Modifications are like a dirty word in the marketplace. Frustration, chicanery, luring borrowers into default, and crating modifications that are bound to fail so that the banks can get that ever precious foreclosure sale. But there is another side to it, as our guest writer David Abellard points out below.
And while I think the entire mortgage foreclosure thing is a complete sham, it is nonetheless true that homeowners want a a modification far more often than just getting a “free home.” Most of us understand that litigation is about preventing the banks from getting a “free home” — which is to say not just any home, but the home that a family resides in.
Litigation also provides the homeowner with presenting a credible threat, especially if they are after discovery on the money trail. So it is impossible to say how much litigation is necessary to get the best terms, or even if the homeowner SHOULD litigate, because much of that has more to do with personal decisions than the likelihood of success in litigation.
There is also a point I want to make to people who are not sophisticated in finance. An interest rate that is far under market rates IS the equivalent of a principal reduction. If you want to learn more about this, Google “present value” and “future value.” If you stay in the home for the duration of the loan, the impact gets larger and larger. But if you are staying in the home for only a short while then reducing the interest rate won’t do much without an actual principal reduction. As pointed out in prior broadcasts and articles here on livinglies, make sure whoever you are talking to about modification, short-sale or any other settlement is aware of two things:
- There are hidden programs throughout the country that provide direct financial assistance to those who want to bring their loan current or who need a reduction in principal. The “expert” you are hiring had better know about them or you might turn down a deal that would otherwise be acceptable.
- Get a court order approving the modification as a settlement. Submit an agreed order that expressly refers tot he legal description of the property, the fact that the homeowner is the owner in fee simple absolute — by name — and that the holder of the mortgage and note is identified by name. The order should approve the settlement even if the the settlement agreement is confidential and even if the settlement agreement is not attached to the order.
- Snatch and Grab: Many of the banks are still secretly scripting their customer service people to lure you into a default with the promise of a modification, even accepting trial payments, and then foreclosing anyway. The courts are not amused and they are getting banged by this practice — but only where the homeowner brings it up loudly.
- People ask me “should I stop paying?” The answer is universally that you don’t want to put yourself in a worse position than the one in which you are already stuck. Voluntary nonpayment is only for those who are pursuing strategies based upon strategic default. If the bank tells you to fall behind by 90 days, don’t believe it — it’s a trap. At best they are trying to steer you into an in house modification where the interest rates and payments are higher than in HAMP, HARP or other programs that do NOT require you to be i default for modification, no matter what anyone tells you.
But modifying the mortgage is a legitimate way of ending your problem as long as you take the necessary steps to protect your title. Thus I am inviting people to write in about modification. David Abellard sketches the modification process below:
================
Loan Modification Information
Most homeowners have lost faith in loan modifications. Lenders have been alleged to routinely used the process to trick unsuspected homeowners into agreeing to consent judgment in pending foreclosure cases. The skepticism of some is understandable. However, the foreclosure landscape has shifted a bit in favor of the homeowners. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently promulgated rules that make loan modification more effective.
Lenders and their servicers could face serious penalty for not complying with the federal regulations that went into effect January 10, 2014. If a loan is modified, the new payment will be based on the household income; which is generally 31% of the household monthly gross income. Loans on a primary residence as well as non-owner residence can be modified. There are several loan modification programs. The Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) is a government program that has been extended until 12/31/15. If a homeowner does not qualify for HAMP, or the investor doesn’t participate in the HAMP program, banks and servicers also offer internal private modification programs as an alternative. Loan modifications are primarily designed to create an affordable payment plan for the homeowner based on their current income; it does not create equity by reducing the principle balance of a loan based on current property value.
There are mainly three ways a loan can be modified to create an affordable payment:
1) reduction of interest rate;
2) extension of loan term;
3) waiver or deferment of principle balance.
Regardless of what someone may tell you, applying for a loan modification does not guarantee that you will receive one, nor can anyone guarantee specific results.
Normally, the homeowner will have to complete a trial period which usually last 3 months before the modification becomes final. Applying for a loan modification under certain circumstances may stop the court from entering a final judgment or selling the property while the modification application is being reviewed. The application process can be daunting and intimidating. There are some law firms which concentrate on loan modification. They can become a very effective interface between the lender and the borrower and facilitate the process.
David Abellard at The Law Office of Paul A. Krasker, P.A.
Office: 561.328.2268, or 877-332-1965 ext 194
Email: dabellard@kraskerlaw.com,
Filed under: CORRUPTION, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: Abellard, home loans, interest rate reduction, Krasker, modification, mortgage modification, princnipal reduction |
FDIC ruling…
Before this year, securitizers enjoyed a safe harbor from asset seizures as long as a securitization met the criteria of being an off-balance sheet sale.
But a June rule by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that required on-balance sheet reporting for securitized assets invalidated the safe harbor.
Any discussion of “safe harbor” protections as referenced by footnote 8 in the Trustee’s-Defenses “objection are not withstanding and hold no merit: “As the Trustee has explained on multiple occasions, certain actions taken by the Debtors’ lender, prior to Petition Date were subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions and therefore are not avoidable”… this statement is non-applicable. Safe Harbor does not apply in this case, the debtors lender is not the owner, holder or funding party and we “must” refer back to the “seizure” of the note. A seizure does not qualify under the safe harbor provision and FDIC Rules:
Calyon New York Branch v. Am. Home Mortgage Corp. (In re Am. Home Mortgage Inc.), 379 B.R.503 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008)
To implicate these safe harbors, however, a contract must satisfy the definition of a “repurchase agreement.” A standard repurchase agreement provides for a two-part transaction: First, the dealer transfers specified securities to the purchaser in exchange for cash. Second, the dealer contemporaneously agrees to repurchase the securities at the original price plus an agreed upon additional amount at a specified future date not later than one year after such transfer.
The “safe harbor” protection does not apply with regard to the servicing provisions:
Applying that standard, the court found that the provisions concerning the servicing of the mortgage loans were severable from the sale and repurchase provisions. Of critical importance, the Contract provided that the mortgage loans were bought and sold on a “servicing retained” basis, as opposed to a “servicing released” basis, which demonstrated that the Contract itself severed the right to designate the servicer from the underlying mortgage loan.
35. Referencing the repurchase exhibit, which also references above (safe harbor, #34) provided by the Defense-Trust at the ******* Evidentiary Hearing of July 12, 2012, is made in 2005 and subject to filing with the SEC. Cursory examinations of the SEC files relating to these agreements were not filed in 2007 and updated., where it is a requirement they must be filed for the year representing the agreement or after, with current-employed “authorized” employees, parties to which the agreement is applicable and sent by a bona-fide agent or party to the agreement.
Helen is in the New Century case with Abby and me. The judge kicked her butt up there and he was “wrong”….good for her. The libor issue is big, check it folks.
Like her, I have filed for a supplement with new evidence and the libor is in there with Ocwen and DBNTC…an objection is filed, but a response was sent Monday. Let’s see what the judge does, cause this case directly relates to many with New Century, Ocwen and DBNTC…
poppy – I’m very interested in any short cuts you have to safe harbor – esp coming out of the banksters, as well as the rest of what you said in that paragraph. Expound? Link pleadings? thanks
PS – kudos to attorney Lenore Albert, for whom this isn’t the first time at bat. She’s in it to win it.
Thanks, Abby, for linking that case here. I’m reading it and it’s full of goodies. There’s a discussion for everyone imo re: injury to someone which is ” fairly traceable” to the conduct of the other party. But it reminded me specifically of the FNMA guarantee found in the prospectus (if not elsewhere).
I can’t speak generally to guarantees beyond mostly speculation (but I’ve said I think the trusts must barrel thru any guarantor* before going after the collateral – the borrower’s home), but imo, what makes a borrower have a cause of action against at least FNMA (and a defense) when a trust is claiming default is that the borrower has (unknowingly) paid for that guarantee by the inclusion of the g-fee in his rate. To me, because the borrower paid for that guarantee, that could make the action of the trust (allegedly the trust) against the borrower fairly traceable to the non-performance of FNMA, with the borrower having standing to raise the issue.
*so if there’s a question to be answered, what is it: Looks to me like “May a plaintiff ignore the guarantee obligation of a third party and seek remedy as if it didn’t exist?” This is no way first impression. I just can’t swear to the answer, but I believe it’s NOT. If nothing else, FNMA would be an indispensable party to any action (allegedly) out of a trust. imo. And if that’s true, it may well preclude non-j foreclosure.
check out the loan modification expert witness analysis filed in the Helen Galope federal case—–
http://www.scribd.com/doc/216361275/Analysis-by-Bernard-Patterson-on-Loan-ModIfications-in-the-Helen-Galope-case
The fact is: the English were stealing everyone’s shit…what’s the difference with these punks now?
Helen’s case involved not only LIBOR manipulation, but violation of bankruptcy stay and also a failed loan mod—–
The filed Appellant Reply Brief in the Helen Galope ‘LIBOR” case. Filed in 9th Circuit. see my prior post for the Memorandum Opinion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/216205520/the-Helen-Galope-9th-Circuit-filed-Appellant-Reply-Brief-case-12-56892
With all due respect KC…I am not in agreement with much of what Enraged says…her’s is other peoples work for one and I have great faith in the growing unrest around the country, demanding our government back. People who come from Socialism, entitlements and free stuff from hard workers’ rarely understand the fight we’ve had just getting away from the Brits…the people fighting the thugs-bankers-financial titans….are really the hero’s in the end. One MUST understand the time it takes to build momentum….and the risk. All she does is insult the “tireless energy of average folks” at a time when encouragement and support which is the hardest thing to give, but absolutely necessary to push forward! That’s how I see that…
Illinois Democrats reacted with alarm Wednesday to the Supreme Court’s ruling that campaign contributors shouldn’t be limited in the number of candidates they support financially.
The court said that overall contribution limits of $48,600 by individuals every two years to all federal candidates violated the First Amendment, as did separate aggregate limits on donations to political committees, now $74,600.
But base contribution limits on donations to a given candidate or party committee are still in effect. This year’s limits, which are adjusted each election cycle based on inflation, are $5,200 per candidate and $32,400 to a party committee.
“The Supreme Court once again has sold American elections to the highest bidder. This decision may be more good news for American oligarchs, but it is bad news for voters,” said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin. “We have to move away from the wild west of deep corporate pockets and special interest war chests and focus on creating a fair elections system that allows mere mortals, without million-dollar bank accounts, to have their voices heard by the candidates that seek to represent them.”
***** Its not that we don’t agree with Christine about the issues, we are very upset about the ruling and we are very upset about those who take advantage of and abuse the system,… we just have a different way of handling things.
marilyn,
I too, had my computer completely taken over, right from the point of entry. Took 30 + days, numerous CD’s an expert to repair and secure.
A comrade from CA who is in the same case had the same experience and provider…very odd!
As for the stealing…I too have “actual evidence” not hearsay from books and records of these thugs. The attorney right from the court has pushed paperwork that I can challenge and have, with verifiable documents and I’m not just talking about robo-signers. The stuff is “rock solid”…the judge completely ignores the FACTS.
They keep blathering about safe harbor protections…none, unless a valid repurchase agreement is in place…not so, with a seizure for unpaid loans…FDIC stuff and they used the bankruptcy to not buy or honor the repurchase…of course the repurchase is supposed to be filed with the SEC, that was not done in the time frame they suggest. Under this situation, the sale, if sold, can be $.10 on a dollar. Assignments in 2012, while in bankruptcy…how the crap did they even acquire it? The originator-servicer never paid payments that were sent, a ledger from the original owner from 1985…this stuff is not imaginary….it is actually recorded, stamped and dated…they call it evidence where I come from. And of course destruction of files…spoilation of evidence, a very real concept. I told them…the rules are not ambiguous they are in place for a reason. They are your rules, good gawd.
So much, I could go on and on! I told the judge: if I ever attempted to bring this paperwork into your court, I would be arrested. Like the 3 monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil…only applies to the lawyers though.
Cannot imagine living in her head-or with her. I’d like to post some of the stuff on face book…particularly some of the older more, heinous and racist bordering comments I still have…could get right interesting.
She needs to be silenced and Neil will not do it!
I’m half tempted to call the Paramedics, Fire Dept and Sheriffs Office in the County Christine resides and show them just how much she appreciates them.
Makes me think …
“How Long Does It Take to Save Christine form a Burning House? A Car Crash? A Heart Attack? Drowning in her own Hatefulness?
After that passport hits you in the gr’ass .. shove it up there and don’t come back!
Google alerts
nemo dat you can’t auction off a customers property when you don’t own it. New York is a lien state. you never owned my two nyc condos Big damages are coming because of the sneaky way you run Astoria Federal/Fidelity ny FSB
Marilyn Lane
Apparently you need to look up the definition of “Nasty”.
And No … it wont come back to bite me, because I have nothing to hide either. I have no plans living on State Aid, as a matter of fact …. It’s an Impossibility!!
Go Take A Nap!
Poppy
Banks are starting to see there are ways to get BIG damages against them. Astoria Federal S & L already planted GUEST on this site to try and disrupt what i’m working on against them to collect because of them them auctioning off my two condos with void ab initio judgments.
In addition they are hacked into my computer, cell phone and house phone. Not easy but –
As Churchill said never never never give up.
Paul Craig Roberts is one of you. Listen to him and learn something about the rest of the world and where this country is headed.
This is a country of cheaters, con artists, and corrupted politicians, whose Supreme Court just yesterday took down all remaining limits to how much they can now pay to BUY their government and so-called representatives.
I find that absolutely remarkable that those delusional imbeciles would refer to themselves as “bigger person” when they are bigoted, ignorant, plain nasty and let’s face it, were more than willing to jump on that greed and cheat wagon. The thing is… it blew in their faces. As it will in the face of this country as a whole. Divine justice.
What a bunch of losers. And yes, those are the church-going people who stash away their wealth into trusts to better obtain public assistance and who don’t understand that speaking from both sides of their mouth will come back and bite them..
Nothing happens in a vacuum. The mess this country is in didn’t either.
Constitutional convention… Something Karen Hudes has been talking about for months now. The second way to effect change in the constitution.
Did Michigan just trigger ‘constitutional convention’? Bid gains steam
Barnini Chakraborty
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published April 02, 2014
WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.
At issue is what’s known as a “constitutional convention,” a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years — but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.
Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/
I know….you are a bigger person than I. This behavior is not appropriate. We are all suffering at the hands of thieves, drug cartels and sociopaths…and we need abuse by a “hateful-spiteful” immigrant who has no value for anyone, but herself! No one needs this assault on their psyche. Hang in there…this is unraveling.
Poppy, I’ve tolerated so much of her Hatefulness that I am to the Point of saying ……
I Hope Her Passport Hits Her in the gr’ASS on her way out!
KC….Enraged, which is very appropriate, came from afar and signed up here to be a citizen, why? Imagine her life…the anger permeates all she says and does!
Why she needs Bob to communicate for her, via email is curious. And Neil of course, sanctions the cyber-bullying. Why, is the real question…
RE: “Neither of us has lost thus far. Be smart”
KC: Yeah … but you haven’t Won Either! HA!!
Christine, You are taking a big leap going from paying taxes to supporting War.
And Hell No … I don’t get disability or help of any kind from the State!
Take your Wild Guesses and Stuff them where the Sun don’t Shine!
UKG, .. Exactly! No App.. No Mod!… No Problem!
And NO acceptance of the OCC settlement offer! Don’t sign anything!
UKG,
If you’re at that modification point, please contact Bob. He’s savvy, he knows the jargon and he won’t sell you BS. We both like and respect you too much to allow you to rely on Livinglies. Neither of us has lost thus far. Be smart.
UKG,
A mod is NOT a settlement and/or a release. It’s only the rewriting of the previous conditions you had agreed upon. Consult a real attorney before signing anything.
UKG,
If you sign a mod, look at the paperwork it’s on. Read all the names and all the conditions. You’re back to a Fannie, a Freddie, an FHA, MERS (especially in your state) and the same deal. Don’t sign until you know exactly what you’re signing.
And if there is no mention of “settlement” or “release” , how could it possibly be a “settlement” or “compromise”?
“Just because our approaches are different .. the goal is the same.”
Kill, kill, kill. Natives, slaves, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,Tunisia, Libya, Egypt…
What’s the goal again? Kill,steal, plunder and scam. Nope. Not the same goal. Proof is: the US have lost most of their allies in 20 lousy years. A 300-year old country coming to a halt. Hell! Even Greece lasted longer…
Institutionalized fraud. Honorable goal if I ever saw one. Go back to scamming and fearing retribution. It’s coming anyway.
If you sign a loan modification that re-affirms the original loan, wouldn’t that put the “lender” and the “homeowner” back together? without the securitization? providing the originator is still in business?
Right.
I know my way to the airport and back and they’re both completely legal. I also know that those who attack me the most and do nothing else to effect change have the most to lose. Corruption has permeated every layer of this society. Hence its inability to resolve its endemic problem: no one has clean hands in this country. No one except those who can move back and forth from one country to the other and can choose where to plant their tent free and clear of legal hassle.
What’s the matter? Afraid that by denouncing the illegitimacy of taxes, I’m putting in jeopardy your disability checks collected while creating fictitious trusts to stash away and still collect? Unclean hands are unclean, whether revealed or not. Moving money into scam trust funds to hide from public assistance is a thing of the past and people will get caught and lose both. Not my problem.
The world is changing. Free loaders and scammers are a thing of the past. Posting here can’t fix that. Attacking messengers has never changed the tenor of the message: fraud is fraud. I moved here for a reason and it wasn’t to accommodate fraud at any level. People scam. I don’t. I fight openly, fair and square and I take the consequences.
So, go on the attack as much as you wish to. You have a lot more to lose than I ever will. And nothing is ever secret. Nothing. My cases are public: those I won, those I lost and those I’m still currently fighting. Thing is… public assistance is public too.
Nothing more to lose than I have already wagered. And nothing to hide. Can you say that much?
Done with you, KC. One more Carie on whom I wasted a lot of time for no result.
…..
Fighting those Fighting for Change wont help your Cause.
The Enemy of your Enemy is your Friend.
Just because our approaches are different .. the goal is the same.
If you don’t want to fight for change with us … you have your passport and you know your way to the airport.
The Pledge of Allegiance
1) I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [check],
2) and to the republic for which it stands [check]
3) one nation under God [check with reservations. What God? Thou shall not kill but Iraq and Afghanistan are OK?]
4) indivisible [how the hell am I supposed to pledge to that which doesn’t even exist? I won’t check on utopia. Moral compass forbids it. Indivisible? Congress v. Government, no unity of purpose, no accomplishment, not even the slightest awareness from the people paying for all of it. No, no check mark there.]
5) with liberty [NSA, are you reading?]
6) and justice for all [that’s what courts are for].”
Here is what I never pledged allegiance to:
1) The Federal Reserve
2) Wars this country loves to wager any chance it gets. [Hell, the whole country was built on war!!! And… lies, slavery… Still going on today…]
3) Banks running this country
4) IRS using threats to force people to pay what they don’t owe BY LAW
5) Morons with no understanding, bandying about the virtues of what never was in the first place.
Great country. Wonderful landscape. Sent its manufacturing power overseas. Been manufacturing morons ever since.
27th in education. Still claiming to be the number One power in the world.
I laugh about it in my sleep. And i never betrayed my allegiance.
Is that something or what?
LOL!
Enraged still defines you!
35 out of 66. New useless Ivent/Stripes in town looking for attention.
It worked the first three times around. Bob, can you do your thing again?
And Yourself, My Friend?
Just to be Clarify and Understand the Advantages of and Disadvantages of …. Opening Up this subject matter.
5’10
Size 10 Waist and Foot!
Just Big Enough to Kick gr’ASS!
Why Thank You Christine, I believe I will. They even allow Chickens in town now too. Fresh Eggs and Fried Chicken for Everyone.
We started our own currency a few years back … no surprises here.
You either plan to stay with your community and rebuild or you take a dangerous gamble in a lawsuit and/or end up half way across the world without those you Love.
You Strike Me as One of those Its My Way or I’m on the Highway kinda Gals, Fine … if that’s the Life that makes you Happy! Me, I have my feet firmly planted here, my seeds sewn and my buckshot handy.
Makes Me Happy … Don’t Judge!
You Reap What You Sew …
Hey, KC:
Do go for the chicken. You are what you eat. The American people in a snapshot:small heads, no shoulders, enormous butts and flaccid abdomens drooling down to the knees, enormous thighs and no calves.
Chicken. Chicken. Chicken. Turkey. Chicken, chicken, chicken, turkey…
People are what they eat. People think as they are. Chicken. Chicken. Chicken. Turkey…
The human-looking world is moving on… Monsanto can have America.
Hang on to the house and, by all means, keep banking where you do. This country is crumbling by the day but… Hey! It’s my house and I was WRONGED!!!
Well, the house ain’t gonna be worth much in a few months and nor will your savings. Of course, this, you won’t get from Rachel Maddow or even Bill O’Reilly. Or… Garfield, for that matter. Fighting a losing battle in a vacuum with no world perspective whatsoever ought to really make it happen for you.
Still banking with the same ones and paying taxes to feed into the collapse? Have at it! Freewill is still a wonderful thing. And Livinglies is where the ignorant downtrodden, despondent and desperate will find solace. Or… will they?
And now, for real information:
China & Germany Sign Yuan-Settlement Pact And Obama Heads To Saudi Arabia
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/28/2014 22:04 -0400
“But Reuters notes that Russia may be mere months away from signing a bilateral trade deal with China, where China would buy huge quantities of Russian oil and gas.” [Petrobuck out. House worth peanuts]
From Reuters:
“Add bilateral trade denominated in either Rubles or Renminbi (or gold), add Iran, Iraq, India, and soon the Saudis (China’s largest foreign source of crude, whose crown prince also happened to meet president Xi Jinping last week to expand trade further) and wave goodbye to the petrodollar.” [Petrobuck out. House worth peanuts]
Zerohedge, 4/2/14:
“Spot what is missing in the just blasted headline from Bloomberg:
IRAN, RUSSIA SAID TO SEAL $20B OIL-FOR-GOODS DEAL: REUTERS
If you said the complete absence of US Dollars anywhere in the funds flow you are correct. Which is precisely what we have been warning would happen the more the West and/or JPMorgan pushed Russia into a USD-free corner.” [Petrobuck out. House worth peanuts]
From Gold.wars, quoting AFP and Reuters:
“… the Saudis now sell more oil to China than the US. They have a vested interest in the East. Soon, they will flip and accept Yuan for oil.”
[Petrobuck out. House worth peanuts]
Get the picture?
Nothing happens in a vacuum…
Great!! My Job is Done for the Day! I made Christine Laugh!
Its tragic to live with such hatred and anger ….
Its tragic to feed upon fear … the age old trap.
Its long and cumbersome thing to do, somebody has to do it.
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!
Time for a Nap.
As usual, it’s all a question of priorities. While people comatosely drool on this site about every idiotic theory on how to fight banks (in a vacuum) and keep the house “that’s been paid for over and over, no lender, no trustee, no money exchanged” and the likes, the world is moving on in an increasingly more threatening fashion and at an increasing speed.
Every war has always been a bank war. The US want war to “restart the economy” or, more exactly, to anchor its lost hegemony by any way it can think of. JPMorgan definitely wants war (money to be made on both ends). Putin has been very patient so far. It will not last. And only 320 millions stupid morons believe in demonic Russia.
This country needs to remember the old adage… Be careful what you wish for: you might very well get it. The collapse is going to be very painful. And the imbeciles will ignore it until it’s at their door. By then, the house won’t matter too much any longer… But they’ll still have Garfield’s site to vent and express their “opinion”.
BRIICS. VISTA. MINT. This country is Oh so done!!! Even Saudi Arabia is starting to pull away from the frickin’ Petrobuck! That should tell something to a few people.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-02/furious-russia-will-retaliate-over-illegal-and-absurd-payment-block-hostile-jpmorgan
Furious Russia Will Retaliate Over “Illegal And Absurd” Payment Block By “Hostile” JPMorgan
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/02/2014 – 08:02
While everyone was gushing over the spectacle on TV of a pro-HFT guy and anti-HFT guy go at it, yesterday afternoon we reported what was by far the most important news of the day, one which was lost on virtually everyone if only until this morning, when we reported that “Monetary Blockade Of Russia Begins: JPMorgan Blocks Russian Money Transfer “Under Pretext” Of Sanctions.” This morning the story has finally blown up to front page status, which it deserves, where it currently graces the FT with “Russian threat to retaliate over JPMorgan block.” And unlike previous responses to Russian sanctions by the West, which were largely taken as a joke by the Russian establishment, this time Russia is furious: according to Bloomberg, the Russian foreign ministry described the JPM decision as “illegal and absurd.” And as Ukraine found out last month, you don’t want Russia angry.
Anyway…
The making of “an undeveloped country” is in full speed, according to Paul Craig Roberts
And The Supreme Court has now officially removed the limits on how much private money can be used to BUY THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!
Great country indeed: everything and everyone is for sale… for the right price. Boy Oh boy: such an obvious effort to destroy a once-great country. And such an obvious effort to cause war. Nothing new there…
Getting more bizarre by the minute… It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
Are we all in agreement then?
Purr’Fect!
Many Blessings to All!
ShadowKat Out!
Nobody wants to play Chicken Limbo with KC …..
She Wins By Default.
Right?
The Trust is Expressed in the Instrument that Creates the Estate.
You have it … Just read it!
Limbo …
Chicken Limbo!
Anyone want to Play Chicken Limbo ?
You have to play by the rules while getting down low and getting dirty.
You will have to “Clean Up” after the Game.
The Trustee Deed without the Agreements is a ” ……. ” ?
Agreement without Deed is a ” …………. “?
Duty?
Baaaaad Trustee!!
Failure to …. has caused harm.
” For real estate, a deed is used to transfer legal title of the property from the grantor to the trust.”
“Not”……… File.
Just saying …
Two Trusts
Two Notes
“”Think Coyle””
I do not give legal advise, but I advise you to seek legal advise in Jurisdiction your property is located,
Can I Graduate and Fully Retire now Boss? Please!
I have lots of Charitable Work to do .. Tomorrow Night is a fundraiser for Crisis Nursery. I’m Awesome and Wine Tasting and Silent Auctions!
Especially when I spend Grandpa’s Money.
10 years later ….
She must get her stubbornness from her Grandma.
Sure she did!
They said I would spend every dime I had seeking justice in a court of law where there was no justice.
We always disagreed on that, never the less the unfiled Trust Agreement says … KC gets nuttin until she can refrain from any involvement in lawsuits for 5 consecutive years.
Those funds will never see the light of day ….. Sigh ….
On the other hand … I found out I have beneficial interest in another trust. What a Shock.
Mother Nature has a way of balancing things.
Many Blessings to All!
Replace with Cash or a Note = 1031 exchange
But when there is nothing to exchange .. would it create a financial crisis?
Good article on ZEROHEDGE dot COM ,, about the current housing bubble and own to rent ..
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-01/housing-bubble-still-raging-these-20-buy-rent-cities-and-burst-these-20-others
STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC., as DEPOSITOR, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as GRANTOR TRUSTEE GRANTOR TRUST AGREEMENT Dated as of August 31, 2007 Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Grantor Trust 2007-AR4 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR4
http://www.consusgroup.com/previews/3222122/
As much as I don’t subscribe to Garfield’s theories and never have, occasionally, he’s called it right (no one is wrong all of the time). This would be one of those few times: Garfield specifically stated in several instances that change would only come when banks had to defend against homeowners and investors at the same time (he was talking about both groups uniting but, given the inherent dysfunctions among them -and between them-, it still is quite elusive).
In the absence of regulators response to the ongoing fraud going back to 2007, investors are finally taking action. It’s called progress. Things are moving in the right direction. And we haven’t yet seen the ramifications of that last 60-minutes bit on Wall Street’s rigging of the market.
Cook County, IL, is suing everything that moves. Good progress too.
Progress.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579474313512974916?mg=reno64-wsj&cb=logged0.9526150522859431
Investors Sue 12 Banks, Allege Conspiracy to Rig Forex Markets
By KATY BURNE CONNECT
March 31, 2014 11:08 p.m. ET
A dozen large investors filed a joint lawsuit against 12 banks for allegedly conspiring to rig global foreign-exchange prices, according to a new consolidated complaint.
The class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York late Monday, was from a group of investors across the U.S. and Caribbean, including city and state pension plans.
Once I set up a trust, how do I actually transfer assets to the trust?
To transfer cash or securities, the trustee will open an account in the trust’s name, and the grantor will instruct his bank or broker to move the funds from his account to the trust’s account. For real estate, a deed is used to transfer legal title of the property from the grantor to the trust. All future insurance and property tax statements should be sent to the trustee and paid with trust funds. Finally, to transfer an existing life insurance policy, the grantor simply needs to obtain and complete a change of ownership form and change of beneficiary form from his life insurance company.
http://www.helsell.com/faq/irrevocable-trusts/
The Depositor is simply an entity to collect all of the mortgages and notes and assign them to the trustee of the trust. They are not the originator of the loans.
The Seller therefore sells the loan to the Depositor who then assigns them over to the trustee for the trust. If any of those loans were misrepresented and contrary to the underwriting the Seller claimed they undertook, the loans then can become deleted loans and the Seller has to buy them back or substitute them, with a letter from an attorney stating that it won’t effect the Remic status of the Trust.
I don’t know who said that if a loan goes into default that it has to be bought back. That is not true, only if the quality of the loan was misrepresented and this rarely happens because the Trustee has no incentive to force the Seller to buy them back because the Seller is usually the one that creates these trusts and picks who the Trustee will be which is how they make money.
That issue was the focus of the Bank of America 10 Billion dollar settlement with their investors and why the Bank of New York Mellon wanted Bank of America to indemnify them against lawsuits for not doing their job. If the Trustee never reviews the loans to check for misrepresentations, then nothing ever gets substituted. If they had done their job in the beginning and reviewed the loans, none would probably been allowed into the trust to begin with.
Your Insured Deposits
FDIC Insurance Basics
Ownership Categories
Questions & Answers
For More Information from the FDIC
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/ownership5.html
Ownership Categories
Irrevocable Trust Accounts
Irrevocable trust accounts are deposit accounts held in connection with a trust established by statute or a written trust agreement in which the owner (also referred to as a grantor, settlor or trustor) contributes deposits or other property to the trust and gives up all power to cancel or change the trust. An irrevocable trust also may come into existence upon the death of an owner of a revocable trust.
A revocable trust account that becomes an irrevocable trust account due to the death of the trust owner may continue to be insured under the rules for revocable trusts. Therefore, in such cases, the rules in the revocable trust section may be used to determine coverage.
The interests of a beneficiary in all deposit accounts under an irrevocable trust established by the same settlor and held at the same insured bank are added together and insured up to $250,000, only if all of the following requirements are met:
•The trust must be valid under state law
•The insured bank’s deposit account records must disclose the existence of the trust relationship
•The beneficiaries and their interests in the trust must be identifiable from the bank’s deposit account records or from the trustee’s records
•The amount of each beneficiary’s interest must not be contingent as defined by FDIC regulations
If the owner retains an interest in the trust, then the amount of the owner’s retained interest would be added to the owner’s other single accounts, if any, at the same insured bank and the total insured up to $250,000.
Important!
Since irrevocable trusts usually contain conditions that affect the interests of the beneficiaries or provide a trustee or a beneficiary with the authority to invade the principal, insurance coverage for an irrevocable trust account usually is limited to $250,000.
An owner or trustee of an irrevocable trust account who is unsure of the provisions of the trust should consult a legal or financial advisor
So what does it mean if there were no true sales? Too late now? The banksters retained insurable interests? Did the agreement nevertheless create security interests for the trusts or were those sec interests required to be perfected by an act? If security interests were created (like say pursuant to the UCC) without an act to perfect, WHO was entitled to payment in that state? Who was entitled to enforce against the note maker? If it were the bankster who was entitled to payment, was the note retired by third party payments dollar for dollar?
(I say yes) If the bankster retained interest in the notes, no third party payments retired the notes (because there were none, say), and trust law says forget about late transfers, who is entitled now to enforce against the note maker? But the bankster, then, has already been paid, hasn’t it, by the investors’ moolah, even if the bankster never benefitted by any other party’s payment (like AIG)?
Ftr, April Charney appears to have been on this long ago (the true sale issue), but I don’t know what became of her efforts since I just ran across her name in regard to true sales.
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/consumer/vol7num12/securitization.pdf
True Sales and HDIC status
Simple …. Reading.
Sal said:
“If you read the section you just quoted, it says the party assigning notes and mortgages is the “Depositor” which is an entity that had nothing to do with the loan which is why it is without recourse.”
Could you please expound on that? How is the depositor an entity that had nothing to do with the loan and how that makes it without recourse. Thanks.
Also, acc to your quote from McDonald, which she says is evidence of recourse:
“Well the main one is that the pooling and servicing agreement states that if the loan becomes non-performing, the assignor must replace it with either cash or another performing loan.”
If someone must replace a loan with another or cash, I don’t see how this can be a true sale; the trust is NOT assuming the risk associated with the loan. Now, a secn dummy like me, had I seen that 5 years ago, say, would think ‘oh, good’, I won’t lose any money on these certs. But, what that language, crafted by the banksters, may actually have done is willfully preclude the (alleged) transfers from being true sales.
Nice to finally see individuals being sued over the “F” word. It’s been long coming. Time for Dimon to shed some little of those obscene bonuses… I’ve always said there would be an end to that insanity. Just looking for the manifestations of it. Seeing more and more as time goes by.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-jpmorgan-chase-londonwhale-lawsuit-idUSBREA2U1M820140331
JPMorgan fails to end lawsuit over London Whale losses
Reuters, April 1, 2014
Daniels said shareholders may pursue claims that the bank, Dimon and Braunstein committed fraud by materially understating the bank’s “value at risk,” and misleading them on an April 13, 2012 earnings call when Dimon labeled as a “tempest in a teapot” reports about a synthetic credit portfolio that Iksil managed.
“The statements were material as they were made immediately after the financial news media revealed that (the) CIO had amassed a huge position in exotic derivative instruments, and defendants were attempting to reassure investors that those trades were under control,” Daniels wrote.
“Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that defendants Dimon and Braunstein knew fact or had access to information suggesting that their public statements were not accurate,” he added.
mn, Garfield is correct on the issue of “without recourse” and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. If you read the section you just quoted, it says the party assigning notes and mortgages is the “Depositor” which is an entity that had nothing to do with the loan which is why it is without recourse.
The sections that require the loan to be bought back refers to the Seller or the Master Servicer depending on the situation.
mn, on April 1, 2014 at 4:02 pm said:
“You have totally lost my giving you the benefit of any doubt from your
growing detractors, and you lost me as a reader.”
Where are the winners on all those theories? Still no one has come to validate any of it. In fact, they’ve fallen like flies in a chemtrail.
Enough said… Many rest their case. Some had to lose everything to get there: for them, it is a little too late. For others, it’s completely hopeless: they played, they lost and they still come back for their daily dose of Garfield delusion. Group therapy with ho expectation of healing. Life in a bottomless vacuum…
As a reader of this blog for several years, I have found it to be informative, or so I thought. Garfield has a questionable reputation
by many from other blogs that focus on FC, but I never paid it much
heed.
Today, I was looking for info on “without recourse” signed on an allonge to see if it had any impact on the negotiability of the note,
per Art 3 that allows for holder in due course status, v Art 9 for
the claim notes are non-negotiable and HDC status does not
apply.
In the following link, Mr Garfiled states the author “hits the nail on the head,” with the article. In the article, Ms McDonald states the use
of the words “without recourse” are precisely opposite the terms
required by the PSA:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/without-recourse-hangmans-noose/
“WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS EFFECTING THE INDORSEMENT “WITHOUT RECOURSE?”: Well the main one is that the pooling and servicing agreement states that if the loan becomes non-performing, the assignor must replace it with either cash or another performing loan. Nothing could be more clear that the indorsement was WITH RECOURSE.”
Here is what a typical 2.01 section of a PSA reads:
“2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. (a) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund, and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, hereby accepts the Trust Fund.”
Imagine pleading against a plantiff that “without recourse” on the note or allonge negates it being accetped by the trust. The hangman’s
noose would be on the party relying upon the information from here.
Ms McDonald’s “Bottom Line” paragraph exacerbates her claims.
No thanks, Mr Garfield. There seems to be no authorative checking
of facts for articles presented that can be extremely damagint for
anyone who relys upon them
You have totally lost my giving you the benefit of any doubt from your
growing detractors, and you lost me as a reader.
Although the premise about the entire article is to sell you the attorney’s infomercial. These subliminal ads are created by many advertisers now. If the attorney is so confident in his ability, tell him you will pay the fee when the mod is complete. If not, do it yourself. The paperwork does not change and the appeal process is the same for the attorney or the homeowner.
@ Sal every trust is different, and many pools do not require the master servicer to purchase the loan prior to modification.
Slander to Title by a party without Standing is a State Action.
Contract Law is a State Action.
Proof of Claim to bring Standing applies to both State and Federal Courts.
Standing was removed from the settlements and settled on a State by State basis under State Law.
In Illinois … If you didn’t get a cut of the Pie from the AG settlement…. You get a Cookie!
Got Milk?
@ johngault ,
In a .pdf you can just “FILE” “SAVE AS” “other” and select MS Word…
To create .pdf’s I use OpenOffice “writer” (their version of word) and “export” as .pdf
“In addition to the procedural “real party in interest”
requirements of Rule 17, a litigant must also have standing
to bring a motion. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct.2197,
45L.8d.2d 343 (1975). Having standing to bring a motion is different
than being a “real party in interest” under Rule 17. Davis v.
Yageo Corp.,481 F.3d 661,678 (9th Cir.2007). Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the U.S. Constitution and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties.In re Kang Jin A Hwang, 396 B.R. 757,768 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).
A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to have jurisdiction to hear the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch.Dist. v. Newdow, (2004). 542 U.S. 1, 11, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159L.8d.2d 98.
Constitutional standing requires an injury be fairly traceable to the
defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested by relief. 75I v. Brown Group,Inc., 517U.S. 544,551,
116 S.Ct. 1529,134L.8d.2d 758 (1996). Prudential standing is a set of principles that places limits on the class of person who may invoke a federal court’s powers. Newdow, 542 U.S. at ll. “
“Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III
of the U.S. Constitution and a defect in standing cannot be
waived by the parties. A movant must have both Constitutional
standing and prudential standing for a federal court to have
jurisdiction to hear the case. Constitutional standing requires that
the moving party must have suffered some actual or threatened INJURY as a result of the defendant’s conduct, that the INJURY be traced to the challenged action, and that it is likely to be redressed by
a favorable decision.”
oops – a good free one!
Does anyone know a good pdf converter that doesn’t crash computers or open the door to a steady stream of ads?
thanks, Sal. That’s good info. you said:
“…..i) the Mortgage Rate on the Modified Mortgage Loan is
approximately a prevailing market rate for newly-originated mortgage loans having similar terms …..”
This one makes me mad IF I got it right. I take this to mean that the master svcr must modify a loan at the current market rate (and not below – which seems like a protection for the servicer and no one else). So i guess if the prevailing rate is 5%, a 3.5% rate is out of
the picture? Despite accepting billions of dollars in HAMP and other funds, those guys don’t want to do any principle reduction. These two things must be why they do bs like 40 year amortizations with balloons at the end of that! And no disclosure of the a.p.r. – it’s an outrage.
Neil has mentioned funds available that most people don’t know about. A few years ago, I remember seeing gimme funds of up to 50k (!) for help with keeping one’s home with an FHA loan (I think it was FHA, but it might have been HUD) on it. I don’t know if that’s still available, but if one is interested in going that route, you might plan to spend a day on the phone and online to track down these funds and others like them and don’t be put off if the first 5 people act like you have rocks in your head (because you likely got the wrong place imo).
MERS HAS TO GO
Activist judges who won’t obey their oath to follow the US Constitution
don’t belong on the bench.
what we are getting with Activist Judges are wacko rulings like Alice Schlesingers,
If your loan was sold into a Remic Trust, there is a reason they never complete the modification of your loan. If the modification is completed, then the Master Servicer automatically becomes the owner of the loan and must pay the Trustee. According to the Pooling ans Servicing Agreement, the day of the modification is the day your loan no longer belongs to the Trust.
SECTION 3.11. Realization Upon Defaulted Mortgage Loans; Repurchase of Certain Mortgage Loans.
(b) The Master Servicer may agree to a modification of any Mortgage Loan (the “Modified Mortgage Loan”) if (i) the modification is in lieu of a
refinancing and (ii) the Mortgage Rate on the Modified Mortgage Loan is
approximately a prevailing market rate for newly-originated mortgage loans having similar terms and (iii) the Master Servicer purchases the Modified Mortgage Loan from the Trust Fund as described below.
Effective immediately after the modification, and, in any event, on the same Business Day on which the modification occurs, all interest of the Trustee in the Modified Mortgage Loan shall automatically be deemed transferred and assigned to the Master Servicer and all benefits and burdens of ownership thereof, including the right to accrued interest thereon from the date of modification and the risk of default thereon, shall pass to the Master Servicer. The Master Servicer shall promptly deliver to the Trustee a certification of a Servicing Officer to the effect that all requirements of this paragraph have been satisfied with respect to the Modified Mortgage Loan. For federal income tax purposes, the Trustee shall account for such purchase as a prepayment in full of the Modified Mortgage Loan.
So if you did get a Modification and a Trustee for a Remic Trust ends up foreclosing, you can argue they no longer owned the loan due to modification.
I don’t know how you can say mortgage fraud and modification in the same breath.
Asks myself … How is that GPS going to work on the Horses and Buggies down here near Amish Country?
A couple of hours ago one of our neighbors was sneaking into our yard and dropping off a Gift (God Bless Them) A set of adult bikes … We Love to Ride …
Ironically enough this article just hit the presses ….
One of the issues local budgeters face with the gas tax model is that it’s a per-gallon charge — whether gas is $1 or $4 per gallon, the amount drivers pay at the pump for road maintenance is the same.
So as gas prices go up and cars become more fuel-efficient, people buy less gas and the amount of money government agencies have to fix roads goes down.
In 2015, the state of Oregon will launch a pilot program that might solve that problem: 5,000 volunteers will have devices attached to their vehicles to track their mileage. They’ll pay 1.5 cents per mile, but get a refund of the gas tax money they pay at the pump.
Under what’s known as the “Road Usage Charge Program,” those 5,000 test drivers will pay for how much they actually use the road, regardless of how much gas they buy.
“It ensures that everyone using the roads pays their fair share for that road use,” according to the Oregon Department of Transportation website.
Of course, letting the state attach a GPS device to your car doesn’t come without Orwellian references. Still, ODOT promises that drivers’ privacy will be protected: The law requires that personally identifiable information will be made available only to the registered owner or lessee of the car and the agencies responsible for collection of the road use charge.
Information collected by the on-board devices about location and daily use must be destroyed within 30 days after payment processing, dispute resolution or noncompliance investigation. But that has exceptions, like when a driver consents or when the state collects aggregated data for traffic management and research.
I was in a unique situation where 2 family members were in Fraudclosure at same time. One took the in house modification and while not perfect was able to stabilize things for now and at a minimum kick the can down the road and hope the citizens of this country finally wake up and RESET this corrupt system.
The other followed lots of theories , arguments , etc. they made a lot of logical sense to me and had the exhibits of the fraud in black and white , yet eventually the servicer scum was able to fraudclosed and steal the house.
Tell me who did better ????
Poppy, what are you saying ??? Please repeat about property value, equity and line of credit ???
I see Holden is holding two different versions of the Note to.
I’m “Proud to be Country”!
To me, if the value of the property is higher than the loan balance why would anyone pay it? Keep your credit, scour around and buy a similar or better house for 25-40% less and drop off the keys…if you have equity, push a LOC to eat it up and don’t use it! The game is the game…and to them they care less. We need to start wrapping our head around that. You cannot beat a criminal until you start to understand and think like them, hopefully not become them in the process.
Between this kind of news and last night’s 60-Minutes, things are moving… The US will be the last country to crack down on corruption. In its FILO fashion… Too many people with too many fingers in the pot.
HK ICAC searches office of former JPMorgan top China banker-media
HONG KONG, Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:43 am EDT
(Reuters) – Hong Kong’s anti-corruption agency searched an office belonging to a top JPMorgan Chase & Co banker in the city who recently resigned, amid a U.S. investigation into the bank’s hiring practices, according to media reports.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on March 26 searched the office of Fang Fang, JPMorgan’s outgoing chief executive officer for China investment banking, seizing computer records and documents, according to the reports.
On March 24, an internal memo said Fang would leave the firm but gave no reason for his resignation. The Wall Street Journal, which first reported Fang’s departure, said he had emerged as a key figure for U.S. authorities as they investigate whether the investment bank violated bribery laws by improperly hiring the relatives of well-connected Chinese officials.
“We do not comment on individual cases,” said Alan Tse, a spokesman for ICAC in Hong Kong.
Marie Cheung, a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman for JPMorgan, declined to comment, while Fang Fang could not be immediately reached for comment.
U.S. authorities are examining whether JPMorgan’s hiring of China Everbright Group Chairman Tang Shuangning’s son helped the bank win assignments from Everbright, the Journal said, adding that JPMorgan has provided U.S. prosecutors with emails from Fang discussing the hire.
JPMorgan has withdrawn from underwriting a $3 billion Hong Kong listing by China Everbright Bank Co Ltd – one of two China initial public offerings it has stopped working on while the investigation is being carried out.
Other firms that have come under scrutiny for their hiring practices in Asia include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. (Reporting by Lawrence White and Farah Master; Editing by Ryan Woo)
New York is a lien state and the Bank Astoria Federal never owned my two NYC condos. Ever Ever Ever
But Astoria Federal S & L and corrupt debt collector attorneys MJRF and corrupt NYS ref. Penny Stark auctioned it off anyhow to straw buyers Fang li and who fliped it to David K Fiveson client Frances B Turner and and to straw buyer Cheetah Realty who flipped it to Fidelity National Titles Clients.
Astoria new attorneys looking at the corruption stated in front of Judge Alice Schlesinger Its indemnify Indemnify Indemnify.
The judgments void ab initio a nullities when the state court signed them while the case Marilyn Lane v Astoria Federal S &L/fidelity NY FSB was under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to US Elliot v. Piersol
Judge Schlesinger took the bride from Malone and Fiveson and ruled against our Constitution.
Schlesinger thought she could outsmart our Constitution.
Big damages coming.
On a Current Mortgage …
Sumbutty tried to Scare them Out ..
Then Sumbutty tried to Re-direct the Rents ..
I’m the Master of .. ” RE-DIRECTION” …
A lesson learned for them .. the hard way.
Another one reversed in part on appeal. Ohioans are scoring big. Then again, those down-to-earth farmers don’t put up with much nonsense.
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/deutschebank-v-holden_reverse_3-14.pdf
Although not in the same fashion … Sumbutty played games with our renters to. Yes they Did! Graduate Students whom we have known since they were wee ones. The Vet student- renter in the guest house .. his dad was an attorney … a TAX Attorney and RE Attorney. and his son had a signed lease …… 🙂
Who in their right mind would go from a fixed rate to 5yr ARM?
Just Say No!
Hamp wasn’t just a disappointment to Cooley. The program, minted during the depths of the housing crisis in 2009, sought out to help an estimated eight million homeowners to negotiate more affordable payments to avoid foreclosure. Five years later, it’s apparent that Hamp did little to mitigate this flood of economic devastation and in fact may have prolonged it. The program gave permanent mortgage modifications to 1.3 million people, but 350,000 of them defaulted again on their mortgages and were evicted from their homes. Fewer than one million homeowners remain in the Hamp program – just a quarter of its target – and $28bn of the funding remains unspent.
How Hamp hampers homeowners
Around 28% of all modified loans have slipped back into default, including nearly half of those loans modified back in 2009 at the height of the foreclosure crisis.
The program had so many problems getting started in its first year, with constant tweaks and revisions given to banks, that only a little over 30,000 Hamp modifications from 2009 remain active, according to Treasury Department data. That same year, there were over one million foreclosures, showing the scale of the problem that Hamp failed to fix.
There are likely to be more failures of those Hamp-modified mortgages. The original agreements only lowered the interest rate on the homeowner’s mortgage for five years – meaning the first mortgage modifications will expire around this year and next.
With the economy still rocky and unemployment high, homeowners may not be financially prepared for those rates to slowly creep back up, increasing monthly payments by hundreds of dollars a month. Even those who managed to qualify for Hamp, in other words, still find themselves at tremendous risk of eventually losing their home.
them deeper into a bureaucratic swamp
David Dayen
theguardian.com, Sunday 30 March 2014 10.00 EDT
Chris Cooley never missed a payment on his mortgage in Long Beach, California. Every month, Wells Fargo would debit him $3,100 for the four-unit building; one of the units was his, and the other three he rented out for income to cover the mortgage. In 2009, when the housing crisis hit, Cooley needed a way to reduce his mortgage. He renegotiated his loan through the Home Affordable Modification Program, known as Hamp. Initially, it was a success: his mortgage payments fell in half, to $1,560.
So it was surprising when a ReMax agent, sent on behalf of Wells Fargo, knocked on the door in December 2009 and told Cooley the building no longer belonged to him. The bank planned to take the building he had lived in and rented out for a decade – and list the property for sale.
So much for government help.
But it turned out that Cooley was not getting government help; without his knowledge, Wells Fargo had put him on what was only a trial Hamp payment program. He had been rejected for a permanent mortgage modification – only Wells Fargo never informed him about the rejection, he says, nor did they give him a reason why.
What followed was what most homeowners would consider a nightmare. While Cooley tried to stave off foreclosure to save his home and livelihood, Wells Fargo paid the other renters living in the property $5,000 to move out behind his back, and then denied Cooley further aid – because his income, which he drew from the rentals, was too low. “They took my income away from me, and then they couldn’t give me a loan because I had no income,” Cooley said. “What a wonderful catch-22.”
The bank held his final trial payment in a trust and never applied it to his loan (to this day, Cooley has never received that money back). For two years, Cooley appealed to Wells Fargo for some alternative form of relief, sending in paperwork time and again, talking to different customer service representatives who knew nothing about his situation, and generally running in place without success.
Tired of fighting, Cooley ended up leaving his home, and became just one of the seven million foreclosure victims in the US since the bursting of the housing bubble in 2007.
“Wells Fargo stole my home, plain and simple,” he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/30/government-program-save-homes-mortgages-failure-banks
Banks are offering modifications to get a signature on a newly worded agreement the ones they have doesn’t work legally.
why would anyone want to modify the origination fraud?
What good is a work out, something I do not want anyway but being forced into this B.S. , if the monthly payment is affordable.
Low interest rate is the same as a principle reduction, Im sorry but that is a false statement. The banks are making Our loans as expensive as possible, to create as much profit as possible, and putting the Homeowner into Poverty.
Simple Math, Shameful the times we are living in now.
This 2% workout is useless.
A more productive product would be cash out refi at 5.5%.
No Escrow
No PMI
Principle and Interest only.
Three Things are put into place :
1. a mortgage interest to deduct from your income taxes
2. low monthly mortgage payment
3. cash out is put into a checking account which will pay the property taxes.
For Owners who cannot afford the home they purchased, this will buy
time so upgrades may be made, and the Owner can List the Property
and sell it on their own.
So Many things wrong with what is happening its pathetic.
Does the commitment to the approval form have to be signed in order to make the loan legal ?
There is certainly without doubt, nothing legitimate about the mortgage industry, the banking system, or our own government.
It is simply about taking as much money from you ( the Donkey ) as possible while these thieves have you employed, then take your home, and fire you.
Disgusting.
Then there is the Title Ins Issue … sigh
Another thing we couldn’t agree on was Escrow. They required it.
We said Heck NO! NO WAY!
Not after the theft of thousands of dollars from the Escrow account!!
the fact that the homeowner is the owner in fee simple absolute — by name —
I agree, but the mods and refis require a Waiver of Homestead Rights,….
Not only does this increase the homeowners tax burden…
its a far cry from holding title in Fee Simple Absolute.
They wanted to extend the term, we wanted to shorten it.
They wanted to keep title … didn’t want a lien.
In house mod attempts via Attorney were A NO DEAL!