Right of Redemption: Going After the Money Trail

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Comment and Analysis: Most people and lawyers I talk to think there is no life after sale of the property. This is not the case in my opinion and I encourage lawyers to start getting up to speed on the causes of actions and remedies that are available for attacking a foreclosure judgment and separately the foreclosure sale or “auction.”

Of course we know that a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, slander of title and quiet title, to name a few, are available to attack the foreclosure judgment or the final order in non-judicial states that allows the foreclosure sale to go through. There is also the semi-final order from the bankruptcy court which lifts the stay to allow for the foreclosure wherein the court frequently inserts that the movant is the owner of the loan. (When a different entity than the movant initiates the foreclosure and bids in the property as a creditor without getting leave of court to amend judgment or the motion to lift stay there are some very weighty issues raised that have been covered in earlier posts).

And as pointed out by one reader, the “opportunity to Cure” is another attack that is available before Judgment if you properly challenge the amount demanded. Proof of loss and Proof of Payment is NOT the note and Mortgage. It is a showing that the a party actually paid value for the debt and stands to lose money (economic loss) if it isn’t paid by the homeowner. If they can’t prove the loss, the court has one of two options, one of which is ridiculous: (1) it can order the foreclosure and prohibit the initiator of the foreclosure from submitting a credit bid (they must pay cash at auction) or (2) it can dismiss the foreclosure with prejudice because no injured party is present which is jurisdictional — i.e., STANDING.

In Florida and many other states (pro se litigants: check with local licensed counsel to make sure you know what the procedure is and what is available) there is both a statutory and equitable right of redemption. In some states the sale can be attacked during the redemption period because the consideration was faked or insufficient.

Florida Statute 45.0315 allows for redemption at the amount set forth in the final judgment. The common law equitable right of redemption in Florida has a short window — 10 days — in which you can challenge the sale based on the violation of court ordered procedures (which opens the door to wrongful foreclosure by a non-creditor), bid rigging, unfair practices which are loosely defined, or anything else that leads to a determination of a deficiency.

The deficiency is in Florida a judgment which the bank can pursue after the sale based upon the difference between the amount of the judgment and the amount of the sale which of course the bank fully controls and the cases are replete with references to the obvious fact that the sale price is more often than not governed by an arbitrary decision of the lender.In non-judicial states the deficiency is waived but there could be and usually are tax consequences arising from the “forgiven principal and interest” that cannot be offset by the loss taken on the house.

Some people, at my suggestion are starting funds in which the homeowner is given the means to exercise the right of redemption on one condition: that the forecloser prove loss and prove payment so the new lender can be assured that there are no claims on or off record.

This is leading to some interesting settlements and high profit margin for those people with money who can put up the full amount of the judgment but end up not laying out any money or very little and getting a mortgage from the homeowner that is valid and enforceable and in an amount far less than the original debt — when the pretender lender fails to produce evidence of loss (canceled check, wire transfer receipt etc.).

Frankly I am looking for investors and a manager who can handle that business which is very lucrative. An off shoot of the same idea is to buy the HOA’s lien, and foreclose on it, which is cheaper and messier. Either way the homeowner gets to stay in the home, creditors are paid what theyshould be paid, and the equity in the home is restored.

Procedurally, lawyers should pay close attention to the time limits lest they miss it and commit malpractice. A homeowner can come back at a foreclosure defense attorney alleging that the redemption period was not used properly. My suggestion is that immediately after sale the motion is filed to have the court set the proper amount of redemption based upon evidence of actual loss. You might be met with res judicata arguments or collateral estoppel, because you should have challenged the forecloser to prove their loss before judgment, but I think the period of redemption raises the issue again, or at least does so within the scope of reasonable argument.

It might well be that the pretender lender, now faced with a final judgment they procured, or a final order they procured will be estopped from maintaining the shell game they were able to conduct before judgment and finally pinned down to show that XYZ Bank actually has a receipt showing they paid for the loan either at origination or in a transfer.

At the risk of repeating myself, if you lead with an attack on the documents you are tacitly admitting that the underlying monetary transaction was real. If you lead with an attack on the monetary transactions (the money trail) then the deficiencies in the documents are abundantly clear. The documents should reflect the realities of the monetary transactions. If they don’t, the documents are either invalid or at least lose most of their credibility and all of their presumptions.

Think it through, do the research and don’t do anything until you are satisfied that what I am saying here applies to whatever case you are working on. In the end, you will most likely come tot he same conclusion I did — denial of the debt, note, mortgage and default is not only proper, it is the only truthful thing to do.

In discovery you will prove that the debt did not arise from any transaction between the borrower and the forecloser or any predecessor or successor. The documents, which point to the pretender, are therefore invalid as naming the wrong (and usually a strawman) party as payee and secured party. Add to that the conversion of the promissory note to a mortgage backed bond where the repayment terms offered the lender are different than the repayment terms offered the buyer, and you have a pretty strong argument to set the pretender back on its heels and draw some blood.

Bank of America is desperately trying to rid itself of these mortgages and mortgage bonds almost at any cost or price. They understand that every mortgage carries a potential huge liability. Taking my previous (see yesterday’s post) article, there could be a zero balance owed to the “creditor” after offset for mitigation payments, and the fabrication and forgery of documents, together with general application of TILA provisions might entitle you to recover treble damages plus attorneys fees and costs. In a wrongful foreclosure action the money really piles up, especially where the homeowner was evicted.

And it all can start in motions directed at setting the correct amount of the redemption.

Below is the oddly worded Florida Statutory right of redemption. remember, if you are not an attorney licensed in the state in which the property is located, you are far more likely to make procedural mistakes than the pretender lender and lose a case you might otherwise win. Advice, counsel and preferably representation by competent counsel is in my opinion an absolute requirement. If local counsel disagrees with the application of these principles to the situation presented his or her opinion should be taken as authoritative rather than this blog which is meant to be only informative.

45.0315 Right of redemption.—At any time before the later of the filing of a certificate of sale by the clerk of the court or the time specified in the judgment, order, or decree of foreclosure, the mortgagor or the holder of any subordinate interest may cure the mortgagor’s indebtedness and prevent a foreclosure sale by paying the amount of moneys specified in the judgment, order, or decree of foreclosure, or if no judgment, order, or decree of foreclosure has been rendered, by tendering the performance due under the security agreement, including any amounts due because of the exercise of a right to accelerate, plus the reasonable expenses of proceeding to foreclosure incurred to the time of tender, including reasonable attorney’s fees of the creditor. Otherwise, there is no right of redemption.

23 Responses

  1. Eric we need to discuss this – maybe research it together. Put it somewhere to remind us to do this asap Love, Mom

  2. Question: Why wouldn’t a cause of action for Intentional/Negligent Misrepresentation have traction against the Trust who was assigned the DOT/MTG and Notes years after the closing of the trust expired be a winning COA? Particularly if the Assignment was invalid?

    Situation: You receive an an acceleration letter from the servicer, naming a Trust that the proposed foreclosure action will be in the name of. You find that the assignment from MERS to the Trust occurred five years after the trust was “closed”. Not only that, MERS acted as Beneficiary/Mortgagee in the Assignment, which is very likely unlawful.

    The point is, by moving this way, the pressure is on the Trust/foreclosing entity to prove it has standing to OWN THE NOTE, which it likely does not, by way of prospectus and PSA, et al.

    Seems to me a strong hand to play and to be aggressive in doing so. Modification on your terms, not theirs.

  3. Well, here’s a case that shows what bozos Loan Lawyers can be. These scammer foreclosure defenders, while maintaining a state foreclosure action, sued the servicer in federal court for not fully answering their loan related questions, and never bothered to dig a little deeper, like asking the servicer’s lawyer for the identity of the holder. The USDC judge, showing sublime common sense, dismissed the case with prejudice. Why don’t the plaintiffs sue their bozo Loan Lawyers for malpractice?

    Case No.: 12-CV-80625-RYSKAMP/HOPKINS
    ASSOCIATION et al.,
    THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss [DE 23, 24]
    filed on November 14, 2012. Plaintiffs filed responses [DE 31, 32] on December 10, 2012.
    Defendants filed a joint reply [DE 34] on December 20, 2012. A hearing was held on the matter
    on January 18, 2013. This motion is ripe for adjudication.
    I. Background
    Plaintiffs Wilner Guillaume and Rachel Guillaume (“Plaintiffs”), husband and wife, filed
    this action through their counsel, Loan Lawyers, LLC (“Loan Lawyers”), against Defendants
    Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
    Fargo) (collectively, “Defendants”) under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq.
    (“TILA”). Plaintiffs are borrowers whose mortgage loan obligation is owned by Fannie Mae1
    1 The amended complaint alleges, and the exhibits attached demonstrate, that Fannie Mae was assigned
    Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, and was not the initial creditor.
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 1 of 8
    and serviced by Wells Fargo.2 On July 15, 2008, Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure proceedings
    against Plaintiffs, alleging that “as servicer for the owner and acting on behalf of the owner with
    authority to do so, is the present designated holder of the note and mortgage with authority to
    pursue the present action.” Plaintiffs, represented by Loan Lawyers in that action, allege they
    were unsure of who owned their mortgage loan, and thus, through Loan Lawyers, sent a written
    request for information to Wells Fargo pursuant to TILA § 1641(f)(2) insisting that it identify the
    owner or master servicer of their loan. The letter was sent on June 21, 2011 and contained
    requests for fifteen items, including an itemized pay-off statement for the full amount needed to
    reinstate the mortgage. Wells Fargo responded to Loan Lawyers on July 5, 2011, providing a
    complete payment history of the loan and the address and contact information of its attorneys
    managing the foreclosure action. Wells Fargo directed Loan Lawyers to the phone numbers of
    its servicing representatives for any additional questions. Without any further inquiry, however,
    Plaintiffs filed this action on May 25, 2012 alleging Defendants failed to identify the “master
    servicer” of the loan required under TILA § 1642(f)(2), and that failed to provide a pay-off
    statement within a reasonable time in violation of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.36(c)(1)(iii).
    Defendants now move to dismiss this action claiming, inter alia, that this lawsuit is a
    sham, and should be dismissed as such, because Plaintiffs (through Loan Lawyers) manufactured
    TILA claims to obtain statutory damages and attorneys’ fees and gain leverage in the pending
    foreclosure proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, this Court agrees.
    2 As demonstrated in the exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the mortgage loan was actually
    serviced by Wells Fargo Home Mortage (“WFHM”), an operating division of Wells Fargo. For the purpose of this
    action, they are one in the same, see In re Krause, 414 B.R. 243, 248 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009), and the Court will
    refer to WFHM and Wells Fargo unanimously as Wells Fargo.
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 2 of 8
    II. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss
    In order to state a claim for relief, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) requires
    only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED.
    R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all of the
    plaintiff’s allegations as true. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). However, the
    Court need not accept legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
    Further, “a court’s duty to liberally construe a plaintiff’s complaint in the face of a motion to
    dismiss is not the equivalent of a duty to re-write it for [him].” Peterson v. Atlanta Hous. Auth.,
    998 F.2d 904, 912 (11th Cir. 1993).
    “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
    accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
    “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
    draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
    “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
    allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires
    more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
    will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). “Factual
    allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
    III. Discussion
    TILA is a consumer protection statute enacted “to assure a meaningful disclosure of
    credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms
    available . . . and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). For certain
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 3 of 8
    disclosure (nondisclosure) violations, TILA creates a private cause of action. Specifically, §
    1640(a) creates creditor liability for violations of § 1641(f), which provides in pertinent part:
    Upon written request by the obligor, the servicer shall provide the obligor, the
    best knowledge of the servicer, with the name, address, and telephone number of
    the owner of the obligation or the master servicer of the obligation.3
    15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2) (emphasis added).4 For other violations under TILA, it is unclear
    whether a private right of action exists. Particularly, courts are divided as to whether individuals
    may bring an action under Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.36(c)(1)(iii) for failure to provide a
    pay-off statement within a reasonable time. See Runkle, 2012 WL 5861803, at *5 (concluding
    there is a private right of action for violations of 12 C.F.R. § 226.36(c)(1)(iii)); Montano, 2012
    WL 5233653 at *6 (holding 12 C.F.R. § 226.36(c)(1)(iii) only applies to high cost mortgages);
    Kievman v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, Case No. 12-cv-22315, 2012 WL 5378036, at *4 (S.D. Fla.
    Sept. 14, 2012) (holding there is no private right of action). See generally Danier v. Fed. Nat’l
    Mortg. Ass’n, Case No. 12-cv-62354, 2012 WL 462385, at *3–4 (discussing the differing
    holdings of the cases above and concluding there is a private right of action for violations of 12
    C.F.R. § 226.36(c)(1)(iii)).
    3 A “master servicer” is defined as “the owner of the right to perform servicing, which may actually
    perform the servicing itself or may do so through a subservicer.” 24 C.F.R. § 3500.21. A subservicer does not own
    the right to perform the servicing, but does so on behalf of the master servicer. Id. TILA does not impose liability
    on servicers, but rather on creditors who fail to comply with various requirements under TILA. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).
    4 Most courts addressing the issue have found that a creditor is vicariously liable for the acts of the servicer
    under § 1641(f)(2). See Montano v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 12-cv-80718, 2012 WL 5233653, at *3–4
    (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2012); Santos v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, Case No. 12-cv-61173, 2012 WL 3860559 (S.D. Fla.
    Sept. 6, 2012); Galeano v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., Case No. 12-cv-61174, 2012 WL 3613890 (S.D. Fla.
    Aug. 21, 2012); Kissenger v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 12-cv-60878 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2012); Khan v.
    Bank of New York Mellon, 849 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2012). But see Holcomb v. Fed. Home Loan
    Mortg. Corp., Case No. 10-cv-81186, 2011 WL 5080324 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2011). Further, courts have expanded
    the scope of vicarious liability to hold assignees vicariously liable for their servicer’s violations under § 1641(f)(2),
    as well. See Runkle v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___ , 2012 WL 5861802, at *7 (S.D. Fla. 2012),
    vacated on other grounds on reconsideration, Case No. 12-cv-61247, 2012 WL 6554755 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2012)
    (“[A]n interpretation of TILA that did not hold assignees liable would conflict with the purpose of Congress’ 2009
    TILA amendment, other statutory language within TILA, and case law recognizing the possibility that assignees of
    creditors can also be held liable for servicer’s § 1641(F)2) violations.”) (internal citations omitted).
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 4 of 8
    TILA was designed to protect consumers by ensuring access to information concerning
    who owned and serviced their loans and how much they owed. Thus, the language of §
    1641(f)(2) states that “obligors,” or consumers, may send servicers requests for this information;
    a choice of words which, while may not be preclusive to the sending of such requests by
    attorneys, reflects Congress’s intention that the statute serve as a framework for meaningful
    disclosure to borrowers with a genuine need for information regarding their loans. See Marx v.
    Gen. Revenue Corp., __ S. Ct. __, 2013 WL 673254, at *4 (2013) (“In all statutory construction
    cases, the court assumes the ordinary meaning of the statutory language accurately expresses the
    legislative purpose.”). Instead of being used as a shield, however, plaintiffs’ lawyers have used
    TILA to spawn a cottage industry of lawsuit farming by sending requests for information and,
    without further inquiry, suing creditors and servicers for technical violations of the statute.
    Presumably, lawyers assume defendants would rather settle such claims rather than engage in
    costly litigation, and they use the statute’s statutory damages and mandatory attorneys’ fees as
    leveraging blocks to do so. Such strategies are particularly effective when the same lawyers
    bringing suit under TILA are also defending their clients in parallel foreclosure proceedings, as a
    creditor faced with such claims may opt to discontinue foreclosure and modify a loan in
    exchange for dismissal of the TILA action.
    While Congress included statutory damages and attorneys’ fees as incentives for lawyers
    to bring claims under TILA, where such claims exceed the scope of Congress’s intent, the Court
    may deny relief. In particular, where the application of a statute is at odds with its spirit and
    purpose as intended by its drafters, “the intention of the drafters . . . controls.” United States v.
    Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). See Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep’t of
    Educ., 550 U.S. 81, 105 (2007) (J. Stevens, concurring) (“As long as the court is faithful to the
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 5 of 8
    intent of Congress, the decision to override the strict interpretation of the text is a correct
    performance of the judicial function.”). This doctrine, sometimes referred to as the “antiabsurdity
    canon,” empowers courts to preserve the legislative integrity of a statute by preventing
    absurd results in its application. See Silva-Hernandez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and
    Immigration Servs., 701 F.3d 356, 363 (11th Cir. 2012). Here, the Court finds that the
    invocation of this doctrine is necessary to promote Congress’s intent and safeguard TILA from
    manipulative practices of plaintiffs’ attorneys attempting to pervert its effect.
    In this case, allowing Loan Lawyers to capitalize on alleged defects in a response to a
    request for information sent to Wells Fargo while foreclosure proceedings were pending between
    parties is not in keeping with the spirit or purpose of TILA as a framework for meaningful
    disclosure and consumer protection. Specifically, Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure proceedings
    against Plaintiffs on July 15, 2008. In those proceedings, Plaintiffs were represented by Loan
    Lawyers. Loan Lawyers waited until June 21, 2011 to send Wells Fargo a request for
    information under TILA. Loan Lawyers sent the request directly to Wells Fargo, and did not
    forward a copy to Wells Fargo’s counsel. After Wells Fargo responded, Loan Lawyers, on
    behalf of Plaintiffs, filed suit against Defendants without any further inquiry or request for
    clarification. It is clear from the facts that Plaintiffs did not suffer from any meaningful
    deprivation of information concerning their mortgage loan; if Loan Lawyers did not know the
    owner or master servicer of Plaintiffs’ loan or the amount of money Plaintiffs owed, it could
    have easily acquired such information through discovery in the state foreclosure action, or even
    through such traditional means as asking Wells Fargo’s counsel. This is further evidenced by the
    fact that Loan Lawyers waited over two years from the commencement of the foreclosure
    proceedings to send its request, and then delivered it directly to Wells Fargo without noticing its
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 6 of 8
    counsel. Loan Lawyers’s advancements in this action are not grounded on genuine failures of
    disclosure or surreptitious loan practices, but rather as a superfluous attempt to leverage
    settlement and obtain fees. Such actions, even if supported by a strict interpretation of the text,
    are contrary to the intent of the statute, and thus fail as a matter of law. See Holy Trinity Church
    v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459 (1892) (“It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the
    letter of the statute and yet not within the statue, because not within its spirit nor within the
    intention of its makers.”).
    The Court is not convinced by Plaintiffs arguments otherwise. Plaintiffs point out that
    other courts have declined to dismiss actions brought under TILA § 1642(f)(2) and 12 C.F.R. §
    226.36(c)(1)(iii) when defendants have alleged such misuse. The cases which Plaintiffs cite,
    however—Santos v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 3860559 (S.D. Fla.
    Sept. 6, 2012) and Galeano, 2012 WL 3613890—are inapposite. In neither of those cases were
    parties engaged in foreclosure proceedings when the alleged violation occurred. See Santos,
    2012 WL 3860559, at *2; Galeano, 2012 WL 3623890, at *3. Here, Plaintiffs, represented by
    Loan Lawyers, were engaged in a state foreclosure action with Wells Fargo when the request for
    information was made and when Defendants’ alleged violations took place. Thus, whereas the
    plaintiffs’ requests for information in Santos and Galeano may have been legitimate, here they
    were not. As explained above, these factual distinctions merit dismissal.
    TILA must be construed “in order to best serve Congress’ intent.” Ellis v. Gen. Motors
    Acceptance Corp., 160 F.3d 703, 707 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’
    claims are contrary to Congress’s intent and at odds with the purpose and spirit of the law. Thus,
    Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed.
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 7 of 8
    IV. Conclusion
    The Court has carefully considered the motions, responses, replies, applicable law, and
    pertinent portions of the record. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss [DE 23, 24] are
    GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is
    directed to CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as MOOT. Final judgment will
    be entered for Defendants by separate order.
    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 7 day of March,
    /s/ Kenneth L. Ryskamp
    Case 9:12-cv-80625-KLR Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2013 Page 8 of 8

  4. Guest here is what most 99.9% of the world does not know is that FHA & VA are not lender and only provide insurance in MIP with FHA and guaranty apart of the back end of the losses of VA loans.

    So what happens is that the two buy the loans at a prearranged price before the foreclosure sale to try and limit its losses and then they turn around and sale these properties thinking they have clear title but they don’t because the service rs they are dealing with don’t possess the Notes as Ginnie Mae does and every single foreclosed property still has a blank Note today.

    FHA & VA were unaware of how Ginnie Mae held the blank Note and in fact they did not even know about blank Notes, as only Ginnie Mae knew how their MBS program worked. But not all within Ginnie Mae are sure how the title processing or UCC 3 works. This mess is mostly a failure of training of personnel, as they are in position of need to know only. Almost the perfect crime, except for one stupid infantry soldier turn mortgage loan officer!

  5. guest I do mean BOA is selling the loan and I believe now the other agencies in FHA & VA have found out that they are being used as Ginnie Mae’s piggybank in their robbing Peter to pay Paul Ponzi scheme.

    What I think went down is that the wished up and HUD should be saying that these loan could not be guaranteed or insured and is dumping the loan with servicers that are not involved with the whole settlement thing.

    The sales information was in either the NYTimes or Wash-post. I am pretty sure after the HUD Sec was grilled in Nov 2012 on the hill after the Independent audit, the game should be over as its exposed that the FHA had a $70 billion lost and is $16 billion in the red.

    So I am assuming that maybe these loans are being treated as non insurable loans, because at this point they are as Ginnie Mae has possession of the blank Notes and no one has a financial interest in the loans!

  6. Charles, you said: RE: BOA sold like 30,000 loan in the DC surrounding States and was this month to sale in the Southeast 40,000 loans as they are trying to get the servicing down, as these Countrywide loans are killing them.

    This gets confusing, because if Ginnie Mae owns the loan … how can BOA sell something it does not own? I suspect you meant BOAna is selling off or disposing of …. CW servicing rights.

  7. UCC 3-205…..Special indorsement; blank indorsement; anomalous indorsement (c.) The holder may convert a blank instrument that consists only of a signature into a special indorsement by writing, above the signature of the indorser, words identifying the person to whom the instrument is payable.

    However….only if they hold the Security…..and they don’t …… all of these transfers are therefore ILLEGAL according to STATE & FEDERAL LAW, TRUST LAWS & SECURITIES LAWS…..THESE TRANSFERS & BUYBACKS ARE SECURITIES FRAUDS…..CRIMINAL ACTS.





  9. BOA sold like 30,000 loan in the DC surrounding States and was this month to sale in the Southeast 40,000 loans as they are trying to get the servicing down, as these Countrywide loans are killing them. So the question is what relationship did BOA actually have with Countrywide before they purchase the ship wreck that was at the time of the sale in 2008 was being sued by 11 States for predatory lending that in Oct 2008 the states won a $8 billion settlement that BOA paid.

    However I never seen where the victims of the predatory acts were compensated at all from that settlement.

    As I said yesterday I got a letter from a Ginnie Mae VP about who holds Note and tile. It clear that the VP of the MBS has not clue of the laws of state and who has the right to be in title. Here is what he said; (Ginnie Mae guarantees MBS that are issued by private entities, including Wells Fargo. Ginnie Mae does not purchase the mortgage, but require that the private entities assign the mortgages to Ginnie Mae in consideration for its guaranty of the securities. Ginnie Mae permits the private entities to hold legal title and the private entities are required to service the mortgage in accordance with the standard of the agency that insures or guarantees the mortgages.)

    So first these Notes are signed with a blank endorsement which under UCC 3, are at the time they are place with Ginnie Mae and physical possession of the blank Note are at hand, Ginnie is the owner of the Note and the ex-lender who is issuing the securities is not longer the lender but the “issuer” of the the securities that they will after the sale of the securities draw an advance on those fund.

    What crazy is this VP of MBS does not state how in the State (Nebraska) or any State how a non purchasing Ginnie Mae who is in physical possession of the blank Note who not in title nor listed in the endorsement as the purchaser lender on the document that that give the owner the right to attach title (DOT) to the property.

    Yet as Ginnie Mae does not purchase the Note and is only given the Note in blank form the Note can never again be transferred because its blank and does not have attached to it the debt. The Note stop existing when there is zero amount do because it is an agreement to pay back the amount inclosed in the document.

    In what state does it allow a non-lender to allow a party that does not have a financial interest in the loan which Ginnie Mae admits, as Wells Fargo in their letter admits they did not have a financial interest in. However Ginnie is saying they allowed the issuer of the securities to remain in title but the issuer was Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) who was declared a “failed bank” by the FDIC on Sept 25, 2008 and the foreclosure was on Mar 15, 2010. However not even WaMu was was not even in title because the original leader first filed the Deed of Trust after they had already sold the Note (rush to pool) and was not legally able to file the DOT because they no longer had any financial interest in the loan.

    So we got this situation were Ginnie Mae claiming they allowed the lender to stay in title but the leader that placed the loan into the pool, stop existing as the leader the day the loan was pooled, and in 2008 was declared dead. Even if the lender had not been declare a “failed bank” it could not still sit in titled because it has relinquish the blank Note to Ginnie Mae who admits it does not purchase the loan, so how do these clowns think that they can allow someone to stay in title, when they themselves have not purchase the debt!

    I just waiting because this is a no brainer!

  10. Yeah right guest……I took no loans from these crooks. They need to cure their loan they took in my name, clear my title and pay restitution to me for all of the SECURITIES FRAUD they committed in my name without my knowledge or consent….all of the harm done and harm intended upon the Presentment of those forged counterfeits…..Intent to Deceive is Criminal and the proof is in the pudding…and apparent on the face of every recorded document.


  11. To this day ….. we still have not gotton an amount needed to Cure with BoAnana. Jeepers.. Creepers… Where did they get those Lies? *Giggles*

  12. And as pointed out by me, … the “opportunity to Cure” is another attack that is available before a Lawsuit if filed.

  13. If you are so dammed hell bent that you are right .. Prove It! Cure your Loan!


  15. Stripes, What is your hangup on there not being any securities? You were never a party to those transactions ( a Invester) and you are taking no losses as a taxpayer (cause you dont pay any). So why are you so hung up on the securites? Shouldnt you be focused on your loan and your responsibilites as a homeowner and theirs as a Servicer?

  16. They won’t let you near their trail ….. it is all electronic fraud and it is all attached to the names of this Global Paedophile Ring of Satanist Imposters …. they are an evil kabal of sheisters crooks who are hiding the FACT….THERE IS NO SECURITY…THIS IS A HUGE COVERUP FOR THE FACT EVERYTHING THEY TOLD US TO BELIEVE IS A BIG FAT FRAUD AND A BIG FAT LIE…

  17. Round One .. CW… Challanged the amount Owed, but paid it anyway.
    Round Two… BAC… Challanged the amount Owed, but paid it anyway.
    Round Three… BOAnana.. Denied and Challanged amount Owed via Attorney. but paid BOAnana NOTTA!!! Game Over!!

  18. And as pointed out by one reader, the “opportunity to Cure” is another attack that is available before Judgment if you properly challenge the amount demanded. Proof of loss and Proof of Payment is NOT the note and Mortgage. It is a showing that the a party actually paid value for the debt and stands to lose money (economic loss) if it isn’t paid by the homeowner.

  19. “…creditors are paid what they should be paid…”

    What creditors are those, Neil? The fake ones?

  20. Ellen Brown cannot be accused of being stupid. She’s been on top of things for quite some time so, when she writes, I read. If you still have mucho dinero stashed in your bank account, you may be in for surprises. I wouldn’t get it past this country’s government to resort to that kind of maneuver.

    Long article. I’m only posting the first part of it. Good news is: when you’re bald, no one can hold you by the short hair.


    It Can Happen Here: The Bank Confiscation Scheme for US and UK Depositors

    Confiscating the customer deposits in Cyprus banks, it seems, was not a one-off, desperate idea of a few Eurozone “troika” officials scrambling to salvage their balance sheets. A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds.

    New Zealand has a similar directive, discussed in my last article here, indicating that this isn’t just an emergency measure for troubled Eurozone countries. New Zealand’s Voxy reported on March 19th:

    The National Government [is] pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts . . . .

    Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is Finance Minister Bill English’s favoured option dealing with a major bank failure. If a bank fails under OBR, all depositors will have their savings reduced overnight to fund the bank’s bail out.

    Can They Do That?

    Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.” The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price? Most people keep a deposit account so they can have ready cash to pay the bills.

    The 15-page FDIC-BOE document is called “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.” It begins by explaining that the 2008 banking crisis has made it clear that some other way besides taxpayer bailouts is needed to maintain “financial stability.” Evidently anticipating that the next financial collapse will be on a grander scale than either the taxpayers or Congress is willing to underwrite, the authors state:

    An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company [meaning the depositors] into equity [or stock]. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution.

    No exception is indicated for “insured deposits” in the U.S., meaning those under $250,000, the deposits we thought were protected by FDIC insurance. This can hardly be an oversight, since it is the FDIC that is issuing the directive. The FDIC is an insurance company funded by premiums paid by private banks. The directive is called a “resolution process,” defined elsewhere as a plan that “would be triggered in the event of the failure of an insurer . . . .” The only mention of “insured deposits” is in connection with existing UK legislation, which the FDIC-BOE directive goes on to say is inadequate, implying that it needs to be modified or overridden.

  21. I must admit … it was simplier to reinstate, then go for the Juglar ! But redemption works just as well. Please! Please! Contact Legal Aid if You Can Not Afford an Attorney! Save Your Home and Help Flush Another Buttwipe!

  22. Great Article! RE:…. Bank of America is desperately trying to rid itself of these mortgages and mortgage bonds almost at any cost or price. They understand that every mortgage carries a potential huge liability…… I would like to add. BOAna is trying to Dump them and will SOONER than you Think!! ” We neither need nor want BofA money”! We just refuse to let them steal what is ours. Keep It Simple! Dont Get Greedy! If you have been evicted under a wrongful foreclosure … GO KICK THAT BUTTWIPES ASS!!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: