Why Deutsch Lost So Badly — Because They Should: Neil Garfield Show Tonight 6pm

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

For assistance or information regarding your loan or foreclosure, collection attempts and other notices of delinquency, default or demands for payments, Attorneys and Borrowers may call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We provide expert witness consultation, testimony, reports and litigation support with a complete team that will produce memoranda, discovery and motions as well as preparation for trial, motions in limine, suggested voir dire and direct examination and cross examination questions.


There are several important things about the decision from the first District Court of Appeal in Florida filed on October 14, 2014. Some of them have already been discussed in recent articles on this blog. But I think the most important thing that this case clearly illustrates is that while a lender can win a foreclosure case, a pretender lender cannot win and doesn’t belong in court. One layer down from that is the real key to justice for homeowners, to wit: the assumption that the homeowner received a loan from the originator is generally wrong. If it was right, each transfer, endorsement or assignment would be as a result of the transaction in which the loan documents were purchased for value in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. That would mean that the end of the chain claimed by the foreclosing party would be a holder in due course. And that would mean that all of the suits in foreclosure would consist of either the original lender, who actually made the loan, or a successor who actually paid to acquire it. There wouldn’t be any valid defenses other than payment.

The Deutsche case shows that there are essential flaws in the alleged securitization process.  These flaws consist of violation of New York State law, the provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement, and the reasonable expectations of the investors who thought that their money was going into a REMIC trust. This also includes the intentional withholding and nondisclosure of other parties who are involved in the alleged origination of the loan and who were paid fees to act as though they were participants in a standard mortgage transaction. This act is what the Deutsche case highlights. Court found that pretending to be a lender is not the same as being a lender. The tone of the decision in the case a significant degree of displeasure with both the banks and their attorneys.

The actions and non-actions by Deutsche before and during the lawsuit clearly illustrate the fact that securitization was a myth. Adam Levitin calls it “securitization fail” which is a generous assessment of what was done with the investor money and how borrowers were lured into deals that were catastrophes waiting to happen —  to the benefit of the underwriting banks that were creating trades using money that belonged to the investors, bonds that belong to the investors, and false notes and mortgages referring to a debt that never existed. This is the part that is most difficult for both borrowers and their attorneys. They know that money was at the closing table. What they don’t is whose money appeared at closing. It was of course the money of investors that was illegally diverted it from the trust that issued the mortgage-backed securities.

We will discuss the Deutsche case other things tonight along with questions and answers on our radio show.

16 Responses

  1. Can someone tell me what this type of filing means in laymans terms SEC 15d-6

    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

    FORM 15


    Commission File Number 333-122688-17

    Residential Asset Securities Corporation, as depositor for RASC Series 2006-EMX1
    (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

    8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Suite 250,
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437,
    (952) 857-7000

    (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
    registrant’s principal executive offices)

    Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1

    (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)


    (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
    under section 13 (a) or 15(d) remains)

    Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
    provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

    Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i) |_|
    Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii) |_|
    Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i) |_|
    Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii) |_|
    Rule 15d-6 |X|

    Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice
    date: 3

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
    Residential Asset Securities Corporation, acting solely in its capacity as
    depositor for the above-referenced Trust, has caused this certification/notice
    to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

    Date: January 11, 2007 By: /s/ Mark White
    —————————— ——————————
    Name: Mark White
    Title: Vice President

  2. Statue of Limitations on Failure to Prosecute the Note. But the taxes?

  3. Cookies .. I wish you would communicate in complete, full sentences. I’m really interested in knowing what you’re saying, but it’s hard when you abbreviate all your thoughts. Sometimes you have to break it down and write it out and dumb it down for novices like myself , I’ll use it if I can understand it. Thanks.

  4. QQ. State S.0.L. Failure to ? Estoppel. One action rule, Security 1st. Contract Law: Breech of Contract. Close Escrow? File the ?

  5. “because they all use the same tailor”

    Yup, hanging neither left nor right, but tucked safely away between the crack…in other words no balls. At least not visible to the naked eye…

    Valid contracts do not exist and that’s the bulls eye. The “intent” to deceive is glaring and the entire free world is subject to theft of their property, even when paying someone dutifully!

  6. “Why has this not been argued before the Supreme Court ?”

    Because they all use the same tailor.

    What they’re counting on, and for good reason, is that it’ll take years for the legal system to get the core issues, so long as the tactics the judiciary is using continue. Slowly….inch by inch. So what we’ll be left with is finally a successful operation technique, albeit with millions and millions of dead patients, with zero chance of sorting it out.

    At which point a legislative “global” solution will deem all is well, bells will toll, and the banks win yet again. They always do. Until we truly get that Sachs and Morgan et al rule the land from their ivory towers, we’ll continue on as their pawns.

    Our deceitful leader once remarked how he was all that was stranding between the bankers and the pitchforks, when in reality, he was standing with them all along, and we’ve never carried any implements. Until we do, we’re just pissed off slaves itching for a whooping.

  7. E.ToLLe … your first comment hit the real problem. This is not and never has been about us needing to hone our legal arguments or how we need to articulate to the Judge how we were wronged. They don’t care. The are well aware of what happened. they don’t really need or want our exercise in futility in their court rooms. Their decisions are already made. So yes, we have a completely different problem on our hands. Our own government and justice system has conspired to deny an entire class of citizens their rights and due process. They have deliberately and willfully disregarded the laws, and are ruling against the homeowners despite the laws being squarely in favor of the homeowners. Supposedly the Justice system is not allowed to create new law from the bench, but this is what’s happening. They are creating case law for each other to follow, that is based on bad law.

    Why has this not been argued before the Supreme Court ?

  8. Whasa’ matter you? You got some kind of peonage aversion?

  9. Let the banks fail and use the little banks instead. Keep bailing them out, and we just get more fraud, fraudulent documents, wrongful foreclosures, debt slavery, etc.

  10. From the Daily Mash:

    THE UK’s banks have announced their multi-billion pound government bailout for March next year.

    The British Bankers’ Association confirmed that six banks will require billions in public funds to stay afloat following disastrous investments and systematic mismanagement.

    A spokesman said: “What I think threw a lot of people about the last bailout was how sudden it was, so we thought it would polite to give you a warning.

    “The current stock market slide is the beginning of a catastrophic meltdown that will see the economy brought to its knees in six months, so if you could start getting the money together.


    The timing of the collapse and bailout means that the 2014 bonuses will not be affected.

    Helen Archer of Durham said: “I just hope the government’s got enough in the coffers to help out.

    “It’s not the banks’ fault they go bust every eight years.”

  11. MCJ. you’re an idiot.

    In other new, from an NC comment:

    The crux of the matter is this – Can the government do whatever it wants, legal or illegal, in the name of national security? Or to prevent a “collapse”. Or to prevent a “total extinction event”?

    Before we answer – we need to realize that we can never prove them wrong. The actions they take may strip you of your property, your rights, your clothes and leave you on the side of the street eating gruel out of a tin can – and if you dare to complain – they will say you should be grateful to even be alive because things could be a lot worse and you owe them your life. And there is no way for you to argue against that.

    So it boils down further to this: Do we trust that the “folks” in charge are morally upright and genuinely care about the welfare of every American? Because if we do have that trust – we need to believe them when they say we have to sacrifice property, rights, clothes etc in order to survive as a species.

    On the other hand – if the corridors of power are occupied by narrow minded psychopaths who look out for themselves and their gangs, capable of extremely immoral actions if it benefits themselves, and are merely playing everyone else for a fool – we have an entirely different problem.

    REV 2.0

  12. Neil, it sounds like KC n the Sunshine Band made a trip to the Sunshine state and left a perfect size 10 hole in the gr”ass where the sun don’t shine. See the Deutsch bags Run.

  13. Let’s say someone warranted, transferred and conveyed via W.D. Title to a asset funding co. Let’s say the funding co is the pretender lender. Let’s say that KC is not a borrower but a … Oh never mind.

  14. No your Honor I am not a borrower on the Note. Yes your Honor I intended to sign a mortgage and grant a lien, I was led to believe I did just that. But the evidence will show that’s not what happened. Sue for Fraud on the facie and in the inducement. OR Enforce the Contract. Decisions… Decisions.

  15. I wish this process was moving faster. I see the retired judges being user her as well to screw the homeowner.

Contribute to the discussion!