It is this undisclosed yield spread premium that produces the pool from which I believe the servicer advances are actually being paid. Intense investigation and discovery will probably reveal the actual agreements that show exactly that. In the meanwhile I encourage attorneys to look carefully at the issue of “servicer advances” as a means to defeat the foreclosure in its entirety.
As usual, the best decisions come from cases where the parties involved in “securitization” are fighting with each other. When a borrower brings up the same issues, the court is inclined to disregard the borrower’s defense as merely an attempt to get out of a legitimate debt. In the Case of Mortgage Lenders versus Wells Fargo (395 B.K. 871 (2008)), it is apparent that servicer advances are a central issue. For one thing, it demonstrates the incentive of servicers to foreclose even though the foreclosure will result in a greater loss to the investor then if a workout or modification had been used to save the loan.
It also shows that the servicers were very much aware of the issue and therefore very much aware that between the borrower and the lender (investor or creditor) there was no default, and on a continuing basis any theoretical default was being cured on a monthly basis. And as usual, the parties and the court failed to grasp the real economics. Based on information that I have received from people were active in the bundling and sale of mortgage bonds and an analysis of the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreements, I think it is obvious that the actual money came from the broker dealer even though it is called a “servicer advance.” Assuming my analysis is correct, this would further complicate the legal issues surrounding servicer advances.
This case also demonstrates that it is in bankruptcy court that a judge is most likely to understand the real issues. State court judges generally do not possess the background, experience, training or time to grasp the incredible complexity created by Wall Street. In this case Wells Fargo moves for relief from the automatic stay (in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition filed by MLN) so that it could terminate the rights of MLN as a servicer, replacing MLN with Wells Fargo. The dispute arose over several issues, servicer advances being one of them. MLN filed suit against Wells Fargo alleging breach of contract and then sought to amend based on the doctrine of “unjust enrichment.” This was based upon the servicer advances allegedly paid by MLN that would be prospectively recovered by Wells Fargo.
The take away from this case is that there is no specific remedy for the servicer to recover advances made under the category of “servicer advances” but that one thing is clear — the money paid to trust beneficiaries as “servicer advances” is not recoverable from the trust beneficiaries. The other thing that is obvious to Judge Walsh in his discussion of the facts is that it is in the servicing agreements between the parties that there may be a remedy to recover the advances; OR, if there is no contractual basis for recovering advances under the category of “servicer advances” then there might be a basis to recover under the theory of unjust enrichment. As always, there is a complete absence in the documentation and in the discussion of this case as to the logistics of exactly how a servicer could recover those payments.
One thing that is perfectly clear however is that nobody seems to expect the trust beneficiaries to repay the money out of the funds that they had received. Hence the “servicer advance” is not a loan that needs to be repaid by the trust or trust beneficiaries. Logically it follows that if it is not a loan to the trust beneficiaries who received the payment, then it must be a payment that is due to the creditor; and if the creditor has received the payment and accepted it, the corresponding liability for the payment must be reduced.
Dan Edstrom, senior securitization analyst for the livinglies website, pointed this out years ago. Bill Paatalo, another forensic analyst of high repute, has been submitting the same reports showing the distribution reports indicating that the creditor is being paid on an ongoing basis. Both of them are asking the same question, to wit: “if the creditor is being paid, where is the default?”
One attorney for US bank lamely argues that the trustee is entitled to both the servicer advances and turnover of rents if the property is an investment property. The argument is that there is no reason why the parties should not earn extra profit. That may be true and it may be possible. But what is impossible is that the creditor who receives a payment can nonetheless claim it as a payment still due and unpaid. If the servicer has some legal or equitable claim for recovery of the “servicer advances” then it can only be against the borrower, on whose behalf the payment was made. This means that a new transaction occurs each time such a payment is made to the trust beneficiaries. In that new transaction the servicer can claim “contribution” or “unjust enrichment” against the borrower. Theoretically that might bootstrap into a claim against the proceeds of the ultimate liquidation of the property, which appears to be the basis upon which the servicer “believes” that the money paid to the trust beneficiaries will be recoverable. Obviously the loose language in the pooling and servicing agreement about the servicer’s “belief” can lead to numerous interpretations.
What is not subject to interpretation is the language of the prospectus which clearly states that the investor who is purchasing one of these bogus mortgage bonds agrees that the money advanced for the purchase of the bond can be pooled by the broker-dealer; it is expressly stated that the investor can be paid out of this pool, which is to say that the investor can be paid with his own money for payments of interest and principal. This corroborates my many prior articles on the tier 2 yield spread premium. There is no discussion in the securitization documents as to what happens to that pool of money in the care custody and control of the broker-dealer (investment bank). And this corroborates my prior articles on the excess profits that have yet to be reported. And it explains why they are doing it again.
It doesn’t take a financial analyst to question why anyone would think it was a great business model to spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising for loan customers where the return is less than 5%. The truth in lending act passed by the federal government requires the participants who were involved in the processing of the loan to be identified and to disclose their actual compensation arising from the origination of the loan — even if the compensation results from defrauding someone. Despite the fact that most loans were subject to claims of securitization from 2001 to the present, none of them appear to have such disclosure. That means that under Reg Z the loans are “predatory per se.”
To say that these were table funded loans is an understatement. What was really occurring was fraudulent underwriting of the mortgage bonds and fraudulent underwriting of the underlying loans. The higher the nominal interest rate on the loans (which means that the risk of default is correspondingly higher) the less the broker-dealer needed to advance for origination or acquisition of the loan; and this is because the investor was led to believe that the loans would be low risk and therefore lower interest rates. The difference between the interest payment due to the investor and the interest payment allegedly due from the borrower allowed the broker-dealers to advance much less money for the origination or acquisition of loans than the amount of money they had received from the investors. That is a yield spread premium which is not been reported and probably has not been taxed.
It is this undisclosed yield spread premium that produces the pool from which I believe the servicer advances are actually being paid. Intense investigation and discovery will probably reveal the actual agreements that show exactly that. In the meanwhile I encourage attorneys to look carefully at the issue of “servicer advances” as a means to defeat the foreclosure in its entirety.
I caution that when enough cases have been lost as a result of servicer advances, the opposition will probably change tactics. While you can win the foreclosure case, it is not clear what the consequences of that might be. If it results in a final judgment for the homeowner then it might be curtains for anyone to claim any amount of money from the loan. But that is by no means assured. If it results in a dismissal, even with prejudice, it might enable the servicer to stop making advances and then declare a default if the borrower fails to make payments after the servicer has stopped making the payments. Assuming that a notice of acceleration of the debt has been declared, the borrower can argue that the foreclosing party has elected its own defective remedy and should pay the price. If past experience is any indication of future rulings, it seems unlikely that the courts will be very friendly towards that last argument.
Attorneys who wish to consult with me on this issue can book 1 hour consults by calling 520-405-1688.
Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: Bill Paatalo, DDan Edstrom, default, MLN, Mortgage Lenders Network, Ponzi scheme, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, RESPA, Servicer advances, tier 2 yield spread premium, TILA, Wells Fargo |
Thanks brother! Keep up the great spirit and good work and we’ll definitely keep in touch like none other.
neidermeyer-thanks for looking. you were correct in that my ‘loan’ went from Option One to American Home Mortgage Servicing to SPS between Feb 08 and June 08. I have 7 other loan numbers but have misplaced them. And i know what you say about information disappearing from the internet. it is being erased. speaking of which i got an email from a longtime friend two days ago warning me not to open any Hallmark cards/greetings as they carry the worst virus ever seen. both Norton and Mcafee are aware of it. not sure if its true but am not aking any chances. thanks again will get back to you with addl loan numbers- are any of your data listed by file number or instrument number?
@ Ian ,
Sorry for the delay … my oldest collateral file for OOMC is May 2008 , probably after yours left the database.. I couldn’t find 0000444584 or 182905 ,, however it is quite odd that I have the files detailing the payment to the investors right from the beginning for my trust (April 2007+) but the collateral files are missing until AFTER two events ,, the AIG insurance payoff and the purchase of all Option One assets by Wilbur Ross and Co. , LLC ,, this would include servicing rights and unsold notes…
FYI , the file folders containing this data on my pc that I keep online (via DSL) have disappeared?? I had to go to a pc that I keep offline and of course the data resides on the hdd from my dead pc that I originally downloaded to… needless to say I’m making copies to every blank dvd and memory card I have and will distribute them to places that I consider safe..
Used to have the KPMG report, that was crazy, but Hard drive crashed, lost it and gone from every site…had excel sheets for defaulted notes. Hmmm
Uhland has 5 accusations against her…and the notice of bankruptcy, interestingly enough went to only 3 counties, even though it was posted in a National newspaper, per Gregg Hellums…another Hmmm.
The thing for me: previous claims, Uhland lying about notice, Uhland was instrumental in moving notes from people who did not own them (suit was filed by McMahon), too much to go into…we are listed as creditors currently. I need to see it play out to really believe it…have challenged all of it. Good Luck….they have a lot of money to throw at this
poppy- i read quite a bit by suzanne uhland, andwas aware of unfunded loans ‘caught in the pipeline” (closed but not funded) at time of bk filing. coouldnt log onto pacer but will try later. i read the Missal report, all 537 pages back in 2008. am aware of new century’s crime spree.
ian: I am hoping it is very clear..the inability of the court to dismiss the claim is from fraud, misrepresentation, behavior e.g. rises to the level of drunk driving, substance abuse or activity that causes damage to another. That is New Century! Tens of thousands of claims were filed before the bankruptcy…goes to intent and previous activity that has spilled over from the latent defects of their product. Check SOFA Exhibit 4A, previous claims, from the court….you should be able to Google it… then look at transcripts from April 03, 2007…Case #07-10416 with Uhland & Meyers…regarding unfunded loans. My Motion for claim to be timely filed D.I. #10743, PACER
poppy- thanks. will take a look, not that i understand what im looking at! cheers-
hman – this is nothing short of a stinking rubic’s cube. The first part says a bunch of junk (not below in this comment), some of which I take to mean that dots may be transferred electronically on the MERS system (as if).
“…and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. In some other cases, the original mortgage was recorded in the name of the originator of the mortgage loan, record ownership was later assigned to MERS
(jg: in public record I’d say) ,
solely as nominee for the owner of the mortgage loan, and subsequent assignments of the mortgage were, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System.”
I take the above to mean MERS will stay in public record and that dots may be transferred electronically on the MERS system (as if) while mers stays in public record. As a substituted party, one nominated to be such, you bet mers will stay in public record until there’s been an assgt from MERS to someone else. Any alleged assgt done by way of MERS registry is a non-event imo, unless it’s from mers to someone else. As thee ben, only mers could assign the dot and it had to assign it to C because in this scenario, MERS is B (this disregards the bifurcation issue) and then C to D and so on. Once MERS, as B, assigned to C, MERS lost its status including any control and so all subsequent assgts needed to be recorded with the county.
“… MERS serves as mortgagee of record on the mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee.”
“I have an allonge that is signed allegedly by Deutsche over to Aurora “Without Recourse”. This paragraph seems to say that MERS is operating at the descretion of the Trustee (Deutsche). but deutsche has assigned it authority over to Aurora?”
jg: MERs can’t act in any capacity for the trust if it means by way of an “assgt” on the MERS (or any) electronic system, because such an assgt is a nullity. Any alleged assignment on the MERs’ data base, or anyone’s data base, imo is invalid, actually void. Assgts require a writing, not an electronic notation. But that’s coming up soon enough. How do you know Deutsche assigned its probably non-existant authority to Aurora? Some majorly chain- breaking paper assgt? If MERS assigned to Deutsche and skipped the C, say, there’s no assignment out of MERS to D to assign to the trust. lay opinions
ian:
Last filing is on scribd…Motion to deem claim non-dischargeable…DE. Bankruptcy Court. more to come
poppy thanks
@ Ian: checking on it, tons of paperwork…Regards
jg: poppy – from whom did you apply for a loan? a broker? YES and and BTW he was named as the lender too….Jeez
This the post jg: hman, on January 27, 2014 at 10:17 am said:copy and pasted it
jg: it was in the middle of one of the posts here, the language!
This was posted against the Fed. in VeteransToday.com today :
Article Page: The Problem of Usury in Western Culture (Part I)
In this federal court’s Sept. 3, 2013 decision this Federal court with its footnote @ page 2 wrote that the Fed is a private company & its employees & itself can be sued just like anyone else can be sued. SO: if some daring & competent lawyers join forces & sue the Fed’s top dogs & their branches for conspiracy to destroy U.S. & world ecnonomies (for benefit of Zio-Satanists) then all their branches would probably have to file bankruptcy & shut down!!! Court wrote:
“However, other courts, particularly in the tort context, have held that Federal Reserve Banks and/or their employees are not governmental actors. See Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 406 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 2005) (in Title VII action against Federal Reserve Bank employee, court determined that “[t]he employees of the Bank are not government employees”); Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982) (concluding that “the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations”). In light of the latter opinions which, as opposed to the former ones, address causes of action reasonably analogous to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, and given the lack of authority on point in the Tenth Circuit, the Court will refrain from disrupting the parties’ agreement that FRLEOs “are not government employees.”
From:
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01310-CMA-MEH
BRUCE BAUMANN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Defendants.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2012cv01310/133348/83/0.pdf?1378375890
MERS serves as mortgagee of record onthe mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee
hman, on January 27, 2014 at 10:17 am said:
John Gault,
Here is a link to the FWP for my trust.. Not sure exactly what you are looking for. I use CTRL F to search the document.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379884/000089109206003663/e25656_424b5.txt
Here is another interesting paragraph I found as it relates to MERS;
The original mortgages for many of the mortgage loans have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns, and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole
discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. In some other cases, the original mortgage was recorded in the name of the originator of the mortgage loan, record ownership was later assigned to MERS, solely as nominee for the owner of the mortgage loan, and subsequent assignments of the mortgage were, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R)
System. For each of these mortgage loans, MERS serves as mortgagee of record onthe mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee, and does not have any interest in the mortgage loan. As of the cut-off date, approximately 95.8% and 94.6% of the Group I Loans and Group II Loans, respectively, were recorded in the name of MERS. For additional information regarding the recording of mortgages in the name of MERS see “Yield and Prepayment Considerations–General” in this prospectus supplement and “Description of the Certificates–Assignment of Mortgage Loans” in the prospectus.
poppy, you said:
“solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns, and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System”
where did you get this language?
poppy – from whom did you apply for a loan? a broker?
Neidermeyer- sorry for the delay, but here are two loan numbers for you to chew on; 182905, and 0000444584.
Poppy- can you post a link to your TRS/New Century filings so I can check for these numbers?
Thank you both.
poppy i don’t see if your loan didn’t fund that you have a debt. there is no one who may appropriately / legally make a claim of your unjust
enrichment that I can see. there’s no debt to service or to collect by a debt collector. there was nothing for the debt coll to buy…..am I missing something? I contested the debt….no response yet
why did you sign docs twice? went in office and signed in January 2007, they said the the rate lock was gone, needed to sign again to close on February 27, 2007.
what were you told? answer above
did you say the docs had WF’s name on them first and the second had Century’s? yes, I suspect they tried to get funding from both?
poppy, sorry cant make sense of a lot of your last comment except maybe that someone CS? did something with your loan re: C’s bk relevant to a 90 day look-back period. If you send me what you’ve got, I’ll try to look at it when I can – sorry bout the when I can. You’ll have to find my email at LL. I don’t want to post it again.
poppy i don’t see if your loan didn’t fund that you have a debt. there is no one who may appropriately / legally make a claim of your unjust
enrichment that I can see. there’s no debt to service or to collect by a debt collector. there was nothing for the debt coll to buy…..am I missing something?
why did you sign docs twice? what were you told? did you say the docs had WF’s name on them first and the second had Century’s?
It was a sale, jg. I have all court documents for the seizure of the note ONLY, no rights… was supposed to be held for payment by the court, which Credit Suisse was, the repurchase agreement (looks forged, ignored by New Century)…transcripts, hearsay testimony, again…hmmm…seized supposedly on March 12, 2007, within the 90 day bankruptcy rule to rescind, which I have asked for, when New Century filed on April 02, 2007. SPS, Ocwen, Carrington, New Century Servicing, WF, RBC, Deutsche Bank and Weichert Financial Services are all named in some capacity.
How about that?
hman – your loan is over 500k and was an arm, right? low or no doc?
you don’t have to answer if you don’t want. It went thru RFC, which imo means it didn’t go thru F or F (which is why I get it it’s low or no doc arm). I guess that’s called “private label”. Interestingly, RFC used to require seasoning on loans they would buy, even if they were underwritten to their loan guidelines / programs. They wouldn’t buy til the borrower had made 2 payments – no first payment defaults for rfc.
Wonder if they changed that because of the rush to securitize, which I still say requires its own seasoning of loans, and on info and belief, its for 6 to 12 mos. To my knowledge RFC didn’t fund loans – they only purchased closed, seasoned loans from the bigger guys who either originated them or got them from their brokers.
poppy – that’s some deal you got there. I have to think about that hummer fwiw. If your loan were unfunded, it’s not collateral for S’s line of credit. But then, there may be a contractual agreement between them and Century which gave S a lien or like that on all loans orig’d by Century. But then again, if no funding, there was obviously no loan. Was this a sale, not a refi?If no funding, the existing loan, if any, couldn’t have been paid off. if a sale, the seller could have gotten no funds. The only way around that is if the sales price were at or exceeded the seller’s loan on the property, in which case, someone had to have forged a release or reconveyance of the existing loan. WTH?
hman et al – I know it may be a big assumption, but what I said about the “minus the spread” is the only thing that makes any sense. It’s entirely poss the depositor (someone) committed to a delivery of notes at say a yield (briefly) of 6% to the trust, but used loans with higher rates or which would set at a higher rate (shortly, like with teasers or in a year on other arms) and if so, oh my gosh!! Let’s just say the averaged rate on loans were 9%, but the trust was owed loans which averaged 6%.
Could it be the depositor (someone) “held onto” the 3% spread as payments came in?!! To get an averaged rate of 6% on loans averaging 9%, the normal course, I think, would be to fill the order with less 9% loans (to arrive at an effective return of 6). But maybe that’s not how they played it. The depositor doesn’t want the loans, any of them – he wants the return (etc), so he sells them at face value (principle amt of loans) to the trusts, but only forks over 6% to the trusts as payments are made. I think because of trust law this is illegal, and any insurance taken on the spread would also be illegal for lack of a lawful object of the deal.
OR the notes at the time of (alleged) sale to the trust had a return of 6%, the contract rate between depositor and trust. When the arms reset, the depositor (servicer? someone) keeps the spread, the diff between the 6% and the actual return. Like I said, oh my gosh if so…..possibly whistle-blower time! A participation in the yield of loans is not a sale.
“solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns, and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System”
Okay, so MERS is a nominee…so a nominee can nominate over and over, to assign their nominee status, What?
Master Servicer is registered electronically through MERS…so the registration gives them what power and authority? A mere registration lends authority, What?
Solely as nominee for the originator? The originator is a third party contract, with no “direct” lending ability other than borrowing on your behalf, again, What?
In the case of New Century they did not use the money for its intended purpose, it was used to fund operations….per transcript of Delaware Bankruptcy Court…now where does leave some of us? Many loans were not sold, they went unfunded, with repurchase agreements in play, which were breached by New Century, then notes were pushed off to servicers (pennies on the dollar), which means they are NOT securitized. IMHO
By the way: Judge Schack, NY has it right…why would anyone buy a worthless note? Answer: they wouldn’t, unless they could “fabricate” documents to collect!
John Gault,
Here is a link to the FWP for my trust.. Not sure exactly what you are looking for. I use CTRL F to search the document.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379884/000089109206003663/e25656_424b5.txt
Here is another interesting paragraph I found as it relates to MERS;
The original mortgages for many of the mortgage loans have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns, and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole
discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. In some other cases, the original mortgage was recorded in the name of the originator of the mortgage loan, record ownership was later assigned to MERS, solely as nominee for the owner of the mortgage loan, and subsequent assignments of the mortgage were, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R)
System. For each of these mortgage loans, MERS serves as mortgagee of record onthe mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee, and does not have any interest in the mortgage loan. As of the cut-off date, approximately 95.8% and 94.6% of the Group I Loans and Group II Loans, respectively, were recorded in the name of MERS. For additional information regarding the recording of mortgages in the name of MERS see “Yield and Prepayment Considerations–General” in this prospectus supplement and “Description of the Certificates–Assignment of Mortgage Loans” in the prospectus.
I have an allonge that is signed allegedly by Deutsche over to Aurora “Without Recourse”. This paragraph seems to say that MERS is operating at the descretion of the Trustee (Deutsche). but deutsche has assigned it authority over to Aurora?
Anyway, I’m confused.
It is my understanding: servicing rights do not mean a REMIC Trust exists. Nor, does servicing without a PSA, which is what is a trust is tied too, to make a note “securitized” to the land-deed, which is necessary to file a “legal” foreclosure claim, naming the trust as a loss payee. IMHO
If they are naming a trust, well, it must conform. It appears to me, I am dealing with a debt collector, not a servicer for any trust!
Unfunded loans are referenced by date and pooling from Delaware Bankruptcy Court. I have documents presented at evidentiary hearing of July 2012. Looks like they started pooling to sell forward end of December 2006 through mid-end of February 2007. They had no money, funds were cut off, no one would buy them. Cease and desist orders in 6 states. All servicing was sold to Carrington…per approval of Judge Carey.
poppy- did you find a list of unfunded loans somewhere? were they listed by MBS, by tranche, by individual loan #s, or? credit suisse owns DLJ mortgage capital and SPS loan servicing, but i lost the trail after that. i had new century also
FYI John:
27,000 loans went unfunded, mine was one of them. The loan was seized (on or about March 12, 2007) for collateral ONLY, by Credit Suisse (per court transcript) from a 100 million dollar line of credit to New Century. They used the money to run the company, not fund the loans!
Credit Suisse was paid 90% of the claim in bankruptcy court in Delaware, but my loan was shipped out for servicing….and the court Trustee, Alan Jacobs stated emphatically: it was never meant to be moved, as it did not belong to Credit Suisse, they did not fund it! Now, it has been to seven servicers, ending with Ocwen. Has 4 different loan numbers, a zero balance since October 2007, when it defaulted, while I was current on payments. The trust it was supposedly in: opened on August 01, 2007 and closed on August 31, 2007…SEC file.
Signed them twice once on January 25, 2007 and again on February 27, 2007. One to WF and one to New Century
from the case christine linked at 6:52 on the 25th:
“It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. [Citation.] The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate how the complaint can be amended to state a valid cause of
action. [Citation.] The plaintiff can make that showing for the first time on appeal.”
I didn’t know that info from the last sentence. So, if the lower court dismisses you and says amendment won’t save your complaint, you can show that it will in the appeal (the appeal doesn’t have to be limited to that showing – can just plain appeal the dismissal, also).
lay opinions
hman at 9:10 yesterday:
“The depositor
will cause the mortgage securities to be registered in the name of the trustee or its nominee, and the trustee will concurrently authenticate and deliver the certificates.”
Makes no sense to me, either, and the above makes it worse. ‘ Mtg securities (see if you can find a section called “definitions”) to be registered (where? with whom?) in the name of the trustee’. ‘The trustee will authenticate and deliver the certs.’ Aren’t the certificates at issue here “uncertificated”, meaning they don’t exist in paper or any form other than a bookkeeping entry (mol), like if one owns stock thru a brokerage? I really don’t recall, if I ever knew. Maybe they ARE in paper form.
I’ve said before that I don’t think it’s illegal for a lender to name a nominee on a note. But I don’t think a secn trustee may agree that a nominee, including a custodian, may be assigned all ” right title and interest” in anything related to the trust , whether it be the MBS’s or the alleged underlying assets, the loans. I suggested you look for the def of mtg security because it appears to be short or pig-latin for MBS’s, but it’s hard to say because the two words seem to be used to mean diff things here and there in the stuff you copied here.
If the mtg securities are the MBS’s, at least in the sentence i copied above, looks like the secn trustee is to deliver them to some X”.
It’s really weird, so yeah, I’m with you. it does look like the depositor has sold the loans to the trust or the MBS’s or whatever the hell with a diff yield to the trust than the depositor receives (“spread”) and or that the MBS’s pay differently. I’m thinking that’s why these weren’t true sales (one of a zillion reasons) – if they were, the banksters couldn’t retain any of the moolah to be due monthly on the loans. They could not get a “spread”. If I own a loan with a rate of 7%, but I want you to buy it from me, you either buy it or you don’t. If I want you only to get 6% so I can keep the other 1% as it comes in, it’s not a true sale. If anything, it’s a participation, guess it would be called.
I’m totally baffled by the ref to post-cut-off assgt- of your loan, I take it. Can you copy and paste that part?
@ johngault on “ what’s wrong with this picture?”
Courts are elements of this criminal enterprise & this FBI definition proves it:
What Is Organized Crime?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines organized crime as
“Any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole”[FBI 2011]. ”
above quote is From page 10 of this document:
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1705&context=sei
Here is a snippet from my Free writing prospectus recorded on Edgar Database.
I have several questions about this. My understanding that under NY Trust law The Trustee could not accept loans after the “cut off date”. The trust where my home is allegedly in states the assignment will occur after the cut off? Also, it states “The trustee will not be in possession of or be assignee of record of any underlying assets for a mortgage security”.
I have a copy of the note being endorsed to the trustee Deutsche. Does this make them an assignee of record & in violation of the agreement? Also, they are again listed as the “owner” on MERS database. Again, another public record although non transparent. Finally, the servicer also claims that Deutsche holds the note but the FWP States they will not be in possession of any underlying assest?
WTF? I’m I missing something?
Assignment of Mortgage Securities
The depositor will transfer, convey and assign to the trustee or its nominee, which may be the custodian, all right, title and interest of the depositor in the mortgage securities and other property to be included in the trust for a series. The assignment will include all principal and interest due on or with respect to the mortgage securities after the cut-off date specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, except for any Spread. The depositor
will cause the mortgage securities to be registered in the name of the trustee or its nominee, and the trustee will concurrently authenticate and deliver the certificates. The trustee will not be in possession of or be assignee of record of any underlying assets for a mortgage security. Each mortgage security will be identified in a schedule appearing as an exhibit to the related pooling and
servicing agreement, which will specify as to each mortgage security information regarding the original principal amount and outstanding principal balance of each mortgage security as of the cut-off date, as well as the annual pass-through rate or interest rate for each mortgage security conveyed to the trustee.
KC. I AGREE. That is why I’m convinced when BOA switched my account number , while still in good standing, but only one month after inquiring about a HAMP modification.
That’s why they used strong arm tactics with borrowers who wouldn’t sign because the terms had changed or they simply changed their minds. Most of them ended up in default on loans they didn’t take at the larger amount had the refi been completed. I could go on and on … with examples.
JG..BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OFAMERICA, N.A., BANC OFAMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., and MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC. are all the agent of the other, and they knew dag gone well what was going on!
Law firm (collection agency, debt buyer) …
PIERCE & ASSOCIATES Inc LLP
They got pre approved and then shopped for houses. The house they eventually settled for was tens of thousands LESS than the 1st house they had looked at. IE .. they took a loan for less than they had been approved for.
But an FHA loan already existed in your name at the larger amount, but you weren’t told that, and you showed up at closing expecting to close and FHA loan and all of the sudden it went INS CM. But half the closing file … you signed were FHA documents.
What if the borrowers found out shortly there after that … TWO loans existed in their names, An FHA and a Ins CM ,
KC – loans in process are called a “pipeline” and I don’t believe it’s illegal for a lender to sell their pipeline forward (x to a secn trust if you are paid for closed loans but use the trust’s,,or any buyer’s, funds to fund them). I can agree to sell Joe Schmoe, Inc. 5 million in loans with a delivery 2 mos from now, briefly. That’s probably what happened with all or many of these loans. They were sold forward by contract, but they just sort of left out the actual delivery and endorsements. MERS alleviated the assignments in their book of fiction.
Someone else making a move on that knowledge and expectation may be illegal. Or making a move (a future’s contract) without a necessary deal already in place, which is all I really can grasp of your comment at 2:52. If you can better explain that article to the rest of us, please do.
poppy – on what date did you sign the HUD and other docs?
A convicted criminal can stay out of jail on bail pending appeal, but judges in CIVIL disputes often won’t grant a stay of a foreclosure pending appeal of their judgments in favor of the banksters. What’s wrong with this picture? Everything, way not the least of which is that homeowners don’t have the wherewithall to post a bond. If you’re a wealthy criminal, i.e., have been found guilty of a CRIME, but you still have the dough to avoid the ramifications of your bad acts, you’re good to go. Losing one’s home is a pretty hefty sentence for an alleged civil infraction, especially when one had no idea what he was getting into and or was the viciim of predatory lending. And then some states have decided that once the trustee’s deed has issued, it’s a done deal (“presumption of propriety” – bah!!) I guess since that’s the way it is, homeowners might at least file for stay pending an appeal. The denial of a stay pending appeal is probably appealable itself (with expedited hearing on that appeal?), but I don’t know, so there, one definitely needs expert advice from an attorney, maybe one who does and understands appeals. Everyone has his choice to make – to try to move on after a bs adjudication based on alleged poss of a bearer note and an alleged assgt from “MERS or say not so fast. But since one can’t bring up new issues on appeal (not the one of the stay denial), have to tie issues to those brought on in the lower court. What’s got my ire today is this article wherein a guy was convicted of securities fraud, sentenced to 12 or so years in prison and to pay 50m, more evidence legitimate prosecution can be and is done, making the real war cry not “Yes we can”, but “Yes you will”. He was convicted of bilking pension funds or what not out of 150m. The NY Bar on info and belief came to his defense!! I lost the orig article, but he was found guilty of violations of U.S. Codes 78(j)b – securities fraud, 18 USC sect 1341 – mail fraud, 18 USC sect 1343 – wire fraud, and 18 USC sect 371 – conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S. on Jan 3, 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2012/09/25/sky-capitals-ross-mandell-files-appeal-and-gets-an-ally/
Yes, they did KC and in some cases, like mine, the HUD was dated, in the right hand bottom corner, in blue…December 26, 2006, when the loan was “supposedly” funded on February 27, 2007…and in fact, lines of credit were shut off for New Century…early March 2007. Cease and desist orders in February 2007 too, with a Federal Grand jury investigation in CA prior!
If you were approved, you got the loan.
It Didn’t matter if you accepted it or not.
New Century Mortgage via Home 123 applications … comes to mind. P.K.
I would like to add to my previous post, … It was not only that specific group of investors, they all did it.
Do you know what they did if they couldn’t meet the demand ?
They sold a loan in your name shortly After your application was approved and BEFORE you signed.
Oh yes! They Did!
I am pretty sure George Carlin held a public hearing on the Wells Fargo- Wachovia drug running projects. Here it is:
Wachovia Busted Laundering Drug Money
…………..
Excellent!!
(Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have both held investigations into whether Bank of America (BAC.N) engaged in improper trading by doing its own futures trades ahead of executing large orders for clients, according to a regulatory filing.
The June 2013 disclosure, which Reuters recently reviewed on a website run by the securities industry regulator FINRA, sheds light on the basis for a warning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on January 8.
The warning, in the form of an intelligence bulletin to regulators and security officers at financial services firms, said that the FBI suspected swaps traders at an unnamed U.S. bank and an unnamed Canadian bank may have been involved in market manipulation and front running of orders from U.S. government-owned mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB).
Reuters has since learned that Bank of America’s trading practices regarding Fannie and Freddie are the subject of probes, and that the investigations are ongoing.
Bank of America spokesman Bill Halldin declined comment when asked abut the investigations.
The disclosure on the FINRA site doesn’t specifically accuse Bank of America of any wrongdoing.
It says: “We understand that the (U.S. Attorney’s Office) is investigating whether it was proper for the swaps desk to execute futures trades prior to the desk’s execution of block future trades on behalf of counterparties.”
The filing, which identifies the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte, North Carolina, where Bank of America is based, adds: “We also understand that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting a parallel investigation into the trading issue.”
The filing cites the bank as the source of the information.
The disclosure is in a FINRA “BrokerCheck” report on Eric Beckwith, a former managing director at Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch broker-dealer division in New York. BrokerCheck is an online system that allows investors to check the backgrounds of brokers for any regulatory issues or malpractice.
Representatives from the CFTC, and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Charlotte declined comment.
The filing said investigators are also looking into whether Beckwith gave accurate information to the CME Group’s Chicago Mercantile Exchange in connection with an investigation by the exchange into the trading.
Halldin said Beckwith left the firm in July.
Beckwith could not be reached for comment. The CME declined to comment.
Front running occurs when someone with advance knowledge of another market participant’s plan to make a sizable transaction puts an order in first, often profiting from a market move that can occur once the big trade has gone through. It is a concern for many regulators as it pushes up the cost of trades entered into by investors, including pension funds and governments.
In the bulletin, the FBI warned of “unsophisticated tradecraft” such as hand signals or special ring tones that traders were using to deliver information about impending orders in the interest-rate swaps market.
The document also said that the inspector general’s office of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB), is looking into the matter.
Representatives for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac declined to comment.
(Reporting by Karen Brettell in New York and Aruna Viswanatha in Washington, Editing by Karey Van Hall and Martin Howell)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/25/us-bankofamerica-probe-idUSBREA0O0DC20140125
Karen Hudes mentions him over and over as one of the whistleblowers she relies on heavily and who’s been instrumental in calling the World Bank’s attention to what is going on. That, coupled with what she has to say and what David E. Martin states and… well, the good news is that it is now coming out more and more out in the open. The bad news is that cleaning up the mess means everyone ends up paying the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZB0r1zf820#t=28
Published on Nov 1, 2013
Mark Novitsky is a National Security whistleblower who works closely with Karen Hudes and has dealt with harassment and surveillance of various kinds due to his exposure of Teletech… This covers the same territory as the Edward Snowden disclosures regarding domestic and international surveillance by agencies such as the NSA. We will be discussing his case along with the current financial outlook worldwide, the National Security State, Electronic Surveillance and more…
…”According to Novitsky, Teletech Holdings has done data processing and customer service for BestBuy, Verizon, the FBI, DHS and the US State Department as well as others and Novitsky believes that the company has misused personal consumer data providing it to intel agencies and perhaps others.”
Novitsky’s story is perhaps just as important as Edward Snowden although not quite as dramatic because of the international intrigue and actual copies of docs involved with Snowden’s whistle-blowing because in Novitsky’s case it allegedly involves the privatization and hijacking of an American Intel agency and use to enhance a foreign nations intel interests as well as to capitalize off of American consumer data lifted by illegal intel gathering (and it also appears to be a serious foreign espionage matter in the final analysis). — Preston James, Veterans Today http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/…
Click the icon on the map ( your state) and see your states score … SAD! Just Sad! Sighh ..
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/01/25/the-most-corrupt-states-in-america/
Niederemeyer. KC answered you.
RM = REVERSE MORTGAGE
CM = CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGE.
Rakoff gets my vote
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/01/24/charles-morris-are-banks-too-big-to-indict/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
Attack dogs coming out… I find that fascination really sick. Oh well! Gives them something to do…
Wow! Didn’t Schneiderman just file suit against them? Yea, we learned that Barofsky was representing them what… a month ago or so? This seems awfully fast, as settlements go… No investigation, no depositions? No discovery?
What am I missing?
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/204313/schneiderman-settles-with-sky-high-lenders/
Schneiderman settles with ‘sky’ high lenders
Posted on January 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm by Rick Karlin, Capitol bureau in Eric Schneiderman
“With this agreement, thousands of New Yorkers exploited by Western Sky and CashCall will get the relief they are owed,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “As individuals in New York and across the country continue to face tough economic times, we must keep up the fight against those who exploit and scam them. Illegal collectors and lenders, in particular, must pay a price for their behavior and pay back the New Yorkers they harmed.”
Under the terms of the settlement, Western Sky, CashCall, and related companies will modify all outstanding loans Western Sky made to New York consumers. The companies will cease all collections from New York consumers who have paid more than the principal of the loan, and cease all collections of interest from all other New York consumers. In all, the settlement could provide more than $35 million in debt relief to New Yorkers. A proposed order and judgment reflecting the terms of the settlement has been submitted to the court.
The settlement also creates a settlement fund, managed by Ken Feinberg of Feinberg Rozen LLP, to distribute refunds to New York consumers who have paid more than the principal of their loan plus the legal interest rate of 16%. Consumers who are eligible for a refund will be contacted by the fund administrator within 90 days of the court’s approval of the settlement and asked to submit a claim.
Respondents are also required to stop their illegal lending practices and stop lending to people in the State of New York until they comply with New York State law and are properly licensed. The parties will also pay a penalty of $1.5 million to the Attorney General’s Office.
The companies, located in South Dakota and California, targeted vulnerable New Yorkers through television and internet advertising that promised “fast cash” to consumers in urgent need of money. The companies took advantage of these customers by charging extremely high interest rates that were above New York State’s usury caps. For example, consumers who received loans of $1,000 were charged an interest rate of more than 234%, and had to repay as much as $4,942 in interest and principal over just two years.
Great piece from Morgensen on WF this morning. And so typical of bad faith lawyerism: it goes something like this:
1) We don’t take unreasonable risk;
2) If we did, that would only be a handful of individuals doing it;
3) Those individuals are not our employees;
4) We object to that line of questioning!
5) Everybody does it anyway.
Gotta love it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/asking-banks-to-reveal-where-their-high-rollers-are.html?ref=gretchenmorgenson&_r=0
Asking Banks to Reveal Where Their High Rollers Are
JAN. 25, 2014
Inside Fair Game
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
For investors who held stakes in large and complex financial institutions in 2008, the perils lurking inside these behemoths came as a costly shock.
Chief among those perils was the possibility that a bank could lose billions on trades executed by employees who were driven, at least in part, by the promise of fatter bonuses.
Yet, even now, shareholders remain in the dark about where the risk-takers are at these institutions and whether their pay packages encourage them to swing dangerously for the fences.
The New York State Common Retirement Fund, the $161 billion pension overseen by Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state comptroller, is trying to do something about this.
The comptroller has put together a proposal intended to fix this disclosure flaw, and he hopes that the plan will be put to a vote at Wells Fargo’s annual shareholder meeting later this year.
The proposal is relatively simple. It asks the company’s board to prepare a report disclosing whether Wells Fargo has identified employees who, by virtue of the size and riskiness of their portfolios, could expose the bank to material losses. It also asks the bank to disclose the number of such risk-takers, broken down by division. If it has decided not to enumerate these employees, the proposal asks the board to explain why.
Launch media viewer Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state comptroller of New York. Mike Groll/Associated Press “As we continue to move away from the depths of the market collapse,” Mr. DiNapoli said in an interview last week, “a logical step is to have companies identify employees, not just top executives, that could pose a risk of material loss to shareholders because of the activities they’re involved in.”
The proposal does not ask the bank to name the individual risk-takers, but it does ask for details on their compensation, such as how much of their pay is based on short-term performance metrics.
But Wells Fargo’s shareholders may not get the chance to vote on Mr. DiNapoli’s proposal, because the bank has objected to it.
Ho-Hum, more articles easily procured…and smart-ass comments from Nostra-DAME-us! “and that’s why you cannot get my appelate decision”, follow, follow, follow, follow-follow the yellow brick road, to the land of OZ…and there she is: the Wizard, we all know how that worked out!
http://youtu.be/fVYmsskfIV8
Meanwhile WF runs to Federal Court in WA whenever they can, as they continue to run around their HAMP obligations…. because the Feds do not correctly apply State law and the Deed of Trust Act is Unconstitutional anyway.
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2014/01/kingcast-mortgage-movies-and-attorney.html
Down below is my flow chart with Washington Attorney Scott Stafne as we discussed a wide-ranging series of issues involving the apparently unconstitutional nature of the Washington Deed of Trust Act as well as the Bank’s flight response to Federal Court, where the Federal Court in Washington typically does not do Justice to the State Law. State Law was originally drafted to protect the individual against government and corporate excess and corruption. This is why Attorney Stafne correctly attempted to recuse Judge Marsha Pechman (the denial) who has never ruled in favor of a homeowner; always ruling in favor of the bank even going through heavy contortions to do so. Perhaps later I will upload Frias v. Asset Foreclosures Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106755 (2013) as cited by Attorney Stafne in his Motion. Suffice it to say it is painful to read.
This is why today we see Wells Fargo running to Federal Court on a Removal of a lawsuit Attorney Jeff Jared filed for Financial Revival Group Members Family E, as noted in this recent Mortgage Movies Journal entry and on my video page at the U.S. Independent. What happened was that in Mediation we presented a full REST report showing that the homeowner was NPV positive and should have provided a HAMP modification but did not, in similar fashion to Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (673 F.3d 547) and the 9th circuit case of Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 728 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. August 8, 2013), citing Wigod. We notified the Mediators about this case law and WF refused to provide all of their data and the full test so my request for the Bad Faith Certificate was granted; the second such Certificate issued to Wells Fargo in the past few months. Sad but true. Stay tuned for updates on those cases.
Here then is my loose outline for the interview, part one of three appearing above:
How can there ever be the sort of neutrality required by a Trustee/Beneficiary relationship when all of the major Trustees are owned by law firms who work for the banks?…..[SNIP]
@ KC @ 2:39
You said: RE: ” … in this example 20081001 ,, Oct 1 2008 ..
Any thoughts as to what this implies for the source of funds for the advances? ”
Charged Off ….
The accounting scheme seems consistent with a RM .. not a CM.
*****************************
The one thing it absolutely cannot be is a “charge off” by the trustee or anyone else… a charge off would require the trustee to immediately remove the note/mortgage from the trust and I could post THOUSANDS of examples of notes in 2011 that have 2008 and 2009 date codes for “last payment from borrower”..
PS… Still in dark about your abbreviations ,, What is RM? ,, What is CM?
Re: a question in the above article:
Q: “if the creditor is being paid, where is the default?”
Answer: I think is that as long as there is anything in a loan’s balance the borrower is considered in default (as far as lender is concerned).
So lender is constantly cooking schemes to prevent the balance from disappearing and to steal the property, whichever comes first!
I am sober … One glass with dinner.
Two gets me in bed early.
Now take you bad attitude and put it to bed.
It’s painful enough already when you’re sober.
I rest my case. Once again.
Nice Try Christine, I’m not about to get into a pissing match with you.
Come back when you’ve changed your attitude. I don’t need your appeal, I have nothing to appeal. I suspect that puts me ahead of you on the field. Your still trying to get thru the goal post, and I’ve been thru it and sitting on the sidelines a long time.
Listening to BS from all sides of this Mess!
The U.S. Government Defaulted in October, 2013.
By JC Collins
In essence, China has been slowly buying up the Federal Reserve for some time now. If you can call it a purchase. Its more of a negotiation over assuming the liabilities of both the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury.
The Federal Reserve is the largest holder of U.S. debt at $2.1 trillion. China is second at $1.3 trillion. Think of it as the United States government doing a debt consolidation of all its treasury bonds because it can no longer pay or service the debt……
…The post WW2 boom in the United States was funded by the exportation of the dollars inflation to what is now the emerging markets. Americans lived on the backs of other countries. Now the tables have turned. Or have been turning for many years already. This would explain outsourcing, trade agreements, immigration, favorite nation status, etc..
Why would China and other countries take on the risk of this debt? Simple, it’s economic reset or economic collapse. Its in the worlds interest to re-structure the U.S. debt to save the whole whale from beaching itself.
Rumors are circulating that the U.S. dollar will have a rate for in country use, and a separate international rate. That is because the U.S. treasury and the Federal Reserve are about to be severed from each other. The Treasury will control the in country dollar, and the “international reserve” dollar will be controlled by China and or the I.M.F. consortium of debt holders.
The U.S. in fact defaulted back in October of 2013. This has not been told to the public at large. Why would the congress insinuate that the debt ceiling is now irrelevant? The only way the debt ceiling, or debt limit,(eg. the amount the government can borrow) can become irrelevant is if the U.S. has in fact defaulted and the process of default negotiations are taking place. Think of it as the rest of the world cutting up the credit cards belonging to the United States government.
China has recently purchased the JP Morgan building in Manhattan for $725 million. One could reason that they have in fact purchased all of JP Morgan. And I’m sure it will soon be announced that China has or is in the process of purchasing other Western banks and physical assets. These banks make up the majority owners of the Federal Reserve. (edit: Big call out to Archer for catching my typo and error in the amount which the building was sold.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-18/jpmorgan-tower-sale-sets-record-for-chinese-in-new-york.html
Just so that people understand:
China is in for China. Nothing wrong there: America’s been in for America for 300 years. Don’t expect people you know and care nothing about to rescue you. And don’t expect flat-broke Americans to rescue you. The reset is on. Most people will have too take a hell of a hair cut to bring some balance between the have really, really nothing and the have way, way too much.
No matter how you look at it, you’re part of the have way, way too much.
KC, on January 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm said:
“they Can Not FC unless you give them reason to”
Wrong. Many people found themselves in FC just for the mere fact that they asked for a modification they were entitled to, after losing a job they held for 25 years, through no fault of theirs, and finding a job that paid 1/2 less. What reason triggered their FC? They asked for HAMP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Affordable_Modification_Program
Don’t reach for that second glass. It’s painful enough already when you’re sober. Seriously, KC. And that’s the reason you don’t have my appeals decision.
If you have one … they Can Not FC unless you give them reason to.
Desperado…. Desperado……
Don’t drop any Cookie Crumbs and feed Desperado.
Top feeder turned Bottom Feeder …. That’s Desperado.
Two choices Desperado has … FC them or release the mortgage.
And this is after only one glass of Wine.. Wait til I have Two. 🙂
johngault, on January 24, 2014 at 8:29 pm said:
“I recently heard that JP Morgan filed for a patent for a bitcoin type currency.”
You actually may be right: historically (in recent history, I mean…) Chase has been very well known to publicly shoot down anything it could make a buck out of once it had disparaged it to the point of being worth nothing.
How does that work?
1) Dimon is CEO of JPMorgan Chase, very well known to shoot down anything potentially harmful to its bottom line. Think Tesla…
2) Chase observes that Bitcoin is taking business away from it, it analyzes, forcasts and it doesn’t like that it has no say in Bitcoin: Bitcoin is getting bigger than anticipated.
3) Chase attacks Bitcoin every way it can and knows how to. Chase knows the JGs of this world will report on it one way or the other.
4) Chase finds a way to create something… similar to Bitcoing but over which it will have control and which, in a short time, will run Bitcoin to the ground.
5) Chase is only doing the Chase bidding.
And the JGs still bank there… Right?
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/01/23/j-p-morgans-jamie-dimon-says-bitcoin-is-a-terrible-store-of-value/
J.P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon says bitcoin is a ‘terrible store of value’
January 23, 2014, 12:37 PM
The biggest U.S. bank by assets does not like bitcoin, to put it mildly.
The question isn’t whether the the bank accepts bitcoin, said Dimon. “The question is do we even participate [with] people who facilitate bitcoin,” he said on the sidelines of Davos.
Bitcoin is a digital currency that exists without a central bank. It is created through a process called mining, in which computers race against each other to solve cryptographic problems and win blocks of bitcoin. Bitcoin was thrust into the mainstream lexicon in 2013 as it surged from $13 in January 2013 to more than $1,000 late last year and was the subject of Senate hearings.
While bitcoin companies have attracted high-profile investors, they’ve encountered difficulties in securing bank accounts as banks remain skittish of the virtual currency and association with illegal activities. Indeed, Dimon alluded to media reports of bitcoin’s use in illicit endeavors in the interview.
Read the whole article.
That was a Great Case Christine, …. “yep” , they said it all … They had a valid claim to fc on a portion of the increased property tax bill of the unpaid property taxes (the default) due but not yet payable.
That reminds me, my husband received a notice of forced placed insurance this week, THIS IN A NEW ONE …. ( my policy renewal was11-13). And I Paid it , changed the primary policy holder to myself, (with hubby) and booted BOA as the loss payee again this year …
I Guess they didn’t get it or didn’t like it. *snickers*
Any whoo … yesterday he received a 2013 -1098 for the fee. And today he received a “replacement” OCC settlement check. … I guess they either didn’t get it (the answer.. WE cant be bought) or didn’t like.
*snickers*
Ahhh … BS’ers never give up. *Snorts*
I Declare, if I need help paying my bills, I will ask for Help.
Oh Look ——— > …. another one. *Splat*
RM/Reverse Mortgage
CM/Conventional Mortgage
Outstanding result in the Adrienne Robinson v. B of A, et al. appeal.
CA case. Pro se appeal. Straight facts, with adequate supporting documents and very concise grounds on which the appeal was filed and the case remanded.
Clarity of mind, purpose, specificity in the claims, adequate documentation in support thereof and gutts. The complete recipe for a win. Nothing else will work. That’s the system we live in and that’s the system we need to contend with. It works when properly applied. Even for pro se and… even in CA.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B246423.PDF
Funny though… this decision is to be non-published. Banks are running scared. And people are publishing regardless. Secrecy has run its course.
@ KC ,,
Explain please ,, RM V. CM ?? What is RM ??
We Want Prosecutions, Transparency and Disclosure …
And A Congress/Government that Works for the People and not the Crooks (themselves)! ….
Until I will Continue to Think Out Loud, Outside the Box, using My Outside Voice.
I know DW, and I’m with Ya! Time to Flush every last one of them!
By whose authority are you acting? What contract gave you those rights with this party?
Same Questions .. Just Keep Moving until you Come Full Circle.
Karma … I Love It!
Careful there … I’m Driving the Karma Bus Home! And I’m not stopping for any BS! “Splat”
Still makes em what they are kc
But i hear ya.
DW … That Sleazy Big Boy Club if formed under LLCs, LPs and operating currently under aka, fka, dba … na (not applicable) lol
The Biggie … Agency! Agency! Agency!
@guest
Still if the sleazy did not work for the sleaziest then the sleaziest would have to do their own sleazy work .
Which makes the whole sleazy club as sleazy as one another. They know.
PMI INS only for the 20% the lender/investor/servicer maintains in the stock holdings. ( largest individual stock holder). Payable post FC.
Its the other 80% your interested in …
I would agree that the Trusts were Unfunded, until the Big Bail Out (TARP) in 2010.
There are Laws that prevent ones with dirty hands to profit.
Dirty Hands .. My OCD Pet Peeve.
Who benefits from ones Life Estate? The Grantors/Trustors or The Beneficiary?
Its to my lay understanding that the Grantors benefit during their Life. And the beneficiary after the Estate is Settled and the Trust Closed.
I know nothing … I just think to much.
Many Blessings to All!
IN RM.. the Estate is Held to the outstanding debt due and payable when?
Who is the beneficiary of that FEDERALY INSURED RM?
Intentional Beneficiary Benefits of a Party Not named in the Contract, has NO RIGHTS to bring its claim (Lacks Standing) until… until … ?
In RM you still own home but could lose to FC if you don’t pay tax and ins.
Am I not Right?
RE: ” … in this example 20081001 ,, Oct 1 2008 ..
Any thoughts as to what this implies for the source of funds for the advances? ”
Charged Off ….
The accounting scheme seems consistent with a RM .. not a CM.
Neidermeyer;
This is the 11 dollar question – is there any chance the Mortgage Insurance folks stepped in ??? It had been my understanding the general spirit of MI was to do exactly that … but the MI guys are telling me no – they payout post foreclosure to cure the balance -/+ recovered vs owed.
Who knows. You would think off all the people that would be screaming bloody murder about this it would be the MI people.
Particularly PMI – formerly known as. As in Now in Receivership.
Make it a Great Day.
Any of you folks in Michigan would be advised to get out and campaign AGAINST David Trott who’s running for CONgress in Michigan’s 11th CONgressional district. Trott is the chairman and CEO of Trott & Trott PC, which represents lenders in foreclosure and bankruptcy litigation. I know an attorney who is regularly up against this firm, and he’s told me that they will do whatever it takes….read between the lines.
How anyone involved with this mess could consider themselves worthy of a CONgressional run shows Dimon-like arrogance. I personally believe that the only running characters like this should be doing is for their lives from a lynch mob.
@ All …
FWIW I have also verified that positional data 99&100 (the FF BB RE flags) that the FF flag is when a decision to file foreclosure is made and ,, actual filing occurs 1 or 2 months later… so this is servicer data flowing up to the trustee section of the record.
After doing a progression on two loans which were current with borrower money I have determined that the payoff amount located immediately after the initial loan amount (line #1 as it is formatting here) is always the amount listed two fields prior to the servicer name field in the following month… data flows down to the servicer..
The servicer gets the monthly payoff amount from the TRUSTEE (or the master servicer who in this case is also WF) …
Remember this data is a composite … the first section is TRUSTEE created … and it is interesting to note that the date field for “last payment received from borrower” is in the TRUSTEE section … but the trustee continues to increment the payoff amount down monthly as advances are made but the servicer data remains static when payments come from someone other than the borrower. (in the bankruptcy example the date is on the second row immediately after the state “FL” ) … in this example 20081001 ,, Oct 1 2008 ..
Any thoughts as to what this implies for the source of funds for the advances? The main thrust of the value of the collateral file remains intact… if your loan is listed it is being paid by someone…
It could be a continuously updated insurance payout value to the servicer since it’s frozen at the last pmt received monthly value?? macht keinen Unterschied.
@ Poppy:
If you jail only 1/2 the the sleaziest are sure to get away!
“We need to Jail half the Attorneys in this Country, and All the Closing Title Escrow Agents for not Closing Escrow”.
Everything they put before the court is hearsay…no verification, no diligence, no personal knowledge of content….perjury is what this behavior is called, IMHO it does conform to the standards of criminal intent to defraud: obtain goods or services under false pretenses!
@ Ian ,
What was your loan number with Option One..
I don’t know about anyone else here, but when I payoff a mortgage I expect the lien on the title to be released via a mortgage satisfaction.
If I had a DOT … I would expect my title to be re-conveyed back to me.
I suspect that would be impossible if our titles were hijacked,
Why would I put our Estate into BK? In BK our other assets would be sold to pay that dam single debt of his and we still keep this house. So instead of BK .. we sold things we otherwise would have not sold.. to payoff this house and perform on the contract in full in addition to hiring an attorney.
Guess What? The Dag Gone Thing is Unenforceable! On Top of that, they made some slanderous public statements in public record and I have every intention of having corrected by a court injunction,
Croak! Croak!
Reverse That …… 🙂
We need to Jail half the Attorneys in this Country, and All the Closing Title Escrow Agents for not Closing Escrow.
My husband took out a loan to purchase our primary residence.
I had Intent of signing a mortgage where the title is held in the buyers/our names and where the mortgagee holds a lien.
On the Face of the Contract it says Mortgage ..
But tucked away inside is a Irrevocable Living Trust where the Title of the Household estate was granted (via W.D. as T.I.E.) to … to.. to…
Title is transferred by way of a Deed. Yep! Yep! File It!
No Not MERS… MERS only held bare legal title for to to and for whose benefit? Upon the deaths of T.I.E.s or if the Estate was put into BK … the Trust is Closed and the Estate Settled.
No beneficiary in our Mortgage, not even MERS.
Is that why drop the ball and serve the T.I.E. , unknown beneficiaries and heirs to the estate? Oh boy ……
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another matter … does anyone get why I went in guns loaded (mouth running) on a POA attorney…. when I found out the deceased sellers trust was still OPEN years after we purchased this property?
JG, Name the Grantee in the unrecorded Warranty Deeds and I will Bring the Wine to go With the Popcorn.
How’s this one, KC?
“On September 29, 2005, Saxon assigned the Note to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-3 (“Deutsche Bank”) (the “Assignment”) by endorsing the Note in blank and without recourse to Saxon.”
Say what? 1) endorsements aren’t dated (they should be) – this is likely from inadmissable testimony from some attorney for Saxon in court or from a hearsay affidavit of a grunt 10 times removed from the alleged act. 2) an endorsement in blank cannot be an end to Saxon or anyone. Guess this court doesn’t know the diff between a blank end and a special endorsement.
Or this:
“…Tiffany and Bosco recorded a notice of
trustee’s sale naming “Deutsche Bank/2005-3” as the
current beneficiary in “care of Saxon Mortgage
Services, Inc. c/o Fidelity National Foreclosure
Solutions of Mendota Heights, Minnesota.” Where’s the popcorn?
the A man –
Eardley v. Greenberg, 164 Ariz. 261 (1990)
“The statutory scheme is designed to insure that the identities of beneficiaries and the authority of a trustee can be ascertained from an examination of the record. A.R.S. § 33-804 requires a notice of substitution to be recorded in “each county in which the trust property or some part of the trust property is situated.” A.R.S. § 33-401(D), in effect at the time of these events, required that “every deed or conveyance of real property, or an interest therein” from a grantor who held the property as an agent or trustee should also name the beneficiaries or principals. Although that section has been repealed, A.R.S. § 33-404(C) requires any trustee who receives actual knowledge of a change in beneficiary to record a notice of the change in the county in which the property is located. Finally, any person who receives an assignment of beneficial interest and does not record it is in jeopardy of having the assignment declared invalid as against a subsequent purchaser for value without notice. See A.R.S. § 33-411(A). We thus conclude that the trustor has standing to inquire into and raise objections about the process by which a trustee has been substituted. We also conclude that Eardley has raised material questions of fact in this case that preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
I’ve looked at some AZ cases over time and one thing seems clear to me: 1) AZ is lender friendly, thinking it is deferring to the legislative intent of the dot as a collateral instrument. It’s true the dot was approved (after lobbying by lenders) to accomodate lenders, to alleviate some of the time and cost of judicial foreclosure. The dot isn’t a free-for-all, as it is sometimes used. AZ has ruled that a dot follows a note and yet it has also ruled that a ben may foreclose acc to AZ statutes without regard to the note. If AZ statutes may be taken to read that, they need to be re-written. AZ allows an attorney of the alleged beneficiary to act as the (sub) trustee. This is appalling. And And entities partly owned or wholey owned by the alleged ben acting as trustee is an abomination. There is no logical reason for a trustee’s sale to create a presumption of propriety – anywhere. It’s enough to make you pull your hair out: the deck is stacked.
I am interested in what MasterServicer has to say about Niedermeyers posts.
MS I did not forget about you. Still fighting and working on things out here and will reach out to u in a few weeks.
niedermeyer, thanks for the response. when we were dual-tracked by Option One in 2007(was called ‘parallel foreclosure’ back then) we were 8 payments in arrears when they issued a default notice, about 15k. we ended up coughing up 45k in 08 including 10k atty fees. I found this site about 3 months later when i wondered “was what they did legal? and here I am. We went from Equicredit (BOA) to New Century to Ocwen to Option One to American Home Loan Servicing to SPS. Also Countrywide was in there for a short time. I think our ‘mortgage’ was charged off, a long time ago. Can you trace an Option One loan? thanks
Wells Fargo & HSBC’s more profitable activities questioned by Senator Elizabeth Warren:
Q: Just how many billions of $$$ of laundered drug money by a bank does it take to shut down a narco-bank?
A: Answer of the “Honorable Mr. Powell”: “…we have discussed the matter… but it is not our business to shut down drug banks”….
Senator Warren: “…what the F????”
Elizabeth Warren : Prosecution of Banks For Laundering Money For Drug Cartels (What?)
…………….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erZzPIYWnFY
Notice that all the HSBC bamboozle including its drug money laundering didn’t even approach $1 billion while Wachovia & Wells Fargo had laundered undisclosed amounts of over $420 billion drug $$$. That’s more than 400 times of what HSBC had laundered & no one every heard of it in the news media!
I recently heard that JP Morgan filed for a patent for a bitcoin type currency. I guess that way, since the banksters have so adversely impacted the value of a dollar and its prominence on the global stage, they can convert their natural and other resources (paid for with our collective retirement accounts, savings, homes, etc.) to the currency they’ve come up with and once again be king of the hill.
@ All ,
I never pointed out one massively important datafield in the example posted at 09:44am ,, you will notice a positive balance of $3.50 just prior to the servicers name (american home mortgage servicing inc.) in the July 2009 entry and a negative $100.00 entry for the servicer in the October 2009 … with two months of no data for the note between these entries … as the majority of the data has been zero’d out these two entries are book-keeping cleanup data entries for the trustee.. I think that this strongly hints that the servicer advance money does indeed come from an unreported pool or possibly insurance as the servicer in all prior months when it was advancing funds was not reporting that it had a negative balance, in fact in the immediately prior datafield is a large number that is in almost every case a few percentage points smaller than the initial loan amount , in this case $196,953.37. Remember each of these records is a composite created by Wells Fargos’ Trust department ,, it is an end-user output report with input from the sub-servicer , master servicer , the trustee itself and very likely an insurer.
@ Ian ,
I am a recovering ex-techie and ex-stockbroker ,, what happens with the data will have to wait until after I fight my battle… but yes it is simple report “one line per loan” data and can be manipulated into reports based on any data field including the state or zip code using whatever the pc equivalents of “dfsort” in the mainframe world would be, I am grateful that Wells Fargo made downloading the data so easy by including download managers and “download all files in the series” buttons. The way I see it the key is that when a loan is finally declared in default by the trustee it is removed, I have seen hundreds/thousands of loans flagged “FF” (foreclosure filed) that remain in the database for months or years indicating that the sub-servicer is indeed paying into the trust every month until final disposition of the property at a foreclosure sale. The assumption by the courts has to be that even if my understanding of all the datafields is murky it is because the creator of the data is not sharing the key but the truth of what is known is compelling.
Quite simply this data ,which we have known for at least the last 5 years or so because of the clauses in the PSA’s regarding the master servicers responsibility to maintain payments indefinitely regardless of the receipt or lack of receipt of payments from the borrower (and that the master servicer can transfer it’s responsibility to a sub servicer) should bring about a rash of wrongful foreclosure lawsuits (foreclosure occurs so quickly in states that are non-judicial that the loans just disappear from the list without ever being flagged “FF” while they are now proven to be CURRENT based on the data from prior months) ,, effectively end lawsuits in the name of the trustee and force a change in the sub-servicer/master servicer/trustee relationship because the sub-servicer in my mind hasn’t got any standing to sue the non-paying borrower ,, after all the choice of sub-servicer is imposed on the borrower ,, the borrower isn’t a willing party , he/she is merely informed of the company that is his/her interface with the trust. The sub-servicer agrees to take on the responsibility of making the payments… there probably isn’t one borrower in 100 that understands this, in fact if the trustee does declare a default the borrower probably has good cause to sue the sub-servicer for failing to make the payment(s).
I have only really looked deeply into Option One’s trusts as that is where my loan exists but as the PSA’s are mostly uniform as regards servicer advances and we can assume that Wells Fargo as master servicer and trustee operated with standardized agreements regarding their sub-servicers for every trust series they administered. I would think that any “Wells Fargo as TRUSTEE” lawsuit is either toast (they’ll probably attempt to substitute a new plaintiff) or that discovery of the trust files will become a standard request … soon to be acknowledged by the courts as both proper and necessary.. hopefully it will end the the type of response I got to my discovery request.. a flat “NO” with a taunt attached “And it wouldn’t help the defense anyway.” … hopefully I will get some traction on that..
Neil , if you want to contact me ,, call Theresa Edwards of Edwards and Clarkson in Ft. Lauderdale. 954-463-5266 x-103
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUHS7TVVgww
JP Morgan’s Frauds are Epic,Unprecedented in World History-William Black
By Greg Hunter On January 19, 2014 In Economy, Entertainment, Featured, News, Politics 55 CommentsBy Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com (Early Sunday Release)
William Black is both a Professor of Law and Economics. He has a wealth of opinions on the politics of spying and Wall Street crime. On President Obama’s curtailing of NSA spying, Professor Black says, “It is only because of Snowden’s disclosures that we know more, and we have this debate . . . The NSA probably intercepts 50,000 documents for every one document that foreign intelligent services collect. So, we are the story internationally. . . . It turns out we were not just spying on terrorists, we were spying on the general population of the world. . . . We used the intelligence we were gathering against journalists to try to discourage whistleblowers from coming forward.” As far as President Obama’s recent curtailment of NSA spying, Professor Black says, “It really tells you the politics of the thing. They decided they had to do something politically to curtail this because they are getting terrible publicity, and they’re getting terrible publicity not just in the United States. . . . This turned into disaster in terms of public relations for the United States and in terms of diplomatic relations.”
Professor Black is a former financial regulator and an expert in white collar crime. What does the Professor think about the trouble JP Morgan Chase has been in over things such as the so-called London Whale trading losses, the selling of tainted mortgage bonds and being a conduit for convicted fraudster Bernie Madoff? Just these three legal debacles alone have cost the bank nearly $23 billion in fines, restitution and trading losses in the last year. Professor Black says, “CEO Jamie Dimon has presided over the largest financial crime spree in world history. . . . It depends on how you count it, but it is more than a dozen, and more in the range of 15 major felonies that either the United States investigators have found, state investigators have found or foreign governments have found.” The Professor goes on to say, “JP Morgan’s frauds are epic in scale, unprecedented in world history. . . in these $23 billion we’re talking about, these are frauds that made Jamie Dimon and other senior officers incredibly wealthy by creating fictional income that led to very real bonuses.”
But, it’s not just JP Morgan. According to Professor Black, the entire financial system is headed for an even bigger collapse. As a major warning sign, Professor Black points to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s complaint about no money for regulation in the recent budget deal. Professor Black says, “Jack Lew is the anti-canary in the coal mine because Lew has been gutting regulation for virtually all of his professional life. . . . Lew is saying, my God we’ve gone so far we’re going to cause the collapse of the system. . . . You know when Jack Lew keels over, you know that carbon monoxide has already killed everybody reasonable.” Professor Black goes on to say, “The system is ungovernable . . . It has already largely imploded.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Professor William Black, who recently updated and re-released his popular book “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.”
neidermeir great work. you sound like you are techie of some type. if you could somehow identify a sampling of the loans (homeowner name, location, loan status) and compared the servicer advance status which you have to the courthouse filings or other records then that would be a coup de grace. can you search your database by loan number?
http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/civil-appeals-process-parties-briefs-oral-arguments.html#lesson
@ ToddW ,, here’s an example showing servicer advances as evidenced by the declining payoff balance from a randomly picked loan ,, note that this loan just disappeared without ever having an entry for FF BB or RE ,, seems like it may have been shifted to another tranche or pool ,, I suspect bankruptcy or immediate removal upon notice from a bk court .. I don’t know how this data will format .. in my file each entry is one very long line… I added the dates ahead of the loan number… the other important piece of data is the date code 20081001 which is the last payment received date from the borrower (subsequent pmts are from servicer) and the $1372.45 which is advanced to the investors monthly…..
**********************************
2009 01 //
0371042188 SFPC 08 07.450 1 00197250.0000193436.170.000000 200702012037010101372.450.400000360 069.7FL 20081001 AA 100283000.00036 07.450 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00001372.4500.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI34655 00.000200612186130F30069.7000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000194111.7900000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0030000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000030 200901N 00613000000000.00000000000.00 000196953.37000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 02 //
0371042188 SFPC 08 07.450 1 00197250.0000193264.640.000000 200702012037010101372.450.400000360 069.7FL 20081001 AA 100283000.00036 07.450 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00001372.4500.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI34655 00.000200612186130F30069.7000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000194111.7900000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0030000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000030 200902N 00613000000000.00000000000.00 000196953.37000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 03 //
0371042188 SFPC 08 07.450 1 00197250.0000193092.040.000000 200702012037010101372.450.400000360 069.7FL 20081001 AA 100283000.00036 07.450 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00001372.4500.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI34655 00.000200612186130F30069.7000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000193092.0400000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0030000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000030 200903N 00613000000000.00000000000.00 000196953.37000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 04 //
0371042188 SFPC 08 07.450 1 00197250.0000192918.370.000000 200702012037010101372.450.400000360 069.7FL 20081001 AA 100283000.00036 07.450 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00001372.4500.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI34655 00.000200612186130F30069.7000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000194111.7900000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0030000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000030 200904N 00613000000000.00000000000.00 000196953.37000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 05 //
0371042188 SFPC 08 07.450 1 00197250.0000192743.620.000000 200702012037010101372.450.400000360 069.7FL 20081001 AA 100283000.00036 07.450 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00001372.4500.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI34655 00.000200612186130F30069.7000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000194111.7900000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0030000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000030 200905N 00613000000000.00000000000.00 000196953.37000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 06 //
0371042188 SFPC 08 07.450 1 00197250.0000000000.000.000000 200702012037010101372.450.400000360 069.7FL AA 100283000.00036 07.450 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00001372.4500.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI34655 00.000200612186130F30069.7000000000.00 2007FX200052921.6800000000.0000192743.6200000000.0020090601OOMC 0.0000000.0030000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000030200906 200906N 00613000000000.00000000000.00 000196953.37000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 07 //
0371042188 00.000 1 00000000.0000000000.000.000000 00000.000.000000000 000.0FL 00000000.00000 00.000 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00000000.0000.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI 00.000 0000 000.0000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0000000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000000 N 09999000000000.00000000000.00 000000000.00000000003.50AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 08 //
NO ENTRY
2009 09 //
NO ENTRY
2009 10 //
0371042188 00.000 1 00000000.0000000000.000.000000 00000.000.000000000 000.0FL 00000000.00000 00.000 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00000000.0000.000 00.000 NEW PORT RI 00.000 0000 000.0000000000.00 2007FX200000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0000000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000000 N 09999000000000.00000000000.00 000000000.00-00000100.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000OPTION ONE 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
2009 11 //
NO ENTRY
2009 12 //
NO ENTRY
“AZ 33-804. Appointment of successor trustee by beneficiary
A. If a person appointed as trustee fails to qualify, is unwilling or unable to serve or resigns as trustee or if a trustee was not designated in the deed of trust, the beneficiary may appoint a successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee.
B. The beneficiary may at any time remove a trustee for any reason or cause and appoint a successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee.
C. A notice of substitution of trustee shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of each county in which the trust property or some part of the trust property is situated at the time of the substitution. The beneficiary shall give written notice through registered or certified mail, with postage prepaid, to the trustor.
D. A notice of substitution of trustee shall contain a description of the basis for the successor trustee’s qualification pursuant to section 33-803, subsection A. A notice of substitution of trustee shall be sufficient if acknowledged by all beneficiaries under the trust deed or their agents as authorized in writing and if prepared in substantially the following form:” (see stat for language, etc.)
Does anyone want to take a poke at this Plaintiff ….
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR VOLT ASSET HOLDINGS NPL3, BY CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., F/K/A VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC., AS ITS ATTORNEY IN FACT
TNT Harry
Simply have to disagree. I would love love love to be back in the position I was before the contract.
Sir all due respect. I’m changed forever. Emotion aside, you would not understand unless you lived it. In it and through it.
@ToddW ,
Plaintiff would not produce ,, in fact their response was “NO , And it wouldn’t help the defendant anyway” ,, WHAT STONES! ,, files were obtained legally by me as I was previously a stockbroker and had a valid legal login assigned to me by the admin at CTSLink.com , absolutely no “hacking” involved ,,, Wells Fargo’s “Commercial Trustee Services” data portal… the “production data output” is what I would have called a “flat file” back in my data processing days ,, not quite “card image” because the files are much longer than 80 characters… they appear to be an extract from a VSAM database actually…
I would like to put out also that this is newly discovered data despite it being downloaded a few years ago ,, it was on my old pc which had a bad motherboard and I only discovered that I had archived the ENTIRE WF DATABASE FOR ALL OF THEIR TRUST CUSTOMERS when I rediscovered my old hard drive and read the contents … All that is needed to kick off a few hundred thousand lawsuits regarding illegal foreclosure by the TRUSTEE who absolutely positively had no loss and whose interests were not in alignment with the subservicers (so the subservicer could not legitimately sue in the trustees name) is to concatenate and sort the files to assemble a history of each loan in an easy to read format…
format starts off;
loan# begin balance,current balance, , long strings of data describing the loan (date the trust closed, last pmt date , loan#months , rate% , actual dollar amount of interest credited monthly to the investors) ,, here’s an example … positions #99 and #100 can be blank (performing) , BB (bankruptcy) , RE (refi) or FF (foreclosure) ,, it should be noted that ALL of these data possibilities are EXTERNAL STIMULI ,, the trust doesn’t put you in bankruptcy or refi your home ,, since this is positional data that field absolutely positively means that the subservicer is calling the shots… The example below may not format correctly as there is embedded carriage control data… This example is a bankruptcy.. and is a very old loan (1998) substituted in to replace a defaulted loan… I would also point out that I have been able to easily determine by comparing sequential months of data that a “FF” foreclosure flag in position 99 is the start of the foreclosure process and that payments have been received EVERY MONTH and credited to the borrowers account…as evidenced by the decreasing “current balance”
******************
Bankruptcy “BB” old loan example below .. may not format well
******************
0041026105 SFPP 11.750 1 00095200.0000087383.960.000000 199812012028110100960.960.500000360BB070.0IN 20070901 B 00136000.00036 11.750 0.000 0000000.00000.00000.00000.00000960.9600.000 00.000 OSCEOLA 46561 00.000199810290000 000.0000000000.00 1999A 00000000.0000089709.5100000000.0000000000.00 OOMC 0.0000000.0000000.0000000.0000000.0000000.000000 0.000000 200909N 09999000000000.00000000000.00 000095142.13000000000.00AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. 00.0000000.000000.0000000000000000 00000000.0000000000.0000000000.0000000000.00 00000000.00 |
Your claims are for a materially false instrument recorded against the estate causal to a ”slander of Title for purpose of unjust enrichment”..
Thanks for the warning tnharry!
They wrote the rules … I’m merely enforcing their compliance through a court injunction ordering them to perform, a court order cleaning up the public records plus damages.
When the rules conflict with one another the Rule is … the overriding rule in favor of the party who didn’t write the rules.
@KC – the rest of that story is that when you undo the contract you put the parties back where they were before the contract. it’s kind of like TILA rescissions, be careful what you ask for.
@ neidermeyer- how did you get the Production Collateral Datasets? (I presume RFP that was actually complied with or “court” compelled WF to comply?) Have sample pdf showing what they look like on Scribd or somewhere else? thx. Todd W 410 916 8863. Will gladly return the favor any way I can
Anybody feeling sick? Wondering about the “crazy” weather worldwide? If we don’t have a planet, foreclosures don’t matter. THIS is the biggest threat to the very life of the planet, and all of it’s inhabitants…it’s less that 2 minutes—please take a look and share.
Good Morning All,
Contract Law 101
Fraud: A Misrepresentation of a MATERIAL FACT
Remedy: Undo the Contract
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone here Know the Federal or perhaps NJ state law, if foreclosure takes place with the incorrect higher balance , the SERVICER and debt collecting foreclosure attorneys foreclosed with…..I have proof their escrow figures were incorrect and they were notified many times but went ahead anyway……I finally have the servicers own spreadsheets, and depending on your side of fight anywhere from 800 to 2,300…..but even giving them every benefit, escrow balance is $800 too high and incorrect and could have caused not being able to cure reinstatement
Any recourse ??? I thought they had to verify to the penny
Every time “MERS” substituted the dot trustee, MERS was saying that is was still the ben. One might remember that when the game changes, as imo it will, thanks to Gliski (was it?)
I don’t know how a dot trustee could be a trustee for an unknown beneficiary. Even if there’s some assumption that the new ben, if any, would keep him “in” and even if he’s “in” until informed otherwise, he’d still have to know who that is, I would think.
hman – hmmm..first of all, I think it has the wrong name: “failure to disclose” because I didn’t see any penalty or ram of not doing what this statute says – disclose / record. Then F says if the thing weren’t done, it has no neg impact on anyone’s interest. Then G seems to pretty much exclude a dot trustee from any obligation to record a change of ben, It seems entirely toothless. But it does make me think of something. In the dot, a title co is generally apptd as the trustee, right? The ben and the trustee isn’t changed in public record until the loan is in borrower default, also right – right? But, the title company, as trustee in the dot, must surely be apprised of a change in the ben during the course of the loan up until it’s sub’d out. I’ll bet the ranch the orig dot trustee is never apprised of a change in ben to know who it’s holding a form of title for. And how are dot trustees paid and by whom?
One time payment? Annual? They do it for free?! Doubt that, but maybe to get the title business. I don’t know. But I can just about swear the dot trustee is not paid by MERS fwiw. It seems like AZ started off to make a ‘finite’ statute and then went astray. I’d really have to see some case law and that other statute referenced in this one. And:
“E. Any conveyance of real property or an interest in real property which does not include the disclosures required by this section with respect to the property so conveyed is voidable by the other party to the conveyance. Any action to void the conveyance shall be commenced within two years after the date of recordation of the document effecting the conveyance. ” Don’t know readily what the heck to make of this one. “other party to the conveyance” – ?? Let’s just take a deed (a sale of a prop). Okay, there’s a grantor and a grantee, and not generally, but could be a trustee involved, if the title were to a trust for the ben of the grantee, say. I just don’t know what this is saying without seeing its application. lay opinons as always
neidermeyer,
I have been looking for this info for Deutsche bank assests. Any idea where to obtain it? I’ve googled the heck out of this & admit I’m at a loss.
Thank you,
Neil ,
You said…
” I encourage attorneys to look carefully at the issue of “servicer advances” as a means to defeat the foreclosure in its entirety.”
************************************************
I am doing exactly that this month (or early next month)… I have Wells Fargo’s PRODUCTION COLLATERAL DATASETS from Option One , Bank of America and others (all the trusts for which WF was contracted as the trustee) covering loans originated as long ago as 1998 which shows very clearly that funds continue to be received and forwarded to the investors for years after the borrower stops paying … there is no default as the servicer is contractually obligated to continue payments… and those payments are documented.
Introducing these files as an exhibit is akin to having the victim walk into court in a murder trial… when the plaintiff is “WF as TRUSTEE”
Ohio Court of Appeals Stomps on PNC’s Undated, Unrecorded, Uncertified Documents
PNC v. WEST
Along with the note, the Wests also signed a mortgage granting a security interest in the property to National City Bank. On that same day, National City Bank executed an assignment of the mortgage to National City Mortgage Co. This assignment was never recorded. Approximately five months later, in November 2001, National City Mortgage Co. assigned the mortgage and the note to Freddie Mac. This assignment was also never recorded. Additionally, PNC attached uncertified photocopies of documents to establish National City Bank had merged into PNC. Failed, Failed, Failed and obtained judgment?
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/pnc-v-west_document-fail_1-14.pdf
John Gault,
Saw your post about beneficiary requirements & pulled up the Arizona Statute. I’m not seeing anything that that would forbid MERS for serving as a beneficiary. Anyone care to put there 2 cents in & speculate if MERS violates the statute in anyway would be much appreciated.
33-404. Disclosure of beneficiary; recording; failure to disclose
A. Notwithstanding section 33-411, subsection D, every deed or conveyance of real property, or an interest in real property, located in this state which is executed after June 22, 1976 in which the grantee is described as a trustee or acts as a trustee shall disclose the names and addresses of the beneficiaries for whom the grantee holds title and shall identify the trust or other agreement under which the grantee is acting or refer by proper description to the document number or the docket and page of an instrument or other writing which is of public record in the county in which the property so conveyed is located in which such matters are disclosed.
B. Notwithstanding section 33-411, subsection D, every deed or conveyance of real property, or an interest in real property, located in this state which is executed after June 22, 1976 by a grantor who holds title to the property as a trustee, whether or not such capacity is identified on the document through which title was acquired, shall also disclose the names and addresses of the beneficiaries for whom the grantor held title to the property and shall identify the trust or other agreement under which the grantor is acting or refer by proper description to the document number or the docket and page of an instrument or other writing which is of public record in the county in which the property so conveyed is located in which such matters are disclosed.
C. Notwithstanding section 33-411, subsection D, a grantee who holds title as a trustee under a trust or other agreement which is subject to the disclosure requirements of this section and who receives actual knowledge after August 18, 1987 of a change in beneficiary, within thirty days after receiving such actual knowledge, shall record with the county recorder of the county in which the property is located a notice of the change. The recording and any subsequent recording of any change in any beneficiary shall identify the trust or other agreement under which the grantee holds title and shall include the legal description of the property and a list of the then current names and addresses of the beneficiaries.
D. Notwithstanding subsections A, B and C of this section, a trustee is not required to record a change of beneficiary if, upon the death of a beneficiary of a real property trust, the interests of the deceased beneficiary vest in the beneficiary’s estate or in other beneficiaries identified in a previous recording. If the interest of the deceased beneficiary vests in a beneficiary not identified in a previous recording, the trustee shall comply with the recording requirements of this chapter within thirty days of receipt of both knowledge of the death and the name and address of the successor beneficiary or beneficiaries or within thirty days of the first distribution of income or principal to a successor beneficiary or beneficiaries, whichever occurs first.
E. Any conveyance of real property or an interest in real property which does not include the disclosures required by this section with respect to the property so conveyed is voidable by the other party to the conveyance. Any action to void the conveyance shall be commenced within two years after the date of recordation of the document effecting the conveyance.
F. If real property or any interest in real property, or any mortgage, deed of trust or other lien on real property, is acquired for value, the title, interest, mortgage, deed of trust or other lien is not impaired or in any way adversely affected by reason of the failure of any person to comply with the requirements of this section.
G. As used in this section, “trustee” does not include an agent for a disclosed principal, a conservator, a guardian, a personal representative, an attorney-in-fact, a lessor or lessee under a lease, a trustee in a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding, a trustee under a deed of trust, a trustee under a business trust or a trustee under an indenture for security holders.
Wells Fargo agrees to sell Mortgage Servicing Rights on approximately 184,000 loans
DES MOINES, Iowa — January 22, 2014
Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE:WFC) announced that its subsidiary, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., has signed an agreement with Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC for the sale of residential mortgage servicing rights on a portfolio consisting of approximately 184,000 loans with a total principal balance of $39 billion, or approximately 2 percent of Wells Fargo’s total residential servicing portfolio as of the end of fourth quarter 2013.
The sale will be finalized as servicing is transferred, which the Company expects will occur during 2014. The transaction will not be material to the Company’s financial results. The loans underlying the residential mortgage servicing rights sold are primarily owned by private investors and were not originated or owned by Wells Fargo. The loans are serviced under the trade name, America’s Servicing Company.
https://www.wellsfargo.com/press/2014/20140122_mortgage-servicing-rights
Focus
http://www.mikerooneylaw.com/2012/08/19/why-robo-signatures-are-illegal-in-california-and-other-non-judicial-foreclosure-states/
NEVER AGAIN