Homeowners Settlements, Shortsales and Modifications Opportunities Arise for Investors

Whether it is in Bankruptcy Court, Federal Civil, or State Civil, the trend is obvious — more and more cases are being settled, modified or otherwise resolved outside the courtroom. In some cases, the settlement is relatively easy, with the pretender lender agreeing to sharp principal reductions and long term paybacks at low fixed rates. The homeowner need only be wary of getting an Order from a Judge through a new or existing lawsuit that quiets title and a new title policy that not exclude risks associated with securitization, assignment or sale into the secondary market. If you need help with this call our customer service line and we will find someone to help settle the matter or help your attorney. 520-405-1688.
But in other cases, especially in bankruptcy court, we have a growing list of homeowners who seek “hard money” sources that will enable them to buy the house out of the bankruptcy estate at deep discounts. In some cases these are loans and in others it is an outright purchase by the investor with an option granted to the homeowner to purchase from the investor. In the meanwhile the homeowner rents from the hard money source on a triple net lease, meaning that the homeowner takes care of everything from utilities to repairs and maintenance. That reduces the monthly rent for the homeowner but it also eliminates any landlord liability.

As an example, we have someone who is in bankruptcy court with 2 1/2 acres, two completed structures on the block and the ability to buy the property out of the estate for 20% of the original finance appraised value. She needs a hard money source who will lend or buy. The specs on the deal make it about as risk free as one could get. And the return make it about as high a return as anyone could even imagine. So if there are investors out there who are looking for deals, look no further. Just call our customer service line (520-405-1688) and ask for a telephone appointment with me and I’ll put you in touch with the right people.

81 Responses

  1. LD TX
    *****URGENT***********URGENT********URGENT*********URGENT**********
    On November 13, 2012 Bank of New York Mellon filed a Limited Power of Attorney in the Harris County TX Land and County Records. This Limited Power of Attorney reads after recording return to LSI Title Agency in Irving TX and is between Bank of New York Mellon, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. This Limited Power of Attorney if you did not know it was filed will have a devastating impact on homeowners. I paid for the document so that I could have it as I feel there is a need for Attorney’s to read what it states. After asking BONY and Bank of America to produce the Blue Ink Copy of the promissory note and being told they could not provide this information, Bank of New York Mellon as you can clearly see in my post on this page what they have said about being the Trustee for Investors and does not physically own or hold the note, this document states otherwise. This document is saying that BONY can produce the Note, Endorsements, Deed of Trust., etc. Please I beg for help to get this document circulated as it pertains to all of the CWALT and CWABS Pooling and Service Agreements and as I stated was written and signed in November and filed with Harris County Clerks office on December 6, 2012. my email is dean_leah@yahoo.com. If you are interested in reading this document which is another way the banks are committing mortgage fraud, please email me. I will be glad to forward the document to your email. I have reported this to the Texas Attorney General and would like this document to get to a higher authority than this. Please, help me. I am begging you.

    ***PLEASE READ***PLEASE READ***PLEASE READ***

  2. @John Gault
    Bank of New York Mellon’s reply simply states to me that they have no interest in the property. I wrote Bank of America and told them that according to The Bank of New York, they do not physically have the loan nor do they hold the note. Then I get a call at 9 o’clock last night from a Remax Real Estate Broker. She said she had my file in hand and wanted to know if I was interested in a short sale. Bank of America had hired her to work with my file. She stated that Bank of America was the owner of the property. I told her to just back up and restate what she just said. She said “Bank of America” is the owner and holder of the note. I blew a gasket. Seriously, 9 o’clock on Sunday night. I told her no!!! MERS is the Original Mortgagee and The Bank of New York is the Current Mortgagee and she said no!!
    She then told me she has never heard of such a thing. Oh my, our County Clerks our Tax Acessor and Collectors and our Real Estate brokers need to get educated. My mom and I also went to North American Title where I closed on my home and requested a title search to be done. After they saw the letters, documents etc., she said she could not help us and did not want to be involved. Today I received a response back from Bank of America and this is the content of the letter

    Dear Leah Dean:

    Thank you for contacting us regarding your mortgage related concern.
    Although we previously indicated that we would provide you with a response by October 30, 2012, additional time will be needed to complete our review and resolve your concerns. We estimate that we will inform you of our proposed resolution by November 14, 2012. We assure you that we are diligently working to resolve your concerns.

    If you have questions, you can reach me at 855-267-4053 Extension 54161, Monday thru Friday, from 8:15 A.M. to 5:15 p.m. Eastern.

    I have been asking who holds the note for 1-1/2 years. MERS will not respond and The Bank of New York does not hold the note. What kind of game is this?

    I also told the Real Estate Broker that Bank of America filed on my Credit Report and I received a fraud alert showing that in May 2012, Bank of America filed a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. I went to the Harris County Clerk’s office today and no such thing has been filed and the broker told me no that couldn’t do that because a foreclosure hasn’t been filed.

    One mess after the other. I wonder what the cost is to sue for Quiet Title. My mom and I have discussed it and we think it is now time to move on it.

    John have a blessed evening and a wonderful week.

    My chin is up I have a smile on my face and Bank of America will not take my home.

    LDean
    Pasadena TX

  3. BNY Mellon is on record as saying B of A (another entity) has the
    authority to modify, etc. Okay. “Please provide the written agreement which gives B of A the expressed authority to act in regard to my loan.”
    I mean, since bny mellon alleges another has that right, bny mellon must be aware of the document which created that right.

  4. LDean TX

    After finding the Appointment of Substitute Trustee document with the names Melanie D Cowan and Notary Leslie Jo Lovell in my County Record, and doing a Google Search of the names, I acquired several documents with robo signatures out there on Google. After I spoke of this on this website, the documents have been pulled off of Google and now must have a username and password through Dallas TX County Records. I found that to be rather amusing. Also, I have asked The Bank of New York Mellon who Bank of America said is the holder of the note and listed as the Investor on MERS to give me the information about my property and this is what was sent to me:

    From: “MBS.Property.Inquiries@BNYMellon.com”
    To: Leah Dean
    Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:36 PM
    Subject: Re: 2616Mill Creek Dr Pasadena TX 77503 Acct #155397447
    Thank you for your recent correspondence.

    As per our database, you will need to contact the servicer for the address(es) listed in your email. The servicer info is as follows:

    Servicer: Bank of America N.A.
    Phone #: 800.669.6650/ 888.219.7773/ 866.781.0029 (option 3)/ 877.498.7226/ 800.669.2443

    The servicer is the direct and only contact who would have the information you are seeking. BNY Mellon is not an investor but a Trustee and therefore does not physically own the loan or the property. BNY Mellon does not have any say in how the property is disposed, loan modifications, etc. This is the responsibility of the Servicer.

    Thank you for contacting BNY Mellon.
    BNY Mellon Property Inquiries
    Global Corporate Trust – Mortgage Backed Securities · Fax 212.815.8094

    Isn’t it interesting that BNY does not have any say in modifications (Not what Bank of America said!) What is even more sickening is the fact they write that they have no say so in how the property is disposed. Well what about the 255 homes on Harris County Appraisal District that state the Owner is The Bank of New York Mellon Trustee but when you look at the address under The Bank of New York Mellon all tax records are being mailed to Bank of America, Simi Valley CA,
    Ocwen Loan Servicing West Palm Beach FL, GMAC Fort Washington, PA, Integrated Asset Services Denver CO, Bank of America, Plano TX and I could go on and on. So the Harris County Appraisal District show the Owner as The Bank of New York Mellon Trustee but when you start looking at the address under The Bank of New York Mellon it paints a whole new picture.

  5. LDean TX @ enraged

    Just want to give you a big thank you for all of the support you have shown and the links and information you provide me with. Here is a email I received from The Bank of New York Mellon Investor of my Mortgage according to Bank of America and MERS straight out of my inbox:

    From: “MBS.Property.Inquiries@BNYMellon.com”
    To: Leah Dean
    Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:36 PM
    Subject: Re: 2616Mill Creek Dr Pasadena TX 77503 Acct #155397447
    Thank you for your recent correspondence.

    As per our database, you will need to contact the servicer for the address(es) listed in your email. The servicer info is as follows:

    Servicer: Bank of America N.A.
    Phone #: 800.669.6650/ 888.219.7773/ 866.781.0029 (option 3)/ 877.498.7226/ 800.669.2443

    The servicer is the direct and only contact who would have the information you are seeking. BNY Mellon is not an investor but a Trustee and therefore does not physically own the loan or the property. BNY Mellon does not have any say in how the property is disposed, loan modifications, etc. This is the responsibility of the Servicer.

    Thank you for contacting BNY Mellon.
    BNY Mellon Property Inquiries
    Global Corporate Trust – Mortgage Backed Securities · Fax 212.815.8094

  6. First of all why would you buy a home with only 20% off??? There are many nice homes that sold for $160s to $180s setting empty and the banks are taking 50% to 70% off if you pay cash. We just purchased a $90k home for $13k, the home had just had $20k worth of updates. These homes are everywhere. My brother inlaw has purchased 3 homes all where under $20k.

  7. WA Supreme Court Decision on MERS Standing!
    entered AUG 16, 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/103052429

  8. WA Supreme Court Decision on MERS Standing! entered AUG 16, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/103052429

  9. You’re an idiot by not only making up further myths instead of addressing my actual statements but by the simple exercise in giving credence to MERs at all.

    Only the issuer can grant MERs authority. It’s that simple.

    Why do you attempt to make the assumption that somehow Neil has approved my opinions.

    Readers need to know you don’t know what the heck you’re speaking of and skip over your posts. That’s how they can be helped.

    If you post stupid, I will point it out.

  10. @fc – I don’t think you’re Neil Garfield, the owner of this site. Don’t think he’d say what you’ve said and offend his own readers by referring to them as “p’d off pro se litigants’, even if that were an accurate description. Some of your unkind barbs demonstrate characteristics I wouldn’t lay at his feet. But mostly,
    Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
    For whom are you fiduciary counsel? MERS perhaps? This is the last time I’m coming down here with you.

  11. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME 123 CORP VICTIMS===
    BREAKING NEWS===THE IRS IS GIVING BACK $131 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE NEW CENTURY BANKRUPTCY. THIS STATED IN HEARING ON AUGUST 14 2012.

    IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO, CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO INQUIRE ABOUT A BANKRUPTCY CLAIM OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AGAINST THEM.

  12. My point is threefold. First, to make sure others understand that you (and others) should not be relied upon for any sort of expertise. Secondly, in hopes that you will quit posting things that do not relate with the primary article and editorial (please find another outlet to vent) and third and most importantly, I do not think it is the intention of this forum to ‘dumb’ down for non attorneys or experts, but instead maybe require you ‘smart’ up.

    Unfortunately those working to assist homeowners like you can no longer use this site as a forum as it has been hijacked by pissed off pro se litigants.

    Maybe you all could set up a second site devoted to your interpretation of the law and allowing for venting?

  13. NG – I think this minute that they tried to if did not create a trust, then stuck in the dot or tried to actually create it in the dot, between MERs and the lender/economic ben. But these ‘nominee trust’ rights are as yet unclear (to me) as a matter of law first and foremost, though I believe the rights are subject to the stuff I was talking about today and prob yesterday, the caveats in the dot, if all else fails. You are into following the money and it may well be what you say. Not my thing, as you know, though you appear to find it wholley dispositive. But you know what I am talking about even if I’m off center. I found your own comments from March of 2009 about this nominee trust quite by accident. My main thing here in this comment, I guess, is that I am not out to lunch with this, it’s not worthless or if it is, I haven’t found out why yet. You touched on it yourself. I don’t know if or why you abandoned it. Maybe you discovered more value in following the money. Must have. I found a new case wherein the homeowner (att, conscienteous one imo) claimed MERS is the trustee and also the ben. Well, I think that’s half right and half wrong, just now. I think MERS may be a trustee or tried to be a trustee of a diff trust (MERS + member(s) ) created by or injected into the dot. Is it a big whoop? I don’t know. Yet. If you readily know why it’s a dead end, I believe you have my email address. Would not comment here, but if I have yours, it’s buried.

  14. In California this is a problem because California Foreclosure Consulants Act and Section 1695 may be a hurdle unless the investor takes complete precaution in terms of the formalities involved in the purchase lest the homeowner cries foul later and involve verious departments who inevitably will side with the homeowner.
    On the other hand homeowners must have to be extremely careful that the transaction is real and use the services of an attorney who will protect and preserve your interest. There have been cases where the homeowner is in eviction proceedings and eviction proceedings are not about title but about possession and move swiftly.
    This is an area of oncern that both parties should address before proceeding with any sale & repurchase transaction. Any questions? Call Satish Shetty (818)340-7600. I have been there before.

  15. @z – I don’t know that what I think just now leads to a conclusion that the dots are fraudulent, tho they may be, or skewed or whatnot.
    But just now, unless some lightbulb goes off or someone deigns to
    logically dispell my reading of that language, I’m staying there. What it does say to me is that MERS can’t do anything, at least not pursuant to that paragraph in the dot UNless law or custom necessitates the right. I don’t know how the law would look, if confronted, at rights which are expressly subject to “necessary” in the first place. They are actually rights which are almost subject to conditions subsequent (law or custom) to trigger them. This is stated as if the law doesn’t exist, but in truth might have, so then it’s not a cond subsequent exactly or might not be. Tad complicated on whether it is on not, but the condition, the caveats, for the exercise of rights remain either way. The question is was there law in place at the time to trigger the necessity of right, if such a right may be given in this manner at all. (and if the law existed, why avoid it in the document and phrase it that way?)
    But it is nonetheless a large caveat: these rights are expressly subject to necessity, whether necessity existed or came about. The issue is past-ripe for adjudication imo. No expert on legislation, but to the best of my knowledge, it is most often not applied retroactively, so they couldn’t rely on the necessity pursuant to legis which didnt exist at the time, and hell if I know what law would hold to necessitate the right in the first place. Just doesn’t work that way.
    Nope, I don’t know what “law” might have existed at the time to trigger the necessity for rights to MERS, don’t actually know of any they could advance. I wonder, tho, if they now rely on subsequent legislation in their favor, and in that regard, knew that leg was coming and granted the right ahead of the legislation, tho as I said, legislation isn’t usually applied rectroactively to the best of my knowledge. But the granting of the right by legislation still does not comport with “necessity”, since
    even if a new bs statute says MERS MAY do this or that, it still isn’t necessary for MERS to do it. The real ben still could, so it isn’t
    “neccessary” for MERS to do it. For this to be otherwise, the dot would have to read MERS can do a thing when the legislation says it can, and such a statement would not only be superfluous, it would be absurd.
    The law saying they MAY do a thing does not itself necessitate
    the right. Such legislation would make exercising a right a heck of a lot eaiser, but it wouldn’t necessitate the right all the same.
    They may also have intended that with reference to case law in theire view prviding necessary, but that fails too, imo, because case law might hold that while MERS MAY do a thing, it is not necessary for MERS to do a thing. I’m not splitting hairs.
    Bottom line for me: they must substantiate some necessity to trigger the right.
    It may be as simple as their reliance on misinterpretation of that
    caveat. I don’t know how else to look at it; had they wanted to
    grant the rights, they could have done so by following the law. There is a reason they didn’t even if I can’t put my finger on it yet. I’m thinking, tho, that they wanted to avoid agency so that agency would not interfere with plans to appt member-principal employees as (straw) officers of MERS. And if MERS is the principal by being the true ben, in addn to the bifurcation issue, wouldn’t that make its members the agents or some other undesireable relationship? Cant be a principal of your principal or an agent of your agent.
    Cripes and then some.

  16. @fiduciary,

    I am not a banker. I am not a financier and i don’t pretend to know. My forte is elsewhere. However, I am a homeowner who got screwed like many others and tries to figure it out. No, i don’t limit myself to “wiki” but that part was never explained to me in a way I could grasp. So, please, do us all a favor and explain away in terms we ALL can get, regardless of background.

    Or be snide if it rocks your boat. No skin off my bones.

  17. 400 trillion is estimate based on AIG, Ambac bailouts. I am concerned as to why you’re posting if missed the entire reason we are where we are. Are you enraged or just uninformed?

    It was Wikipedia that has been your best source of research? And from there you jump to an innane conclusion?

  18. @fiduciary,

    Are you serious? Or is it tongue and cheek?

    I read that wiki thing and thought: “i can’t be reading right.” I read again and again and came to that conclusion but, in all honesty, I was literally shooting from the hip. i still don’t know if i read right and drew the right conclusion… But to me, it’s the only one, given that I have absolutely no clue how, otherwise, anyone could grow $80 trillions into $400 other than by playing with the books.

  19. Thanks enraged for clearing up the obvious. Bangup job, no one would have a clue about what caused the global financial meltdown without you posting on Wikipedia. You need to contact the treasury dept, the Fed, etc. as this is tremendous insight.

    Please post more!!!!

  20. JG,

    MERS was intended as some kind of a wharehouse allowing members to transfer notes back and forth in order to collect CDS and make a buck. In fact, I tried to post yesterday something about it from Wikipedia but LL won’t allow it. The sentence was:

    “In the event of default the buyer of the CDS receives compensation (usually the face value of the loan), and the seller of the CDS takes possession of the defaulted loan.[1] However, anyone can purchase a CDS, even buyers who do not hold the loan instrument and who have no direct insurable interest in the loan (these are called “naked” CDSs)”

    “CDSs are not traded on an exchange and there is no required reporting of transactions to a government agency.”

    “An investor or speculator may “buy protection” to hedge the risk of default on a bond or other debt instrument, regardless of whether such investor or speculator holds an interest in or bears any risk of loss relating to such bond or debt instrument. In this way, a CDS is similar to credit insurance, although CDS are not subject to regulations governing traditional insurance. Also, investors can buy and sell protection without owning debt of the reference entity.”

    From the above, it results that MERS members did not have to own anything. Just being a members gave them access to those CDS. That’s how it grew from $80 trillion to… $400 trillions, maybe?

  21. z – MERS is not the “intended, economic” beneficiary by its own admission and as a matter of fact. What does that leave them to be?
    Are they a party with the rights of the economic beneficiary, and if so, by what vehicle(s), and in those vehicles, how are their rights of the economic beneficiary stated, expressed?
    I found to my chagrin, yet almost happily til I have pondered it longer, that I have been reading some langauge in the dot wrong. The dot does not read to mean what I have thought. I misinterpetted the caveats expressed. It says:

    “Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument,

    but, if necessary to comply with law or custom,
    MERS …has the right to exercise any or all of those interests.”

    “But if necessary to comply with law or custom’, MERS has the right to do X . By the actual iteration of those caveats, which I got wrong, MERS only has the rights IF NECESSARY TO COMPLY with law or custom. They don’t have them and then are subj to compliance with anything (law or custom). They only have them IF having them is necessary to comply with law or custom, which imo is a large
    difference. First of all, such an averment, which is not signed by the
    source of authority, and needs to have been to bind both the source and MERS (who also fwiw does not sign to accept), is likey so wrong, vague, stupid, can’t think of the right word, as to not be
    enforceable esp in regard to the st of frauds. The expression of authority is not defineable; it’s not finite, at least.
    What law or custom would make it “necessary” for MERS, as a mere
    “holder of legal title to the interests of the lender” to have the right to do X? It must be necessary in order for them to have the rights.
    HOW is it necessary? Until it can be shown what by law or custom
    necessitates those rights to MERS, they don’t have them. That is the caveat which is stated: the rights are subject to necessity.

    They allegedly hold ‘legal title to the rights’ granted by the borrower.
    The borrower has granted a form of title to the dot trustee to be held in trust for the ben of the ben. That’s one, an “interest”, MERS doesn’t, can’t have -goes to trustee (and neither does the econ ben – never does even in legit deals). The dot trustee is given the power of sell. That’s two. So Mers can’t have that. The ben is given the power, right to tell the dot trustee to foreclose. This could be a right which MERS could have (disregarding missing elements to satisfy the st of frauds) just like an assignment of a dot, but MERS may ONLY have it IF it’s necessary to have that right by law or custom. So I say again-
    what law or custom would necessitate MERS having that right or rights?

    My impressions of MERS have been stated for a long time, so as to mine, it’s no secret. We come at courts with a thousand variations on why this stuff is crap. I think it would be beneficial if we could ever
    possibly agree among us who MERS is or isn’t. It doesn’t need to be what I think at all. It just seems it would be better for presentation if we could just the hell agree on something to advance in courts. But attorneys, I think, who might make some great contributions, zealously guard their own beliefs until they are tko’d in some wiggle-room case (altho small pockets work together here and there).

  22. @JG,
    You said: “. A true beneficiary would not need to derive its authority from another, as is acknowledged, admitted, and confirmed here. ”

    Great point. I really think the beneficiary/mortgagee status supposedly granted by DOT/mortgages are THE weak point of MERS. So far judges have been upholding the beneficiary status, but once it is fully understood that MERS is NEVER a beneficiary (and it is not at all difficult to understand that) this will be one of the things, if not THE thing, that brings MERS down.

    And that point alone should void every DOT/mortgage that names MERS as a a beneficiary/mortgagee–it’s fraud because MERS is NOT the beneficiary and was never meant to be. Maybe that’s what it will take–prove that MERS was never meant to be the beneficiary in the first place (shouldn’t be that hard to do), and then it’s clear the the MERS as beneficiary/mortgagee statements in the DOT/mortgages was ALWAYS fraud.

  23. How many names does Soliman have, anyway?

  24. Should be, because you will see that only the issuer of the security can provide authority for a third party to electronically register it. Would make the whole 14 years worth of your layman jurists of MERs seem ridiculous.

  25. “I posted a comment a few weeks ago in regards to agency versus principal…”
    A comment. Why, yes, you did. And when we have settled down from reeling at the largess of your contribution, at least this part of we will take your suggestion. Given that my time is increasingly valuable to me, I hope it’s a good one.

  26. Until you understand all notes are securities, you will continue your circular conversations that help the courts decide against you using contract law. These are all security transactions.

    You can continue to be pretenders yourself (attorneys) or educate yourself on security transactions. Spend $60 bucks on a series 7 exam prep book, read chapter UCC 8. I posted a comment a few weeks ago in regards to agency versus principal transaction, which galt responded with some off base legalese.

    Nothing matters until you know if the loan closing was an agency or principal transaction.

  27. @z – I never want to give anyone a bum steer, even if it does come from a layperson, such as myself. I am looking far and wide for what I’ll call certain distinctions in regard to nominal status. Hope you see this! I do think that was an admission by MERS that it can’t act as to assgts in its own right because a true ben would not have to take direction or orders or anything from another person or entity. A true ben would (first of all) know to whom it had transferred the very operative debt obligation and therefore to whom and why and when it should execute an assgt of its collateral instrument.

  28. MERS admission that it acts at the direction of another party and not in its own right among other things I’ve posited makes me wonder when an assgt is executed in its name if that relationship must be expressed, and that of course is subject to the relationship’s existence. I don’t know why it wouldnt’ be necc to express the authority. I’m almost certain it must. They have let the cat out of the bag and if anyone believes me and will and can make use of this admission in the interrogatory response, it’s going to get ugly. It’s been a long time coming. Assgt:

    ABC Lending, Inc.

    _________________________
    by MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
    its agent, its poa, its ___________
    by SueEllen Reidy, v.p. of MERS (spelled out) the
    “of MERS” may not be required, but the rest is

    The ‘its agent, its poa, its ________” is not entitled to presumption.
    The relationship alleged is subject to challenge and the onus is on the alleged agent, poa, whatnot to prove the status alleged.
    (In the cases where MERS claimed agency -though I don’t believe there is an agency- the assgt should have read “by its agent”, for instance.)

  29. z – note: MERS says at the direction of the servicer AND the investor, which as written means both. But the big thing I tried to point out is that MERS admits it doesn’t do assgts in its OWN right. One has to be able to get what all that means and express it. I will give you the interrogatory responses from MERS on permission I would need to get. If you find them useful, you would need to study judicial notice and I would give you something you need if you don’t have it already. After you have done any research in this area, and I know you have done a huge amt so far and many kudos, it might be best to get an attorney if you don’t have one if you perceive a win might be influenced by being pro se or seasoned attorneys ability to argue on their feet or any other reason. You may be good on your feet, for instance – I couldn’t know. I’d love to see you prevail.
    You may even have to amend your complaint, which is at will before an answer is filed and mtd and sj don’t count in that regard. I’m not an attorney and only have a small comfort zone.
    Lay opinions, as always.

  30. ” MERS is only able to transfer what it actually holds and cannot transfer a negotiable instrument by virtue of a transfer of real property.”

    1) “MERS is only able to transfer what it actually holds”
    MERS says it holds only “legal title” to the dot. By its own admission
    it doesn’t hold the beneficial, economic interest. It admits it may only transfer what it holds – the “legal title”, i.e., nominal status. It should, as necessary, relinquish it’s nominal status if and when that doesn’t happen as a matter of law as well as pursuant to its membership agreement. (Possible complication as to membership agreement: battle by h.o. to rely on but wouldn’t necessarily defeat reliance with right arguments) MERS does NOT want that agreement introduced, as an add’ reason these days because it fails to support MERS’ right to execute an assgt nor do I believe it supports MERS right to allegedly take marching orders from a servicer or sec’n trustee regarding assignments (and then we remember MERS doesn’t do them, anyway, unless they can overcome the illegitimacy of these straw-officer appts and the conflict of interest).
    By its own admission, and this is hugely significant, MERS does not have the authority to execute an assgt in its OWN right: It says right here in this interrogatory response that its right derives from the (alleged) direction of another – the servicer or investor. If you blow off everything else I say or have ever said, please remember this one. A true beneficiary would not need to derive its authority from another, as is acknowledged, admitted, and confirmed here.

    2) “cannot transfer a neg instrument by virtue of a transfer of real
    property” . MERS admits it may not transfer a ‘neg instrument ‘
    by a transfer of the dot, which I note concedes the dot is a transfer of real property: statute of frauds. So then you say MERS has just
    admitted – again- that it can’t transfer these notes in an assgt of the dot. But. What if MERS in MERS-and-its-cronies double speak is
    saying these aren’t negotiable instruments, but are instruments which are NOT negotiable instruments (as they have said in at least two cases I know of and linked one) but are instruments capable of being transferred by separate written agreement by way of article 9 or what not? If so, it’s inherently dishonest for one, imo. Are MERS and its gang using that language for other reasons of their own and then
    just pulling out ART 3 with its bearer provisions for us peons in court as well as the court? Are we the only victims of this language in the deed of trust? I think this: maybe it’s their own reasons (and we can for now only speculate about those) but most foreclosures and hence assgts in most venues are not contested. There is now a record of an assgt of the note in an instrument and a noticed instrument, at that, for what that might be worth to their “other” reasons. However, none of this overcomes MERS inability to transfer a note in any fashion, so if for their own purposes, they are skewing SOMEthing to someone else’s detriment, in all likelihood. Assgt of notes have never been recorded because they are personal property. They know this, so I sure do wonder what is the game (the other one).
    MERS or any other third party could be enpowered to execute an endorsment or an assignment of a note with an agency agreement or poa. This agreement doesn’t have to pass the st of frauds, because notes are personal property, and as far as I know, and that is a caveat for sure, the fact that a note is secured doesn’t relegate it to governance by the st of frauds.
    But, there has to be some authority for a third party and when there is, if that relationship (as agent, as poa) isn’t expressed on a note itself, the guy doing the endorsement without expression is lliable on the note. So I read. That could explain why they are trying to pull it off by way of the dot.

  31. @z – nominal ben imo would be a legal designation. And that’s what I’m working on. It’s the relationship which MERS describes when it says it holds title to the dot. There really is no such thing as “holding title to the dot”, altho if there were, it IS the description of a nominal beneficiary. MERS is either a nominal ben, or the note and dot are in fact bifurcated, regardless of what that judge said in the mdl litigation
    a year or two ago. I need to find that case (had it somewhere) to see on what premises he found MERS as ben doesn’t bifurcate the note and dot. I need to see how MERS described itself. Actually, what I’d like to do is compile a list for dissemination of all the different stories MERS told various courts about its relationship to the dot (ben, agent, holds legal title to dot, etc), for they are not consistant, and it’s important to understand that they aren’t consistant. MERS can’t be the agent, for example, acting as the ben because that would require
    written agreements which never happened. Can I suggest that you look up “agency” in regard to real property. It would be a blessing to me to have a comrade here on this issue.
    I now know the significance of the rationale underlying courts’ decisions. It’s all a lot of work to sort through them, though!
    One may appt a nominal ben or nominal anythings in contracts for any number of reasons, I would think. A nominal anything generally doesn’t have the rights of the real party. Any rights would have to be spelled out either in the contract or elsewhere and as to real property,
    must pass muster of the statute of frauds, just like ‘agency’.

    You may try looking in Restatement (Second) of Contracts in the meantime for nominal status. Be ready to spend some time and I sure hope you will! If I have your email, I will send you something useful.
    And again I say it is unconscionable to make any entity with no
    employees and no ability to ‘act’ a ben or even a nominal ben.

    I was looking at MERS’ answers to interrogatories from March,
    2011. The homeowner sasked MERS to describe in detail the procedures by which MERS is instructed to prepare what it purports is an assgt of both the Note and the DOT.

    MERS: A duly authoriized officer of MERS would be responsible
    for preparing and executing the assignment at the direction of the servicer and investor. MERS is only able to transfer what it actually holds and cannot transfer a negotiable instrument by virtue of a transfer of real property.”

    Let’s look at that.

    1) “duly authorized officer of MERS”.
    Is the officer “duly authorized” by Wm Hultman’s appt?
    Case transcripts show it is the board which must appt officers
    and that Hultman’s auth from the board derives from a
    resolution of the board of the first iteration of MERS and that
    the resolution was not adopted by the subsequent iterations
    of MERS (We’re on #3) If there is as a matter of law a
    presumption of his authority, what would it take to overcome
    the presumption and would it matter?
    2) “Officer of MERS” – are these straw officers at the servicers
    and foreclosure millhouses factually MERS’ officers?
    What are the determining factors? The Koontz court didn’t
    think so. See the Koontz decision and look for other things
    which might otherwise support these other-company employees
    as MERS’ officers. Consider conflict of interest.
    3) “At the direction of the servicer”
    Under what authority of the noteowner does the servicer
    allege it has a right to command an assignment? Where is
    this right to be found? This is real property: think statute of
    frauds standard.

    4) “At the direction of the investor”
    I give, how is that done? Is it a direction from the secn’
    trustee and under what authority is that and in what format
    is the direction given MERS from the investor? (Ditto on the format of transmission of the alleged direction to MERS from the servicer) Where is the authority to be found? In the PSA? If so, fork it over.
    The PSA says the assignment was already to have been
    done, for one thing, at the time of transfer. Allegations of
    authority of ths sort cannot be presumed.

    5) Part II

  32. @JG

    More FYI:

    “…focus has been subprime. Include in this category also ALT-A loans and the subprime percentage goes up. Subprime is difficult to define — one of the questions you will always get from adversaries is “DEFINE SUBPRIME.” During the subprime market heyday, majority market share of the “mortgage loans” shifted from the GSEs to the banks. The banks gained market share while the GSEs lost market share. If you have a loan that is claimed to be in a REMIC bank trust, this means your loan is not GSE. But, you must always go all the way back to origination of purchase money to trace the real path of your loan. At one time, it is extremely likely that the loan was GSE owned, and what happened from there is the question.

    This does not mean that all foreclosures are not GSE owned. However, conventional loan is not the right term to use as to determine whether loan is GSE. Conforming is the right term. A loan could be “conventional” — and NOT be GSE owned. If a loan is currently GSE owned, and in default, one must determine the GSE procedure for disposal of default loans.

    Again, my focus is on subprime refinances that were originally GSE purchase money loans (Conforming). As the market share shifted from GSEs to the banks, during the past decade, it is the banks, not the GSEs, that controlled the majority of these refinance loans/non-conforming new purchases. Include subprime, Alt-A, and purchase money loans that were split into two loans. This was a large percentage of the market. Today, after the financial crisis (2008), market share as almost completely shifted back to the GSEs again.(about 95%) of the market — as banks are not lending. In order to purchase a home now, and/or refinance, you must CONFORM to GSE guidelines. Again, if you have a GSE loan (which would be a newer loan), you must ascertain the GSE process for default loans, and at what point the GSE will charge off and sell collection rights…”

    “ALSO— the GSEs did not hand over loans to the banks without a benefit for them. Once the loan was gone — the GSEs invested in the bank REMICs. Why?? a higher interest rate…”

  33. @JG,
    So you’re saying that “nominal beneficiary” carries some legal status? Is a “nominal beneficiary” a genuine legal term? Because I pointed out in my complaint and subsequent briefs that MERS was only a “nominal beneficiary” only for the sake of accuracy (and meaning the term to be pejorative), without realizing I might have been inadvertently conferring on MERS some actual legal status that I did not and do not wish to confer on them.

    I agree with your assessment (as I read it, anyway) that MERS gave the banks the excuse to stop doing endorsements (if they ever did them). The idea was that no one would ever see the notes again–don’t worry, MERS will track who owns them–and in fact the notes would never actually be delivered to the “note holder” (because among other possibilities, the notes would be scanned and then shredded). For example, in my case, BoA said that the note holder was/is Fannie. But the note never went to DC or Virginia or wherever Fannie’s HQ is–according to BoA, my note sat in a vault on Recontrust property in Simi Valley, CA from the moment they received it there until they supposedly released it to their attorney some 4 years later. That doesn’t sound like the UCC requirement of “transfer” to me. How can Fannie–on the east coast–“hold” a note that sits 3,000 miles away in California? You and I are not able to “hold” anything that is thousands of miles away.

    And that brings us back to the non-negotiability argument–if the notes were negotiable and WERE negotiated by endorsement and transfer as required by the UCC, then why did my note go sit in a Recontrust/Countrywide vault instead of being endorsed and then transferred to the east coast? Simple answer–they knew very well that the notes weren’t negotiable and so they didn’t negotiate them! Indeed, my note was originated by Countrywide, and Countrywide kept it in their vault for 4 years. Michele Sjolander testified that in 2007, Countrywide scanned the notes without endorsements. Why would they do that if the goal of making copies of the notes was to keep up with what had been endorsed to whom? Simple answer–they weren’t worried about it because 1) they knew the notes were non-negotiable and/or 2) they knew they wouldn’t be endorsing the notes as a matter of policy (per Linda DeMartini’s testimony in Kemp v. Countrywide and/or 3) MERS will “keep track” of who owns the note.

  34. @carie – wish I knew more about this stuff, but I don’t.

    “These were charged-off loans, with only collection rights surviving.”
    This basic premise does not ring true to me, as I explained, but I don’t know charged off by whom against what , for one thing, because
    this info never says anything about that. All I think I know is that
    if a secured loan is written off, the security instrument should be reconveyed / released. There would be no collection rights surviving.
    Or tell me how collection rights could survie.

  35. @jg

    “…Subprime refinances were created by reporting default to the GSEs, prior to refinance, to make sure the GSE could not “invest” in the refinance. Banks wanted themselves to be the “investor.” .

    GSEs charge off the falsely reported debt, servicer or mortgagee collects insurance and pays GSE –and, simultaneously, purchases rights to the (false) default debt. And, the mortgagee “modifies” the default debt by calling it a refinance. Borrower remains in default with GSE.

    NO funding is necessary, unless borrower requests “cash-out.” These (false) default debts were, perhaps, modified several times. No problem for debt buyer “investor” — because, if borrowers did not pay the high rates — foreclosure was the option. Default is default to courts, they just do not know that the loan was a (false) default before actual default.”

    (Yes—my source has actual physical proof that this happened.)

  36. @JG,

    Subprime made up only approx. 20% of all mortgages sold between 2004 and 2006 (an steep increase from 2000 when it was only 8%).

    Foreclosures and underwater mortgages are far from being all subprime. The proportion is roughly the same: 20 to 80. Many subprime are still paying and many conventional have defaulted. i don’t know what so many people appear to view everything under the “subprime” label. it is a gross distortion and I find that misleading.

  37. @carie – have only read your first comment, and I’m confused (well, a lot of that stuff is confusing to me). Why would the orig loans that were sub-prime go to gse’s? Have things changed so much that they did, instead of going to private entities? FNMA and FHLMC were taking that kind of paper? Last I knew they ‘might’ ‘take “Alt-A”, which is a far cry from subprime. Alt-A allowed certain deviations from “A” paper, but not the kind one sees in subprime. Do you KNOW that subprime loans went to gse’s for certain? I have a hard time with that, but then again, I remember some news on the tube from 2008 where it was revealed that FNMA fat-cats, especially one in particular – dang I wish I still had that – allowed, encouraged, designed, abetted, whatever, shanigans for the sole purpose of getting mulit-million dollar bonuses. And now that I think of that again, I’m seeing red all over.
    I am not making this up. Today maybe it doesn’t seem unusual, since that appears to have been the whole name of the game, but still, why isn’t he in jail, censored, tarred, something?

  38. @jg

    Also this:

    “…FHFA cases are directed to return money to security investors — not homeowners. FHFA refuses to divulge Freddie/Fannie records. I have been through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). Bottom line — Freddie/Fannie were scammed out of their own loans — by servicers reporting false default to them. Freddie/Fannie disposed of the false default loans, but then turned around and invested in the subprime securities that invested in the false default loans!!!!! Now, they are stating that these “securities” were bogus because the borrowers were delinquent, in default, and that the securities were derived from these “loans” that backed the securities that they purchased!!!! HAH — F/F need to open their books, what was reported to them about the borrower — BEFORE they invested in the subprime securities??????

    To date, no government agency, no entity, no law firm, no Congressional representative, no administration, has been able to open F/F books and records. NOT ONE. THIS is the problem.”

  39. The GSE false default is the missing link. Unless and until we understand that—we will get nowhere.

    @jg I don’t know if you saw this other post:

    “…HMDA required reporting of applications. Most applications first pass through the GSEs. The GSEs have refused to open records. Not all is filed under the SEC. SEC is only for securities filings. Securities filings are for securities only — securities are pass through of current cash flows — ONLY. It cannot be a security without pass-through of CURRENT cash flows. SEC filings do not mandate HMDA applications. Thus, no one knows what first passes through GSEs. No one knows what prior trust is supposed to paid off by a refinance. No one knows what trust their loan may have been securitized into — prior to the refinance. SEC does require filing of “prepaid” accounts — but, SEC also did not regulate or monitor any REMIC trust that filed a 15D- – which allowed the trust to escape any future filings by the established REMIC. This is called — Deregulation (or no regulation as some would like to call it). In addition, if 15-D is filed — there is no requirement that any Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) and accompanying Mortgage Schedule be updated. There is no requirement that the MLPA be executed. There is is requirement that the Mortgage Schedule be updated. Nothing is required to be reported to SEC. Homeowners are left without access to actual and updated documents, and without access as to whether prior loan was paid off to a stipulated trust. HMDA reported data is useless, if GSEs will not divulge.

    End result — most, if not all of subprime refinances and subprime new purchases, are bogus mortgage loans that were falsely presented as a mortgage to homeowners. These were charged-off loans, with only collection rights surviving. How does this affect homeowners??? One, not a mortgage — unsecured debt. Two, valid records as to payoffs, and payoff to prior trust and/or GSE — is unavailable by public documentation. Three, the purchase price for collection right to unsecured debt is undisclosed to borrower. Thus, borrower is unable to ascertain how much a debt buyer paid for collection rights to charged-off debt — and, how that “purchase” price can be “modified” for principal reduction by the distressed debt buyer.

    Finally, security investors are NOT investors in default debt. Subprime was default debt. Security investors, and I will state this over and over, can only invest in CURRENT cash flow pass-through. Security investors CANNOT invest in collection rights — or, for that matter, any mortgage loan itself. They can only invest in pass-through of cash flows. The loan, NOTE, collection rights, remain with the “INVESTOR” — who is NOT the security investor. Under federal law, the “INVESTOR/Creditor” must be disclosed to the homeowner. This information CANNOT be found in SEC documents, and will NOT be produced in courts of law– unless the judge is astute enough to understand the process.

    It is time for deregulation to be repealed. This, I believe will come. In the meantime, unless attorneys understand that all is being withheld in courts, borrowers will remain in limbo — unable to access the documents they need. And, given this, foreclosures will (fraudulently) continue. Attorneys have been so brainwashed on a no-end track, that they fail to look beyond the apparent.

    Number ONE — First, and foremost, separate security investors from junk debt buyer “investors.” They are not the same. To conclude that they are the same, is a huge detriment. And, to conclude that they are the same, sadly, has been the major downfall of many. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME…”

  40. @jg

    This person has physical proof of this, and has gone to Fannie/Freddie with this info and was told “Let it go.”

    “…I am telling you — every single subprime loan was done this way. Loan goes to GSEs — but, when ready to refinance — it gets bumped out — reported as false default to GSEs. Refinance is not really a refinance — it is a modification of a false default debt. And, many new purchases also passed through GSEs as false default.

    I know I am 100% on this. But, those in power will do everything possible to stop it from being publicized — if this got out — heads at top would roll…”

  41. It is time to forget about subprime. Those days are gone 3 to 4 yrs ago.
    It is now the time to resolve those who are under water and stop em’ from walking away. But now is the time to stop the deflation of your neighborhood.

  42. A reason the membership agreement does not discuss assignments other than to non-MERS members, and here I’m thinking every loan which has allegedly been securitized, is reliance on a false premise yet again. Then you might say ‘what’s this? That’s crazy. MERS et al knew these loans were headed to sec’n trusts, which would mean an assgt had to be done on all of them (they did, anyway), so why would they include this in their mem agreement?’ The answer is because MERS et al relies on the secn Trustees’ MERS’ memberships in that regard. I say this fails because as recited by MERS, the time for assgt is when the “ben interest” goes to a non-member. The Sec’n Trustee does not have the ben interest, any more that the trustee of a dot. The non-MERS member investors have that beneficial interest. Unless they don’t, but either way, the reliance is on the Sec’n Trustee’s membership.

    Relying on 2 fictitious premises, MERS and its cronies never intended to do assignments, and possibly they just got ‘too busy’, not even for enforcement, apparently: 1) MERS is the beneficiary, not the nominal beneficiary, 2) They were going to get away with, and did, the language in the dot which said MERS could foreclose. I believe it was their OWN recognition of MERS’ nominal v true ben status which inspired the “if by law or custom” caveat in the dot. Here I note I would personally like to smack the head that came up with that caveat. Throwing those caveats in there was in fact a hail mary of sorts because the relationship between MERS and its members didn’t exist to allow MERS to foreclose “by law” and they knew it. (I have to note here that they could have had that relationship, but didn’t want the liability they hoped to avoid, but now have tons and tons and tons of.) But, hey, they said, if courts condone this, and dang if they didn’t – over and over, why not? Some here think courts are crooked, mol. I agree some have bents, but I think a lot of courts, who shouldn’t, have been caught up in the tap dance as much as the rest of us.

    And so it went…….that is, until, drum roll………. THE CONSENT ORDER. That changed things. Why the consent order?!
    Why? (I don’t want to be rude or lofty, but that’s a “hello”) Because the deal was garbage, that’s why. MERS then issued its mandate to its members: no more foreclosures in its name. Oops! NO assignments had been done. Now what to do? Well, what the heck ARE they gonna do? Scurry, scurry. Like to have been a fly on the wall for that one. So ‘what they’re going to do’ is execute assignments to themselves, illegitimate assignments from MERS, who is only the nominal ben in the first place, right to the self-appointed enforcer- of-the-moment. If that’s not bad enough, they do it under cover of MERS by the use of those straw officers courtesy of Wm Hultman, for which the Koontz court, the one squarely confronted with the facts of this straw officer business, found appropriate distain. I can’t help mentioning here that in the Koontz case, MERS refused to comment on that deal, even at the expense of losing the case, which they
    do here and there to keep things under wraps.
    .
    They are also not complying with the spirit or intent of the Consent Order. They just found another way to carry on their bogus
    activities.

  43. Z said:

    “In my case, MERS claimed more than once that it held “title to the Deed of Trust.” Is that what you’re talking about? I tried to clarify with them, asking, “Are you sure you don’t mean that you hold the Deed of Trust as opposed to title to the Deed of Trust?”

    Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. There’s no such thing. We haven’t known what to make of those words. We do now. What they
    describe is at best nominal beneficiary status. They do not want to use those words because they conflict with other things MERS has said and done and allowed members to do in its name and continue to allow. I think when one looks at all the possibilities of who MERS is in the deed of trust, the best and only answer is nominal beneficiary.
    Last week I called them a third party beneficiary – I was mistaken.
    That’s something else. I’m very confidant about nominal beneficiary and don’t see me thinking otherwise. It does make me sick that it was there all the time. But in my and our defense, we got an awful lot of red herrings and misdirections from that gang, which was abetted
    by the language regarding foreclosing in the dot.
    NB’s do not have the rights of the true beneficiary, generally. Another contract could give an NB rights of the true ben. Where is that contract? (and it must be noticed to be binding on third parties) We haven’t seen it. If taken as fact, that MERS is a NB, any rights MERS has to act in the stead of the beneficiary must originate outside the dot because those rights are not prescribed in the dot, which at any rate, is not signed by the true ben. They hoped to pretend otherwise by calling MERS the ben and as it played out, their hopes were realized because we failed to get it that they are nominal bens, and there is a big difference. They want to pretend over here and over there that their appt as NB means things it doesn’t. If that were not true, they would not allege to be the true ben when it suits them as against the statement they made to you (and Nebraska), which imo is actually an admission, nor would they allege a non-existant agency over here and there. It isnt rocket science; we were just all caught unaware. It’s just basic law regarding nominal beneficiaries and I am working on that. fwiw, which I hope is a lot. We got futher messed trying to untangle their stinking membership agreement and any possible relevance to their rights; the agreement may have some influence regarding their rights, but even then, only if noticed to third parties, i.e., homeowners, courts, public record, etc. But while that agreement may have some influence, it doesn’t lead to the conclusions they want us to live with. They are not the beneficiary, other than a nominal one- and that is a tweaked way of describing it that they laid on you. There is no agency agreement. They avoided agency like the plague. As to agency, they want all the perks of agency without the liabilities. Pretending to be something you’re not is not the “substantial compliance” CA, say, has stood on when refusing to overturn foreclosures.
    The only expressed right allegedly given to MERS, the NB, in the dot, which is only signed by the borrower, is the right to foreclose “if by law or custom”. These are unassailably caveats and they know it. That’s why those words are in there. I’ve done my best to express why neither of those is possible.
    The dot does not authorize MERS, the NB, to execute assignments.
    The only ref to assigments is in the membership agreement, an agreement never Noticed, and I’ve cited the reference a zillion times (assgts to non-members only). And it’s tweaked, anyway, because MERS attempts to hand back to its members (thru the use of straw MERS’ officers) a right which the members / former-beneficiaries never gave MERS in the first place.

  44. carie – at long last I know what you might mean by there is no lien. You have said these loans were put in false default, and I don’t know about that, nor have you told me why you think that, despite my asking you, which means at least one of us – this one of us – still doesn’t know why you think that. I only have an inkling of ‘participation’ regarding loans, which is not false default. It’s something else and it’s legit as far as I know. If a loan were put into false default, whether or not there is a lien remaining seems to me would depend on the ‘then what’, which has never been included in comments I’ve read here (not NG) that I know of. If the then what is that the falsely defaulted loan were written off, there are no collection rights remaining to sell or at least no secured anything to sell because by virtue (in this case actually distinct lack of virtue) of the write-off, the security interest should have been reconveyed / released and dare I say as a matter of law and or accounting /tax principles. A junk buyer trying to collect on a loan this way, after a write-off, (and I really don’t get all that junk buyer stuff) has no “lien” (used here in lieu of rights of a ben in a dot) to try to enforce. Is this what you mean or is it something else?
    I haves some ideas, but I still don’t know why YOU think they wanted to falsely default this stuff.

  45. @lisa d – from what I read recently, and commented /linked here, anyone who executes an endorsement as an (alleged) agent or poa of another and does not make note of that (alleged) agency or poa on the note at execution of the endorsement becomes liable to the noteowner for the debt (that’s harsh!)
    If there is no such agency or poa, then of course it’s fraud as you state. I don’t know how to incorporate this fact so that it is beneficial to the homeowner, or even just now how it is beneficial to the homeowner, but I would think it would terrify the culprit.

  46. carie – none of that even considers that in order to actually take a write-off, there has to be legitimate effort to collect what’s due. Is the fact that Mr. Brown is in arrears grounds for these write-offs (if that’s the case – he’s in arrears)? Does Bank A even get to say ‘well we’ll just write it off because it’s more beneficial’ (and some outfit we own is going to get some insurance benefit – would be no surprise there) with no attempt to garner the collateral thru (its own) foreclosure? The “legitimate effort” required in this deal is the prescribed remedy of foreclosure. Is a write-off an appropriate remedy when foreclosure is available, which would lesson the write-off? Of course I’m not touting foreclosure; I just wonder at their ability to “casually” elect the write-off. That would be just peachy for us if it stopped there, but according to your comments, it doesn’t. And then that brings to mind something else rather glaring: if the election has been a write-off, shouldn’t the security interest be reconveyed / released on the record? Oh my. If this stuff is true, they is bad kids.

  47. “Any pass-through of cash is considered income, not collection of receivables (you can not have receivables when the loan was previously charged off). ”
    carie – this is about the only part of that I can sink my teeth into. That stuff is foreign to me and I guess I’m a slow learner. It seems well-written, but goes over my head nonetheless. But isn’t that what I have been questioning – how a charged off item may yet be sold?
    If the charged off thing still generates income, and that’s what this says, I’d sure like to know under what category this income is classified on their books. Recapture of loss previously reported? I made that up because I’m not an accountant, either.
    A charged off thing no longer has a security feature. That’s an assumption on my part but I think it’s true. Whatever is sold is unsecured, and it’s being called ‘collection rights’ here? I still don’t see how they can survive a write-off, though. Not only do I believe then that there’s no security, but the complication is that, how to say this, these write-offs aren’t about uncollectable receivables for the sale of furniture. They’re about mortgage loans, succinctly or abbreviated, and the prescribed remedy for breach (in lieu of a write-off and calling it a day) is foreclosure, which is specifiically attack on the collateral. The complication for me isn’t just that there is no longer any security, it’s that there are other rules in play here that are not in play to, say,
    writing off receivables for furniture. The rules of the game are that the mortgagee must first seek remedy for breach out of the collateral, the real estate (not to mention that he has already taken the remedy of the write-off). I’m trying to think what makes it so the mortgagee may not first sue on the note, but I can’t get it right now, but I think it’s very important. So the question I can’t think of the answer for right now is why must the lender foreclose instead of suing on the note? (Or do I need more coffee?) If I got this right, and believing written-off debt is yet the subject of the sale of “collection rights”, not only has the junk buyer bought an unsecured, written off debt, he cannot pursue a claim of any kind because the first action to recover on a note secured by a deed of trust must be one againt the collateral and now there isn’t any. For that to be true, it must first be true that a charged-off thing no longer has security and how could security survive a write-off of the debt obligation? IF this is happening, it strikes me as a rather monstrous and illegal (illegal because it does not follow the prescription for remedy for breach of these particular loans) charade againt the homeowner.

  48. Leah Dean, on August 9, 2012 at 7:19 pm said:

    @Carie
    I guess my question is this….Even if you buy “junk debt”, how can you reverse a bond back into a loan? This is what I do not understand.

    @Leah Dean—here is answer—read carefully…it is from someone who has physical proof of all of this:

    “First, note endorsements do not have to be dated and do not have to be notarized. Thus, we have no idea when the note is endorsed. Second, you cannot have your loan number as a corporate bond Cusip number. Leah — it was NEVER a valid mortgage. I do not dispute that collection rights to the debt were converted into securities. What I state is this:

    1) if loan was a subprime refinance, it was already in (false) default (with the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie/Freddie) BEFORE collection rights, therefore the securities were not valid mortgage-backed securities. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1933/1934, is very clear as to securities/corporate bonds/pass-throughs, that they must be backed by corporate assets that provide CURRENT cash flows — i.e. asset receivables. There are no asset receivables for collection rights as it was already charged off (by GSE) assets. Charged-off assets cannot be “revived” for valid corporate bonds/mortgage backed securities. While anything with a cash flow can be securitized for pass-through, in the case of subprime, it was not valid mortgages that provided the cash flows.

    2) It does not matter whether or not the security/bond created was derived from a valid “asset”, because security investors are not the homeowners creditor. This is clearly stated in the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment. Security investors do not acquire legal title to the property or loan, they are only entitled to pass-through of the cash flows related to the underlying asset. Neither is the trustee to trust a creditor — as trustee only “holds” bare legal title — they do not own or acquire. Securities are traded every day. To state that security investors are the creditor (or that the your loan has a BOND cusip number), is absurd. This would mean your creditor could change every day — and this would defeat your legal right to certain consumer protection laws such as the TILA. You would continually have to amend your TILA violations in a court. Fed Res was well aware of this when they wrote their opinion. Fed states: “Accordingly, an investor who purchases on interest in a pool of loans (such as mortgage-backed securities, pass-through certificates, participation interests, or real estate mortgage investment conduits) but does directly acquire legal title in the underlying mortgage loan, is not covered by Section 226.39” (covered person is the creditor). The Fed also states “the date that the covered person acquires the loan is deemed to be the acquisition date that is recognized in the books and records of the acquiring party.” (meaning balance sheets)

    3) So, all the investors that have a fractional “interest” in the “pool” of loans, can only acquire title by purchasing the WHOLE individual loan — cannot have a “fractional” interest to be creditor or foreclose. In addition, conveyance of loans to the trust itself is in huge doubt, as conveyance was never perfected during the required REMIC time period for inclusion. And, REMICs do not have balance sheets.

    4) This brings us to the trust itself. While you cannot have a “fractional interest in a pool of loans” to be a creditor… There can be multiple creditors. Depositor purchases all loans, deposits them in trust. Security underwriters arrange the “pool” into certificates, and they purchase the certificates. At most, one may consider the certificate holders to the trust (and they are very finite in number ) parent corporation the creditor. And, the security underwriter’s parent owning the largest percentage of the limited, but multiple certificates, must identify itself. Thus, the “parent’ of the security underwriter with the largest percentage of ownership of your loan, must identify itself to you, under the TILA Amendment. That party is the party that ACCOUNTS for largest (from multiple ownership) ownership of your loan —ON IT’S BALANCE SHEET. FASB 166 and 167 have demanded that all off-balance sheet conduits be brought back on parent’s balance sheet. Most of the process as been completed by now.

    Loan number CANNOT be a bond cusip number. Security investors CANNOT be your creditor. If you believe this, you will lose — you are giving them what they want. You lose your consumer protection laws immediately.”

  49. @JG,
    In my case, MERS claimed more than once that it held “title to the Deed of Trust.” Is that what you’re talking about? I tried to clarify with them, asking, “Are you sure you don’t mean that you hold the Deed of Trust as opposed to title to the Deed of Trust?” They said “We said what we meant and we meant what we said.”

    Sjolander’s endorsements are fake. She is a patsy. She testified that employees of Recontrust stamped the Notes, at least back in 2007. She said that some vague power of attorney document allowed Recontrust employees to stamp her name on notes. Meanwhile, Mark Gunderson (atty in FL) has filed a memorandum of law in which his document expert found that the Sjolander endorsement on several Notes in cases he’s working on was NOT placed there by a rubber stamp and is a “Xerox forgery.” Again, if you want a copy of that memorandum of law, email me at leftbehindchild@gmail.com.

    I should point out that the forgeries in the Gunderson case are not the now-famous Meder/Sjolander double-whammy stamp, it is a single stamp with Sjolander’s signature. But since Countrywide’s Linda DeMartini told the Court in Kemp v. Countrywide that Countrywide did not endorse notes at all, EXCEPT when needed for litigation purposes. And the Sjolander endorsements follow that pattern–they never show up, even in litigation, until BoA/Countrywide’s opponents look like they might win, then “ta-dah” a Sjolander-endorsed note magically appears. Unfortunately, the black robe in my case thought was just hunky dory.

    If anyone is currently in discovery with BoA and has Meder or Meder/Sjolander endorsements, depose Meder, not Sjolander. Sjolander always defers to Meder and says Recontrust employees would know. We have plenty of Sjolander testimony–go after Meder, who supposedly works at Recontrust.

  50. Cirilo E. Cruz, Plaintiff, v. Aurora Loan Services LLC et al., August 11, 2011:

    “…This reasoning of Stockwell is now inapposite. Under Monterey, 49 Cal. 3d at 461, a deed of trust is no longer a conveyance of actual title to the Property, but merely a lien. The borrower now retains actual title to the property. Bank of Italy Nat. Trust Sav. Assn. v. Bentley, 217 Cal. 644, 656 (1933). That this title theory is discredited by the Supreme Court is recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Olympic Federal Sav. LoanAsso. v. Regan, 648 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1981) (mortgages and deeds of trust are “legally identical,” so that the borrower retains actual title to the property that the Internal Revenue Service can redeem despite the presence of a junior deed of trust). See also Aviel v. Ng, 161 Cal. App. 4th 809, 816 (2008) (to interpret a subordination clause in a lease, the terms mortgages and deeds of trust were treated as synonymous based upon Bank of Italy, 217 Cal. at 656)….”

    “…The trustee is bound by no fiduciary duties, and has no duty to defend the rights of the beneficiary, or authority to appear in the suit in its behalf. Id. at 462. The trustee of a deed of trust serves merely as a common agent of both parties. Vournas v. Fidelity Nat. Tit. Ins. Co. 73 Cal. App. 4th 668, 677 (1999). Because the beneficiary’s economic interests are threatened when the existence or priority of the deed of trust is challenged, it is the real party in interest under a deed of trust. Monterey, 49 Cal. 3d at 461 (trust deed beneficiary must be named in a mechanics lien foreclosure suit since trustee does not protect its interests). See also Diamond Heights Village Assn., Inc. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 196 Cal. App. 4th 290, 304 (2011) (beneficiary is the real party in interest in a fraudulent conveyance action to void the security). …”

  51. Really? Really? Can we help? Please, please, please?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-banks-recoveryplans-idUSBRE87905N20120810

    Exclusive: U.S. banks told to make plans for preventing collapse

    U.S. Morning Call: Exclusive-Big banks got tall order
    By Rick Rothacker

    Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:41am EDT

    (Reuters) – U.S. regulators directed five of the country’s biggest banks, including Bank of America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc, to develop plans for staving off collapse if they faced serious problems, emphasizing that the banks could not count on government help.

    The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the “living wills” the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.

    Officials like Lehman Brothers former Chief Executive Dick Fuld have been criticized for having been too hesitant to take bold steps to solve their banks’ problems during the financial crisis.

    According to documents obtained by Reuters, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency first directed five banks – which also include Citigroup Inc,, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co – to come up with these “recovery plans” in May 2010.

    They told banks to consider drastic efforts to prevent failure in times of distress, including selling off businesses, finding other funding sources if regular borrowing markets shut them out, and reducing risk. The plans must be feasible to execute within three to six months, and banks were to “make no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector,” according to the documents.

    [Go to link to read the rest]

  52. FHFA’s Stand Against Eminent Domain Plans Likely to Prevail

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency warned Wednesday it would take action, if necessary, to stop cities from using eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages and attorneys say they are likely to prevail.

    http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_153/fhfa-criticizes-eminent-domain-plans-1051666-1.html

    DeMarco needs to go. Obama needs to go. Geithner needs to go. Romney needs to be deported to Switzerland once and for all.

  53. I won’t list all 11 since they are available on the link below. Read them however. it gives a pretty good idea of why we ab-so-lu-te-ly need to see bankers jailed and put away. And why we can’t have the Romney or Obama of this world genuflecting ad vitam eternam before them.

    http://www.infowars.com/11-things-that-can-happen-when-you-allow-your-country-to-become-enslaved-to-the-bankers/

    11 Things That Can Happen When You Allow Your Country To Become Enslaved To The Bankers

    Michael Snyder
    The Economic Collapse
    Aug 10, 2012

    Why are Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and so many other countries experiencing depression-like conditions right now?

    It is because they have too much debt. Why do they have too much debt? It is because they allowed themselves to become enslaved to the bankers. Borrowing money from the bankers can allow a nation to have a higher standard of living in the short-term, but it always results in a lower standard of living in the long-term. Why is that? It is because you always have to pay back more money than you borrowed. And when you get to the point of having a debt to GDP ratio in excess of 100%, you are basically drowning in debt. Huge amounts of money that could be going to providing essential services and stimulating your economy are now going to service your horrific debt. Today, citizens in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy are experiencing a standard of living far below what they should be because the bankers have trapped them in endless debt spirals. Sadly, the vast majority of the people living in those countries have absolutely no idea what is at the root cause of their problems.

    The truth is that no sovereign nation on earth ever has to borrow a single penny from anyone.

  54. It is NOT an all gloom-and-doom world where everyone is out for himself. The few rotten bankers out there would make it look so but it isn’t.

    http://joy2theworld2012.wordpress.com/tag/humanity/

  55. I am in Florida. Being sued for foreclosure by Plaintiff BOA, as successor to Lasalle Bank, as trustee for GSAMP2007he2, dated March 1, 2007. US Bank National substituted recently, but now claiming on the bearer note, (assignment filed was fraud and the transfer/sale to the trust is a flop)

    Originated by a bankrupt (2007 BK) alleged lender whom was ordered cease and desist in 2007, as well.

    The alleged assignment done in 2009. The Note did not contain indorsement attached to complaint, (lost note count, nothing plead regarding who, what, why, when and how)

    Dropped lost note count and attached a copy of the note with an alleged indorsement, (blank).

    The alleged trust according to the Plaintiff was one involved in the sec hearings (Goldman) and FHFA vs. Goldman.

    There are no other indorsements to this alleged note and the alleged assignment went from Originator, by way of Mers/servicing llp directly to the bank as successor bby merger to the trustee (lasalle) in 2009 (Originator BK 2007)

    There was fraud in origination (proof) and fraud in inducement to modify .

    How can Plaintiff claim the alleged loan purchased and securitized in the pool, and coming down to the wire switch it up and base the foreclosure on holding bearer paper…?

  56. @JG,

    Try RI Ingram v. MERS
    http://www.mersinc.org/component/docman/doc…/109-ri-ingram-v-mers?...

    Like every pleading, it is loaded with case law.

  57. @Leah Dean,
    I don’t know if you’ve seen this info by Attorney Mark Stopa regarding Michele Sjolander: http:
    //www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2012/07/im-getting-rich-banker-style/

    That said, if anyone has info on one “Thomas Hicks” – Please contact me at mrsdiamond@msn.com

    I believe “Thomas Hicks” is and/or was employed by LSI Title Company of Oregon/Lender Processing Services (LPS), but certainly NOT the “Lender” Lime Financial Services, Ltd.

    If, as part of his job, “Thomas Hicks” fraudulently indorsed our Note in blank posing as an employee of Lime Financial (or stamped without his knowledge), when in fact he was employed by LSI Title/LPS, that would make EVERY document filed by the Plaintiff (“U.S. BANK, N.A.”) Fraud and Uttering — which is a criminal offense. As to the foreclosure attorneys, they will have filed Fraud Upon the Court and THAT, I presume, will get our case tossed with prejudice!

  58. That’s why I have to laugh when I hear MERS try to explain who it is in the deed of trust, as it did in MERS v. Nebraska. Remember that was a case wherein MERS was fighting licensing tooth and nail. “Not a lender, not due payments, never held nuthin’, had no economic interest, etc.” Said it merely owned or held title to the interests created for the beneficiary of the dot. So, MERS was saying MERS holds “ony title” to the mol dormant rights of the beneficiary, think that would be a right way to say that. There is no such thing. They were at best describing a nominal beneficiary, but did not want to use those words, and using their own words, that might even be a stretch.
    An agent or a poa could be authorized to enforce rights, but what of someone claiming to hold only “legal title” to such rights? A real ben doesn’t even hold “legal title” to its rights. They HAVE the rights, and they can exercise them, abandon them, (I suppose) or assign them.

    Nomods, I am trying to get why you think MERS, since it was named the (nominal) beneficiary, may anchor something.
    “…..to enforce the nominees protections afforded the beneficiary of a contract sale or land sale contract – which is your right to repurchase your home title.” A dot is not a contract sale or land sale contract, but I can see how you might look at it that way, as repurchasing your home by payment of the note. A dot is a transfer of one form of title, either equitable or legal. By paying the note, you are to get a reconveyance of the trustee’s (form of) title to your home, so you then have full title. Part of your title has been held in trust, and now you want it back. But you’re just not really “buying” it. You are retiring the obligation which gave rise to the transfer of title to your home, which was not a sale.

  59. nomods – it’s not an executory contract. It’s a ‘complete’ contract, can’t think of word, signed, sealed, delivered (well, delivered is speculative), with rights which are established. Enforcements of rights established but which enforcement is triggered by conditions subsequent don’t make a contract executory, because the right is already established. It is only the enforcement of the right already established which is not done yet, and may never be done, because enforcement is dependent on a defined condition subsequent.
    The elements of a non-executory, or w/ever that’s called, contract are in place. Done. Sentence structure could be better, so possibility I misunderstood. Maybe you’re not saying the contract is executory.

    “That future event is in fact abated (wrong word) as title is
    transferred in advance, at the time of the settlement”

    No, it isn’t. imo. You agreed in the dot that the trustee would hold (a form of = equitable or legal) title for the ben of the beneficiary. The beneficiary’s right to that title is established, but only the right. The ben’s right exists, but getting title is subject to conditions subsequent: default and foreclosure. Using your thinking and none other (as in scratch sec’n here for discussion and who funded the loan, etc.) , the fact that a note and dot may be transferred does not change the title held by the trustee. It only changes the beneficiary. Even if the loan has been sold ahead of the closing, the trustee remains the same with his same title, though another party now has the rights of the original beneficiary.

  60. @jim- Ms Williams does not appear to want to fight, which is her
    right. Probably got enough on her plate. She just wants her house at a payment she can live with. Be nice if she’d get an indemnification from the probable pretender, but she won’t. If the right thing for you is a ‘loan modification’, I hope you get it, Ms Williams.

  61. Can anyone recall a particular case where MERS said it holds title only to the interests created by the dot? (besides Mers v Nebraska?)
    I really need another case or three. thanks

  62. “But in other cases, especially in bankruptcy court, we have a growing list of homeowners who seek “hard money” sources that will enable them to buy the house out of the bankruptcy estate at deep discounts.”
    Huh? The secured real property, assuming no equity which WOULD go to the bk estate if not protected by some exemption, is not property of the bk estate, so how is one buying them ‘out of the bk estate’ at any price? If we had more competent attorneys to go round, one could make a deal with the bk trustee and such an investor for a favorable but mutually beneficial deal to fight the bankster in a bk court. But not much private money is there yet; not til we make more headway, then they’ll probably be all over it. You know, you can also make a deal with your bk trustee: he joins your battle against bankster and you make a deal with the bk estate for X $$ if you end up with the property. He has more tools than you, or should. And he can hire counsel.

    And, as an independent matter, bk trustees have an obligation to the bk estate to see that only a true creditor gets a thing, including real estate that would be prop of the estate but for the bogus lien and pretender’s claim.

  63. @Carie
    I guess my question is this….Even if you buy “junk debt”, how can you reverse a bond back into a loan? This is what I do not understand. According to my CUSIP number, my account number is a corporate bond. The pool my home went into CWABS 2007-2 states according to Bloomberg report that the note has turned into a corporate bond by Countrywide Mortgage. So whether Bank of America buys the debt back or not, the fact of the matter is you can not change the bond back into a mortgage. Furthermore, The promissory note was just robo stamped as recent as May 7, 2012 with Michele Sjolander and did not have a date nor was it notarized. Bank of America sent it like that to there Attorney who then forwarded it to me. Needless to say, after I responded back to their Counsel, I never heard back from their Attorney’s. A lot of errors not to count the Substitute Trustee document when they tried to foreclose on my home in January of this year. Both the signatures are forged. If you do not believe me, Google Melanie D Cowan and Leslie Jo Lovell. There are plenty of these substitute trustee documents on line that you can find. Compare the signatures and also look at Melanie D Cowan Vice President and see how many times she is Vice President. These are just a few documents being shared by Google. I can not imagine what our Land and County Records are filled with but I have touched on this subject in the past.

  64. “People think it is holding on that makes you stronger, but sometimes it’s letting go.”
    The plaintiff is the principal debtor to the mortgage obligation received on or about (date). Plaintiff received the proceeds from loan at time of settlement as indicated on the disbursement schedule (see attached exhibit HUD 1 Statement). The precedent for a loans settlement is the wire advance or Fed Funds “ABA wire” delivered to the subject loans closing agent.

    A plaintiff makes certain promises to the lender called COVENANTS. There is a covenant to pay back the loan and a covenant to transfer legal title to a fiduciary or trustee incidental to a fiduciary is a executory agreement. This latter covenant is in the event of a default.

    To create a bonefide trust conveyance and grant a trustee dominion over trust assets, your home, would have to convey title and promise to allow such conveyances to occur not withstanding a future event. That future event is in fact abated as title is transferred in advance, at time of the settlement.

    Such understanding would open the door to all kinds of possibilities to a grantee and subsequent “beneficiary” of trust assets. The grantor is one who forms a trust for investment purposes. Again, this would require the title holder to be lawfully held as conveying his estate to another and to have done so upon his acknowledgment.

    Therefore, I affirm in affidavit that the Plaintiff has agreed to have granted the right to convey the Property.

    Under the accounting rules for Derecognition, the debt the Plaintiff is held are for proceeds he received in settlement. If the debt is later released “off balance sheet” as an Banks asset and de-recognized a FDIC banks affiliate “commercial obligation”, the liability and asset ceases to exist. This is the basis for a sale!

    In this manner the subject mortgagor is transferring the estate and Property warranting the land and improvements to be unencumbered. This would assume lien free except for all lines or encumbrances of record.

    Plaintiff s are alleged to have in fact been given a loan that was later recognized by the trust as a contribution of assets in form of securities. The transferor Plaintiff further warrants he shall honor the transfer of title as a conveyance FBO the indentures trustee for dominion over the property, a trust asset. The conveyance is now held to a right of repurchase and technically does not allow the Plaintiff transferor to even remain in the property under what is known as a livery of seizin. Here the Plaintiff is a seller repurchasing back the property under an executory agreement under a more commonly knonw feature for these structured financing deals called a REPO.

    Now you can understanding how the right of repurchase is to a contract of sale and purchase back at a later date that maintains the Plaintiff and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record. This is the material covenant that is breached in a foreclosure defense. Counter arguments are no breach took place under a false right to enforce a power of sale by a lender, done in abstention of fact, under a blank assignment five years after the fact.

    The recording of the mortgage is the fatal move against the title that in other words is recorded as the principal amount due for the face value of a 40 year bond. The Bond issued is accreted (reverse of amortization) under a negative pledge to a foreign national bank. The bond will springboard a non interst bearing note as a synthetic yield borne from a discounted valuation of the sponsors obligation – not the plaintiffs debt.

    The editor on this site is of another opinion and therefore I am not in competition with him as an expert who testifies in court. People and attorneys can pick their own horse to ride the race out. What I am saying is there is No quieting of title and No interparty violation for fictitious endorsements to the same depositors account.

    Finally, MersCorp may be the only thing the Plaintiff may have left to enforce the nominees protections afforded the beneficiary of a contract sale or land sale contract – which is your right to repurchase your home title.

    foreclosurealternatives@wordpress.com

  65. @enraged

    Love that. I want to borrow that truck sometime. Tomorrow say Bank of America and see what it says back to you. You made my night. Thanks.

  66. forgot to say UNSECURED false default debt…

  67. @Jim

    Indeed. Modify false default debt with a junk debt buyer? Pretending they own a “mortgage”? Not me.

  68. oops meant “Galapagos” software

  69. @DCB

    REGARDING GALPAGOS SOFTWARE GUY:

    “This guy rightly exposes what happened with subprime mortgage loans. CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) were the investments that most “mortgage” security investors were investing in. They are largely synthetic because they were not derived directly from the asset itself — they were derived from the securities that were derived from the loan “assets.” The banks that owned the REMICs (and the banks owned them), would package different tranches from multiple REMICs into CDOs — and that is what the pension funds, insurance companies, etc. would invest.

    A REMIC is typically structured with about say– 15 tranches. Since these were not mortgage loans by which securities could be derived for Triple A rating, these REMICs had to structure the trusts to provide credit enhancement that the rating agencies would use to “upgrade” the rating quality

    Here is how the process went. 1) the subprime loans were sold to one of the major banks (this is NOT reflected in any assignments, and only some REMICs disclose this). (will explain why not reflected in assignments in a minute). 2) the bank’s subsidiary Depositor deposits the loans in an off-balance sheet trust (some Depositors were not subsidiaries of big banks — but they had corridor agreements to sell to the banks — which we also do not see by REMIC disclosoure — (Corridor agreements to sell to the banks, but the Depositor name would remain on the trust ) 3) the REMICs are structured into certificates, which are all sold to the security underwriter (except the bottom tranche which the servicer would usually own). 4) the security underwriters were subsidiaries of the big banks. 5) the top tranches of the REMICs were rated the highest because the lower tranches provided support to the upper tranches — that is, given a default, losses would accrue to the lower tranches first. 6) the big banks sold the top tranches to Fannie/Freddie and kept them for themselves (Louis Ranieri — grandfather of the subprime trust has explained this). 7) Ranieri has stated that the lower tranches (credit enhancement) were sold first — to hedge funds, and other distressed debt investors, while the banks retained the upper tranches 8) some of the tranches were sold to other big banks.

    8) Then the banks would take different tranches from different REMICs trusts, and package them into CDOs — to be sold to security investors. And, yes, the guy who sold the software for these CDOS is right — one had to be an idiot to invest in these CDOs, because the ratings on the REMIC trusts from which the CDOs were derived, were manipulated. Anyone who read the prospectus for the REMICs would know that the CDOs were derived from risky “loans”, and that they were not legitimate. 9) From CDOs, CDS (credit default swaps) were derived — which are contracts not even “synthetic securities.” 9) Sometime CDOs were repackaged into Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs).

    10) The CDO “security” investors are, the pension funds, insurance co., etc, that Neil refers to when he talks about “those who put up the money.” These security investors, however, did not put up one dime to the borrowers, they were just, as the author of the this article states, the “synthetic” security investors idiots that bought the idea that the derived CDOs, derived from the REMIC certificates, derived from the bogus loans, were actually triple A rated (this deriving is what is called “leverage”). These security investors do NOT fund mortgages, they do not give borrowers money, and they are NEVER the creditor. The creditor “investor” is the bank that originally purchased the subprime mortgage — that was never a mortgage to begin with.

    11) the CDS (default swaps) remove collection rights from the cash pass-through structure. Once removed from the above — who knows what the original bank does with your loan. Very often, collection rights are sold to the hedge funds who provided credit enhancement by purchasing the lower tranches of the REMIC trust. The “servicer” who owed the bottom tranche, continue to “servicer” for unidentified CDS holders — who have nothing to do with the REMIC trustee (as CDS are contracts not securities). So creditor is never identified.

    12) Back to #1 — why the assignment to the purchasing bank is never apparent — because in real securitization, the asset/liability balance sheet receivables are removed from the balance sheet to an off-balance sheet conduit (such as a REMIC). But, the subprime was not real mortgages, they were GSE charge-offs, with only collection rights surviving. Collection rights are not reported as “receivables” on an asset balance sheet. Any pass-through of cash is considered income, not collection of receivables (you can not have receivables when the loan was previously charged-off). Thus, the subprime REMICs were never “true sales” of anything. They were not legitimate balance sheet transfers.

    13) Many of the original tranches to the bogus REMICs have been paid off. At the very least, by the TILA amendment, the remaining certificate holders to the REMICs could be considered your creditor (remember there are only about 15 tranches to begin with). Creditor is NOT the derivative security investors. According to the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment, when there are multiple creditors, the creditor who holds the largest percentage interest in the loan, must identify itself to the borrower. Thus, the tranche holder with the largest position in your loan — should be identified. This is not happening — foreclosures continue under the bogus name of the trustee to the trust. Again, and again, security investors, trusts, trustees, and servicers are not the creditor. And, Neil is on bad track when he starts saying that “security investors” funded the loan. This is in gross error, and has caused more harm than good.

    Security investors were chasing high yields — they expected the subprime borrowers to fund their pensions. I find outrage in this. Interest rates on these loans could go as high as what one might consider “usury.” And, the further outrage is that the properties that funded the bogus subprime were inflated to make these bogus loans higher and higher — which would generate more and higher cash flows. The fact the government still has done nothing to help these victims is the final OUTRAGE.”

  70. @jg

    I believe “privacy law” for not disclosing “real creditor” (when I asked the servicer point blank) has something to do with this info below(as in disclosure protected by deregulation…or something):

    “The biggest junk debt buyers were originally the banks. They owned the collection rights. But, most banks have since disposed of the collection rights since the crisis began. I think Bank of America is the only one that still owns much. The current creditor is the current party that owns those collection rights.

    Now, why would they not want to disclose themselves in a court? This is the way junk debt buying always went. For example, with credit card loans, auto loans, etc., the junk debt buyer would have more influence in court if a BANK rather than a junk debt buyer is named. In addition, contracts are signed, whereby banks sell collection rights by proprietary relationships. Proprietary means that the banks have a relationship with, and invest in, those junk debt buyers. Contracts prohibit disclosure and this is protected by deregulation. And, collection rights are sold at discounts. If one ever found out who actually owned the rights, one could go into court and ask that the purchase price be disclosed. Then, one could argue, why did you not adjust (modify) my principal to your purchase price?? Many courts do not like junk debt buyers.”

    BUT—I didn’t ask him who was “current creditor”—I asked who was REAL creditor.

  71. @JG,

    Jeff Barnes of Foreclosuredefensenationawide wrote of long piece (It’s a cut-and-paste job…) on that Byrd case and others and how thee issue of standing has been playing all along in Ohio. Here it is.

    Ohio Supreme Court Lets Wells Fargo v. Jordan Stand. Foreclosure Plaintiffs Who Do Not Own the Mortgage at the Time of Filing Lack Standing to Pursue Cases

    October 9, 2009
    In a significant victory for consumers and particularly victims of predatory lending the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday quietly let stand what may turn out to be a landmark decision prohibiting banks, trusts and other loan servicing entities who cannot prove ownership of a mortgage note from foreclosing on Ohio homeowners.

    Following a trend originally initiated by U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko, Northern District of Ohio in Federal Court, The 8th District Court of Appeals(Cuyahoga County) ruled in June of this year that banks, loan servicers and trusts did not have standing to pursue foreclosure of homes in Ohio if they could not prove that they owned the mortgage note at the time of the filing of the complaint. In Wells Fargo v. Jordan Judge Frank D. Celebrezze Jr. writing for a unanimous panel of the 8th District held that in order to bring a lawsuit in Ohio the plaintiff must have an genuine interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit:

    {¶ 21} “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515, syllabus. The Eleventh Appellate District has held that ‘Civ.R. 17 is not applicable when the plaintiff is not the proper party to bring the case and, thus, does not have standing to do so. A person lacking any right or interest to protect may not invoke the jurisdiction of a court.’ Northland Ins. Co. v. Illuminating Co., 11th Dist. Nos.2002-A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004-Ohio-1529, at ¶ 17 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court also noted that ‘Civ.R. 17(A) was not applicable unless the plaintiff had standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in the first place, either in an individual or representative capacity, with some real interest in the subject matter. Civ.R. 17 only applies if the action is commenced by one who is sui juris or the proper party to bring the action.’ Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R.L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No.2000-L-014.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722.”

    It went on to hold, ” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law”

    The process of securitizing mortgages on homes in Ohio and throughout the country required multiple transfers of the note mortgage and in some cases a legal fiction was created around trusts and other holding vehicles that never acquired provable ownership of the notes in question. Loan Servicers only have the authority to foreclose that does or doesn’t belong the actual owner of the note and mortgage.

    Seeking legal advice is more important than ever for homeowners facing foreclosure in Ohio. The issue of standing could cause thousands of cases pending in Ohio courts to be dismissed. Help for those who cant afford a lawyer is available at Save the Dream.

    Further, since Ohio Law has long recognized that the issue of Jurisdiction can be raised by a party in a lawsuit at anytime, there may be thousands of judgments granting foreclosure that are void putting the title to those properties in question. Ohio Courts have the inherent power to vacate the prior void ab initio judgments in foreclosure. Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 952.

    Anyone who’s home has been foreclosed on since 2003 when the massive securitization of mortgage notes began in earnest ought to consider taking a look at their judgment and whether or not the plaintiff in the foreclosure had standing to pursue the complaint.

    In a significant victory for consumers and particularly victims of predatory lending the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday quietly let stand what may turn out to be a landmark decision prohibiting banks, trusts and other loan servicing entities who cannot prove ownership of a mortgage note from foreclosing on Ohio homeowners.

    Following a trend originally initiated by U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko, Northern District of Ohio in Federal Court, The 8th District Court of Appeals(Cuyahoga County) ruled in June of this year that banks, loan servicers and trusts did not have standing to pursue foreclosure of homes in Ohio if they could not prove that they owned the mortgage note at the time of the filing of the complaint. In Wells Fargo v. Jordan Judge Frank D. Celebrezze Jr. writing for a unanimous panel of the 8th District held that in order to bring a lawsuit in Ohio the plaintiff must have an genuine interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit:

    {¶ 21} “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515, syllabus. The Eleventh Appellate District has held that ‘Civ.R. 17 is not applicable when the plaintiff is not the proper party to bring the case and, thus, does not have standing to do so. A person lacking any right or interest to protect may not invoke the jurisdiction of a court.’ Northland Ins. Co. v. Illuminating Co., 11th Dist. Nos.2002-A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004-Ohio-1529, at ¶ 17 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court also noted that ‘Civ.R. 17(A) was not applicable unless the plaintiff had standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in the first place, either in an individual or representative capacity, with some real interest in the subject matter. Civ.R. 17 only applies if the action is commenced by one who is sui juris or the proper party to bring the action.’ Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R.L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No.2000-L-014.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722.”

    It went on to hold, ” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law”

    The process of securitizing mortgages on homes in Ohio and throughout the country required multiple transfers of the note mortgage and in some cases a legal fiction was created around trusts and other holding vehicles that never acquired provable ownership of the notes in question. Loan Servicers only have the authority to foreclose that does or doesn’t belong the actual owner of the note and mortgage.

    Seeking legal advice is more important than ever for homeowners facing foreclosure in Ohio. The issue of standing could cause thousands of cases pending in Ohio courts to be dismissed. Help for those who cant afford a lawyer is available at Save the Dream.

    Further, since Ohio Law has long recognized that the issue of Jurisdiction can be raised by a party in a lawsuit at anytime, there may be thousands of judgments granting foreclosure that are void putting the title to those properties in question. Ohio Courts have the inherent power to vacate the prior void ab initio judgments in foreclosure. Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 952.

    Anyone who’s home has been foreclosed on since 2003 when the massive securitization of mortgage notes began in earnest ought to consider taking a look at their judgment and whether or not the plaintiff in the foreclosure had standing to pursue the complaint.

  72. @leah. You do not need a certified copy of the PSA. As an SEC filing signed by a corporate officer, the filing stands. SEC filings are easy.

  73. NG – Whether it is in Bankruptcy Court, Federal Civil, or State Civil, the trend is obvious — more and more cases are being settled, modified or otherwise resolved outside the courtroom. In some cases, the settlement is relatively easy, with the pretender lender agreeing to sharp principal reductions and long term paybacks at low fixed rates.

    The path – I don’t know what you’re talking about here. As an attorney, I’m at your mercy. As an expert you’re in my domain. I say beware of short sales, modifications and offers to “help” keep you in your home.

    This site is insistent of making known the lender does not own your loan. So why would a lender seek to repurchase your file. And from what we know the loan was levered to a 10:1 ratio or higher to the notes face amount.

    Now the lender is really willing to discount the mortgage to give you a modification? You are a sucker if you grasp at a repurchase financing offer called a modification

    So do beware of short title sales not one in the same with a short sale. Modifications and offers to keep you in your home is not what it appears. It’s GAAP and sees a tax processional before you see an attorney. This site is also insistent of making known the accounting rules don’t really merit the arguments. Yeah Right,

    The lender does not own your loan. Again, so why would a lender purposely go out of his way repurchase your file at 10:1 or higher cost? And do so solely to discount the mortgage to give you a modification?

  74. @Leah,

    Read this here: http://www.msfraud.org

    TEXAS: MERS Wins Reversal of Void Deed of Trust
    Khyber Holdings sued MERS to quiet title and declare void
    a deed of trust allegedly held by MERS.
    MERS appeals from a default judgment, which declared void a deed of trust. MERS argues that error is apparent on the face of the record. We reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

    Texas Court of Appeals Reverses Homeowner’s Trial Court Win
    We hold that the Woods’ claim of Green Tree’s lack of standing could not have been a basis to support the trial court’s grant of no-evidence summary judgment. We sustain Green Tree’s first issue.

    Check the names of the homeowners’ attorneys and contact them. That’s the only way and that’s how i did it. Eventually, you’re bound to find one who “gets it” and is more than willing to help you. My guy was featured yesterday on Huffpost. I found him by looking up cases and writing to him. You may have to contact a few before you find The One but, if you interview him well, you’ll find the one you need. And… never lose sight of the fact that he works for you. not the other way around.

  75. I couldn’t deprive you of this one…

    Nothing like a Ford Truck

    New Truck built by a company we didn’t bail out

    I bought a new Ford F250 Tri-Flex Fuel Truck
    Go figure it runs on either hydrogen, gasoline, or E85.
    I returned to the dealer yesterday
    Because I couldn’t get the radio to work.
    The service technician explained that the radio was voice activated.

    ‘Nelson,’ the technician said to the radio.
    The radio replied, ‘Ricky or Willie?’

    ‘Willie!’ he continued and ‘On The Road Again’
    Came from the speakers.

    Then he said, ‘Ray Charles!’, and in an instant
    ‘ Georgia On My Mind’ replaced Willie Nelson.

    I drove away happy, and for the next few days,
    Every time I’d say, ‘Beethoven,’
    I’d get beautiful classical music, and if I said,
    ‘Beatles,’ I’d get one of their awesome songs.

    Yesterday, some guy ran a red light
    And nearly creamed my new truck,
    But I swerved in time to avoid him.

    I yelled, ‘Ass Hole!’
    Immediately the radio responded with,

    Ladies and gentlemen,
    The President of The
    United States

    Damn I love this truck….

  76. @ Enraged
    I would love too but there are not many attorney’s in Texas who know anything about what is going on. When you try to tell them they look at you like you have lost your mind. Looking for the right Texas Attorney who knows how to fight this for me and win.

  77. @Leah,

    “When these SOB’s decide to foreclose, I am going to sue the hell out of them.” The best defense is a good offense. Why not sue beforehand and let them squirm and vanish?

    Timing is increasingly on your side. And the bonus is that when you go on the attack, it is amazing how servicers all of a sudden are nowhere to be seen. Haven’t heard from mine since the judge denied their motion to dismiss, last year. And in the meantime, I am not paying one cent and all the money I give my attorney will come back to me.

  78. LDean TX

    After finding 2 robo signed documents in my Texas Land and County Records being signed by Melanie D Cowan and Notarized by Leslie Jo Lovell, both robo signed signatures, and Melanie D Cowan signing off on documents as Vice President of Recontrust, Vice President of Countrywide, Vice President of Bank of New York for Asset Backed Certificates, Vice President of Nations Bank and more, how could Bank of America demand a modification or the homeowner to face foreclosure? I can assure you that the Certified Pooling and Service Agreement and Form 424B5 under CWABS 2007-2 is never discussed with me by Bank of America and their attorney’s sent me a copy of a promissory note 5 years after the trust closed and is now stamped with Michele Sjolander’s rubber stamp and the document is not notarized or dated. Shame on Bank of America, they forgot to finish the process before sending to their Attorney’s. The hole they are digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper. You see, I can’t afford litigation for this mess. What I have been able to do on my own is get a Certified copy of the pooling and service agreement, and get a lot of lies in writing by Bank of America for my records. When these SOB’s decide to foreclose, I am going to sue the hell out of them.
    They have committed fraud against my county records, produced a bunch of paper at closing to get my signature to get my new home placed in a pool of other homes, and sold my home to Wall Street before the ink was even dry on my document. I am tired of criminals being allowed to do this to people who wanted to live the American Dream. I am totally disgusted by what every single human being who received a 80/20 Subprime mortage that was sold to Wall Street is going through. I would like to see the name America taken out of this Bank.

  79. @ Jim, right on….how can one modify fraud? Deal with the devil?

    @ Elaine Williams, the part few in America understand, and that our government condones, is that the banks want something for nothing. They want a free house. And all the TARP and other payouts that go with it. It’s not that they’re greedy….they’re uber-greedy. They want it all. All the land, and all the money.

    Geithner’s attitude, according to Barofsky, explains it all in detail….it was their job to foam the runway for the banks. If that meant laying you and I across the runway as Yves Smith put it, so be it. As long as their overlords were served.

    This used to be the stuff of dark corners of the internet where one would be foolish to tread. Tin foil haberdasheries. Anarchy sites. But it’s now clear that we are in full-blown anarchy, only it’s coming from Wall Street and D.C.

    Anarchy:

    1. a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control.
    2. the absence of any formal system of government in a society.

    Yep, that’s it. Pretty much sums it up.

  80. Ms Williams

    You’re no doubt appealing to thieves. Do you like paying pretenders?

    There’s something really repugnant about negotiating with interlopers. I couldn’t bring myself to do it once I realized what was going on. Couldnt bring myself to pay fraudsters. I’d rather–and did–lose my property rather than pay a dime to blackmailing criminals

    The fact that you say you didn’t want to fall behind makes me wince.

    Viva Carie!

  81. If the banks and servicers had behaved property from the start so much of the heartache and anxiety that we’ve suffered could have been avoided by most. I am in a situation where about 18 months of severe underemployment put us in the hole, a hole that got deeper by the day with endless fees until we were so far behind there was no digging out – the demand was for either ALL arrearages or nothing. No middle ground, no gray area, no wiggle room. The servicer did not want to hear it. Now that more people are fighting back and winning they finally decide that gee maybe a compromise isn’t so bad after all – ya think? I had told them all along that we didn’t want something for nothing and it’s not like we fell behind because we went on exotic vacations or because we went to Vegas with the mortgage money! The money just wasn’t there – what part of that did they not understand? Why did it take them so long to do the right thing?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: