DOJ: Bid Rigging at Auctions: The Achilles Heal of the Securitization Scam

Click Now to Consult with Neil Garfield

NOTE: For Legal Representation in Florida,  Ohio and California, please call our customer service number 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment and Opinion: Frankly I think bid rigging is the rule rather than the exception. The number of “investors” popping up and buying these properties at auction, and the question of whether they are getting their financing from the bank or servicer that illegally foreclosed is still open. Skyline is one of the companies of interest that I am investigating.

Livinglies is now offering investigation services from a licensed private investigator to show the connection between the “bidder” and the “beneficiary” or “mortgagee” pretending to be the creditor. Call 520-405-1688 for more details.

The biggest part of the rigging comes from the “credit bid” that the “trustee” (actually some low-paid employee supposedly “representing” the trustee) is used to create an aura of plausible deniability.

The trustee, often at an auction that doesn’t actually take place, simply sits in his office and signs papers to the effect that he received a bid from XYZ and it was accepted and then issues a deed on foreclosure that carries with it a presumption of validity — even though the “Credit bid” was not submitted by a creditor or, in many cases, where the “creditor” has not shown any evidence to the “substitute trustee” that it is owed any money from the borrower.

If you scratch the surface you will find that the bidder neither funded nor ever paid to buy the loan, so where is the receivable entitling them to submit a credit bid, according to statute?

The case below shows the kind of penalty that SHOULD apply to everyone involved in bid rigging. But if things continue to go the way they are already headed, these guys are thrown under the bus as the sacrifice and it is made to look like this is an isolated incident instead of the rule.

If drill down instead of scratching you will find in many cases that the amount of money being demanded is far higher than the amount due to any creditor, whoever they are, because of the receipt of insurance and bailouts that explicitly waive the right to go after the borrower. How the banks and Master servicers received that insurance and bailout money while the investors were taking the loss has been the subject of many previous articles.

Investor pleads guilty of bid rigging at foreclosure auctions
November 02, 2012, 05:00 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff
A real estate investor pleaded guilty yesterday to bid rigging at public foreclosure auctions in San Mateo and San Francisco counties over a two-year span, according to the Department of Justice.Norman Montalvo, of Concord, conspired with others at the auctions, including the one held outside the Redwood City courthouse, to designate a winning bidder for selected properties rather than compete against each other, according to court documents.

Those involved kept the wining price low which, in turn, federal prosecutors say, damaged the real estate market and defrauded those expecting a level playing field.

The investors “illegally restrained competition … by falsely creating the appearance of unfettered bidding while they were secretly colluding to suppress prices,” said Scott D. Hammond, deputy assistant attorney general of the antitrust division, in an announcement of Montalvo’s plea.

Montalvo was also charged with conspiring to use the mail to carry out the scheme, make and receive payoffs and divert co-conspirators money that would have otherwise gone to mortgage holders and others.

When property is auctioned, the proceeds pay off the mortgage and debt with any remaining money going to the homeowner. Squelching competitive bids limits how much money is available for both.

Montalvo is accused of committing bid rigging and mail fraud in San Mateo and San Francisco counties as early as June 2008 until approximately September 2010. He is the 26th person to plead guilty or agree to plead guilty as part of the DOJ’s ongoing antitrust investigation at public real estate auctions in Northern California, including those in San Mateo County.

Montalvo’s plea is proof the effort is working, said Joel Moss, acting special agent in charge of the FBI’s San Francisco division.

“Criminals who take advantage of the real estate auction process will be brought to justice,” he said in a prepared statement.

Montalvo faces up to a decade in federal prison and $1 million fine for violating the antitrust law known as the Sherman Act and up to 30 years and a similar fine for each count of conspiring to commit mail fraud. The government can also go after the proceeds made by the fraud.

Anyone with information about bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at (415) 436-6660 or visit or call the FBI tip line at (415) 553-7400.

Michelle Durand can be reached by email: or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.

27 Responses

  1. I sent out a Document Production Request specifically asking for a copy of the Trustee Sale Guarantee. That was 2 years ago. Chase stonewalled claiming their “client” didn’t have it, that it was privileged, constituted trade secret, etc. I pointed out to the judge that I was being charged for that TSG which is an insurance policy issued by a title company to insure the “beneficiary” and the foreclosing “trustee”.
    He compelled production, and after two years I was finally able to see an Exception was noted that the “beneficiary” was nowhere in the chain of title. No wonder they didn’t want me to ever have that crucial peice of discovery.

    They are still holding out and not giving me the Declaration of Default and Demand referenced in the NOD and NOTS. It is the Declaration by the “beneficiary” that initiates foreclosure. I am guessing they don’t want me to see that the “beneficiary” who initiated foreclosure proceedings and caused a Notice of Default to be recorded (thereby clouding title and making it impossible to refi or sell) is the same entity that the Trustee Sale Guarantee excluded from coverage due to not being anywhere in the chain of title.

    Make these part of DISCOVERY early on…it will shed light on things that they don’t want the court too see!

  2. But then there’s this:
    This seems to be the underlying premise of the bfp doctine:
    “The present right is based on the principle that where two persons, the Real Owner and the Bonafide Purchaser, suffer from the fraud of a third person or party (ostensible Owner) , the loss must fall on the person who has created or who was having the last opportunity to prevent the fraud, i.e., the real owner.” Imo, the law, then, puts a duty of Notice (or something) on the homeowner. I mean, what else could one do, other than a law suit? Btw, notice of law suits regarding real property is supposed to be Noticed in county recorder’s offices.In my lay opinion. I can’t even try to speak to judicial foreclosure actions because I don’t know that much about them (v non-j). But simply by Noticing claims and or objections, a homeowner has performed an act (implied above to be a duty) to prevent the fraud, also in my lay opinion. Foreclosures involve something called a “trustee’s sale
    guarantee” which is issued by a title co. for the ben of the bankster.
    It shows, or should, all matters of public record and it would pick up the homeowner’s notice. The notice isn’t just relevant to a f/c buyer. It’s notice to everyone, including the dot trustee, the bankster, and the title co. I’m not an expert on those TSG’s, either, but I think the homeowner’s noticed objections and claims would fall under
    “exceptions” to insurance………fill in the blanks.
    Looks to me in looking at this narrowly and without further research that the best course post-foreclosure where notice was not given is to try to demonstrate that the sale was void (and not merely voidable) or to allege it in a manner so that it survives a mtn to dismiss or sj. That’s why I ref’d the link with cases which seem to give some understanding to the void issue.

  3. In my search for bfp material yesterday, I read something that says the U.S. system always provides a way for one to recover something stolen. It would have been written by a lawyer or a professor fwiw. The best clue I got yesterday was the assertion that the bfp doctrine only
    applies to voluntary conveyances (by the homeowner). If the bfp
    doctrine doesn’t apply to involuntary conveyances, that would be huge, and so I believe worth pursuing and anyone who finds it would not only benefit himself, but would have a new and very greatful fan club. The other thing which I believe is subject to attack is the tender baloney. If someone takes your home who had no right to, you are in a worse position by having to give him back any money he paid. Have to pay a thief? What kind of nonsense is that? I just can’t believe it. If all else fails, I think that takes research into something called “offset”. Also, if he used a bogus credit bid, he didn’t pay anything, did he, so what’s to tender? I think it’s sad that after 4 solid years, we are so far behind what’s available as defenses.
    That’s the best nod I can give here to what you said about paying
    attorneys a lot of money for little if any value.

  4. Just a comment here: asking a lawyer is a great idea in this, but my experience has been he or she must be competent in this area and they are very hard to find. One can burn up a lot of money and lose with an unskilled attorney, where many of them will not divulge this. I use an attorney who guides me and educates me on some of the procedural things and he too is in the same situation we are. They started making his insurance payments erroneously, now he is in default. I give him a lot of information and paperwork about these neanderthals…he is one of the more decent and honest lawyers I have been able to find (so far). Honestly folks: experience in this area is hard to come by and the one’s who have it want tens of thousands of dollars, as the research for every case is different and very time consuming. Just my piece here…buyer beware!

  5. Oh mon dieu. And Mary and Joseph, too. I just stumbled on something that says the good faith purchaser doctrine only applies to VOLUNTARY SALES. If this is true, well, that would change a few things, wouldn’t it?

