Wells Fargo Manual Serves as Basis for Deeper Discovery

Every lawyer defending Foreclosures has heard the same thing from the bench just before a ruling in favor of the pretender lender — the homeowner did not meet its burden of proof and therefore judgment is entered in favor of the “bank.” The fact that the pretender lender is a bank makes the judge more comfortable with his assumption that the loan is real, the default is real, the financial injury to the pretender lender is presumed, and that the family should be kicked out of their home me because they stopped paying on “the loan.”

More and more Judges are now questioning the assumption of viability of the forecloser’s position and are now entertaining the issue of whether the loan exists as an enforceable contract act and whether it has been already paid off or sold to third parties leaving the currently foreclosing party with a patently false claim.

Those of us who have been analyzing these “securitized” mortgages recognize the situation for what it is — a magic trick in a smoke and mirrors environment using the holographic image of an empty paper bag. The reasons Wells Fargo fought the introduction of its manual into Federal Court is simple — it is an open door in discovery that will most likely lead to definite proof that the money trail does not support the paper trail. That means the actual transactions were different than the events shown on the fabricated assignments, endorsements, allonges and other instruments of transfer.

But it also opens the door to the initial transaction in which “the loan” was created. It turns out that in most cases there were two transactions at the “origination” of each loan. One of those “transactions” is what we are all looking at — an apparently closed loop of offer, acceptance and consideration with most of the required disclosures under TILA.

So, as we shall see, there was a fake loan and a real loan. The fake one was fully and overly documented, whereas the real one is sparsely documented consisting of wire transfer receipt, wire transfer instructions and perhaps some correspondence. Neither was ever delivered to the fake lender or the real lender which is part of the problem that the Wells Fargo manual was intended to address. Discovery should proceed with the other banks where you find similar manuals.

This is the one everybody has their eye on, while the real transaction takes place right under the eye of the borrower who doesn’t catch the magic trick. So the fake transaction is the subject of a note where the lender is identified as such. Then the “lender” and perhaps some other strawman like MERS is also identified. MERS doesn’t make any claims to ownership of the loan (in fact it disclaims any such ownership on its website). The question is whether the “originator” was also a strawman, even if it was a commercial bank whose business included making loans.

Back to basics. The loan closing is described by most courts as a quasi contract because there is no written loan contract prior to the “closing.” But it must be interpreted under Federal and State lending and contract laws because there is no other viable classification for an alleged loan transaction.

The basics of a loan contract, like any other contract, are offer, acceptance and consideration. Federal and state law are also inserted into the inferred loan contract by operation of law. So the basic contractual question is whether there was an offer, whether there was acceptance and whether there was consideration. If any of those things are absent, there is no contract— or to be more specific there is no enforceable contract.

And that applies to mortgages more than anything because it is universally accepted that there is no such thing as an “equitable mortgage.” The short reason is that title and regular commerce would be forever undermined — no buyer would buy, except at a high discount, anything where it might turn out he wasn’t getting the title she or he expected.

So the loan contract must be real, and it must be in writing because the statute of frauds and other state laws require that any interest in land must be conveyed by a written instrument — and recorded in the Public Records (but the recording requirements are frequently a rabbit hole down which homeowners go at their peril).

This is where the magic trick begins and where Wells Fargo and the other major banks are holding their collective breath. The offer is communicated through a mortgage broker or”originator” and consists of the offer of the originator to loan a certain sum of money, in exchange for the promise by the borrower to repay it under certain terms.

It is inferred that the originator is making the offer on its own behalf but this is not the case. The truth is that investors have already advanced the money that will be used in the loan. So the offer is coming not from a “lender” but rather from a nominee or agent. The transaction at best is identified under RegZ and TILA as a table funded loan which is not only illegal, it is by definition “predatory.”

What is an”offer” to loan somebody else’s money? The answer is nothing unless the other party has consented to that loan or has executed a document that gives the “originator” a written authorization that is recordable and recorded. Where do we find such authorization? Theoretically one might refer to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement — but the problem is that any violation of the PSA results in a void transaction by operation of New York law, which is the governing law of most PSA’s.

Were the investors or the Trustee of the REMIC trust advised of the terms of the loan transaction proposed by the originator. No, and there is no way the originator can even fabricate that without disclosing the names of the investors, the trustee, and specific person at the “trustee” etc. So the question becomes whether the investors or trust beneficiaries conveyed written authority to enter into a transaction in which a loan was originated or acquired. In virtually all cases the answer is no.

One of the simpler reasons is that the investors money was never used to fund the trust, so the investors lost their tax benefit from using a REMIC trust in direct violation of their contract or quasi contract with the broker dealer who “sold mortgage bonds” allegedly issued by the empty, unfunded trust.

Another more complicated reason is that the loans probably do not and could never qualify as a minimum risk investment as the law requires for management of “Stable funds.” Those are fund units managed under strict restrictions because they hold pension money and other types of liabilities where capital preservation is far more important than growth or even income.

And the third aspect is the presence in virtually all cases of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (see Neil Garfield on YouTube) BEFORE THE FIRST BOND IS SOLD AND BEFORE THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR LOAN IS RECEIVED.

Analysis of the loan transaction will show that for the fly-by-night originators who have long since vanished, they had no right or ability to even touch the money at closing, which was coming in reform a third party source with whom they had no relationship — which is why the Wall Street lawyers consider them both bankruptcy remote and liability remote (I.e., anything wrong at closing won’t be ascribed to either the broker dealer, or the investors (or their empty unfunded trust). Countrywide is a larger example of this.

All the sub entities of Countrywide and Lehman (Aurora, BNC etc.) are also examples despite their appearance as “institutions” they were merely sham entities operating as strawmen — nominees without authority to do anything and who never touched the closing money except for receipt of fees which in part were paid as set forth in the borrower’s closing documents, and in part paid without disclosure (another TILA violation) through a labyrinth of entities.

Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that there never was a complete offer with all material terms disclosed. No offer=no contract=no enforcement=no foreclosure is possible, although it is possible for a civil judgment to be obtained against the borrower if a real party in interest could allege and prove financial injury. It also means that the documents signed by the borrower neither disclosed the real terms or real parties, which means they were procured through false representations — the very same allegation the investors are making against the broker dealers (investment banks).

In the case of actual banks, like Wells Fargo, it is more counterintuitive than the fly by night “originators.” But discovery, deep inside the operations of the bank will show that the underwriting standards for portfolio loans in which the bank had a risk of loss were different than the underwriting standards for “securitized” loans. In fact they were run and processed on entirely different platforms. The repurchase agreement being discussed in the literature on structured finance actually results from the fictitious sale of the loan rather than the underwriting at origination.

When the borrower signed the closing document he or she was executing an acceptance of a deal that was only part of the complete offer, which contained numerous restrictions that would have insured to the benefit of both the borrower and the lender, which turns out to be the group of investors who gave their money to a broker dealer (investment bank). If you want to split hairs, it is possible that the “closing documents” were an offer from the borrower that was never accepted by anyone who could perform under the terms of the quasi contract.

So we clearly have a problem with the first two components of an enforceable contract — offer and acceptance.

The final component is consideration which is to say that someone actually parted with money to fund the loan. And low and behold this is the first time our boots fall on solid ground — albeit nowhere near the loan described in the loan documentation. There was indeed money sent to the closing agent. Who sent it? Not the originator, not the nominees, not the trust because it was never funded, and not the investors because they had already funded their “purchase” of the “mortgage bonds” by delivering money to the broker dealer. We can’t say nobody sent it, because that is plainly untrue. Where did the money come from? Did the closing agent err in applying money from an unknown party to the closing of the loan?

It came from a controlled account (superfund) spread out over multiple entities that were NOT identified by a particular REMIC Trust. There was a reason for that, but that is for another article. Whether it was American Broker’s Conduit, a fictitious name sometimes registered, sometimes not, or Wells Fargo itself, the name of the entity was being “rented” for purposes of closing just as it is being rented for purposes of foreclosure.

Therefore the consideration did not come from any party at closing and the inevitable conclusion is that no enforceable contract was created at closing. This does not mean the borrower doesn’t owe the money. It just means that nobody should be able to foreclose on a void mortgage and it is doubtful that anyone could obtain judgment on a promissory note with some many defects. But there are other actions, such as unjust enrichment, which have been discussed in recent cases. It is foreclosure that is legally impossible under the true scenario as I see it and as others see it now. My position has not changed in 7 years. The only thing that has changed is the way I say it.

So the issue of the Wells Fargo and its fabrication manual is that discovery will lead to deeper and deeper secrets that will undermine not only the entire foreclosure infrastructure, but also the financial statements that support ever growing stock prices for the major banks.

75 Responses

  1. World Bank (IMF) senior lawyer, turned whistle-blower, Karen Hudes, documents some details of my below published description of the U.S. counterfeiting industry mechanics which is perpetuated by the institutional bribery of public officials, and to the detriment of the U.S. 99%, and the rest of the world:

    ‘Dollar valueless, about to crash’ – World Bank whistleblower



    Karen Hudes: “Congress all bribed…” @ 5.35

  2. kaareem
    Our US Constitution states, that money has to be backed by gold, silver. etc, anything else is credit and counterfeit and this is all part of most bank loans and origination fraud.

  3. Lawrence Wikerson, a former top government official sheds some light on a few of America’s counterfeiting operations leading to a U.S. financial meltdown:

    Pt2 The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex paying its bills with phony money:


  4. I won’t tell you anything new, but this is the same in any other field.
    You’d think experience showes us anything, but no.
    Disagree if you will but the world is changing, and we have no control over it.
    For instance, If only Obama had enough balls to put Russian bear to his place, but it seems like it’s never happening, welcome third world war.
    Great post, thanks!
    Sarah http://phyto-renew350i.com/

  5. John:
    If you meant the link to “The Bretton Woods Agreements Act, Title 22
    U.S.C. §286”, if you right-click and click on save-as, then you can save it like a regular file with your own name.
    That website does offer some partial solutions too, but in other pages to which you can get by clicking on the other briefs links, or through its homepage link at the bottom.

    The original of that website was completely deleted from internet a few months after I posted my Petition with this page, as its last page. I think the website’s owner was either paid off to delete it, or threatened to do so!

    By coincidence I found this source which had archived the original website, and then used this link in place of the original which had disappeared!
    A limited endgame solution to the U.S. financial crimes might be included in my upcoming petition.


  6. kareem – followed your link (thanks). Bummed that 1) that particular website won’t allow itself to be saved, so have to get what’s there on the spot. 2) I have a lot of respect for the owner of that site, but am disappointed at the title of that piece, plus the failure to explain the real bottom line and what could be done to get a diff bottom line, which is what we need. All we got is a ‘what not to do’, isn’t that so?

  7. Ms. Lane:

    U.S. institutionalized crimes like banks; title companies; the military-industrial-congressional-complex (quoting IKE); have also institutionalized bribery of public officials down to a science.

    Many people have seen Michael Moore’s documentary “Capitalism, a Love Story”. There, he documented Countrywide’s institutional bribery of public officials through FOA loans. FOA standing for “Friends Of Angelo Mozzilo” Countrywide’s chief.

    But, I think that because all judges, and law enforcement, are also public officials they don’t dare to step on one another’s toes, so they blindly support all other public officials, even those known to them to have been bribed, and/or corrupted. They do that by simply ignoring people’s charges against them. It’s the old-fashioned reciprocation of back-scratching game, I think.

    I have documented other colossal forms of institutional bribery of public officials in my court papers.
    For instance, in my federal case, I alleged that probably at least 10,000 of over 100,000 pieces of real estate, fraudulently foreclosed in Orange County, Ca. since 2007, must have gone to public officials as their kickbacks for facilitating the fraudulent foreclosures.

    I began conducting discovery of these matters, and just before respondents discovery deadlines, and the defendants scheduled depositions, the court dismissed my case, without NOTICE, on what I believe were false grounds, and/or pretexts. I appealed the dismissal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, and am working on that appeal now.

    In my 2/14/12 U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari #11-1013, I traced back today’s U.S. financial crimes to 1944 when the world’s financial elite invented a perpetual counterfeiting, and plundering, system of the world population, as I documented below, and with its included linked references.


    The dismissal occurred shortly after I obtained a stack of documents from “FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE” / “COAST CITIES ESCROW” showing that, back in 2002, among the many documents they had forged they had even forged four fingerprints, with four signatures, in the notary book of the escrow office’s manager Ann Skinner who had also been a notary. Yet, they didn’t produce a single recorded loan document, because they didn’t want their forged notarization and signatures reaper in discovery, thus counting as new counts of forgery against them!

    Their lawyer knew that the above were forged, since the same lawyers originally began representing them in 2004, in my state case #04CC11080, where the lawyers forged countless of their own court documents! Their original fraudulent lawyer in that case, later became a California Judge! In 2006, that lawyer (now judge) declared in my deposition, and I documented it in court files, that “I am proud to be called a Mafia Consigliere”! That’s what I had called him in my papers, due to the fraudulent, and forged papers he had filed.

    Now, how do you expect that crooked lawyer, now judge, to rule from the bench? I can’t see him doing anything more than acting as a “Mafia Consigliere” which appeared to be his dream title! In addition you can bet that he will always have full support of all other public officials when he is charged with corruption, by someone like me. In fact I did file charges of corruptions, and forgeries, against him long ago, but CALBAR refused to take any action!

    Good luck to you and all others.


    Kareem Salessi

  8. Astoria Federal S & L/Fidelity NY FSB admitted they didn’t own my two condos when their long gone . corrupt debt collectors attorneys auctioned them off to straw buyers and now with decent attorneys want the title companies to step in to indemnify .

    But with a corrupt judge like Alice Schlesinger and title companies like Fidelity that is not what happened. They want the massive fraud to keep going. Take a look at what Kareem wrote on his blog. I am concerned with getting possession of my two condos back and damages but Kareem has written his blog with information for so many of you.

  9. right you are kareem. i knew there was nothing but fraud in William p Foley veins when i wrote him a short letter “what went wrong that Fidelity finds itself fighting for a forged deed in NYSC? after judge Alice Schlesinger was bribed and ruled for Thomas Malone esq. of Fidelity and David k Fiveson of a scam title company called Coronet title that held nothing but forged deeds and Foleys answer to me was “it is proper to fight for a forged deed.”

  10. Re: Title Companies; MERS; etc.:

    In my self-published court documents I have proved that Fidelity has been in fact at the peak of real-estate related frauds, and forgeries, in the United States. My understanding is that they invented, and institutionalized Robo-Singing, and title forgeries.
    LPS is entirely Fidelity with dozens of forgery subsidiary operations like DocX, which was outlawed, and their fall girl jailed. Their forgery network is partially revealed in my webpage “FORECLOSURE CRIMES” with their own corporate disclosure documents, filed in courts.

    As I documented and published, and no one contested, banks created MERS as their own institutional forgery operations to compete with title companies’ forgery networks, in addition to creating mountains of fake derivatives, which are nothing but UN-backed junk-bonds, similar to those created by Mike Milken, and Drexel, in the 80’s leading to the bankruptcy of Orange County (a/k/a: World Capital of Fraud), in conspiracy with O.C. public officials.

    As I have proved, MERS is nothing but a computer file, utilized by banks to facilitate the assignment of each individual loan to countless mortgage pools so that countless amounts of derivatives (“MBS”) could have been created and marketed world-wide on the basis of bogus assignments created through MERS by punching a few computer keys. That’s how Wall Street criminals managed to create, and dump, over $1.5 QUADRILION (I.E.: $1,500,000,000,000,000.) mortgage derivatives, supposedly backed by only $7 Trillion (i.e.: $7,000,000,000,000.) of outstanding American mortgages of 2004. They sold these junk bonds to the gullible world investors, most of which borrowed money to buy these junk bonds. The junk bonds have tanked in value and the foreign investors who had borrowed the money to buy them have gone broke. That’s why world-wide economies collapsed once this U.S. made PONZI-counterfeit operation peaked in 2007, exactly as I had calculated, and documented in my 2004 lawsuit, with case # 04CC11080 (Orange County, Ca.)!!!

    For litigants against institutionalized lenders; title companies; MERS; courts; judges; county recorders; and county sheriffs; and their gangster lawyers, I can provide expert-opinion affidavits which may be presented to courts, if appropriate, especially if they have been victims here in Orange County, where its sheriff Mike Carona has been in federal prison for years, and where many of its current staff really belong, for having sold out the Orange County residents to organized crimes, like banks, and title companies.

    Regards, Kareem Salessi

  11. Tom. Hammertown, JG. KC, Poppy .Deb and all

    If you study how and why all of us that are stuck in this these foreclosure frauds you will come to the conclusion William p Foley of Fidelity Nation Title and their subsidiaries is the orchestrater and facilitator between all the fraud, fraudulent documents, the Courts. judges, County Clerks , Banks.and lawyers

    Subpeona WILLIAM P FOLEY and we can watch the massive foreclosure fraud come tumbling down – he should be likened to a “:deep throat” of foreclosuregate.

  12. You are getting there JG, except you have the wrong party with the unjust enrichment claim.

    The FCs were brought through Corelodgic for Tax & Ins. The deficiency judgments were an added bonus in Judicial States.

    Two Computer Programs is all it took to Create the Biggest Financial Scam in History.

    MERS & Corelodgic

  13. NG said:
    Therefore the consideration did not come from any party at closing and the inevitable conclusion is that no enforceable contract was created at closing. This does not mean the borrower doesn’t owe the money. It just means that nobody should be able to foreclose on a void mortgage and it is doubtful that anyone could obtain judgment on a promissory note with some many defects. But there are other actions, such as unjust enrichment, which have been discussed in recent cases. It is foreclosure that is legally impossible under the true scenario as I see it and as others see it now. ”

    So NG, you’re saying no one may enforce the note since iyo, it doesn’t reflect a valid transaction, but since the investors’ money was used, they may have a claim against the note maker for unjust enrichment?
    So, that would be there cause of action – a totally unsecured claim – with no note etc to rely on? First of all, they would have to support that they’re reliance on the PSA was well-founded and reasonable. Imo, for sure if they couldn’t get that far, the borrower would and could certainly cite laches. Just because someone (a secn trustee) was delegated / assigned the job of assuring the loans were transferred on behalf of the investors, does that absolves the investors of the duty themselves to make assurances? And if the real cause of their loss is that trustee’s failure to tend to his fiduciary, why mustn’t the first cause of action be one against the trustee? Because such an act is unpopular?

  14. “To me, it’s a fraud, of course, but that imo becomes between the secured party and the new holder”

    Said that wrong, too. It becomes an issue between the secured party and the note seller (bankster). When filing suit, the secured party may have to name the new buyer, also, because I think it’s a party who needs to be bound to the court’s decision, which imo it wouldn’t be if not named.

  15. Oops. To my knowledge, the little guy has no agreement with the bigger guy’s w/h lender. He only has one with the bigger guy.

  16. “John Gault- look at it this way perhaps: the originator gives us money which isn’t his.
    jg: I disagree. It was his even if he borrowed it, but it does imo DEPEND on the contract with his “bigger guy”.

    He has an arrangement with Bank A to supply either wet or seasoned mortgages.

    jg: true. Know what’s at the heart of the little guy being named the payee? The little guy wanted autonomy. He didn’t want his customer to go around him to the bigger guy. Why would he?

    “Bank A is requiring a signed warehouse line/loan agreement from the originator, and the notes as well.”

    jg: true. But bank A has the warehouse line agreement with the bigger guy. Whether or not the w/h lender’s security interest extends to a
    loan originated by a 3rd party, we really don’t know. It may be that operationally, it’s just a loan to the little guy from the bigger guy and doesn’t create anything which triggers the bigger guy’s w/h lender’s security interest. But, it may, in which case, there may be duo security interests in one note created by contract. To me, this is a case where the default law UCC might be looked at to see, if there are duo claims, which is senior or maybe even if they may co-exist at all(?). But no one should be able to take a note as a hdc when there is a Noticed security interest. But, but, but, that’s probably the rub – no notice of the security interest, another party may well take free of. And this may be a time when a party may convey an interest greater than it has itself. To me, it’s a fraud, of course, but that imo becomes between the secured party and the new holder. It’s not a defense to the note by the note maker imo. Like this: if I sell you a note (you pay me consideration) I know is secured to another party, you might take that note free of the unknown-to-you security interest of X and if all the other provisions of hdc are met, you could well be a hdc. Now, if I were the secured party (the w/h lender), I sure as sam hell would do whatever I could to protect / notice my security interest (and surely there’s a prescription for this, but I don’t know it – UCC financing statement? Got me) The contract between the secured party w/h lender and the bigger guy doesn’t itself impart notice to third parties of the w/h lender’s security interest.
    Further, my reading of article 9 says to me that if the w/h lender has a security interest in the note, it also has a security interest in any collateral for that note, the dot / mtg. Arg. So it seems to me whatever notice is given of the sec interest, it needs to note that there is collateral for the note, if for no other reason than because it’s secured by an interest in real prop(?)

    “But now the notes are supposed to be held in trust by the Trust, and money must be forthcoming for purchase, A to B to C to D to E for bk remote entity. But the trusts were never funded, there is no there, there . And now the investors in the MBS think that their “investment” is secured by notes which have only a remote possibility of defaulting all at once.”

    jg: I’ve yet to see any evidence the trusts weren’t funded. I think there’s evidence the loans never made it to the trusts, though, because I’m a firm believer the current assignments are prima facie evidence they didn’t.

    “Now if there is only one wet ink note, how can it serve as collateral for 3 different persons?”

    jg: got me! And it’s worth noting that only ONE party may be the note’s holder, altho if there is a real live note out there at all, yeahoos in alleged possession just say it’s the property of the most convenient party – mers (at one time), the trust, the servicer, the masterservicer, FNMA, etc. That’s one reason I believe what the note says is the bomb – that it will be enforced by one who took it by transfer and is entitled to payment. THAT is the holder of the note, as defined in these notes. Plus, when in court, the rpii and injury requirements for juris kick in. imo. That’s why it’s important imo to find out if a claimant is claiming as a hdc or merely a holder, one in poss of a note endorsed in blank: was the note transferred to the claimant for the purpose of giving the claimant the right to payment? I don’t know, but if a note is subject to the sec interest of say, a w/h lender, and one doesn’t meet the provisions for a hdc, it’s poss the security interests of the w/h can’t be avoided.
    lay opinions

  17. Mortgage brokers had their place. In the 80’s, recognizing the sometimes vastly varying cost of money and other market conditions, and thus the number of loan applications, bigger guys became wholesalers, mol (though they still originated some loans in-house). The mtg brokers had smaller overhead, relieving the bigger guy of some of his. It worked, at least mostly. Til securitization (and MERS) came along and greed took over, in the form of approving loans to anyone with a pulse, also known as predatory lending.
    Fyi it wasn’t that easy to become an FHA and VA or F & F approved
    lender. There were minimum net worth requirements, credit checks of the principals and key employees, the req’t for annual audited financials and spot loan audits. And someone had to put it in writing that it would provide the little guy with a minimum warehouse line. The only provision of those agreements that I find worthy of any attack was the “repurchase” requirement by the little guy on a sour loan, since it would be known the little guy had no wherewithall to do any such thing.
    Maybe that was all diff with sub-prime storefronts. In fact, I’d say it probably was – just as with making predatory loans, if one had a pulse and could spell ‘mortgage’, one could probably originate sub-prime loans.

  18. Ian – can’t agree about the cost of a title policy in your scenario. After construction, a search to me is more essential than ever – construction lender liens, mechanic’s liens, bonds, who knows, etc. Title companies used to, however, offer “reissue” rates if within two years of the first policy (they may have excluded new construction – don’t remember). Don’t know if they still do.

  19. kc, I doubt fwiw that a promise to pay for a note at a later date is an installment sale contract, but it might be.

  20. dwynn – to my knowledge, a lender (a real one) doesn’t have to bid the full amt of its loan. In other words, if a lender is owed 500k, he may bid 400k, but doing so has some complicated ramifications I
    can’t explain right now, but one thing, I think (caveat) is that a less than full credit bid doesn’t extinguish the dot as a matter of law fwiw. Imo, the amt shown on the dot trustee’s deed should match the amt of the alleged credit bid. Imo, they can’t bid 400k and show 490k as the bid, but unless one were at auction, how would one know what was bid?*
    If a secn trustee is shown as the bidder/buyer, also imo there’s NO reason a 1099 should show any other party as the issuer. If I were an attorney, I’d take that little matter to court tout suite. I wish to heck someone would.
    I don’t like it that at the sale, the auctioneer says stuff like “credit bid by the lender”, without identification of that party, as I’ve seen myself. I don’t believe that’s allowable. But, this was prior to the MERS’ consent order, so now they might be identifying a sec’n trust as the lender doing the credit bidding.

  21. Absolutely correct Mr. Garfield.
    I posted some related comments, with related links, on this page:


  22. When the only way someone can earn a living is through deception, lying, manipulation, “sales tactics”, threats, it’s worse than disgusting. The whole MBS sales from origination through securitization, “mortgage servicing”, force-placed insurance, AAA ratings, fleecing investors, attorneys lying to judges, disgusting. The noose is tightening though. I read it.
    I see it. I feel it.

  23. Neidermeir- you are right about the title insurance. My favorite is someone buys a 100 acre farm field, does a title search, it’s clean as a whistle. Then they build 75 homes on the 100 acres and require title insurance on each of the 100 homes. In this case, the policy should be under 100 bucks. Not 800 or more per house. What a miserable business.

  24. @ Ian ,

    100% right on mortgage brokers ,, it’s a storefront business you can learn , become licensed for and open for less than the price of a good used car (including the liability insurance) ,, my wife worked for one years ago until one day she was told to babysit the owners pet pig in a back office. The bigger scam operation though is the title insurance ,, they have a greater than 90% profit on those policies.

  25. And been sued by the State. 🙂

  26. The instruments says MERS but the Warranty Deed was granted to the look name of the Capital Asset Co who was an arm of the Broker/Dealer just like the Mortgage Co listed on the Note was.

    Now, (in our case) they have all merged

  27. Ian, my response about my husband of almost 35yrs was to Charlie who claimed I had no dealings with these parties neither professionally or personally.

    By all means my husband has everything to do with this as he is the debtor on a note.

    And you are absolutely right about the broker dealers.

  28. John Gault- most mortgage brokers I met are idiots. They can learn everything they need to know in a couple weeks and then they never have to learn another thing for the rest of their lives. That’s like minimum wage dead end employment. What are they doing now? Selling reverse mortgages to doddery senior citizens? Selling student loans to people with no IQ? Working retail at Best Buy? I don’t like to hear opinions about the housing markets or the outlook for the economy from them, as it is meaningless, considering the source. They cloak their actions in an aura of mystery ( “yeah, I sent your app to underwriting” which is a couple idiots in a room) ” I’ve called in the appraiser”( someone with a tape meAsure who can calculate square footage and multiply by a number they copied from someone else who
    Copied it from someone else). And on and on. They aren’t even cogs in a wheel.

  29. Discussion

  30. KC- can you please speak of something other that your opinions and riddles about your “hubby” and all that? I’m not on here saying “hey my oldest son just got into 4 of the top 20 prep schools in the USA, and picked one of the four, on a full academic/athletic scholarship- who cares? People don’t read this blog to find out about other people’s personal details which aren’t germane to the topics under deiscussion. Thank you

  31. “The TBA trading mechanism plays a very important role in the generation of mortgage rates. The TBA market allows originators to make “forward commitments” before the loans in their pipeline are actually closed…just like loan officers lock in interest rates before the loan goes to closing. For both the mortgage bank and the loan officer, this function serves as a hedge. It allows them to protect their pipelines from interest rate risk (rates getting higher and their loans not being worth as much). If mortgage bankers were forced to lock in their rates after closing…they would likely add in a large “interest rate risk” premium to rate sheets in an effort to protect themselves from shifts in the yield curve. ”

    TBA = to be announced


  32. Jg
    I have a trustees deed upon sale issued by a foreclosure mill ” trustee” ( sub trustee – uhmm- and the other “trustee” for a MBS trust claims to have purchased my house from them at public auction) THe sub trustee purports to sell to highest bidder – the buyer- who is, the other purported trustee for a dbalt trust series, then I get a 1099a issued by the ” lender” only that guy can issue it, why does it state the sub serviced as the lender, YES it does, furthermore the lender says I owed x amount the trustees deed states an extra 90k difference, these documents therefore can not be relied upon based plus considering who posed as the beny and who filed suit in a unlawful detainer action. We in fact have a trustee of a dbalt ” trust” as a buyer of real property now Don’t forget the trustee is representing mortgage backed securities ( debt obligations) and are not real owners of property they are supposed to distribute accordingly monies collected from mortgage payments to the beneficiaries .So we have a contradictory position here.
    I’ve written at length to the IRS – 3 times, requesting the 1099c, this is the cancellation of the DEBT, now who is going to issue that? it’s all gone “vwry vwee qwiet ” as Elma fudd says

  33. trustee identified the trustee of trust yz as the beneficiary for whom it was acting in executing their sale deed —– ISC

  34. surety is entitled to salvage
    no credit bid

    that would be conversion

  35. Listen Up Chump!
    50 is iffy …….
    100 is not greedy at all …
    Take a Flying Leap

    Good Grief Charlie Brown!

  36. B agrees to pay A for a note at a future date (contract),

    Installment Sale Contract

  37. trustee identified y and z as trustees and beneficiaries of yz trust.
    trustee act for y
    but not for z …..
    Bad Trustee say z!!

    But that’s just me.

  38. Okay, smartie-pants attorneys reading in the closet, if B agrees to pay A for a note at a future date (contract), but with delivery now, and a day later, the loan goes into default, would the promising-to-pay party B be entitled to a credit bid? What credit? I don’t think a promise to pay entitles one to a credit bid, but like I said, I can’t prove it. The only guy I know who might know (probably even) I can’t ask right now. Who gives a whooey? I think we do because I suspect the servicer cuts such a deal with, say, FNMA (think discount) to “save FNMA” the trouble of sale. But then, like that case in NY, when pressed, the servicer asserted that FNMA owned the loan (but had not joined fnma and fnma didn’t bring the action and the servicer tried to proceed as if in its own right). A reason may well be a promise-to-pay fnma (say)
    arrangement which at least in my opinion wouldn’t entitle the bum-servicer to a credit bid. So without fnma being the plaintiff and without the svcr joining fnma, they just proceed as if in their own right, use a bogus credit bid, and call it a day. Why else does FNMA not bring the action? (and of course, if FNMA is the lender, it must mean
    fnma itself didn’t skip its obligation to repurchse to end its guarantee payments, as I’ve said, an issue not reached in that case) Hooligans!
    Bad actors! I mean seriously, who’s the bum?

  39. KC your a trip and investment properties are a different animal when dealing with HUD so you got not knowledge as the non-investor property. So you got involved in an investment property, you had and have no clue of what I am. Your just some slum landlord who got trip in an estate deal but did not get all the parties to sign and now your paying for it!

  40. trustee identified the trustee of trust xyz as the beneficiary for whom it was acting in executing his sale deed —– right after purchase loan closed

    Its the Sheriffs Dept in a Mortgage

  41. D wynn, you said:
    “Still doesnt explain the 1099a issued by the ” sub servicer” to a ” trust”
    Think about it.”
    Huh? are you saying you saw a 1099a issued by a subservicer to a TRUST?

    “and trustees deed declares that the ” trustee” to that ” trust” WAS the beny, ( like how and when , a trustee handles the cash FLOW and does not typically have any interest in real estate)”

    Well, let’s see. (I admit I really need to look at some dot trustee’s deeds). The dot trustee identified the trustee of trust xyz as the beneficiary for whom it was acting in executing his sale deed? Technically, it’s the trustee who is the seller imo (which is why lenders make the infamous credit bids – but imo, only a guy who actually paid for the loan is entitled to a credit bid in the first place. I don’t believe a promise to pay entitles anyone to a credit bid, but I can’t prove it). The dot trustee is authorized by the loan agreement to unite all title in the f/c sale buyer. But, one way or another, the dot trustee may only act for the real ben and not a poser. To me, the real ben is the guy who
    will bear the loss of non-payment of the note and who took that note by transfer and is entitled to payments. And has a properly executed
    assgt of the dot from someone who gave him a properly executed assgt, and all assgts were recorded as provided by law prior to any act of foreclosure. (Iif they don’t now, post-Glaski, start dummying up back-dated assgts complete with dummied up acknowledgements, I’ll be surprised). “They were executed but unrecorded”. Yeah, sure, esp since they decided they didn’t need to do them.
    When the collateral instrument is a mortgage (not a dot) who is the seller at a f/c sale? Is it shown as a trust or the sheriff or ???
    lay opinions

  42. Dag Gone Fever! I apologize again, Please continue John.

  43. Oh Yea …. I forgot to mention we are investors In those stable funds in addition to taxpayors

    Kiss My Grits Again!!


  44. RE: but you don’t work in the business, but someone that not worked in the business and does not have a loan that was in one of these pools has dream that they discovered in 2009 that the Ginnie Mae pool were a fraud?

    1. but you don’t work in the business


    2. and does not have a loan that was in one of these pools


    3. has dream that they discovered in 2009 that the Ginnie Mae pool were a fraud?


    Good Grief Charlie!

  45. Oh My, defensive are we?

    No, my stories don’t change, I have multiple properties

    In addition to the title abstract, my attorney for purposes of payoff and transfer of title had requested a prelim title ins policy also.

    Our dealings were directly with Ginnie Mae, FHA, HUD, AG

    I know nothing …. and if I do, …. I don’t know what your talking about.

    Greed comes in all forms, shapes, shades and sizes
    Just like Duct Tape! 🙂

  46. KC first you not even mention what your claiming about and you said you turned your information over to your attorney in 2009 when there was no actual way to file under a whistle-blower act because Obama had not put it in place until Aug 2010.

    Now under a Qui Tam which it sound like your trying to say you had going on you violated that agreement because you been talking about a sealed court action as the cases are sealed under the federal government unseal them as with the Szymoniak case was settled on Apr 5, 2012 when the judge approved the settlement but the case was not unsealed until Sept 2013.

    So good luck tying to collect because you have violated anything you had going, with was nothing any way because you got no clue what I have claimed.

  47. I absolutely disagree (so far) with the decision in this appeal, but NG might like some of the conclusions, like this one (note – here the warehouse lender was a bigger guy, way I got it):

    RE Pinnacle Mortgage Investment Corporation, (D.n.j. 1998)

    “I cannot say that the Bankruptcy Court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous. The Bankruptcy Court’s ruling accords with the evidence as well as with the policy underlying the holder in due course doctrine. I hold that where a warehouse lender so closely participates in the funding and approval of mortgages which will ultimately lead to the warehouse lender’s rights in mortgages and promissory notes that the transactions between mortgage banker and mortgagor and between warehouse lender and mortgage banker are in fact one continuous transaction, rather than two discernible transactions, a showing of the warehouse lender’s lack of good faith after the closing between title agent and mortgagor but before the mortgage banker’s check is presented to the warehouse lender may destroy HDC status. Indeed, where the party who claims HDC status was in essence a party to the original transaction, it cannot, by definition, be a holder in due course.”

    I didn’t like the decision in this case, because imo, as with Neil, the court ignored the contract (in this case, one which established a security interest in the note for the benefit of the bigger guy until he received the transfer of the note imo. Actually the court didn’t address the entire contract, so it may not have created a security interest (contractually), in which case I’d call Provident dumber than mud). There’s room for a lot more discussion on this hummer,
    but there was factually an agency agreement between the bigger guy (Provident) and the title company which made the title co’s poss of the note the constructive poss of the bigger guy (right?), and noteworthy then, is the fact that there was never to be any poss by the guy who’s name was on the note. The appeal court didn’t say this verbatim, but it’s reasonable to infer the little guy would never have possession. Imo, that would have been the case with a lot of loans originated by smaller guys. They wouldn’t have been entrusted with live notes (imo). But good luck proving it, unless one could get his hands on one of those manuals or agreements between / among the players. Of course, that brings up a very real problem: how then would the note have been endorsed by the smaller guy? I don’t have an answer, unless it were endorsed before it was executed or the title co. was in their building, so a corp officer just strolled down and endorsed it (but if it’s the latter, that could constitute possession by the little guy).
    The case also has some clues on overcoming any presumption of a claimant’s hdc status.


  48. Dear KC sweetie, did have a title search done and following that title search I had a direct conversation with MERS Bill Hultman who was one of the founders of MERS.

    I don’t no who this GM you been in contract with but your story changed so much about not having a loan and some crap about some property that was in a estate sale that your husband purchase or that you offered the full amount to somebody but you did not have a loan, but later you got a loan but not a government insured loan, but now you got some reason to know how government loan are placed in securities but you don’t work in the business, but someone that not worked in the business and does not have a loan that was in one of these pools has dream that they discovered in 2009 that the Ginnie Mae pool were a fraud?

    KC you are as crazy as a bed bug because nobody can help you with you estate sale you got involved without your own attorney!

  49. Ian said:

    “But the warehouse lender (Bank A) is also holding the note as collateral for the originator’s warehouse line/loan. So the note is double-pledged at inception.”
    I’ve thought that, too. But I think now that it may be that the note, until the bigger guy becomes the holder by transfer, isn’t in fact secured to his w/h lender. I think it depends on what the bigger guy’s contract says with his w/h lender about “3rd party originations”.

  50. Ian, & All
    I do apologize for the interruption ( the flu bug effects)
    Please do Continue ………

  51. You didn’t hire an attorney to save your own home (I did),
    you didn’t get a title abstract (I did my own),
    I reported and filed a complaint of my own free will…
    and yet you want paid millions by the taxpayers
    (whom have already been screwed) for what again?

    Perhaps … someone may suggest a good rehab center near you

    Sending Prayers for Your Speedy Recovery My Brother
    Best Wishes

  52. Ut Oh!

    RE: ” so stop hating as you cannot do anything anyway about you own stupid situation! ”

    Oh My!

    HaHaHaHaHa!! Ok.. then! You Enjoy Your Rental!

    Ya wanna pass that peace pipe brother? LOL!

    Oh My Heavens!! Behave KC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  53. Your BS don’t fly with me Charles.
    I’ve been in contact with GM since April of 09.

    ~ Just saying, you are in for a rough landing when you wake up to reality and quit spending those millions in your dreams.
    I was just trying to help you … take it or leave it …. no skin off my knees

  54. Neidermeier- you’re the only response so far- but it rings true.
    We also have the notes existing in
    Multiple trusts at the same time. The record I saw was a 545k loan bringing in 92,000,000 to the numerous trusts and tranches. Nice work if you can get it.

  55. My dear KC what have they been doing for a while? Wells Fargo on started servicing the WaMu loan on Jul 31, 2006 and WaMu was seized on Sept 25, 2008 and there not even admitted that they are servicing these loan now.

    Now if your talking about the flaw in the Ginnie Mae pooling system from the start in 1971, well then yes they been doing this for a long time but no one figured it out until now and this is why JPMorgan just settled and not because of bad underwriting or falsifying documents to approve loans and obtain insurance.

    Stop with all the you told then first when you had no clue in the first place. Ginnie has ask for the mortgages (security instruments) now so there my be a combination of people claims that will go into this matter and that does not bother me a bit considering the amount of monies to be recovered. I never been a greed person with money and as this thing is so vast and I read Szymoniak letter to the SEC from 2010 or 2011 that was released last Sept along with the case that was seal, and she touch on the forgeries by MERS but she had no first hand knowledge of the crimes, but he Feb 5, 2014 lawsuit is very complete as what she claiming went down out of Ft. Sills with Wells Fargo but I have the piece for the Milwaukee operation center, plus first hand knowledge of the crimes.

    I read your post KC and you got no understanding of Ginnie Mae and you had no position of loan to have first hand knowledge, so stop hating as you cannot do anything anyway about you own stupid situation!

    I will drop you a line from where I will be vacationing with Lynn!

  56. What you fail to understand is the Harm caused was to multiple parties…… What? What If? The Homeowners discovered the Harm 1st, reported and retained legal representation …… ?

    Personal Knowledge

  57. You know if you read what trespass has said he gets it ( I think a he)
    Re the corporations/sub entities being “sham” entities the thing is this, they are recognized as a corporation and so are regarded as separate legal identity, an artificial person- distinct from its shareholders and management team. In exceptional cases only in cases of sham entities the court may allow lifting of the corporate veil to identify the real slim shady – who broke the law.

  58. RE: “This has been my SEC Whistleblower submitted claim since Aug 2011!”

    You missed the Bus!!

    They’ve been quietly doing this a long time … they just kept silent until now, meaning ~ After the banksta’s finished covering up the Stink!

    Quiet Please!
    Everyone Quiet Please!

  59. Charles, Charles, Charles … You my friend will not find the therapy here you need here. Trust Me
    I would play Show & Tell with you … but you have to wait until the proper time.

    Your Hopes are too High … and you are about to CRASH HARD, … I’m not saying this to be insensitive, but you gotta find some support right there at home.
    Best Wishes!

  60. neidermeyer I agree with you that good time will be had by all. None of this is complex but was just well hidden! Bit by bit it all being leaked and Ginnie Mae was forced to demand that these servicers produce security instruments!

  61. @ Ian ,

    You hit the nail on the head ,, that’s exactly the scenario I’m looking at … Option One supposedly sold my note into a WF managed trust but they faked it all because they owed Bank of America on their warehouse line … 6 months after the trust closed it folded and AIG paid off Bank of America NOT WF as BAC still owned the notes…the next owner was Wilbur Ross who paid off the warehouse line at a steep discount… WF never owner SH*T,, but they did produce a “ta-da” assignment right on cue… with the documented AIG payment and the WF handbook… good times will be had by all….

  62. John Gault- look at it this way perhaps: the originator gives us money which isn’t his. He has an arrangement with Bank A to supply either wet or seasoned mortgages. Bank A is requiring a signed warehouse line/loan agreement from the originator, and the notes as well. As far as the homeowner/ borrower knows, the note lists the originator as the lender/mortgage/ (sigh) “bank”, and the originator is holding the house (mortgage) as collateral for the note. But the warehouse lender (Bank A) is also holding the note as collateral for the originator’s warehouse line/loan. So the note is double-pledged at inception.
    But now the notes are supposed to be held in trust by the Trust, and money must be forthcoming for purchase, A to B to C to D to E for bk remote entity. But the trusts were never funded, there is no there, there . And now the investors in the MBS think that their “investment” is secured by notes which have only a remote possibility of defaulting all at once.
    Now if there is only one wet ink note, how can it serve as collateral for 3 different persons?

  63. I still don’t believe table-funding is illegal per se. Maybe what went on wasn’t even ‘table-funding”, an industry term used to mean some one else supplies the funds at closing, someone other than the payee. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t pursuant to a bona fide contract.

    The guy who is named as the payee on the note is making the loan with funds he has borrowed contractually from some source, generally a bigger guy. I don’t believe it makes any difference whether the funds went into the payee’s bank account first or whether they went directly to the title company disbursing the loan funds. The payee owes the bigger guy either the note or his money back. I’ll concede it’s generally the note.
    The payee borrowed the money in exchange for the note or he bought the money – money IS bought and sold. The payee contractually bought it at one rate and sold it at another (to the borrower). Imo, NG keeps ignoring that contract between the payee and the bigger guy.
    I think it’s fair to say the payee sold the note forward, but he does have the right to payment until he legitimately transfers the note, which he is contractually obligated to do.
    What might make a difference is where the bigger guy got the funds to loan or sell the payee, but how I don’t know. The payee’s hands, at least when the payee is a small fry, are clean imo since he has no way to know that I know of from where the funds actually came. He had a contract which said he was either getting a warehouse-type loan from, or else buying the money from, the bigger guy. Until NG defeats those contracts, I’m staying fwiw on there was a legit loan made by the payee. The devil is in the details of what was done next in those instances, like lack of legit transfer down the line and ultimately to a trust (were the transfers merely book entries? did they happen at all?
    any moolah ever change hands?) Or if a BofA or a WF were the payee (because they originated a loan), that might be a time when the payee knew the source of those funds, that they were pilfered, if they were.
    The biggest of the numerous problems inherent with that imo is if the pilferer intended to deprive the owner of the funds of their intended benefit (because when money is wrongly used, there are diff levels of offense). That and trust law which as I get it requires the funds go through the trust and not to a closing table.
    lay opinions

  64. Neil- regarding the third leg of offer, acceptance, and consideration, the money: ” we can’t say no one sent it”. But in the context of refinancings, where “the money”, (save for a small cash-out amount), paid off an existing “mortgage”, if all that actually existed at the time of the “refi” was false default debt, written off previously by the lender/bank/master servicer or whomever, then we do not have any idea how much that mortgage/false default debt was or to whom it was paid. But we each get a “satisfaction of mortgage” if we’re lucky, for the false amount, memorializing payment to a third or fourth party. So said ANONYMOUS.
    Sorry, ran out of quotation marks.

  65. NG – you said:
    “Another more complicated reason is that the loans probably do not and could never qualify as a minimum risk investment as the law requires for management of “Stable funds.” Those are fund units managed under strict restrictions because they hold pension money and other types of liabilities where capital preservation is far more important than growth or even income.”

    Wouldn’t that explain the guarantees (on GSE’ loans)? I know the guarantees are a sales’ tool for MBS’s, but I’ve sensed there was more to it and you may have provided the answer. (But we just can’t forget any bogus triple A ratings – what a circus)
    This “Gene” guy dropped in long enough to say the advance payments are loans to the trusts (on non-gse’s, i could only take it), which I can’t believe is kosher, and when asked to explain how a trust could be a borrower, disappeared. He’s probably just really busy. Yeah, that’s it.

    You also said:
    “And the third aspect is the presence in virtually all cases of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (see Neil Garfield on YouTube) BEFORE THE FIRST BOND IS SOLD AND BEFORE THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR LOAN IS RECEIVED. ”

    This reminded me of the “TBA market”, which I just learned of. I only looked at it briefly at the end of a long day, so didn’t get much of it.
    You’re better qualified to address how it’s in play here, so maybe you will. I’ll probably link some info, which doesn’t mean I get it.

  66. There will be a settlement before it reaches the discovery phase, but lets see if the homeowner takes it, or really wants to blow the big scam out of the water.

  67. Javagold you hit the nail on the head, and that is if Fannie Mae did actual own your loan then they (Fannie) would have foreclosed in their name and not as Wells Fargo being the title holder! It cannot work like this no matter how Neil keeps acting as if Osama bin Laden could lend monies as a mortgage lenders.

    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae are not home mortgage lenders!

  68. Wells is supposed to be master servicer to the ” trust” that indymac/onewest were “sub servicer” to. Still doesnt explain the 1099a issued by the ” sub servicer” to a ” trust”
    Think about it. Then trustees deed declares that the ” trustee” to that ” trust” WAS the beny, ( like how and when , a trustee handles the cash FLOW and does not typically have any interest in real estate)

  69. I know Wells Fargo as nothing more than a SERVICER who had no standing to foreclose, yet did on behalf of the so called investor Fannie Mae.

  70. I get Neil wants this theory put into play but that not what going on here because it much simpler than that. This is about who is in title and why because the Notes are blank and placed into these securities.

    Here what you got instead of trying to figure out where the money came from is step over lending rule that a lender must be authorized to lend and if they did give monies for closing it is an invalid transfer action like a Loan Shark trying to use the court to recover its fund from a loan, ain’t going to happen.

    Wells Fargo bigger problem is that they was servicing 1.3 million of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) entire government loans and some conforming loan out of the Milwaukee WI mortgage servicing center. The government loan are placed into Ginnie Mae MBS by WaMu and after Sept 25, 2008 there not a foreclosure of the government loan that can be foreclosed because WaMu is dead.

    What happen is this manual explains how to cover over the fact that there not a lender and to created forged assignment into the name of Wells Fargo who is pretending to be the “holder in due course” but they not got a single receipt that the purchase a single one of these loans, nor does Ginnie Mae or the investors have proof of purchase because the fact is, No Purchase Happen!

    Between Sept 25, 2008 and now there should have been at least 117,000 WaMu forgeries created to have received assignment and foreclosed on properties Wells have no right to have foreclosed of FHA, VA & USDA loans.

    This has been my SEC Whistleblower submitted claim since Aug 2011!

  71. This will undoubtedly end in a settlement! There is no way they can allow Linda Tirelli discovery on this matter, because this could end up being bigger then the whole “robo-signing” fiasco.

    The true question is, if a settlement is offered, do the debtors take it or look to blow up this whole Scam!


  73. i have the wire tranfer from my closing in 2005, and it came in 7 days after we closed on note,mortgage. i believe they used our signature on mortgage note,mortgage to get the funds from feds. and the money OR SHOULD SAY NO MONEY came from DBTC AMERICAS. AND MY MORTGAGE WAS WITH GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. BUT I ALSO THINK GMACM MORTGAGE TRUST WAS AT TABLE AFTER LOOKING AT DOCS CLOSER.




  74. Actually, the entire transaction is fraud and theft on a grand scale.

  75. “The question is whether the “originator” was also a strawman”

    Exactly! The originators are NOT lenders, even though they are recorded as such. They acquired funds from 3rd parties, on your behalf…they are not a party of interest, merely a conduit. You have a broker, originator, buyer, funder (perhaps) or a seller and a wiring entity. And in some cases there are multiple HUDS that have payments entered for approvals, from more than one entity.

    Let the lawyers come at me. Right from the recorders office “originators” working on behalf of you and a ghost entity are named in a legal document. This is not a mere oversight, it is intentional…the lien perfection should not have been accomplished. And the contract is not between you and “A” lender. In my non-lawyer opinion

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: