The name of the lender on the note and the mortgage was often some other entity used as a bankruptcy remote vehicle for the broker-dealer, who for purposes of trading and insurance represented themselves to be the owner of the loans and mortgage bonds that purportedly derive their value from the loans. Neither representation was true. And the execution of fabricated, forged and unauthorized assignments or endorsements does not mean that there is any underlying business transaction with offer, acceptance and consideration. Hence, when a Court order is entered requiring that the parties claiming rights under the note and mortgage prove their claim by showing the money trail, the case is dropped or settled under seal of confidentiality.
The essential problem for enforcement of a note and mortgage in this scenario is that there are two deals, not one. In the first deal the investors agreed to lend money based upon a promise to pay from a trust that was never funded, has no assets and has no income. In the second deal the borrower promises to pay an entity that never loaned any money, which means that they were not the lender and should not have been put on the mortgage or note.
Since the originator is an agent of the broker-dealer who was not acting within the course and scope of their relationship with the investors, it cannot be said that the originator was a nominee for the investors. It isn’t legal either. TILA requires disclosure of all parties to the deal and all compensation. The two deals were never combined at either level. The investor/lenders were never made privy to the real terms of the mortgages that violated the terms of the prospectus and the borrower was not privy to the terms of repayment from the Trust to the investors and all the fees that went with the creation of multiple co-obligors where there had only been one in the borrower’s “closing.”.
The identity of the lender was intentionally obfuscated. The identity of the borrower was also intentionally obfuscated. Neither party would have completed the deal in most cases if they had actually known what was going on. The lender would have objected not only to the underwriting standards but also because their interest was not protected by a note and mortgage. The borrower would have been alerted to the fact that huge fees were being taken along the false securitization trail. The purpose of TILA is to avoid that scenario, to wit: borrower should have a choice as to the parties with whom he does business. Those high feelings would have alerted the borrower to seek an alternative loan elsewhere with less interest and greater security of title — or not do the deal at all because the loan should never have been underwritten or approved.
Filed under: AMGAR, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: borrower, broker-dealer, co-obligors, disclosure, insurance, investment bank, Investor, securitization, TILA, trading, trust beneficiary, yield spread premium |
We did and paid $35,000 in legal fees when it never should have went to trial. We met the Burden of Proof and had a preponderance of evidence of all the FRAUD violations. #1 was we were never in default our loan was paid off and they ignored MGL ch 244 sec 14 which is an automatic default but the Judge was corrupt. (we have so much evidence that should put him in jail) but our attorney was too scared to hold the judges feet to the fire because it would affect his future cases. The violations are too long to list. This case is going to be exposed and justice will be served. I will not give up until it is! I am a Blue Star mom of a Combat Veteran and how this has affected his life is just so wrong. He returned home from his 2nd deployment in Iraq to find out the only home he ever knew was illegally stolen. On top of PTSD, TBI and so many other injuries this is the straw that broke the camels back. I will never give up on this case. I want to start a non-profit after this is settled to help others avoid what happened to us. The dirt we have since gathered on the Judge would blow your mind and soon the world will know. I hope & pray that your life was not ruined at the hands of these thieves?
You should consult a GOOD attorney if possible and sue them for wrongful foreclosure.
Just because its the law doesn’t mean the law is followed. Our mortgage was paid off and we lost our home to an illegal foreclosure and had no knowledge until 43 days later? I bet you would think that the Judge followed the Rule of LAw right? Wrong he ignored the preponderance of evidence and the fact that MGL ch 244 sec 14 was ignored is an automatic DEFENSE! We had our home for 23 years and it was paid off! We didn’t have an underwater mortgage and weren’t looking to get our house for free! We never missed a payment and always paid extra toward our principal. I know people that haven’t made a mortgage payment in 3 years and are still living in their home? Because ch 244 ch 14 was ignored the attorney for the bank was the only one with knowledge so why did he bid 12,739.83 over the fraudulent principal? Because he submitted an Invalid Credit Bid. We paid over $35,000 in legal fees and had a corrupt Judge that ignored the Rules of Law and come to find out he had a conflict of interest because his wife is an attorney for the #1 bank accused of illegal foreclosures. Any advice?
KC, that’s a good question as to just who is providing the satisfaction of mortgage. In one case that I know of, the satisfaction is going to be filed at recorder’s office with the court order attached, but that solution and loan mod is with benefit of a good lawyer.
Who Has the Power to Execute a Satisfaction and Release of Mortgage?
MERS ?
~~ 🙂 ~~
johngault, this is Alina. It’s been a very long time since I have posted anything on this site but I follow the Neil’s posts. This topic is interesting to me because of the language in the DOT/mortgage.
Foreclosure Defense Coalition, which one are you?
Foreclosure Defense Coalition, I would say you have a Good Point!
There is a load of shady shite going on…
@Java I agree how do these conversations have ANYTHING to do with getting a Satisfaction? All the talk of REMICS…have anyof you looked into the information being presented to the ” investors” of the REMICS? On top of selling the property ( of which when it is purchased or transferred for more than $10, they state to the court….that while not yet paid it is intended to be paid) the loan is often liquidated in the background….for me it was liquidated twice.
How can an Attorney purchase the loan they are foreclosing on? Look at accounting after the fact..sometimrs Attorney fees being changed to reflect “Commission”…liquidation funds recover the loan balance and then some. In these cases they CAN afford to sell or transfer them cheaply. Getting a deficiency judgement from the homeowner, all ways to “get the funds back”
Seriously look at the land records for sales after the foreclosures. I see in our county property “bought on the auction block” for hundreds of thousands of dollars….only to be sold to another party for tens of thousands of dollars. Appearingly not Fiduciarily responsible. …but HAS to be profitable or it wouldn’t be so rampant.
poppy, I followed your link and the links within. Very interesting. The bk trustee for a debtor (private person) filed an Adv Proceeding against a bunch of companies, including mers. HSBC was the claimant as the alleged trustee of a certain trust, “X”, as to the debtor’s loan. The trustee demonstrated that U.S. Bank was listed in the BK’s of Fieldstone and C-Bass as the trustee of that particular trust. Yet, MERS had assigned the dot to HSBC.
Also, FS listed its agreement with MERSCorp as an executory contract, and it filed and was granted a mtn to abandon all executory contracts prior to MERS’ alleged assgt to HSBC. Acc to the trustee, FS Inv. (parent of FS mtg) merged with C-Bass. Around 11/10/10, in its own C-11, C-Bass filed a mtn to abandon it trust securities. One in the list was the borrower’s alleged trust and it, too, showed U.S.Bank as trustee, not HSBC. I haven’t finished reading it (the bottom line in the AP – have to go find it). Unless MERS assigns in its own right, it had no authority to execute an assgt to anyone, and certainly not HSBC, and this case to me makes it clear they do in fact “pick a party”, and in this case, if what the bk trustee alleges is true, they actively sought to avoid the estate’s interest in assets of the bk estate of FS and or C-Bass (and unlawfully take the debtor’s home) Chances are the debtor could have or did (if the trustee prevailed) make a satisfactory deal with the bk estate to pay the estate for his home loan. The bk trustee had no problem attaching publicly known info to his complaint (like newspaper articles citing the merger between FS Inv and C-Bass).
Showing its agreement with MERSCorp as executory imo has other legal implications relevant to any alleged agency (cannot be performed within one year).
Here is a question from out of left field:
The lender and borrower agree that MERS will be the nominee for the lender under the mortgage. In the mortgage, the paragraph titled “Transfer of Rights in the Property” states:
“Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.”
This section has often times been quoted in decisions as conferring rights on MERS with respect to the assignments and foreclosures.
With the understanding that MERS has agreed to take any action required of Lender including the release and cancellation of the security instrument – what happens if a court has ruled that a homeowner has a valid Truth in Lending right of rescission (and the borrower exercised their valid right of rescission in a timely manner, and gave a trigger for the date of the rescission) but the lender is defunct. The court has also granted a default judgment against the lender. Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of MERS to release and cancel the Security Instrument under the terms of the mortgage?
Can the argument be made that MERS breached the contract by not cancelling the security instrument and that breach was the proximate cause of the homeowner being foreclosed upon?
What are your thoughts?
http://abigailcfield.com/?p=100
Do you have this, neidermeyer?
@neidermeyer; Google merger Ocwen Homeward. Also the middlemarket.com/news/Ocwen.
neidermeyer
Got an email I’ll send the 2012 assignment to you…I’ll look around for more Ocwen stuff, I have some others. It has been a royal battle with them.
KPMG is tough. BTW: I had it on my old computer and tried to get it off the hard drive when we got a virus and it was so corrupted it dumped the repair guys computer. He was salty…it was in conjunction with New Century filings, as KPMG were the accountants in 2007. The report I found was in 2008-2009, I do not know when it was made.
john: I am trying to blacken out my personal info…SS and personal stuff, but I am willing to show you what I have. Just a cursory peek…you will see what I mean. Brock and Scott, NC< SC< VA< FL< TN are the culprits….
Again, the servicers/bansters represent that they can transfer defaulted notes into trusts. How can that be? Also, that trusts can foreclose–again, impossible! But the BS beat goes on. Another question I have is: since when do you get REMIC status with the IRS but your notes are past due to the trust, and they may have been in default. The whiners needs to stop whining about having the country in debt when all they have to do is settle on all those BS REMICs that will add up to, possibly, a trillion dollars or more. Debt solved!
Hey, girls, the debt collection “industry” and I use the term casually as it is out of control and has been for a long time. Read the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Debt collectors violate it at all times. In fact, there was a study that showed the Debt collection industry could not operate if it obeyed the law. A firm I am familiar with that is no longer in business Mann Bracken in GA–they went out of business because of TWO CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS. They were supposed to be a law firm. You will find that debt collectors and mortgage servicers are almost the same miserable POS.
Javagold, it’s my lay understanding, first of all, that if a home is sold at f/c sale for more than is owed, those funds which exceed the note balance are to be remitted to a borrower within a specified amt of time , as a matter of law. When a note is paid off (however it’s paid off), also as a matter of law, the coll instrument is released imo. You want it shown in public record, I take it. I have to think about that (you could ask a lawyer and maybe she’ll say they’d have to pay your legal fees – I do NOT have any info or lay opinion on that). I think you should consult an attorney about both the funds possibly owed to you and the
satisfaction as a result of the sale.
@ Poppy ,
I am VERY interested in acquisitions by OCWEN in 2012 … you have info on New Century… Do you have anything on the AHMSI (WL Ross & Co. , LLC) asset sale to OCWEN in 2012? Also , if you have the KPMG report filename I will check an old computer I had to changeout a few years ago ,, I had a lot on that ..
No, the loans weren’t transferred to the trusts, and the “MERS” assgt is prima facie evidence. What’s more, MERS assigns the dot in its own right, not as an agent, and it’s my mission to prove it, although it should be obvious by their execution of the assgt. MERS executes assgts in its own right because it’s thee ben. Some people think the “nominee” business at the beginning of the assgt cuts it for agency. It doesn’t. MERS’ attempt to assign the note is also prima facie evidence the NOTE hasn’t been previously transferred. Could MERS, the ben, actually assign the note? Possibly, if it were authorized, just like anyone else who’s authorized could. (But there are strings with assigning or endorsing a note for someone else. Let me guess. They’re still at it….pretending the servicer’s employee wearing the MERS hat is the note’s holder for MERS and that holding the note magically authorizes one to assgn / transfer)
Back to could MERS otherwise assgn a note? Maybe. Problem is, we have no evidence of any such authorization**, nor is there ever any evidence that A,B,C, D or the man in the moon was a MERSCorp member, subject to their agreements, for that matter. How do we know that B was a member, for instance? We don’t. Imo, it doesn’t really matter anyway, because the real purpose of MERS was to create an entity which was bk remote. If MERS were an agent, its bk remoteness would be of no consequence. Neil thinks or thought that the ability of a bankster to sell the note to more than one party was a perk not an unforeseeable consequence of the MERS m.o. Maybe. But what it really seems to have done is allow a party who’s already been paid for a note to yet claim an insurable interest in that note and to be paid on that claim without regard to the guy who paid for the note.
**so my money’s on MERS’ straw officer allegedly having poss as the self-implemented right to assign the note.
If the note has actually been transferred to the law firm, then obviously they’re just a bunch of crooks if they pretend to f/c for the transferor.
No one buys a note in default without a discount. Wonder who they think is supposed to take that hit?
poppy, you said:
“Further, I suspect a couple of debt collector law firms are buying notes and misrepresenting whom they are collecting for……..”
May well be, and it’s very troubling. Have to give that situation some serious thought. And no law firm, or anyone, would purchase a note in default except at a pretty steep discount. If there is such a deal, that is, the law firm made a contract with So and So that it will buy the note (at a discount), foreclose for the So and So, and then pay the balance or the entire amt “later”, pretty sure that qualifies as a racket. First of all, the party from whom it buys the note (on paper) may be a hidc, but the law firm isn’t. F/c’ing in So and So’s name is an inherent attempt at that misrepresentation. If the law firm or any SO and So has not paid for the note, it only has an equitable interest (maybe) pursuant to the contract between the two. I don’t believe if an equitable interest is created that that yet makes the law firm the real party in interest. I have a case around here which is a granddaddy of sorts on pretending who is the claimant. I’ll see if I can find it. Actually, the law firm can’t even promise to pay for the note, because it will likely be toast after the law firm forecloses. A promise to pay is good generally (although one is only a hidc to the extent of actually payment). But here, the note will either be extinguished by the foreclosure sale, or have a much smaller balance. Could that juggle that all around to make it legit? No, I don’t think so, and they can’t go before a court and enforce the ownership of the note by X when X has sold the equitable interest.B y doing so, X abandoned any right to enforce. I think. At least in a court, actions have to be brought in the name of the rpii. We need to give this soe thought. “This is yours until I complete the foreclosure in your name.”
Couldn’t agree more. I havr been spending months trying to get either a satisfaction of mortgage or lein release. While all parties have written there is no money due, and no lein….NONE have the authority, or williness to provide a recordable document.
So how can WE do anything about this? The documentation may be used if a case was started, but can you cut them off at the pass and use these same letters to create a filing asking the court to release the lein or place a satisfaction of mortgage?
Thanks…I am in Delaware bankruptcy court with the supplement and North Carolina…under USC and/or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, sec 363 – and I think 549 (don’t have papers in front of me)…it should be admitted, but these judges are skirting the procedures and laws, in far too many cases.
FYI: 2 of the people in the same case are in CA and I will pass this on!
@poppy – if you are in CA look at CCP 909.
100% agree with this modification…SCAM and that is what it is. Duped into signature, then the shell game begins. in my non-lawyer opinion.
And anyone who is truly interested, altruistic…possessing great knowledge would be using that to help stop the theft, not enabling more. IMHO!
@ ian
I just sent a motion to supplement evidence…you bet! KPMG report has vanished, for obvious reasons. It proves without doubt they knew the default rates and were betting on them…I read the entire thing and came away with….WHAT? Pages 141-150….if memory serves.
The KPMG report is what compelled the Missal Report and further John McMahon (from April 02, 2007- August 2008, until Jacobs was hired as trustee) the Justice Department representative was raising hell over it, I think he filed a complaint and he did contest the selling of notes to non-lenders, that is still available….the handy work of Susan Uhland, whom by the way has bought houses from recon trust and lives in Pacific Heights, very rich from her schemes.
JohnG, are you in North Carolina?
johngault read Ginnie Mae regulation and it state they don’t originate, buy or sell homes. So the question is for Fannie & Freddie who are not home lender but do purchase loan but they don’t service these loans. It would be like working in a field but not requiring the agency to service them. I find it hard to think they would actually be exempt from being regulated like a national bank.
I believe that these agency are allowed to get away with what they do because first the state (as we having title issues) just are not aware as to how these agencies are possessing the Notes in blank. Nowhere would you find one of these agencies of title, but if they were some actual kind of lender what would be the problem of them being in title as the owner you claim they are.
Why are we going through situation were all these loan alleged to be owned by these three have other lender as the owner? Something is not right as your telling me that you own millions of loans but not in one state are you listed as the “lien holder”……WHY?
@ GENE ,
***************************
All of you here are so smart and intelligent, understand more than anyone else about lending, securitization, the law, foreclosure and everything related, you should all band together and create a company that will ensure that all homeowners win their lawsuits, and at the same time, reform the banks.
***************************
We are not all geniuses , and all of our cases are different … but what we are doing here is basically “crowdsourcing” … I have some knowledge , someone else may have another piece… but for you to come in here and say with a straight face that the trusts were funded is too much.. (if you had what I have) and that is firsthand accounts of notes being destroyed at the surrogate lenders (strawmans) local offices after scanning… no deposit of actual note to the trustee ,, no transaction ,, no funding… I also have the documented AIG payout to the shelf funding agent 6-12 months after the trust closed and no that party wasn’t the trustee or ms … so they should have been out of the money loop by that time…
We may not have all the pieces but we have enough..
We applaud you for working at clearing away some of the fraud ,, having the fedgov jettison F&F will be a huge first step to allowing the banksters to fail as they undo the fraud… Good Luck.
Poppy- I never was able to find the KPMG report but was aware of it. Also,
You can contest the untimely transfer of assets out of a bankruptcy estate. This would be a fraudulent conveyance. Just request an explanation from the Bk trustee. Be nice to them until you get an explanation in writing, and then turn up the heat, that’s what I did. You will then get answers or excuses.
charles – fhlmc, fnma, and gnma are generally exempt from states’ lending licensing requirements. They aren’t lenders per se (though they may become creditors); they buy whole loans – loans already originated, closed, funded. If that requires a license in any particular state, they’re no doubt exempt as agencies of the USA.
carie, this is from Montana Chapter 321, 32-9-124, but is prob everywhere. A lender many not:
“d) fail to disburse funds in accordance with a loan commitment to make a mortgage loan that was accepted by the borrower”
@johngault in the state of Nebraska out of state companies have to register to do busy in the state at the NE Secretary of State and receive a certificate. MERS is not register to do busy in NE. They once had started the process of registering in the state in 2010 back did not complete the registration process.
Here my point with Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie is that the are not register in the states (state charter) to lend and they are not National banks and are not register by the OCC or FDIC. The cannot lend so they cannot purchase they loan as they cannot act as a bank.
They were not performing modifications because it is a function of a bank, and HAMP provided cover for those loan in these three agencies securities.
You funnel all these loan into one program the HAMP and 4.2 million application during 2009-2010 are flowing through with nobody clearly understand the program and you only have 500,000 modification of strictly loan not in these three securities! The President of the United States is saying that the program helped all responsible borrowers, making everybody else proof a negative. Prefect crime!
How is denying 3.7 million loan out of 4.2 million applications a success?
NG, you’ve never said that I know of why you think investors’ funds were used to make the loans. I don’t personally believe even if the banksters did that, that that makes them the lenders. It means a lot, but imo, not that. But, if it did, not only was the lender unlicensed, but so were the people who originated the loan because they would need licensing in NY (NY, right?) as well as in any state where anyone had a physical presence. And if the investors were the lender (again, I disagree), it would certainly be interesting to determine who could endorse the notes. It wouldn’t be a corporate entity or such because there wasn’t one. If ANYone got a loan from an out of state entity and there were physical presence of a loan officer (and maybe even if the closing took place there), pretty sure that company needed to be licensed in that state. If not, it’s possible the loan could be deemed to have been made not by a corporation or like that, and no corporate
endorsement would be valid. When people apply on line and there’s no contact in one’s state, I don’t think licensing in that state is req’d.
Really not sure of the impact of a closing in that state. People might look into that issue (to avoid any alleged corporate endorsement). This could be important, so if I’m not clear, let me know.
strictly lay opinions – ask a lawyer
North Carolina (for example) Mortgage Servicing License:
“This license is required of any company or sole proprietor who for compensation or gain from another or on its own behalf is in the business of receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any mortgage loan, including amounts for escrow accounts, and making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the mortgage loan, the mortgage servicing loan documents, or servicing contract. (More Details)”
http://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/slr/Pages/DynamicLicenses.aspx?StateID=NC
Failure to have a servicing license in any given state probably won’t help (but it might? “that servicer isn’t even licensed to accept my payment!”)) in defense of one’s home per se, but it might keep our opp busy.
@elexquisitor I agree with you about Gene and the modifications. With the mods your signing new document and a new title is being recorded when the old one on many are imo invalid. But I do understand the fear of people not wanting to lose their homes are wanting this to happen, but I feel in the long run they will fall victim to the banks, who down the road will not be under these standard and not only will there be no agencies to regulate this crap, but where Gene going to be.
It a crazy world out here and it would be nice if Gene could help in defeating the bank instead of not refinancing the loans instead modifying them.
I can’t imagine the damage Gene is doing by ‘helping’ borrowers modify their loans, and in doing so, reaffirming what may be illegitimate debts. In doing so he leaves the borrowers defenseless should the modification fail (50% failure rate) and they discover the basis of the illegitimacy after all.
Just got up from one, I was serious….He, He, he
Poppy Enough!
Go Take a Nap!
Anyone know if there is a statute for cyber-bullying? LOL
That’s Enough Christine!
Go Take A Nap!
“Some do it out of necessity or desperation and others out of greed, the latter are generally called lawyers.”
Not quite. It is called “American Greed”. Not just “Lawyers’ Greed”. It’s endemic and deep-rooted in this culture. Institutionalized and well-rewarded. Makes people throw away every ounce of common sense and morals they once had, if they ever did. Increasingly doubtful too. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Live by the sword, perish by the sword. The creation of this entire country is a testimony to greed. And to lying, stealing and cheating.
The natives won’t contradict me.
Louise I believe that with 10 million foreclosures and another anywhere from 6 to 10 million people having had some problems with their payments (shadow inventory) that they cut out as many as 20 million adult (many cases two adult households), with increasing part-time workers all adding to a large amount of people who now cannot buy.
The government stole from future years of purchasing when they had the $8,000 credit in 2009-2010 that took from the future sales. But we cannot forget that everybody who could refinance at 4% or lower did and are not getting rid of these properties with these lower payment, but also lenders are not lending in many cases with people who are not selling their current primary resident. They have been there and done that with these rental property income that also became a drag of the landlord when the economy crashed!
Mortgage lending is a problem, but I think people still want to own, but they just cannot as thing are so screwed up!
You bet and wait until the Fed stops printing money for “junk bonds” they’re buying with monopoly money! Should get right interesting. Of course us, non-legal idiots wouldn’t know a thing about that…not intended for you! sarcasm…
If you get a chance read “A Distant Mirror” by B. Tuchman. It is all about how the so-called nobility (13th Century) destroyed the entire economy by fleecing and stealing everything not nailed down from the peasants who created the wealth of the community. Sound familiar! Eventually the golden goose (middle class) will have no more to give, and then the parasites go down, too. Also, I have been reading that the originations are dropping out the bottom and nobody can or wants to buy a house. Uh, oh, here it comes.
Yup, nothing going on there, Oh my, Stupid me….
The KPMG Report has completely vanished, Louise…imagine that? Missal Report need to check my documents or Internet. Sure will, be happy too. By all accounts here there is nothing wrong, just get a modification and work with a lawyer, everything will be fine… IMO hold onto your behind, cause it will be bleeding when they all get finished with you! LOL
“the interconnectedness of global banking; offshore banking; off balance sheet vehicles; and regulatory arbitrage where U.S. financial institutions move high risk operations to foreign locales with light-touch regulators”.
Article: Swiss Insurers and JPMorgan Have More than Suicides in Common
By Russ Martens and Pam Martens: March 11, 2014
good news :still to big to fail
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?date=20140307&feed=OBR&id=17416978
Poppy, can you post a link to either of those reports, Missal and KPMG? Would be greatly appreciated. Also, Aurora Loan Services v. Bernice Toledo. MERS agency relationship ends when original lender files bankruptcy.
@ ian
The KPMG report was a smash read too. Detailing the % of defaults on an excel sheet? Hmm. Goes right with the Missal report…I just found a transfer of assets to Ocwen from New Century in 2012, while still in the bankruptcy, address 1661 Worthington Dr, West Palm Beach, FL…go figure. And according to the legal eagles, this is unimportant. Respectfully, I disagree and filed a motion to supplement evidence to that effect…and I am sure the judge will kick it, cause I’ll just bet there are thousands more.
“lie, cheat and steal to earn a living”
Some do it out of necessity or desperation and others out of greed, the latter are generally called lawyers. The reputation has been well-earned for a reason!
And chrissy, is there no other responses you find provocative?
Ian I agree and attempted to do just that in Bankruptcy Court state court and UDI court but no one would listen I offered $ 163,000 and the credit bid was $162,199 and no one would help or listen
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone >
“The lawyers are the reason this is the way it is…”
Nope. Those lawyers and politicians were raised by American families and went to American law schools and churches. If they turned out the way they did and caused the havoc they have, there’s a pretty good reason: the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing.
Gene- now, what is your process going to help people modify? How’s this for a suggestion- develop a process whereby the “borrower” can input the relevant information from their courthouse instrument summary list, and your process guarantees that the review leads directly to the lender, if they have a portfolio loan, and the holder, if it is/was a securitized loan. And then proceed with the modification. Of what, I don’t know- re-remic charged off default debt? what would you call it- “we’ll, they must owe somebody somewhere something”
Most of the 1. Mortgage brokers 2. “Underwriters” ( 38k per year) 3. Bond traders 4. Closers I know are missing a portion, if not the majority, of their grey matter. Lets face it- the loans weren’t “poorly underwritten”- they were garbage. They weren’t “defective”, they were fraudulent. All the mortgage originators needed was a SS #. The rest of the info they made up. You’ve read the Missal Report, right? It’s only 587 pages describing New Century’s business overview. They had an 11 person dept. which just changed all the info on the applications. Incomes had to be 162,000 minimum, so that’s what everyone earned. Hamburger flippers, lawn maintenance people, babysitters, etc.
All the people in the process were unemployable morons. The people at the top wore Rolex watches and nice clothes etc, but when people have no marketable skills, they have no choice but to lie, cheat and steal to earn a living. I know a lot of them.
I agree with you Poppy
Sent from my iPhone
>
Gene The judges are protecting the Bankster’s because they don’t understand how simple it is It is a simple matter of contract law and perfected title
Sent from my iPhone
>
Gene Any modification is not worth the paper it is printed on since the title is not perfected have a great day When are we going to have the rule of law so that these jackasses go to jail instead of guys like you protecting them?
Sent from my iPhone
>
And for the record: I have found people that think they got it, generally fall short. Insulting people’s ill-fated attempts to help themselves is very short-sighted and cruel.
The lawyers are the reason this is the way it is…so blame your clan for most of it! They generated the paperwork, closed the faulty loans, altered the UCC code for their own benefit and fixed the game…and that gene, is the facts in the matter.
Gene- in re: Kemp (NJ) Linda DiMartini, in charge of Countrwide’s note vault or whatever, stated ” it was never our practice to put the notes in the trusts, we kept them all here in our vault in Simi Valley”. To which CW defense counsel interjected ” your honor, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about”. I thought this remark was hilarious. What, countrywide moves people up through the ranks for 15 years and they don’t even know where the stupid notes go? What kinda people did they hire out there?
Excuse me…when did I mention I was SOOOOO smart? You have and by all accounts you know some things.
And BTW: I have won one part with BOA, for Breach of Contract, with a confidentiality clause. However the initial filing IS available. They had to pay for everything…filed it pro se and hired a lawyer for the deposition and mediation. That’s a big coup as BOA is very, very difficult and spends a boat load of money to throw at the problem. Now, settle down!
Poppy,
Just reading the REMIC does not mean a thing. There is so much info, documents, etc that exist that most of you have never even heard of.
If you are so smart, why haven’t you won your case yet? Oh right, the judges are corrupt as well as the lenders………..
Agente77,
I do not work specifically for the bankster’s as you call them. In fact, many of the successful arguments used by attorneys for homeowners have been based upon my work. And my work has been copied by others across the US.
I don’t give a damn who is right or wrong. I care about what is right or wrong.
Right now, I and my team are developing products for attorneys and for your bankster’s that will greatly enhance the likelihood of people receiving modifications which would have been denied before.
Here is something……….
All of you here are so smart and intelligent, understand more than anyone else about lending, securitization, the law, foreclosure and everything related, you should all band together and create a company that will ensure that all homeowners win their lawsuits, and at the same time, reform the banks.
I am sure that you can all do that since you have been so successful in your cases so far.
Re the underwriting
” loan to value” market was ” stable” for real ???
And not just Wall St…I know absolute, that one Judge who rules on foreclosures is buying them at auction on the same court house steps he rules in/on (deed recordings) and further, a lawyer for a reorganization firm has been buying properties from recon trust…this is rampant. Further, I suspect a couple of debt collector law firms are buying notes and misrepresenting whom they are collecting for and the amounts due e.g. trusts; the REMIC type, notations of CWAB, NC01; lies!
Tell me I am wrong, this is not happening?
And they are moving right along because they have not been stopped its like having a heroine addict in charge of the pharmacy.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/03/10/could-a-wall-street-firm-be-your-landlord-video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
If the “facts” as are some say; why the need to counterfeit? And why is there no criminal prosecution?
The fact is: the courts are playing a jurisdiction GAME and avoidance of the facts presented. The non-judicial foreclosures are preventing tens-of-thousands to present the facts before a court…and I do respect the experience herein, but frankly this problem is much bigger than whether or not a note was put into a trust, IMHO
@ Gene
you must work for one of these bankster. You write as if you knew all the facts and have evidence. If NG writes B.S. your responses do sound like pure B.S.
If you are going to steal everything that is not nailed down, then the Note and Mortgage never made it to the trust. If you are a crook, you might as well go all the way. They think of us homeowners/borrowers as “muppets” anyway–too stupid by half and deserving of being fleeced.
Gene it has nothing to do with the trust funding or not He is saying, as I, there was no actual contract from the beginning, a nullity (consideration between creditor and credited) Basic contract law and if TILA was followed – Carpenter vs Logan 1867 – once a mtg is satisfied there is no security just a debt instrument
“Bijaya K D” Brian D Grover
no matter where you go there you are
Which trust gene…because I know 100% a REMIC did not happen with my note. Now, I know you will play semantics and that’s fine, but frankly, if I have read my PSA correctly, and by the way they name the REMIC as the directive to collect as a servicer, that IS NOT the case.
Either way, I am in the “contractual” language in my particular case. We are 6 years in and the DOT defines the language, which the “note” is defined as a “promissory note” for all intended/intensive purposes. If that is the case, the statute of limitations is 5 years in North Carolina to collect and I have a debt collector, not a servicer in play!
The UCC, in my opinion does not have a play here either. UCC nine (9) was changed at the bequest of the banksters in 2009, if I read that correctly, to accomplish “converting” the note to securities/MBS…to enable sales in the securities market.
Can anyone tell me if this doesn’t happen? And trusts do exists, but it does matter what kind they are when compelling to the court to act on behalf of them?
No lawyer-obviously!
a debt instrument
“Bijaya K D” Brian D Grover
no matter where you go there you are
More b.s. from NG. The Trusts were funded, no matter what he says. The Notes and loans were transferred into the Trusts.
NG either does not know how bond sales work, or he is misrepresenting how they work.
I had an odd Heloc closing. I am in NC where we close real estate transactions with Real Estate Attorneys of course. This was a NREIS Title Company closing.and all by a Notary in the Access Mortgage Office. The Lender was to have been CitiBank,NA. Ha…Never saw a Banker. Also the documents were not prepared by an attorney, but by NREIS and a transmittal was ready to go after we signed the strangest DOT, where you sign on page 2 and there are 6 more pages recorded at the Register of Deeds. There were no disclosures or APR models. Also there was nothing at all about TILA or RESPA. They Notary gave us 3 copies of the same page regarding the the day right to cancel however. Nothing about rescission rights. I guess it goes without saying the Title company was engaged to handle details and one was to handle the investor’s funds as an arrangement to fund the securitization of this loan/asset.
Now where are the clean law abiding judges willing to hear the facts ?
$ 800 trillion in derivatives traded on $70 trillion in assets no wonder Lloyd’s of London pulled out of European banks in 10-2011.
The best I can tell , FANNIE and FREDDIE, have a lot to do with the mess this country is in.
Exactly what I have said since January 08 It is a nullify at best
Sent from my iPhone
>
I’ve been asking where is satisfaction of mortgage on fraudclosed home that was sold for more than was supposedly owed …..no one has an answer !!!! (The longer I deal with this fraud , I realize no one knows, or if they do, they are just lying )