Will the Foreclosure Crisis Be a Deciding Factor in November Elections?

1. Elections are all about perceptions, ideology and manipulation of messages. If the foreclosure crisis is the same as it is today on election day, Obama will win on this issue (even if he doesn’t win the election) because he is correctly perceived as attempting to fix it. Romney will draw some blood though on the issue of who understands the mechanics of derivatives and so-called securitization. He probably understands it better than Obama, which is not to say he will fix the problem. If foreclosures increase and economy starts diving again the prospects for a second Obama term will dim. If current efforts to hold the banks’ feet to the fire are stepped up and comparisons are made with teddy Roosevelt who “broke the trusts,” Obama will easily win not only the issue, but the election. People are scared. They want a strong leader who is willing to get his nose bloodied in a fight.
2. The banks are holding assets on their balance sheet that are far overvalued and they are being allowed to do it because if they were required to report the real value of the “mortgage” assets, they would collapse. While this involves some sophistication, people understand that everyone except the banks seemed to have taken a hit in 2007-2008. Court decisions a firm actions by regulators (on existing regulations) could force the mega banks into insolvency. Depending upon how the message comes out, Obama could either be seen as the trust buster or the guy that undermined the whole system. I prefer the trust buster so we get the banks out of control of congress.
3. If the pace of court decisions favorable to borrowers steps up, as it seems to be doing, the banks will fall and Obama will get credit for it without the risk of being seen as taking risky actions against banks that are too big to fail. There are 7,000 community banks and credit unions that can easily absorb all functions performed by the mega banks and probably at less expense and better service.
4. Nobody likes the banks but foreclosures are kind of a third rail. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of homeowners want their mortgages adjusted to the true fair market value at the time of origination of the loans, the banks and their lobbyists have most of the nation convinced that the borrowers are deadbeats wanting to get a free house by gimmicks and legal hair splitting. Anyone who runs against the banks is likely to get strong voter support, as long as they don’t come right on and say that the homeowners should get a free house. The finer point, that the banks never funded nor purchased the loans but are being allowed to foreclose anyway is probably too high-brow for this electorate — even though it means that the banks are getting a free house.

73 Responses

  1. hmmmm….if AL recognizes accrual of a right, then seems to me
    that a written if not recorded (hmmm – I’d record) contract (accompanied by appropriate consideration for the right) which gives a buyer a right to buy one’s home in oh, 3 years or I dunno sometime past a certain sol at a determined and stated $$$, that right might
    supercede / be sr., to an unrecorded (assgt of) interest. Might be true even if no recognition of ‘accrual’ because the written contract establishes a right. Just a lay person musing and wondering how we might fight back. “Ask a lawyer.”

  2. “…..This follows from Ala. Code § 35-4-90 which provides in pertinent part:

    (a) All conveyances of real property, deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust or instruments in the nature of mortgages to secure any debts are inoperative and void as to purchasers for a valuable consideration,
    mortgagees and judgment creditors without notice, unless the same have been recorded before the accrual of the right of such purchasers, mortgagees or judgment creditors.

    [20] Ala. Code § 35-4-90 (emphasis supplied). Thus, a judgment creditor without notice who perfects a lien is protected against subsequently recorded instruments, regardless of the date of execution or delivery of those other instruments.[fn8] Smith v. Arrow Transportation Co., Inc., 571 So.2d 1003,

    This is interesting, but not really news. These type
    laws are why a bk trustee and at least a C-11 debt may avoid
    interests when an assgt of the dot has not been recorded. At least I think that’s the case. What I knew or thought I knew like my hand yesterday ain’t what I know today. If anyone living in a state with these rules (probably all or at least akin) wants to test the bonafide purchaser for value without notice laws, legitimately sell your home to someone at say market value (some discount for no realtor fees would be reasonable imo) where no assgt of the dot has been recorded (and no act as yet of f/c, like a NOD). The buyer doesn’t even have to pay you. He only has to promise to pay you, probably in writing.* And execute, deliver, and record a deed to your buyer (but this law as I read it actually says an accrual of the right so even a lease-purchase agreement, say, might cut it). NO, I’m not telling anyone to do this – what I mean is just that I would sure like to see it played out.
    As always, everything I say or write is a lay opinion for discussion only. *Having said that, my lay opinion is that a promise to pay
    is adequate consideration in these circumstances. Aw, shoot. The sale might trigger a due on sale clause but that might only be
    enforceable by the last guy of record (MERS, no stinking doubt – could MERS try to enforce a due on sale clause in the dot?), not
    anyone whose interest is Noticed post-your sale. Well, then if one thought “MERS” would dare, one could sell his home at a reasonable price with some get out of here down payment money to one who wants the battle re: Notice along with a limited power of attorney to fight the battle as necessary. One could even have a thoughtfully crafted repurchase agreement. Again, not suggesting or telling anyone to do it or even that I know what I’m talking about. Just like to see it played out. Who wouldn’t? Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire. “Always consult a good attorney.”

  3. @dcb – got what you said. I guess I need to look at judicial foreclosure actions, because jud f/c has never been an area I pursued except maybe in tht I think I’ve seen that def judgments are diff with jud f/c (at least some if not all states?). If you know a case which demonstrates what you’ve said, I’d appreciate not having to run one down.

  4. @JG
    ” I think even with judicial foreclosure, which may (memory goes) allow a deficiency judgment, still have to start at the collateral to satisfy the debt and marshalling wouldn’t explain why when there are no competing creditors.”

    The 1st thing you must plead in judicial foreclosure is about the note. You are holder etc. You ask to accelerate the entire debt per the note–you ask for judgment on the note—then you can if you wish ask to apply the security to payment etc—-now the PSAs aleways state that the servicer is not authorized to forclose if there is a toxic waste site–because the new owner will become liable for cleanup–without limitation on liability. The claimant may elect to chase other assets and as you have clearly described get a leg up o unsecured assets —but its an old doctrine and i do not pretend to have knowledge of it in practice. its just something i leanrd 40 years ago in prepping for bar exam

  5. @DCB and JG

    Did you see the answers I posted for you two on the other article—the post about “misuse of lift of stay”…?

  6. Even tho I miss your point in (and what did I miss?) ref to a note and what I was talking about, if I remember correctly, the same doc which alleges to give mers the right to foreclose gives mers the right to execute a “release”, yes? They can’t have it both ways – if MERS is the ben and a party who may foreclose and ‘release’ (literally reconvey) a dot, than the doctrine of merger makes them the stinking owner of the property by way of the foreclosure in their name (when the property is not sold to a stranger).

  7. @dcb – I’m missing your point….?

  8. @JG
    MERS NEVER WAS NEVER TRANSFERED THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE NOTE—?? YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER OF SAY A CHANGED USE HOME CONVERTED TO RENTAL COULD NOT GET A NOTE BACK FROM MERS—no proof of satisfaction and release of debt– RIGHT?

  9. Here is another clue from attorney Steve Vondrun in CA:

    http://www.oneactionrule.com/

  10. I think the reason some states prohibit a deficiency judgment is tied to
    the one-action rule, which as I understand it says there may be but one action to recover a secured debt (note and dot).

    “Further, the purpose of the rule, which was to limit a secured creditor to a single suit to enforce its security interest and collect its debt and to compel the exhaustion of all security before a monetary deficiency judgment could be obtained against the debtor, would not be furthered here, since the security for the debt had previously been exhausted for purposes of paying the senior lienholder’s debt and the junior lienholder sought to enforce its debt in a single suit”. National Enterprises, Inc. v. Woods (2001, 3rd Dist) 94 Cal App 4th 1217, 115 Cal Rptr 2d 37, 2001 Cal App LEXIS 3847.
    other source:

    This seems to address foreclosure as a first remedy for breach:

    “The one action rule is a rule of law that forces a lender to bring only one court action or proceeding against a borrower in a foreclosure. For example, in California, Code of Civil Procedure § 726 has been construed to mean that in the event of default, a secured creditor must, in a single action, first exhaust all its security as a condition of obtaining a monetary deficiency judgment against the debtor personally. If the secured creditor does not resort to all its security before obtaining a money judgment on the underlying debt, the secured creditor may be deemed to have made an “election of remedies” and to have waived the balance of its security.”

    This says to me that a secured creditor may not sell ‘collection rights’
    (carie) at least in CA (see one’s state’s rules) to a note (only) which was secured by a dot. There is no right of collection on the note without regard to the security. A related issue is whether or not one’s state is recourse or non-recourse.
    Here’s a clue:

    http://www.realinvestortips.com/blog/short-sale/non-recourse-states-one-action-rule/

  11. And that’s not the end of it. IF Mers is the beneficiary, then as I said, the merger of interests doctrine would put them in title upon foreclosure when the beneficiary is the successful bidder at the trustee’s sale. Unless MERS executed, delivered, and recorded a deed to the party who executed a deed to the guy who bought a foreclosed property, there is a fatal break in the chain of title to that property. So fatal, the deed to the foreclosed-property buyer is no good (unless the deed to the buyer came from MERS). Holy *&$@!. There is a really good possibility, and I’d even call it a fact, that every resale of a MERS’ foreclosure is invalid.

  12. @dcb – legislation to fix it and as you imply flying in the face of private contractual rights. hmmmm…. Guess I never thought about it much,
    it being the disposition of the note and dot when there is foreclosure. I posit f/c is a quiet title action in favor of the successful bidder at sale by way of the trustee’s deed. I was trying to get some sense of what should happen to the dot in public records. If the successful bidder at sale is the lender/beneficiary, than as a matter of law, the lesser (dot) interest merges with the greater interest (full title) – by way of the trustee’s deed. And dang, now that I remember this, if MERS is the ben (when all those foreclosures were done in its name), the title to our real property as a matter of law has merged in MERS. Good Lord.
    Light bulbs, hugely. That’s another explanation for the Consent Order. I do so hope somebody here with some moxxy gets this. MERS as beneficiary, as a matter of law, held title to our real estate under the merger of interests doctrine. This is so disquieting, I have to lay down the disp of the note and dot issue upon foreclosure just now.

  13. @dcb – I looked up the def of marshalling and see how it is in play when there are multiple claims against the same collateral and see how it might be in play when an unsecured creditor is competing with
    a secured creditor. This angle is the one I think is most applicable to the issue of the first remedy for default (foreclosure) on a note secured by a dot:

    “Marshalling is an equitable doctrine which is based upon the principle that “a creditor having two funds to satisfy his debt may not, by his application of them to his demand, defeat another creditor, who may
    resort to only one of the funds.” Dixon v. Am. Cmty. Bank & Trust (In re Gluth Bros. Constr.), Bankr. LEXIS 3857 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2009) Haven’t read this case yet, but will try to. Without reading this case or others, I think what I’d find is that if Sam has 500k sitting in a liquid account and a house in default and has multiple delinquent
    credit accounts, the secured lender must go after the collateral and
    can’t go after Sam’s 500k (liquid) account first and if no deficiency judgment is allowed, can’t go after the 500k ever. In addn to foreclosure being the first remedy for default, it may be the only remedy for default, certainly where deficiency judgment is not allowed. I think the right to and exercise of non-judicial foreclosure came with a price: no def judgment. So an unsecured creditor can go right to a money judgment and attach the 500k, which the creditor
    on a note secured by a dot cannot. Even with judicial foreclosure, the secured creditor has to go after the collateral first, pretty sure, and then might be allowed a def judment and could attack Sam’s 500k along with Sam’s other creditors, and that would probably be a race for attachment. But, still, while marshalling may be in play, it may not be the reason (I think) that foreclosure is the first if not only recourse for default at least with non-j foreclosure. Marshalling wouldn’t come into play if there are no other creditors after Sam. I printed but haven’t read the board’s 2011 draft on the UCC yet. Hope it isn’t the one I already read some time ago because honestly it made my blood boil. I don’t think it is (I read the first couple paragraphs). If there is an attempt to change foreclosure as the first (if not only) remedy for default, which is contractually if not statutorily agreed to, by somehow tweaking the UCC, we should all revolt. Judgment on the note without regard to the collateral shouldn’t be allowed any more than snarfing the collateral with no interest in the debt if for no other reason than it leaves the owner of that note with an unsecured note and the borrower exposed to double jeopardy. I think even with judicial foreclosure, which may (memory goes) allow a deficiency judgment, still have to start at the collateral to satisfy the debt and marshalling wouldn’t explain why when there are no competing creditors.

  14. @JG
    I’m pretty sure there’s something in the law which makes the first remedy for breach of a note secured by real property an action against the collateral.

    Its called marshalling. The other creditors can enforce this rule if the effect is to deprive them of claims

  15. @JG: you referenced DOT following note: as was stated in the Bain case—DOTs and mortgages are the same interests in realty–with different procedural rules–timing—

    The UCC tackled this head on recently—a person that cannot release a note cannot release a mortgage—if a different person could release a mortgage separate from the note—that would destroy the noteholder’s security interest—violation of due process–taking without due process–these rights and interests are inextricably intertwined– http://extranet.ali.org/directory/files/PEB_Report_on_Mortgage_Notes-Circulation_Draft.pdf

    The Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code2 has prepared this Report in order to further the understanding of this statutory background by identifying and explaining several key rules in the UCC that govern the transfer and enforcement of notes secured by a mortgage on real property. Of course, the UCC does not resolve all issues in this field. Most particularly, the enforcement of real estate mortgages by foreclosure is primarily the province of a state’s real property law (although determinations made pursuant to the UCC are typically relevant under that law).—read on–this applies even if its a non-recourse state–there must be a note—or can you all simply put a note inside a mortgage and live under one document—-MERS UBER ALLES

  16. @carie @ 10:50 pm – what is the worst that could happen if the party with the right to payment (arguably) has no collateral? I can’t express it very well, but it might be very problematic. I’m pretty sure there’s something in the law which makes the first remedy for breach of a note secured by real property an action against the collateral. It was part of the design of using dots as collateral instruments. Because foreclosure is the first remedy for non-payment, it has to have
    ramifications to the application of the UCC. Not that the UCC doesn’t apply to the note, but what provisions of the UCC do. The distinction is that these notes are secured by real property using collateral instruments where the first remedy for breach of the note is
    not an action on the note per se; it’s on the collateral.
    So if there’s no collateral for that ‘first remedy’, that leaves the party with the right to payment, the party with the right of recourse for non-payment (and I’m not fwiw convinced who that is in this mess) to seek a money judgment, which undermines the contractual (dot) if not statutory first remedy (foreclosure). The homeowner agrees to foreclosure on the property as recourse for non-payment. I think they have to barrel thru that before looking to a money judgment on the note, and some states don’t even allow deficiency judgments when the sale of the coll doesn’t satisfy the debt. It would be a heck of a mess if there is no collateral for these notes. AZ might be recognizing that there is no collateral by allowing a party other than the party with the right to payment on the note to foreclose on the collateral instrument, which makes no sense to me since it is non-payment on the note which triggers the remedy, the recourse, act of foreclosure for the breach. That right of recourse, foreclosure, belongs exclusively to the party with the right to payment. Doesn’t this mean that in AZ the note and dot are or may be bifurcated and AZ has given a dot a life of its own? I don’t know how else to look at it. But admittedly I haven’t studied it. Why would they do this? Because they don’t want the homeowner to have a windfall?
    To that I say bull. The guy who created the problem has to bear the loss (assuming there is one) and this is a legal principle which might be overlooked as a defense against an allegation of windfall or
    equity abhorring a forfeiture.
    Bottom line imo: the first remedy contractually (if not statutorily or by legslative intent) calls for an act agains the collateral. Problematic if there isn’t any, but I’m not saying there isn’t at any rate.

  17. @liz – just saw your comments from Martinez’ blog. Most of them
    look good, x I never personally agree a dot follows a note. Only the right to an assgt follows the transfer of a note imo. But for the champions of that belief, I have some MERS’ material wherein MERS says the mortgage follows the note and will be distributing it when I can but not before. Maybe, for instance, these notes aren’t negotiable instruments for the bare reason cited, but the bare reason would be called a legal conclusion (I think) without the beef to back it up, what law says so, just like a number of his averments. It would be a monstrous amt of work to re-write that piece and support the conclusions with law if not case law. Still, I wish and hope someone would. I think it would be tremendously helpful. Otherwise, homeowners relying on those conclusions might find themselves denied any relief they seek asserting them. Mr. Martinez says he’s an expert, and that’s not a derision, but he apparently has a business to run. He might not be the one to do it for the rest of us. It’s a big job, no doubt. Maybe people who follow that line would break it up and each take a part to support. Just a thought from one of many who would like to see some real progress made.

  18. @CARIE

    When you say they sold the collection rights——are you referring to the servicing activities—excepting the duties to make up temporary unpaid borrower obligatios–ie the PSAs typically stated that the servicer would make up payments if a borrower missed an ocasional pmt but did not get to default status?

    So the collection rights [including late fees etc—holding real estate and insurance float] were severed from the right to receive pmts of principal and interest? Is that what you are saying/

    But how could the collector remit the principal and interest to the owner of the note–if it did not know who that was?

    admittedly—iv been told by the purported trustee that sued for possession as plaintiff—–that a servicer[collection rights owner] was not the party that the trustee showed as servicer—which was quite a surprise i must say—-difference being in one case i would have to file occ process in other case–servicer not part of settement

    so many strange things—bilions and billions with no apparant grasp of who gets what—-what is going to be the real shocker is when the working boomers that have paid their loans get to the last payment and expect to get their note back and a release and satisfaction of note and mortgage—and instead —get im not sure what–a letter thanking them for sending all their money on time–i dont know what they can get—but i would think that at least there should be a quiet title action filed any time a loan was securitized—-what will be the real shocker for these conservative republicans is when the buyer of that paid off home determines that the mortgage may not have been properly released and cant get full bore title insurance—–if i were counselling any buyer today–i would demand a warranty deed period—-and some further indemnity if there is a problem with the mortgage in future———essentially demand that the seller provide a personal backup to the title insurance—-every lawyer now has to be a specialist on title insurance escape clauses

    but these people did nothing seriously wrong as they sliced and diced and layed monopoly——i guess that is a justified view if you agree that the current occupants of homes are really tenants under a net net lease–and all homes are owned by a supranational mortgage company–ala MERS–then it doesnt matter whether you have title—any more than short term tenants need to verify that the landlord has good titlle—sort of nationalization of home ownership—-id be happy to live with that if it would stop the collection agents from claiming the note must be paid twice—their current position

    the current position is that after foreclosure or deed out the subsequent HDC can come along–you must pay him—and sue the original party that siezed your home or to whom you made pmt to get the “clear” title

    this is the nasty backend of the fraud–and it is not going to do anything but snowball—–I stated this to the regulators re robosigners in October 2009——-it took at least a year before it dawned on em all that I was right—-and now Im telling you guys again–next election will occur with a backdrop of millions of boomer homes–never foreclosed—that have damaged titles–because the mortgages cant be released by non-holders–very simple—inescapable–i dont even know how to draft legislation that would fix it—contract rights —-whether federal legislation would do it??/

  19. In addition, JG:

    When the system was operating, the bank (as debt buyers of non-compliant manufactured GSE loans) would sell collection rights to third parties, via swaps or direct sale once time for collection passed a certain amount of months (usually 180 days).

    However, at the financial crisis height, even sale of collection rights came to a halt, leaving many debt buyers with collection rights on balance sheets (falsely removed by off-balance sheet transfers that were fraudulent).

    After TARP bailout, banks continued their process of sale of collection rights—and no one will now state who actually owns them…attorney’s in court will only name original creditor, or trustee to falsely securitized trust. Trustees have no record.

  20. @JG

    Here’s my short response:

    Someone I know has been researching and coordinating this information (re. false default and GSE’s) for YEARS…and has proof that most —if not all—subprime/alt a/jumbo loans were manufactured default GSE loansfor which collection rights were purchased by banks (acting as debt buyer), and could NOT be securitized into any pass-through security trust. This is why trusts are empty—no funding necessary for collection rights. They are not a mortgage—not a loan. They are unsecured (false) default debt—which was fraudulently presented to homeowners as a secured mortgage.

    When this person presented thier evidence to Fannie/Freddie—they were told “Let it go”. No denial…just: “Let it go”.

  21. @CARIE
    Im surveying the posts–iv read your comments as you say “over and over” ———Im having a hard time with the conclusory statements that the refied debt was in fact “in default” or put into default—-if I understand correctly you are confing your statement to subprime notes that are then sold to GSEs?

    Could you perhaps focus on this front end—ok why just subprimes? What if you were not a subprime borrower until they put you in the predatory note –eg a 4 ARM with illusory teaser rate that shoved you into negative amortization –because the teaser was not honored?

    Do you understand what im saying about conversion from prime to subprime–i have personal experience with this–so i understand it

    are you stating that the old loan was carried along on your credit bureau report as a “in foreclosure item” —–and they issued a new loan —would your amount owed be doubled up? Iv seen that occur when the current loan went into default [usually on advice of the servicer–to qualify for mods] ———-the loan # carried over and was reflected on the trust books as current

    but the collection agency opened a new loan on their books with a new acct # ———both reported to credit bureau—-wreaks havoc on your credit—–you cant even join the army because you look like youll accept a bribe or freak out or whatever

    one might surmise that there is a fraud on investors occuring because the loan on the trust books is carried at full face—–current—-when in fact the collection agency may have taken the deed and sold the house—iv also seen multiple liquidations shown on trust books, and loan still there as collectible–cant understand why? any thoughts

    I am disinclided to disagree with your observations because iv seen these extraordinary things myself—what im trying to figure out is who is getting cheated–i just do not believe the continued attribution of all strange acctg to “mistakes”—-there are simply too many—crooks tend to disguise intentional fradulent bookkepping among sloppy record keeping—–and if errors always tend to overstate values –or otherwise bebnefit the entity doing the records–then its much mre likely intentional–and the entire mess is a cover up

  22. @JG
    I thought that MERS corporate docs and member agreements etc –things raised in courts [Missouri?] state MERS is never the UCC note “holder”—is that your point?

    It would have to be an authorized representative at best–or such notes would show up on its balance sheet—it likely would change its licensed status–and would make MERS a debt collector would it not?

  23. okay, JG….even though I have posted the “why” over and over—I will do it again. I guess every time I post it, you don’t see it.

  24. Read Matt Taibbi. Rolling stone sep 13 issue
    Titled – greed and debt – how Mitt Romney and BAin capital staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs- and stuck others with the bill .

  25. @JG
    im trying to get more from that case. i will post info, thank you

  26. @JVE
    Close–UCC provides magic words for ORIGINAL NOTE—PAID IN FULL

    Your description is close?

    Things of record in Ohio wont help you on a suit for debt in Virginia–live and die by UCC

  27. carie – actually, I didn’t ask why false default was done. I asked what made you think it was done.

    Did we miss Henderson v MERS – Alabama SC 2011?
    per MERS: MERS was both the mortgagee and the HOLDER OF THE NOTE when the suit commenced. Really? I’d like to hear more about that. Maybe MERS would like to speak into the microphone for us all including the judiciary, as well as the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC, and FHFA. Too busy? Well, perhaps I can help.

  28. @E.Tolle

    You forgot to mention (in addition) the deliberate implosion of the 9/11 buildings:

    http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/

  29. @JG

    You asked “why” was false default part of subprime lending…

    answer:

    False default occurred because the PRIOR loan was reported as in default, and this prior loan was NEVER paid off by the borrower, as it should have been, by the refinance in question. Money missing. Insurance pay–outs. Borrower was in false default BEFORE they ever signed on the dotted line for the subprime refinance. Subprime refinance is not valid. Not legal.

    This answer has been explained numerous times on LL. But, some refuse to accept. Go and review your prior loan, all documents, all recorded payments including payoff, and reported status to GSE. Then come back and ask “why false default was a part of subprime lending.” Do the research.

  30. For the ‘it’s been charged off’ gang: I guess it should go without saying but I just read that a loan charged off must be deactivated from MERS
    per Mers. MERS can’t assign anything to anyone attempting to
    enforce as a junk debt buyer, is what I’d get, even tho I still don’t know what’s to collect after a charge-off and I also don’t know how or why debts are written off in this mess if they are.

  31. I am reading some of MERS old literature, etc. They said in 2001 that they would save their members THREE whole dollars because the “assgts in recordable form” needn’t be done to investors (as called for in the psa’s). So I’ll say this again: the investors are 1) not MERS’ members (so Mers is toast) or 2) if they are, MERS is breaching and encouraging the breach of the terms of the psa’s in contradiction of the terms agreed upon by and to MERS’ members, their alleged principals. Or tell me why not.

  32. Here’s the case, but there’s not much there, like I said. The appeals court didnt want to be bothered in this unpublished opinion to articulate the allegations beyond what they had to. The court ref’d Hogan and Cervantez in support of its decision(s).
    Buchna v B of A et al 10-17651 – 9th appeal, 07-11-12
    You’ll have to go to pacer for any more guts if you want them.
    Appeal from DC AZ 10-00418

  33. no cite on that az case–9th fed circuit?

    due process argued? duplicate claims—unless some added procedure involved—was this bk case? if so then no duplicate claim can be raised because the debt is non-recourse? or bk cuts it off—hmmm—-yes a dot state is a collectors dream–what do they need to prove–that they have the biggest thug?

  34. its all history repeating its sorry self, ” all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing”
    socrates.

  35. @ JG-please, I need the case number for Buchnas case you mentioned , or at least the title. thank you

  36. Neil asks, “Will the Foreclosure Crisis Be a Deciding Factor in November Elections?”

    Of course not. They’ve already selected the candidates for us and will shortly install their man. It matters not which. Then they’ll continue to foreclose on us all, UCC and Longan be damned.

    It’s happening all around the dial. Stick a fork in the good old USA, she’s done.

    About the state, though, there must be no illusions. A nation that goes to war on fraud, that insists “We don’t torture” when evidence to the contrary abounds, that kidnaps foreign nationals and puts them on planes to be delivered to dungeons, that spies on its people, asserts its right to lock them up indefinitely and lets documented CIA torturers off the hook of accountability because they were only following orders: that nation will plot, and it will double-cross, and it will kill. Sweden participated in the US program of extraordinary rendition. The United Kingdom has threatened to storm Ecuador’s embassy. The United States now says it does not recognize the historic right of persons to seek diplomatic asylum. Assange’s lawyers have said that he will go to Sweden if he gets an absolutely firm guarantee from the Obama administration that it will not arrest him. Such a guarantee is impossible in an empire of lies.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/169632/julian-assange-justice-foreclosed#

  37. Someone mentioned Hogan AZ last week. In an unpublished case in july, the 9th affirmed AZ’s stance: “The Buchnas argue that defendants-appellees are not permitted to enforce
    the power of sale provision in the deed of trust because they are not
    persons entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument under 47-3301 of
    Arizona’s Uniform Commercial Code. That argument fails to state a claim because Arizona law does

    “not require compliance with the UCC before a trustee commences a
    non-judicial foreclosure.” ” The internal quotation marks are not mine.

    “Before a trustee commences ” – well, how about before the non-judicial foreclosure is completed? “They are not persons….”
    They are at least persons whom if allowed to f/c based on a dot only
    will cause a homeowner to yet be subjected to the claim of a bona fide note owner. This has passed out of hand and gone right to crazy.
    I don’t know what all the Buchnas argued as the 9th made a point of not wanting to re-hash their arguments.

  38. @jg

    The problem with perpetually “sweeping it under the rug” is that it never really disappears…it just keeps building up under the rug, until…?

  39. Neither one of these schmuckly presidential candidates seem to want to do anything about foreclosure fraud. It’s pretty damm disheartening.
    When Obama said nothing done was illegal, I give, what in depth
    studies and inquiries was that based on and who performed them? If nothing were wrong, there would have been no Mers’ Consent Order, for starters. There would be no mass settlements for “nothing” wrong.
    Robosigning, false ratings, and the other acts of the players are just immoral? It’s just immoral now to not follow the law? Some people believe the rise and fall of empires have been caused by “immoral”. The U.S. seems to think it’s exempt and that “immoral” (not counting illegal) will not lead to the fall it claims it wants to, must, avoid. Not a rehash of the sins, just a look at our lack of legitimate options in candidates because, honestly, I’m worried that the people who believe in immorality as the cause of an empire’s fall historically are right. The U.S. and Britain have apparently ruled the globe for a couple centuries and that’s a long time, but not historically. Sure would be nice to be the proud American I was taught I should and could be. I’m mad as hell at Obama, like many (even as I hold a hope and a prayer he’ll yet act and not leave it to David to fight Goliath in his own country), but I just can’t vote for Romney. As far as I can tell, Romney doesn’t even know we exist and any attempt to be heard would fall on totally instead of partially deaf ears. He doesn’t want taxes raised, but are tax increases necessary or are they a solution / reward for ineptitude? We can all speculate til the cows come home, but few of us have truly informed opinions, me included.
    Sweeping the ‘foreclosure mess’ under the rug and ‘moving on’, as is my understanding of Romney’s stance and not that much different from Obama’s, is a sorry symptom of a much bigger problem; if sweeping fraud under the rug has become necessary to sustain an economy, and isn’t that the allegation now known to be inherent in tbtf?, Lord help us. Really, Lord help us. No institutions should be so large that their failures could spell doom for a country or its economy. Change the laws and file under National Security Reform. Right after prosecuting criminal behavior. Which as to this election, in addition to prosecution issues and other personal favorites (not to make light), leaves us to vote for the candidate more likely to change the rules so that there is no such thing that could even be perceived or argued or is too big to fail. Imo.

  40. UKG, so proud of you , great work i hope you get all that you so deserve for fighting the good fight.

  41. @ jg and carie,
    the contract stuff is one thing but how we were induced into signing is another, we signed for a loan governed under reasonably understood condition thereto real property and mortgage contract laws governing, but there were other material facts that would have affected our decision to sign that were deliberately concealed because the collateral was simply not worth what the appraised value was in real estate value, it was the “selling forward” value, the derived and projected value, and consequently to our demise but more globally, economically and,
    based on fraud of course. what eats at me is the tax exemptions the tarp and the theft of our childrens and their childrens future, the rights of the unborn child in effect, the ramifications far exceed the pretense of obamas statement that the banks did nothing illegal.

  42. So when a servicer says to you: “We are foreclosing on behalf of the securitization”, I would suggest you ask them for proof that the “loan” and note WERE in fact delivered to that securitization trust…but—they won’t be able to show that, and they will tell you they don’t have to…how convenient for them.

  43. Bottom line:

    The Notes and mortgage docs were NOT delivered to the trusts.

    The investors are NOT holding “secured assets”.

    But, as Dr. Lan Pham discovered, the Congressional Budget Office likes to say these kinds truths are merely “media hype”, and fired her for requesting an inquiry.

    The truth is so simple.

  44. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/28/us-allyfinancial-sec-idUSBRE87R0L120120828

    …The agency said it needed the reports to determine whether ResCap made “material misrepresentations or omissions about the mortgage loan pools that backed the securitizations under investigation.”

    Dammit—when the hell are they just going to tell the truth? The MBS were NEVER “mortgage-backed”. It’s so easy to say. The truth is so simple. Say it with me:

    “The MBS were never mortgage-backed—it’s a lie.”

    So simple…What’s the worst that could happen if they just admit it? Seriously—what would happen? Hmmm…

  45. Romney’s Foreclosure Action Plan:

    “As for what to do for the housing industry specifically, and are there things that you can do to encourage housing? One is don’t try and
    stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up.”

    Romney was also heavily invested in Goldman Sach mortgage back securities in Massachusetts.

  46. “The split enitites are for puroses of derecogintion of the lenders obligation to the bank that us satisfied by depsoit of common stock in a de novo.
    You are the de novo valued at your mortgages face value divided by $250.00 per share The cost tof forelcose is not about the tender of the note but tender of the shares.

    so the Deutsche check and the Wells Mortgage reveal the dual entities. The trust certs are paid, except for 3. Loan live at Bloomberg at new balance less servicer payments. No matter what I do, the receivable continues on. Are you saying the certificate is the stock?
    and the typos are copyrighted too?

    Accordingly the indenture carries the assets “unencumbered “subject to the depositor’s pledge. Herein is where the ABA wire manifest and lender liabilities are converted into assets. The pledge of trust shares by the depositors or TRS take the legal title to TruCom stock and pledge for purposes of formation of the registration and SPE . The SPE houses the bond holders and proves the structured financing it‘s preference allowing the bond to create a non interest bearing coupon or yield based upon is discounted net present value.

    The SPE is the WFHET 05-2, the coupon yield can vary monthly from 0.5% to over 6%. Are those yields tied to the foreclosure closing out and taking of counterparty payments? Or, is the asset DIVESTED via the derecognition off the recorded mortgagee’s books?

    I see it, but I don’t. I know you’ve told me a hundred times, oh Wise One. But I cannot find enlightenment brought by proving the transfer to the Judicious One?
    Speak more, for I am almost in harmony. Too much fung, not enough schway.

  47. @dcb – “also it’s the law” – touche

  48. @carie @ 2:08. Yes, I suppose it is. If you use your credit card and buy a sled, you’ve ‘funded’ the sled. You’ve paid for it. You don’t owe Sears, but you owe your credit card. Your cc agreement says so. Once you ‘funded’ the sled with your credit card and Sears has been paid, Sears is out of it and whether or not the right to the sled could ever go to your cc holder for non-payment on your cc is defined by your cc agreement. One thing that’s different with a note secured by a dot is that whereas your cc holder will come after your moolah, the first remedy for breach of a note secured by a dot is to go after the collateral. But what you want to know, I think, is if the guy who funded your loan borrowed the money to do so, is he nonetheless your lender and has he funded the loan. Imo the answer is yes. He still owes the guy he borrowed the money from and he’s subject to the rights created contractually between him and the guy he borrowed the money from, but that has nothing to do with you UNless and until those contractual rights eventually give your lender’s lender rights against the collateral, your home. This could happen if your lender defaults with his lender. NG says, as I get it, your lender used the funds from investors which were not given for that purpose, or even if they were or maybe even since they were, that makes the investor the lender and the investor is not expecting repayment at the terms the borrower agrees to, has actually agreed to something else ‘over there’, so there is a fatal lack of meeting of the minds between the borrower and the ‘real’ lender. But just like the lender borrowing from
    his lender, the rights of or whether or not using investor funds, if they’re used to fund, makes the investors the lender depends on the contract between the named payee on the note, including any
    intermediary agreements ‘down’ from the money, and the investors. Imo. Did the investors say “here, take this money and go make loans with it. We want X” or “here, take this money and do what you will. We want X.” What does the contract with the guy the investors gave their money to say? “This money is given for the sole purpose of buying
    derivative interests in loans already made and we want X”? “This money is given for the purpose of buying interests in mbs’s and we want X?” “This money is given for notes secured by deeds of trust and we want the income or we want X”? I don’t know what those agreements said, unless I take a stab at what is actually said in the psa, if the psa is in fact the (only) governing agreement for the use of those funds.
    Apparently, well, to me, NG has taken the position that the psa is the only governing agreement (or he knows of another) and it or they lead to his conclusions that the investors funded the loans and what that means, and what it means is not the same thing as when a lender routinely borrows money subject to a written agreement (as described above), like a warehouse line agreement. I think he’s saying 1) the investors WERE the warehouse line as well as the ‘permanent’ lender ish but until the loans made it to the trusts, the investors had no right to payment (!) (which a traditonal warehouse lender would have contractually upon the default of the lender whose name is on the note (what about the borrower’s default during this period? Who has the right to payment and the right of recourse against the borrower?) 2) with or without their agreement, and 3) the investors were not expecting the payment terms recited in the notes nor would they have a right to those terms – ever. Doesn’t this just give you a headache? But one way or another, this avenue even if correct, seems an awful long way to have to go to keep a marauder from snarfing our homes unless NG has a template of some kind which can be easily assimilated by the judiciary. I’m not abandoning the electronic trading of digital notes and its ramifications and implications including to the appearance of once ‘lost’ paper notes now with endorsements. Especially when it appears to me that MERS asked the fed to broaden, read redefine, ‘transfer dates’.

  49. @JG
    “But right now, I don’t know why I want to help the state make the claim, unless, as you say, it would be better to deal with the state than a criminal.”

    One point is that the criminal actions of the worst ones will have to be brought before the state AG—hopefully that will be some deterrant to the wost actions. The program will be self-funding as AGs search out the claimants rights. Stolen properties can be sold or rented–or the notes discharged and new ones written.

    It is a route through which the homeowner can be given a shield against junk note claimants

    also its the law

  50. @dcb – if it’s true that without a legitimate claimant on our notes and dots that the property would go to the state by escheat (and I don’t know about that tho I understand escheat in a cursory fashion – my only real reference that I can think of is the dying intestate part with no heirs to make claims), then maybe the state does have rights under that doctrine.
    But right now, I don’t know why I want to help the state make the claim, unless, as you say, it would be better to deal with the state than a criminal. Assuming these days there’s a difference. And I would hazard that most states wouldn’t get involved until forced. I do agree that money funded loans. Real money. Somebody’s. But it would certainly tork me to find that the Fed funds were used and never paid off. Hope that’s just a wild idea from one or more camps. Don’t know.
    But carie always talks about false default. I have asked repeatedly why she believes false default was a part of subprime lending and have never gotten an answer. With my (limited) background in the matter, I have suggested the poss of “participation” among lenders:
    long and short is the new lender makes a deal with the old lender
    (shine sec’n for this part) to collect the old lender’s payments in the new loan and give the old lender “its due”. The new lender charges
    the new rate on the entire amt of funds and theoretically, this is higher than the old rate on the old funds. Nice gig. Would affect the a.p.r., though, or I’d be very surprised. The reason it would affect the a.p.r. is because the actual amt of the new funds might be the only funds bearing on the a.p.r., which would jack it up significantly. If that’s true, and the a.p.r. were not correctly calculated, the savvy borrower has a cause of action, probably at least rescission under TILA. In my lay opinion. Can one rescind a loan after foreclosure upon learning of rights (like say in regard to a totally messed a.p.r.)? The only reason I even bring that up is that some courts have ruled the sol on rescission runs from the time of the discovery of the violation, as opposed to the date of the violation. Seems like a battle and would at least include whether or not one should reasonably have known of the violation earlier. Probably can’t rescind after foreclosure, but as weird as it sounds, that might not be a fact. Or might not get your house back, so I guess another question would be is rescission the only remedy for a TILA violation. Maybe it is. I don’t know. But I can say I stand by an errant disclosure on the Reg Z as a friend.
    Why pick on or concentrate on subprimes for another (not participation) explanation – false default? I still don’t know. Why not say all refinances involved putting the old loan (bring back in sec’n) in false default? Like to know why subprimes are singled out, I would. If a loan were put in false default, where is the benefit to the new guy? He ‘pulls’ the 150k still owing on the original loan and
    uses it as full of partial (can’t use for cash-out) “funding” for the new loan and then shines making payment on the original 150k because it’s been falsely defaulted? Imo, to even contemplate that requires an understanding of the ‘what happens’ over in the old trust when the 150k is falsely defaulted. It’s surely not the end of the story over there when a loan defaults. And it seems like it would be a lot handier for banksters if the same gang were involved on ‘both’ sides of that deal (old loan and new loan).
    But back to carie’s question. If a party not entitled to payment yet
    demands it or leads one to reasonably believe it’s entitled when it isn’t, it does sound like extortion, which is actionable regardless of who ends up with the real estate. An extortion charge very well might NOT lead to a free and clear home, but it could lead to other remedies $$$$. Extortion is a crime, though, and that might mean a homeowner can’t prosecute it, unless there’s a law or rule or whatever called something like “civil extortion”, and got me. Hopefully a citizen has a private right of action (in tort?) for something like extortion. Getting a homeowner to pay you when you have no right to payment is one form of extortion, imo, for the reasons I stated. Actually trying to take the real estate by a bogus foreclosure action, in my book, should be a heightened if not separate offense. Time, money, energy, and as you say, pain. Like to see that, I would. As to the free house, though, I do remember Nosek, wherein the court found the noteowner had an
    obligation to know what was going on with claims on its note. The court didn’t say free and clear house! even then, though. What it said was all your a$$es are grass for doing and allowing this and sanctioned all the players, including the law firms, as I recall. Nosek didn’t, of course, involve any allegations of extortion per se, which maybe it could have. The homeowner didn’t have carie to bring the issue up.
    And speaking of the state, last time I looked and it’s been awhile, IF I got it right, it’s actually the ag who is to prosecute TILA violations. At least in my state. And they’re just all over that.

  51. @dcb

    Is using a line of “credit” on a credit card considered “funding”?

  52. @JG if one pleads the note ownership is so tangled that owbnership cannot be proven——then the AG of the state wherein the home sits should be joined as a party. That is how its supposed to work–when people take off on these free house theories they cloud the issue—-long ago the legislatures determined that if a person died intestate–or left town with no forwarding address etc—the bank does not get to keep the inclaimed deposit—-the bank must pay the amount over to the state which advertises the claim and if nobody can prove the claim–then the state keeps the money as a sort of tax receipt. This is how equity works—alwauys has worked–it is no better for a homeowner to pretend she has a right to set aside a mortgage because the note was lost than it is for the collection agency to sieze a house with a forged mortgage assignment and forged note —–neither is entitled to that relief–never has been

    when homeowners screw around–they just miss the boat—is it so bad for the state to end up owning the house–? is it better to negotiate with a thief than the state?

  53. @JG
    ” If one is inherently threatened with the loss of one’s home for not making a payment to a party without the right to payment, what would you call that?”

    This is extortion to acquire property by deceit–and theft if it works. Somebody is entitled to payment –but not always the plaintiff-claimant thief.

    Somebody is entitled however—if the ownership of the note is so confused by the swapping and conniving that occureed –then it is an intangible that was lost or abandoned. The note and property escheat to the state–not the maker of the note.

    anybody who asserts the facts that the chain of ownership is so screwed up–and the current claimant lacks the right to collect–and i agree this happens—then the claim goes to the state by operation of law.

  54. @CARIE
    “the banks never funded nor purchased the loans but are being allowed to foreclose anyway ” There are two ways to take this –one correct–the other confused and incorrect.

    I believe a problem here is that there are a lot of comments that nobody funded the loans. So if I received a construction loan and a sum was placed in the bank draw account–and mu contractor drew money to buy bricks and morter—its pretty hard to say that there was no funding of that loan–despite all thr tortured runarounds asserted here.

    Similarly if Bank A loaned me that money in 1999 and then I refied it with another outfit that ended up securitizing the loan—–Bank A got paid bank the very real money it paid to my contractor. The treasury and/or Fed Reserve never were involved with this in any manner relevant to my loan. At least at that point.

    The commenters here like to assert that somehow there is a justification for saying the money never was funded and no loan amt is owed–with the inevitable conclusion to follow that lo and behold the writers unerringly are entitled to get “free house”.

    Even if taxpayers paid off the loan in a bail out etc—the bricks were paid for—-the money still went out the door—–and there would be a windfall of a free house—supposedly the non-payers are entitled to this result as a matter of “equity”

    This is so extreme that even LENIN wouldnt argue it with a straight face——society could not function if this were equitable—the explanations are impossible to follow because they are glaringly self-serving

    The way a person might be entitled to a release of mortgage w/o writing a check is if she paid for it by serving the govt as a whistelblower—-as did Lynn Szmoniak—-or she suffered proven damages over a long time —in which case ts not “a free house” –it was simply purchased with pain rather than coin.

    Those of you who post this crap simply mislead folks into believeing if they spout loudly and send money to quick buck artists that they too have a shot at winning a free house—–but it is a misrepresentation to generate business that is every bit as bad as some of the predatory schemes hatched by the crooked originators—and it would not surprise me if some of those crooked old brokers were not cashing in on this consumer fraud too

    be honest with these new people–tell them maybe they might get a mod—maybe—-but no free houses

  55. @carie – I’m no smarty pants, just another layperson with some relevant albeit limited education and opinions thereto. But I see what you mean.

    If one is inherently threatened with the loss of one’s home for not making a payment to a party without the right to payment, what would you call that? What laws have been broken by a bankster’s pretense of being entitled to payments it’s not? I think those are good questions; we’ve only concentrated on the banksters’ rights or lack thereof to recourse (aka foreclosure) for non-payment but, yes, what about pretending to be entitled to payment? What law is broken and then, could the banksters hit us with estoppel because we made the payments to them? I don’t know, but I agree it’s worth thinking about.
    Unjust enrichment is what it might be factually, but UE as a defense to wrongful payment (or anything) is, I think, limited as a defense against a contract and if they have no rights, it’s because there’s no contract giving them those rights. It looks like theft, but I don’t know how to frame the argument. Is it theft if there is no gun to your head. But, then, is there a gun to your head if non-payment could lead to the loss of your home (unless you get 3 doctorates)? Maybe it’s extortion. That seems a likely candidate. Yeah, this layperson likes that one.

  56. Neil said:

    “…The finer point, that the banks never funded nor purchased the loans but are being allowed to foreclose anyway is probably too high-brow for this electorate — even though it means that the banks are getting a free house.”

    Not too “high-brow”—just too much truth.

    Some people don’t accept the truth even when it’s right in front of them, clear as day.

    Blind ignorance is our greatest enemy.

    These politicians encourage the blind ignorance of Americans…it’s the only way they can keep their jobs.

  57. Ivent, that is exactly it and the foreign investors are not aware of the clouded titles & the stolen houses. Americans are waking up to the crime, realizing every man woman and child has been ripped off. There has been some warnings in canada I believe I was sent, not to purchase properties in the US. I believe the banks are duping Coscto right now, using their built up customer relationship to referrals for mortgage brokerage. Not sure how it works. Costco is the possible referal to trusting customers for mortgages. I am trying to get a represenative from the Costco headquarters here in Kirkland Washington to come to the Clouded titles meeting at Green River College, so they can see the litigation problems they can avoid by being aware of clouded titles and stolen houses. I have the direct email to the party incharge of the mortgage division of Costco and emailed her the information for the September 8, 2012 clouded titles meeting from 4-6 or when ever over.I emailed her a copy of the Bains V MERS En Banc and RECONTRUST case and the Consent order. Along with enough information they should see the issues and come. Knowledge and informing everyone is what we all need to do. I am finding homeowners uninformed that thought they were the only victim and totally embarrassed by what has happened. Until I prove to them the banks are the ones to be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Once the homeowners sees what is going on they are angry and ready to protect their homes, or to get them back. We are so fortuneate due to Melissa Huelsman, and Shawn Newman, and the Stapne Firm and the judge from Seattle that threw the Bains V MERS case into the WA Supreme Court. We from Washington now have a vehicle to seek justice and easier cases for attorneys to claim Quiet Title and have the judgements for the homeowners. I am praying for every state to follow to stop this crime against Americans. I hope Costco takes this message I have sent them seriously. I have a video of Tacoma attorney advising a realestate company to ignore the clouded title issue on the property he wants them to list, that they (the banksters) will address that issue when necessary. So the attorney is admitting he knows of the clouded title lissue but list it and sell it. That is telling me he knows he has seized stolen property and is willing to sell it and willing to risk someone elses job selling it. aNd the party purchasing it. This is tellilng me he knows this property belongs to the homeowner it was stolen from. I also have discovered a deposition that has been removed from every site I was sent to, so I could not get it. The man giving me the information finally found a web site, http that had this deposition still on site. Missed I am sure by the banks. Proveing as of May 9, 2012, by whistle blower Lawrence Nardi, whom was an employee working for Chase, in the position of putting litigation evidence together, whom states on page 261 that out of thousands of documents there are no notes, no allonges no nothing transferred from WAMU to Chase, they simply do not exhist. I will send a copy of this http in a second. Chase nor Duetsche Bank own the WAMU loans. This tells me, Chase and Deutsche bank are pretender fraud debt collectors attemptying to collect an uncollecytable debty and unlawfully siezing houses. I am not an attorney so take this to an attorney for help. I will come back with the http for you.

  58. The note was tendered for common stock used to launch the Preffered shares at a 10:1 ratio .The deed or mortage is what is being derecognized and I can show that in every file ….
    Every file ..your home is unencumbered _thats GOOD News
    YOU DONT OWN IT ANYMORE – thats the BAD NEWS

    Stop the oppresive servicing practice of using the American homeowner as a target for abusive foreclosure practices. Stop using modifications and other material undeliverable promises to gain the International Markets permission for valuing stock and bonds

    National Alliance for Economic Priorities
    http://www.foreclosurealternative./wordpress.com

  59. There is a mortgage and there is an obligation and the loan recorded and there is no secret agent man or boogy woogie . Stop

    They took a conventional mortgage and used two entities to orginate the loanat settlement .

    The lender and the bank wiring funds are alleged to be arms length parties ot agrements and are not

    The split enitites are for puroses of derecogintion of the lenders obligation to the bank that us satisfied by depsoit of common stock in a de novo.

    You are the de novo valued at your mortgages face value divided by $250.00 per share The cost tof forelcose is not about the tender of the note but tender of the shares.

    Your mortgage is valued at $100,000 or 400 shares . The securtization model registered by the TRS is holding the REMIC shareholders TRShares and the want out.

    The current share value is 25.00 and ……Ah Oh ……we have a problem here NASA .

    Disocvery….move to Credit Bid over Credit Bid Out !

    Copyrighted ( as always )
    ID_accounting@yahoo.com

  60. Responding to dc breidenbach: You “know” your Note is paid when “they” stamp it with a big stamp that says “Debt Satisfied,” there is a signature or initialing and a date underneath that stamp, and the document is handed back to you.

    Since that is not going to happen, then the second solution is to keep a tally of the payments made, and when you figure it is paid, you sue the bums, demanding the Court declare the Note discharged. When you get that Order, you Record it in the county land records, and you are finally done.

    Since that is not going to happen, at least with the current judiciary, the third solution is probably going to end up as some form or rebellion, civil unrest, or revolution, and since this is America, where everybody has a warm gun muzzle, you can figure out how it finally will play out.

  61. @NOMODS
    Im sure there is soething academically interesting there somewhere—and Im really impressed by the quasi technical jargon, but I have a real simple question that you should be able to answer with suitable detail: How does one prove his debt on note is satisfied???

  62. Carie we are all learning. The fraud began at the Origination Fraud. The banks don’t lend you money….the U.S. TREASURY…THE TRUSTEES ENTRUSTED WITH THE PEOPLES MONEY LEND THE BANKS OUR MONEY….the banks never disclosed all aspects of the financial transaction. Then they never delivered the loans to the trusts, yet they sold investments in the notes and their investors were invested in the mortgages. All unsecured debt because they never paid back the original loan to Treasury. They pocketed our payments. They committed racketeering by passing the unsecured instruments around to other banks. They created a quadrillion dollars in derivatives fraud debt with our signatures. By never selling the “loans” they were able to hide the fact they never paid the original loan back to Treasury . These crimes are prosecutable under RICO. In fraudclosures they are uttering forged instruments and counterfeiting if they don’t have the legal assignment which they don’t. There’s a lot more but that is the meat of it. Here is a link on how the scam works…
    http://www.blm.gov/nils/AQ_handbook/h-2100-1/chapter-VII/chapVII-illus-18.htm

  63. The mortgage was sold to everyone (near) as “360/120” loan product using a PPM that states the registration is over a 40 year offering. So the origination alleged recorded against title for the estate and booked by the Tax payer corporation

    The book value and journal entry uses Derecognition for assets and non controlling interest in liabilities as reported under GAAP. Pursuant to FASB and IASB FAS 140, permits the tax payer corporation, the REIT, to treat the encumbered estate as legal title held as the sole trust asset

    Accordingly the indenture carries the assets “unencumbered “subject to the depositor’s pledge. Herein is where the ABA wire manifest and lender liabilities are converted into assets. The pledge of trust shares by the depositors or TRS take the legal title to TruCom stock and pledge for purposes of formation of the registration and SPE . The SPE houses the bond holders and proves the structured financing it‘s preference allowing the bond to create a non interest bearing coupon or yield based upon is discounted net present value.

    The bond accretes under a neg pledge using the equity like a reverse mortgage or sinking fund as a bonds compensating value. The bond financing is procured by the obligors, the SPE Sponsorship and registrants.

    …one of the hardest thing’s for the Judicous to grasp and most difficult thing I ever tried to explain

    registerclaims@live.com

  64. Politicians are side stepping the foreclosure issue, however the people know the crimes being committed and are very aware of a hostile banking system and government and are ready to battle using their votes. I espect a bigger than usual turn out due to the fear and hardship the people are experienceing in mass. The young people to retired to elderly see what has happened and they are angry. The people will speak by their votes. This government is being watched by more people of all ages than I have ever witnessed before. Never before have I seen so many voice their opinon and state they are going to vote out the bad guys. I just hope they all see who are the bad guys and who is trully the good guys. It is a political mistake for the candidates to side step the mortgage issues and not protect the public the people they work for. Our votes are more powerful than campaign money from banksters. The people are tired of being victimized and not represented by the people we pay to protect us.

  65. It will not be this eection—but next—the twin issue of: 1) junk note chasing and 2) growing reliance on ininsurable title and limited warrantee deeds—basically caveat emptor for land—this was abhorrant to old english law. It is a very recent invention. More properly put, its damaging to title –the damage is at least equal to lump sum title insurance for 21 years and/or the legal cost of quiet title to extinguish mortgages that were released without the releasing party having authority to release. Today you might reeive a copy of note back—described as the same as the original—when challenged they will assert that the homeowners’ exposure to double claims resulted in no damage until the 2nd claimant wirh superior color of authentic note He rightfully nasserts that you ust pay the note and sue the 1st claimant because the note was not the 1st time properly extinguished

    Quiet title becomes vital to obtin future financings using that property as collateral. The original homeowner should be able to question the legitmacy of title—-the fees on sof title insurance will rise just because they will be argued to have selected title defect homes and earmarked them for either vultures or destruction and land siezure.

    The distortion and impairment of vast swaths of real estate has been imposed by a few for as yet unfathomed purposes–or by their innocent reckoning–
    ‘they just didnt know the full implications of their little schemes.

    How sad –there is no historic precedent in Anglo-American law—-two persistent co-existing estates–fighting to supplant each other. Derivative of the thief and the victim homeowner.

    There is in Cuba–for some years foreignors have purchased title to land in Cuba 1st from the existing local Cuban under a chain of title tracing back to the date the totalitarian castro regime came to power. The other being the US Cubans whose estates etc were taken when they fled cuba when castro took over. So foreignors buy both titles to get clear title—not to have to take a bath with a stranger. This is the yay that foreignors should look at US real estate—the Canadians will lose those houses back in just a couple years—i imagine they are cash purchases by the new cannooks—so no bank will care if us citizens sue to recover–globalism

  66. http://discoverytactics.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/the-real-fraudclosure-watch-dogs-should-have-been-the-courts-why-are-they-failing-us/

    The Note is NOT NEGOTIABLE because there are a number of conditions and it is not an unconditional promise to pay;
    If the Note is NOT NEGOTIABLE then the property is not secured by the Mortgage or Deed of Trust (“DOT”);
    It’s not that securitization is illegal HOWEVER, if the Note was securitized it means each owner should have endorsed the Note and the Mortgage/Deed of Trust should have followed it and a) if the Note is not properly endorsed to reflect all of the parties mentioned in the securitization documents (PSA – like the Originator, Sponsor, Depositor, Issuing Entity etc.) no movement in the case should take place until a full accounting (validation and verification of the debt) occurs to convince the court who the proper Creditor is to be paid and b) if the Mortgage/DOT did not follow each transfer, the Mortgage/DOT should be deemed a nullity;
    Acknowledge that when the Note is securitized the monetary value of the Note is aggregated with other notes (“pooled”) and the aggregated amount is turned into a bond/security instrument. once the Note was converted into a stock/security, or stock/security equivalent, it is no longer a Note because the loan has been de-recognized. De-recognition is an accounting term which refers to the removal of an asset or liability (or a portion thereof) from an entity’s balance sheet. In essence, the Note was gutted and all relevant accounting ledgers, including the so-called lender’s general ledger shows the Note to hold a “zero” value. If both the Note and the stock/security, or stock/security equivalent, exist at the same time, that is known as double dipping. Double dipping is a form of securities fraud;
    Acknowledge that if a Note was securitized and the montary amount was aggregated with other Note amounts, the total aggregated amount was factionalized and broken up into classes/tranches. A true accounting means identifying a) did the note actually reach the trust and if so b) how many classes was the loan found in, determine how much was paid off and how much remains;
    Yes MERS was named the Mortgagee and/or Nominee on the Mortgage/DOT HOWEVER, if the Mortgage/DOT follows the Note and the Note was sold multiple times, securitized and factionalized, the Mortgage/DOT cannot secure the Note any longer and MERS can no longer a) act as Nominee for the original lender and b) can no longer be the Mortgagee to the original Mortgage/DOT;
    If a party is bringing action in another’s name, have that party show proof of authority to do so not just allege it;
    Give a little bit more scrutiny to these bogus Assignment of Mortgages – you can’t keep ignoring the whole Robo-Signing issue;
    Start sanctioning the fraudclosure firms filing false affidavits and pleadings and make the Bar drop the hammer on them;
    Acknowledge the fact that it does not matter who makes payments on the Note as long as payment is made and if payment is made no DEFAULT has taken place;
    Acknowledge the fact that when the Servicer brings the foreclosure action on behalf of another, chances are it is really equitable subrogation in that the Servicer may have been making the payment on behalf of the Borrower (because securitization docs like the PSA require such) and wants its money back but because there is no written agreement between the Borrower and the Servicer for those payments, the Servicer is foreclosing instead;
    Acknowledge the Borrower is indeed a party to all third-party securitization documents (as noted by the OCC) and allow these documents into the case as most if not all docs mention the Borrower (not by specific name but as the Borrower and described as such) and none of those documents would not exist between third parties if the Borrower did not exist and play a role;
    Toll the Statute of Limitation according to the Fraud that exist – the whole world knows this whole messed is premised on fraud so please stop acting like you’re the only people on the planet would do not see the fraud.

    No one is asking for special treatment. All the people ask for is to enforce the belief and notion that justice is blind, is impartial and the Court – YOU YOUR HONOR – will hear and judge a case on the merits! Let the attorneys argue the cases and he that argues best wins! Stop stacking the deck against the American people. Don’t let fraudclosure attorneys run your courtroom like prosecutors calling case after case like prosecutors! How dare you allow them to get so comfortable in your courtroom. That room is sacred and all the American people ask is for the COurt to stop failing us. Bring HONOR, INTEGRITY and JUST back into YOUR COURTROOM! Don’t let your courtroom be owned by La Banko Nostra too!!!

  67. Okay, I’m just a dumb “layperson”—so some smarty pants out there PLEASE answer this question:

    If the securitization of our unfunded “loans” NEVER HAPPENED—(which it didn’t), and the servicer has taken money from you for YEARS based on the lie of “your loan was securitized and we service it”—why in hell are they allowed to keep our money based on that lie—and how do we get it back?
    I mean, what exact law(s) did they break when they take money from you under those false pretenses??? Anybody???

  68. I have to disagree with you Neal .. Obama has shown over the past 4 years to be the bankers best friend ,, continually offering consumers “solutions” that only help the banksters that fed his campaign machine… I don’t expect a lot of Romney but he is at least going to have a real watchdog/reformer in charge of the fed and banking… and we’ll finally get rid of that overtly racist pig Eric Holder who refuses to investigate the financial crimes we have all seen in person and have been reported upon in the press.

    Obama has burned his credibility on this issue after the 2nd time, and 3rd and 4th and 5th and and and and and … times he bent the people over and gave them another dose of fascist remedy to help the banks … it cannot change under Obama because the banks and the government are one and the same.

  69. mers = electronic registry. Electronic registry of what? Dot’s don’t move nor does the right to an assgt of a dot exist until the note moves. The Mers registry was used to register digital note and their movement. The registry didn’t transfer the notes (wasn’t supposed to stand for or be used for the transfer itself, anyway, but one reasonably wonders) . It was just to keep track of transfers of notes which had been done electronically. Transferring a note electronically precludes endorsement on the notes because electronic transfer doesn’t include endorsement on a paper note. IF the electronic movement of the notes were valid (well, even if it weren’t valid), there would be no endorsements on the notes because the notes were themselves digital.
    Is a digital note transferred electronically a note regulated by Article III of the UCC? Would it be another article of the UCC? And, anyway, I keep remembering MERS saying in two cases that these notes are not in fact regulated by Article III, even if that statement had no reference to electronically transferred notes.
    Isn’t it Article III where we find enforcement rights of a bearer note? I stand by what I’ve said regarding agency law and recordation for enforcement, etc., but I think I’ve missed the big boat because it’s about, first and foremost, the debt, the note. So a whole new education is in store and in order regarding 1) digital notes moved electronically and 2) the UCC in general regarding secured notes. Having said that, none of this changes the fact that it’s the Mers member (or apparently even non-members) in mers-sheep-clothing assigning the dots to themselves. And I stand by Mers lack of authority to execute assignments of dot’s even if MERS actually did it themselves.
    Haven’t we wondered how they could physically transfer and pay for these notes from origination to (alleged) securitization? That’s a lot of physical movement. The answer is that apparently it wasn’t in fact done physically, other than digitally.
    I don’t know such salient issues such as the disposition of a paper note when notes are electronically registered and traded electronically.
    But I believe endorsements on the paper note, if it’s not destroyed in favor of the digital note, and again, I don’t know, are not a part of electronic transfer. It would defeat the purpose of electronic transfer.
    Are endorsements on a paper note created well after the electronic transfer of a digital note fraudulent or otherwise bogus? It depends on the governing laws for digital transfers, including what happens or should happen to the paper note, first of all. And I’d bet that the Consent Order Mers entered into was a recognition that the alleged electronic transfers of these notes was askew and or that Mers status as the registry holder did not entitle them to enforce the notes if not the dot’s (independent of what rights MERS and its cronies allege are created in the dot as to the dot’s). Something was likely amiss with these electronic note transfers.* And when one is considering “moral hazard”, if my assessment is correct, if the sales of these notes were not accomplished as a matter of law and or did not meet the provisions of the psa’s (which called for endorsements on paper notes), why should the failure not be borne by the party who failed and created the loss? Consequences too dramatic for that gang? Instead of full recognition, the banksters were just told you can’t do or stand on X, but we’ll leave you to try to enforce any way you can? Even if I’m wrong about that part, the Consent Order having to do with failed electronic transfers of the notes, that still leaves the other ramifications of electronic transfer in regard to the disposition of the paper notes and the subsequent endorsements thereto.
    * Even if nothing were amiss with the electronic transfers, to get onboard and want to learn the relevant law, one would have to first believe that MErs created an electronic registry for notes and that the notes became digital and were transferred accordingly or attempted to be transferred electronically (sans paper and therefore sans endorsements thereon) with or without further use of the Mers registry as the vehicle for the electronic transfers.

  70. They are turning The United States of America, the peoples house, into a foreign investor whorehouse. That is because they are running out of ways to rob us.

  71. How often do you hear any politician or even the press say anything about foreclosures? It’s a non issue even though it is at the root of a national and global crisis which won’t go away until foreclosures finally stop. They could stop now but it won’t happen. Speed it up is still the Modus operandi.

    Now they are securitizing renters…knew it was coming….nice way to keep the ball rolling and the chain rattling. How about option adjustible rent leases? Option payments on inflated rental value?…..How about lanlord eviction mill incentives and then sell high? Endless financial engineering creativity possible…Don’t need no stinking homeowners anymore…..just restructure the renters….

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/new-real-estate-train-wreck-coming-securitized-rentals.html

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: