jure Proprio (in One’s own right), Jure Divino (by divine right)
@Carie: YES: all 4-closures R fraud & that you ain’t supposed to find out till you’r all totally helpless line in the …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO-eVe2xJZs&feature=pyv&ad=2919257855&kw=holocaust
@Trespass Unwanted
I live in Texas searching for an experience litigator any recommendation
@Joann, the answer is yes.
But banks robbed farmers a long time ago, some of the Nesara sites will tell you about the farm claims, still unpaid and many have died without receiving payment.
Farmers won for having their property stolen, but could collect ONLY when lawful money was available. So far we’ve been dealing with a currency that could inflate the wealth right out of your savings, and is not asset backed.
The world is screaming for an asset backed currency and the only way that can happen is if the current system collapses…not partially fail, but total fail such that no one considers using it ever again.
As for as the foreclosing (stealing) party,
If they were not ‘the lender of record’, or didn’t do many other things required for a good record, the foreclosure was fraudulent.
It’s like arresting someone, jailing and charging them and going to court and finding out they didn’t read the Miranda Rights even if the one charged gave full confession (supposedly). Without following procedure, the rest of the process is tainted.
I know people who have bought foreclosed homes and they don’t have homeowner’s insurance. The insurer will not insure a foreclosed home. Why is that?
The title they got is not a Deed, it’s a Warranty Deed (sold as is, no warranty), Special Warranty Deed, etc.
Things that seem to indicate there is a layer between the property and the ‘new owner’.
I don’t know everything. I know for all done with my property, we have RICO, all the things mentioned in the Texas letter, including theft by substituting the Trustee, where the real Trustee admitted they shared the same bank as their client with the Trustee that was substituted, yet the real Trustee did not and could not foreclose because the beneficiary no longer existed, and never assigned the rights or property to another to collect on the debt or take the property.
I’m watching the fact that a lot of things is being put out as done, but if ‘we’ don’t accept it, it cannot be forced upon us.
That’s why people talk a lot about ‘nullification’, it’s the agreement of juries that a law needs to be followed that they judge someone as guilty or innocent, but they also have a right to say, we have a right to make our own decisions and violating a law, like not wearing a seatbelt or helmet, did not cause any harm to anyone else, and that they should not be enforcing something where people have a right to make their own conscious decision when it comes to life experiences that only affect them.
No one is accepting the settlement. They will try to push it more, but you don’t see the banks rushing out to offer principal reductions either. They seem to be waiting on us to make the first move.
Their offer of ‘settle’ ment would not pay my moving expenses let alone pay for the property I had to give away or donate because I moved into a smaller space.
I can make lemonade out of lemons, but I have a right to not have someone force me to accept lemons by force.
There is nothing like a terrorist act where they hire someone to force you to evacuate a building that doesn’t even belong to them under a fraud that there is an underlying contract the homeowner failed to perform the obligations of.
I watched Texas and their notice of Cease and Desist and it clearly identified that if bankers did any aspect of , to foreclose then they violated a set of laws, codes, statutes, and Constitution sections, etc.
Regardless of what any supreme court comes up with, if that was done, it was fraud. Those supreme court cases are always missing key arguments as if they are placating us into thinking they are fighting for us.
All these attorneys that would love to help set up a
Top it off, the settlement for Texas was signed by a BAR attorney and not the AG.
There’s a lot that is not seen, and there’s a lot more not spoken, but if we enter into agreements, ie, go to bed with the Devil, then it’s assumed we ‘knew what we were getting into’ because we are all Adults here and know about entering into contracts.
courtroom dot com slash uccrprop.pdf contains this statement.
All 50 states afford significant
protection to buyers under the
recording statutes, but recordation
alone does not guarantee
good title. A deed can still be
void for other reasons, such as
fraud, forgery, incapacity or
failure of the seller to deliver the
deed to the buyer.
The texas AG cease and desist letter which is a good read to know how bad the violations were is at:
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2010/100510_sample_bank.pdf
Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Texas Dept Collection Act
Penal Code
Texas Property Code
Texas Government Code
Texas Constitution Article 16 Section 50 and/or Rule 736(1),
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
Waiting takes patience. Patience is a virtue.
It is known nationwide that people have been robbed, some counties have publicly exposed the fraud, and some may be privately reviewing documents to determine how bad the damage is.
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes in regards to the banks.
Fail they will, because fail they must.
Whose the man behind the curtain? I’m not certain it’s the CEO of a bank, I think whoever owns the bank or whoever owns the United States Corporation is the wizard behind the curtain.
Bernanke, O, and others may be letting the system fail under it’s own rules. The only way to let it fail is to let it consume itself faster than planned, otherwise if the debt was slow to rise, we could deal with this mess for another 50 to 100 years.
I think in a weird way, they are all forcing the system to cave in on itself by demanding more than the system can deliver.
That’s just an opinion, no scoops, no research, and no facts to support it because I don’t care how it happens as long as it does.
Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent State, allodial, in Jure Proprio (in One’s own right), Jure Divino (by divine right)
I prefer a review by a Federal judge. just sayin’…….
@albert,
Don’t lose hope.
Have you contacted Mark Stopa for pointers? Matt Weidner? Lisa Epstein? Lynn Szymoniak? I understand you got suckered out of thousands but you can’t not do something. You can’t afford not to ntake action.
Imagine if you had enough info to actually file for quiet title? Wouldn’t that literally kill you to learn you could have, after the fact and once your have lost it all? Even if you don’t have enoughy to actually hire an attorney, sit down with one of the big shots and ask what you can actually do and how. Ask him even if he would review your filings and represent you just in the courthouse. What do you have to lose?
Lynn said she was investing her whistleblower award into the fight to help homeowners.
So long as you are alive, there is always something you can do and someone you can reach.
enraged, on May 22, 2012 at 2:05 pm said:
hi.
well it’s really simple ATTORNEYS left us with now money, actually we presented all this proofs to the law firm and they did nothing.. fortunatelly the last one only hired for 2 months or so.. the other 2 thieves just disapeared .
i tried the florida recomendations but…somebody told me galant charges about 1500,or more, wasylik 2000 to file a motion , rosen 1000 just to see the file and 2500 to file one motion and then 490 monthly…
i heard another one chargin 3000 or more…..
so attorneys for now …are not an option….i did more reading here , the hamlet and 4forclose sites than this ….$@#!$@#$!… all this time…. apt was sold and bought by credit to plaintiff on feb 14 2012.
we still here …..
i just want to confirm the sale must be present im not sure…
my brother bought in 2004 from my other brother and is not here don’t know why…the mortgage is recorded …2005 but the sale …???
Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser
Sales Date Amount O/R Sales Qualification Description
2/1996 $28,000 17103-0043 Sales which are qualified
7/1994 $26,000 16478-3130 Sales which are qualified
8/1993 $18,000 16039-3513 Sales which are qualified
1/1993 $16,000 15799-3286 Sales which are qualified
1/1987 $27,000 13184-1522 Sales which are qualified
7/1984 $28,000 12226-1121 Other disqualified
did i mentioned i have fraud with PROOF all over this thing…?
about the documents…well the copies of the original we received at closing with the secretary( or whoever she was ) are just blank…only my brother signature…no notary , no witnesses nothing… and surprisingly public records showed the mortgage witnessed and notarized ..( notary as witness, which i read is not allowed, notary can’t witness its own signature)….
this lady just asked for my brother license and said ..sign ..here.hre.hre…here….etc…my brother asked about time to read some pages , she told him it’s ok i reviewed all just sign and we are done… ..
this was done supposedly to lower the rate….but….mmmmmmm…
@Albert,
If the sale is not recorded, doesn’t that mean that you actually may have a crack at quiet title…? You do have a file, you have documents, you have what it takes. Why not contact an attorney and see if you could get quiet title?
@carie – nothing to do with the MIN, it’s an identifier for the security itself. for instance, Ford’s CUSIP is 345370860
@nancy drewe
I was going to ask you what a CUSIP was, but looked it up:
“…CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. Formed in 1962, this committee developed a system (implemented in 1967) that identifies securities, specifically U.S. and Canadian registered stocks, and U.S. government and municipal bonds.
The CUSIP number consists of a combination of nine characters, both letters and numbers, which act as a sort of DNA for the security – uniquely identifying the company or issuer and the type of security. The first six characters identify the issuer and are assigned in an alphabetical fashion; the seventh and eighth characters (which can be alphabetical or numerical) identify the type of issue; and the last digit is used as a check digit…”
Is that what the MERS MIN number is? The CUSIP?
Sorry if this has been answered before…
@Tresspass Unwanted:
“We can keep falling for these tricks or turn our back and say there is nothing they can offer me, but they can give me back my property they stole.”
I read your posts with interest as I do everyone’s. I do understand your point of view. Are you of the opinion that if an unlawful foreclosure proceeds a homeowner is actually in an even stronger position than they are before it happens? I think you may have said that once. It is one thing to try to prevent a crime. It is another thing when a crime has already occurred….would love to hear what you have to say about that now.
Getting the case heard in court after the foreclosure and or sale to new buyer may be a difficult task in some states but perhaps that is changing. But just wondering what you would say. Once the bank takes back a property or a sale occurs most would say the party is over. Yet so many could not afford representation and felt a pro se attempt was in vain or just could not overcome hurdles to frame and format it correctly. Then there is much advice from reputable fighter experts and attorneys discouraging pro se because they are clogging up the courts and causing bad case law for everyone.
I assume you are saying today to bypass the “administrative review” whatever that is however what if you provide actual evidence to them and say just as in your post above “give me back my property they stole” …..?
neidermeyer, on May 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm said
yes, i have the loan number, MERS MIN, FHA number,,..
the strawman lender actually exist but is just a title company( the broker) they can’t lend anything is a small office in florida..i searched in sec and asked for help to SEC florida, they say they can give me that info . and sent me a pdf file with instruction to search by my self….
but this plaintiff is not registered , obviously the “lender” is not registered ..i have been searching for months…and nothing, i found my other brother’ s stolen house… but this…just doesn’t exist…
another thing is yesterday checking the sales in county records, found that this last sale is not registered?? my brother bought in 2004 and last sale registered showed is 1996??????…..
i think they never registered this loan…how can i find this ?
is not fanni ,freddie , gennie…nothing …no assignments( just the last forged one)…
It’s a Trojan Horse.
Those that accept this ‘consideration’ will probably be ‘presumed’ (an assumption without proof) to be made whole.
It’s the final check of a transaction that is cashed that completes the transaction.
Why is it – that there’s not much information about the settlement?
“If it’s not included, it’s excluded.” That’s why.
What they don’t tell you is a part of the settlement, you can’t just ‘think it up in your mind that it is’.
That’s why the settlement is in writing and it doesn’t say much because it isn’t much.
We can keep falling for these tricks or turn our back and say there is nothing they can offer me, but they can give me back my property they stole.
They have to give it back. They know it. I know it.
Drag their feet if they must; they had to give back the farm claims from way back when, but they have delayed that pay out by stretching this Monopoly game into 2012.
Well Game over. JP Morgan is proof it’s game over.
When it’s derivative position crashes, it’s bound to carry the other banks with it, because they are in a closed loop.
I don’t now who they operate, because if you are not in, you are out, but I just feel that there is an interconnecting fall that once he tries to unravel the position the other banks are not going to pick it up, so all that’s left is hedge funds and mutual funds (if they delve into this stuff), and any other market movers who would not touch this position to help out JP Morgan.
It’s coming down. All eyes are waiting.
————————————————–
cnn.com 5/18/2012 article – JPMorgan Chase loss only going to get worse – states:
JPMorgan Chase’s main bet has been on an index, known as IG9, of 125 U.S. investment grade companies. Shares of three of the 125 companies — retailer J.C. Penney (JCP, Fortune 500) and insurers MBIA (MBI) and Radian (RDN) — have taken big hits since last week, driving up the cost of offering protection against a default.
Additionally, since Dimon’s announcement, more hedge funds have piled into the index, further driving up the cost of selling protection.
It’s clear from public data filed with The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation that JPMorgan Chase hasn’t sold any of its positions yet. The DTCC tracks trading activity and sizes of positions on the IG9 and other indexes, and there haven’t been any big moves since last week.
“Whatever the size was, it’s clearly not something that you can call one or two dealers and sell,” said Garth Friesen, a co-chief investment officer at AVM, a derivatives hedge fund that’s not involved in these trades.
As soon as it becomes clear that JPMorgan Chase is unwinding its position, it will be obvious to players on every major trading desk. Hedge funds will immediately start piling into that index and buying protection, driving up the bank’s losses.
Until then, it won’t cost the hedge funds much to sit and wait.
———————————
It complicates things when we accept offers in settlements and don’t comprehend the entire transaction.
My opinion? It’s a Trojan Horse; and most of us have been able to feel the deception is still. Banks didn’t have a change of heart and care about us all of a sudden.
We know there are hidden consequences in accepting a ‘settle’ (ment) and haven’t fallen for it.
Sit back, have plenty of popcorn, some extra food and necessities in the household and watch Goliath fall. Goliath may take several days to hit the ground from the moment it starts collapsing, but fall it will.
Then we will be free and have proper access to the proper portions of the system and get back the rights to our property stolen from us.
Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent State, allodial, in Jure Proprio (in One’s own right), Jure Divino (by divine right)
@albert ,
By the company “not existing” do you have something common like an “Americas Wholesale Lender” document ? What do you have ?? You should have your copy of the note , the full closing packet from your title/closing company (there is more to it than what you were handed at closing ,, go back to them ,, they usually have it archived as a scanned image) and whatever is in the public record. The SEC will do a search for you with the loan information if you believe it was securitized (sorry don’t have all the info handy on that right now). The closing company will be able to help gather clues at least. Do you have any “mystery” numbers from your loan docs that might be a MERS number? What does your servicer tell you? They usually just stonewall..
“The number of people passing up the administrative review process is appallingly low, ”
I admidt I thought this was futile based on some of the experiences of others…..when Neil says “administrative review” does he mean only the OCC review in the article which states:
“Mortgages had to be in the foreclosure process in 2009 or 2010,”
What about foreclosures since then and about to happen tomorrow? It is business as usual and full steam ahead in some states.
Or is there any other review process Neil is referring to when he says “administrative review” ?
i have a question i been searching long time .. and asked 2 companies (offering to find the loan first and then charge,)…my loan can’t be found anywhere….
that means it doesn’t exist?
i wanted to ask neil, but i see they don’t offer to find the loan first and then charge. since “attorneys” left us with no resources and lost cases …
i researched the SEC database too and this companies just never existed……
FDIC and USPTO ‘COUPLING’ should be as unlawful as it sounds!
NETBANK (SM) Goods & Services Placed in Public Domain for consumer consumption – means safe to me ! What about you?
1996 NetBank Inc. (Jacksonville FL) IPO’d 1997, 2007 Largest failed thrift association under the OTS who was put into place ‘replacing’ the failed Board of the Federal Home Loan Corp. Hmmm…
CDO arranger is usually a special purpose vehicle/SPV
underwrites and warehouses the entire portfolio’s
SYNDICATED ‘GLOSSARY’
http : // http://www.lma.eu.com/uploads/files/Syndicated_Loan_glossary%5B1%5D.pdf
Sub Underwriter
An underwriter will sometimes sell down a portion of its underwriting commitment to a sub
underwriter.
Arranger
A bank or other financial institution responsible for originating and syndicating a transaction. The arranger always has a senior role, is often also the agent and if required,
usually underwrites all or part of the facility as well as participating, although not always at the most senior level.
Swingline
A loan specifically granted to support a borrower’s commercial paper indebtedness. Swingline loans usually can be requested on a same day basis for short drawing periods (typically one to seven days). Swinglines are usually denominated in USD and sometimes in Euro as well.
Assignment
Under English law assignment is an agreement to transfer all of the rights (but not the obligations) under a contract to a new lender evidenced by an assignment agreement
Hedge Funds
Generally a pooled investment vehicle that is privately organised and administered by investment management professionals and not widely available to the public. Many hedge funds share a number of characteristics: they hold long and short positions, employ
leverage to enhance returns, pay a performance or incentive fee to their hedge fund managers, have high minimum investment requirements, target absolute (rather than relative) returns and/or may be organised offshore. In addition, hedge funds are generally
not constrained by legal limitations on their investment discretion and can adopt a variety of trading strategies.
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
An SPV’s activities are usually limited to the acquisition and financing of specific assets. Often referred to as a “bankruptcy-remote entity,” it is usually a company which is thinly capitalised and with an asset/liability structure isolated from any credit risk associated with
the originator company.
Private placement
A group of lenders who agree to take and hold an asset at the outset of the transaction. There is no intention of reducing the amount of the commitment to lend through subsequent syndication. In a loan market context this is often referred to as a “take-andhold” strategy or a “club loan”.
Securitisation
The process whereby a portfolio of debt instruments is repackaged as a tradeable security.
Buy-in/Sell-out
A buy-in/sell-out concept on secondary loan trades serves as a mechanism for enforcing delayed settlement compensation.
Synthetic
A synthetic financial instrument is one which is created artificially by simulating the features of an asset using combinations of other assets and instruments.
CARRIE THE LOANS OF THE REAL BORROWERS ARE THE CUSIPS ! GET OVER IT AND SPEAK THE TRUTH
THE NOTE -YOUR REAL ESTATE RECEIVABLE IS A NOTE NOT A LOAN. IF YOU CLOSED WITH A NUMBER AFFIXED TO MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST YOU CLOSED WITH AN ORIGINATOR WHO WAS ARRANGER, ACCOMODATOR, IN AGREEMENT WITH INVESTOR WHO PURCHASED YOUR NOTE AND A CUSIP WAS ASSIGNED TO A GROUP OF LIKE-KIND NOTES.
Either the GSEs are stupid, “on the take” or “part of the scam” – Which one is it ?
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/channels/pipelinepress/05222012-condo-approvals-buybacks.aspx
Buybacks Wearing on Industry; Fannie, Freddie and Wall Street; FHA & Condo Project Changes?
Decrease Font Size
Text
Increase Font Size May 22 2012, 8:45AM
Pick an overwhelming percentage, like 80 or 90%. Remember when residential loan production wasn’t “that” percent agency? Non-agency loans are still out there and periodically being securitized (just ask Redwood Trust in the jumbo sector), but by most accounts the market is “dislocated.” And if you’re a large bank, who is flush with cash from deposits, there is certainly no urgency to securitize the product and move it off your books – just keep earning the spread. But here is an update on the non-agency world.
Hey, what would a week in mortgage banking be like without a huge new lawsuit to, once again, cause everyone to wonder about being in this business? In this one, the FDIC is suing the big banks over mortgage debt losses.
In a recent speech Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke discussed issues impacting the willingness of financial institutions to lend. Bernanke referred to the Federal Reserve’s April 2012 Senior Loan Officer Survey in which most banks indicated their reluctance to accept mortgage applications from borrowers with less-than-perfect records is related to “putback risk”–the risk that a bank might be forced to buy back a defaulted loan if the underwriting or documentation was judged deficient in some way. No surprise there, but the complete text of Bernanke’s remarks is accessible here.
The GSE’s have gone through, and are undergoing, a tremendous “brain drain” as management and seasoned personnel leaving. (Of course, many talented people remain.) But there is some thinking out in the industry that “we’ll get what we pay for” going forward. And say what you will about the industry needing the agencies (and I am a proponent of them in many roles), the uncertainty about Freddie & Fannie’s future is impacting the business – but there will no resolution until 2013, after the election. There is no question that Fannie & Freddie set standards in documentation & underwriting, add to liquidity, and give investors stability. Elizabeth Duke, a governor at the Federal Reserve, said the unresolved status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is hurting the housing recovery. “Uncertainty about the future on the part of lenders is inhibiting these investments” in mortgage lending. She also noted that uncertainty over regulations and the outlook for home prices is hindering mortgage lending. This is certainly not a surprise to anyone in the business.
Along those lines, looking back at the agency role 10 years ago, I received this e-mail; “Fannie and Freddie were trying to keep up with Wall Street. Investment banks made the market, created demand (because they had gobs of cash to invest that needed a home), and ended up taking FNMA /FHMC market share simply by expanding the market size with this product. Granted, the Agencies aren’t innocent, but Wall Street built the infrastructure, and it was Wall Street who marketed it – they had a huge liquidity appetite to feed. The GSE’s had to follow to maintain share, and because they had to get approval from Congress, they stupidly cloaked their strategy in “Affordable Housing for all” – who wouldn’t vote for that? – especially when Congress was not presented with the real risk picture.”
The note continues: “I would say that the traditional depository banks such as Chase and Wells and BofA had to try to follow the Street as well. But it was the Wall Street Investment and trading Banks that created the securities and sales infrastructure, product, and demand. Once the product guidelines were released into the secondary market, it became much cheaper and frictionless to do that product, and have the borrower pay just a little more…..and oh by the way – the Street was paying the originator way up for that product as well, comparable to Fannie & Freddie – especially right at the end, when the Street was desperate for high credit quality product to fluff their securities prospectuses. I do remember specifically a day that my client called me and told me that the Street was bidding up for regular Agency product – not the affordable subprime stuff – and it was more than FNMA/ FHLMC was paying. I sensed there was something fishy at the time, but I had no idea. That was February 2007, 3 months before the first “no bid” because there was no market for a Subprime pool in May. It’s convenient for certain political leaning groups to blame the Agencies (government), just like it’s convenient for other political leaning groups to blame the banks. Both are wrong, and both are right.”
And a mortgage bank owner from Oregon wrote, “In reality it was the indirect effects of Fannie and Freddie policy goals that greatly influenced some of the worst decisions the banks and investment companies made. One example was that by 2002 the GSEs mandated a goal of 50% of all home loans made by lenders had to be made to low and subprime borrows. These are loans that in the best of times would have made up approx. 15% of the loan pool. So to stay compliant lenders especially banks were making loans they did not want on their books thus the tremendous expansion of securitization, CDO’s.”
And now the agencies, and investors in mortgage-backed securities, are grappling with the prospect of principal reductions. Edward DeMarco, the temporary director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, continues to endure blistering criticism for refusing to allow Fannie and Freddie to pay for large-scale principal reductions for underwater borrowers or to facilitate refinancings for those stuck with high interest rate mortgages. More
Though officials are mum on specifics, the FHA is readying changes to its controversial condominium rules that have rendered large numbers of units ineligible for low down-payment insured mortgages: .
I have heard dozens of stories about Fannie & Freddie requesting lenders buyback loans for reasons that are not material, and/or did not impact the borrower’s failure to make payments. But in listening to the agencies, this is not the case. It is almost as if the sales & management staff work for entirely different organizations from the auditing and QC departments of the agencies, which continue to be well funded and staffed. Fannie Mae’s annual and quarterly SEC reports filed on May 9 included extensive discussion of loan repurchase activity. As of March 31, 2012, Fannie Mae’s repurchase requests increased to $12.15 billion, which is significantly higher than the $8.65 billion it requested at the same point last year.
Two other statistics stand out in the filing: the total amount of cancelled repurchase requests and the amount resolved in ways other than a full repurchase. The first quarter of 2012 saw Fannie Mae cancel $337 million in repurchase requests compared to $227 million over the same period last year. In other words, Fannie Mae cancelled more than half-a-billion dollars in repurchases in just two of the past five quarters. Additionally, during the first quarter of 2012 more than $2.1 billion in repurchase requests were resolved through methods other than a full repurchase, out of $4.47 billion in total resolutions (i.e. almost 55 percent). These alternative methods include loan pricing adjustments, lender corrective action, and negotiated settlements. Because Fannie Mae reported the face value of the repurchased loan, not the amount of recovery, it is difficult to analyze the effectiveness of such alternatives. But I hear from the owner of a mid-sized mortgage bank: “Even if the agencies throw 10 loans at us to buyback, and we win on all 10 because the logic was flawed or they missed something in the file, we still have to dedicate the resources to win on those 10 – we’re being worn down.”
Fannie Mae made clear its ongoing intent to “aggressively pursue” repurchase requests, citing the possible need to draw more funds from the Treasury if lenders do not comply with its demands. Fannie Mae reportedly perceives increased exposure to the institutional risks associated with smaller and non-traditional origination sources because of the reduction in correspondent lenders and mortgage brokers; the filings reflect a conservative valuation of the outstanding repurchase requests to these seller/servicers. This may lessen the incentive for Fannie Mae to collect relative to requests to the largest seller/servicers, as the loss will have already been realized on its books.
This seems to indicate that Fannie Mae may focus on collecting the outstanding requests from its 10 largest customers, who currently account for 74% of the company’s single-family book of business. However, as repurchase requests increase the amount of alternative resolutions and outright cancellations will increase proportionally. Either way, the trickle-down practice is in full effect – if anyone thinks that the large aggregators will absorb the losses and spare the smaller lenders, I have a subprime security I’d like to sell them.
In a related topic, one of the big fears of lenders, and servicers, in doing the HARP II loans is mechanical failure. Not the kind where the landing gear doesn’t come down, although that would be a decent analogy, but where the borrower doesn’t use the same initials on page 37 of the disclosure package, or someone forgot to check the “manufactured home” box during processing. And the loan goes bad. Operational risk has replaced credit risk as the major safety and soundness challenge for national banks, U.S. Comptroller Thomas Curry said in a recent speech. Curry said operational risk, or the risk of loss due to failures of people, processes, systems and external events, is “high and increasing” in light of the complexity of today’s banking markets and the technology that supports it. Curry said operational risk is currently at the top of the list of safety and soundness issues for the institutions the OCC supervises. An article in American Banker noted that Curry said operational risks manifest in a number of ways, from inadequate systems and controls that led to servicing mortgage servicing errors, to flawed risk models that create inadequate risk management systems, to lack of controls over relationships with third-party vendors. In particular, Curry said the OCC is finding a rising number of Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering deficiencies in midsize and community banks, including ineffective account monitoring, inadequate tracking of high-risk customers and bulk cash transactions, and lapses in monitoring suspicious activity.
The good news, however, is that the turmoil in Europe has been positive for US mortgage rates for two main reasons. First, economic growth in the region has slowed, which reduces future inflationary pressures. In addition, investors have responded to the uncertainty by shifting to relatively safer assets, including US mortgage-backed securities (MBS). It seems that the only groups complaining about rates are the investors who bought 30-yr mortgages with coupons above 4.5%, or servicers with a lot of this product on their books. (Of course, the hedge against servicing runoff is new production.)
On no news, yesterday’s 10-yr T-note closed at 1.74%. With the press still yammering about Facebook’s IPO performance, 10AM EST gives us April’s Existing Home Sales (4.62M vs. 4.48M last) and May’s Richmond Fed Manufacturing index (+11 against +14 prior); at 1PM EST we’ll have the Treasury’s $35 billion 2-yr note auction. Unfortunately for anyone waiting to lock yesterday, the 10-yr is up to 1.79% and MBS prices are worse .125-.250.
[Into each life a little vacation must fall. Yesterday was spent driving across Nevada and spending the night at the “luxurious” Rustic Inn in Ely, on the way to Moab, Utah for some camping and mountain bike riding in an area with no internet – if that still exists. A few folks are lined up to write, however, at end of the week. Just don’t look for many e-mails after tomorrow.]
Several weeks ago the commentary had a fictional story about the evolution of a word using the initials from “Stack High in Transit.” It turns out there is a banking tie-in when I received this note:
“My brother receives your commentary and was telling me of his own ‘Stack High In Transit’ story.t
He worked for a local community bank many years ago where occasionally a loan application would come back from loan committee rejected and marked “NFW”.
The compliance officer of the bank hated to see that noted, of course, until my brother told him to think of it as, “No Financial Wherewithal” versus what we all know it meant.
Many are cynical, perhaps rightfully so, that the groups investigating are in he sweaty palms of the big banks. A piece done by Mandelman Matters addressed this and spoke of a Promontory employee being told not to look too deeply into the bad acts of Wells and to file through things quickly finding “no violations” or “nothing to see here…. move along…” The rumors and reports are rampant that the OCC reviews are totally bogus. I’ve already been turned down for the AG Settlement since there was no foreclosure (technically it was a settlement) but I was unclear on those rules. We’ll see what happens with the next one. I doubt I’ll ever see a dime.
Perhaps no one is responding because they dislike the fact that the so called ‘complaint’ will be directed to the offending party – it should go straight to a regulator investigator – not the offending party – of course they’ll spend a great deal of time and effort figuring out a strategy including correcting crap to cover up before an ‘official’ even has a chance to review and determine the fraud – the first contact should be a regulating entity – not the financial entities especially if they aren’t even lawfully allowed in the mix – you can’t direct a complaint to the party when its the very fact that you dispute that entity being allowed to even receive a complaint in the first place – that’s the problem – once you connect with the faux lender you in essence are admitting it is the party to begin with . . .
[…] Read this article: DON’T Leave Your Money on the Table […]
wow , the amount of money they will pay for unlawful foreclose…it’s a joke right??? 2,000??? is not even worth the envelope…..
they want all the information to recreate all the documentation and then “fix” the little promblem they have tracing all the originals…even if they were no originals…….
[…] Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: administrative procedures, administrative review process, auctioneer, Bank of America, Bryan Hubbard, Citibank, credit bid, creditor, debt, default, foreclosure process, foreclosure reviews, fraudulent paperwork, homeowners, independent foreclosure review, JP Morgan Chase, judicial, Julie Schmit, Money on the table, Mortgage, non-creditors, NONJUDICIAL, OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, possession, pretender lender, procedural technicality, restitution, Robo-Signing, secured debt, securitization chain, substituted trustee, Substitution of Trustee, title, unsecured debt, Wells Fargo, wrongful auction, wrongful foreclosure Livinglies’s Weblog […]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/fdic-bank-of-america_n_1534487.html?ref=business
FDIC Sues Bank Of America, JPMorgan, Others Over Toxic Mortgage Bonds That Sank Two Illinois Banks
“…The FDIC says the banks made false statements and deceived investors about the risks in the securities backed by pools of home mortgages…”
HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT NO LOANS WERE EVER ACTUALLY “POOLED INTO” THE MBS??? Not just “false statements” and “risk deception”…
Can someone please tell me WHY the lawsuits never say THAT?
Oh, sorry—I forgot—because then it would be WAY too OBVIOUS that the foreclosures are/were blatantly ILLEGAL!!!