Fonteno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. California Foreclosure Sale Reversed

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.


In 2011, Wells Fargo foreclosed on the plaintiffs’ residential mortgage loan and purchased their home at a trustee sale conducted by First American. Plaintiffs sued, alleging, that defendants violated their deed of trust’s incorporation of a pre-foreclosure meeting requirement contained in National Housing Act (NHA) regulations and the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The trial court sustained demurrers and denied a preliminary injunction.

The court of appeal reversed, finding that plaintiffs pled viable causes of action for equitable cancellation of the trustee’s deed obtained by Wells Fargo based on their allegation that Wells Fargo did not comply with the NHA requirements incorporated into the deed of trust. Because compliance was a condition precedent to the accrual of Wells Fargo’s contractual authority to foreclose on the property, if, as plaintiffs allege, the sale was conducted without such authority, it is either void or voidable by a court sitting in equity. Whether void or voidable, plaintiffs were not required to allege tender of the delinquent amount owed.

see Fonteno v Wells Fargo 2014-a135577

Editor’s Comment: Just as so many lawyers and homeowners are losing heart, especially in California, the Courts are starting to flux their muscles and giving life to their doubts about the notes, debts, mortgages, deeds of trusts, and foreclosures. As more lawyers fight harder and better, the courts are listening.

There has been a sharp increase in the number of cases in which these alleged loans are challenged at their core. It sounds “counter-intuitive” as Reynaldo Reyes said as VP Asst management for Deutsch. But the fact remains that these are foreclosures on loans without an underlying debt. The debt exists, but it does not underlie the documents used in foreclosure because those documents recited terms and conditions and named lenders and creditors who never loaned the borrower one dime and never paid for one single transfer of a loan.

The debt arises only by operation of law, no thanks to the banks who diverted the money, title and debt from the true lenders (investors) and the true borrowers (homeowners). The investors thought they were loaning money to the REMIC Trust; instead their money was used to fund loans to individual borrowers on terms that were unacceptable to the investors. The lender thus had a different borrower than the bargain and the borrower had a different lender than the bargain. Get it? That is how the intermediary banks made so much money while everyone else lost their wealth, their jobs, their tax base, their income, and their dignity.

And they told a bigger lie to get even more money from TARP and the Federal Reserve under the wrong assumption that this was necessary to save our economic system. We negotiated with terrorists based upon information from the terrorists. And because nobody wants to admit how wrong we got it when dealing with the banks, nobody except here and a few other places is saying what the rest of the population already knows. We got screwed by the banks. Even if we didn’t have a mortgage, we lost things because of the foreclosure crisis.

So then the truth starts to come out first in trickles and then in a flood. The flood is coming. This case stands out because it analyzes each component of the alleged loan documents instead of justifying a predetermined result. The Courts are expressing their frustration and their understanding that there is something very very wrong with these foreclosures.

39 Responses

  1. […] Fonteno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. California Foreclosure Sale Reversed. The court of appeal reversed, finding that plaintiffs pled viable causes of action for equitable cancellation of the trustee’s deed obtained by Wells Fargo based on their allegation that Wells Fargo did not comply with the NHA requirements incorporated into the deed of trust. Same in pdf. […]

  2. I ask you again Charles, “What Harm was done to the borrowers? I hear corrupted titles aren’t in high demand these days. Insurers won’t cover 2ndry market n servicer errors. But then again the Note says this and the mortgage says that, making it unenforceable. The Note is the contract, enforce it. Oh wait… Its to late for you to do that, Someone else blew the whistle years earlier to GM. You are living in La La Land.

  3. Rock and mycookiejars, read Neil new posting! Here is the problem that Attorney Rock is that the owner of the debt who also holds the Note can do whatever they want as far as assigning the Note in blank and relinquishing it to whom ever, however they could do this a relinquish to the Mob or Nazis who are not lenders and cannot act as lender and cannot legally service the loan, because they are not authorize to act as!

    So what the UCC says is that they who are not the originator must simply been the Note and receipt of “Purchase”! Unlike a check that endorse to you by who the check is made out to you have a signature from who the check is made out too, and then you sign or deposit the check in to the account, however if there is a question by the payee to whether the transaction is legal you need the person that assigned the check over to you to bare witness of this transaction, as you word is not good enough.

    What is a must with a blank Note is that if you calling a Note due is that you must be “holder in due course” or working for the originator of the loan who is still in possession of the Note. Once you give over the Note you have relinquish any and all financial interest in the loan. Plus in the case of Ginnie Mae MBS there is signed a HUD 11711A that conveys to Ginnie Mae any and all financial interest of the “failed bank” which WaMu was on Sept 25, 2008 as IndyMac was seized a month before that.

    So the problem in the transaction is that it by Ginnie Mae rules that it cannot and does not purchase any home mortgage loans. So when WaMu fails the securities should have been determine in default, but the reason it not is because Ginnie Mae cannot foreclosed because the Note is blank and there no proof of “Purchase”!

    So now we got a break in chain of ownership even under MERS rules because WaMu who is the last signer on the Note, and is the issuer of the securities is no longer authorized to do banking business and is no longer a member of MERS. MERS in there BS system can only act for a valid bank/lender which WaMu is no longer after Sept 25, 2008.

    So people are in court on Sept 26, 2008 til the present and Wells Fargo is having an assignment placing them in title as the owner of the debt, but as I made Wells Fargo admit in a Mar 6, 2012 letter that in fact they were not the “holder in due course” and stated they were acting on behalf of Ginnie Mae who was the investor. Ginnie Mae replied in there Oct 2, 2012 said that they don’t originate, purchase or sell a home mortgage loan. In Ginnie Mae Jul 30, 2014 letter to me they are trying to say that it was Wells Fargo who placed my loan into the Ginnie MBS in Aug 2003, but Wells Fargo is saying they were only the servicer who had no knowledge about my loan until they started servicing it on Dec 1, 2006 and included the Dec 1, 2006 Welcome letter that they were taking over from WaMu!

    It is what it is and Neil and gang slow have been getting up to speed. Why do you think that Ginnie Mae stop Wells Fargo, BOA and the rest from transferring their Ginnie Mae pooled loans recently and requested titles on all the loans? Because they are caught!

    Never doubt!

  4. The differances between you n me are you lost your home because you focused on the seperation of the note n debt, while I focused on the seperation of the note n mortgage, the theft n corruption of title and I’m stll in here. … Ulumni State Title Closings

  5. Mr. Reed, you keep posting comments about matters you clearly don’t understand. You keep saying: “You cannot foreclose as the holder when you don’t own the debt,” when courts all over the country hold that you can. Do you think if you keep saying over and over it will come true?

    Anyone with any legal acumen whatsoever, knows that under the Uniform Commercial Code, a note is a negotiable instrument (just like a check), freely transferable by endorsement to a specific entity or by physical delivery of the note endorsed in “blank” to a new party, who becomes the “holder” of the note. The holder of the note (or check) WHETHER OR NOT HE IS THE OWNER of the instrument can enforce it. Thus the party who “holds” the note has standing to enforce the note. This is no different from a check. You can receive a check payable to you and then endorse it by signing the back. If a check is payable to you, your signature on the back makes the check enforceable by any person in possession.

  6. Personally I would think one would have to hold legal title before they can warrant it and deposit it into trust… Wouldn’t you think? Trustee Deed alone is not sufficient, the trust agreement must also be filed.

  7. Ttitle was taken prior to default and deposited as capital. Into Plenders funding co,

  8. So Charlie. Who is the beneficiary n hidc the holders proclaim to represent? Inquiring minds want to know.

  9. Rock it is true that a servicer can proceed and foreclose FOR the “holder in due course” but they are acting for the “holder in due course” and not as the “holder in due course” and if that owner of the debt have has not transferred the Notes, which does get transferred in every single $1.4 trillion in Ginnie Mae securities, then the originator does not have to show proof of ownership. Why they don’r have to show proof of ownership is because they originated the Note!

    So let take a IndyMac FHA after they were seized and alleged to be sold to the investor that purchase the asset of that bank. The loan that were already in a Ginnie Mae MBS have already relinquish the blank Note to Ginnie Mae as the underlying collateral, and because the Note is in blank and in the possession of Ginnie Mae, it cannot be re-endorsed because Ginnie Mae is not on the face of the Note, and did not purchase the loan and therefore cannot endorse the Note to this new investor, because IndyMac already drawn on the line of credit and that amount is what the Note is suppose to be the collateral for.

    So in the summer of 2008 in CA that $300,000 FHA loan, is attached to a $150,000 property due to the declining value, and IndyMac has drawn $250,000 against the securities, leaving a $100,000 deference. So who taking the loss of the $100,000 because your saying the alleged new owner purchase that debt. Do you assume that the new alleged lender is paying the FHA the $250,000 for a loan that going to be foreclosed at $150,000 and a $15,000 insurance claim from the FHA MIP plus there are attorney fees on this case! Who making that deal.

    Did you not watch 60 Minute on Apr 3, 2011 and understand the Jan 2012 Foreclosure Settlement with the 49 State Attorneys. I get it that your not making any monies doing foreclosure cases, but if you understand what the banks are settling $17bn, $13bn, $7bn, and $1bn is not because Fannie and Freddie the industry leaders were duped into buying billion of dollar in back loan that made up their MBS! Really these experts did not review the loans being purchase and without a trial the bank are simply paying billions?

    Can there be additional lenders? Yes, but it involve a simple sale where monies are exchange and were it is required that the Note and a receipt be presented. However because once you have a blank Note that leave the hand of the originator, it becomes impossible to further endorse the Note because the allege entity that the blank endorsement was done for is not recorded anywhere as owner of, which puts a missing link in the chain of ownership and taxes and fees not paid to the counties.

    If your theory was correct them there was no need for DocX to create 1 million forgeries and sale them to all the large banks now making settlement with the Justice Dept. Look at BOA settlement and the fact that Justice required that all investor FHA loans in trouble, be given 2% permanent interest rate and reduce principal balances to 75% is saying that the BOA does not own these debts, because this would have been private fund of the lender that the loans were funded. As long as the lender does not sale the properties to the FHA or VA and submit an insurance claim there is no harm to the Federal Government because the loan are only written to the government standard but are not and are never owned by the Fed Gov!

    Read Szymoniak new case where she talks about what MERS has done, and the reason I believe the Fed Gov did join her is because they want to handle this in settlement instead of discovery being done, and MERS is a creation of these agencies alone with the banks, plus she did not have a direct knowledge of the corruption herself as she never worked for a client with this problem or worked for the Fed Gov. Szymoniak is hoping lighting strikes twice, but with DocX her loan was handled by DocX, which she discovered after one of her clients had brought that information to her. So I am sure the Fed Gov is dealing with this problem that was identified by the Independent Foreclosure Review Board hired companies that were covered up by the Federal Reserve Bank and OCC, but been exposed by the GAO that said of the 56% of BOA files reviewed there was a 24% error rate that cause the homeowner financial damage.

    You cannot foreclose as the holder when you don’t own the debt. So BOA can as a servicer for Wells, but it cannot place itself in title as the owner because Wells is the owner, plus there no need to do this if Wells is in tilte. BOA is simply pushing the paperwork and like Wells is not in the court personally with the CEO of the bank on hand, because like an attorney that represent you, but they are not you and the case is not Mr. Attorney v. Wells Fargo but is Charles Reed v. Wells Fargo!

  10. Loans are pooled together because they are alike ie same type, rate and term! So there not going to be some solo batch of FHA loans to be able to batch together. These loan must be handled by FHA approved servicer and even to originate then there were not a lot of broker doing these loan because they were not approved and would not have the processing or underwriting staff to originate.

    Why do you think that so many FHA qualified borrowers were steered into subprime loans? It because not any clown with a mortgage sign could produce government insured loans!

    Even the bank that originated my loan did not have the loan servicing ability to service the VA loan so it was know that the loan was going to be sold to WaMu or it would not have received an insurance coverage because the loan would not have been service correctly. The Government not paying out a claim if they loan not properly been service, and without a certified staff how can you made the claim of properly servicing!

  11. Mr. Reed, the law isn’t what you wish it to be. The law is clear, you have no clue what you are talking about. You need to stop trying to mislead homeowners into arguments that will cause them to lose their homes.

    White v. IndyMac Bank, FSB, No. 09-00571, 2012 WL 966638, at *7-8 (D. Haw. Mar.20, 2012) (recognizing a servicer can foreclose on behalf of the beneficial owner of the loan); Kan v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 823 F. Supp. 2d 464, 470 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (dismissing suit for failure to state a claim where one of the arguments was that the mortgage documents were robosigned and therefore somehow invalid); Van Hauen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 4162138 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 4322518 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2012) (“Courts in Texas have repeatedly recognized that Texas law allows either a mortgagee or a mortgage servicer to administer a deed of trust foreclosure without production of the original note.”) ; Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:1D-cv-08185-ODW, 2012 WL 3426278, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13 2012) (holding that “[w]ile the allegation of robo-signing may be true, . . [the plaintiff] lacks standing to seek relief under such an allegation, noting that “District Courts in numerous states agree”); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Rufo, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2012-A-0011, 2012-Ohio-5930, ¶41; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Loncar, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 174, 2013-Ohio-2959, ¶17 (“in a foreclosure action, the holder of the note, regardless of whether it has been assigned the mortgage, has standing not only because it is the party entitled to enforce the instrument, but because it also has an equitable interest in the mortgage”); Citimortgage, Inc. v. Patterson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98360, 2012-Ohio-5894, ¶21 (holder of the note has standing to foreclose). Thus, appellee acquired an equitable interest in the mortgage when it became a holder of the note, “regardless of whether the mortgage [was] actually (or validly) assigned or delivered”; (Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1507.) (“Because a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, a borrower must anticipate it can and might be transferred to another creditor. As to plaintiff, an assignment merely substituted one creditor for another, without changing her obligations under the note.”).

  12. iwantmynpv 95% of FHA loans are Ginnie Mae pooled as Ginnie Mae MBS are insured at 100% of the original principal investment. There is that 5% that not Ginnie pooled.

    This is the reason the FHA took as of Dec 2012 a $70 billion loan losses! Government insured loans were not just placed into any type of securities, because not everybody is authorized to handle these loans.

    It the same with VA loans!

  13. Anybody fighting the fight don’t listen to this would be lawyer who have not won any cases and only want to stop you from winning against the bank.

    What I am talking about in “holder in due course” is a bigger DocX/LPS case that all these banks/servicers were holding the Notes as the custodian of records, but needed DocX to forge 1 million assignment which Lorraine Brown the founder of the company has admitted to doing and is in prison as we speak.

    Lynn Szymoniak received an award for exposing this crime. Now she is on board with me in her recent lawsuit claiming that MERS has done the same in the $10 billion case that was filed in Feb 2014.

    This is no different that having a auto title and someone has possession of it, but they cannot sell the auto if they are not on the TITLE as the owner or creditor. When you take out a auto loan that title is in your name with the lender as the lender of the auto loan, so you cannot sell the auto without the lender signing off on the title. If another lender want to repossess the auto they must have purchase the debt from the lender on the title as the creditor.

    What sense does it make for someone who not got a financial interest in the loan to be able to take action against you? However if the holder got an financial interest it should be no problem providing a receipt were you purchase the debt. However this is the problem, that the holder has not provided any monies to buy the debt, so they got no claim. Its that simple, where one other than the originator must simply provide the proof in a process check, wire or another form electronic transfer. These are financial institutions who jobs are to account for money transactions!

    Symoniak already stuck gold because the lender could not provide ownership and simply holding the Notes as the custodian of records is a duty of holding the physical possession, because it unrealistic to have Ginnie Mae travel the 50 States collecting these blank Notes, and the change of losing them in the mail is great as these Notes are blank, and just look at the clown here talking about because a non financially interested entity has the right to foreclose?

  14. Charles, millions of FHA Insured loans are securitized as tranches in private label pools. In fact. many mortgage securitization trust may have entire tranches cut out just for GSE Qualified Loans and completely separate tranches that include HUD insured loans.

    A note indorsed in-blank as a bearer instrument under UCC 9 and the only viable argument is limited to remuneration value.

    All of these mortgage schemes are set up as “silo funding”, and that is why the Depositor never conveys the notes to the trustee..

    The certificateholders do own the cash flow produced by the loans in the pool that encompass each individual tranche, the mbs, a portion of the residual certificates, the guarantees, collars and swaps.

    If you look into the actual trust for answers, you’ve already gone too far.

  15. Mr. Reed, you’re wrong again. You clearly don’t know the difference between a “holder” and a “holder in due course.”

    Moreover, you really need to learn some law before posting such ridiculous arguments and continually making yourself look stupid.

    The Bankruptcy Court held that: “as ‘holder’ of deed of trust note, loan servicer had authority under Washington law to prosecute nonjudicial foreclosure.”

    In re Christina E. BUTLER, 2014 WL 3360481 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Wash.)

  16. DwightNJ it sound like your loan was broker through Washington Mutual (WaMu), and your loan was first being serviced out of Milwaukee by WaMu until they sold the SERVICING right to Wells Fargo on Jul 31, 2006. Now if you did not have a FHA or VA loan and had a Fannie Mae program loan then in that transaction your loan could have been purchase by Wells.

    However if they are going to modify your loan then yes they would demand to have you put them as the first lien position on that policy. Wells Fargo is entering into there negotiation with the Justice Dept and they not been doing modifications in violation of the HAMPs agreements, as the State of NY is also suing them because of this failure.

  17. Mycookiejars go ahead finish what you started to write please.

    Needcaselaw there is a depo on Reyes you can find it at msfraud.

  18. I’m 10 days out from my foreclosure case beginning with a first appearance and my servicer Wells Fargo calls to say they suspended the foreclosure and are putting together a modification … now I get a letter from them asking for a copy of my townhouse units homeowner insurance policy so that they can include it into deal, but they want me to make sure that my policy names them Wells Fargo as the first mortgage mortgagee and beneficiary … so I look at my policy and find the section where the owner/lender/ mortgagee is listed and it says that my mortgagee is some “Trust Bank in Ohio” .. ?? Never even noticed this before … my refinance was table funded by Commerce Bank and then sent to Washington Mutual Bank .. I was never told what happened to my Note in all those years as Fannie Mae kept the details hidden from me … Wells Fargo took over as servicer when WaMu was about to go under … and now they are asking me to change my homeowners insurance policy so that their name appears as the Mortgagee Lender ?? Is this normal .. or am I being played by them in order to make that old Trust info disappear from the document? Now I better research that Trust Bank that’s been listed as my mortgagee all this time without me knowing about any of this. I’ll bet this is where my Note disappeared into the abyss .. my wife googled the name of the Trust Bank and it says it went out of business several years ago and its assets were sold to a different Trust bank in New York .. my gut tells me that Wells Fargo is up to something and it’s not good .. telling me they want to offer me a modification .. and then telling me to hurry up and put their name as the mortgagee of record on my homeowner insurance policy ?? Anyone know what they’re up to ??

  19. Charles, Charles, Charles. Never Mind.

  20. Gene I want to thank you for not knowing anything, because the reason BOA was offering to buy back the 150,000 loans is because of the Note and debt issue, but also understand that if you don’t own the debt you don’t and cannot have a lien/deed of trust/title.

    I may not be the best writer but your not paying attention to the cases because the courts are realizing that the pretender cannot be in title as the owner of the debt, it they don’t purchase the debt.

    I don’t need to search state by state as to what the statutes are because I am dealing with a singular entity in Ginnie Mae pooled loan who are using UCC3 and UCC9 to conduct their securities.

    Gene I get what you are and that is a person that does not want to solve the issues and you want to discourage people here, but I am to far along in the battle and will win, because none of this is too complicated, and these is about common sense. You got to originated or purchase debt to own debt! No one can take your place, as your either the owner or you not!

  21. Charles,

    You threw me on the 150k loan repurchase. That was an offer that was made, but was not a part of the Settlement Agreement. That is why I look to the Settlement Agreements in each case, and not what a reporter writes.

    The rest of what you write is incoherent. If you are going to post, at least make it readable…….

    BTW, I would suggest that you spend time in reading available court cases across the country, and then the State Statutes that apply. It might give you a better understanding of the legal framework and why your arguments about the Note and Deed have no validity.

  22. Rock a holder cannot foreclose and that all the cases that are winning here lately and is why Massachusetts is going to over turn 65,000 title and Maine Supreme Court just ruled this way.

    A hold in these cases is the custodian or records and can only do what the “holder in due course” direct it to do. Now you maybe thinking that the “holder in due course” authorizes the servicer to foreclose, but only the owner of the debt can foreclose. You need to learn the law.

    Anyone can hold the Note, yet if they are not rightfully the owner of the debt as in they originated it or purchase the debt as a lender they cannot act as a lender. Take Ginnie Mae who we know is holder of the Notes of the Ginnie Mae MBS, however they tell you that they have not purchase the Note and cannot purchase the Note. Look on file anywhere in the country and Ginnie Mae is not in title as owner!

    You may be a Lawyer but this is why this crisis continues because your bad at your job!

  23. Wrong again, you obviously don’t know the difference between a “holder” and a “holder in due course.”

    A “holder” can foreclose on a homeowner.

    BTW, you should learn some law before you continue to embarrass yourself.

  24. Rock are you serious? You just jump the shark, if you think that any one other that the “holder in due course” can foreclose on a homeowner. The servicer if they are not the owner of the debt have the ability to foreclose because they are not on the Note.

    Look it not like the CEO of BOA has to travel to Hawaii and foreclose in person, as it given the servicer to act for them or an attorney to act for them, in there name. If bank A not listed on the Note, then bank A cannot simply foreclose on any home it says it owns. There must be a proper execute Note in order to take action.

    Attorney Act for people but not in there names as when you go to court. It not ABC Law Frim v. Jones, but it Reed v. Jones!

    When you sign a check on someone else account you have to have permission but the checking account does not turn into your account, as it remains the account holders account.

  25. To say that just because an assignee is not on the note, they can’t foreclose is more than absurd, it borders on insane.

  26. Rock a Note is the contract and if someone who is not listed on the contract/Note them they got no financial interest in the loan. So we are attacking the contract by showing the court that these clown don’t exist on the legal contract/Note!

  27. Since we got sidelined by the securities nonsense, I didn’t get a chance to comment on the case itself.

    Again, if you understand the case, they attacked a problem within the contract. Attacking the contract is the ONLY way the homeowner can be compensated. Not all of the rhetoric and useless stall arguments propagated by the securitization audit scammers & legal gurus that have never won a case.

  28. Gene google NYT Bookdeal: Bank or America Raises it Mortgage Settlement Offer. What occurring is that these guys are caught, as Suntrust settlement they admitted to not modifying government insured loans (FHA & VA). Now with the BOA deal the lender is required to permanently give a 2% interest rate and reduce the principal balance to 75% Loan to Value (LTV) of the investor held government insured loans (FHA, VA, USDA).

    The hand is showing itself because if the lender was the actual owner of the loans they could not be force to refinance these loans because the banks funded the loan with their own money. Now of the government insure loans are actual owned by the government and are only meeting the loan program standards.

    Gene you ask of BOA and wanting to repurchase, and the are referring to Fannie & Freddie who are caught were they cannot simply now have these banks foreclose in the banks names, and the banks were suppose to have actual purchase the loans and the bank was suppose to have everything in order to record at the local land recording offices, but to not record unless it was needed.

    For one it save recording fees, and if the ex-lender can simply proceed without have to submit assignment, what was the harm. Now my deal is with Ginnie Mae, so I not investigated that far in all the Fannie and Freddie deals. But Ginnie Mae I am all over that because it involve me personally.

    Ginnie Mae unlike Fannie and Freddie never purchase the loans, so we know in each pooled government insure loan that there is absolutely a separation of the Notes and debt, because it is required in all cases. What happen here is Ginnie Mae is aware of the fraud, and it sit by and watches the servicers/banks submit Forged assignment in the case of Countrywide and Washington Mutual Bank that handled by Wells Fargo Bank, because they know for a fact that these two banks stop existing as bank at the end of 2008. There no way possible on earth for BOA or Wells to every purchase the loan as the blank Note were in the possession of Ginnie Mae that was holding the loan for the underlying collateral of the Ginnie securities!.

    This deal is done and with each deal you can see them addressing the issue but its in code, so that the homeowner are still left in the dark, so that the advantage is still held by the bank as to what exactly took place! I mix on part of it because I realize that most household don’t have the money to fight, but I do see away to handle this crap and provided needed relief for not only those foreclosed but for those still in the process.

  29. After having read all comments – very good you guys, regardless of who is right you’re getting the discussion out there and backing it up – I relized the “Charles” referenced is not Garfield. The cites I am requesting are those supporting the Garfield analysis, e.g. what is the source of “as Reynaldo Reyes said as VP Asst management for Deutsch.”?

  30. Mr. Garfield – this is wonderful stuff, but I concur with the comment below – the case has value by itself, but it would be much more helpful to all if you would provide citable sources for the analysis, rather than each reader having to start from scratch to find it themselves. If you have the cites, please include.

  31. Charles,

    Please provide evidence to back up your claim

    “Why do you think that BOA offer to buy back 150,000 loan that they said they could not modify because the loan were held for the underlying collateral of the securities.”

  32. Rock I don’t know where your coming from, but all the Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae MBS are about home mortgages loans. Yes it true that the home mortgage loan itself is not the securities but the Notes are being held supposedly as the underlying collateral.

    So in the case of Ginnie Mae MBS the Note are required to be signed in an blank endorsement and relinquished to Ginnie Mae who appoints a custodian of records.

    So the Notes are not a part of the securities but the monthly payments go through a pass through payment system to pay the investors of the securities.

    Why do you think that BOA offer to buy back 150,000 loan that they said they could not modify because the loan were held for the underlying collateral of the securities.

    At this point and billions have been settled and you don’t get the scheme you hopeless. While your saying what you cannot do the Federal Government is cutting these side deal and the attorneys are being cut out of the monies because your not smart enough to figure which way is up.

    There is truth that there are attorney that graduate last in their class at some off brand law school!

    Notice all the payout are mostly not attorneys but just regular whistleblower accept Lynn Szymoniak and she alleged to have taken her information from her client, who by the way is suing her!

  33. Wrong again, the Supreme Court made clear, notes secured by mortgages on a home ARE NOT “securities.” Reves v. Ernst Young, 494 U.S. 56, 65 (1990).

  34. Ginnie Mae publication tells you that they do not originate, buy or sell any home mortgage loans, and if the investor is buying the byproduct in the securities the is no exchanging of a lien, as the lien would make the securities investor a mortgage lender who would need to be endorsed on the Note in order to be the “holder in due course”!

    Show the receipt of purchase, as your name appears nowhere on the contract/Note!

  35. Rock your talking about a security instrument and not a Note or the debt. UCC9 allows a originator to not have to provide proof of purchase if they are in possession of the Note. However when the Blank Note is not in the possession of the originator of the loan, then they must provide proof of purchase.

    An investor of a securities is not purchasing a home mortgage loan but is purchasing the securities itself, which is the performance of the loan. The Ginnie Mae investor is not taking the risk of purchasing mortgages, and is insured at 100% of it principal invest balance for securities and not a home mortgage loan that was made at $250,000 and not that property now worth $75,000 in Atlanta!

  36. Wrong again, Official Comment 9 to UCC § 9-203 makes it clear: “Subsection (g) codifies the common-law rule that a transfer of an obligation secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property also transfers the security interest or lien.”

  37. It not about the title being split but the Note is split from the debt which is the problem the lenders are having. The title comes into play because the party that holding the blank Notes don’t hold the debt and therefore there cannot be a proper title. If the lender did not endorse the Note in blank and relinquish them, then I would say that still title was in the proper hand. However that there is an exchange under UCC3 without a purchase, but clearly transferring the Note, you got a problem!

    This is not about simply failing to record a title with can be done any thing as long as the “holder in due course” is still the “holder in due course”, however this is not the case and just look at the Washington Mutual Bank bankruptcy were the 1.3 million government insured loans in the Ginnie Mae pools are not claimed as assets and there was not a purchase that occurred!

  38. Again, someone who obviously doesn’t know or understand the law on this subject:

    Johnson v. Homecomings Financial, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011) (refusing to recognize the “discredited theory” that a deed of trust ” ‘split’ from the note through securitization, render[s] the note unenforceable”).

    This is the major reason homeowners keep losing their homes, they listen to so-called gurus who have no clue what they’re talking about!

  39. Here the problem and it is what have I been saying about Wells Fargo for over 3yrs here, but Neil like other attorneys cannot see the forest because of the trees.

    The mother load which I know is coming is that Wells Fargo on Jul 31, 2006 started illegally mortgage servicing 1.3 million WaMu places Ginnie MBS loans. Now because WaMu was a “failed bank” on Sept 25, 2008, it exposed the fatal flaw in the Ginnie MBS system and that is that the lender/issuer separates the Notes, debts and titles forever as the debt get wipe clear because the Notes no longer holds it!

    You got Notes that can not longer be Notes because the the lender does not hold the both, which not only make the Notes in not a Note, but because there is the separation there is no lien on the properties!

    All the WaMu customers are under the impression that Wells Fargo purchase the loans, which is not the case. Wells Fargo did not purchase the debt and has no claim of the Note being due! I figure at less 98,800 illegal foreclosure of WaMu loans along during 2009-2010!

Contribute to the discussion!