MGIC Paid Off 2,400 Loans last month! Why Does the Borrower Still Need to Pay the Same Creditor?

Among the many insurance companies that paid off loans or assets based on loans, MGIC. Off 2400 loans a month of January alone, which appears to be virtually all residential mortgages. Press the reason that nobody is paying any attention to this is that normally the insurer acquires the claim through a legal process called subrogation. In the world of securitization the insurer waives subrogation. So we are left with a payment to a creditor. The creditor is identified as the lender for purposes of the insurance. There is no doubt in any venue that once a settlement is accepted by a creditor or claimant the case is over.

But in mortgage foreclosures in appears as though even the most basic and common sense knowledge is ignored. The creditor receives full payment and then allows an agent to foreclose on the property even though the account receivable not longer exists. The same failure of logic exists with respect to servicer advances where the creditor has been receiving payments regardless of whether the borrower has been making payments or not. For reasons beyond my comprehension courts have thus far mostly accepted the premise that it doesn’t make any difference how much money the creditor has received on this debt, as long as the borrower hasn’t paid the amount stated as due in the promissory note (even if the promissory note has been paid in full by third-party).

To top things off, GKW (my law firm — 850-765-1236) is handling a case where insurance paid off a loan upon the death of the owner. BOA filed the appropriate satisfaction of Mortgage. But then in the giant roulette we know as LPS they still had the loan active and a servicer convinced the decedent’s family to enter into a modification of the loan without telling them that the loan had been paid off. Eventually, after years of “modification” payments on a loan that did not exist, the servicer has filed a judicial foreclosure in Florida! And after being informed we have the recorded satisfaction they had yet another entity file a document that was signed by still another entity and they recorded it in the county records — stating that the BOA satisfaction was a mistake!

Do I still need need to convince anyone that they need a forensic report and expert declaration? Call 520-405-1688. And for the lawyers, my firm also provides litigation support and coaching for this litigation across the country.

Dan Edstrom sent me the following:


You said in your seminar there are  on your3 ways to discharge an obligation.  Payment, Waiver of Payment or Magic.  Spend to much for the holidays?  Would you believe in magic …


There were 9,365 new notices of delinquency in January, 385 more than the number received for December, but a significant improvement over the 11,098 new notices received in January 2013. Meanwhile, 7,745 loans returned to performing status during the month, while MGIC paid the claim on another 2,393 loans.The company denied or rescinded coverage on another 204 loans. This moved the inventory to 102,351 from 103,328 at the start of the month.

In December, 7,259 loans cured and it paid 2,445 claims.

Typically, delinquencies are up in January because of holiday-related spending with those bills coming due.

MGIC wrote $1.7 billion of primary new insurance during the month, compared with $2.2 billion in both December and January 2013.

It would be interesting to know who pays for the coverage and if the homeowner was notified and claim was filed (and paid/denied/rescinded/etc.).  Also, why were the claims denied or coverage rescinded on the other loans?  Was the loan bad, was a defective claim filed, or was a bad faith claim filed?  What government entity (if any) has regulatory authority over MGIC, Radian and others?  What can a homeowner do to find out if insurance coverage exists, whether a claim has been filed and what the status of the filed claim is?


Office: 916.207.6706
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is for educational and informational purposes only. Take no action on this information without consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction. If our information conflicts with your attorneys information, disregard our information. it’s’s and the right what


133 Responses

  1. text

  2. Certified Documents: Question? When I put together a Qualified Written Request (QWR) and I request Certified Copies of a Deed of Trust and the Note, they are suppose to send me certified copies. How can I ensure that they are copies of the original documents since they are suppose to have the original documents? What prevents them from getting a notary in their office to falsify documents? How can I ensure that they have the original documents?

  3. neidermeyer

    no, sorry, you don’t get it. no judge is going to admit much less read a 2000 page collateral file. direct me to your 100 page SEC selling syndicate role document.

    you obviously have never traded stock options. the CDS were put options. that was the insurance windfall for the banksters. the insurance didn’t pay off the mortgagor’s loan. it was a put on the tranche.

    keep us posted on your court ordered discovery, let us know how that works out for you. also, please show me where I can find the evidence that demonstrates that the MBS were converted into common stock.

    Bueller? Bueller?

  4. Bob G.

    Sorry you don’t get it .. I can’t post a 2000 page collateral file here here ,, or even a 100 page SEC document that spells out the selling syndicates role… or the AIG docs that must be reconciled to get a true accounting … I can’t do that here … but you surely can see that if a party was paid off by insurance that party was presented as a beneficial owner… and the only two possible conclusions of where that ownership came from are both in my favor. When you couple that with the trustees own docs which directly contradict what they have previously entered into evidence you have a powerful argument for court ordered discovery.

    Discovery is a win ,, Truth is a win … and I am going to win.

  5. Nothing that you have said here makes any logical sense. Reread what you posted it’s all conclusory, and all talks to this that or the other thing, without any evidentiary support. Don’t you see this? This is all inside your head, and you have a great inability to be able to communicate what ever the hell it is that you’re trying to say. You have to be able to make this kind of communication with your readers, or we’re just scratching our heads trying to figure out what the hell it is that you are trying to say. If we can’t understand it, with all the knowledge that we have about the subject matter. How can you possibly expect a judge or jury to understand whatever the hell it is that you’re trying to say?

  6. Bob G.

    re- stock certs..

    This isn’t speculation,, it’s how any pooled resource is sold, it’s in the SEC docs ,, you cannot sell someone 48% of Sallies mortgage ,, and 27% of Bob’s and 10% of Jims… you issue stock in an easy to work with face value ,, $250/share ,, $1000/share … then you hire the sales team “the syndicate” to flog your worthless crap to the rubes that run the Cleveland Teachers retirement fund…

    The syndicate members are the owners of the certificates until they sell them… they sometimes are asked to pay for them up-front (at a discount) but mostly they’re just given the sales duty with the understanding that they have 30/60/90 days to pay for them…

    In my instance I speculated here that Bank of America received the $40.1M because they were part of the sales syndicate and that was the unsold certificate total … In reality as Bank of America was the table funder for Option One that $40M may have represented the failed percentage of loans (about 6%) at the 4 month mark after the trust closed.

    Either way spells doom for the plaintiff…

    1.) If this was for unsold certs held by BOA that means that the payout was 100% to all cert owners … all debts struck …
    2.) If this was for the 6% of the loans that were failed right out of the gate (as the AIG v. BOA lawsuit implies) then Option One never owned the notes and could not have transferred them to WF as the plaintiff claims (via their freshly forged 2013 assignment) … BOA if found to be the beneficial owner of the trust (in their insurance claim filed by WF as MS) is still a stranger to the note.. Note is a worthless fraud.

    How oh how do you as plaintiff avoid court ordered discovery when confronted with documents that prove that all the docs you submitted previously were false? FOLD AND RUN.

  7. Charles, I was able to find a copy of the Note. What should I be looking for on the Note?

  8. bob, that is Maher speak.
    Douglas, that isn’t a winning argument. not yet

  9. Bob G sez: “U r going to discover that even the NSA cannot decipher what some of the posters here are saying. You would have better luck seeking answers from a ouija board”


  10. I am beginning to think that Charles Reed is not who he says he is. It seems he may be hiding behind a mask of illiteracy in order to evade the scrutiny of some of the “evildoers” that are out there attached to the banking/mortgage industry. FYI, I wanted to set up a PayPal account with a website and because it was going to be about foreclosure, PayPal would not allow me to have an account. Censorship from the banksters. I have also seen another, who will remain unnamed, who has Google and InternetExplorer censoring his website, not his virus control or firewall. Seems to me somebody is scared of us. I hope so.

  11. niedermeyer,

    We’re still waiting for your evidentiary proofs regarding your claim that the MBS were converted into common stock.



  12. Charles Reed,

    This is not a contest. I don’t know why you think you have to prove anything to me. I will, however, question how come, in your every day posts, you sound absolutely illiterate and when you feel under pressure to defend yourself, you suddenly learn to write.

    Don’t people deserve decent prose all the time? If i were the only one unable to decipher your posts, I would think the problem is mine. The truth is: I am not the only one. Do you really believe that you can help anyone by being sloppy?

    You don’t need to answer. And this country will have to learn one day or the other that pointing out something people do incorrectly does not mean that they are PERSONALLY under attack!!! Where the hell does that paranoia originate from? Is this due to the upbringing? This firckin’ country is so smug in its “exceptionalism” that it is incapable of revising and correcting its ways. For Pete’s sake people, get over your sweet selves if you ever want this country to pull through!

  13. Not really off topic. I think one of you guys id in AZ and won a quiet title
    Now ck this out interesting concepts that you might relate to. Not legal advice just think its interesting case. Its a WIN

  14. Christine in Sept 2001 I was in search of a place were I could learn to perform VA loan for the Military community because I had been doing loan at a broker shop and I knew I there were better loan than the shops were offering, but trying on my own to learn was costing me money out of my pocket.

    So I landed at this bank and from that point me and this other loan officer another loan officer who was a Air Force Reserve Officer performed the most VA loans between two loan officers in the country.

    We had a mission to help those who were serving and those who had served because we wanted to give back. We had the lowest prices even that we knew we could make more but we did not.

    But not only did I just help military families it was all families that give me an opportunity to work for them.

    Elderly people were being abused by Wells Fargo, and this old racist white dude came into the bank and was cracking on every race or ethnicity group in the bank. The old guy said to one of the black woman at who was from the South was it not nicer working at the bank in the AC oppose to working out in the field on the Plantation. The guy was serious.

    Now I knew this 80 something dude was from a era gone by, but as the young lady asked me not to help the guy for the insult, (Sep 2007) I told her that, I needed to help him because he represent what was coming. Long story short Wells put the old dude in some high interest rate 40yrs loan with a prepayment and charged him a extra $4K on top in fees.I got the dude back his $4K and the Wells Fargo settlement should have paid him more in 2011.

    I saved a young Air Force pilot Major and his school teacher wife $7K when 3yrs adjustable VA loan came on line, as some company has already gotten the check for the refinance, as they told the family that they were the only company in the country who could perform this loan. Now the loan product was fresh on the market, and few knew of it. However I knew of the program and simply charged what everyone else was charged for a regular loan with no points and a lower rate, which resulted in no money out there pockets except for the escrow account, which the got back their old escrow when the loan closed out, making it a wash.

    So I had a couple that was not more to the wiser and anywhere from $6K these folks would have though they have a great deal, but what would Jesus do? Save my brother in Christ $7K, as I am my brother’s keeper!

    Being a black mortgage loan officer at a bank, and being what I still believe to be the only one in the country that performed Prime/Government, I had the weight of the world on my shoulders. So this is why I believe I have been the only at first to crack what happening with Ginnie Mae securities because I never fully trusted the system. I had been screwed before but if I told people they would never believe it.

    The banks had a responsibility to act in a safe and sound manner and they did not. I had to say this set the record straight and if it is the Twilight Zone so be it. Christine you may be good, but your foreplay is just a bit to rough.

  15. Twilight zone alright…

  16. christine let me break this down for you, and that is Szymoniak file her case or it went forward on Feb 5, 2014 with her high powered legal team Grant & Eisenhofer, with out the Federal Government is going forward with a $10 billion claim that the Federal Government had false claims against it at the FHA and VA dept because of the forgeries used for assignments.

    So for almost 2yrs since the first time I wrote here its been the same issue and that was Ginnie Mae False Claim with phony assignment because Ginnie Mae cannot originate, purchase or sell a home mortgage loan at all.

    I take my hand over your hand any day and Szymoniak and team have put there money up on the table because she got a track record and recovered $95 million for the government already. So the only question is why did not the government join her as we know already there was fraud with these securities instruments? It because the Federal Government already know about the crime from another source!

    Szymoniak as Bob G will tell you is it because of my big mouth when I talked with her in Sept 2012, but Szymoniak like in the first case wanted to act as if she was the source of the information, but as this is government loans she has no direct knowledge of the crime, and is taking from client the information. The only different from her first case is that DocX did handle her mortgage back she received the information from the guy who is currently suing her for the claim!

  17. No worries Charles, I understand where you are coming from comrade. I really appreciate the help. You know most people done even look at their mortgage documents for years, and I guarantee that most people don’t understand what they are looking at even after they pull them out to address an issue. The reason most people come on these blog sites is to get educated and hopefully meet someone like Charles that is willing to help. Its tough going to an attorney and not knowing what to discuss and no idea what he is talking about when he starts throwing mortgage terms around, much less getting the money to even hire an attorney. “All The Way” Charles

  18. Christine I am the loan officer that called the Baltimore Mayor and her legal team in Feb 2008 that gave them how minorities where being steered into subprime loans. I also wrote the Justice dept about the steering of all people into subprime loan in 2010 and both cases ended up in the settlement.

    Call the NE State Attorney General office on the referral I made to them of old people being abuse in mortgage lending and recovering money for the elderly.

    I may not write so well, but I don’t stop. When the SEC breaks down the charges of this BS you will see that it not one case at a time but 800,000. Why do you think the government and lender paid all 4.2 million HAMP applicant something in the last settlement, and in this $50 billion there $17 billion for victims proposed!

    Who are you helping again? I bet James got more answer from me as to what he wanted to know in years. I am the real deal. I am that airborne infantry soldier you want to protect your families life, because I care, even if I cannot write.

  19. Christine here my good intention and that lies in the recent suit that Szymoniak filed, and I want you to remember the name because I am going to win, because I already presented the evident to the government for that claim over 2 year ago.

    Good intention is getting back all the 800,000 false claims from 2009-2010 to start! What are you doing?

  20. James Smith,

    Call Todd. Seriously. At least, read his blog. I seem to recall that he’s a vet too and had a few brushed with death. You need a pro in foreclosure defense to help you. Good intentions don’t suffice: the ways to hell are paved with good intentions. Todd gets cases dismissed and he gets people results.

  21. Bob & Cristine everybody not got the education the two of you have in putting together proper sentences, however most American for each corner of the Union understands each other and is part of the reason that call centers are outsourced.

    But some people come here because they are desperate and want thing answered that attorneys don’t understand and some don’t have the patience or time to understand. There been 10 million foreclosures since 2008, yet there been not class actions but settlements in the billions involving the loan that have been these securities.

    It not like I wanted to try and present my case to the world, but there are very few on the planet back in 2010 that understood what a securities was or how it worked in the legal field.

    I don’t usually give advise over this blog, but James is a servicemember and as a veteran and former mortgage loan officer I believe its my duty to at least try and point him in the right direction. When I was oversea and terrorist were trying to kill us, I understood guys from every region of this country, because it was understand or die!

    James now has option as to talk with an attorney, state, federal or the lender in what he can ask them to do for him. James is saying that the biggest problem is his 2nd mortgage, and 2nd mortgages are easier to deal with that a problematic 1st!

  22. What if ET is responsible ?

  23. Bob,

    Is this some kind of a twilight zone only a few are allowed to enter? All of a sudden, I can’t seem to understand English anymore… OMG!!! What if the whole of America had been sucked into an enormous twilight zone? What if they were all in it and just a few of us were left out? What if it was zombieland???

    Dindindinding dindindinding dindindinding dindindinding…

  24. @Bob G, the more James know the more other may learn, maybe not everyone got the answer but I pretty sure James at this point does not have a FHA loan, so at least he not chase down the wrong path.

    At the very least he does not have to worry about the 2nd coming in and foreclosing on him as long as that first mortgage is in place, and can give him some breathing room.

    These bank have received monies to forgive some of these settlement or credit toward the $25 billion settlement. The bank getting a tax break of the forgiveness anyway. If James property goes into a foreclosure the 2nd is not getting anything anyway in most cases.

    But I guaranty his loan was placed into the Fannie Mae pool with a blank endorsed Notes!

  25. Charles the only thing I could find was a copy of the original DOT. Is it possible that it serves the purpose of a DOT and a Note? I guess that’s why they did not send a copy of it when I requested the QWR.

  26. I rest my case.

  27. James were the loans originated at the same time when you purchase the place or the other loan done separate? What was the status of the BK? If you had a the BK then you could not before 2008 have done the VA loan. However if there was a situation where the wife worked and made enough money then maybe it could be originated with just her on that first loans.

    But if not it just seen as if you had two subprime loans that were broken up, but the fact that Fannie Mae is the owner, it look two me they purchase them in a pool. However they need to still explain that ownership and must provide a receipt of purchase.

    Now I would get an attorney to see about getting rid of the 2nd mortgage or see if they will refinance it because if you stopped paying there is nothing that they can really do because they are in the and position and would need to payoff the 1st.

    I need to know more about what type of loan on that first? FHA or fixed or adjustable

  28. James

    U r going to discover that even the NSA cannot decipher what some of the posters here are saying. You would have better luck seeking answers from a ouija board.

  29. Charles, I am a minority. I did look into that, but since the loan was not originated with Wells Fargo I did not have any recourse and right now the loan is with America Servicing Company which is Wells Fargo.

  30. James your problem is one they are trying cover up and buy back these securities. Your loan that being serviced by Citi I believe is a problem for them because they have problems producing evidence that they purchase these loans. You need a copy of that Note and it will tell the story.

    The Wells Fargo loan if produced before 2008 and if your a minority was already solved for you as Jul 2012 Wells Fargo agreed to pay $175 million for the discriminating lending. Our you a minority? and if not there was the Jul 2011 fine by the Federal Reserve Bank to Wells Fargo for $85 million for steering Prime customers into subprime loans.

    Were you married and maybe you or your spouse had the Bankruptcy and not the other?

    If Elizabeth Jacobson did your loan or one of her team, you need to have this issue addressed with the State and who is handling the out come of those settlements.


  31. Mike, not sure what document you are referring to for page 3. We closed on this back in 11/2005. However WF did not assign the loan until September 2011, which is way beyond the 90 day requirement.

  32. Charles both of the loans are conventional. I also dug up a letter from Citi when I did a QWR. It states clearly that the Owner of the Mortgage is Fannie Mae and it gives their address and phone number. Now that we know that the Owner is Fannie Mae how does that come into play as far as MERS is concerned. Your statement said, “Here where I believe Fannie & Freddie have problems is because they are not home mortgage lenders and are not member of MERS as home mortgage lender and in that case I would say that the Citi person signing as the VP of MERS cannot assign the Note because Fannie not in the actual chain of ownership.” What exactly does that mean?

  33. Open letter to Mitt Romney

    Dear Mitt Romney, I heard you’re concerned that the 50 billion cost of the Olympics in Russia may be going into the hands of criminals. I’d be interested in your take, as well as that of your constituents, about where the billions realized from the taking and sale of American homes are going.

    john gault

  34. Inch by inch


  35. James I want you to run to get your paperwork from Wells Fargo and look on page 3 of that application and tell me who the was on page 3 of 4? What year was this loan closed.

    Look Wells Fargo settled with the city and also was fined by the OCC for there conduct in Baltimore and Memphis!

  36. James first your all over the place, so what I want you to do is grab both of your settlement packets from your closing and look on the Note and they will tell you what kind of loan you have. It impossible to have a 1st and 2nd that are FHA loan as FHA does not do 2nd mortgages.

    If there was a bankruptcy before like 2009 you would not have had a FHA loan but if only let say a spouse had a BK and she was not on the loan then you would have been able on your own get a FHA loan.

    At the top of your settlement statement from the closing and at the top will be block that indicate what type of loan it is that is being closed and a check will be placed in the loan type! It will also be on the application they should have provided you, plus the Note should say a FHA loan.

    Now you said New Equity was the originator of the loan and did the DOT with MERS so I thinking the 1st loan was also not a FHA loan. Its not likely Fannie Mae owns a FHA loan from this lender as not many FHA loan are not placed into a Ginnie Mae pool. But what you need to look for is the Note and if Fannie Mae is not endorsed on that Note and does not have a receipt of purchase is your best bet.

    The the OCC is making you jump through hoop that are impossible because it sound as if the first is being service by Citi and the OCC making you go through them instead of the alleged own of the loan with you said was Fannie Mae. Write the OCC again and tell them you want to have the lender address your issues. Tell them you want a copy of the Note as it appears right now.

    Here where I believe Fannie & Freddie have problems is because they are not home mortgage lenders and are not member of MERS as home mortgage lender and in that case I would say that the Citi person signing as the VP of MERS cannot assign the Note because Fannie not in the actual chain of ownership. As you look at the court house you will not see Fannie as the lien holder because it cannot be on the face of the Note, because they are not a home mortgage lender.

    You must have had alright credit because Wells did a $130,000 second. Question were they done at the same time for closing or one happen later? Good news is that Wells Fargo in the 2nd cannot foreclose unless they are willing to pay off that first for $140,00 which ain’t happening.

  37. Charles, the loan was originally for 200,000.00, we owe 140,000. It is currently with Citi Mortgage. Based of the DOT MERS is the nominee for New Equity Financial. Says the same on the copy of the original deed of trust. And again for the life of me I cant remember why we did not go VA, but for some reason I want to say that it was because of a bankruptcy. We do have a second with Wells Fargo, which is the one that I am really having issues with. We owe 130,000.00 on that one. They are both FHA. From what I have been able to find out is Fannie Mae owns the first with Citi and the second with Wells Fargo is a securitized loan. I have not been able to determine if the 1st was securitized, but it does have a MIN # on it.

  38. Bob,

    It’s not Star Trek. It’s science without conscience… Same result.

    Nothing happens in a vacuum: a country doesn’t have 17% of its population suffering from diabetes out of nowhere. And forget about heredity and genetics: biggest crock people chose to believe. You are what you eat. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Funny too, this snow that doesn’t melt and makes your fingers all sticky… During my 17 years in Boston, when we were pummeled with snow all winter long, snow plows piled it up in the streets where it would harden but… roofs cleared up in one day! Stalactites hung from eaves and melted away in 48 hours. Been looking at the same snow stuck to all the roofs in my neighborhood for three weeks now. No stalactites anywhere.

    Take control of your health and your life or forever hold your peace.

    Off topic? Nope. To get good results, one has to have a clear mind. Not much of it here.

  39. Clearly we have one pArty christine the republicrsts. Im starting to get it because i took time to find out. How long before people wake up when they are controlled more than they could possibly be aware of, i believe there is a growing awareness and awakening to the real world order and a hunger thst a “big mac ” will no longer satisfy
    Let me share this and im still analysing the interaction, i was purchasing a used wine rack ( ha) its true, and the gal was talking about recycling and its a great wAy to shop and went on to talk about how all the gals working lost thrif homes and how she had to short sell and that it was s new thing when she did it 😚since then she doesnt care about stuff.., next…. I meAn wtf can you do about that- they lost they move on not knowing how badly ff’d ., well you see my point and after reading Tiabbi im not sure ican look at the darn wine rack !

  40. Deb,

    What’s remarkable is who wrote and pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law that repealed Glass-Steagal. 3 republicans who went on to become full-time lobbyists.

    And NAFTA wasn’t a Clinton creation (although he gets credited with it all the time). It was Papa Bush who really, really wanted to ship all the jobs out. Reagan had already been sold on it long before, though. Hence the turning of every for-profit corp into a non-profit that could “avoid” paying taxes. The idea was that America was going to pull the world strings and “make” the money while the menial task of actually producing and manufacturing all sellable goods would be outsourced to insignificant and discardable peons who, in turn, would be eternally indebted to the US. And all the money gathered by those absolutely for profit non-profits would then be magnanimously spread around the world as it served US interests. Just like Gates and Buffett Jr. are doing, shoving Monsanto down increasingly resistant throats worldwide, while Halliburton handles the rebels thanks to all the Bechtel and Cashman infrastructures built everywhere in the past 50 years.

    Isn’t this a great country or what? For over 100 years, the republicans have had all the good ideas and the democrats have got none of the brains to analyze that the shiny stuff pushed before their eyes all along wasn’t gold or silver (can’t learn that on welfare, right?) and none of the balls needed to resist temptation.

    Team work at its best… Both parties have consistently and quite successfully fed on each other’s weaknesses. How do I know? They all got filthy rich in the process!!! And the plan so far is working quite well: we, insignificant and discardable peons…
    I rest my case.

    Well, if it took 50 years to put in place, we ought to give it that long to be torn down. And the solutions shouldn’t come from the same A.H.s either: we already know what they’re capable of.

  41. *** MERS only holds bare legal title. HA!!

    Then tell me why the “Warranty Deeds” say the Grantor is the Plenders Funding Co. ???

    (who is listed a MERScorp INC. Funding member)

  42. “Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds provides that an action may not be brought on the following types of contracts unless there is a written note or memorandum signed BY THE PERSON BEING CHARGED or a person authorized by them:

    Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
    Contracts that cannot be performed within one year.*

    *In a dot, the “person being charged” with whatever MERS is is the lender. I take the “person authorized by them” to be MERS. Neither sign the dot. So unless that gang wants to come up with another ‘note or memorandum’ (aka writing), “an action may not be brought” on the dot by MERS imo – if this is still the law in any given state(s). This may (also) help explain the MERS Consent Order.

  43. “The authority to execute a contract required to be in writing by the Statute of Frauds must be in writing. This includes :

    (a) An agency contract whereby the agent agrees to work over a period extending more than a year from the day of making the contract.”

  44. CA Civil Code Title 9 Chapter – Agency in General

    2304. An agent may be authorized to do any acts which his principal
    might do, except those to which the latter is bound to give his
    personal attention.

    2309. An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except
    that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in
    writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.

  45. James Smith,

    “Is he going to charge me to ask a few questions?” Don’t know. Go to his website, his number is listed. Give him a holler and ask him.

    And keep in mind that you get what you pay for.

  46. The A-Man,

    Actually, work doesn’t render people free. Self-employment does and only to the extent that you can pack your skills and go.

  47. Bob,

    “Is there a Star Trek type force shield around this site that prevents logic, reason, and rational thought and analysis from entering it?”

    The short answer is: “Yes!”

    The Drugging Of America Summarized In 19 Mind-Altering Facts

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/15/2014 – 14:47

    The American people are the most drugged people in the history of the planet. Illegal drugs get most of the headlines, but the truth is that the number of Americans that are addicted to legal drugs is far greater than the number of Americans that are addicted to illegal drugs.

    As you will see below, close to 70 percent of all Americans are currently on at least one prescription drug. In addition, there are 60 million Americans that “abuse alcohol” and 22 million Americans that use illegal drugs.

    What that means is that almost everyone that you meet is going to be on something. That sounds absolutely crazy but it is true. If it seems like most people cannot think clearly these days, it is because they can’t. And considering the fact that big corporations are making tens of billions of dollars peddling their drugs to the rest of us, don’t expect things to change any time soon.

    #1 An astounding 70 million Americans are taking legal mind-altering drugs right now.

    #2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, doctors wrote more than 250 million prescriptions for antidepressants during 2010.

    #3 According to a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, nearly 70 percent of all Americans are on at least one prescription drug. An astounding 20 percent of all Americans are on at least five prescription drugs.

    #4 Americans spent more than 280 billion dollars on prescription drugs during 2013.

    #5 According to the CDC, approximately 9 out of every 10 Americans that are at least 60 years old say that they have taken at least one prescription drug within the last month.

    #6 There are 60 million Americans that “abuse alcohol”.

    #7 According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 22 million Americans use illegal drugs.

    #8 Incredibly, more than 11 percent of all Americans that are 12 years of age or older admit that they have driven home under the influence of alcohol at least once during the past year.

    #9 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is an unintentional drug overdose death in the United States every 19 minutes.

    #10 In the United States today, prescription painkillers kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined.

    #11 According to the CDC, approximately three quarters of a million people a year are rushed to emergency rooms in the United States because of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs.

    #12 According to Alternet, “11 of the 12 new-to-market drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration were priced above $100,000 per-patient per-year” in 2012.

    #13 The percentage of women taking antidepressants in America is higher than in any other country in the world.

    #14 Many of these antidepressants contain warnings that “suicidal thoughts” are one of the side effects that should be expected. The suicide rate for Americans between the ages of 35 and 64 rose by close to 30 percent between 1999 and 2010. The number of Americans that are killed by suicide now exceeds the number of Americans that die as a result of car accidents every year.

    #15 In 2010, the average teen in the United States was taking 1.2 central nervous system drugs. Those are the kinds of drugs which treat conditions such as ADHD and depression.

    #16 Children in the United States are three times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants as children in Europe are.

    #17 A shocking Government Accountability Office report discovered that approximately one-third of all foster children in the United States are on at least one psychiatric drug.

    #18 A survey conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that more than 15 percent of all U.S. high school seniors abuse prescription drugs.

    #19 It turns out that dealing drugs is extremely profitable. The 11 largest pharmaceutical companies combined to rake in approximately $85,000,000,000 in profits in 2012.

    In America today, doctors are trained that there are just two potential solutions to any problem. Either you prescribe a pill or you cut someone open. Surgery and drugs are pretty much the only alternatives they offer us.

  48. James what was the size of the loan and it there were two what was the two amounts and what type of loans! We need to get to the bottom of why you did not take a VA. And I am assuming it was Citi or who exactly are we saying give you the loan and who got it now.

  49. James, until the States decides that they are not going to allow this system to take place you got an expensive battle on your hand. I don’t think that the assignment in the manner your stating that the courts are just going to allow the assignment not to stand.

    There got to be a reason we are here today and it not because of simple disputing the assignments. If we take what been happening and MERS is just assigning after a purchase of bank A to Citi and Citi has not recorded the assignment until now does not mean they cannot do a this later time as long as bank A signed the assignment the day of the purchase, because at a later date bank A has no legal authority after the fact. Date are important!

  50. Charles I wish I could answer that but I just don’t remember. I do know there was a reason why but again I just don’t remember

  51. Yes I’m in baltimoe county. Is he going to charge me to ask a few questions?

  52. Charles, I read the case you sent me. I want to turn this to your attention to something else that caught my eye. “MERS cannot transfer something it never proved it possessed. A foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by someone who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.” Let me see if I read that correctly, If the DOT List MERS as the assignor and MERS assigns the loan to Citi Mortgage that makes the transfer void because MERS had no authority to be the assignor and lacks the authority to assign the loan to Citi. Both of my DOT’s have MERS listed as the assignor, so does that mean that my DOT’s are VOID? Oh and by the way I read the last page of the DOT, Geraldine Belinski signed the document as a Vice President of MERs and from what I read in the case if she is an employee of Citi, this is wrong as well. All please chime in with comments I want to make sure that I am understanding this before I draft my correspondence. Thanks

  53. James another question I have is why did you not take out a VA loan? I want to know if they offer you one and why did you go with another program. Servicemembers were being tricked into do Prime 1st and Interest only 2nd.

  54. christine, on February 13, 2014 at 11:53 pm said:


    You’re in Baltimore, right? Contact Todd Wetzelberger of Surfire Home Retention in Baltimore. Don’t have his phone number handy but he’s on internet. A gold mine of info. And he really helps people.

  55. Followed by Foreclosure Filings Jump as Investors Eye Exits. Both eyes open. Wide.

  56. Can’t we all just get along? 🙂

    It’s my belief that all of us here are simply the pioneers of the foreclosure debacle, those that have forged through the brambles and brush in the early stages of what will come to be known as the Great Foreclosure Era, or some such nonsensical title. I believe we’re soon to be joined by millions upon millions more Americans with that dazed and confused, red-eyed stare that can only come from spending countless hours staring at hundreds of pages of mortgage documents in an attempt at figuring out how one could lose the family home due to circumstances totally out of their control i.e. the Wall Street gambling binge. MERS? WTF? More and more will come to LL with the pathetic cry, “Help! I need help please!” Take a number.

    And when that happens, when million upon millions more join our ranks, at some point, either the legislators in D.C. will realize that there’s no way their constituents will ever vote for their re-election, or, that there will finally be enough people fed up with our governments pandering to these criminals as to effect real change….maybe a combination of the two. However it happens, I hope it’s sooner than later. No civilized people could possibly stand by while half or better of the population loses their homes to criminal syndicates with our government looking on as if there’s simply nothing that can be done. We all know that they’ve gamed the system, and so do our leaders. We have met the enemy, and they exist in NY and DC. Nothing will change until our legislators turn from fearless leaders to very fearful leaders.

    Read The Coming Mortgage Delinquency Disaster. It’s an eye-opener.

  57. By the same token, the govt has “billions in deferred revenues.” Called future taxes/

    And by the same token, the banks have Trillions in deferred mortgage payments referred to an illicit illegal accounting scheme. Similar to that of a Reverse Mortgage.

    James, Christine gave you the best advice here, contact Todd!

  58. James I think under most states they are allowing these folks to operation in this capacity, however if the chain of custody is broken and she assigning the DOT then that a forgery. But you got to track down the ownership history.

    So you need from the beginning to the end that there was a purchase and one of those parties to not be a MERS member, and then they cannot act for the non member, which causes a break.

    Were you in a combat zone or 6 months from taking fire? What the deal so I can fully understand what you trying to do.

  59. Charles, its not a VA Loan? And yes I do understand the Robo Signing, but I need to determine if what she is doing is illegal.

  60. James Smith it sound as if your in NY as that is where the crease and decease order I have seen in the paper. Go to the land recording office and have a county of the Deed of Trust pulled and get a of it and any assignment there after it was first record and work back.

    I think right now as it stand they are allowing bank personnel to be a non-paid employee of MERS as a Vice President of the corporation. I bet she is a VP of MERS and not the bank.

    Robo signing is a person signing a bunch of documents without the ability to have been able to read what they are signing. Take that one guy who was reviewing 10,000 file a week where it was impossible for him to have done that task.

    So my question to you is do you have a VA loan? If you do then I got another way for you to tackle this.

  61. KC

    Pullllleeeze !!!

    The NY Yankees have billions of “unfunded liabilities.” They’re called player salary contracts. The funding comes from future years’ revenues.

    By the same token, the govt has “billions in deferred revenues.” Called future taxes.

    Is there a Star Trek type force shield around this site that prevents logic, reason, and rational thought and analysis from entering it?

  62. Can I get a straight answer from someone on this issue. I filed a complaint with the OCC indicating to them the there is a Cease and Desist Order out there on the Banks to stop Robo Signing. The complaint was both on Wells Fargo and Citi. Citi has responded with a bunch of crap, but in essence this is what they said, “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.” Background: On my DOT Geraldine Belinski signed the document as the Vice President. My question to this is; Is she signing the document as Vice President of MERS or Citi Mortgage. I did some research on my own and tracked her down. The individual at Citi who answered the phone were she worked indicated that she was not a Vice President but a mere processor. So what I need to know before I draft a response and go over OCC’s head is Can they do that? If she signed the document as Vice President of MERS, can she be employed by Citi? And vice versa, if she signed the Document as Vice President of Citi, can she work for MERS, my thought is that it has to be one or the other and she cannot perform work for MERS as a Citi employee and cannot perform work for Citi as a MERS employee. Pleas keep it simple Im not as smart as some of you so you have to keep it simple. I just need to know before I draft my letters to respond. PS: I know some of you all think that I wont get anywhere, but If I can get this to the right people it could make a difference. I am an Army Officer and I never give up the fight.

  63. Give me a break Christine.
    The Judges are doing everything in their power to help the Banksters.
    Dont forget Christine “Arbeit Macht Frei”.


  64. @Bob G, so Bob we do get on here to blab and tell what we are doing and in many cases hope that the banks are listen too what we have to say about what we found, as it just may lead to settling our situations again trillion dollar asset banks.

    If the bank believes it can keep us tied up at small cost then why wouldn’t they?

    However my battle is bigger than just me, as I am and have been fighting the issue since I first reported to the OCC back in 2011 for the entire Ginnie Mae pooling mess. So not only have I reported my finding to the different agencies and a Whistle-Blower claim to the SEC in 2011, I want the world to know that there is this guy (crazy or not) that been writing about what Wells Fargo been doing.

    So when I first talk with Szymoniak after she won her claim, I was talking a chance that she might want to increase her good fortune and tackle with me the Ginnie Mae securities back in 2012. Telling Szymoniak about the faults in the program did one thing, and that was to give her knowledge of what was being done, but after hearing this information she said she could not help with hurrying with my already submitted Whistle-Blower claim.

    Now let fast forward to Fed %, 2014 and what does Szymoniak and the law firm she partnered up with and already have won from the DocX case, but also this firm won several Qui Tam, one being $1.6 billion recovery!

    However Szymoniak and team are so greedy as the situation is very large as they put a figure of $10 billion in False Claims against the banks. Now the government did not join this action, but from Szymoniak v. Ace which was unsealed in Sept 2013 you can see she had no first hand knowledge of this and is why they submitted this recent case, now she claiming she reviewed these files.

    Now had I not had emails and blabbed all over the world since May 31, 2010 about my battle with Wells Fargo and the progression of my claim…it would have been my word against that I been fighting.

    Neil wants we the homeowner to get a couple thousand dollars, were he get paid what his fees are by the claim of $10 to $15 thousand (case), were he calls it a day and the homeowners have won but are still screwed because he not even going after the house.

    Neil blew me away with his recent statements, and only show what we as client will deal with listening to this crap. I fail to see people without monies and seeing the benefit of going to court and with Neil’s advise saying I was behind because I know I had a contract of repayment, but the monies were from the investors and not the bank, so what that got to do with you paying back the debt?

    Now in the state of NY a loan shark cannot get back its monies, so the bank would have a big problem in that state if an illegal loan is establish.

    So Bob I have let every agencies know where I am coming from and also the bank, and I would wish that they destroyed the Notes, signed in the blank area after the fact or attached an allonge to it because the program is already laid out as to how these blank Notes are to be handled with the Ginnie Mae pools, amking it a must that Ginnie Mae always retain these Note as they don’t have the ability to ever sale them!

  65. “It isnt the banksters fault. Its the Judges Fault”


    The endless blaming game people love to play notwithstanding, I beg you to differ. Judges CANNOT do anything other than what their role and authority allows them to, i.e., look at the pleadings, look at the evidence, listen to the parties and rule based on it. Are they 100% objective? Of course not! No one is. Do they have their own biases? Absolutely! Everyone does! Looking at what people post here, I have absolutely no doubt that most judges rulings were thought out but… face it: most pro se can’t measure up. They can’t even line up two sensical sentences and make a rational demonstration of why judges should not rule in favor of the banks!

    To imply that judges have the ability and the power to do regulators’ job is utter nonsense! And to hold them to the duty of reversing what Congress caused for over 100 years to be created, starting with the Federal Reserve, is pure insanity.

    If you want to stop the bad guys, stop feeding those you elected and keep reelecting! And put pressure on them.

  66. $205 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities: Information The Government Does Not Want You To Know

  67. It isnt the banksters fault. Its the Judges Fault. They are letting them get away with it. The judges are doing everything in their power to let the banksters off the hook. It is time to put the judges in jail not the banksters.


  68. We are seeing a clean-up where JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank
    seems to appear at the epicenter of it all.
    Exposing what lies beneath the bodies of dead bankers
    and what lies ahead for us
    The truth is that we’ve been living under a giant Ponzi scheme and we, the American citizens, are the suckers.

  69. Christine i picked the good point made i did not miss the point of bobs message,
    if you ask me
    Niedermeyer is probably talking from his emotional injury of fighting. Thats another point, as a nurse i see it all over here myself included when you choose a certain course of action its not without consequences to self, being the harm it does emotionally. You would have to be a darn brick wall to avoid such conseqences. Just my opinion.

  70. KC,

    I’m getting to that “whatever” mode with you so many before you got me into. Do me a favor: ignore me. I don’t have time or incline for childish games and psychobabble from someone so obviously imbalanced. And I don’t particularly enjoy Scottish showers either.

    So, ignore me once and for all, shall you?

  71. I appreciate your opinion Christine, everyone has their weaknesses and strengths. I don’t verbally beat them down to make myself feel better about my own choices though.

    That’s why I Had the Best Attorney , my situation and circumstances were different than yours. I also didn’t tell my Attorney what to do, I trusted her to protect my interests!

    And quite honestly, considering the FACT that you have been in multiple lawsuits and I haven’t … never mind,

    Bob G, you blew it out of proportion .. you shouldn’t have said anything…. Ignored the behavior. But instead you drew more attention to it. Now as far as some of that persons statements, it really doesn’t make me want to jump out and help him/her either. Let it go …

    Many Blessings to All!

  72. It would be cool if Neil might consider occasionally taking a few mins to interact with bloggers , like yves Smith does on naked capitalism ” Yves here” would be nice to have ” Neil here” with bits of guidance to pick up and expand on the most relevant points raised.
    Theres the talk radio but thats a half hr window only. Some people go at this for hours and being so complex it would be nice if you might do that Neil.

  73. Deb,

    You’re missing the point. It’s not a question of whether or not it is admissible but rather that, unless one is looking to lose and prevent everyone else from having a crack at wining, one ought not to telegraph his puchline ahead of time.

    It is one thing to use actual cases ruled upon in support of your own pleadings. it is another to tell the banks ahead of time: “I am going to rob you back, ‘cuz, after all, stealing from a thief is taking back what’s yours, right? Here is how I’m going to do it: I am going spill info that can not only hurt the bank but also the country as a whole. In the process, i will make sure to destroy any possibility for regulatory agencies to actually prosecute and… I’m going to make it extremely difficult on everyone from now on to obtain anything whatsoever during discovery. To top it off, I’ll do it in such a way that every single homeowner trying to defend himself will be permanently hurt ahead of time.

    What do you think would have happened, had Snowden telegraphed his punches before spilling the bean?

  74. Ok New Bob, you got me.

    Start with …..

    **** Claims brought in state court are for a materially false instrument recorded against the estate causal to a ”Slander of Title” for purposes of unjust enrichment” ****

  75. KC,

    Do you see a highly mature tit-for-tat pattern here?

    The overdone and irritating kindergarten teacher act is still not evidence of a mature and articulate human being capable of critical thinking… What’s your objection? You just proved my point, once more.

  76. Bob,
    great points re your reply to Niedermeyer ( wish him well – kudos for your time and effort on here neidermeyer) and i think it deserves further research and raising if awareness.
    Its a blogg site. Is it admissible.?
    Neil is it admissible? , indeed it is ” discoverable” but is it fair game and admissible when we are on open forum
    We are allowed to help one another nothing wrong with that legally
    Ck out this

  77. No, KC, she actually said “pretty much everyone,” not everyone. On behalf of Christine, gotachback. 🙂

  78. Gotcha!!

    RE: Hmmm… that would be pretty much everyone posting here.

    You are part of everyone posting here …… 🙂

  79. Loose lips sink ships.

    Divulge whatever you want. Just don’t let the banksters know what you are up to. Do they bring homeowners in on their conference calls to their attorneys?

    Not too long ago I asked niedermeyer to contact me via private email to discuss an issue or two that was not appropriate for public discussion because I didn’t want banksters, servicers or their attys to get wise to the subject matter. Did he/she contact me? Of course not. Couldn’t be bothered. Prefers to spill the beans publicly.

    Anyone that does this gets exactly what they deserve.

    niedermeyer, I predict that the banks and courts are going to dispose of your case soon, if they already haven’t. (ditto for Charles reed) You just publicly blab way too much about what you’re up to, and how you’re all about a scorched earth vengeance policy. that’s indicative of poor judgment and a lack of critical thinking skills.

    also, although you’ve been asked to prove up your allegations re the conversion of the MBS into common stock, you’ve refused to do so or are incapable of providing any such factual evidence. so why should anyone here take any action based upon your unsubstantiated assertions?


  80. “Yes, at this point it is painfully clear: you are immature with a disproportionate sense of ego, you have an inability to perceive second and third order consequences of your actions…”

    Hmmm… that would be pretty much everyone posting here. Posting anywhere, for that matter. “Look what I can say! Look at me! Look at me! Look what i know! Look what I can do!”

    Let’s go back to: “Nothing ever happens in a vacuun.” Where did secrecy come from? Was it implemented 70 years ago because people couldn’t keep it shut or… did people start talking out of turn because they felt something was being kept hidden from them?

    Interesting question… everything always seems to bring us back to an egg-and-hen issue.

  81. johngalt…what state are you in?

  82. Niedermeyer

    With all due respect, you are either crazy or deliberately selfish and unconcerned with your fellow foreclosees. You got everything you needed before they shut you down…and now you’re going to make sure that they know that there are still a few back doors open that they should shut…so the rest of these folks can’t get in.

    Apparently it has not occurred to you that the reason they closed off some of the entry points is because someone tipped them off that guys like you were accessing their sensitive data. So what do you do? You continue to tip them off publicly by posting this stuff here. And below, you tell us what they have had access to on your computers. So now they know that they still have some closures to do. Brilliant, niedermeyer, just brilliant.

    “I have had 2 computers hacked into (admittedly they weren’t all that secure being online and using off the shelf firewalls and such) and amazingly only my WF as TRUSTEE and CTSLink filefolders were deleted (an offline hard drive has more complete database dumps) …”

    And you are surprised at this? WTF, man, you’re broadcasting to the world that you can’t keep your mouth shut when you stumble upon a good thing. Action (you shoot your mouth off), reaction (they do the above).

    Yes, at this point it is painfully clear: you are immature with a disproportionate sense of ego, you have an inability to perceive second and third order consequences of your actions and, as a result, in my opinion you are unlikely to end up with even a pile of used sh*t. If your adversaries were to show a judge what you’ve posted here—

    “GIVE ME BIG STINKING PILES OF MONEY AND I’LL GO AWAY and promise to destroy all data in my possession… otherwise I know they have the power to crush me .. but if I have to move I will be filling my freetime wreaking havoc,” you’d be facing a federal extortion charge. Doubt me? Ask your attorney. Also ask her to review your posts here. She’ll shut you down in a heartbeat.

    Let’s have a vote here and see how many people think that what you’ve publicly disclosed should have been disclosed in private emails.

  83. for second choice, I meant “complex litigation”.

  84. For anyone interested, at a search engine, type in “what is business litigation?” or “what is business litigation?” or “what is commercial litigation?” or something like that.

  85. neidermeyer – haven’t finished reading your responses (thanks), but by jove, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. These SHOULD be kicked over, as you say, to business cases, because that’s damn well what they are. You said:

    “If this was any other kind of case there is no doubt it would be kicked to business/complex and discovery would be ordered.”

    These are no longer just contracts between a lender and a borrower. That went out the window when the business plan incorporated securitization, third party guarantees, CDS’s, and so on. Alleged poss of a stinking bearer note and a “MERS” assgt has become a license to steal as it is. If a note and a dot were ever ‘what it is’ in years past, they sure as heck aren’t now. These have become highly complex deals. I’m really glad you brought that up, and since you did, I’d say our challenge is to make that clear, starting with judicially noticeable material, the PSA’s (which generally reference the swap party), anything to do with the “average trust” (facts likely to be common to them all), anything we can to shut down the sole and inappropriate reliance on poss of a note and a MERS’ assignment. And I’ve been remiss again:


    lay opinions as always

  86. Bob G.

    Not a colossal blunder ,, more like a public final notice,, I lost access to CTSLink about 2 years ago and have all the data I need… stored, backed up and distributed. They can’t stop me from going through with my gameplan at this time … it’s up to them if they want to play roulette with judge selection. if this was any other kind of case there is no doubt it would be kicked to business/complex and discovery would be ordered.

    I am fighting OCWEN pretending to be WF … I used to be a storage admin and data security pro for a top tier defense firm you would recognize… I want everyone that contracts with Wells Fargo for trustee services to lay awake at night and sweat over what they have allowed so many thousands of people to access,, with no internal compartmentalization…

    At this point I want to force OCWEN to realize they are in over their head and to make a bee-line for the red phone to WF ,,, someone knows what I have and they know how bad the security breach is, I have mentioned this data many times here attempting to instigate a response and I’ve got it … I have had 2 computers hacked into (admittedly they weren’t all that secure being online and using off the shelf firewalls and such) and amazingly only my WF as TRUSTEE and CTSLink filefolders were deleted (an offline hard drive has more complete database dumps) … I have also been subjected to a very poorly executed “man in the middle” type e:mail intercept hack that telegraphed it’s presence by failing to pass e:mails from one of my accounts to my lawyer and on her end e:mails to that same account often failed … probably a hardware device similar to a sniffer at her office building…

    At this point it should be painfully clear .. I value getting this behind me to give my family peace and this back and forth over the last months has been an invitation… GIVE ME BIG STINKING PILES OF MONEY AND I’LL GO AWAY and promise to destroy all data in my possession… otherwise I know they have the power to crush me .. but if I have to move I will be filling my freetime wreaking havok.

  87. @johngault ,

    I just popped back in and didn’t read everything … but as to BOA getting $40.1M of AIG money (AIG is the source of that information)… the only way that could have happened is if they claimed to be the beneficial owner … they were a part of the selling syndicate (not a mafia thing , just a wallstreet term for the banks that buy your product at a slight discount for resale… same as bond traders) … this represented 20-25% of what they were obligated to sell … this was not just a small percentage retained as their “cut” , BOA is big enough and connected enough to make sure they get theirs… screw the pension funds that bought the rest of the certificates,, let them eat static,, under New York State trust law they need to own a large enough percentage of the trust to do anything and since the certificate owners identities are kept secret they cannot form groups that meet the threshold percentage… ***** The important takeaway is that it is a known payment verified by the payer ,, and if one bene got paid the money should have gone to all bene’s *****

    The only entity that can declare a default is the master servicer (wells fargo in this case) ,, and the insurance funds belong to the beneficial owners … the trustee (wells fargo again) is obligated to the borrowers (me) , and the investor/owners (BOA and MANY MANY OTHERS) to make sure the accounting is correct so nobody gets hurt… That’s the trustees job… $700M came in ,,, BOA got $40.1M , $660M disappeared into the ether never to be seen again… The investor/owners (of the certs) got nothing as evidenced by the fact that they are still getting monthly interest draws … the certs should have been redeemed at 100% of face value “paid in full” with the investors made whole ,, maybe a bit upset that the investment ended sooner than expected but they are whole plus whatever was paid out prior to the declared default… I as the borrower should have received a satisfaction of mortgage since uncle AIG paid it off … nevertheless no obligation exists at this point…

    The way I see it we have the fee collectors that were part of the process for a short time and then are out of the picture … 1.) the “originator” strawman , 2.) the table funder for the strawman 3.) the title/closingagent and storefront “carnival barker” that drove the borrower to the originator/strawman …. and then we have the ongoing players … 4.) the borrower 5.) the lender/investor (this would be the certificate buyer who although their money came in at the tail end it funded everything prior ,,, and it was always the intent that they would be the ultimate purchaser) and 6.) the managing entities MS/trustee/sub-servicer.

    AIG would have deferred to the TRUSTEE to distribute the funds, that is after all the trustees job (in conjunction with the master servicer and in this case they are the same) ,,, therefore unless anyone comes forward with a better theory I’m sticking with either “WF illegally converted the settlement belonging to the investors to wells fargo , THEFT pure and simple.” **OR** “the investor payments from the trustee are an illusion, the reports are a smoke screen ,,, the investors were paid off , the certificates were paid/redeemed at par and WF is stealing from each borrower on a monthly basis by pretending that the obligation to make payments to the investors still exists. ” ,, I am personally leaning towards theory#2 as it is likely the one the US government would have preferred to keep us lemmings in line and avoid disruptions among the peasants.

    Is there any other explanation possible?

  88. jenninGA “How – when a homeowner disputes the amount of the debt claimed for the loan can the Servicer say it is correct then also admit they can’t provide me complete accounting for the loan?”

    seems to me they cant. I’ve got at least one case where the current servicer relied on the (naked) figures (without back-up) for the loan from the prior servicer, who hadn’t applied a payment properly. It set into mtn a long, hard battle for the h.o. til it was finally shown that the h.o. was not in arrears at all. Yet people swore they knew the figures were accurate. I guess to get anywhere, one has to have his own accounting (it’s not that hard) and tell de judge the figures don’t match.

  89. dan edstrom – the bad faith claim is interesting. I wonder if pmi co’s are finding that someone else already paid off or toward the claims they’re getting.

  90. @ JG in reply to what you just posted.
    I think WF is the Master Servicer – not the Trustee.

    From what I have found by sending certified letters. I think the Trustee knows nothing – I called and spoke to them (number is posted on SCE site_ in the K-8 (or what ever they call the doc they file to stop having to repost the details of the trust to the SEC). They gave me their mailing address – but told me anything they receive from me they will pass to the Servicer. They did reply to my letter – but said – “the trustee is not responsible for keeping records of how the loans are assigned. We rely on the servicer and the master servicer to maintain this information and cannot independently verify their records”.

    So the FC action is in the name of the Trustee – who can’t verify much and gets their info from Servicer and Master servicer.

    From the site discussed in the comments below – I found the trust (WF is Master Servicer) -and saw the info for my loans.

    The current servicer (Ocwen) can’t provide the copy of the transaction history prior to March 17 2008. Servicing of loan was transferred to Litton effective June 1 2008 – so the lack of info staring at March 17 is a bit – STRANGE?

    How – when a homeowner disputes the amount of the debt claimed for the loan can the Servicer say it is correct then also admit they can’t provide me complete accounting for the loan?

    The information and documents I have for my loans do not match what the Master Servicer shows in the monthly distribution report for my loans. Very sloppy book keeping???

  91. neidermeyer – hope NG sees your comment. Struggling to keep up with what you said, but it seems to me these are participation deals, for whatever that might mean (don’t really know) if the trust investors have x amt of the certificates, but an entity or anyone outside the legal structure of the trust owns others with the same loans as collateral for all certs….? You said b of a owned some certs, so they could insure those, right? Who do you think, may i ask, should have been the named insured on the investors’ certs. And was it the certs which were insured as opposed to the borrower’s payments on the loans, since apparently they are distinctly different?
    From what I think I understand of what you said, I agree and don’t see how WF, the trustee, could be the recipient of insurance funds, unless it made itself the ben/named insured of the insurance? Trustees can’t do that, that I know of. I also don’t see how WF keeps the millions and keeps paying the investors. Maybe that’s legit (as long as WF does). If the investors got the insurance proceeds, wouldn’t that amt to a return of principle, which was not the idea? But even so, with so many (I wouldn’t know a number or percentage that it needs to be) borrower defaults – if that were the case – then a return of principal seems the best course for the investors. Seems like a third party, i.e., insurance payoff (with no rights of subrogation), would retire the notes, actually making that discussion unnecessary? Let’s say you and I own a shop on coney island and we securitize our cash flow -has to be a stated amt – now we’ve sold certs. Then our shop burns down and is toast. Wouldn’t it be the same thing as you said if we just kept paying on the certs instead of paying them off? But does a certificate, any cert, this one or that, come with that kind of condition? Of course, these are notes underlying these particular certs (alleged MBS’s), so that may make thee difference, all the diff in the world (re: the third party – insurer’s – payment)…?
    What was insured? the loan payments or the MBS payouts?
    Who was the ben – specifically?
    Case law can tell us, I would think, the deal when someone has a note and the collateral burns down. Oh, duh. Take h.o. insurance – the lender insists on being a if not thee named insured (not the dot trustee who has nothing to insure) Okay, so how about hypothecation – when I borrow against my note from Sam? What would be the question here? I’m just trying to put this in perspective and hoping you or someone can help. Unless the secn trustee had something to insure (got me what that might be), he couldn’t be the named insured. Having the insurance read ‘XYZ Trust c/o of Wells Fargo, Trustee’, doesn’t change that.
    Still, there must be case law or just plain law. Say all of us here own a note or two and we put them in a trust and make Jessica the trustee. Then we sell interests, evidenced by certificates with a set value of each. (that’s sort of what private placement companies do with private loans) We take out insurance as a sales enhancement or for any reason. The insurance is on the note payments going to the trust – it makes a diff, I’d say, maybe all the diff. Then half our borrowers quit making payments. If our investors are the named insured, of course they get paid. What if we made ourselves the named insureds? Then I would first say the trust trustee, Ms Jessica, is an idiot, crook, or both who has breached her fiduciary to the trust bens who hold the certs and that she had nothing to insure.
    Then I would want to know why an insurer wrote insurance for an insured who had no interest.
    But if we get the ins proceeds and continue to pay the certs…? The law must surely prescribe the correct owner of the insurance proceeds when a promissory note (as opposed to lamps, say) is the basis for any deal – UNless a contract lawfully and specifically states otherwise, since the UCC is default law, looked at in the absence of a defining contractual agreement. And of course it’s more complicated because these particular notes are collateralized by assets, real property, and that property has to be dealt with when there’s default. But then, if the insurance pays off a note, why would the house have to be dealt with? Doesn’t that depend on the amt of the AIG insurance – was the insurance with AIG, unlike pmi, an all or nothing pay out? What kind of rube company would make insurance without regard to the value of the underlying collateral, the remainder, I guess it could be called? AIG may have waived subrogation, but there’s still a remaining value of that underlying collateral. Letting a party get insurance proceeds and then retain an interest in the thing insured where’s there’s a remainder is letting that party have at least a partial double recovery and a full one when the property value is at or exceeds the insurance payout.

    *good Lord – did MERS make itself an insured somewhere in this act by virtue of its “legal title” (fiction imo) of the interest in the dot?! I’m recoiling just at the thought! As thee ben by substitution or a form of novation, it’s poss MERS could have sold its interest as insurable to some people I would call buffoons. Surely we’d have heard of that, though (?) Obviously I’m just tossing some stuff around, but I’d say we need to know what was insured exactly – the MBS’s? with AIG (in ref to the numbers you cited – you said WF on some, but we don’t really know (maybe you do) who was the insured on the 600+m, actually the named insured. GNMA, for instance, makes its insurance on the MBS’s payable to the Issuer unless the issuer is insolvent (like to know who’s it’s named insured in this tweaked deal). And to get the ben of the insurance, the Issuer has to first buy back the loan (so as I’ve posited before, no trust should ever be the foreclsoing party on an fha or va loan unless there’s yet another contract / agreement we dont’ know about. Hard to know about any damn thing when a court says they’ve got the note, end of story. Imo, by saying that, the court has stuck its head in the sand with eyes wide shut because these days there are surely other contracts / agreements in play as to our loans and only one with his head in the sand (not what I’m thinking) doesn’t know it. I’m looking for answers here. Maybe the lawsuits by the cert holders will tell us some stuff. I mean, it just can’t be (can it?) that a secn trustee kept ins proceeds while the investors got the shaft? The day a court allows a secn trustee to keep ins proceeds over the protests of investors, we can stop thinking this is all bs because we’ll know it. Likewise on the day a court rules those proceeds, third party payments, have nada to do with the balances on promissory notes.

  92. James Smith,

    If you want real answers allowing you to get a crack at saving your skin, contact Todd Wetzelberger at
    He is in Baltimore. He is a former (and reformed) WS guy with serious insights and he is in the midst of the battle. To top it off, he knows everyone in Baltimore and has a true experience of Baltimore’s courts. Surfire is his foreclosure defense site.

    Listen to anyone here at your own peril: the bloggers sell their BS by the truckload and can’t even meet the test of true and tried. And if you are seriously considering fighting the bank, run for dear life: this site has drowned many honest folks stupid enough to listen to not so honest folks and to follow their advice of fighting pro se, even when they cannot line up 2 sentences that make sense and understand that litigation is 90% decorum (procedure) and 10% arguments. Those poor schlemiels who had no valid arguments to raise against the bank other than the mumbo-jumbo offered by Garfield, simply banked everything on that lousy 10% anyway and decided (openly, mind you) to disregard the 90% decorum…

    Perfect recipe for disaster, which is exactly what they got. Yeah, you’re better off contacting Todd.

  93. I said the loss wouldn’t be known for pmi claims until after the resale.
    I think a credit bid by the lender changes that – there may be a presumption that the amt of the credit bid is seen as a correlation to the value of the property, which would affect any alleged loss. If a lender bid 400k, there may be a presumption that’s the value of the property, so if the amt alleged to be owing is 450k, the lender may be limited to an mi claim of 50k (assuming that much were covered by the mi). Neil, maybe you should talk to a rep or so at one of the mi companies, so we can all quit guessing??? Is there some reason they wouldn’t have a friendly business chat with you? Just a suggestion.
    There’s a guy here who said he’s a former broker. He could make that call, have that friendly chat, too, if he wanted……?

  94. warning re: spoilation. I’d hazard one has to allege if not make a case that the evidence / material was spoiled for the purpose of keeping it from the guy who wants it (if for no other reason than that the opp will just say it was “time to go” or didn’t exist) So one would have to present a reasonable basis why the court should believe it once existed or does. Reading case law imo is really the best course for learning the ins and outs and I think it would be foolhardy to allege spoilation without having done so. lay opinions

  95. Here’s a place to start to try to figure out fha claims and maybe find a phone no.

  96. neidermeyer – you might want to look into “intentional spoilation”. should have some goodies of interest since they are a leader in electronic discovery. I learned a thing or two from them (most of which I’ve probably forgotten – dang). Just typing in ‘intentional spoilation’ in a search engine will bring up volumes. Spoilation is a tort.

    “Spoliation is “the destruction or significant alteration of evidence.” Tinder v. Lewis County Nursing Home District, 207 F. Supp. 2d 951, 958 (E.D. Mo. 2001); see also Desselle v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 887 So. 2d 524, 534 ((La. App. 5th Cir. 2004) (“The theory of spoliation of evidence refers to an intentional destruction of evidence for purpose of depriving opposing parties of its use”)”

  97. You know, now that I think about it, those times (if any) when MGIC or any pmi co. rejected a claim (or even va or fha) might be good for something – as evidence the loan was either predatory or the lender failed to utilize prudent underwriting or like that. There are st of limitations on most claims, but imo, the salvation is in the “should have known”. What should a borrower have known at any particular time? What if one just found out, because some insurer declined coverage, that one’s loan was a piece of junk? Borrowers pay for pmi, just as they do the VA guarantee and the FHA insurance, and as it turns out, for the FNMA guarantee thru the “g-fee”. Seems to me as the guy paying the premium for this insurance, the borrower would have a right to know if a claim were paid….or not, and if not, why not. And, any moolah paid out on a claim would diminish the bankster’s right to a deficiency judgment (where allowed). So that seems another reason the borrower has a need to know clearance.


  99. Generally, the borrower pays for MGIC insurance. It’s “pmi” – private mtg insurance (and the company with that actual name, “PMI” went bk last year or so). PMI and MGIC were the two primary insurers since lenders started making conventional loans (as opposed to fha or va) over 80% ltv. “GE” may have gotten in the act. Some loans were self-insuring, meaning the cost of mtg ins was built into the rate and not disclosed as a separate charge, whereas the ‘norm’ was to collect one year in advance for the mtg ins at closing and show the monthly payment for mtg ins as a sep charge in the monthly payment, along with p and i and taxes and prop insurance. It affects the a.p.r., the actual cost of the loan.

    But I don’t think a payment by a pmi co. like MGIC pays off the note. It generally only pays a particular “coverage amt”, like it covers the top loss of somewhere between 20 and 30% of the loan amt and I doubt it pays before the loss is known – which would be after the resale. I can’t swear to this last part – that it pays after the loss is known, but that’s always been my impression. If MGIC or any traditional pmi co. pays off a loan in its entirety, it would be news to me. And I seriously doubt that MGIC or any pmi co. paid off a loan in its entirety unless things changed a whole lot. The only reason I can think of for MGIC to deny coverage is if the loan basically shouldn’t have been made. MGIC used to underwrite the loans themselves before they would insure. But they may have, ignorantly imo, delegated that underwriting but then don’t stand by it if the loan were garbage (which is weird). Or maybe if the premium were calculated incorrectly, south of what it should have been.

    The other insurance which that borrower took was different. It wasn’t pmi and had nada to do with default – it was death or disability insurance and you can bet he paid for it. I’m not that familiar with how it’s paid, but I’d guess it’s the same – one yr in advance and then monthly in his payments. Most people don’t take this type insurance because generally, plain old life insurance is cheaper (depending on one’s age and health, of course). It should be on his settlement statement.

  100. A list of all the paid off notes would be nice. We need to work on that. It appears that the ripping off goes very deep. I have always wondered why there was not lots more squawking from AIG when it headed for the bottom.

  101. 🙂

  102. Having examined the record submitted, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that this case is ripe for summary judgment. It is undisputed that MGIC knew of the Davises’ surety interest. Yet without the Davises’ consent, MGIC garnered title to virtually all of the debtor’s real estate, released the debtor’s personal liability on the deed of trust note, and failed for more than 3 years to join the Davises as defendants in the foreclosure suit while interest steadily accrued on the debt. Whether by design or neglect, the net result of these omissions was decidedly one-sided in favor of MGIC. The trial court properly balanced the equities when it released the Davises from the danger of losing their land to satisfy the debt of a principal who already had been discharged of all liability.

    *10• The summary judgment in favor of the Davises is affirmed

  103. MGIC FIN. v. HA Briggs Co., 600 P.2d 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979)

    Court of Appeals of Washington

    Date Filed: August 9th, 1979

    Status: Precedential

    Citations: 600 P.2d 573, 24 Wash. App. 1

    Docket Number: 3481-2

    Judges: Reed

    Fingerprint: 19fa8c5a097b3aecbdae9bd33b7de33bfa906593

    24 Wn. App. 1 (1979)

    600 P.2d 573

    H.A. BRIGGS COMPANY, ET AL, Defendants, EDDY D. DAVIS, ET AL, Respondents.

    No. 3481-2.

    The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.

    August 9, 1979.

    Ronald E. Cox, for appellant.

    Samuel H. Pemberton, Jr., for respondents.

    REED, A.C.J.

    Plaintiff MGIC Financial Corporation (MGIC), the beneficiary under a deed of trust, appeals from a summary judgment in its foreclosure suit against defendants Eddy and Margaret Davis. We affirm.

    On February 9, 1970, H.A. Briggs Company (Briggs) executed a promissory note to MGIC for about $1.42 million. To secure the note, Briggs and another company, Enterprise Company, executed a deed of trust which covered several parcels of land in King and Pierce Counties. MGIC also secured a personal guaranty on the note from Walter and Christine Kassuba. The note and deed of trust were recorded in both King and Pierce Counties.

    On June 29, 1971, Enterprise conveyed one of the encumbered parcels, lot 5, to Eddy and Margaret Davis, for about $8,000. Although the preliminary title report disclosed MGIC’s interest, there was no assumption of it by Davis.

    *3• In 1973 payments on the note became delinquent, and on December 21, 1973, the Kassubas and the two companies went into bankruptcy. On the same date, MGIC filed a lawsuit in King County against Briggs, based on the 1970 note and deed of trust, and another lawsuit in Florida, against the Kassubas, based on their personal guaranty on the note. MGIC did not join the Davises as defendants in the foreclosure action, even though it found out in January 1974 that the Davises owned lot 5.[1]

    On May 31, 1974, MGIC, Briggs and the Kassubas reached a written settlement agreement. The agreement provided, in part:

    (a) The Property shall be conveyed absolutely to MGIC, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances .. .

    (b) Following such conveyance, MGIC shall cause all pending litigation against KASSUBA, as aforesaid, to be dismissed with prejudice.

    (c) The aforesaid Deed of Trust Note (Exhibit “A”) and Deed of Trust (Exhibit “B”) shall be cancelled and satisfied of record and all parties shall be relieved of any further liability thereunder, whether as maker or guarantor.

    In December 1974, pursuant to the May 1974 settlement agreement, most of the encumbered parcels were conveyed by quitclaim deed to MGIC. The parties have stipulated that the quitclaim deeds released Briggs from personal liability on the note and deed of trust. The Kassubas later were released from personal liability on August 20, 1975, when MGIC voluntarily dismissed its Florida lawsuit against them.

    On April 4, 1977, more than three years after the original suit had been filed, MGIC amended its King County foreclosure complaint to join the Davises as defendants. On May 1, 1978, the trial court granted a motion for summary *4• judgment in favor of the Davises and dismissed the complaint against them.

    [1] The purpose of a summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials; it is available only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wn.2d 345, 349-50, 588 P.2d 1346 (1979); International Ass’n of Firefighters Local 2088 v. Tukwila, 22 Wn. App. 683, 591 P.2d 475 (1979).

    The trial court based its summary judgment upon the equitable rule set out in Coyle v. Davis, 20 Wis. 564 (1866): Where a mortgagee has notice of a later purchaser of part of the mortgaged premises, the mortgagee’s release of the mortgagor’s personal liability diminishes the subrogation rights of the later purchaser and thereby operates to discharge the lien against that part of the premises sold to the later purchaser.[2]

    [2] In Coyle, as here, the mortgagor sold part of his mortgaged property by warranty deed to a purchaser. The mortgagor sold the remainder of the mortgaged property to a second purchaser. At the second sale the mortgagee, who knew about the first purchaser’s interest, nevertheless released the mortgagor from personal liability on the note, and agreed to look only to the second purchaser and to the encumbered land to secure the note. When the mortgagee later attempted to foreclose against the first purchaser’s property, the Wisconsin court barred the foreclosure, stating:

    [The first purchaser of the mortgaged property] stands in the relation of a surety for [the mortgagor], and any agreement between [the mortgagee] and [the mortgagor] which operated to diminish [the purchaser’s] security or to increase her liability, was a release of all obligation on [the purchaser’s] part. The right of insisting upon the *5• personal liability of [the mortgagor] was one of the safeguards of [the purchaser’s] title, and, by voluntarily depriving [the purchaser] of that, [the mortgagee] deprived himself of the right of insisting upon the liens of his mortgages upon the lands owned by [the purchaser]. [The purchaser] is accordingly entitled to have them discharged.

    Coyle v. Davis, supra at 568. The court pointed out that the first purchaser’s remedy under the covenant of warranty and the covenant against encumbrances — basically limited to the price paid for the property — would have been grossly inadequate because

    the sums due upon the mortgages greatly exceed the price or value of the lands owned by [the purchaser], and she might be obliged to pay much more than the consideration money and interest in order to remove the incumbrances.

    Coyle v. Davis, supra at 569. The Coyle rule was extended in Sexton v. Pickett, 24 Wis. 346 (1868), where the court held that a release of the mortgagor’s personal liability will subordinate or even release the lien of the mortgage as to a subsequent mortgage holder. Research has failed to disclose any other case involving precisely the same factual situation as that found in Coyle. The basic principle underlying the Coyle and Sexton rules, however, has been stated with approval in several cases and treatises. In simplest terms the principle is that courts must protect subrogation rights of junior interest holders against prejudicial acts by senior interest holders. See Gandrud v. Hansen, 210 Minn. 125, 297 N.W. 730, 735 (1941); Seale v. Berryman, 46 Ariz. 233, 49 P.2d 997, 999-1000, 101 A.L.R. 613, 616, (1935); Rielly v. Arnsmeier, 220 Wis. 564, 265 N.W. 713, 715-16 (1936); Minneapolis Inv. Co. v. National Security Inv. Co., 178 Minn. 50, 226 N.W. 189, 190, 63 A.L.R. 1516 (1929); 2 L. Jones, Law of Mortgages of Real Property § 899, at 238 n. 51 (8th ed. 1928); 11 G. Thompson, Law of Real Property § 4779, at 507 (1958 Repl.); 5 H. Tiffany, Real Property § 1495, at 544 n. 96 (1939); 59 C.J.S. Mortgages § 282, at 345 n. 87 and § 276, at 339 n. 21 (1949).

    *6• [3] We agree with the equitable principle expressed by the Wisconsin court in Coyle and Sexton, and we see no reason why it should not apply here. Subrogation is an equity extending to parties who, although not personally bound to pay a debt, are compelled to do so in order to protect their property interest. See G. Osborne, Mortgages, ch. 10, § 279, at 565 (2d ed. 1970); 73 Am.Jur.2d Subrogation § 3, at 600 (1974). Subrogation entitles the party paying the debt to all of the rights, priorities, liens and securities which the senior mortgagee had against the mortgagor. See Restatement of Security § 141 (1941); Restatement of Restitution § 162 (1937); 73 Am.Jur.2d Subrogation § 106, at 665 (1974).

    As subsequent purchasers, the Davises had the right to pay off the deed of trust note and be subrogated to whatever rights MGIC, the senior lienor, had against Briggs — including the right to seek a personal judgment against Briggs. MGIC has stipulated that it had notice of the Davises’ interest in lot 5 when it released Briggs from personal liability on the note. There is no question that the Davises did not consent to the release, and that the release deprived the Davises of their equitable right to pay off the debt and seek a personal judgment against Briggs. Moreover, interest accrued on the outstanding principal at an annual rate of 16 percent for 39 months while MGIC delayed in joining the Davises as defendants. We hold that this situation caused sufficient prejudice to the Davises’ equitable rights to discharge the lien against their property under the Coyle rule.[3]

    *7• This holding follows the spirit of the general rule of suretyship: Where a secured creditor surrenders to the debtor, negligently loses or damages the security, it discharges the surety to the extent of the value so lost. See American Law of Property § 16.141, at 332 n. 22 (1952); Restatement of Security § 132 (1941); H. Arant, Law of Suretyship and Guaranty §§ 62, 63, at 219 (1931). It also comports with the rule that the release of a principal, without consent of the surety, generally releases the surety. See Restatement of Security § 122 (1941). Washington implicitly adopted these basic principles in Insley v. Webb, 122 Wash. 98, 209 P. 1093, 41 A.L.R. 274 (1922), in which the principal debtor, an assuming grantee, had been released by the mortgagee from liability on a deficiency judgment. The court held that the release also absolved the mortgagor, who was a surety. The court stated at page 103:

    An examination of many cases and authorities convinces us that the very great weight of authority supports the view that the release given by the [mortgagee] to [the grantee/principal] had the effect of discharging the [mortgagor/surety] from further liability on the deficiency judgment.

    See also Corkrell v. Poe, 100 Wash. 625, 628, 171 P. 522, 12 A.L.R. 1524 (1918); 2 L. Jones, Law of Mortgages of Real Property, § 742 (8th ed. 1928).

    When MGIC took title to Briggs’ property and released Briggs from personal liability pursuant to the May 1974 agreement, it in effect did the same thing that the mortgagee in Insley had done. That is, it released the principal debtor from liability on a deficiency judgment without the consent of the surety. Equity requires that the surety, the Davises, likewise be released from the burden of having to forfeit their land to satisfy a debt for which the principal debtor already has been released.

    MGIC argues that the release of Briggs’ personal obligation by itself causes insufficient prejudice to warrant application of the Coyle rule. It reasons that the Davises actually suffered no loss because they could not have paid off the *8• debt in the first place; and because even if they had paid the debt, they would have been subrogated to nothing more than the dubious right to seek a personal judgment against a bankrupt company. The Coyle and Sexton opinions, however, placed no minimum requirement as to the legal detriment to be incurred by the surety, and we find no such requirement in the cases or treatises which synopsize this rule. It is sufficient that there was a release, without which the Davises could have paid off the note and been subrogated to whatever rights MGIC had against Briggs’ personal liability in federal bankruptcy court. MGIC bases its argument upon Scrivner v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 143 P.2d 619 (Okla. 1943). Contrary to MGIC’s assertions, the Scrivner court did acknowledge the rule that a surety will prevail where the mortgagee releases the mortgagor’s personal liability; the court found no occasion either to apply or reject the rule, however, because under the particular facts of the case, the junior interest holder had not lost even his subrogation rights. Scrivner v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., supra at 621.

    [4] In another assignment of error, MGIC argues that the trial court violated the “law of the case doctrine” by granting the motion for summary judgment several days after another trial judge had denied a similar motion. The law of the case doctrine generally applies only to parties who raise identical issues on successive appeals of the same case. Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1, 10, 402 P.2d 356 (1965), 414 P.2d 1013 (1966); Pierce County v. Desart, 9 Wn. App. 760, 761 n. 1, 515 P.2d 550 (1973). MGIC presents no relevant authority for extending the doctrine to apply to motions raised several times at the trial court level. We see no reason to extend the doctrine here.[4]

    *9• Both parties have requested attorney’s fees. In the absence of contract, statute or recognized ground of equity, courts are without power to award attorney’s fees as part of the costs of litigation. Hsu Ying Li v. Tang, 87 Wn.2d 796, 797-80, 557 P.2d 342 (1976); Ritchie v. Markley, 23 Wn. App. 569, 597 P.2d 449 (1979). MGIC bases its claim on the attorney fee provision of the 1970 deed of trust note. That provision does not bind the Davises to pay attorney fees because they neither signed the note nor assumed its obligations when they took their property by statutory warranty deed. As for the Davises’ claim for attorney’s fees, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the question because the Davises have failed to file a notice of appeal. RAP 5.1, 5.2; Simpson Timber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 19 Wn. App. 535, 542, 576 P.2d 437 (1978); DeBlasio v. Kittitas, 57 Wn.2d 208, 356 P.2d 606 (1960). In any event, we find no authority for an award of attorney’s fees to Davises in this case.

    Having examined the record submitted, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that this case is ripe for summary judgment. It is undisputed that MGIC knew of the Davises’ surety interest. Yet without the Davises’ consent, MGIC garnered title to virtually all of the debtor’s real estate, released the debtor’s personal liability on the deed of trust note, and failed for more than 3 years to join the Davises as defendants in the foreclosure suit while interest steadily accrued on the debt. Whether by design or neglect, the net result of these omissions was decidedly one-sided in favor of MGIC. The trial court properly balanced the equities when it released the Davises from the danger of losing their land to satisfy the debt of a principal who already had been discharged of all liability.

    *10• The summary judgment in favor of the Davises is affirmed.

    PETRIE and SOULE, JJ., concur.

    Reconsideration denied August 29, 1979.

    Review denied by Supreme Court November 30, 1979.


    [1] On October 15, 1974, one of MGIC Financial Corporation’s attorneys wrote to the Davises advising them that their property was subject to the deed of trust, and that they “hence would be a party to our lawsuit if a foreclosure is necessary.” The letter, however, did not mention that the foreclosure suit already had been filed more than 9 months before.

    [2] Statutory deeds of trust have been held to be generally a species of mortgage. Rustad Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Waldt, 92 Wn.2d 372, 376, 588 P.2d 1153 (1979). For purposes of this decision, the equitable principles of cases dealing with mortgage foreclosures apply equally to foreclosures of deeds of trust.

    [3] Although technically the Davises’ statutory warranty deed provided them with a remedy through the covenant against encumbrances, the remedy would have been inadequate in this case. The remedy for breach of the covenant against encumbrances is limited to the price paid for the property, plus interest. 7 G. Thompson, Law of Real Property § 3187, at 318-19 (1962 Repl.); 6 R. Powell, Law of Real Property § 907 (1979). The maximum recovery would have been dwarfed by the sum the Davises would have had to pay to clear the lien of the deed of trust from their title.

    [4] The first trial judge denied the earlier summary judgment motion “without prejudice,” and reserved the right to require an additional pretrial conference, stating that “this case may be determined on the issues presented by the cases mentioned herein [i.e., Coyle v. Davis, 20 Wis. 564 (1866) and its related cases].” Several days later MGIC Financial Corporation paved the way for the second summary judgment motion by stipulating that it had notice of the Davises’ ownership interest in lot 5 when it released Briggs from personal liability on the 1970 note and deed of trust.

  104. Reblogged this on Manifest Injustice and commented:
    Manifest Injustice!

  105. MGIC was involved in a classic case in Washington regarding subrogation and the rights of parties. It makes good (albeit difficult) reading. It does seem strange that they would pay off a loan, thus stepping into the shoes of the lender, and then waive subrogation permitting the lender to subsequently foreclose and effectively be paid twice. MGIC fought for their rights many years ago, what happend since? See MGIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. BRIGGS, 24 Wn. App. 1, 600 P.2d 573 (1979)

  106. i don’t see how this fed case got as far as it did. the rooker-feldman doctrine should have knocked it out on a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

  107. Roger that – went blazing straight past out-of-my-mind many, many moons ago.

    Check it out: I have tangled with gorilla’s in suits most of my adult life but I had NEVER seen absolute goons in motion until … Foreclosure Firm Inc.


    Color me speechless. How do those people even exist?

    Oh they will cave, if you bring the flame thrower but damn. At what point does somebody apply their logic and/or lack thereof to THEM?

    Example: Burn their houses down during an electrical storm, make it look like and accident and VIOLA! THAT MEANS IT’S LEGAL!!



    You would think they would KNOW they are going to smell gas @ 30,000 feet – not if but when.

    Actually, they may not?? I am beginning to wonder, if they are inept enough to go to court with what is likely a completely fake file / if even that and blatantly spew big fat lies …

    Their completely off the chain modus operandi just should not be that hard to beat?

    Make it a Great Day.

  108. ↓ Jump to Comments
    Quasi In Rem Quiet Title Actions: NO MERS!

    This case appears to change the landscape on how quasi in rem quiet title actions are filed! The following blog post is based on current research and is NOT and should NOT be taken as the rendering of legal advice. Consult with an experienced quiet title attorney if you need further assistance.

    CASE: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v Robinson et al

    CV 13-7142 PSG (ASx); January 28, 2014

    LOS ANGELES — United States District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez (the same judge who wrote the opinion in Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans) has just done this country a huge favor in granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss … using the same Rule 12(b)(6) FRCP that the banks have been using on all of those homeowners who are fighting back! It’s deja vu in reverse!

    The irony of it all!

    This case got its start from a warning shot fired by MERS’ counsel in a letter to attorney Al West of Redondo Beach, California, who has managed to get numerous deeds of trust expunged from the real property records up and down the State of California since the beginning of 2013 in conjunction with orders quieting title to the properties involved. When MERS counsel discovered what happened, it launched a rather terse letter to West, telling him to file a stipulated agreement to reverse his own quiet title actions and expungement orders … like that’s going to happen? The pomposity of it all, right?

    This is the arrogance of MERS that is going to get it it hotter water than it already is. Hey Bill (Beckmann, CEO of MERSCORP) … can’t you rein in your counsel’s behavior? How long did you think you were going to keep up your “beneficial interest” crap in the court system before a judge made sense of it all?

    MERS (through its counsel … MERS can’t do anything on its own because it’s a fiction, so it brings in its parent, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.) then filed an action in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California trying to get a judge to reverse and toss West’s quiet title action and expungement orders granted by a California State Judge!

    Can you believe that? Even Al West was wondering where that has ever been done? A federal judge tossing a state court judgment to quiet title? Really? Apparently MERS counsel is so big for its britches it thinks it can order any judge to do its bidding. Wrong!

    If I had a picture of the “God of Real Estate”, I would put a name tag on its “chest” that said “MERS” on it … because these people think they rule the world and that when its attorneys show up in court, I should sit in the corner and cower while they misrepresent the truth in court.

    There are so many times that the Emperor can “rearrange his new clothes” before the Court realizes they didn’t have any on to begin with! Huzzah!

    Instead, the four-count complaint by MERS and MERSCORP (funny how the parent shows up when its baby bastard is getting its butt kicked in a court fight) ended up in a 45-minute reaming of MERS counsel by the Court wherein MERS Counsel (Owen Campbell) couldn’t explain how MERS was a beneficiary and why it had the right to hold title to the property, even after multiple questions to that effect were heaped upon him by the Court. He had multiple chances to get “his story straight”, yet did not do so, to the dissatisfaction of the Court. As a courtesy, the Court left the door open until March 3, 2014 to amend the last three diminished pleadings (which the Court could not rule on because the first count didn’t survive scrutiny of the Court). So, MERS has until March 3, 2014 to figure out how to UNDO a quiet title action before the door gets slammed shut, with prejudice! Gee, d’ya think they’ll pull another “hat” out of their closet? What say you Janis? … or you other lokers over there in Reston, VA? You’re so great at communicating and pontificating when you win cases … what say you here? Are you going to appeal? We all hope so … for arrogance’s sake!

    Thus, in its Order, the Court eviscerated MERS’s status … not only as a real beneficiary in the deed of trust … but also as to whether MERS holds legal title to the property. In other words, if applicable law says you don’t have the rights to be a beneficiary or to hold legal title when it’s vested in the name of the property’s owner, you don’t get to “have your cake and eat it too”! So the Court just set “applicable law” into motion. Yes folks, the quiet title statutes in California definitely had their place in history on this day!

    According to courtroom observers, when the Court asked MERS’ counsel if it could produce the real beneficiary, MERS counsel said it needed a couple of days to get one. Geez! Where do you think MERS is going to come up with a real beneficiary? I thought that for 45 minutes in open court, Campbell claimed MERS was the real beneficiary! The Court even put in writing that it was “troubled by the fact that (MERS) Plaintiffs themselves seem to understand that they are nothing more than the nominee of the actual beneficiary. In Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the true beneficiary of a deed of trust is equivalent to the mortgagee – the entity that lends money to a borrower for the purpose of purchasing a piece of property” … yet nowhere in the Complaint does it allege that MERS funded the loan used to purchase the property or that it even purchased the loan from the prior beneficiary!

    “Indeed, Plaintiffs entirely fail to allege that Defendants ever made a single mortgage payment to them, rather than to the Lender.” quoting another case ruling. It’s amazing when MERS can’t get its own story straight, but instead, just throws a hat on and acts the faux part in its own gesture of grandiose amusement and self-gratification. Judges aren’t amused by that apparently … and especially this one.

    I would really like to see MERS appeal this. Why? Because when it gets affirmed (and I believe it will if MERS decides to appeal this Court’s decision), every federal court in the 9th Circuit can use this case when MERS tries to remove any foreclosure or quiet title action to federal court. To say the least, this case will be heavily persuasive in the other districts. Arrogance will be MERS’s undoing. Even if MERS were to bring some other “party” into the mix, that party has already been “noticed” by publication in the quiet title action, and thus, cannot come back in later for a do-over. This my friends, is the effectiveness of a proper quiet title action. Attorneys out there reading this blog post would do well to take notice of that fact. Not publishing and giving “constructive notice to the world” leaves the door open for issues later on! An unnoticed claimant can re-open the case.

    Both Al West and this author observe the finite detail that this judge put into the decision, available on the DK Consultants LLC website! It definitely closes the door on MERS’s ability to interject itself in any quiet title proceeding. It also tells this author that the time to file a quiet title action is when the homeowner observes the following conditions are present:

    (1) There is a recorded MERS-originated mortgage, but the originating lender is defunct;

    (2) There is no recorded assignment past the MERS-originated mortgage indicating that anyone else has an interest in the title to the Property OR the note; and

    (3) The homeowner is current on his mortgage payments; or in the alternative, the homeowner is current but struggling to make his payments.

    OR, in the alternative:

    (4) There is a recorded assignment … but it’s assigned by MERS into a trust … but is non-compliant with the PSA.

    Yes, my friends, this indeed does change the landscape of the QT, doesn’t it?

  109. RE; Have you folks lost your minds?

    Yes I have … if you find it, would you send it home?


  110. No, I’m sorry James. I get myself into enough trouble on my own.

    JG … were you not they one who kept saying you can not put land in a Life Estate Trust ?

    ” The (land trust) is expressed in the instrument that creates the Estate ”,,

    Upon creation of the Estate, the estate becomes a Legal Corp.

    Only a party holding Legal Title can bring a Legal action?


  111. KC, can you email me directly Thanks

  112. Have you folks lost your minds? Have you ever heard of PM for divulging this kind of information? WTF are you people thinking?!!

    Why not just fly a plane over WF HQ in Minn. with a trailing banner telling them all about this? Or perhaps a billboard just outside their HQ.

    No wonder you people are in the straights you are. You lack CRITICAL…THINKING…SKILLS ! No concept or thought of second and third order consequences resulting from your posts.

    Christine’s observations and conclusions about the posters here are spot on.

  113. I could not find any CTSLink.

  114. Heyhey – Mortgage Insurance was intended to pay the difference post foreclosure to make the lender whole.

    Who knows what really happened but that was/is the deal, supposedly.

    And yes, MGIC will add the borrower to the policy post closing. Not entirely certain if this would protect the borrower from recourse in the event of a default – but it is something.

    Make it a Great Day.

  115. niedermeyer

    colossal blunder on your part. why would u publicly tell WF how stupid they are for allowing anyone access to their files? why the hell would you publicly shout this out? are u trying to ensure that they close it up so other folks in your shoes never get a shot at this info? what did you gain by shooting your mouth off like that? very bad move. I’m shocked that you would do such a thing.

    And what is this all about?

    “my note (which was destroyed in the conversion to stock certificates , each with a $1000 face value… but which is assumed to still exist) was never extinguished or marked “satisfied”

    What conversion to stock certificates? Where’s the SEC filing for this conversion? Why would investors allow this? It would knock out the trust’s REMIC tax exemption. Please prove this up for us, cuz it makes no sense and sounds like “crazy talk.” Even Garfield hasn’t sprung this one on us.

  116. Neidermeyer, my loan is through WF, do you think If I go to that site I will be able to find the information that I am looking for. Thanks

  117. Bob G. ,

    That’s what I meant ,, joining them as a witness party,, not as one I am attacking.

  118. @ James Smith ,

    Sorry , that’s what we’re all fighting here ,, we’re all looking for information and being denied discovery , I have my information because WF stupidly makes their information available through CTS-Link , “Commercial Trustee Services Link” , a reporting website that nearly anyone with a series 7 securities license can gain access to by requesting a userid and claiming they need the data for client related activities (which can include future clients you might broker a sale for). I think that WF will be publicly sued by Bank of America and all of their other commercial clients of their trust services for not implementing security measures that restrict various users to specific areas of the site but instead it appears they granted “blanket” wide open access to all, they gave me full access (years ago) and did not even ask me questions to see what I needed access to !!!… There’s no excuse for that … just google “database security solutions”… MORONS … That’ll cost them.

    If your trust was a later failure you might want to start looking at Maiden Lane 2 docs for clues. (post TARP/AIG bailout entity).

    Trustees and Master Servicers keep the insurance information hidden ,, my trust was one of the very first to crash and burn in 2007 ,, something like 5% of the notes never had a first payment made! Quite simply it was front page in the WSJ , NYT and IBD ,, it can’t be hidden ,, the world knows of my trust , Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FXD2 ,, and the AIG payout ,, AIG paid out about $11.5B in 2007 on these policies and it snowballed from there…

    Bob G. , I may have phrased some of that wrong but the greater point is that there is only one valid recipient of the funds and they didn’t get it…. and because they didn’t get it my note (which was destroyed in the conversion to stock certificates , each with a $1000 face value… but which is assumed to still exist) was never extinguished or marked “satisfied” … I want a true accounting done… My note was solidly current when the third party payment in full was received by the Master Servicer (also Wells Fargo) but the Trustee (WF again) did not do their job in watching out for the investors interests. It sounds criminal to me … “conversion” a-la “MADOFF” ,, but in this case it would be the entire ceo/board that should be jailed.

  119. Not sure that you can sue in AIG. What damage did they cause you? Doesn’t look like any. You could, however, ask your judge to issue a nonparty witness subpoena, and then depose AIG personnel. I wouldn’t ask them to produce the documents and leave it at that. I would request that they produce the docs, and then show up for a deposition based upon those docs. Depose the trustee and Ocwen as well regarding the purged docs. Believe, me they still have copies of that stuff laying around somewhere. I’ll bet the NSA has a copy for sure.

  120. Bob G. ,

    My plaintiff (OCWEN pretending to be WF as TRUSTEE) has a huge problem ,, I have the entire spectrum of trustee created production reporting documents … WF was notified by the sub-servicer of their intent to foreclose but WF has had no further involvement and it has been a strictly fraudulent “drag” show with OCWEN wearing WF clothes. They’ll have to make a call to WF soon.

    What’s CURIOUS … CURIOUS … CURIOUS … in the extreme is that WF purged all of the collateral reports from April 2008 and prior from their database prior to me downloading it … this is an intentional act of hiding the AIG windfall from their reporting… the other reports have excellent continuity as if the windfall never occurred. Makes you go HMMMMM.

  121. Bases on the post concerning insurance payouts. Does anyone know how I can find out is my securitized loan was insured, who it’s insured by and if they paid out in regards to my mortgage

  122. On the other hand, the senior tranches that are still trading appear to be C quality bonds. So if the remnants were rolled up to the senior tranches, you would see that by looking at the changes in the monthly distribution reports. you would see the junk tranches going to zero, and the senior tranches increasing in value. but then again, the monthly distribution reports do not present collateral value, but rather the notional value of the certificates. The trust has no authority to transfer an investor’s certificates from one tranche to a senior tranche. all the trust can do is waterfall up the payment stream.

    so there is a conundrum here…if the senior tranches are being waterfalled up to keep the P&I payments flowing as scheduled, why are the certs trading as C paper?

  123. niedermeyer

    “Furthermore many tranches of the trust have failed and the remnants rolled up into the higher tranches to maintain (partial) payments which are supplemented by liquidation of principal to “make up” the amounts owed.”

    how do you know this for a fact? It seems to me that the senior tranches were truly prime borrowers. They didn’t need any waterfall protection from the junk tranches.

    have you checked the tranche CUSIPs to see if they’re still trading?

  124. Neil ,,

    Maybe this will be the one post you read ,, I’m attaching AIG to my suit as they have knowledge of the full $700M payment made on my trust and exactly who the recipients were (this was one of the first to fail in 2007 , AIG had not yet been “rescued” by the FedGov so there is no involvement outside of the insurer and the insured) … we have solid evidence that Bank of America was paid $40.1M by AIG as they were part of the selling syndicate for the shares and that represented the unsold shares held by Bank of America (yes the trust crashed even before the shares were all sold!)

    I contend that all the notes in the trust were paid in full at that time … or should have been if the actual trust owners , the investors that bought shares and supposedly have the trustee (Wells Fargo) looking after their interests had applied the windfall legally to retire the debt.. this would have benefitted the investors and borowers… Wells Fargo is just a fee collecting middleman with no skin in the game and no right to retain the $660M that didn’t go to Bank of America. I have rock solid evidence that the investors did not get paid in the form of the trustees own remittance reports showing that they are still getting their monthly interest pass-through checks , an eventuality that would not occur if they were paid off in 2007 as they should have been ..

    Furthermore many tranches of the trust have failed and the remnants rolled up into the higher tranches to maintain (partial) payments which are supplemented by liquidation of principal to “make up” the amounts owed. The investors are being screwed by their own trustee but under NY law they have no voice. (Yes the investors didn’t put up the money upfront to buy the notes ,, they were the last money in but as their money was supposedly used to retire the underwriting and table funding I see them as the true investor) …

  125. Sloppy presentation of “facts” again. So what percentage of the loan was paid off in each of the 2,400 payoff? 5%-10%-15% ? We don’t know from the post…and apparently neither does Edstrom, or presumably he would have told us.

    This is another example of the LL Don Quixote litigation model, whereby litigant defendants are to hop on their horse and ride off in all directions at once.

    If NG were to actually visit his blog and see the legitimate concerns being raised about posts such as these, his credibility with his readers would increase enormously. But obviously he does not visit here much.

    The irony of this is that over the years, NG has taught us to pounce on the bankster lawyers’ conclusory statements, statements that lack personal knowledge, authentication and foundation, and thus are inadmissible as evidence. And some of us have learned well. But then NG comes on here and posts the same kind of unsubstantiated crap that he has been warning us about.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: