Post Mortum on 2010 “Bad” Decision in Florida

For further information or assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520 405-1688


See CitiBank v Delassio 756 F Supp 2d 1361 2010

This case is often cited by servicers and banks to enforce a note and/or mortgage. Lots of people regarded this decision as “bad” because it approved the foreclosure. The natural impulse is to run from this decision and try to cite others that conflict with it. But this decision was correct AND it provides a blueprint for making your defense successful. The Judge correctly analyzed the law and the facts and found that the homeowner had not proven anything or objected to anything that would prevent Citi from proving its prima facie case and had not proven anything or objected to anything that would have supported any of the homeowner’s defenses.

So I thought I would take this case, as I have done before, and examine it for clues on how the same Judge would have decided the case differently. Used properly this might enable the homeowner to cite to this case in support of a motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment or to attack the prima facie case of the party initiating foreclosure. There are also plenty of clues as to proving an affirmative defense in which the final result will be that the mortgage is void or unenforceable and perhaps the note as well, leaving the debt, which arises by operation of law and is owed to the party who physically gave the borrower the money.

  1. LACK OF JURISDICTION — VOID MORTGAGE AND VOID NOTE: The first issue is that for reasons unknown, the borrower failed to bring up the fact that the “lender” did not legally exist in Florida and further failed to object to the finding that AHMSI and  American Brokers Conduit were “one in the same [sic]”. In fact, I wonder if the case could not still be overturned on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and perhaps even that the mortgage was void, thus depriving the court of both in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction. Perhaps the homeowner did not authorize investigation into the parties. But had he done so he would have found that American Brokers Conduit (the “lender”) did not exist in law or in fact. Any claim that ABC was the alter ego or Trade Name of AHMSI was not explored in the opinion. And as to AHMSI, what difference does it make if they were supposedly the true lender under Florida law? The note and mortgage were both defective and the disclosures were deficient in failing to identify the actual party, which, as we shall see below, would have changed the view of the case entirely.
  2. POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT: The title of the case involves U.S. Bank “as indenture trustee.” By stating that without explanation the homeowner ought to be able to inquire about the indenture, where it exists, and ask for a copy. That would be the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, which makes all arguments about the irrelevance of the PSA moot. Failure to raise the question of where the trustee derived its powers, where the servicer derived its powers, and where the terms and provisions can be found for the duties of the servicer or trustee essentially waives the issue of securitization (false or not). By raising the issue appropriately the homeowner can then inquire as to whether the trust actually owns the debt or is a holder in due course. The holding by the judge in this case that the Trust was a holder in due course was wrong —but not wrong on the facts and admissions by both sides in this case. Hence the decision was inevitable even though the real facts did not support the conclusion. The accepted facts of the case were contrary to the actual facts.
  3. FDCPA CLAIMS: The homeowner settled with AHMSI regarding fair debt collection practices. This might have been a mistake and might have been the reason that the Judge regarded AHMSI and American Brokers Conduit as the same thing. The settlement probably was worded in a way that prevented the homeowner from raising the authority of ABC to assign anything, much less record a mortgage or transfer a note that it could not have funded because it never existed — at least in Florida. I have several cases where the lender is very concerned about the FDCPA claims and needs a settlement. They obviously know that there is danger in those hills and that should be exploited by borrowers when challenging the debt, note, mortgage or foreclosure.
  4. TILA AND RESPA DISCLOSURES: Amongst the agreed facts, the court found that the borrower closed the loan with ABC, and based upon the only issues raised by the borrower, found that the disclosures were proper, and that any discrepancies worked to the borrower’s advantage and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Hence there was no right to rescind either under the 3 day rule or the 3 year rule. Despite the fact that the borrower announced rescission within the 3 years, the court properly found against the borrower. Citi by filing the foreclosure suit, was in substantial compliance with the requirement that it timely file a declaratory action regarding the right to rescind. So if the court had found that there was no closing because ABC did not exist and that the disclosures were inadequate because the borrower raised the issues of disclosing the lender (and avoiding the predatory per se finding by Reg Z), then the same Judge who entered this order probably would have said the rescission right was at least in play and might well have decided, as per the express terms of TILA, that the mortgage was nullified by operation of law by the announcement of rescission. [Note: This issue is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court]
  5. RESCISSION: This in turn leads to the question: if ABC didn’t exist and therefore didn’t actually loan any money then who did? The only thing we can agree on, up to a point ( but that is the subject of another article), is that the borrower did get money and that the receipt of the money is presumed, by operation of law to create a debt in which the borrower is the debtor and the source of funds is the creditor. The failure to disclose a table funded loan or worse, a naked nominee or conduit providing funds from investors who didn’t know how their money was being used, is a material violation of the disclosure requirements in TILA. That is why Reg Z underscores the importance of that disclosure by saying that failure to do so constitutes conduct that is “predatory per se.” And you can prove that by citing to this same case. Hence the rescission would have or at least could have been found to have been complete and the mortgage nullified, thus paving the way for the borrower to get alternative financing,  quiet title or other other remedies.
  6. PREDATORY LOANS: It is unclear what exactly went on at the trial level  with regards to an obviously “trick” loan that fails to disclose its hidden terms in a way that the borrower would any possibility of understanding. The only thing the borrower knew or understood is that he was getting a low interest loan. No reasonable person would sign a loan in which they understood that the interest rate was only good for one month. If you want to win on this point ,though, you need more than the testimony of the borrower. You  need a mortgage broker or other professional that would testify that the loan was unworkable from the start, doomed to failure and was illegally funded from investor funds, and illegally sold to the borrower under false pretenses. THAT is how you prove unclean hands which would prevent enforcement of the mortgage.
  7. UCC: There is an interesting juxtaposition in the “Legal Analysis” of the opinion. The court finds that the Trust was a holder in due course. And this case can be cited for the elements of being a holder in due course. I would encourage foreclosure defense lawyers to do so because you can start out by saying in this case in which the Federal District Court found against the borrower, the elements of the status of holder in due course are summarized. If you go down to the end of the first paragraph in the legal analysis the quote about payment opens the door for your attack against the holder in due course status. Did the Trust prove or show that it PAID for the note and mortgage without knowledge of borrower’s defenses, without knowledge that it was already in default, and in good faith, and did the Trust get delivery (which according to the pleadings, they did not because the note was initially “lost”). Hence the same court that stated that the trust was an HIDC finds that PAYMENT “goes to the heart of the agreement”. If the trust cannot show it paid anything, then two questions arise, to wit: why not? and why did the endorser or assignor of the “loan” transfer or purport to transfer the loan documents to the trust without receiving any payment? If you follow that logic down the line you will corroborate your argument that ABC gave no money to the borrower and that was why ABC never received any money for the transfer of the paper, which now is visible as being entirely worthless, fraudulent and false.
  8. ENDORSEMENT OR ASSIGNMENT IN SECURITIZATION SCHEME: The court correctly states that under the UCC a transferee of negotiable paper can get the right to enforce the paper either by endorsement or assignment. Because the issue was apparently not raised, the court failed to address the issue of whether the enforcement could succeed at trial (as opposed to the pleading stage) if the identity of the creditor is not disclosed. The question at trial or deposition should be, if the witness is from the servicer entity, and assuming the current servicer entity had anything to do with processing payments from the borrower and to the creditor, “who did you pay?” What the court failed to deal with (presumably because the homeowner did not bring it up) is that the party claiming rights (the trustee for the trust) must show that the loan actually went into the trust because it was paid for and properly delivered. If no objection is raised, then the court can correctly presume that those elements are present. If a proper objection is made then the Plaintiff should be required and often is required now to prove the elements of a holder in due course. In cases where my team has been directly involved in litigation the opposing lawyer tried to wriggle out of this problem by declaring that the trust is not a holder in due course and that therefore they had no requirement to prove those elements. They are essentially hoping that the court won’t know the difference between a holder and holder in due course. A mere holder must establish that it has the rights to enforce on behalf of a party who actually owns the debt by identifying that party and identifying the instrument by which the “holder” was given authority to enforce. In the case of a trust that is impossible because by all accounts the trust is the final resting stop of the claims of securitization of loans. So you end up with an empty trust, in which neither the servicer nor the trustee have any legal rights to do anything with the debt created by the borrower when he accepted the money at “closing.” He still owes a debt, and if the opposition would comply with discovery requests we would know the identity of the party to whom he owes the debt. But one thing is for certain, he cannot ALSO owe a second debt created by signature on a note and mortgage made out in favor of a party who loaned him any money. The key to this is emphasizing that a holder must prove the loan in its claimed chain. But the loan will probably be presumed to exist within the chain if the borrower fails to object and raise the issues.
  9. DELIVERY: There is considerable confusion in the case as to the issue of delivery apparently because neither party made an issue about it. The court concludes that Citi got delivery of the loan documents (versus the lost note account that was later abandoned) but fails to show how that delivery constitutes delivery to the trust when the PSA obviously contains strict provisions as to delivery and New York law governing the trust requires any transaction outside the authority stated in the trust to be void.
  10. ECONOMIC WASTE: This decision stands for the proposition that economic waste is a proper affirmative defense, but unless you actually prove it with reliable, credible testimony about facts and documents, merely alleging an affirmative defense and hoping that somehow the opposition will stumble into an admission, is not a very good strategy.

27 Responses

  1. What’s not being spoken of in the NJ ruling UKG posted is the absolute disdain and reluctance of the judge to rule as he did, i.e. for the borrower:

    “The mortgage lien is void … and the debtor retains the property, free of any claim of the defendants,” wrote Kaplan, who expressed reluctance in nullifying the debt. “The court will proceed to gargle in an effort to remove the lingering bad taste.”

    Bias, anyone? And:

    “Kaplan expressed distaste for his own ruling in his written decision.”

    “No one gets a free house,” he wrote. “This court and others have uttered that admonition since the early days of the mortgage crisis, where homeowners have sought relief under a myriad of state and federal consumer protection statutes and the bankruptcy code. [God forbid that borrowers should find protections under uhm…consumer protection statutes.]

    “Yet, with a proper measure of disquiet and chagrin, the court must now retreat from this position, as [the homeowner] has presented a convincing argument for entitlement to such relief.”

    No one gets a free house, even, God forbid, when the banksters have totally screwed the pooch and in reality deserve lengthy prison sentences. It’s this reluctance, en masse and nationwide, that reveals a conspiracy among judges far and wide, akin to the squashing of the occupy movement by the feds a couple of years ago. Does this judge really believe that this extremely narrow cleft in the bankster’s armor, i.e. SOL, will unleash Armageddon on his benefactors? What possible other explanation could there be for his being so loathe to rule for the borrower, when this was a case of simple black letter law?

    And the conservative readers of this paper comment as if their heads have been in the sand for the last half-decade, that the 1. housing crash was due to Barney Frank and the rest of the Dems, 2. he bought a house and got to live in it for free, 3. just because it’s the law doesn’t mean it’s right….

    Sorry Dwight in NJ, I wouldn’t bet the farm with this crowd, whether ruled from the bench or by a jury. Can you say screwed and homeless?

  2. Christine … I only offered that attorney “light duty” because of my dire situation and inability to find a lawyer who has the passion and desire to fight the good fight (to pound home all of the things we have learned over the years regarding the fraud and deception). I figured that I at least needed an attorney who could make sure my procedural aspects were being utilized and being protected from the Judge’s goal of dispensing my case as quickly as he can without allowing me the full due process, and denying me the ability to create a “record” which could be appealed later. The chess match at this point is way above my head in that regard, when you have the Judge working to destroy and undermine your case. So I agree that an attorney is vital, if not only for the fact of protecting your due process.

    Of course after Used Kar Guy posted the link about the New Jersey Bankruptcy Judge retroactively enforcing the old 6 year SOL , and granting the homeowner a clear title .. this needs to be my first issue to look into , as I now feel that I should be allowed the same SOL .

    As far as my expectations? Of course I want to remain in my house if at all possible .. even if that means entering a Modification. Last year when I was in between construction jobs , Wells Fargo put me on a six month modification based on my unemployment benefits (625 wk) and my bills … they had me pay only 25 dollars a month for six months. At the end of that period they sent the payments back to me in the form of a check for 150 dollars .. they never explained why , and have never offered me another modification since, even though I was working and asking for one. I have read in other cases that Judges do not take kindly to banks placing homeowners on plans and then refusing to offer them a real mod even though all the payments were made. I know my payments were ridiculously low, but those were the banks numbers and at the end of the six months they send the payments back? That doesn’t seem right.

    An affordable modification would be deemed a victory , if I can’t win the statute of limitations argument , or win the lack of standing, fraud of the assignment, table funded loan funded by other non-disclosed 3rd party entity , no proof of purchase of the note by any party seeking to foreclose , no holder in due course, WaMu out of business, etc.

    A modification would be better than losing the house.

  3. DwightNJ,

    The only attorney I know willing to just strictly help with procedures is in CA. In NJ, Bruce Levitt won Kemp v. Countrywide and he will fight for you but understand that, despite that big win, a mod is a win unless your case has outrageous evidence of unheard of fraud.

    Helen E. Cooney-Mueller has been able to win motion upon motion to… obtain mods that were impossible to obtain any other way.

    What are you expecting? What do you want to accomplish? What are you looking for? You’ve been on the defensive for 4 years. Rationally, what do you expect? I’m not the enemy. I deal with reality, I put people in touch with attorneys, I tell them how to play their cards and my job is done.

    I wish you the very best. I don’t know your case but you won a heck of a reprieve. Somewhere, you did something right. Convince an attorney to help you forward.

  4. The last attorney I spoke to was out of Atlantic City, Michael Jacobson, he seemed competent and aware of the arguments, but didn’t seem to have the passion to fight .. he seemed beaten down and resigned to the fact that these state court Judges were having none of it .. I told him that I was willing to argue my case regardless of the Judges prior attitudes .. but that I needed help with procedural law , I’m lost with procedural aspects at this point , I need an attorney to help preserve my case for appeal if needed , to be able to know when to object to witnesses or evidence , etc … so he said ok, maybe I’ll assign one of my girls to your case , she’s very smart and maybe we can work something out .. but he never returned my call after that. Maybe I could have been more aggressive by asking for an appointment, he may have not wanted to continue our telephone discussions and was waiting for me to make an appointment. But you are right, I am in deep trouble at this point .. I have the case going to trial , and I have no clue what my game plan should be. Interogs deadline is Dec. 22 .. Depositions ? First trial readiness conference is Jan 22

  5. OK .. I will contact those offices and hope they are willing to help me. I believe I have one of the best cases for a competent, aggressive attorney who is looking for a victory, and to make in-roads and create good case law in the battle against the banks. I just have never found an attorney who is passionate about this .. it’s strictly about making money and telling the client “none of the arguments work” you need to get a modification or file a BK .. this is why I’ve fought the battle myself.

  6. Dwight,

    I have no idea if you can win or not: I only know of your case what you wrote Malik and he declined helping you because he isn’t in your state. Besides, it was a while back and you’ve lost/won/lost since.

    I’ve been coming to LL and trying to help people forever and for free. I was kicked out twice for denouncing bad advice. All I can tell you is this: litigation is not for everyone. Procedures have to be met. It is always better to attack than defend. It is always better to attack in Fed Court than State court. Once too deep in any case as a pro se, get an attorney. I know a few in every state. I can tell you how they operate and based on what.

  7. DwightNJ

    Both will give you the first interview free. Get the exact issues straight and be prepared to spell them out in an hour time, in a Yes/No fashion: (you may get those by e-mail beforehand. Homework. Do it.)

    1) Are you in FC?
    2) Have you filed for BK?
    3) Have you had previous FC filed against you?
    4) Are you in a mod?
    5) Have you ever been in a mod, when and what happened with it?
    6) When did you last pay your mortgage?
    7) What do you expect to accomplish by retaining us?

    The questionnaire may vary in format. You answers may not. And If I know how far back your story goes, everyone does. Stick to the truth and everything that has happened since.

    Dwight, whether you retain an attorney or not, you will have to answer those questions in court. Learn to document and be direct.

  8. Christine .. OK .. thank you .. please accept my apology , I thought you were being sarcastic and just trying to antagonize me.

    Do you think my case has a chance to win? if so , how ? Based on what points? I don’t hear of any lawyers winning in NJ .. would my case stand a better chance ? Based on what ?

  9. Christine … are you saying that your friends whistle-blower website is unrealistic? What is unrealistic?

    He seems to be saying the same things that I’m saying and that most other victims are saying .. what are you saying?

    You want us all to re-group and reassess our positions in a more realistic way?

    Why are you coming across as sarcastic and demeaning ?

    If you have something to say, say it … learn to write your complete thoughts out so that others can understand what you’re saying. You’re speaking in riddles and rhymes with abbreviated innuendo .. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Pretend you’re in court speaking to the Judge , communicate with clarity and use your verbal skills to say exactly what you’re thinking, ok? Nobody can read your mind. Thank you.

  10. DwightNJ,

    You’re way past winning it alone. Contact an attorney, listen and step aside if need be. Bruce Levitt. Helen E. Cooney-Mueller. I know many attorneys. Those are my NJ contacts. Contact them. Tell your story. Listen to their advice. You’ve made mistakes and getting an eviction date set aside once is… just that. Small victory to be proud of. Not enough to win the war.

    LL bloggers won’t give you answers. Don’t spoil your one win. Capitalize on it. Get a capable attorney to move you forward.

  11. Christine .. What would your advice and suggestions be? I’m in the same position as everyone else, a victim of everything described in your friends whistle-blower site regarding everything he writes about. If you have advice or answers please share them. Thank you.

  12. DwightNJ,

    Can you regroup and start really assessing your position realistically?

    You won a reprieve. Once. Where do you go from there (if you have any room to move?)

  13. UKG … I’m in NJ and tried to use this in my own case recently, stopped making payments in mid-2007 , pretender lender assigned thru MERS to the servicer Wells Fargo .. WF filed Foreclosure Complaint Sept. 2007 … Dismissed in Nov. 2011 …. and now again Wells Fargo attempts to foreclose on me in mid-2014 … ?

    So from mid-2007 thru mid-2013 … 6 years had elapsed.

    I just argued in court that the 6 year SOL had run out , and that we are now in the 7th year as WF files a new complaint.

    This was all in my answer to the complaint, and was raised as part of my affirmative defenses and counter claim.

    The attorney for Wells Fargo submitted a Motion to Dismiss my defenses , and regarding the 6 year SOL defense they argued that NJ had passed a new law which now extends the SOL to 20 years.
    That new law was created and passed years after my 2007 case had already started ticking. I felt that I should get the benefit of the retroactive law that was in place when my case started.

    The Judge never allowed me to verbally argue any of this, he just rubber stamped their Motion to Dismiss most of my defenses , the SOL being one of them.

    Why would a bankruptcy Judge see it in favor of retroactive and benefit to the homeowner .. and my Judge in Foreclosure Court says the retroactive protection doesn’t apply to me ??

    New Jersey can’t have it both ways right?

    Do I have grounds to dispute my Judge dismissing my argument that the Statute of Limitations ran out at 6 years due to the fact that my case was already ticking when the new law was written?

    My case is similar to the case in the link .. same time frame 2007 .. and the servicer had their foreclosure case dismissed within the 6 years.
    Now in the 7th year my servicer wants another bite at the apple.

    Can I appeal my Judges decision to dismiss my affirmative defense in which I raised this SOL argument ?

  14. Who Let the Cat Out?

  15. Those who wait on the Lord, they shall mount up with the wings like eagles.

    Is 40:31

  16. Take Two!

    you (1) have been made an involuntarily indentured servant (2) are a serf on what you think is your property (3) are a renter and not a purchaser and (4) will never be able to legally and securely own your home with a clear and legally perfectible Deed after you have made the last mortgage payment on what you THINK is the debt you owe on your Promissory Note.

  17. Shadowcat is Leaving the Room Before Heads Roll.

    Many Blessings to All

  18. ***** if you are a victim of securitization and your property’s Chain of Title is likely destroyed. This destruction means you will not own your home after you make your last mortgage payment. All monies invested in the property have been rent payments and NOT purchase payments used to develop equity in the property.

    .Let’s Get Started
    1. Refer to your Mortgage or Deed of Trust.
    2. “MERS” refers to “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.”
    3. “MIN” refers to “MERS Identification Number.”
    This number is of the utmost import and is the controlling number for your Mortgage or Deed of Trust and Promissory Note from the date of closing through the expiration of the loan term. There is no more important factual indicator that your Mortgage or Deed of Trust has been compromised.
    4. Look for a MIN on the first page of your Mortgage or Deed of Trust. This is an eighteen (18) digit number and is styled MIN XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
    Digits 1 thru 7 identify the OrgID of the lender registered with MERS as a MERS Member. These seven (7) digits are referred to as the MERS Member OrgID.
    Digits 8 thru 17 identify your loan contract number.
    Digit 18 is a single check digit. You need not be concerned with this check digit at this point. It may come into play upon further review and analysis.
    5. The first section of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is the Definitions section. Locate the Paragraph that discusses the definition of Lender.
    6. If your Mortgage or Deed of Trust is a MERS Mortgage, there will be a definition either immediately before or after the definition of Lender which gives a definition for MERS. The definition generally begins with the statement MERS is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
    Page 4 of 7
    7. Refer to digits 1 thru 7 in the MIN Number. Now refer to the two (2) lists of MERS Members and their OrgID’s as discussed above.
    You are looking to determine if the name of the mortgage company you think you have dealt with is listed as a MERS Member on either of the two (2) lists and additionally, if the first seven (7) digits in the MIN Number shown on your Mortgage or Deed of Trust match the seven (7) digit MERS Member OrgID shown on either of the two (2) lists.
    In many instances, these numbers do not match. This means that the mortgage company you think you borrowed the money from was not the true lender and was simply sitting at the closing table as a Table Funder. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM.
    8. Check the section in Definitions that explains the Note. In most cases, the loan number for the Promissory Note will be listed in this section. If the loan contract number is not the same as digits 8 through 17 in the MIN Number, your mortgage has been compromised and likely was sold Prior To filing with the County Recorder’s Office.
    9. If your loan contract number begins with one or more zeros (0’s), there likely is a major problem.
    10. If, on the first page or so of your Mortgage or Deed of Trust is the statement “(Your State Name) – Single – Family – Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac” this means that both your Mortgage or Deed of Trust and Promissory Note have been prepared in accordance with guidelines specified by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to streamline the securitization and sale of the Promissory Note by turning your Promissory Note into Bearer Paper.
    11. If the phrase Uniform Instrument With MERS or MERS Modified Form follows the statement in #10 above, the Mortgage or Deed of Trust and Promissory Note have been prepared in accordance with guidelines specifically dictated for MERS by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to facilitate the securitization and sale of the Promissory Note as Bearer Paper.
    12. Next, go to the MERS website at to see if the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is a MERS Mortgage. MERS Members have the option internally to purchase Non-MERS Promissory Notes and integrate them into the MERS System without you knowing this is being done.
    13. Type in the CAPTCHA code on the screen to gain entry. The letters are case sensitive.
    Page 5 of 7
    14. Single left click on the logon button.
    15. On the next screen, single left click on the radio button to the left of the phrase Search Property Address/Borrower Details.
    16. Next, single left click on the radio button to the left of the phrase Borrower Name, SSN and Property Zip Code.
    17. Next, single left click on the radio button to the left of the phrase Search by Individual Borrower, SSN and Property Zip Code.
    18. In the form box that appears, enter the first and last name of the primary borrower, his or her Social Security Number and the property Zip Code.
    19. Next, single left click on the Search button.
    20. After receiving the search results, read the screen carefully and either print this Page or make a screen shot of it. It should tell you how to identify the current investor.
    21. There is an extraordinarily high percentage of mistakes on the MERS Database, so this information must be further corroborated to assure the highest degree of probability as to its accuracy.
    22. Next, look at your Monthly Mortgage Billing Statement.
    23. If your account number is a ten (10) digit number, you may be a MERS Controlled Customer.
    24. If your account number is a ten (10) digit number with one (1) or more leading digits being zeros (0’s), you are either a MERS Controlled Customer or are highly likely the victim of an in-house securitization and sale by your mortgage servicer.
    25. Next, refer to your cancelled checks used to make your monthly mortgage payments 26. If the name of the business to which you have been paying your monthly mortgage bills changes from one name to another, your Mortgage or Deed of Trust has been securitized and sold unless the change can be verified as having been due to a corporate merger.
    27. Review the front and back of all your mortgage payment checks to identify the ABA Routing Number, the Account Number and/or the ACH Routing/Transit Number of the account depositing your payments.
    28. If any of these three (3) numbers periodically change, you are a victim of securitization and your property’s Chain of Title is likely destroyed. This destruction means you will not own your home after you make your last mortgage payment. All monies invested in the property have been rent payments and NOT purchase payments used to develop equity in the property.

  19. E-Tolle, Did you go back and read the Discovery Link on the site Christine posted? Ut Oh! Ignorance ? Yes. Idiot? NO! That’s You!

    Someone let the Cat out of the Bag

    Scratch! Shadowcat Lives On

    The following Checklist is intended to assist you in making an initial determination as to whether or not your mortgage has been controlled, manipulated, compromised or destroyed.
    If you are like me and millions of other Americans, you (1) have been made an involuntarily indentured servant (2) are a serf on what you think is your property (3) are a renter and not a purchaser and (4) will never be able to legally and securely own your home with a clear and legally perfectible Deed after you have made the last mortgage payment on what you THINK is the debt you owe on your Promissory Note.
    This condition exists because your property’s Chain of Title is likely Broken and you, many years from now when you ultimately realize you have a serious problem, will be unable legally or otherwise, to obtain the documents required to attempt to perfect your position in the property from the True Lender and Mortgagee because that entity will likely have long since been declared “dead” by a Federal Bankruptcy Court as is currently taking place in the RESCAP Bankruptcy being adjudicated in the U. S. Federal Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York.
    This initial review is just that, Initial. However, it is highly indicative that you may be the unknowing victim of illegal activity and fraud that has taken place during the course of your home ownership which likely began at, or prior to, loan closing.
    It has been shown that this initial review has been very accurately indicative in pinpointing broken Chains of Title in thousands of individual mortgages and has been continually corroborated by the complete analyses of many individual’s mortgage documents after having undergone subsequent in-depth reviews.

    Keep Reading >

  20. E.tolle- just kidding about making predictions, just checking to see if everyone is asleep or what.
    It just goes to show that things are more like they are today than they’ce ever been.

  21. Sounds good Christine.

  22. Christine, By Golly Your Friend Gets It! …….

  23. For those looking for information they can use. The site is still under construction but already gives quite a few tools devoid of unsubstantiated theories and empty editorialism.

  24. Nah…not hard to make predictions at all. I foresee that MCJ’s village will locate her soon and have her extradited back to fulfill her position as chief idiot. No one does it better, blithering drool and all.

  25. It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

  26. Those who wait on the Lord, they shall mount up with the wings like eagles. Is 40:31

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: