NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY TO CASES ON WHICH YOU ARE WORKING. IT IS REALLY MEANT FOR ATTORNEYS WHO ARE REPRESENTING PARTIES IN FORECLOSURE LITIGATION. No lay person should assume that anything in this article is true or applies to their case. Nobody should use this information without careful consultation with a knowledgeable attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which the subject property is located. This may or may not have applicability to other securitized debt including student loans, auto loans etc. Each case rests on its own merits. Do not assume that there is any magic bullet that ends any case in favor of the borrower.
For Litigation Support for Attorneys in all fifty states, please call 520-405-1688. For general search and information products, consultations and services please go to http://www.livingliesstore.com.
MBS TRUSTEES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BRING FORECLOSURE ACTIONS
SEE QUOTES FROM US BANK WEBSITE
Upon analysis, research and reflection it appears as though the game could be over in the US Bank cases, the Bank of America cases, and any case in which the foreclosing party is identified as the Trustee. US Bank clearly has no right or even access to the foreclosure process. How do we know? Because US Bank says so on its own website. SEE https://www.usbank.com/pdf/community/Role-of-Trustee-Sept2013.pdf.
Here are some notable quotes from the US Bank websites which references materials to make their own assertions apply to all trustees over MBS trusts:
“Parties involved in a MBS transaction include the borrower, the originator, the servicer and the trustee, each with their own distinct roles, responsibilities and limitations.”
“ U.S. Bank as Trustee:
“As Trustee, U. S. Bank Global Trust Services performs the following responsibilities:
Holds an interest in the mortgage loans for the Benefit of investors
Maintains investors/securities holder records
Collects payments from the Servicer
Distributes payments to the investors/securities holder
Does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process (e.s.)
Does not have responsibility for overseeing mortgage servicers (e.s.)
Does not mediate between the servicers and investors in securitization deals (e.s.)
Does not manage or maintain properties in foreclosure (e.s.)
Is not responsible for the approval of any loan modifications (e.s.)
“All trustees for MBS transactions, including US Bank have no advanced knowledge of when a mortgage loan has defaulted.
“ Trustees on MBS transactions, while named on the mortgage and on the legal foreclosure documents, are not involved in the foreclosure process.”
“ While trustees are listed on mortgages, and therefore in legal documents as well, as the owner of record, its interest is solely for the benefit of investors. The trustee does not have an economic or beneficial interest in the loans and has no authority to manage or otherwise take action on the loans which is reserved for the servicer.” (e.s.)
“Additional sources of information:
— American Bankers Association White Paper, The Trustee’s Role in Asset-backed securities, dated November 9, 2010, http://www.aba.com/Press+Room/110910Roleofatrustee.htm ”
— The Trust Indenture Act of 1939
In several cases I am litigating, the servicer seems to be saying that they approve the foreclosure but do not want the turnover of rents. This brings up the question of whether the notice of default was sent by the Trustee, who according to the attached information would not even know if the default is being “called,” in which case the notice would be fatally defective. The fatal defect would be that it is not a function of the Trustee if the PSA has the usual language. That function is exclusively reserved for the Servicer. Since the PSA probably has language in it that restricts the knowledge of the Trustee to virtually zero, and certainly restricts the knowledge of the Trustee as to all receipts and disbursements processed by the sub-Servicer, the broker dealer (investment bank), and the Master Servicer. Thus the Trustee of the MBS trust is the last party on whom one could depend for information about a default — except that if “Servicer advances” (quotations used because the money is coming from the investment bank) then the Trustee would presumably know that from the creditor’s point of view, there is no default.
A NOTICE OF FILING could be sent to the Court with the full pdf file from the US Bank website while the smaller pdf file containing excerpts from the full pdf file could be attached as an exhibit to the Motion. THIS WILL HAVE BROAD RAMIFICATIONS FOR THOUSANDS OF FORECLOSURE CASES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IF THE TRUSTEE INITIATED THE FORECLOSURE, EVERYTHING IS VOID, NOT VOIDABLE ACCORDING TO NEW YORK AND DELAWARE LAW. ACTIONS COULD BE BROUGHT BASED UPON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE THUS TURNING EACH FORECLOSURE CASE INTO AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES OR TO REGAIN TITLE SINCE THE SALE WAS BOGUS.
But the complexity gets worse. If the action should have been brought by the servicer, but the creditor was really a funded trust who was legally represented by a properly authorized servicer, then the bid by the Trustee at the auction might have been valid. Hence the attack should be on the foreclosure process itself rather than the credit bid.
Not to worry. I don’t think any of the Trusts were funded — or to put it more precisely, I have found no evidence in the public domain that any of the MBS trusts were in fact funded the way it was set forth in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement. There does not appear to be any actual trust account over which the Trustee has control. Hence both the existence and capacity of the Trust and the Trustee are issues of fact that must be decided by the Court.
That leaves the MBS trusts with no money to originate or acquire mortgages. So who really owns the loans? This is why in Court on appeal, the attorneys agree that they don’t know who owns the loans. But what they really mean, whether they realize it or not, is that they don’t know if any of the loans are secured by a perfected mortgage. If none of the parties in their “chain” actually came up with money or value, then the lien is not perfected or valid. The mortgage would be subject to nullification of the instrument.
If the question was really who owns the loans, the answer is simple — the investors who put up the money. We all know that. What they are dancing around is the real nub of the confrontation here: Since we know who put up the money and therefore who owns the loan, was there any document or event that caused the loan as owned by the investors to be secured? The answer appears to be no, which is why the investment banks are all being sued every other day for FRAUD. First they diverted the investor money from the trust and then they diverted the title from the trust beneficiaries to one of their own entities. The actions of the investment banks constitutes, in my opinion, an intervening tortious or criminal act that frustrated the intent of both the borrowers (homeowners) and the lenders (investors).
So the real question is whether the Court can be used to reform the closing and create a loan agreement that is properly enforceable against lender and borrower. That appears to require the creation of an equitable mortgage, which is held in extremely low regard by courts across the country. And then you have questions like when does the mortgage begin and what happens to title with respect to intervening events?
The simple answer, as I said in 2007, is do some sort of amnesty and reframe the deals to reflect economic reality allowing everyone to bite a bullet and everyone to cover their losses but avoid, at this point another 6 million families being displaced. My experience with borrowers is that the overwhelming majority would sign a new mortgage document that is enforceable together with a new note that is enforceable and leaves all issues behind even though they know they could push the issue further. The borrower s are a lot more honest and straightforward than their banker counterparts. The deal should essentially be between the investors and the homeowners.
The question is whether the case is dismissed, possibly with prejudice, or if they can try to substitute the servicer as the Plaintiff in a style that would or might read “SPS, as servicer, on behalf of ????, Trustee for the asset backed trust” or “on behalf of the trust beneficiaries.”
The further question is whether the complaint could be amended. But if the servicer didn’t send the NOTICE OF DEFAULT, there is nothing to amend since on its face, the Notice of Default was sent by a party who not only was not authorized to start the process but who was expressly precluded from having any knowledge of the default.
This in turn leads to the further question of whether the verification was valid if signed on behalf of US Bank or any other party “as trustee” on the complaints to foreclose.
The smaller file tells the whole story we have been arguing and it should be attached. I would attach the smaller one page synopsis of quotations from their website. It leaves no room for interpretation — trustees do not, and cannot initiate foreclosures or anything else relating to enforcement. They may not meddle in the foreclosure and they may not meddle or mediate in settlement or mediation. Here is the smaller file:
US BANK ROLE OF TRUSTEE
As to Bank of America, the situation is even more dire —-
contains the Federal reserve Order approving the Bank of America – LaSalle merger. I can find no such order for the CitiMortgage-ABN Amro mortgage. It is also true that I can find no evidence that the BOA merger was completed whereas there is plenty of evidence that the Citi-ABN merger was in fact completed. This means that CitiMortgage became the parent company of LaSalle Bank.
While it is theoretically possible for an ACQUISITION of LaSalle to have taken place in which BOA acquired LaSalle Bank, no evidence exists that any such transaction exists between BofA and Citi. It is clear that Citi completed its deal in September of 2007 at around the same time that BOA was getting the approval order shown above on the federal reserve website. But most curiously the Fed does not mention the Citi-ABN Amro deal. What we know for sure is that there was no MERGER between BofA and Citi.
In my opinion based upon review of this order from the Federal Reserve and other pronouncements from the FED, this order was either never officially issued in actuality or it never was used. In the absence of further contrary information which I have not been able to uncover, thus far, the irrefutable conclusion is that BOA never became the successor by merger to LASalle Bank. Therefore BOA was never the trustee for the asset backed REMIC trust. Therefore, the transaction to which US Bank refers granted US Bank nothing even if the position of trustee is determined to be a commodity — an idea that would create havoc in the marketplace.
As for whether US Bank as trustee for MBS trusts has standing, the answer is no and they have absolutely no right, obligation or even access to the foreclosure or settlement process. In the same REMIC out in California, I am the expert witness on a case in which the same trust is represented by Chase as servicer. The case has not caught up with the fact that Chase has sold or transferred servicing rights to SPS (Select Portfolio Services) or at least that is what they say.
This being the case, several questions arise:
Since this information from the public domain is on the U.S. Bank website without any disclaimers, are we sure they authorized the foreclosure and the action for turnover of rents? Or are they going to say it was an error by the law firm? Who is actually the client of the opposing law firm — the trust beneficiaries, the trust,, the trustee or US Bank who doesn’t really appear to be the trustee?
The same question could be asked of Bank of America who says they are or were a trustee based upon a dubious series of announcements that seem to lack the same underlying transactions as all securitized loans that report a transaction has taken place (i.e.., on the note the contract is implied because the borrower agrees to repay a loan to a lender that never gave them the money).
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: ABN AMRO merger with BofA, ABN AMRO merger with Citi, Bank of America, Bank of America as trustee, Citimortgage, Citimortgage as trustee, Federal reserve order on BOA-LaSalle Merger, LaSalle bank, LaSalle Bank as trustee, servicer, US BANK, US Bank as trustee, US Bank website |
TO christine, on December 11, 2013 at 11:36 pm said: BINGO….comment to Trespass
Having succeeded in my BOA case settlement….what is your ratio?
I invite comment on the Trustee Indenture Act of 1939 here below. My reading of this is that any “mortgage” that is purported to be an asset of any MBS/REMIC trust is an “obligor” and therefore as obligor has standing as to the Trust agreements. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks. BTW…ref: 15 USC 77ccc(12)…here she goes:
The Trustee Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”), specifically at §15 USC 77ccc(12) defines parties to and aspects of the “Trust”: “The term “obligor”, when used with respect to any such indenture security, means every person (including a guarantor) who is liable thereon, and, if such security is a certificate of interest or participation, such term means also every person (including a guarantor) who is liable upon the security or securities in which such certificate evidences an interest or participation; but such term shall not include the trustee under an indenture under which certificates of interest or participation, equipment trust certificates, or like securities are outstanding.”
Charles said:
“It not possible to purchase a product such as a home mortgage loan and not be a bank/mortgage company and not be able to service that product yourself.”
I don’t think that’s quite true. I think anyone may purchase a loan already made. However, all the GSE’s require those who service FNMA/FHLMC/FHA/VA loans to be approved servicers. From a particular instance I saw where a non-approved servicer turned in mongo claims to FHA (think it was) and FHA said beat it, I’d say the penalty for having a non-approved servicer servicing is a denial of any claims relevant to the loans being serviced. I seriously doubt that any of these default servicers are GSE approved.
Here something that needs to be said to the Attorney. You are an attorney because you pass the bar and are license to practice law in the states you are license in. A Lawyer is schooled in law but if not license cannot practice law.
A Home Mortgage Lender is one that has money to lend. However the are a Home Loan Lender because they are license and regulated to lend just the same why that an attorney is license and must follow the rule of the court. You may be the lender of monies but as to what type of lending you are license to do, is what you do.
Investors are not buying these loan as Home Loan Lenders but as investor of securities which is a total different product. You have state and national lending bodies, and these GSEs or trust are not license with these bodies at all to lend.
It not possible to purchase a product such as a home mortgage loan and not be a bank/mortgage company and not be able to service that product yourself. An lawyer giving advice cannot represent the client in court because the are not license, and is guilty of practicing law without a license!
Yes Christine
That is what this Great Country is all about neighbor helping neighbor.
God Bless America
Yep. Group therapy alright.
ALL
Looks like Chief justice Roberts of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has not noticed the complaints of the citizens that write
on this and similar sites – or has he
ALL
SEE IF YOU CAN PICK THIS UP
from the US Courts
the
2013 years ends report on the Judiciary
released December 31
very interesting
When there’s a credit bid assignment, it’s evidence the forecloser is not the real party in interest, is not the creditor. The MERS Consent Order was a result of that determination (for one thing): that MERS was not the real party in interest and had no right to make a credit bid. Even if arguendo MERS were otherwise authorized to foreclose, all it could do is sell to the highest third party bidder – consider what that would look like if known. (And another reason, as I feel strongly, is if MERS were an agent, it couldn’t bid because if it were the highest bidder, it meant the trust became the prohibitted owner of real estate thru its agent. There is no where in the world evidence anyone, any of these players, including MERS, is or was authorized to make a credit bid for anyone else, including the trusts. imo.
Neil – what law says a lender must be the lender named on a note?
What precludes ABC from naming XYZ as a nominee on a note without acknowledging that it does so? I’m not saying or even suggesting this may be done or that it was. But I think it might be best to be ready for the argument, as well as what would evidence any nominee or even agency status. Now if the banksters used the MBS investors’ money, that’s a horse of another color (embezzlement, theft, whatever, right?), but still….. And as to agency, well, we’ve already seen what passes as evidence of agency – right at nothing. Imo, the language in the dot, for instance, recites a novation, a substitution of a party, not agency. The pi&&ing match imo re: novation v agency is in the best case law. Some says intent (of the original party and the novated party) is relevant and others say it means nada. The banksters have to fight tooth and nail for agency v novation, because if MERS is not an agent, there is not a complete mtg loan contract. Novation is the substitution of one party for another, generally (but it can also be the substitution of one contract for another). If the lender is not the original ben being sub’d by MERS, it’s possible it’s not even a novation and there just isn’t a complete contract between any two parties. I can’t overlook that the NV SC, for one, determined that MERS’ presence in the dot split the note and dot (but ruled, illogically imo and without particular reference to any part of the Restatement it cited, that they could be “re-united”).
I’ve opined, vigorously even, that these trusts can’t own real estate (by successful credit bid or any other way) and can’t “do business’. Given that I’m just a lay person without a lot of stuff at my disposal, I’m wondering why those who do, including LL, have not addressed this matter and provided some finite answers. If these trusts can’t own real estate, wouldn’t it go a long way to support MERS’ non-agent status? If I’m wrong and MERS is an agent (not!), then the trusts are owning real estate, but for the honky credit bid assignments precluding this. If the assignment is to an agent, does that not make the trust the owner still (just thru its agent), whereas a credit bid assignment to a non-agent doesn’t? If a credit bid is “assigned” to a non-agent to preclude the trust from owning r.e., what is the relationship between the non-agent and the trustee? None. So how’s that work? They didn’t have to contend with any of that before the MERS’ Consent Order, but they do now, hence the assignments and illegitimate credit bid “assignments” to others, not “MERS”. The fact that 1099s are issued by others, not the trusts, should tell us “some stuff”. Even if the trusts ultimately end up with the money from the sale of the real estate after f/c, which is doubtful at best imo, it doesn’t change the fact that a third party, not the alleged lender, the trust, is foreclosing. They now (post-Consent Order) bring the paperwork in the name of the trust and someone else makes the credit bid which would find that someone else in title by way of the trustee’s deed. So we’re being fooled about who’s doing what. plus on FNMA loans (and others), the investors are being kept whole by the guarantee payments in the first place, so they can’t call the note. We’re approaching 2014. Why is no one introducing the FNMA guarantee? It’s hard to know if a loan went thru a GSE. You’d think if one got a real sh$t-pie loan, that would say it didn’t, but who knows since they abandoned underwriting standards in favor of seven-figure production bonuses (yes, they did). Reminder fwiw: making a predatory loan is a criminal offense, not just a civil affair. More than one person here has approached his AG with pred lending issues and been ignored, in a word. I’d bet that the AG in most if not all states is in fact charged with prosecuting that crime and ignoring it is derelictionof duty (and who knows what else).
The standard for evidence of Treason was first determined in
U.S. v Burr in 1807. (Whether or not he deserved to be deemed a traitor or if it were purely political, got me). But I believe that all those who participated in the scheme which undermined our national well-being qualify for that determination: they’re traitors. This is where i wish I had a crystal ball, because some of us won’t be around to find out what history makes of this abomination.
@Concerned
Thanks. Just that you cared makes me feel better. I believe in alternatives. I take zero medicine, eat organically and rarely suffer a cold or sinus problem but when i do its a whammy.
We should all put a piece of garlic on our neck like they did in 1918
AND HANG OUT IN THE BANKS TILL WE GET SOME RESULTS.
@ marilyn lane,
I used to catch every possible cold or flu bug and then have a bacterial infection set up shop in my sinuses. I’d be down with bronchitis, nearing pneumonia.
That would happen several times per year regardless of the treatment from my doc. He would only grudgingly prescribe the antibiotics that were needed ultimately. The last time I saw him, he intended to send me for sinus surgery as soon as I was sufficiently mended. Well, that was back in 2007. No, the threat of surgery did not, in itself stop the cycle. What DID stop it ALL was to start taking colloidal silver, which is a solution of pure water with silver ions present. You buy it either from a health food store or online. I have stopped taking all the steroids that the doc was prescribing, I no longer need anti-histimines or even the saline nasal spray that were all part of the doc’s treatment. I regularly take one teaspoon of the silver solution daily. The one thing you have to do is to take it on an empty tummy and wait 30 minutes before you consume anything that could have even trace amounts of sodium. If you fail to do this, the silver will not be absorbed but will just harmlessly be eliminated as waste.
After a lifetime of sinus infections, to have the past 6 years of complete relief from them is WONDERFUL. (BTW, with the silver solution keeping the infections at bay, I was able to discern that I actually had an egg allergy, in addition to other already known allergies. The egg allergy was apparently keeping my sinuses continually inflamed, just the perfect condition for any virus or bacteria to invade, much like having a cut on your hand that you don’t protect as you get the area dirty and then get an infected cut.
So, with a bad flu season predicted, give the silver solution a try. It works on BOTH virus and bacteria. BTW, the cream that is used to treat those skin lesions where the bacteria is resistant to all the ‘usually used’ antibiotics? That cream that you have to have a prescription for? Guess what the ACTIVE ingredient is? SILVER. (Docs are trained to back that, but the drug companies have them so brain-washed that they normally will not back usage of the colloidal silver.) Since my situation was one caused by an underlying allergy, the surgery that never happened would also NOT have cured the problem. I need to continue the silver solution since certain of the allergens are still present, and I also still have trace amount of egg product in my diet since it is hard to completely avoid.
To those sick during this holiday season, yet doing battle (or you would not be here): You need your strength, so GET WELL SOON.
I’m wishing all here a MUCH more prosperous and happy new year!
my cold has turned into a flu.
I wish you all a good 2014.
Neid you are right. It did not seem like he heard or even really looked at what I filed- he did mention my poor pro`se writing took him a while to read….which is a good reason to be distracted…You know what really makes me FURIOUS-
the Judge asked something about the endorsement in blank…why it was in blank…who it was to be endorsed to….
The plaintiff said it was endorsed to ‘ who ever has the current possession of it now ‘ – as in “not me..as in ‘whoever it went to’ while gesturing off with his hand.
WHAT THE HELL!
It took everything in my power to not jump up and scream ” motion to dismiss!”
I asked the Judge – I said your honor ………..you said not too long ago…to have standing – one must have possession of the note, which is true……………and your honor………..the plaintiff just said the note was endorsed on to someone else that has POSSESSION OF THE NOTE…………..yet he claims he has it NOW……………….
APPARENTLY THAT DID NOT MATTER !
I am screaming mad hatter piping pist the hell freeking irate about that!
Flibben A!
The SELLERS did not pay off the mortgage when we got the house- They have had their mortgage up until 2012!
I didn’t know this when the complaint of foreclosure was filed so it was not ” in the record” .I said your honor…………the plaintiff has not one time -after several times requesting it through discovery, QWR’S- IN COURT- not one time offered any proof they purchased the “loan” or gave anything for “value” ………….
I asked the Judge ….”seeing as the sellers mortgage was not paid off until SEVEN YEARS after we apparently “bought” the house – UNTIL SEVEN YEARS ………how has any conclusion been made that any funds were actually dispersed anywhere? The understanding was a “lender” would pay for the property and then we would pay him back……somethign along those lines…………..but your honor…………who was paid if the sellers have been paying their mortgage this entire time! Both parties, buyers and sellers, both paying for the same land….at athe same time……..I would beg to differ any money went anywhere………….what HAVE we been paying for this entire time? It was not the land – because it was never paid off to be purchased……..
I want to swear so bad right now.And scream.Just go outside and go total ape shit in the snow.
UTMOST IMPORTANT THINGS ARE OUTSTANDING YOUR HONOR …THAT ENTIRELY EFFECT EVERY FIBER OF THIS CASE……..no no no no no no no no ..It is too late he says.
iwantmynpv I will agree that the Robo signing was an distraction from the real issue of all the forgeries conducted and is why they did not deal with my Whistle-blower claim at that time. Szymoniak v, Ace was not Robo signing but mass forgeries. The were naming this Robo signers which was a term that does not really imply a criminal act but a bad practice.
Why bank don’t admit to a criminal act is because they cannot stay in business as a convicted felony. So we must keep in mind if you seeing Note that are alter by signature or suddenly there is an enter were there was a know blank endorsement or a addition endorse after the loans were placed into a Ginnie Mae pool, now you got counterfeiting as the Note is a bank note and is the same as a US dollar bill.
I am also saying the security instrument (mortgage, deed of trust, security deed) when forged are part of the counterfeiting process because it is an extension of the Note, and that what being done is to trick all involve to make not only court but future purchasers of the property out of currency in exchange for the clear title.
They are clearing the deck now to deal with this situation, because they are caught and the only solution is to start over and take the 90% and reconfirm these debts, and make some settlement with those crying about the past abuse. If they don’t try up the lose end, the lame attorney will be given a road map to all the remaining victims.
I believe that as with JPMorgan who got $308 billion in WaMu assets for $1.9 billion and so what $30 billion in total (past & future) in settling it all? The same for Countrywide and BOA, and WaMu government loans and Wells Fargo, plus all the others in Wachovia, IndyMac and any other failed banks.
One more thing is that the FDIC cannot simply have some agreement to be able to assume these loans if the bank they are seizing does not actually have ownership of and the FDIC is not a member of MERS and MERS cannot and is not signing these assignments to FDIC!
Does anyone have the ABA press release .. it’s been removed?
OOPS, time for the medicine. Try to enjoy the New Year, it does bring hope, and in the end, it is all we have.
if you are representing yourself pro / per Se for your foreclosure action, you should consider using the following advice to gain an upper-hand on the bank’s attorney(s).
Just prior to the hearing – tell the bank lawyer you have a question and need to speak to them in the hallway outside the court. When out of complete view of bystanders, show them a picture of your family, and then smack them right in the mouth with a white glove and challenge them to a duel at 20 paces.
When you get out of jail – any new counsel attending future conferences will be flustered by fear. At a minimum, we will reduce a significant amount of scourge from the planet.
TSMIMITW
All kidding aside, how did the single most important post by NG get washed down to a robo-signing argument.
NO CAUSE OF ACTION!
YOU ARE NOT DAMAGED!!
BLANK ENDORSEMENT IS FROM CLOSING BANK – NOT THE SELLER OR DEPOSITOR.
ASSIGNMENT IS FROM AN ENTITY THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ASSIGN ANYTHING AT ANYTIME TO THE TRUST.
THE NOTES ARE NEVER ASSIGNED TO THE TRUST UNTIL DEFAULT – AND IF NOT FOR MERS (NOMINEE / AGENT) DECISION – THEY STILL WOULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TO THE TRUSTEE, EVEN AFTER A DEFAULT HAD OCCURRED AT SUB-SERVICER LEVEL.
ANY NOTES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH AN “FDIC BATH” MUST BE SHOWN ON THE LOAN SCHEDULE ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE LOSS SHARE / ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT.
THE NPV TOOL IS A LOAN DECISION ENGINE UTILIZED BY FANNIE AND FREDDIE TO DETERMINE IF ANY PARTICULAR LOAN CAN BE RE-SECURITIZED INTO A 40 YEAR TRUST, WHEREBY THE MBS ARE PURCHASED BY UNCLE BENNY AND HIS CRONIES.
Now, for your information – Robo-signing is another distraction created by the banks. When they were hung out on Ibanez – they knew they were going to have to come clean – or lose individual cases, or worse, a class action brought by the people.
The lenders approached the FED and had them work with the AG’s to bring about a rather trivial settlement. It would have cost more if private counsel had gotten the ball rolling, and than the AG’s stepped in and took the case over. It also looks bad for the AG’s to snap-up a private sector class suit.
Ask yourselves one simple question. How did Fannie and Freddie achieve a an astounding net number during the most difficult economic period? Doesn’t anyone find it coincidental that the timing of interest rate increases coincides with the 6 year statute on the 2008 legacy crap that was underwritten and securtized?
Let’s see how many HAMP mods are done during 2014? People are going on the streets over the next 3 years. All mods will be un-affordable under HAMP Guidelines,and tier 2 HAMP will be irrelevant because he Freddie Index will be closer to 5.75% by the end of 2014.
Save what you can – pack your bags and look at FL, TN, NC and TX for your next move. I am!!!!
@ Christine – NPV nominates the Irish lass for the best typo of 2013;
Agente777,
One more thing: “if the “”Load”” was void under New York Law for late assignment to the trust?”
The new NY CPLR – If the male counterpart takes too long (possibly due to alcohol consumption) – The load is void.under NY Trust Law.
Females everywhere are quickly jumping on the decision, and requiring all potential “whiskey dick’s” to submit to a breathalyzer prior to to any attempt to insert anything – into their trust.
“Yo, it’s been 45 minutes – your shit is void”. “Now get off fatty, and go get me a lemonade for putting up with your lame ass”.
I couldn’t help it.
TSMIMITW
Christine
you need labor to produce over a million counterfeit anythings and when DOCX closed in Alpharetta i would assume some peope losr their jobs and that would be a good place to start talking to ex employees about DOCX operations.
Christine
Don’t call me a tin brain because you don’t know that on April 12, 2010 LPS closed the office of their subsidiary DOCX LLP
in Alphareiia GEORGIA where there produced over a million fraudulent documents.
Tin-foil brain: what does Georgia have to do with it? Anyone, anywhere can do it. The blogger who demonstrated it for me is in… NY! Servicer in NY hires foreclosure mill in CA to set up the foreclosure. Servicer has access to the e-file. Foreclosure mill has access to the e-file. (ever heard of e-mail with attachments? Oh God! Tell me it’s an act. Pleaaaase.)
Anyone of them can edit it. For all we know, if it went through several servicers, anyone of them could, at any time, do it.
Stop looking for government to fix your problems. Government is who caused them in the first place.
all
if you sell a car with a counterfeit Title- you go to jail..
but a house not important?
The reason Robo signing was a non issue is because nobody actually understood what exactly who Robo signing was, but DocX not a RoBo signer the are a forgery outfit and the founder in jail for forgeries, and not some notary who is signing their signature to documents there was no way possible that all these 10,000 document could be reviewed in one day.
Judges should not say that the forgery is OK because it a criminal offense and I don’t see why the court not referring criminal act that are found in their courts for criminal investigations.
However I think that the term Robo signing has gotten confused and I see why a judge make close his mind to that term. If it about some supervisor in Minn for Wells Fargo who was suppose to review the 10,000 document in one day but sign off on them as he actual witness the signature, then that not forgery if the actual signature where there. Now that does not make it right but if it really had no effect on the foreclosures and simply having that document signed again and properly witness, I don’t see the court overturning a foreclosure.
However in the case of DocX and all these people signing that Linda Green was the VP of Operations for 20 bank and she was endorsing assignment and the bank had had not authorization to assign the security instrument, then that forgery and is why the founder in Lorraine Brown is in prison.
Here is what I wrote to Sen Warren and what I believe she is doing and why. I said Lorraine Brown has a record of all the forgeries she performed and who they were done for, so why is not that data base being used to point out exactly who purchase the forgeries and who the victims are. This is why I believe they are now agreeing to a settlement because Warren want a list of the victims so that we can see who received a insurance claim from that loan file.
It not about us unless we bring the damages that are against the Fed Gov.
But I don’t know why a Judge if presented a forgery in a case allows the criminal to profit form the crime. It show that as the banks filed the forgeries that they could not prove ownership or they simply would have!
All
were all the docx documents produced in one plant or location?
If it was Georgia, why aren’t the Feds looking for people in that area
who did the set ups and operated the machinery?
Oh… and by the way: I am not affirming that it was done. What I am suggesting is that, by comparing the original copies of documents and those filed by banks, it should be easy to see that signatures moved up or down the page based on what was added or removed by editing after the fact.
Same exact initial or signature (when no one signs twice the exact same way) on two similar but not identical documents… that should raise a few eyebrows.
Agente777,
I think you’re missing my point. It is not an electronic signature: it is a legitimate, blue ink signature on a document subsequently tampered with by being edited.
I believe that whatever has been pleaded thus far turned around “electronic signature” and didn’t fly. That LPS/Docx has been on my mind for a very long time and i couldn’t figure out why it bothered me so much. Likewise, that Corelogic thing has been bugging me to no end.
Eventually, we’ll get to the bottom of it. I’d rather it be sooner than later…
@ Justme ,
Sounds like you actually had a judge that was listening to the arguments and found yours to be wanting… You’re not at the appeal stage yet … if you feel that something was overlooked or a procedural mistake by the judge caused the loss I’d file a motion for rehearing… and watch the time periods… print out your procedures and highlite them.
I lost a MSJ 3 weeks ago where the judge had pre-signed the ruling… ignored my timely motion to compel discovery and a notice that I intended to rely upon that discovery and a deposition, judge ignored the banks expert witness depo statement where he had no clue where the assignment came from … it wasn’t in the file last year and now it’s here?? expert also stated he didn’t know if WF was aware of the procedings taking place in their name… judge also ignored case law regarding curing a standing issue after filing… PISSED? You Betcha..especially as a prior judge saw major errors in plaintiffs case (which they haven’t cured or properly addressed) and set a trial date…
Read through your states civil procedures , file motions regarding newly discovered evidence and get that rehearing… in my instance I have REAMS of evidence STRONGLY IMPLYING that WF has absolutely no standing and that a party (BAC) that is a stranger to the evidence presented is the party in interest… but I need that discovery because I only have a part of the money trail… All I need is one judge to compel discovery and I know I get a voluntary dismissal from plaintiff…
HANG IN THERE AND GIVE ‘EM HELL
at the same time, I will agree with Christine, judges are not looking into it any more. one of Glaski’s claim agains BofA was robo signers. the judge threw that claim out the window. What was valid was the FACT that the loan was void under new your law and there fore BofA did not hold a valid note… Forging documents will be another matter.
@ JUSTME ,
Give them the affidavit ,,, “to the best of my ability and knowledge I attest that the xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx” , sign it in front of a notary and submit it to the court ,, the clerk may help you as this isn’t a “legal” question … more of a legal form letter.
@Charles Reed
Indecomm Global Services should be added next to LPS. They also have robo-signers…
Charles Reed,
You’re mixing apples and oranges. As far as HOMEOWNERS and JUDGES are concerned today, it has become a non issue.
Whatever regulators decide to do is completely irrelevant at this juncture.
christine I don’t think the Robo signing is over as right now the OCC & Fed are in negotiations with LPS in a $200 million settlement and are saying that they are going to give some of that monies to homeowners. Sen Warren is after the Robo signing as she has written letter to all the regulator why these crimes were not referred to law enforcement.
I believe that as so many people have written Warren at her request and she answer then, as she had a temporary staff help her with the matter and exchange letters and phone calls.
But because of Szymoniak v. Ace I don’t see away that they don’t also have some type of settlement with MERS as the complaint was aimed at both DocX/LPS and MERS. As this piece is saying the no trust can bring a foreclosure. These securities with these blank Notes don’t have any underlying collateral as the are not secured.
@christine
It is very serious. Electronic signatures should not be accepted. It is extremely easy to recreate a document. Anyone with computer graphics skills can do it. Even with basic graphics skills. Can you image how many documents I may have signed with photoshop? I had a document sent to me by a serviser with a font signature. Really? They think I will not notice? It was not even a scanned signature cut and paste…
Thanks
I have repplied
I send it only to people who clearly identify themselves, with a name, phone number and such. cbrightlife@aol.com
Agente777:
Robot signing has been tried. After the 60 minutes piece, banks walked away with a slap on the wrist and the infamous settlement no one ever saw a cent from. It’s become common knowledge and, since government agreed to “forgive” it in exchange for empty and unkept promises of never doing it ever again, judges consider the issue settled once and for all. Robot signing is NOT where we need to go.
Proving that anyone can tamper with any document of any electronic file is much more serious: it means that no one is protected. Anyone can go into your medical records and “fix” them. Or your bank records, Any electronic file record. This is much more serious than 4 million foreclosures. It becomes NSA serious! 320 million people can be affected.
@christine
Can I see your QWR?
The reason it is so important to know it is this: in judicial state, foreclosure has to be filed in court with all supporting documents. I do not recall anyone filing immediately a Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the documents introduced by the bank were not the documents originally signed and claiming unclean hands right off the bat. I really believe that the best defenses are usually the most simple ones. I remember attorneys arguing that the signature were forges, allonges that were once stapled had been removed and such things. So far, it has not been very effective.
Likewise, if it is that easy to do, I would want my attorney to demonstrate it in court for the judge during the hearing on the motion or for a jury if I attacked first. We’re looking for much too complicated theories. A picture is worth thousand words. And since everything nowadays has become part of an electronic file. I can see judges and juries getting very worried about their own documents if it is easily demonstrated that anyone could tamper with them AFTER that have been signed.
@christine
It is very true. I can scan a document, create a PDF out of it. convert that file into an editable document and save it as a doc. pdf. and even a jpeg or any other format. I have looked at an assignment of mortgage recorded 9 years after the closing date. The person who had the file recorded claims to work for MERS. The person who prepared the assignment works for Indecomm Global Services and the Notary public appears to be a robo signer who has singed as a vice president, assistant vice president limited signing officer and others for US Bank, PHH Mortgage, MERS. But she also works for Indecomm Global services LLP as so does the person who requested the document to be recorded. I have notice that the notary public stamp has been modified. So has the amount owed. When documents are forged, it is FRAUD. I am not claiming that I did not asked for a loan. But the way I see it, even after I pay off my house, someone else will claim it as theirs not mine. THAT IS FRAUD! I will gather all the documents and evidence necessary to file quiet title to eliminate any one who may want to steal my property.
@Trespass Unwanted Fraud is fraud and cannot be eliminated with more fraud. If I photo copy a 100 bill and pass it along and it goes from one person to another it will not turn into a real bill. the person who gets cough with it will go to jail for counterfeiting…
@justme
quote from BabeRuth
“every strike i make brings me closer to the next homerun.
To All:
Something has been broached a few times on this site but no one seems to have actually been able to demonstrate how it’s done.
Remember the number of people who noticed glaring DISCREPANCIES between the copies of the documents signed by them and received within a week of closing, and those introduced by the banks at a later date, during foreclosure procedings? Their signatures are on them, their initials are on them too but… they don’t look like the original ones! Paragraphs are different, clauses and provisions have been edited, parties are different, etc.
One of you asked me to send him my QWR. I no longer had the word doc but I had the hard copy, which I scanned and e-mailed him. A few days later, he sent me back… the actual microsoft word of my doc that i was then able to save back, as a regular doc.
Here is what he wrote (and i believe it is very important if you intend to put up a serious fight):
“Turns out that pdf or image files can be opened in OneNote, edited, text copied to Word or saved as a pdf.”
LPS is Docx. There is reason most assignments and transfers were never recorded: homeowners would have been able much earlier to compare the docs and figure out what had been done and half the foreclosures would not have taken place.
Pull out your closing docs. Contact your original lender and demand a copy of the docs he sent to the servicers. Do it now. I think you won’t regret it.
justme what I did to get verification, is to have the letter of sale loan and fax of the current Note image sent to the regulator and then I requested that information from the regulator, even that the bank had sent the information to me. I felt as what your experiencing that they would deny they sent it even that there was no their letter head and ink signature!
Maybe you can go back and have the regulator work for you by sending what you have from them, and may them say whether or not this was the communication between you and them!
Mary,
What position?
No longer foreclosed by BOA as trustee…..so on and so forth…
under a new contract to pay per the modification and under the terms of the modification for foreclosure if payment(s) is missed.
Trespass Unwanted
Concerned,
The DOT is the initial agreement, but a lender can create an assignment of the DOT to another without changing the wording on the DOT and that new ‘grantee’ is named when you check the records in real estate at the county clerk’s office.
Once the assignment is made, that grantee can do things with that DOT including providing notice and if the DOT allows, assigning a different trustee.
The chain gets broken when one claims a right to the DOT and has no acknowledgment of it being assigned to them, or they don’t create a NOD and all of a sudden there is a transfer of the papers.
There’s a lot of paperwork in a DOT.
There is paperwork filed in DEED section, and if there was a NOD it has it’s own section, and assignment of trustee would be in an assignment section.
Real estate records have many categories, and birth certificates are filed there. We are from the earth, and our birth is considered real estate in many ways….the estate is real, and also as in the birth certificate identifying a property that was birth (like a ship going through some canal -birth canal- and docking at some port and making a delivery, as in a delivery of some goods), real estate.
There are parallel realities going on at the same time.
Didn’t mean to confuse by my answer.
You must see all the recordings between you and the purported lender.
The clerks will not answer legal questions but they can help you look for all records that contain both your CAP name as the Grantor or Grantee of paperwork.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Independent, People, State, Free, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Sorry. Typo alert. … “serving as a buffer between”…
Justme,
Chin up. Judge has no immunity. The other side, I can guess, may not have an affidavit at all. An affidavit is simple, This information is true, correct and complete under penalty of perjury, or this is a statement of fact under penalty of perjury, and anything that is true, or a fact can hold an affidavit together.
I received this letter in the mail from such and such location.
The contents are not yours, so you don’t have to affirm anything you don’t control.
Appeal is used to show error in the court decision, something you presented that was ignored or not properly addressed.
I hope you have something appealable, and a timely notice of appeal is within a few days of the judgment is my comprehension, again I know nothing.
Agente777
There is no fraud. You pay who you pay of your free will.
All courts recognize a maxim of law
.
Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.
Presumptions have to be broken as soon as presented otherwise it holds. It is presumed to be your account now.
If you ever watch Judge Judy, there’s usually a case of someone paying someone and stop paying.
She asks them if they paid the other party and once the answer is yes, she’ll go down the months to ask if they paid this month, and this month, and with each yes she develops a pattern of paying and a contract by gesture in the payment. When they stop payment she asks why they stopped and the answer is, I didn’t owe them any money and her response is that by paying the other side has come to rely on the payment and they can’t just stop payment.
No fraud there, contracts can be on a handshake, pricking fingers, pinky swears, a tie to join to hands together, a ring on each finger, and so on and so forth, also a payment coupon sent and a payment returned is a valid contract.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Justme,
I am terribly sorry. I know how you feel. If you do plan to appeal, please don’t do it on your own. For one thing, having an attorney drtbing as a buffer betaeen the court and you takes a lot out of the emotional ordeal. For another, appeals court is a bitch to navigate and most people get nailed on procedure.
Well guys I lost today, with flying colors might I add. The Judge wanted EVERYTHING entered in an affidavit. How can I authenticate a letter from the VP of the servicer? ..”I swear this was mailed to me by the VP and I swear she made it?..” ..yes, creating an affidavit on hearsay is a wonderful idea…? Pssh. I cannot make an affidavit swearing to what I do not know. FUDDDDGE NUGGETS. I am fine, totally mind fucked, super dooper in triplicate mind fucked, but fine. Join the bunch at the appellate level I spose. CHIN UP.
Broken chain of Title = Unjust enrichment to the bankster.
Once the chain of title is broken the banksters can and probably sold the same loan multiple times. Pretty much the oldest scam in the book the brooklyn bridge scam.
http://bigislandpublishers.com/they-could-sell-you-the-brooklyn-bridge/
So I am gonna do a loan modification where my appraisal is again higher than real market value The banksters have artificially raised the prices and not they have a new loan they can break the chain of title with and sell it multiple time.
Okay.
My Deed of Trust has one loan number which is not the same to what we send our monthly payments to… Can you smell Fraud BIG TIME?
My deed of trust is in conflict with having EITHER the Trustee OR the SERVICER declare the DEFAULT. The DOT specifies the LENDER is to give notice of acceleration to the borrower. That notice is to specify the default and the action to cure it. So there is not any part of the default that is to be handled by the servicer, per the DOT.
Nowhere in the DOT does the document refer to the ‘successors and assigns” of the LENDER. The only beneficiary is MERS.
By CONTRAST, much verbage is present in the DOT regarding the BORROWER’S successors or assigns.
Given that the named LENDER never existed, and therefore the PSA and other documents do not apply, I simply see a void document that the SUB-SERVICER has no proof of any right to enforce.
Neil ,
Hope you’re reading these comments … PLEASE look at the recent AIG V. BOA suit where AIG was attempting to recover from BOA on bad underwriting …. I know that AIG dropped the case but it is still valuable … VERY VALUABLE
HUGE DISCLOSURE IN PLAIN SIGHT
BOA WAS UNDERWRITER TO THE Option One MBS’s !! ,,, Option One didn’t just use BAC’s table funding … Option One did nothing but collect a broker fee … BOA processed/approved/wrote the loans… just do a text search on FXD2 to jump to the good part … Wells Fargo as trustee is foreclosing on the OO MBS notes with obviously forged or invalid assignments showing a sale from OO==>WF … this obviously didn’t happen,, if anything WF would have paid BAC … looks like BAC remains involved in some way…
Too funny…
“Wells Fargo, the only bank with a get away vehicle on its logo”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wells-fargo-pays-591-mln-in-fannie-mae-settlement-2013-12-30
Wells Fargo in $591 million Fannie Mae settlement
By Saabira Chaudhuri
Wells Fargo & Co. on Monday reached a $591 million deal with Fannie Mae to settle claims that it sold defective mortgages to the government-controlled home-loan financier.
Adjusted for credits related to previous repurchases, Wells Fargo will pay $541 million. As of the end of its third quarter, the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. had accrued for the cost of the settlement in full.
Wells Fargo said the deal resolves all of the potential buyback demands it had pertaining to loans sold to Fannie Mae that were originated before 2009.
While Fannie, and its smaller sibling Freddie Mac, don’t make loans directly, they support housing markets by buying mortgages from banks and then selling them to investors as securities, providing guarantees. During the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie augmented their role in the housing market by purchasing privately issued securities as investments.
Fannie, and Freddie can force banks to buy back mortgages that don’t conform to agreed-upon guidelines, and both companies have demanded that lenders repurchase billions in soured loans over the past four years.
The federal regulator for Fannie and Freddie has directed the firms to reduce repurchase demands outstanding by year-end.
The U.S. Treasury in 2008 rescued Fannie and Freddie as mortgage losses mounted. All told, the two received more than $150 billion in infusions to stay afloat. They have become highly profitable over the past year and are close to having paid as much to the U.S. in dividends as the government was forced to inject to stabilize the firms.
Wells Fargo’s deal with Fannie comes after Deutsche Bank AG recently said it would pay $1.93 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which controls Freddie and Fannie over mortgage securities the bank sold to the mortgage giants during last decade’s U.S. housing bubble.
However Deutsche Bank’s settlement doesn’t resolve separate litigation filed earlier this year by Fannie and Freddie against it and other Wall Street firms over losses the mortgage giants allege they sustained from manipulation of interest rates.
In late November, Fifth Third Bancorp agreed to pay $25 million to Freddie Mac to settle claims that it sold soured mortgages to the agency. Other banks that have recently settled with Freddie or Fannie include SunTrust Banks Inc., Citigroup Inc.–and also on Monday, Flagstar Bancorp Inc.
Nick Timiraos contributed to this article.
I don’t think Citi or Bank of America became successor to LaSalle as it pertains to Abn Amro securitazions because only the depositor banks and their branches and deposits were sold at that time. The securitization part of ABN Amro was bought without any due diligence mind you by the Royal Bank of Scotland.
At the time, Barclay’s was planning to buy all of Abn Amro when RBS attempted a hostile take over of Abn Amro which in turn decided to sell of their LaSalle Bank branches to try to dissuade RBS from the takeover. RBS planned on breaking up the company anyway so they moved forward with the deal without looking at their books. This caused the collapse of RBS in the end. WHat they bohjt specifically was the securitazion portion of Abn because that is what RBS wanted, to get into the securitization business.
Why anyone other than RBS would be successor is astonishing and a blatant fraud.
Watch the Documentary on RBS for the whole story. The LaSalle Bank part begins at about 30 minutes.
RBS – Inside The Bank That Ran Out Of Money
http://youtu.be/st40Gps08KI
I just want to say to the hater that I been talking about these things being rescinded and starting over again, so why would not most borrowers resign a Deed of Trust because at this point they not been damaged and to prevent in the future when the loan is wanting to be paid off there are no issues as to who is owe what and the counties can get there records back on track, plus you throw a bone in recording fees and to the homeowners a $25 gift certificate a bank CD or something.
As Neil is saying most homeowners are just honest people, and I say to prevent problems in the future why would you not settle this matter now as to titling? Who got the money to fight some trillion dollar asset corporation?
What does this mean for Deutsch as a Trustee? Does the same disclaimer apply?
We know WaMu was seized and by Ginnie Mae rule when the “issuer” has defaulted the loan in the Ginnie Mae pool are conveyed over to MBS and any and all financial interest is conveyed to Ginnie Mae per HUD 11711A. Although the loan were already relinquished at the start, when the loan was placed into the pool.
So Wells Fargo Bank already admits they don’t own the loans even that they had the assignment of deed of trust transfer to then as the “holder” not “holder in due course” and also has the substitution of trustee transfer to Wells by MERS.
However if we look at the date on the documents and the Notice of Default and Substitution of Trustee which are dated on Oct 20, 2009 and the Assignment of Deed of Trust dated on Oct 22, 2009, the action is brought by the Trustee first and then the fake transfer which to the court which look like a sale, but as all three documents delivered at the same time and the Assignment is given the first security instrument number in the order the document must be filed. However it the date that the documents were signed that either give or don’t give it correct authority.
However that we know now that Wells Fargo is not the lender of these WaMu loans as they did not purchase them and bring this action by the Trustee, but we know for a fact that Ginnie Mae does not provide the monies for the origination of loans. There are 1.3 million ex-WaMu government insured loans that Wells Fargo Bank was servicing and at a 3% loan loss rate, would be 39,000 loans with an average $10,000 insurance claim on the average FHA & VA loan is $390 million time 3 for treble damage is $1.17 billion the taxpayer is due.
We know from the OCC matrix that 20% of the HAMPs foreclosure were 20% of the 4.2 million applications and we also know that 800,000 of those applications that were not even reviewed by the servicer and were simple foreclosed instead according to the OCC, Fed and academia study doe and release Sept 2012.
As iwantamynpv was saying in the last column about the NPV that the servicer was suppose to be running on these loan. But the servicers did not supply the homeowners the NPV report or a Borrowers Notice so that they could be disputed if the modification was not approved. The did not provide or even actually run the NPV because these government loan could not be modified if in a Ginnie Mae pool at all!
I know I been called crazy, and this maybe partly true as we all are, but we are all here because we know something is not just right, and most have been screw over or we would not be writing as long. But it is a combination of what we all been saying, and we need to stay after this bums, because what done in the dark will come through in the light!
I do understand that the instrument would have toe be void by agreement or by the court. I know my loan was assigned late to the trust (9 years late) not only was late but was also part of the lawsuit brought against JP Morgan by the FHFA which resulted in settlement. “RAMP 2005-RS9”. And also know that it does fall under new your law per the PSA…
You are absolutely right. They want everything NOW. with not time to really analyze the documents. They sent it twice to us. a month late from when they wanted us to returned it. Both times we told them the dates were wrong and based on that we were late returning the documents. They said it was OK. The document was not even required to be notarized. And if it was, the document did not comply with California notary requirements.
Agente777,
One more thing: “if the Load was void under New York Law for late assignment to the trust?”
There is a huge difference between “void” and “voidable”. A contract can only be voided by agreement of all parties to same or by court order. Fraud might render a contract “voidable” but until it has been officially ruled “void”, it ain’t so and you’re stuck with it.
Agente777,
That’s why I always strongly recommend anyone considering a modification not to go at it alone. In fact, I refer people to my own attorney all the time just so that they don’t get screwed by the bank during the mod process. Simple precaution… And by the way, for some reason, as soon as banks appear willing to give the mod, all of a sudden, everything has to be signed “now, now”. That simple fact raises so many flags, when people tell me about it, the hairs in my neck rise.
Have you already signed everything? Read all the docs you signed. Look up all the jargon they pulled on you if you’re not sure about the meaning of the words. Highlight everything you’re not sure of and consult an attorney. Well worth the $500 he may charge you for it.
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLP sent me one They are not a bank. The problem I am having is that there is also a full reconveyance recorded. It is my understanding that a full reconveyance is recorded only when the note has been satisfied and no more lean on the property. Everything we have been doing is in good faith. I feel they are taking advantage….
Agente777,
That’s a question for a NY attorney.
Also, if I recall, by accepting a modification, you agree to start with a clean slate. It goes both ways. Read all the paperwork from A to Z: most likely, you signed a release, with fairly blanket indemnification agreement and hold harmless, in which case there’s is nothing you can do about BM (before modification). I can’t imaginer any bank agreeing to modify anything without that guaranty. It’s lawyering 101.
A question arises, can you still sue them after modification for fraud? specially if the Load was void under New York Law for late assignment to the trust?
Here is a fresh link to the American Bankers Associations white paper:
http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/press/RoleoftheTrusteeinAsset-BackedSecuritiesJuly2010.pdf
I have downloaded it before they remove it again…
KAC,
That’s what QWRs are for. I would send one to every entity, past and present, SLS included. After the requisite 60 days, sue the pants out of them, jointly and severally, since you won’t get jack in terms of answer. And, in the meantime, go back to as far as you can and start going over all your statements to see if there is any discrepancy in the accounting.
Great job Neil
So we get a loan modification and they get to sell the same loan multiple times ala the brooklyn bridge. They get unjust enrichment and we get unjust slavery payments
Let’s see here. We have.
Origination with BOA. Fannie Mae investor. Somehow also in a trust. No assignments or recordings. Large down payment, no idea where money went. Got the mortgage, even though, while still having another mortgage on separate house. BOA switched account # for no valid reason, while still current and in good standing (but did request modification)…switched from BOA NA to BOA Home Mortgage and back again …..note stamped in blank. BOA did all it could to deny modification but best I can tell FANNIE got involved and made them modify. Took the modification on this one, as I didn’t want to take a chance having two houses stolen. (Looks like a wise decision based on results so far of other house)……My educated belief is Fraud , Fraud, Fraud but don’t know where to even begin on this one….especially when having more concrete proof on other house and getting very little positive results (yet !!!)
@all
it used to be bribe money to a judge like Alice Schlesinger was hidden by simply buying clothes for cash , now with electronic banking big sums can be hidden from investors and IRS.
Has anyone tracing down a trail noticed?
where can you find the purchase and sales agreements for the sale of mortgage servicing rights? I was notified in Nov that BoA sold the MSRs to Specialized Loan Servicing LLC effec Dec 1. In Feb 2013, BoA started litigation to force me to sign a new mortgage as the Countrywide loan I obtained in 2007 was never recorded. They are suing as BoA only; Anyway, in the midst of litigation, the MSRs get sold to SLS, LLC…the attorney is claiming that SLS is only a subservicer, but has yet to come up with proof of that. I found the purchase and sales agreement effec Jan 2013 from BoA to Nationwide for MSRs on line and it does not indicate a subservicer relationship–it was a true sale. Would love to find the same P&S agreement between BoA and SLS, but it’s not showing on the internet! Where should I look???
So what position is a person in when they were served with foreclosure by BOA, as trustee by way of merger to Lasalle Bank as trustee for GSAMP 2007HE2 and they entered into a modification agreement??? ( New Century Mortgage Corp originator)?