  6. here’s a def I’ve never seen. Part 2 is news to me!
    good faith purchaser:
    1. Entity that purchases something for value without notice of another’s claim on it, or of any defects in the seller’s title, and pays valuable consideration in exchange.
    2. Party that buys a property for its own use, and is not representing the interests of a third (known or unknown) party. Also called bona fide buyer or bona fide purchaser.

  7. @joann – yes, courts make the distinction of a good faith purchaser when determining some things.
    What I said i didn’t know, and why I brought it up, is to try to shine a light on the issue of the bankster not being a gfp at the trustee’s sale. Did the successful bidder 1) pay value 2) without notice of anyone else’s interest and 3) in good faith? If not, he’s not a gfp.

    Courts app have been saying if the home has been purchased by a bfp (value, without notice, purchased in good faith), it’s a done deal and the borrower can’t get his home back.
    If the buyer of the home is a bfp, according to the law, the home is lost to the former homeowner. However, if the trustee’s deed to the buyer is void, that’s a game changer. But that’s not likely. Well, hmmm, that’s not true. If any party to the f/c exceeded his expressed (written) authority or had no right to do something in the f/c process, that could lead to a finding the trustee’s deed is void. No one wants to attack the assignment, for instance, on the grounds that it was executed by an
    employee of the assignee (except in two cases I know of – one resolved – in homeowner’s favor – one not resolved yet).

    Apparently, you have an issue with the f/c sale buyer (who was not the alleged lender using a credit bid). In order to
    accomplish what I think you want, you have to substantiate that he isn’t a gfp (or the deed is void), which I think you get as to gfp and that’s your querry. When a buyer has gotten a home at a ridiculously low price, for instance, courts have held them to Notice, briefly. But that doesn’t seem to be your case, either. If there were any collusion between the alleged lender and the buyer, you might be able to allege lack of good faith. It does seem like a tough one.

    I linked a case a week or so ago which appeared to give some hope to those who have already lost their homes by way of bull. It appears to be based on the “void-ness” of the trustee’s deed, not bfp. If you missed it, let me know and I’ll re-link it.

    I have tried a couple times here to explain the value of recording, prior to the f/c sale, something which gives Notice of one’s claims and or objections. That notice precludes anyone from claiming bfp status and therefore, leaves a path back to one’s home which would not exist withOUT the notice. Doesn’t mean you’ll get your house back, but you can at least fight for your home because Notice at least precludes the revered bfp status.

    If a homeowner had Noticed his objections, the bankster would fwiw be on notice about them, as well, and this is important when the alleged lender is the (alleged) successful bidder. So, significantly, would any title company.
    Sorry I can’t be more helpful.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer

  8. johngault, on November 6, 2012 at 6:03 pm said:

    “NG, not sure one can connect bfp with a foreclosure auction as opposed to the re-sale, but if so, the bankster is not a bfp, (can’t think – could stop here some days! why it wouldn’t.)
    First of all, the bogus credit bid is no value, so toss that one. The bankster has notice of someone else’s interest, so toss that one. For the lack of 1 & 2, if for no other reason, there’s no good faith, either. Need all three for bfp status, whatever that may be good for when not. bfp. At any rate, seems like another to add to the pile.”

    johngualt – I would be very interested in anything and everything you have to say about bfp (bona fide purchasers). It is hard to dig up cases or discussiions anywhere about this or about fighting third party buyers especially in states where this is considered futile. I honestly don’t get how there is any difference in the title and accounting and standing and all the other issues and causes of action re a wrongful sale whether bona fide or not but that distinction is made and it is just someones bad luck if it did not go back to the bank who wishes to bring an unlawful foreclosure case……after all if someone sold them somthing they didn’t own they got nothing and they should get their money back (actually join with homeowner and sue would be more appropriate than waving the trustee’s deed in the face of everyone and saying I win you lose – of course why not if no one ever questions it much less the judges in any venue)……..anyway I wish Neil would discuss it also….whether there are any defenses….. I get it about value, notice and faith as you say and there are cases that will say a “voidable” sale ie procedure can be reversed if not bona fide (and they do get reversed often without a court case – the trustee just reverses it for the heck of it without explanation – ask any seasoned flipper – it happens) and other cases just a few at least that I am aware of that say a “void” sale ie fraud or obviously void on the face of the recorded docs can be reversed whether bona fide or not because not even in the interest of innocent parties to let a Void sale stand. I think these are old cases though and judges currently at least in this state just look at the trustees deed if timely recorded and the party is over…..I think…..wish attorneys or others experienced at these things would post. I realize the state could matter but I am interested really in the issue itself in any state.

  9. My PSA defines parties; however, they didn’t follow it…so, then what?

    My substitute trustees are the lawyers and they appear to have bought some type of debt, which has been reduced or zeroed out. The confusion is intentional, believe me.

  10. Here is a question for you, anyone:

    A PSA names two custodians. Then during litigation one of those custodians is put in place as the substituted trustee during litigation.

    Is there a conflict of interest??


    Thoughts, anyone??

  11. Is the substitute trustee allowed to be an affiliate of the servicer?

  12. Poppy – The Substitute Trustee overbid the mortgage at the auction, with a check from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, which was closed in 2009 and now the Substitute Trustee is on my mortgage. This was done in 2011…all B.S., the entire thing.

    The Substitute Trustee overbid the mortgage at the auction,
    ** Accrued cost to date advanced by a foreign national bank

    with a check from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, which was closed in 2009
    ** for the principal debtors obligation

    and now the Substitute Trustee is on my mortgage.
    **Treasury Dept appointed financial agent

    This was done in 2011… the entire thing.
    ** To reconcile the accretion “back” to the commencement or trigger date.

    This case is a winner that is sitting and begging an attorney prosecute the title holders case. The case is ripened and just waiting ….

    State Bar say’s “oh no you don’t ….”

    RESPA TILA Robo Cigs & Rock Lobsters ….there you go !.

    Not an attorney and not intended as legal advice. Call your State Bar for more info on seeking a competent lawyer

  13. See reference – holding to the IRS taxpayer code - (05-01-2006) Transfers of property By and To Foreign Corporations

    1.A general rule of taxation is that a tax payer corporations subsidiary conducts a “FMV” sale or exchange of property by the holding company as taxpayer is to a taxable event. There are exceptions to IRC § 1001 for exchanges made when a corporation is formed (IRC § 351), reorganized (IRC § 354, IRC § 355, or IRC § 361), or liquidated (IRC § 332).

    However, barring exceptions to IRC § 1001 – a U.S. person gains U.S. tax advantages when the controlled foreign corporations is formed, reorganized, or liquidated. Washing assets at sheriff or trustee sale is par with a cram down by a trustee – lien stripping, utilized by commercial bank securitisers to bifurcate a creditor’s claim into a secured and unsecured portion.

    Upon the secured portion of the claim being paid the Bank will be discharged from having to pay the unsecured portion

  14. I got to tell you – its late very late in the game to try and decipher the credit bidding and rigged bid assessment for legality purposes.

    The Bank is the comm’l debtor who is doing a cram down against the bond holders secured obligation in place of the mortgage. My assessment is the event is staging the Treasury F.A. agents having closed a purported trustee sale solely to re-establish the fair market value of the property , they can thereafter affirm the bondholders claim as basis in assets and reattach as secured- as in “here we go again”.

    You want to attack this argument – call the IRS … you want to win back title …you got a long way to go……long long way ….



  15. @joann -circumstances seems funky enough that a court would be interested in finding “facts”. Courts are supposed to resolve disputes and you can’t even really identify ‘yours’ because of conflicting acts and / or info. Based on what you’ve said, all a court can really say if presented with the docs/ info which stand in conflict with the trustee’s deed, is that you’re in default – if you admit it. That’s not foreclosure, an act of quiet title which would make the title no longer subject to the old do. It doesn’t vest unencumbered title in the new guy if your loan is still hanging out. If the buyer wants to get the trustee’s deed introduced, and he will, imo he has to do it properly and it has to be a copy certified by the co. recorder in the first place. It’s not evidence of the truth of the matter alleged therein, however. Now there’s a sticky wicket that takes research. Yeah, I’d just talk to the court without drawing conclusions. It’s too confusing. I mean, if you have enough questions about your loan status, I would think they are properly before the court when you bring them before the court.
    I’m a lay person. Ask a lawyer. If you already did, ask again! I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not. If you are, still ask another lawyer.

  16. NG, not sure one can connect bfp with a foreclosure auction as opposed to the re-sale, but if so, the bankster is not a bfp, (can’t think – could stop here some days! why it wouldn’t.)
    First of all, the bogus credit bid is no value, so toss that one. The bankster has notice of someone else’s interest, so toss that one. For the lack of 1 & 2, if for no other reason, there’s no good faith, either. Need all three for bfp status, whatever that may be good for when not. bfp. At any rate, seems like another to add to the pile.

  17. Thanks johngault. The really bizarre thing about that example is that the homeowner is getting letters and comunications from the servicer as if the mortgage is ongoing (..”here is your new payment for the year.. “here is your balance (substantially less than what is on foreclosure documents)… “show us your insurance or we will force place…. “if you wish to keep your home apply for mod ect) The collections people (who answer the phone automatically when someone is late on payments and calls customer service) say it has been “charged off” and say that usually means it has gone back to the bank and then regarding the communications received transfer the person to the real customer service people to explain that. Customer service confirms the account is in “active” foreclosure status (that is the same as the status starting with the nod until sold) and that the foreclosure is “not a completed foreclosure” – meaning they don’t see a sale at all. This is months mind you after the trustee’s deed was timely recorded by the investors who “purchased” the property who are about to prevail in UD court……..don’t know what to make of it.

  18. @ johngault

    I see the same thing you do…but I have the documents. We are in the courts and we’ll see what the judge thinks. We think the Substitute Trustee bought the paid-off debt somewhere in the chain…the check is bogus.

    They actually had someone else show up at the Special Hearing prior to the foreclosure, because I was certainly not there and forged my name to the magistrates approval of the sale. Have that too, been through the file. The mailings for the special hearing were sent to me 11 days after the hearing AND no dates are on the envelope. I asked why, the postmaster here in NC said: there is only one way for that to happen, the dates were manually removed. This stuff is unbelievable, but true…they think on the basis of their word, they can do all this? Maybe they can, we’ll see.

  19. @poppy – I just can’t believe some of the things I hear here.
    A dot trustee, sub or not, may not bid in its own right. lay opinion. I can only think the alleged check was an illegitimate, weirder than weird credit bid by an unknown party. How could the sub trustee “end up on your mtg?” You no longer have one to be on………….

  20. joann – what i can easily tell you is I’ve never known of an auction that didn’t require cash from the successful bidder (unless the bs credit bid is the successful bid). In fact, just to bid, you have to do some stuff with the auctioneer. Call the auctioneer and ask what that is generically. Leave your home out of the conversation. People show up for these auctions with cashier’s checks in varying amts. Whether or not the full bid has to be paid that very day, I don’t remember, but certainly a big percentage does. If that’s the case, there’s a prescribed time, and it’s very short, for payment of the balance. Not sure. forget. Also, I think it’s so that a trustee’s deed must issue within a prescribed amt of time, just ftr. Ask an auctioneer.
    No, a loan on the property couldn’t be assumed legitimately as pymt at an auction. There are other big reasons, but a foreclosure has to quiet title and an assumption of the loan wouldn’t do that. The dot would still be outstanding: title is still subject to that dot.
    As to getting their financing from the bankster claiming rights under
    your (as example) loan, it isn’t legitimately possible for the bidder to use that financing as the bid, not if the subject property is to be the collateral for that loan. To the best of my knowledge, bids take cash, and any loan merely contemplated is not yet a loan and so is not
    “cash”. There was nothing to stop a bankster, however, from actually making a loan to the bidder on another asset of the bidder’s or even an unsecured loan (assuming its charter or whatnot authorizes an unsecured loan in that or any amt.) I wouldn’t be surprised if all
    kinds of collusive hijinx, besides the phony credit bid, go on at auctions.
    That’s all I think i know and you know i’m just a lay person. I’ve been frustrated, also, over the lack of answers to questions posed here.
    I wont be surprised if no one answers my questions about RESPA and the qualified letter, for instance.

  21. My story: The Substitute Trustee overbid the mortgage at the auction, with a check from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, which was closed in 2009 and now the Substitute Trustee is on my mortgage. This was done in 2011…all B.S., the entire thing.

  22. Just wondering and I wish someone would weigh in on this….the opening bid was $200,000 to $250,000 less than true comparable sales in an area where it is currently unusual for the “banks” to put an opening bid lower than the “loan” amount. The properties almost always go back to the bank in this area for that reason (too high for the investors) and then the banks sell them reo for a higher price and sales are currently going well and prices are actually appreciating.

    So this low opening bid gets put on it and it sells for $100,000 to $150,000 less than comparable sales to a mortgage broker and friends/partners engaged now in evicting the homeowner. And yes big issues exist with the prior recorded docs ect and the pretender servicer bank and trustee but only the trustee’s deed matters to any court in this state to throw someone out of the home.

    What went down there? I thought a buyer at auction had to pay cash.
    When Neil said: “….the question of whether they are getting their financing from the bank or servicer that illegally foreclosed is still open” it got my attention.

    If they are getting financing somehow and it is their intention to flip the property…..when does that deal occur and or when do they actually lay any money down and what does it mean? Also wondering if and when they pay cash does that get paid on the date of the sale or later?

    Just wondering too and no one ever answers these questions but what if a loan was assumable (and some are) and its a good deal re interest rate ect. Can a buyer at auction assume it?

  23. Yes—they (the servicer/debt collectors) foreclose “on behalf of the securitization trust”—-they collect payments “on behalf of the securitization trust”—-and then they give you a 1099 tax form that says they are the “Lender”…because: “that’s where you sent your payments”.

  24. Yes, Neil, it’s about using the sec’n trust for the credit bid (what else are they gonna do?) They are bad kids.

    I am not up on RESPA. Here is a letter I found online and am wondering if those of you who are know if any of these questions have to be answered. If not, the questions themselves seem informative.

    “This letter is a “qualified written request” under the Federal Servicer Act, which is a part of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2605(e). This request is made on the above referenced account. Specifically, I am requesting the following information:

    1. A complete and itemized statement of the loan history from the date of the loan to the date of this letter including, but not limited to, all receipts by way of payment or otherwise and all charges to the loan in whatever form. This history should include the date of each and every debit and credit to any account related to this loan, the nature and purpose of each such debit and credit, and the name and address of the payee of any type of disbursement related to this account.

    2. A complete and itemized statement of all advances or charges against this loan for any purpose that are not reflected on the loan history transaction statement provided in answer to question #1.

    3. A complete and itemized statement of the escrow account of the loan, if any, from the date of the loan to the date of this letter, including, but not limited to, any receipts or disbursements with respect to real estate property taxes, fire or hazard insurance, flood insurance, mortgage insurance, credit insurance, or any other insurance product.

    4. Have you purchased and charged to the account any Vendor’s Single Interest Insurance?

    5. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any forced-placed insurance and expenses related thereto, related in any way to this loan.

    6. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any suspense account entries and/or any corporate advance entries related in any way to this loan.

    7. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any property inspection fees, property preservation fees, broker opinion fees, appraisal fees, bankruptcy monitoring fees, or other similar fees or expenses related in any way to this loan.

    8. Identify the provision under the Deed of Trust and/or note that authorizes charging each and every such fee against the loan.

    9. Please attach copies of all property inspection reports and appraisals.

    10. A complete and itemized statement of any and all post-petition arrears including each month in which the default occurred, and the amount of each monthly default.

    11. A complete and itemized statement of any late charges to this loan from the date of this loan to the date of this letter.

    12. The amount, if applicable, of any “satisfaction fees.”

    13. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of this letter of any fees incurred to modify, extend, or amend the loan or to defer any payment due under the terms of the loan.

    14. The current amount needed to pay-off the loan in full.

    15. A full and complete comprehensible definitional dictionary of all transaction codes and other similar terms used in the statements requested above.

    16. A complete and itemized statement of any funds deposited in any post-petition suspension account(s) or corporate advance account(s), including, but not limited to, the balance in any such account or accounts and the nature, source and date of any and all funds deposited in such account or accounts.

    17. A complete and itemized statement from the date of this loan to the date of this letter of the amount, payment date, purpose and recipient of all foreclosure expenses, NSF check charges, legal fees, attorney fees, professional fees and other expenses and costs that have been charged against or assessed to this mortgage.

    18. A complete and itemized statement of the amount, payment date, purpose and recipient of all fees for the preparation and filing of the original proof of claim, any amended proofs of claim, or any supplemental proofs of claim related to this mortgage.

    19. The full name, address and phone number of the current holder of this debt including the name, address and phone number of any trustee or other fiduciary. This request is being made pursuant to Section 1641(f)(2) of the Truth In Lending Act, which requires the servicer to identify the holder of the debt.

    20. The name, address and phone number of any master servicers, servicers, sub-servicers, contingency servicers, back-up servicers or special servicers for the underlying mortgage debt.

    21. A copy of any mortgage Pooling and Servicing Agreement and all Disclosure Statements provided to any Investors with respect to any mortgage-backed security trust or other special purpose vehicle related to the said Agreement and any and all Amendments and Supplements thereto.

    22. If a copy of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been filed with the SEC, provide a copy of SEC Form 8k and the Prospectus Supplement, SEC Form 424b5.

    23. The name, address and phone number of any Trustee under any pooling or servicing agreement related to this loan.

    24. A copy of the Prospectus offered to investors in the trust.

    25. Copies of all servicing, master servicing, sub-servicing, contingency servicing, special servicing, or back-up servicing agreements with respect to this account.

    26. All written loss-mitigation rules and work-out procedures related to any defaults regarding this loan and similar loans.

    27. The procedural manual used with respect to the servicing or sub-servicing of this loan.

    28. A summary of all fixed or standard legal fees approved for any form of legal services rendered in connection with this account.

    29. Is this loan subject to any Electronic Tracking Agreement? If the answer is yes, then state the full name and address of the Electronic Agent and the full name and address of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.

    30. Is the servicing of this loan provided pursuant to any type of mortgage electronic registration system? If the answer is yes, then attach a copy of the mortgage electronic registration system procedures manual.

    31. A copy of the LSAMS Transaction History Report for the mortgage loan account, with a detailed description of all fee codes.

    32. Is this a MERS Designated Mortgage Loan? If the answer is yes, then identify the electronic agent and the type of mortgage electronic system used by the agent.

    33. Is this mortgage part of a Mortgage Warehouse Loan? If so, then state the full name and address of the Lender and attach a copy of the Warehouse Loan Agreement.

    34. Upon any default or notice of default, state whether or not the Mortgage Warehouse Lender has the right to override any servicers or sub-servicers and provide instructions directly to the Electronic Agent? If the answer is yes, then specifically identify the legal basis for such authority.

    35. Is this mortgage part of a Whole Loan Sale Agreement? If the answer is yes, then state the name and address of the Purchaser, the Custodian, the Trustee, the Electronic Agent and any Servicer or Sub-Servicers.

    You should be advised that you must acknowledge receipt of this qualified written request within 20 business days, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(e)(1)(A) and Reg. X Section 3500.21(e)(1).

    You should also be advised that I will seek the recovery of damages, costs, and reasonable legal fees for each failure to comply with the questions and requests herein. I also reserve the right to seek statutory damages for each violation of any part of Section 2605 of Title 12 of the United States Code.”

  25. We do have several shills here on this blog. We also have damn fools. It is actually representational of the populace in general. In my state and county I have seen rigged bidding going on right before me at the foreclosure auctions at the court house. The judge even made an order that there was to be no bid rigging or else. Not much “or else” happened. It is still going on. Everything has been reduced to money. Nothing else matters. It is a sign of a sick and deteriorating society.

  26. This is very interesting, I always wondered why my house sold for such a low numbers. Here are the apox facts.
    bought 1995 for $187k
    apprased 2006 for $915k
    refi 2007 Downey Savings and Loan
    lost / forclosed 2008
    sold/ oction for $358k
    Zillow now list for $975k

  27. Just when ya think it can’t get any stickier out pops yet another raping and pillaging of the country, really now, Hey good work Neil on helping to expose!!! very good, hope some of you can go the distance on the money to make this happen as so many are Now …as shadowcat has stated so heartless and without proof of how one gets where one gets…and on many occasions about people making statements here “dead in the water” BUT this I$ by design IMHO.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: