The Documents Fannie and Freddie Never Received

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Go to the link below which will take you to the article posted on StopForeclosureFraud where  you will see a list of documents (just like the Pooling and Servicing Agreements that everyone ignored) that should have been received by Freddie, Fannie, Ginnie, FHA et al.  Since we now know that the securitization chain of documents was nonexistent until the dealers were called upon to fabricate them for cases in litigation, we know that the absolute minimum requirements for Fannie and Freddie approval were absent. 

This means, contrary to the assertions of 99% of the securitization “auditors”, and contrary to the appearance of a loan on a Fannie or Freddie website, that the loan was never delivered to those agencies nor any of the documents required.  Just as the REMICs never received the loans, Freddie never received the loans.  And since Freddie never received the loans it became the master trustee of “trusts” that never received the loans and were therefore empty.

All this means is that we have to go back to the first day of the alleged transaction.  Investor lenders, operating through dealers, (investment banks) were advancing money for the “purchase” of residential mortgage loans.   The money was advanced to the closing agent who paid off the party claiming to be the prior mortgagee, giving the balance to the seller of the property or to the borrower (if the transaction was supposedly a refinance).  The nightmare for the banks is that if we go back to that first day the parties named as “lender”, “beneficiary”, “mortgagee” are the only parties of record with an apparent recorded interest in the property.  Their problem is that contrary to conventional foreclosure practice, those entities (many of which do not exist anymore) never funded nor even handled the money as a conduit for the loan.  Thus the note and mortgage are fatally defective and cannot be enforced. 

This would mean that the loan never made it into any pool.  That would mean that all of the deals made by the dealers (investment banks) based on the existence of that loan would fall apart leaving them with an enormous liability since they had sold the same deal dozens of times.  And that is the sole reason why the bailout, insurance, credit default swaps, guarantees and other credit enhancements were so large.  The banks used their ability to control the people with their hands on the levers of power within our government to pay for the malfeasance of the banks that have wrecked our economy and our society.

As Iceland has already proven and Europe is in the process of proving, the only answer is to take the stolen money back from the banks, put it back into the private sector, and put it back into government budgets. 

Freddie Mac Designated Counsel/Trustee For Foreclosures and Bankruptcies 2012

Documents That Must Be Received By Counsel/Trustee Within 2 Business Days of Referral





30 Responses

  1. We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our
    community. Your web site offered us with valuable information to work
    on. You’ve performed a formidable task and our entire group can be thankful to you.

  2. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Virtual Finance: Turning Things Right Side Up Don’t Believe Everything You Read Dept.: Foreclosure Case in Massachusetts Gives New Protections to Homeowners » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  3. iwantmynpv,
    Please share your idea. I would be more than willing to remember you as the guy who saved America. Even if you don’t want to share it here, please share it with someone somewhere in case something happens to you.

  4. Oh well! I took a gamble and lost against a JDB. Over $7,000 plus interests. I knew I was going to lose as soon as the judge started harping on my having “chosen” to represent myself. That’s ok: I didn’t have any money to hire an attorney anyway. And I made a few mistakes I will not make again. Next time (and there will be one, since i defaulted on everything), I will handle it differently.

    It’s only money and the one thing they will not get is my conviction that things will get better.

    In the meantime, I had an opportunity to see first hand how underhanded foreclosure mills/collection attorneys are (they are one and the same): they serve you at an address that isn’t yours. They file motions to compel just to break your spirit. They serve you with papers 2 days before a hearing. Everything they can get away with, they will do. And in the end, they don’t get anything anyway. What kills me, though, is that I have seen those attorneys going after people’s livelihood: they send thugs to take away your property. A friend of mine lost to a JDB. She couldn’t pay ther judgment. They came to her property and stole her car. And she needed it to work!

    What goes around comes around. Question of time.

  5. Don’t Believe Everything You Read Dept.: Foreclosure Case in Massachusetts Gives New Protections to Homeowners

    “Georgetown University Law Professor Adam Levitin, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Eaton’s position, said the decision makes clear that lenders who do not hold both the mortgage and the promissory note do not have the right to foreclose, an area of state law that until now has been ambiguous.”

  6. @nabdulla – in response to my statement requesting cases you quote me criminal statutes? i’m sorry, but that’s not the same thing. cite a case where someone was convicted under those.

    and as to your jurisdictional arguments – read the cases you cite. they stand for the idea that jurisdiction can’t be waived and may be challenged at any time, but implicitly limit the challenge to either while the case is pending or during appeal. once the case closes and the appeal period runs a challenge becomes much, much more of a long shot, particularly so when one knew of all the same facts while the case was pending but didn’t act. estoppel and waiver can indeed come into play if you fail to act with full knowledge of what’s going on around you.

    and @carie – we’ve discussed this ad nauseum, but you telling people during and after the fact of various nebulous reasons why there was a problem does not equal “notice” for legal purposes and for defeating bona fide purchaser status. that sort of notice would be anything material and in the public record such as recorder’s office or a court.

  7. Could anyone answer this?

    Where there has been an ADOT assigning all beneficial inerest “under that Deed of Trust” to a named securitized trust with named trustee bank for the trust prior to foreclosing (setting aside all the issues regarding this as a fraudulent transfer by a servicer) but there has never been a substitution of trustee…..the original trustee on the DOTnames the original lender on the DOTas the beneficairy in the NOD and the Notice of Trustee’s Sale all issued after the ADOT……doesn’t this invalidate the sale just on the face of the recorded documents?

    The party with the power to enforce the sale is the beneficiary and the original beneficiary has been replaced by a new beneficiary in the ADOT. The new beneficiary is receiving no satisfaction so to speak at least in any recorded document….. Only the original lender is getting the goods in payment of the default as per the recorded docs and the assignment is ignored as if it never happened….Shouldn’t that sale be reversed? Void?

    Not much can be done in some states where there is a thrid party buyer (ca accepts the trustee’s deed upon sale to a bonafide purchaser who purchased with cash to be gold because the trustee says so on the deed no matter what happened before and maybe that is enough for title companies too and again not the essense of this particular question whether that is alright or not – we know the answer to that) but is this a big red light right on the face of the recorded documents to anyone who looks at it or is this just the accepted way it is done all the time (whether this is fraud is not the question here – want to know if this is just something obviously wrong to anyone who looks at it – is it a question for a title co?) What if there is already an unawful detainer served and eviction on the horizon by the new buyer and three days to do anything… this an issue to bring up immediately in some way as in fatal to the sale?

    I found this discussion interesting:

  8. @ carie

    “carie, on June 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm said: So, @nabdulla – if I “move to vacate and set aside the foreclosure judgment on jurisdictional grounds”, what happens to the people who have bought and moved in already and what happens to the real estate investor who bought at (illegal) trustee’s sale? Does the buyer sue them? What about all the upgrades they have already done?”

    GOOD QUESTIONS!! An active and healthy conscience and moral convictions. What is/are the RIGHT THING(S) to do?

    “WHAT HAPPENS (in the future)” is not on the plate that Allah has placed before us. HE decides that. Me, you, Neil, Nancy, tnharry, enraged, all here and on the dozens of other foreclosure fraud blogs around the planet and the thousands in the occupy movements marching and filing in the Courts are active combatants in a war. A war against the wrongdoers to hold them accountable and to punish them for the pain, suffering, wrongs and injustice that HAS HAPPENED (in the past) and IS HAPPENING (in the present) because of their wilfull and intentional conduct and acts/actions.

    “Upgrades”?? Carie, pardon me, but I don’t GIVE A DAMN about their “upgrades”. Those are material “things”. I’m talking about human beings. As we speak, families have been and are being thrown out of their homes, sleeping in tents, digging through garbage cans for food…. – you know all of this.

    Can you reconcile these three statements for me?:
    (1) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Section 1)
    (2) “Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong”.
    (3) “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

  9. […] Read more of the article through this link. Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Don’t Believe Everything You Read Dept.: Foreclosure Case in Massachusetts Gives New Protections to Homeowners You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  10. @Nabdulla,

    I know you understand. Today’s horror’s can’t erase tomorrow’s truth and hope.

  11. @ enraged

    “enraged, on June 24, 2012 at 8:34 am said: Nabdulla, I understand what you’re saying but, in today’s context, it is highly unlikely that foreclosures will be reversed….”.

    I agree.

    Red Queen: “Tell me what you did tomorrow?”
    Alice: “Well that is impossible, nobody can tell you what they did tomorrow. Tomorrow hasn’t happened yet”.
    Red Queen (says rather pityingly to Alice): “Well it’s a pretty poor memory that only works in one direction”.

  12. What awaits us as we postpone the inevitable… Close your damn bank account today, in the midst of summer. If you wait until Fall or Winter, people will dfie!!!

    NatWest customers bombard official website forum
    Hundreds of bank customers affected by the IT fiasco have vented their fury at NatWest on its own website forum.

    By Martin Beckford
    10:30PM BST 24 Jun 2012
    The online “ideas bank” was deluged at the weekend by angry comments from people unable to buy food for their families, travel to work or pay important bills as a result of the computer meltdown.

    For many, the problems were made worse by the fact that NatWest insisted the system was being fixed, with some left unable to access online banking, while its attempt to open branches on Sunday angered some who could not afford to travel to their nearest high street.

    There was also strong criticism of the bank for failing to back up data while its computer software was being worked on, and suggestions also emerged that it may actually have been the target of a hacking attack.

    The chaos at RBS Group, including Royal Bank of Scotland and Ulster Bank as well as NatWest, highlighted how dependent customers were on wages being transferred on time and cash machines being available immediately in order to pay their basic food bills, look after their children and travel to work.

    On the NatWest website’s customer forum, which was open to all internet users, a man calling himself Phil Smiler from Corby wrote: “You have stuffed us, we have to attempt to get to your bank in the morning, I’m disabled and in wheel chair and my daughter’s autistic but we have to as we have no food left and electric on less than 50p. Family of 6 it’s unfair and ridiculous.”

    Another user, calling themselves “Nothing Left”, posted: “I should of been paid Friday. I have cancer and I’m very ill at present. I’m down to my last pence and can’t afford electric meter”.

    One woman said she had been forced to cancel her four-year-old daughter’s birthday party while another user said their wedding was at risk if they could not pay for caterers.

    NatWest opened 1,200 branches from 9am until midday on Sunday, for the first time ever, but some customers complained that the doors had shut earlier than advertised while there was no easily searchable database of the open sites.

    Expats said the fact that banks were open in Britain was of no help to them, while even those who lived nearby said they could not afford to drive into towns because they could not access cash.

    One forum user, calling themselves Penniless, said they had travelled to a branch in Wiltshire but discovered staff could not open the safe to get money out.

    “The excuse I was given was that they “HADN’T RECEIVED THE EMAIL, AUTHORISING THEM TO SET A TIME-LOCK”. So why bother going in, and opening up? A wasted journey and raised blood pressure!”

    NatWest insisted that online banking customers should have been able to use their accounts on Sunday, but many said they were unable to do so.

    Some said they could log in on Apple Macs or iPhones but not on PCs, and there were suggestions that NatWest was blocking access after failed attempts to log in.

    There were also complaints that banks have in recent years cut staff and encouraged customers to bank online, making it harder for them to manage when the services are unavailable.

    Few believed NatWest’s official explanations for the “glitch”, with users expressing incredulity that important data had not been backed up.

    “Can you tell us the exact nature of the problem, why it happened, how many people are working on it?” asked a commenter called Boglehead. “Can you categorically tell us that it is not due to hacking or any other form of cyber attack?”

    By 8pm on Sunday night there were nearly 400 pages of comments, most of them posted over the weekend.

  13. All we need to know, in bits and pieces… Go there for the whole thing…

    I truly believe that we lost cube2k in Modesto. Things happened there and we never heard fromn him again.

    Why do you hold on to that bank account?

    Enough said. Take action.

    Central bank group: Crisis fixes still needed
    The Associated Press

    Sunday, June 24, 2012 | 7:42 a.m.

    “Governments, banks and households struggling with too much debt are dragging down the world’s economy…”

    …the world economy remains out of balance…

    …key for governments to make banks take responsibility for their losses and force them to rebuild their finances.

    “Big banks continue to have an interest in driving up their leverage without enough regard for the consequences of failure: because of their systemic weight, they expect the public sector to cover the downside…”

    The BIS said fundamental progress would be secured when the “largest institutions can fail without the taxpayer having to respond” and when the size of the financial sector relative to the rest of the economy stays within tight limits.

  14. @ tnharry

    “tnharry, on June 21, 2012 at 11:09 am said:
    why do you keep grinding on that carie? show me a case where the note and deed of trust were deemed “illegal”.
    and the idea that they “were not legal” bears a little more explanation as well. illegal implies criminal. what criminal statutes did they violate?”

    N.Y. Penal Law §187.00(4):
    4. “Residential mortgage fraud” is committed by a person who, knowingly and with intent to defraud, presents, causes to be presented, or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be used in soliciting an applicant for, applying for, underwriting or closing a residential mortgage loan, or filing with a county clerk of any county in the state arising out of and related to the closing of a residential mortgage loan, any written statement which:
    (a) contains materially false information concerning any fact material thereto; or
    (b) conceals, for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto.
    N.Y. Penal Law §187.05:
    Residential mortgage fraud in the fifth degree.
    A person is guilty of residential mortgage fraud in the fifth degree when he or she commits residential mortgage fraud.
    Residential mortgage fraud in the fifth degree is a class A
    N.Y. Penal Law §187.10:
    Residential mortgage fraud in the fourth degree.
    A person is guilty of residential mortgage fraud in the fourth degree when he or she commits residential mortgage fraud and thereby receives proceeds or any other funds in the aggregate in excess of one thousand dollars.
    Residential mortgage fraud in the fourth degree is a class E felony.
    N.Y. Penal Law §187.20:
    Residential mortgage fraud in the second degree.
    A person is guilty of residential mortgage fraud in the second degree when he or she commits residential mortgage fraud and thereby receives proceeds or any other funds in the aggregate in excess of fifty thousand dollars.
    Residential mortgage fraud in the second degree is a class C felony.
    N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §100.05:
    Commencement of action; in general.
    A criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument with a criminal court, and if more than one such instrument is filed in the course of the same criminal action, such action commences when the first of such instruments is filed. The only way in which a criminal action can be commenced in a superior court is by the filing therewith by a grand jury of an indictment against a defendant who has never been held by a local criminal court for the action of such grand jury with respect to any charge contained in such indictment. Otherwise, a criminal action can be commenced only in a local criminal court, by the filing therewith of a local criminal court accusatory instrument, namely:
    1. An information; or
    2. A simplified information; or
    3. A prosecutor’s information; or
    4. A misdemeanor complaint; or
    5. A felony complaint.
    N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §190.55(1):
    Grand jury; matters to be heard and examined; duties and authority of district attorney.
    1. A grand jury may hear and examine evidence concerning the alleged commission of any offense prosecutable in the courts of the county, and concerning any misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect in public office by a public servant, whether criminal or otherwise.
    N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §190.50:
    Grand jury; who may call witnesses; defendant as witness.
    1. Except as provided in this section, no person has a right to call a witness or appear as a witness in a grand jury proceeding.
    2. The people may call as a witness in a grand jury proceeding any person believed by the district attorney to possess relevant information or knowledge.
    3. The grand jury may cause to be called as a witness any person believed by it to possess relevant information or knowledge. If the grand jury desires to hear any such witness who was not called by the people, it may direct the district attorney to issue and serve a subpoena upon such witness, and the district attorney must comply with such direction. At any time after such a direction, however, or at any time after the service of a subpoena pursuant to such a direction and before the return date thereof, the people may apply to the court which impaneled the grand jury for an order vacating or modifying such direction or subpoena on the ground that such is in the public interest. Upon such application, the court may in its discretion vacate the direction or subpoena, attach reasonable conditions thereto, or make other appropriate qualification thereof.
    N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §190.65:
    Grand jury; when indictment is authorized.
    1. Subject to the rules prescribing the kinds of offenses which may be charged in an indictment, a grand jury may indict a person for an offense when (a) the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense provided, however, such evidence is not legally sufficient when corroboration that would be required, as a matter of law, to sustain a conviction for such offense is absent, and (b) competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense.
    2. The offense or offenses for which a grand jury may indict a person in any particular case are not limited to that or those which may have been designated, at the commencement of the grand jury proceeding, to be the subject of the inquiry; and even in a case submitted to it upon a court order, pursuant to the provisions of section 170.25, directing that a misdemeanor charge pending in a local criminal court be prosecuted by indictment, the grand jury may indict the defendant for a felony if the evidence so warrants.
    3. Upon voting to indict a person, a grand jury must, through its foreman or acting foreman, file an indictment with the court by which it was impaneled.

    Remington Investments, Inc. v. Hamedani (1997)
    55 Cal. App. 4th 1033 [64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 376] is a landmark case deciding that ELOC loans can’t be foreclosed on, plus a lot more…. Should be useful to a lot of people nowadays against FanFredi + all other Bangsters (BankGansters)..

  16. And, by the way, I explained over an over in great detail to the real estate investor why and how the recordings and actions on the part of the servicer and foreclosure mill were illegal—so he had notice of all the problems BEFORE he sold it—somehow he got title insurance(?) and sold it anyway…

  17. So, @nabdulla—if I “move to vacate and set aside the foreclosure judgment on jurisdictional grounds”, what happens to the people who have bought and moved in already and what happens to the real estate investor who bought at (illegal) trustee’s sale? Does the buyer sue them? What about all the upgrades they have already done?

  18. Nabdulla,

    I understand what you’re saying but, in today’s context, it is highly unlikely that foreclosures will be reversed: that would be adding so much insult to injury that it would guaranty what foreclosures have still not yet accomplished: a bloody revolution the likes of which this country has never experienced.

    Theorically, maybe. Practically? I doubt it.

  19. This is the MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT REASON why the buyer(s) of foreclosed properties must be very, very, very, careful. Because the defendant can always and at any time move to vacate and set aside the foreclosure judgment on jurisdictional grounds. Do the buyers know this? No, they don’t. They’re just average, every day, hardworking and honest people (Americans) looking to make a home and raise their families (the “American Dream” – to own your own home). Everybody at the new closing EXCEPT John and Jane Doe Buyer will know this – but they won’t tell John or Jane – because if they did, John and Jane won’t sign the Note and Mortgage and nobody gets paid. Two sheep in a den of vipers. They put their trust out there, and it get’s violated, (“Holding them after the fact to a level of expertise they never had, never pretended to have and were willing to pay someone for (and did, by the way: all those fees on closing were to pay for that damn “expertise”!)….is simply blatant bad faith.”). Ever been to the Fannie or Freddie property sale sites? Beautiful properties, unbelieveable prices! What does it mean in the print when it states, “Deed restrictions apply”? John and Jane don’t “see” that. All they “see” is that house with them and their children in it and family and friends visiting and turning it into a “home”. Their “Attorney” knows what those restrictions are – but “mums” the word.

  20. @ tnharry & enraged

    tnharry, on June 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm said: “@carie….that ship has sailed….you might have been able to fight the foreclosure before it happened based on the standing/right to enforce issues…., but you chose not to, and that might very well result in you not being able to assert those claims after the fact.”

    carie, on June 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm said: “The ship for suing the servicer has NOT sailed…”

    enraged, on June 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm said: “@Carie, I’m afraid Tn is right. Once you’ve left the house and it was sold (whatever the order), I really don’t believe you will be able to do much.”

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from my extremely limited understanding and knowledge of law, I MUST AGREE with carie (The ship for suing the servicer has NOT sailed). Here in New York, “standing/right to enforce issues” goes to the JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. In New York: “Want of jurisdiction is a basic defect, not a trial error; it may be raised at any time and can never be waived. The record before us, therefore, contains a fundamental defect in the proceedings which could never be waived or cured, and such a defect in the record is disclosed “upon its face”. (People v. Nicometi, 12 N.Y.2d 428 (1963), Court of Appeals of the State of New York, Argued April 30, 1963.)
    It doesn’t matter if you don’t realize or discover the jurisdictional defect until a thousand years later, if a Court renders a decision absent it’s jurisdiction to do so, that decision MUST be vacated and set aside and ANY and ALL acts/actions that result based upon that decision – guess what.

    As Neil directs, DENY EVERYTHING!. So, after my 300th denial (that the planet Earth is round) my FIRST affirmative defense against foreclosure is ALWAYS the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. The very second I see MERS or a “Trust” named as the plaintiff with an “Assignment of Mortgage (together with the Note)” – I want to see the Mill’s “Proof of Authority” to commence the action AND I want the PSA with Mortgage Schedule attached placed in the record so that the defects can be “disclosed upon it’s face”. Simple enough….copy the PSA from the SEC site and attach it to a Request To Take Judicial Notice (NYCPLR Rule 4511(b,c,d)) – done.

  21. @Mary,

    Sorry, I just cut-and-pasted directyly out of Jeff Barnes’ site (lazy, you see…). I’m sure you can find some info on fraudclosure or4closure (2 pretty good sites). And you probably can contact Jeff Barnes at foreclosuredefensenationwide directly.

  22. @enraged:

    Do you have case information??? Would love to see all filings.

  23. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bailout, beneficiary, credit default swaps, credit enhancements, Fannie, FHA, Freddie, Ginnie, guarantees, ICELAND, insurance, investment banks, lender, mortgagee, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, securitization, StopForeclosureFraud Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  24. “You still have to show that someone else is actually the noteholder.”

    They don’t in CA.

  25. This is HUGE!!! Florida starts seeing the light!

    June 22, 2012

    June 22, 2012

    A Florida Circuit Judge has gone on the record requiring Wells Fargo, as the claimed “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust, to show that the mortgage loan which WF is attempting to enforce actually went into the PSA, and if not, the standing requirement has not been met and the case will fall on summary judgment. The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq.

    The Judge specifically stated as follows:

    “…but what I want plaintiff’s counsesl to understand, that what you submitted to me with regards to the pooling and servicing agreement still does not have the actual mortgages that went into that pooling and servicing agreement…So at some point you’re going to have to show that this mortgage and note certainly went into that pooling and servicing agreement, which is what I have requested before. … So I’m just asking you that before we get too far out, please make sure that’s there, or its going to be taken out on summary judgment. … In other words, if you’re a trustee for that pooling and servicing agreement, and the mortgage and note are not in that pooling and servicing agreement, you don’t have standing.”

    This ruling not only directly confirms the proof requirements for standing in a securitization case, but supports the production of discovery on the issue as well.

    Separately, fifty-one (51) originating mortgage lenders, servicers, and trustee sale companies have filed Bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, all having filed on May 14, 2012. The list of Debtor entities includes GMAC Mortgage, LLC; Executive Trustee Serevices LLC (a 3d party trustee sale company which schedules and conducts non-judicial foreclosure sales); Ditech (the one which touted that it gave loans of 125% of the value of the home); Residential Funding Company, LLC and its numerous subsidiaries and derivatives; Homecomings Financial, and others.

    The 341 meeting of creditors is scheduled for June 25, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. at 80 Broad Street, Fourth Floor, New York, New York. The 341 Notice states that there is no deadline to file a proof of claim or a complaint (adversary proceeding) to determine dischargeability as of this time.

    As we have previously advised with “lender bankruptcies”, two of the threshold important events are any requests to destroy documents and the formation of a “borrowers’ committee” separate and apart from the unsecured creditors’ committee, as homeowner/borrowers’ interests are not necessarily the same as those of the rest of the unsecured creditors, and may in fact be adverse to the general unsecureds, who have no interest in protecting claims of homeowners. Mr. Barnes was previously involved in requesting the formation of a borrowers’ committee in the Accredited Home Lenders bankruptcy, and was also involved with the borrowers’ committee in the American Home Mortgage bankruptcy.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq.,

  26. There are all kinds of good articles from all kinds of different people on this (worldwide) and multilingual Occupy site.

  27. Verdict on the Eaton case. Apparently, it can be interpreted different ways. This is one of them.

    Don’t Believe Everything You Read

    Dept.: Foreclosure Case in Massachusetts Gives New Protections to Homeowners

    Occupy MovementBy: CastorTvLive June 22 2012 16:28

    A ruling in a long-awaited foreclosure case in Massachusetts had an ambiguous result today, though it’s presented here by Nick Timiraos as a win for banks:

    The highest court in Massachusetts rejected a challenge from a Boston homeowner who had contested the validity of her foreclosure in a widely watched case that threatened to create a wave of new legal problems for banks seeking to repossess homes.

    The ruling allows Fannie Mae to proceed with a foreclosure and avoids what the real-estate industry had feared would be a “legal volcano” that could create clouded titles on thousands of foreclosed properties in Massachusetts, particularly after the same court issued two rulings last year that reversed foreclosures.

    “The real-estate bar up here is breathing a great sigh of relief,” said Edward Bloom, a partner at Sherin & Lodgen in Boston and the former president of the state’s Real Estate Bar Association. A decision challenging the industry’s practice of repossessing homes “would have screwed up real-estate titles for the last 50 years,” he said in an interview Friday.

    Based on my conversations, the ruling does not allow Fannie Mae to foreclose. It remands the case back to the lower court for them to decide how to proceed. And while the case is prospective, meaning that it only applies to foreclosure actions from this point forward, as Adam Levitin explains there are still some added protections for homeowners granted. In the case, Eaton v. Fannie Mae and Green Tree Servicing, the homeowner argued that a lender cannot foreclose unless they hold both the mortgage and the promissory note. And the high court in Massachusetts agreed with that.

    Georgetown University Law Professor Adam Levitin, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Eaton’s position, said the decision makes clear that lenders who do not hold both the mortgage and the promissory note do not have the right to foreclose, an area of state law that until now has been ambiguous.

    “It’s not an outright victory. The court was definitely concerned that if it applied the ruling retroactively, that it would cloud title for a lot of real estate in Massachusetts. They avoided that,” Levitin said.

    “However, for people who are currently in foreclosure or worried that foreclosure will happen in the future, this rule matters quite a bit because the mortgage industry was, frankly, sloppy about its paperwork.

    “If you lost your house in foreclosure, you’re not getting it back because of this, but overall, it means homeowners have pretty good protections, namely, you can’t be thrown out of your house unless the lender can absolutely prove they have the right to do so.”

    The ruling also alluded to a mortgage-holder being able to skate by if they could prove that they were acting on the noteholder’s behalf. But I am going with Levitin on this one, it sounds like an advance, albeit a bittersweet one, because it’s not prospective.

    You do need to beware banker propaganda in these matters. If the banks continue business as usual in Massachusetts with this case law clarification, and try to foreclose without holding the mortgage and the note, they will be extremely likely to get challenged. The “legal volcano,” then, is dormant but still has the potential to be active.

    In other litigation in recent weeks, homeowners have secured victories.

    First, in the Congress case, a wrongful foreclosure action in Alabama (see my previous blogging on it here), the Alabama appellate court reversed and remanded, a victory for the homeowner. The reversal and remand was on a rather narrow ground, namely that the trial court applied too demanding a standard when evaluating the homeowner’s argument that the allonge in the case had been fabricated. Yet this means that this securitization fail case is still alive […]

    Second, the Illinois Court of Appeals for the 2d District just issued a ruling in a commercial mortgage foreclosure case, Bank of Am. Nat’l Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, 2012 Ill. App. LEXIS 487 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2012), with some wide reaching implications for securitization fail arguments. It’s mainly a choice of law opinion, but there are two interesting things about the case. First, the Illinois court very clearly understood the securitization fail standing argument made by the defendants and was taking it seriously. Second, the Illinois court applied New York law to the interpretation of the PSA. This is critical because once the argument shifts to New York trust law, its 90% of the way there.

    In short, the arguments that the banks screwed up in securitization are still alive. And among those are the arguments that the banks failed to convey the notes to the trust, which would have a significant impact in Massachusetts, because there would functionally be no noteholder to speak of. As Levitin told Timiraos: “You still have to show that someone else is actually the noteholder.”

  28. Enraged will call me American Pie.

  29. Err.. Neil, the folks played a little part in ruining society as well. The “me now” attitude was necessary to expand the private capital model. LOL, these guys created more “computer currency” than every government on the globe combined over the past decade. We helped by authorizing that credit currency into the money supply through execution of loans and other instruments that allowed us to continue our quest to live like no man could!

    The inevitable unwind will be difficult. i have an idea to save America, unwind the mortgage losseson the backs of the banks (at Weighted average of 80 LTV – MTM. My idea will also take the banks out of mortgages forever and shutter the socialist dogs at the FNM, FRE, FHLB, FHA, FRC and my favorite, The FDIC.

    This idea will add a million jobs in the first 6 months, add a trillion real dollars into the economy, pay down the debt and eliminate federal and state deficits overnight. I am on the fence about announcing it because it would hurt the banks.

    In return for this radcial idea – i want to be put into the history books – and to always be remembered simply as; The guy who saved America!


  30. The banks are dead ! Never leave your homes !!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: