The issue is what are the elements of the loan contract? Who are the parties? And who can enforce it?
I would agree that an overpayment at closing from the source of funds is rare. What is not rare and in fact common is that the wire transfer instructions that accompany the wire transfer receipt often instructs the closing agent to refund any overpayment to the party who wired the money — not the originator. This leads to questions. If it is a true warehouse lender, such instructions could be explained without affecting the validity of the note or mortgage.
In truth, the procedures used usually prevent the originator from ever touching the flow of funds. Wall Street banks were afraid of fraud — that if the originators could touch the money, they might have faked a number of closings and taken the money. In short, the investment banks were afraid that the originators would not use the money the way it was intended. So instead of doing that, they created relationships by having the originators sign Assignment and Assumption agreements before they started lending. This agreement says the loan belongs to an “aggregator” that is merely a controlled entity of the broker dealer. But the money doesn’t come from either the originator or the aggregator. Thus they have an agreement that controls the loan closings but no consideration for that either.
But this is a lot like the insurance payments, proceeds of credit default swaps etc. The contracts almost always specifically waive subrogation or any other right of action against the borrowers or any other enforcement of the notes or mortgages. It has been presumed that these contracts were for the mitigation of losses and that is true. But they are payable to the broker dealers and not the trust or trust beneficiaries. The investment banks committed fraud when they represented to the insurers, FDIC, Fannie, Freddie and CDS counterparties that they had an insurable interest. Those parties presumed that the investment banks were creating these hedge products for the benefit of the owner of the mortgage bonds or the owner of the loans. But it was paid to the investment banks. That is why all those parties are claiming losses that resulted from fraud — all of which have resulted in settlements (except the Countrywide verdict for fraud).
The similarity is this: in both the closing with borrowers and the closings with investors the same fraud occurred. When dealing with the closing agent they interposed their nominee in the closing which resulted in no note and no mortgage in favor of the investors or the trust. Whether the closing agent is liable is another issue. The point is that the money came from a third party which was a controlled entity of the broker dealer. Thus the investor gets a promise from a trust that is not funded while their money is used to pay fees, create the illusion of trading profits for the broker dealer and funding mortgages.
The wire transfer is not a wire transfer from the originator, nor from the bank at which the originator maintains any account. The wire transfer instructions and the wire transfer receipt fail to identify the actual source of funds and fail to refer to the originator as a real party. If they did, there would not be a problem for the banks to enforce the note and mortgage. If they did, the banks would simply show the transaction record and there would be nothing to fight about.
The only occasion in which the banks appeared to be willing to provide adequate documentation for consideration appears to be in a merger or acquisition with the party that was named as the mortgagee in the mortgage document or the beneficiary in the deed of trust. And all the other transactions, the banks say that consideration is irrelevant or they quote the law that says that courts cannot question the adequacy of consideration. They are dodging the issue. We are not saying that consideration was not adequate; what we are saying is that there was no consideration at all. The banks are fighting this issue because when it comes out that there really was no consideration the entire house of cards could fall.
The issue is counterintuitive because everyone knows that there was money on the closing table. Unless the issue is argued and presented with clarity, it will appear to the judge that you are trying to say that there was no money on the closing table. And when a judge hears that, or thinks that he heard that, he or she will not take you seriously. There are three parts to every contract — offer, acceptance, and consideration. A few courts have started to deal with this question. In the context of foreclosure litigation all three elements are in question. If the lenders are investors who believed that their money was being put into a trust that they were beneficiaries of a trust, they are unaware of the fact that their money is being offered to borrowers on terms that are contrary to their instructions. And the loan is not made on behalf of the investors or the trust. It is made on behalf of some sham entity controlled by the broker dealer. Sometimes the origination is made by an actual bank that is acting in the capacity of a sham lender. Either way the money came from the investors.
So the issue is not whether there was money on the table but rather whether there was a meeting of the minds between the investors and lenders in the homeowners as borrowers. The lender documents (trust documents) reveal far different terms of repayment than the borrower documents. Each of them signed on to a deal that actually didn’t exist because neither of them had agreed to the same terms.
The fact that money was on the table at the time of the alleged closing of the loan can only mean that the homeowner owed money to repay the source of the money. This duty to repay arises by operation of law and extends from the homeowner to the investor despite the lack of any documentation that explicitly states that. The result is false documentation in which the homeowner was induced to sign under the mistaken belief that the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage was the source of funds.
If you receive funds from John Smith and the note and mortgage are drafted for the benefit of Nancy Jones as “lender” would that bother you? What would you do as closing agent? Why?
Filed under: CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, Servicer, Title, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: acceptance, borrowers, closing table, consideration, contract law, debt, documentation, homeowners, investors, lenders, Mortgage, note, offer |
Todd
Thank you
[…] Thus they have an agreement that controls the loan closings but no consideration for that either. READ MORE… Posted in Banks, News Around The Country « Cook County accuses HSBC units of predatory […]
For those pursuing the DocX, Lorraine Brown in jail (1M fraudulent docs), the purported fraudclosure mill attorney and bank contracted with DocX/LPS to provide sham docs/instruments while Brown was working there approach, remember to get the video (on YouTube) that shows with specificity and particularity exactly how a purported “original” birth certificate for Obummer (I’m apolitical- they are mostly all criminals) was fabricated.
If they can do it for a sham BC, it’s easy enough to do it for a sham note, mortgage, DOT, assignment, etc they are trying to pass off as an “original”.
When I had fraudclosure atty Thomas P. Dore (finally suspended in Aug 2013 for 90days- a joke really) under oath at an 11Aug2010 hearing where he tried to “authenticate” a purported “original” note (Dore can’t authenticate a ham sandwich), he had no idea how it came into his hands from his purported bank “client”. No verified chain of custody, no subsequent indorsements (despite it being purportedly conveyed to a trust, etc).
His little fat cheeks got all red when I kept grilling him to impeach his testimony. I’ve posted transcript of hearing a few yrs ago. As usual they covered up for Dore (go figure his law partner was a Md. state senator and on Rules Committee of Court of Appeals) and they still cover up Dore’s criminal racket. We’re working on that little problem and the suspension was first chink in armor. more on that later.
But almost 4 years ago we didn’t know that Lorraine Brown would finally get busted.
That video of the Adobe Photoshop layering of the pieces to fabricate a purported “original” BC (I think 15 layers) gave me the very specific and particularized statements of exactly how they fraudulently fabricated instruments. Marry that up with the LPS “price list” where you could purchase an entire collateral file (including a note as a cherry on top) for $95 and it’s pretty compelling even for rocket dumbo, errr docket “judges” at least for appeal when they railroad you through your 2 min “hearing” in Fla. courts. In other states where we work you get about 5 min. before they screw you.
A lot of homeowners and attorneys backed off “fraud’ claims since they hide the paperwork fraud and financial accounting control fraud, so we can’t state it with “specificity and particularity” to survive the (in fed court) 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (when homeowner is PLTF) and similar in state court.
But the above with the link to video and each step in how they fabricate is about as specific as I could get when I put it into the record.
Hope that is helpful to “educate” the “judge” on exactly how they do it.
here is general link and Sheriff Arpaio (I know he is a useful idiot) did the investigation and made the public announcement the BC was a forgery. He’s on record in a public forum so I grabbed those public statements as well
https://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=youtube%20video%20shows%20how%20obama%20birth%20certificate%20was%20forged
How an Attornie would cover his tracks….
1. Take a photo copy of a Trustee Deed.
2. Alter the photo copy of the Trustee Deed.
3. Deliver and Present It as the Original to the buyers
4. Record it as an original without the Trustee Agreement.
Sheesh!
If that mess isn’t bad enough to clean up alone ..
That Attornie tried to feed us to the Big Bad BOA who slithers down stream to feed.
Imagine being a Trustee/Beneficiary after losing your parents and selling your childhood home …. getting this call appx 2yrs later…….
Your deceased parents Estate Trust remains open and the Title to the property you sold KC and her hubby is still in it.
Ring.. Ring. Ring…. I’d call my attorney to.
Many Blessings to All!
DW,
Todd is correct, my daughter bought one of their REOs in Jan 07. rescinded shortly after, still there … Justice is Slow.
Myself, I Thank God the Sellers Trust became Irrevocable upon their death. Their Trustee/Beneficiaries are Good Apples!
Sucks to be the Attorney who represented the deceased estate.
Considering the Estate didn’t have a mortgage and the HELOC they had for $30,000 when the wife fell sick was paid off.
I (didn’t say nuttin about the lien release being MIA .. ) did I? pffft
~~~ the HELOC that was paid off in 2002.~~~
At least according to the Trustee/Beneficiaries Estate Records.
Todd W said
” Those jackasses have the guns for now but a Las Vegas investigative reporter found himself to be the victim of purchasing a “lemon” thinking he was getting a deal buying a fraudclosure from the bank. His atty look at closing docs and in 5 minutes told him “you don’t own the home you purchased…..”
It can only get worse is true.
Let me give you my lil example. Two words – rocket docket
Ted has a hole in his marble bag …….
And it appears he has lost quite a few already.
Companies you work for make absolutely sure you NEVER accomplish anything. And you get to pay taxes on the time stolen from your life, accomplishing NOTHING!
http://www.wimp.com/workhappen/
Banks are not the problem. People refusing to use their brains, think and analyze what they put up with are… Every step of the way. Banks are not the cause. They’re only one of many symptoms of how brainless people have become and want to be kept.
Any wonder so many lose?
Oooops … It didn’t all post.
RE: ” KC, on March 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm said:
STATEMENT:
NO ASSIGNMENT UNTIL TIME OF FORECLOSURE
Lenders originate the loans and a Warehouse Bank, A Commercial Lender wire the funds under a Third Party Contract.
If both companies are Bank of America owned one can see the reason for no early assignment.”
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
RESPONSE:
“False…” ………. .”” the assignment is mandatory for preferential treatment in setting forth the investment scheme that is for converting mortgages into shares of common stock.
The question then is how the commercial lender transfers the mortgages into the trust apparatus. The answer is by economic contribution as paid in capital. Hence the wire received by the settlement agent on (date) is reversed, literally to covert the commercial lines into common stock.”
The Creditor in the ISC mortgage asked the Debtor how much he could afford to pay each month.
The Debtor replied … (for UKG) … Only One inch at a time.
~~~ GRINS & BLUSHES ~~~
gRANNY oUT
Todd. Would this work on a fraudclosed house , where the sheriff sale had a surplus , thus the fraudclosing servicer received all that they say was owed in full…….when we starting asking for a satisfaction of note and mortgage…..no one knows the answer. …….. still waiting !!!
re- lost in elevator shaft– correct. we all know note/ DOT or mtg. were bifurcated. In one of the few times they allegedly “returned” note/ mortgage (they were not authenticate and I know they are not originals) but assuming arguendo, the note came about 60 days after purported “loan” was “paid” from one addess, and mtg. came about 45 days later from different address…. The “note and mortgage are inseparable……” from Carpenter v. Longan as we know. That is why I’ve been going after all the fraud we know happens, but this time the bank has zero credibility, that is why they want to settle that Pa. case since they know they are screwed. Who knows, they may read these posts and try to screw homeowner/consumer with crooked judge but it’s pretty hard to figure out a way to say “you can’t have your note/mortgage or DOT back. Everyone know you get them back when purported “loan”is paid and that is what we are exposing that can be directly used in every fraudclosure as the “pattern and practice” that we all know happens. This time we should be able to get the discovery though since we are credible and they are not
12. Plaintiff alleges the following facts causal for making promissory note “instrument” void or voidable against the Plaintiff- as follows …….
Todd, This should cover the lost note in the elevator shaft. lol
What do you say?
1. That the subject promissory note is made null and void upon the deed or mortgage deed of trust ……
2.. That the subject mortgage and or mortgage deed of trust is likewise found null and void upon the deed or mortgage deed of trust …..
“KC, on March 25, 2014 at 2:39 pm said:Todd, I know every case is different but I have a mortgage and don’t have a lien …
Makes Me Think … HMMM?”
that’s why we experimented in Pa- mortgages not DOT. That is case where JPMC just a few weeks ago contacted PLTF/consumer and asked if they would work this out. This was a $450,000 note “paid in full”. The mortgage, unlike DOT in the Release clause doesn’t expressly say you get note back but it’s “normal and customary” and as we know “custom” can be construed as “law”. If you want copy of replevin without bond complaint for Pa, let me know. It can be recycled for other states- todd@surefirehomeretention.com 410 916 8863
RE: His atty look at closing docs and in 5 minutes told him “you don’t own the home you purchased…..”
Ut Oh ….
Todd, I know every case is different but I have a mortgage and don’t have a lien …
Makes Me Think … HMMM?
Right off the top of my head .. I am thinking there is a 6yr sol for a creditor to file a claim for abandoned property in a foreign account in the Cayman. You should verify this for yourselves.
Because Neil has blocked the post and link several times.
PPM securities holders who are the registrations securities issuers were allowed to construct a New York indenture holding fractional shares of the estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably into trust.
Defendant knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgages was not enforceable, but he did not disclose this fact to the grantor and Plaintiff.
Defendant made the transfer with intent to defraud plaintiff.
Therefore Plaintiff alleges facts establishing a basis for a claim for facts constituting ground for rescission of underlying transaction making instrument voidable and for exemplary damages, whereas the Defendant claims are for a transferred asset the Plaintiffs loan, sold on or about …………………………………………..
re- KC “That defendant shall be ordered to deliver the original release of lien and or reconveyance forthwith to the clerk of the court for cancellation and recording.”
Can’t tell you how many missing lien releases not done in addition to not returning personal property. Have several properties that title is so clouded, they had to use Hudson and Marshall Auction company to quickly launder the title despite massive title defects, wild deeds, etc.
Those jackasses have the guns for now but a Las Vegas investigative reporter found himself to be the victim of purchasing a “lemon” thinking he was getting a deal buying a fraudclosure from the bank. His atty look at closing docs and in 5 minutes told him “you don’t own the home you purchased…..”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/foreclosure-crisis-investigative-reporter-george-knapp-victims_n_1119480.html
This sh.. is only going to get worse. I have many investor friends looking to buy “deals” and I sent them Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez to read, (citing Ibanez..) I’ve been trying to hunt down Mr. Rodriguez for 18 months to tell him he can reclaim his home.
Just looked at fraudclosed property in Exeter NH on “Court” street (ironic) being auctioned by Hudson and Marshall (part of the title laundering machine). I know the fraudclosure deed was sham (FreddieMac to FreddieMac by Wells Fargo as agent- affidavit by Harmon Law Firm fraudclosure atty claiming everything was legit- Harmon was on David Stern board at his company- Harmon investigated as I write this by MA AG)
I wrote to agent for H&M “… doing due diligence before I bid on property, will you send verified chain of title to property…. blah, blah” and copied Carolyn Foster (homeowner) NH AG and MA AG. Funny Hudson I guess didn’t want me to submit a bid since they never responded.
Go figure I copied the CFPB to help me complete due diligence so I don’t end up buying a “lemon”. This is just beginning – Watch Hudson and Marshall (TX based- Bush/Bauer- connection). They are one of the bigger “washing machines” laundering titles as fast as they can on tens of thousands of fraudclosed homes.
Hope to hunt down Carolyn Foster and tell her how they screwed her too..
Detinue complaint is making rounds- goal is 10,000 consumers minimally suing to get their shit back. Link to first one and link to recent talk at Liberty Forum in NH on property rights- topic “Your Property, You’ve Got It, They Want It.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/212960615/Complaint-For-Return-of-Promissory-Note
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxUlAHGWuCw
Aside, ex-NSA whistleblower (pre-Snowden) Thomas Drake and ex-DOJ ethics atty Jesselyn Radack was keynote at that conference in NH. Got to talk with Drake afterward- he faced10 count felony indictment under sham “espionage act” with full force of White House after 35 yr prison term and he beat them. Compared to what Drake was facing we have it easy.
When asked what was most important aspect (knowing the facts and law don’t matter when “judge” is in back pocket of govt/banks) to winning Drake said “court of public opinion was critical”. Heard same message 4 more times over the w-end so we are putting that strategy into practice. Hope Drake is willing to consult some more on their strategy.
After 60 Minutes ran story on Drake and 2 other whistleblowers abotu a week before trial, the DOJ dropped all 10 felony counts on the eve of the trial, rather than face the embarassment of trying to prosecute a hero. That is power of public opinion. This was concerted effort though, not one media appearance. Lot to be learned from Drake case.
If anyone wants to recycle will send MS Word doc. Many states dropped detinue from statutes–not abolished, but citing statute removes grey area, so replevin without bond is similar to detinue where it’s not explicit on books. This first one I did was “at law”. I think I may do next one per trust law since we have dozens in Md where DOT’s are used. Will see if they kick it out but I’m pretty certain (my opinion) that DOT’s explicitly say in the “transfer of rights” section of 12-15 pg. DOT that a trust is being formed “…. in trust” despite what all the cases say that a DOT is same as mortgage. I agree to limited extent, but when you have all elements to trust (intent, purpose, parties, specific trust res) and method of formation, a trust is formed whether it’s express or not.
That said, if the 15 pgs of DOT are the trust indenture then all the purposes of the trust are not fulfilled until I get my damn note/DOT back per the “Release” clause- usually Non-Uniform Covenant 23 on last page of DOT above signature line. So…… If all other trust purposes are fulfilled- purported “loan” being “paid in full” then last purpose is to give me back my shit (property) since release clause says “shall” not “may”. Also says “lender OR trustee” so they are jointly and severally liable.
So …. if I do next one in equity, not “at law” then the judge/ chancellor of the equity court (wears both hats depending on jurisdiction invoked) should impose a constructive trust in equity since they have my property and the grantor/”borrower” (me) is converted into a beneficiary and the trustee (usually attorney) and bank (purported beneficiary) are converted into constructive trustees with DUTY and obligation to return my property, or maybe they will be in contempt and put in jail until they can be purged of their contempt to save their souls.
Please share with friends families, enemies, and share liberally. Want all the bankers to see this coming… What are they going to do now that the the presumed deadbeats…???
That defendant shall be ordered to deliver the original release of lien and or reconveyance forthwith to the clerk of the court for cancellation and recording.
For damages, in the event that defendant fails to surrender the title for cancellation pursuant to the judgment, in the sum of $194000, plus interest thereon from and after …………………………
CAUSE OF ACTION
For Executory Contracts, Contracts of Adhesion and or all other agreements in perpetuities ……
For exemplary and punitive damages
RE: I, wish there 10,000 people suing for return of their abandoned property (student “loans”, auto “loans”, home “loans”, purported “credit” card contracts). They can’t return your property so rule said you get property back OR its value.. Feel me now….?? email direct todd@surefirehomeretention.com 410 916 8863
🙂
NICE Todd! NICE!
So True!!
NO ASSIGNMENT UNTIL TIME OF FORECLOSURE
Lenders originate the loans and a Warehouse Bank, A Commercial Lender wire the funds under a Third Party Contract.
If both companies are Bank of America owned one can see the reason for no early assignment.
Danny-re: Danny Johnson, on March 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm said:
I recently closed some loans, I asked for a copy of the wire transfer and it was not from the bank on the note. The funds came from out of the country.” Care to share redacted copy of wire that doesn’t comport with redacted copy of note? I will hold in confidence. Will gladly share detinue complaint for return of “paid off” $480,000 note that deadbeats refused to return to me along with orig. DOT. They lied and said they sent it back and now they are also lying not only to court but CFPB (the “cop on the beat”) We have dozens more purported “loans” that were “paid in full”. Wankers are totally twisted up. Queued up another in Pa. a few weeks ago- JPMC (2 weeks after getting served) had an atty contact consumer “Can we work this out….”, Queued another yesterday in Maryland. Like I, wish there 10,000 people suing for return of their abandoned property (student “loans”, auto “loans”, home “loans”, purported “credit” card contracts). They can’t return your property so rule said you get property back OR its value.. Feel me now….?? email direct todd@surefirehomeretention.com 410 916 8863
This in essence provided BofA with the mortgage receivable and also a Countrywide Home Loan Inc receivable for the amount held in an uninsured domestic and combination of domestic and offshore depositor’s accounts.
The PPM securities holders who are the registrations securities issuers were allowed to construct a New York indenture holding fractional shares of the estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably into trust.
. To avoid dual consideration the note must be ruled unenforceable and declared void.
17. Defendants are held to a savvy set of improprieties and unethical procedures that included creating two wires from one loan as well as the estate using the stripped title as a transfer and sale into trust and by substituting out the original agreements and note with purchaser seller “installment sale contract”
21. Defendant knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgages was not enforceable, but he did not disclose this fact to the grantor and Plaintiff.
22. Defendant made the transfer with intent to defraud plaintiff.
The Farmer has a Friend and his name is ….
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2
The Kat in the Hat says there is a Document named …..
Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP”
Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP”
Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP”
Charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensible parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against the titleholder and consumer household.
CASE NO: _______
COMPLAINT FOR
CANCELLATION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
Amazing how unable people appear to be to separate criminal from civil cause of action!
Without that minimum of knowledge and understanding, forget defensing foreclosure!
Deb,
“So the sol clock does not start ticking on facts you were never privy to”. Not quite true. There’s that little thing of “Knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN” i.e., how soon was it feasible to “know”? In other words, failing to conduct timely discovery and timely obtain the answers needed cannot be used as an excuse to try and toll the expired SOL. In the presence of heavy smoke, failing to look for and discover the fire does not make a viable defense to the fact that the house burnt down.
Besides the point anyway for what fraud is concerned. Homeowners have limited avenues: tort (negligence, conversion and breaches of existing statutes) or breach of contract. Or BK, when everything else fails. Fraud is not much of an option. Why? Because liar loans dirtied everyone’s hands. Homeowners trying to argue that they didn’t know their salary had been misstated or any such thing haven’t been very successful so far. Trying to shine the light on banks fraud (if any) with unclean hands won’t yield much result other than a pissed off judge.
Unclean hands goes both ways. Can’t argue fraud with unclean hands. And fraud wasn’t perpetuated on the homeowner per se anyway but rather on the regulatory agencies. The fact that people signed anything without looking at it is homeowners’ fault. The fact that banks failed to respect the SEC rules has nothing to do with homeowners.
And by all means people, stay away from RICO! Arguing criminal undertaking in civil law suits is absolutely insane!
Do Americans say that? It’s a positive where I’m from
KC
Your not half bad
NO ASSIGNMENT UNTIL TIME OF FORECLOSURE
Lenders originate the loans and a Warehouse Bank, A Commercial Lender wire the funds under a Third Party Contract. If both companies are Bank of America owned one can see the reason for no early assignment.
False the assignment in mandatory for preferential treatment in setting forth the investment scheme that is for converting mortgages into shares of common stock.
The question then is how the commercial lender transfers the mortgages into the trust apparatus. The answer is by economic contribution as paid in capital. Hence the wire received by the settlement agent on (date) is reversed, literally to covert the commercial lines into common stock.
Again There are two lemonade stands on one another corner. Smith owns stand A and Jones Stand B
Each has the capacity to pour 20 glasses of juice – units, sales etc .
Smith pours all his inventory and rests with 20 sales – nice job!
Jones completes his day with 40 sales . How ?
Clue if Jones had an extra pitcher , what would it matter if each had only the capacity to pour 20 glasses?
[Q] Why will Jones seek a tax shelter for his activities ?
[Q[ What will the CPA do with 240 Phantom sales at year end?
{Q} If glasses eqal a Billion in loan production , do Ya think Jones will have to deal with the $240 Billion in Ghoast receivables .
Take #2 …. (posted by Gene?) Thanks!
Do you know what you’re looking for?
Two notes – YES Legal
Lost Notes -NO Destroyed
Note Holders foreclosing – NO
Notes tendered – NO Liquidated
Mers Corp Assignments – YES Legal embrace it – Its joinder,
I’m telling you Mers Corp is there begging for you to embrace it . . . please I’m telling you this as a fact! Mers has standing that is prima fascia to your arguments.
Think Hmmm
Two Notes?
No ….I think there may be room to argue that Christine , sol commences when you discover the fraud aka – ALL the material facts that would complete the RECORD, the record is a) a lie or at least a question of fact , but yes you must have the evidence to cast reasonable doubt, b) is incomplete ( because they hid the facts aka non disclosure if facts that would most definitely have a impact on a judges decision, and they had cause to know ( well we know they know but that again must be argued but as others blogged – gotta have all the legs of fraud with criminal intent I’ll stick to baby steps for now) (and that it was not a reasonable assumption that a prudent man could have or should have known those facts sooner – well you might be telepathic )
judges have an escape route called rule 60b. So in my case in the interests of a just and equitable result I studied rule 60b thus lining my case up for appeal under all that encompasses. The timeline for rule 60b is 1 yr from the ruling, so ruling can be overturned (so not res judicata- not done arguing yet) Every case is different so you must plead within the rules that are applicable to the posture of your case, I do not have council entirely due to where prior council left me, boo hoo never mind I’m doing better without now and yes the trust has gone. So the sol clock does not start ticking on facts you were never privy to, get case law and fight them like hell, that’s if you want to fight the biggest most important fight in this lifetime. Check with your lawyer get a lawyer. I am not a lawyer.
CR,
Statutes of limitation depend on many things. Check your own state. Torts are usually much shorter than contract and your allegations will trigger which ones will apply.
Also breaches of statutes (Respa, Tila, FDCPA and the likes) are very short too. One to three years in most cases.
And no, homeowners don’t have a leg to stand on by claiming fraud.
Toughest cases to make and, in mortgage cases, not of the homeowners’ resort.
Who the client that got another 15yrs to check the bank’s financial records? I hear this theory but is the not a status of limitation?
Incoherent blablabla, as usual. Those who lost can’t move on and yet, they don’t have anything of substance to bring to the table.
Inter vivos trust.
Who do we trust anyway.
Inter vivos is between the living.
The first line of the article at money.CNN.com stated
No method is risk-free, but there are several ways to keep creditors at bay
Creditors are corporations. Unless a living male or female makes a civil claim with proof, against your trust, that they were your creditor and you pledged assets in the trust as collateral to them (not their company) then they can’t get it.
If a Rothschild gave advice; is it for our benefit or theirs? I’m reminded of the people who held assets in foreign bank accounts that are now being exposed to the IRS after ENOUGH people thought it was a good idea.
I like how Neil pulls back the curtain. First you expose the fraud; then you prosecute. It’s called Disclosure and it doesn’t have to be about aliens. No one can claim ignorance when the truth is revealed for all to see. Fiduciary responsibility over someone’s property under oath and penalty cannot be taken lightly.
Many will have the debt of their fiduciary duty called due. Let’s hope they did a job well done.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free, Independent, State, On Jure Proprio, Jute Divino
[…] The Banks: Consideration is Irrelevant, Really? Then so is payment! […]
“Of course, he will say that it has occurred, but “hidden” by sealed settlement agreements…”
Very comforting to see this point once again raised by yet another competent attorney. Where are the wins? How can NG, in good conscience, represent that cases are winnable on his unproven theories while failing to produce one, just one?
Thanks KC
Now if there’s a wire there’s a wire tracking number. I paid for 2 wire transfers. So there was supposed to be a wire. There’s other stuff in controversy with that purported wire.
Charles,
I have never seen or read of an instance whereby what NG alleges has be upheld in court. Of course, he will say that it has occurred, but “hidden” by sealed settlement agreements, but since he cannot present proof, it means nothing at all.
From all the hundreds of Trusts I have reviewed, and all the documents I have read, I have no reason to believe that NG’s claims have any actual basis at all.
Is there any case law on this rabbit hole theory that Neil got? Anywhere in the history of the US has this come up and has anybody won a single case trying to get another bank accounts and agreements at to where the lender received his money to lend?
NOTE: – All forms and books on this page are free ….
http://www.truetrust.com/trust_forms
An offshore irrevocable trust, is the “armored tank” of asset protection, he said.
If the husband has a big credit card debt, creditors can’t go after assets in the partnership, he said. But the partnership must have a designated “business purpose,” such as for tax or estate-planning needs. If not, a judge could rule the partnership was intended only to hide assets from creditors.
An irrevocable offshore trust is a safer alternative, Rothschild said. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Nevis are among a group of international jurisdictions that allow you to set up an irrevocable trust where you can name yourself the beneficiary. (With the exception of Alaska and Delaware, you can’t make yourself the beneficiary in a trust in the United States).
You designate a trustee in one of the jurisdictions to set up the trust — and you can make yourself a “trust protector” with veto power over the trustee’s decisions. Most people prefer setting up trusts with more established banks in Switzerland or Luxembourg, he said.
You can put cash, stock or a home in the trust, Rothschild said. You’ll have to report the asset on your federal income tax statement, but creditors are less likely to come after you, he said.
an offshore irrevocable trust, is the “armored tank” of asset protection, he said.
If the husband has a big credit card debt, creditors can’t go after assets in the partnership, he said. But the partnership must have a designated “business purpose,” such as for tax or estate-planning needs. If not, a judge could rule the partnership was intended only to hide assets from creditors.
An irrevocable offshore trust is a safer alternative, Rothschild said. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Nevis are among a group of international jurisdictions that allow you to set up an irrevocable trust where you can name yourself the beneficiary. (With the exception of Alaska and Delaware, you can’t make yourself the beneficiary in a trust in the United States).
http://money.cnn.com/1998/02/27/life/q_sued/
CERTIFICATION OF TRUST
The undersigned, trustee(s) of the ______________________________________,
confirm the following facts:
(1) The above trust is in existence and the trust instrument was executed
_________________________________ (date).
(2) The settlor or settlors of the trust is/are: _________________________________
(3) The trustee or trustees of the trust is/are; ________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
(4) The trust is __________________________ (revocable or irrevocable)
(5) If there is a power to revoke the trust, the person holding the power to revoke is
_______________________________________________________________.
(6) If there are multiple trustees, the signature authority of the trustees is ________
_______________________________________________________________.
(7) If there are multiple trustees, the number of the currently acting trustees required
to sign in order to exercise various powers of the trustee is ________________.
(8) The trust identification number is ______________________(social security
number or an employer identification number).
(9) The manner in which title to trust assets should be taken is _________________
________________________________________________________________
(10) The trust has not been revoked, modified, or amended in any manner which would
cause the representations contained in the certification of trust to be incorrect.
(11) This Certification is being signed by all of the currently acting trustees of the trust.
DATED:_________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
http://www.chicagotitle.com/pdfs/LegalForm/CA/CETRUST.pdf
A-trust Family Office Definition: A-trust A-trust definition: Same as a revocable marital trust. An A-trust is the surviving spouse’s share of an A/B trust. See A-trust for more information. Download our free Family Office Report to learn …
B-trust Family Office Definition: B-trust B-trust definition: Same as an irrevocable credit shelter trust. A B-trust is the deceased person’s share of an A/B trust. See A/B trust for more information. Download our free Family Office …
A/B Trust Family Office Definition: A/B Trust A/B Trust definition: An A/B trust consists of two trusts — an A trust and B trust. The A/B trust’s purpose is to allow both spouses to transfer assets to …
Irrevocable Trust Family Office Definition: Irrevocable Trust Irrevocable Trust definition: A trust becomes irrevocable once the grantor is deceased. The terms of the trust cannot be altered, and the trustee must follow the trust document. An …
Unfunded Trust Family Office Definition: Unfunded Trust Unfunded Trust definition: An unfunded trust exists only in the trust document (agreements), but may not be funded until death. Download our free Family Office Report to learn more about the …
Educational Trust Family Office Definition: Educational Trust Educational Trust definition: An educational trust is established to pay for the education of beneficiaries. Trust payments are made directly to the beneficiaries, who may decide to spend it …
Blind Trust Family Office Definition: Blind Trust Blind Trust definition: With a Blind Trust, beneficiaries are not made aware of the trust assets, and the trustee maintains full control of trust management. The purpose of a …
http://familyofficesgroup.com/2012/01/abstract-of-trust.html
A shortened version of a Living Trust document, leaving out certain details (what is in the trust, the beneficiaries’ identity). This is often used to provide proof that a trust has been established to a financial organization or other institution, without revealing specifics that you want to keep private.
Anyone care to comment on the terms used for escrow company who wired funds into ” an abstract trust account” these such things hide the true beneficiary I believe ??? Anyone
I think what Neil mostly is dealing with are mortgage companies and brokers so they are going to have all types of characters who are wring in funds, because they are not bank and having pockets like bank and are not going to have monies on hand or bank capabilities.
Banks have bank holding companies, consumer loans, commercial loans, customers deposits and other assets worth billions of dollars. Now a mortgage company must sell its loans because it cannot forever have these loans on the books as they have no other revenue coming in and once the $10 million is loaned out what do you do? There not money flowing it your line is $10-$100 million and your used all that line your done because you cannot make more loans.
You should expect the wire to come from a different source other than the mortgage company.
Under the corporation, the original credit-sensitive assets serve as collateral for the asset-backed securities issued to investors. Under the trusts, as the Master Trust deposits assets into the Grantor trust in exchange for a beneficial interest, the beneficial interest serve as the collateral.
There are Two SPE trusts … that’s how.
The Master Trust and the Grantor Trust.
Brush Up on Trust vs Corporation in Securitization.
So the bank cannot get funds from a lot of different sources? The bank is a lender of the home mortgage and other entities that are not register and regulated cannot lend at all for home mortgage loans. So if a trust or who ever Neil want to inject into this scenario, does lend monies to the bank has what to do with the bank/originator granting you a loan.
A bank is a business that something borrowers monies from the discount window so is that to mean that the discount window of the Fed is the owner of the loan that may or may not go towards mortgage lending.
I am missing where the funds a bank borrows cannot be used to make home loans?
RE: ” So the issue is not whether there was money on the table but rather whether there was a meeting of the minds between the investors and lenders in the homeowners as borrowers. ”
RE: “lenders in the homeowners as borrowers. ”
RE: “lenders in the homeowners ”
RE: ” homeowners as borrowers”
The Question is …. Who is the borrower?
A. Homeowners are borrowers
B. Note payors are borrowers?
C. Both A and B
If the answer is C .. wouldn’t that make B debtor to A as Creditor under a ISC mortgage?
If that were true, that makes A also a debtor, … then who is A’s creditor?
Because the Investors and A want answers from sumbutty!
Good article, Neil. In my case, I had argued early, in my pleading, the 3 elements of a contract. My motion to compel discovery is coming up for hearing in a few weeks. Any advice you are willing to share about discovery against a party clearly not having authority to a contract, I would love to hear it. Thanks!
My originator in 2007 (CA) was Bank of America NA.
My closing statement and instructions said that the funding department is :”Brea Wholesale.” (NOT Bank of America NA.)
Disbursements on my closing statement instruct to forward any adjustments to : Brea Wholesale Loan Center
Bank of America NA
275 S Valencia 1st Floor
Brea Ca 92823
Bank of America does own this huge, over secured building. On the 1st floor there is a major investment broker also.
Does anyone have info on Brea Wholesale? Who is the actual Funder?
This is the crucial part, but the one I frankly do not get. My loan was a refi. The original loan that was paid off was with Citimortgage. I refied with WF in 2004. I cannot get anything from them in QWRs about wire transfers to show the loan was properly originated, and there is enough bizarre stuff after that point to question the note and deed staying together, even for the next two months or so!
My question is: I am likely to find in discovery that WF actually paid off the Citibank mortgage, or did I only receive some consumer debt pay off monies and nothing else? If they did not pay off the previous mortgage, how did that work in this process?
I recently closed some loans, I asked for a copy of the wire transfer and it was not from the bank on the note. The funds came from out of the country.
We keep going back to this bank that sent the monies for the losing which must be a bank in order to wire the monies, now you cannot get a copy of the current Note from the originators and somehow your going to get every bank relationship the originator has? If the monies is coming from bank A how are you establishing that the originator does not have a relationship? And if they don’t have a relationship why is bank A sending the money?
So these warehouse line that are lending the monies to the originators my have a different bank they are bank with send the monies! And they may have a different bank they are dealing with!
How do you know that the originator does not have an account with the bank that wired the funds? So are court suppose to allow you to simply guess at this crap or is there proof to this theory?