For Further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
==========================
see http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/ocwen-and-bondholders-clash-over-mortgage-services/?_r=0
And if you are in the mood to drill into Ocwen’s Business, see http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1513161/000119312513024292/d474092dex991.htm
Every once in a while you get a peek at what is really happening behind the scenes. The view from here is startling sometimes even to me. Here we have theater of the absurd. Ocwen is accusing the bondholders of forcing Ocwen to foreclose rather than modify or settle claims regarding the bogus mortgages and the bondholders are accusing Ocwen of bad servicing practices.
Absurdity #1: Bondholders don’t have any say about when or how the mortgages or notes are enforced and don’t know whether the debts followed the notes or mortgages. So Ocwen’s claim is blatantly false in its attempt to point the finger elsewhere. But this is done with probable tacit agreement of all parties concerned.
Absurdity #2: The bond holders still have not figured out or they are ignoring the fact that the loans never made it into the trusts and thus their position as bondholders has nothing whatever to do with the loans.
Absurdity #3: This may have been leaked intentionally to give support to the illusion that the notes and mortgages were valid, not bogus. It’s the Kansas City shuffle — look right while everything falls left.
Absurdity #4: Ocwen is not the Master Servicer — ever. The Master Servicer is the underwriter or some entity controlled by the underwriter of the mortgage bonds. It is the underwriter/Master Servicer who calls the shots, not Ocwen, and the bondholders know that. So why are they accusing Ocwen of something?
Absurdity #5: Ocwen’s position as servicer is governed by the trust document — pooling and servicing agreement for a trust that never actually purchased or received or accepted delivery of the debt, note or mortgage. Thus Ocwen’s authority is derived from an instrument that has no relevance to the loans. If the loans never made it into the trusts, then the PSA has no bearing on the alleged loans. Hence Ocwen is a volunteer with at best apparent authority but no real authority. This is why you are seeing courts order disgorgement of all money paid by the borrower — i.e., forcing the servicer to pay all money received from borrower back to the borrower.
Absurdity #6: The Emperor (the investors) has no clothes. [see one of earliest pieces 7 years ago). Like the old fable, the investors are sitting out there buck naked. Their claim is against the underwriter who never funded the trust in the IPO offering of the mortgage bonds. Other than that they have nothing in the way of a claim, much less a secured claim, in the loans made to the borrowers — even though it was their money that funded the origination and/or acquisition of loans. Since the federal and state disclosure laws were violated as a pattern of conduct, the loans were predatory per se (REG Z), even though the investors neither knew about the loans nor consented to them. Their best claim is against the underwriters/master servicers; but they probably have a partial claim against the borrowers for unjust enrichment, but it would not be a secured claim that could be foreclosed.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: bondholders, Master Servicer, Ocwen, PSA, REMIC, TRUSTS, Underwriter |
There are rules for assignments here in NC, E. ToLLe…and notaries (signatures, not scribbles and if they have first initials they MUST use the entire last name), IMO they are ALL being ignored. As for the paperwork, LOL….which copy? Just because you have papers does not mean they are “correct”, particularly with everything being put on a CD…..manipulations are rampant!
Can anyone really believe what is being presented to these courts? I say not so much. The rules are in place for “all” players, they are being ignored. FACT! Just my foolish opinion here.
E.tolle- I think the key here is that there were to be two (2) “true sales” of the mortgages before they were to enter the alleged, purported, or supposed “trust”. So whether they are recorded or not, that would be a moot point.
“Your honor, we passed the first requisite, can you just look the other way on this one?”. And don’t ask about the origination fraud, that’s off the table as per the 50 state AG settlement. And don’t ask what we did with the borrowers’ apps. After all, they are just trying to get a free house. Deadbeats, the lot of ’em.
@ Gene ,
You Said:
***************************
When I do case consulting for law firms, I have to know the arguments on each side and how courts are ruling. Then I have to formulate the arguments that the attorney will use against the servicer, and I have to be able to show evidence to support the claims. I cannot say that something violates the law without showing case law and documents to support my claims.
***************************
I get it , the “how courts are ruling” line says it all.. the truth doesn’t matter as long as you get the result the client wants, you’re a paid assassin for whoever needs a mouthpiece that can avoid saying the wrong things ,, you can obviously take either side by picking and choosing case law examples ,, most of which in foreclosure cases are taken out of context on the bank side to avoid the simple black and white truths that E. ToLLe stated in his 04:20pm 01/29/2015 post ,,, he is correct, the vast majority of notes were not deposited and you saying it’s OK to flaunt the governing rules doesn’t make it so… to reinforce that argument you fall back on cases between parties (PIMCO , MBS issuers et al) where both sides are served by pretending that the notes were deposited… they can’t afford to muddy the water to the point where the ENTIRE INDUSTRY LOSES CREDIBILITY DUE TO FRAUDULENT PRACTICES THAT HAVE BEEN ON PARADE HERE SINCE 2008.
For Gods sake man ,, we have people here that had businesses scanning and burning notes ,, MILLIONS of notes that could never in a thousand years ever be deposited in compliance with NY law. I myself have the manager of the local Option-One office telling me that they NEVER sent docs to California , they scanned and shredded… and that was for Option One client Bank of America in the dual role of table funder and underwriter… I myself worked for WF home loans in Maitland Florida for a whole 2 weeks in 2004 or 2005 through a temp agency until they discovered that I had a series 7 license and was a multi-engine private pilot, they knew I was not the “caliber” of employee they wanted (they wanted McDonalds level people) … During that time I witnessed sloppiness and internal bypasses to procedures that were unbelievable to me… I personally “fixed” apps and fraudulently “verified” docs… we had files stacked floor to ceiling and the ONLY thing that mattered was pushing them through.
@Gene. I responded to your post about MERS min numbers being the same as loan numbers – which in my case my loan number for Fremont did match the center portion (the 10 digits between the dashes) exactly- is this unusual? Please tell me why if possible -had 2 loans with Fremont when I got my home and from the start it was a mess with Fremont applying the wrong payments to the wrong loan. Requested a payment history for my loan from Ocwen (explained I questioned the accounting of my loan in a QWR)
and finally they responded they were unable to provide information about my payments from the start of my loan – they only had information dating back to when servicing was transferred to litton ( when Fremont went BK). So they were unable to provide me any payment history from 2005 – mid 2008?
Oh good God Gene, I give up. I never once said that a recorded assignment must occur before the loan is lawfully in the Trust. What I did say is that NY trust law is unforgiving as it is a written agreement governing specifically what and how the transaction to the trust is to take place between who and when as is allowed by UCC. This means that there is a 90 day window before the iron gate slams shut, and physical delivery of the loan file MUST take place for the transaction to occur lawfully. Otherwise, no tickee, and no foreclosure laundry.
Rather than discuss the issues I raise, you fall back on your resume. And that’s a mistake in my book, as I now know who you are from your last post. I witnessed the scrape you had with Yves Smith, and I’m surprised that you can still sit upright and take nourishment after the rightful wailing she put on you before she banned you. Not pretty that. And I remember your many visits to this site as well….we have a history you and I. I’d pay top dollar to see you go toe to toe with Levitin in a discourse on these matters. You’d never be able to sit in a chair again.
And I know of the audit outfit you referred to. What a bunch that is. I’m constantly amazed that he’s stayed one foot ahead of the law for as long as he has, especially given the passage of the MARS rule by the FTC. There is no justice.
Bottom line, I’m done with you. I too have better things to do with my time. Whacking myself repeatedly with a hatchet would be more enjoyable and more fulfilling than trying to make sense of your industry slanted view. I’ll leave you alone now. Peace.
E Tolle,
I have looked at the NY statutes time and again. I have never seen one that specifically says that a recorded assignment must occur before the loan is lawfully in the Trust. Can you point one out for me?
Courts across the country have ruled that such recorded assignments are not required as long as the PSA offers other methodologies for note transfer. In NY, Judge Shrack has ruled that recorded assignments at the time of the closing date must occur, but the Appeals Court continuously overrules him.
Then you have the problem of whether as a 3rd Party Beneficiary, a borrower has the right to challenge an Assignment. Most states have ruled no time and again.
Now, in BK Court, you have a different set of circumstances. You can challenge the legal standing of a creditor. But going into BK to challenge legal standing is questionable and risky for many reasons.
When I do case consulting for law firms, I have to know the arguments on each side and how courts are ruling. Then I have to formulate the arguments that the attorney will use against the servicer, and I have to be able to show evidence to support the claims. I cannot say that something violates the law without showing case law and documents to support my claims.
If I am testifying, I provide testimony that I can support. I do not offer speculation or things that cannot be backed up. If I did, my credibility would be gone.
It may be the perspectives that we look at things where we differ. I know the arguments for and against proper securitization. Heck, if you look at most securitization exams done by people, you would find that much written by people have come from securitization exams I did back in 2009 and 2010. In fact, Certified Forensic Loan Audits originally copied my Predatory Lending/TILA Analysis for their own work and also my securitization exams. They have since changed the format and added things, but the basic work came from me.
I originally was more of an advocate that the loans were not properly placed into Trusts back in 2009 and 2010. But my position has evolved since then based upon different documents that I have seen but not generally available to others due to having worked on bank v mortgage banker cases and further influenced by court rulings.
I have also done consulting on MBS cases working with law firms going after Originators for Reps and Warranties, and also have a way developed to find modification and foreclosure issues to support firms like PIMCO in their suits. So I am definitely not pro lender or ASF. I don’t care who is right or wrong, but instead what is right or wrong.
Adam and Yves? I have had my run-ins with them. Vyes banned me from commenting on her blog because I challenged her on things she would write that were incorrect. Adam and I also got into it when I changed my views on securitization.
Gardner has some very good ideas and approaches with his BK work. But that does not translates well into civil courts.
The reality is that I have to do things within the constraints of the particular state and what the laws and rulings are in the state. My work must constitute how to best assist the client in achieving realistic goals. I cannot promote arguments that have no chance of surviving any dismissal.
I also have to know the arguments that lenders will use against the client and present the counter arguments. But that is a problem testifying because I do know the arguments on each side, and lenders know that.
There are a lot of other things, good and bad, that I cannot reveal. I am under gag orders in some cases, court sealed cases in other matters and then attorney client privilege. Just to say that there is much more going on than what is currently available to the public.
E.tolle- Adam Levitin made mincemeat out of Tom Deutsch (douche) head of the ASF, American Securitization Forum. Hard to believe, grown men, adults, having to lie for a living. And when he’s not lying, he’s probably twisting g the truth to placate his “clients”. Probably cheats on his wife. Beats his kids, buys a lot of expensive stuff to make himself feel better.
Oh and Gene, I’m not angry or seeking revenge. At least not at or from you. The TBTF are another matter.
Gene, I have no desire for you to go away. I will, however, argue that when it comes to the transfer of notes to trusts, close isn’t good enough. Your argument that CW’s acting as a document custodian while not delivering the loan docs suffices per NY law is dubious at best.
I didn’t imply that you were a shill, merely that you have the same opinion of the ASF when it comes to trusts. Most PSAs are governed by NY law, which holds that a transaction beyond the authority of the trust documents is void, meaning it is totally ineffective. Denying this does bring one very close to the borders of Shillville.
You don’t have to agree with lil’ old me. But I’d love to see you argue your side with the likes of Adam Levitin, Max Gardner, or Yves Smith, my heros.
E Tolle,
If you can imply that I am a shill for the ASF, then I can imply that you are living in a perpetual state of anger and revenge.
As for everything else, there are legitimate arguments to be made on either side. I just try to point out the errors in thinking and the problems with what NG says on many things.
But, if you don’t want to hear arguments or facts that may differ, then I will do a Tnharry and just go away. I do have more important things to do anyway.
The account/loan number changed on my mortgage/loan account, and is now noted as INACTIVE on the MERS system. What the hell does that mean?
Gene, I have no idea why you went all hospice nurse on me in your reply. It is not me that is in denial when it comes to foreclosure practices and the overwhelming corruption afoot.
Anyone, especially one who claims to be support for the legal profession, who believes that it’s perfectly acceptable for lenders/servicers to be custodians for the loan files all the while not transferring the underlying docs, and that that act suffices under NY trust law, should be avoided like a health care worker with a bloody nose just back from Africa.
The bottom line is….you’ve been seriously bamboozled.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan
@ Gene ,
Not to be nitpicky but according to the Kübler-Ross model there are either 5 or 7 stages of grief, you somehow have come up with 6.
With all that we know, and with all that you know I think we can agree that the VAST majority of these foreclosures with the exception of the ones bought for a small S&L’s own portfolio for instance are very defensible. The problem in a properly defended case is always getting discovery.. With discovery the homeowner wins.
In your answer to Michael about the IRS and REMIC why didn’t you just state the obvious , the IRS knows that the REMIC trusts were never formed or funded and that the policy of non-pursuit over the fraud is acknowledged in publicly available documents.
E Tolle,
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan…..”now there you go again”.
When I meet with my homeowner clients, I advise them that foreclosure is similar to the four stages of grief and loss that people go through in life time and again. For homeowners, it is
1. Denial that it is happening and a sense of helplessness……..not knowing what to do.
2. Shame at being in foreclosure and fear that others will find out and that you are all alone.
3. Depression that comes and goes, bringing back a sense of helplessness.
4. Irrationality and anger, which results in lashing out at others, even those trying to help.
5. Acceptance of the outcome, whatever it may be.
6. Moving beyond, recovery and rebuilding.
Then I tell them that it is up to them where they want to reside in this process.
Today’s client was a mental health professional going through foreclosure and alternating through shame and depression. When I explained this to her, the revelation in her own thinking was immediately evident on her own face.
Now, to bed. Tomorrow I have a new case to work on for a homeowner. Nationstar is screwing around with him on modifications. Fortunately, he is using the best attorney I know in CA. I call her my pit bull litigator. She is 4’11”, weighs less than 100 lbs, and fearless as all hell. She got a PI today and also got the lender to agree to mediation.
@ Javagold ,
Have to agree with all the others here ,, a changing loan number is always a red flag … if the named servicer hasn’t changed it could be a hidden change … perhaps a MERS change or your servicer is outsourcing the actual servicing to a company like LPS and they re-number to eliminate duplicates or the possibility of duplicate numbers.
Gene writes:
“Other factors exist, and it will someday be part of a book I plan to write.”
A work of fiction no doubt, brought to us by your sponsor, the American Securitization Forum.
Michael,
I am aware of the tax questions related to the Trusts, and the various different arguments that arise on the LL website. Without violating confidentiality issues, court orders and sealed records, I can say that these arguments have been fought over, heavily researched, regulatory and other government opinions obtained, and the arguments and allegations are of no “concern” to the bond holding investors.
One of my former partners was and still is regularly engaged with the regulatory authorities doing consulting on many different topics. He also was involved in discussions with people considering the Ocwen lawsuit around April of last year. I was tasked with developing a plan of action on how we could support PIMCO and Blackrock and what services we could offer. These guys are very sharp and know what is legit and not.
An attorney I work with and consult with at least twice a week was heavily involved in the CAL PERS and other MBS litigation a couple of years ago. I can say that all of these issues were discussed and checked out thoroughly in that lawsuit.
The law firms are no dummies, and they don’t take a thing for granted. They thoroughly vet any and all possible arguments and tactics and then go from there. They had no concerns about IRS issues.
BTW, ever read all the articles where the IRS does not guarantee the advice and information that they provide taxpayers? I would not trust a thing anyone from the IRS said.
You destroyed thousands of liens and notes? Sounds like an Ameriquest operation. However, destroying the original documents does not mean that the liens and notes no longer exist. UCC covers that quite well.
You are right that we will never have all the answers. My insight comes because I have had access to people who were actively involved in everything from running warehouse lending, to actually creating securitized trusts, and to the statistical analysts who determined how the trusts would be structured loan wise. I have also spoken with the regulators and the people who dealt with them and learned about that aspect, learned how servicing rights are valued and how individual loans and the Trusts were valued.
Contrary to many beliefs, it was not an organized effort to defraud and steal people’s homes. Instead, it was a culture of greed pervasive across the lending industry, a culture of government actions designed to promote home ownership under an everyone should own their home philosophy, faulty beliefs that housing could never crash, and pathetic assumptions regarding previous loan performance in Trusts that had never existed previously in stressed environments and finally, poor statistical analysis. (Other factors exist, and it will someday be part of a book I plan to write.)
What is frightening is that the lenders have not learned their lessons and nor the government either. Regulations have not solved the problems, but instead only changed how they manifest themselves. Just watch what happens with the Qualified Mortgage over the next couple of years. And watch FHA as well.
Lending Risk Managers talk about changing the risk culture in banks, but they haven’t a clue about how to do it. In fact, it takes a back seat to earning their bonuses. And this is at every level in a bank. Will it ever change? No……the greed is too great.
The lenders and servicers do not want solutions to their problems. The reason is that solutions will end up causing less profits, decrease the qualified borrower pool and eventually lead to further deterioration of home values. This is going to happen anyway in the next few years, but they do not care as long as they can continue to make profits now…..
Sorry to ramble, but this stuff is so frustrating, especially so when I recall the conversations that I have had with high level personnel in the banks, servicers and regulatory agencies.
iwantmynpv
Just got back from meeting my client. Why are you specifying Jul 2014 as a date that the FDIC should have seized the loans? Did I miss something?
BTW, I was the first person to spill the beans on the IndyMac sweetheart deal and how OneWest profited on the deal, even if every lloan in their portfolio defaullted on day 1.
so again, iwantmynpv,
so how can any trust that was in bk, all 500 say, they are still owed?? all 500 settled. so a trust now in 2015 is saying i owe them. when this trust was never a trust to begin with. loan in 2005, first assignment, mers to trust in aug, 2012. 7yrs after trust closed. febuary 27,2006!
MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This is a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of February 27, 2006 by and between GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, having an office at 100 Witmer Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 (the “Seller”) and Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and having an office at 8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 (the “Purchaser”).
The Seller agrees to sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Seller certain mortgage loans on a servicing-retained basis as described herein (the “Mortgage Loans”). The following terms are defined as follows:
Aggregate Principal Balance
(as of the Cut-Off Date):
$550,003,046.49 (after deduction of scheduled
principal payments due on or before the Cut-Off
Date, whether or not collected, but without
deduction of prepayments that may have been made
but not reported to the Seller as of the close
of business on such date). Closing Date:
February 27, 2006, or such other date as may be
agreed upon by the parties hereto.
Cut-Off Date: February 1, 2006.
Mortgage Loan:
A fixed rate, fully-amortizing, first lien,
residential conventional mortgage loan having a
term of not more than 30 years and secured by
Mortgaged Property.
Mortgaged Property:
A single parcel of real property on which is
located a detached or attached single-family
residence, a two-to-four family dwelling,
manufactured home, a townhouse, an individual
condominium unit, or an individual unit in a
planned unit development, or a proprietary lease
in a unit in a cooperatively-owned apartment
building and stock in the related cooperative
corporation.
Pooling and Servicing Agreement: The pooling and
servicing agreement, dated as of February 27,
2006, among Residential Asset Mortgage Products,
Inc., as company, GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as
servicer and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”).
Repurchase Event:
With respect to any Mortgage Loan as to which
the Seller delivers an affidavit certifying that
the original Mortgage Note has been lost or
destroyed, a subsequent default on such Mortgage
Loan if the enforcement thereof or of the
related Mortgage is materially and adversely
affected by the absence of such original
Mortgage Note.
All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The parties intend hereby to set forth the terms and conditions upon which the proposed transactions will be effected and, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements set forth herein, agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Agreement to Sell and Purchase Mortgage Loans. The Seller agrees to sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Seller certain Mortgage Loans having an aggregate amount equal to the Aggregate Principal Balance as of the Cut-Off Date.
SECTION 2. Mortgage Loan Schedule. The Seller has provided to the Purchaser a schedule setting forth all of the Mortgage Loans to be purchased on the Closing Date under this Agreement, which shall be attached hereto as Schedule I (the “Mortgage Loan Schedule”).
SECTION 3. Purchase Price of Mortgage Loans. The purchase price (the “Purchase Price”) to be paid to the Seller by the Purchaser for the Mortgage Loans shall be the sum of (i) $537,891,820.77, (ii) the Class PO Certificates and Class IO Certificates and (iii) a 0.01% Percentage Interest in the Class R Certificates issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The cash portion of the purchase price shall be paid by wire transfer of immediately available funds on the Closing Date to the account specified by the Seller.
The Purchaser and Seller intend that the conveyance by the Seller to the Purchaser of all its right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans pursuant to this Agreement shall be, and be construed as, a sale of the Mortgage Loans by the Seller to the Purchaser. It is, further, not intended that such conveyance be deemed to be a grant of a security interest in the Mortgage Loans by the Seller to the Purchaser to secure a debt or other obligation of the Seller. However, in the event that the Mortgage Loans are held to be property of the Seller, or if for any reason this Agreement is held or deemed to create a security interest in the Mortgage Loans, then it is intended that (a) this Agreement shall be and hereby is a security agreement within the meaning of Articles 9 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Commercial Code of any other applicable jurisdiction; (b) the conveyance provided for in this Section shall be deemed to be, and hereby is, a grant by the Seller to the Purchaser of a security interest in all of the Seller’s right, title and interest, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, in and to the following: (A) the Mortgage Loans, including (i) with respect to each Cooperative Loan, the related Mortgage Note, Security Agreement, Assignment of Proprietary Lease, Cooperative Stock Certificate, Cooperative Lease, (ii) with respect to each Mortgage Loan other than a Cooperative Loan, the related Mortgage Note and Mortgage and (iii) any insurance policies and all other documents in the related Mortgage File, (B) all amounts payable pursuant to the Mortgage Loans in accordance with the terms thereof, (C) all proceeds of the conversion, voluntary or involuntary, of the foregoing into cash, instruments, securities or other property, (D) all accounts, general intangibles, chattel paper, instruments, documents, money, deposit accounts, goods, letters of credit, letter-of-credit rights, oil, gas, and other minerals, and investment property consisting of, arising from or relating to any of the foregoing and (E) all proceeds of the foregoing; (c) the possession by the Trustee, the Custodian or any other agent of the Trustee of any of the foregoing shall be deemed to be possession by the secured party, or possession by a purchaser or a person holding for the benefit of such secured party, for purposes of perfecting the security interest pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Commercial Code of any other applicable jurisdiction (including, without limitation, Sections 9-313 and 9-314 of each thereof); and (d) notifications to persons holding such property, and acknowledgments, receipts or confirmations from persons holding such property, shall be deemed notifications to, or acknowledgments, receipts or confirmations from, securities intermediaries, bailees or agents of, or persons holding for, the Trustee (as applicable) for the purpose of perfecting such security interest under applicable law. The Seller shall, to the extent consistent with this Agreement, take such reasonable actions as may be necessary to ensure that, if this Agreement were determined to create a security interest in the Mortgage Loans and the other property described above, such security interest would be determined to be a perfected security interest of first priority under applicable law and will be maintained as such throughout the term of this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Seller shall prepare and deliver to the Purchaser not less than 15 days prior to any filing date, and the Purchaser shall file, or shall cause to be filed, at the expense of the Seller, all filings necessary to maintain the effectiveness of any original filings necessary under the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in any jurisdiction to perfect the Purchaser’s security interest in the Mortgage Loans, including without limitation (x) continuation statements, and (y) such other statements as may be occasioned by (1) any change of name of the Seller or the Purchaser, (2) any change of type or jurisdiction of organization of the Seller, or (3) any transfer of any interest of the Seller in any Mortgage Loan.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) the Seller in its capacity as Servicer shall retain all servicing rights (including, without limitation, primary servicing and master servicing) relating to or arising out of the Mortgage Loans, and all rights to receive servicing fees, servicing income and other payments made as compensation for such servicing granted to it under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth therein (collectively, the “Servicing Rights”) and (ii) the Servicing Rights are not included in the collateral in which the Seller grants a security interest pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph.
SECTION 4. Record Title and Possession of Mortgage Files. The Seller hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and conveys to the Purchaser, without recourse, but subject to the terms of this Agreement and the Seller hereby acknowledges that the Purchaser, subject to the terms of this Agreement, shall have all the right, title and interest of the Seller in and to the Mortgage Loans. From the Closing Date, but as of the Cut-off Date, the ownership of each Mortgage Loan, including the Mortgage Note, the Mortgage, the contents of the related Mortgage File and all rights, benefits, proceeds and obligations arising therefrom or in connection therewith, has been vested in the Purchaser. All rights arising out of the Mortgage Loans including, but not limited to, all funds received on or in connection with the Mortgage Loans and all records or documents with respect to the Mortgage Loans prepared by or which come into the possession of the Seller shall be received and held by the Seller in trust for the exclusive benefit of the Purchaser as the owner of the Mortgage Loans. On and after the Closing Date, any portion of the related Mortgage Files or servicing files related to the Mortgage Loans (the “Servicing Files”) in Seller’s possession shall be held by Seller in a custodial capacity only for the benefit of the Purchaser. The Seller shall release its custody of any contents of the related Mortgage Files or Servicing Files only in accordance with written instructions of the Purchaser or the Purchaser’s designee.
SECTION 5. Books and Records. The sale of each Mortgage Loan has been reflected on the Seller’s balance sheet and other financial statements as a sale of assets by the Seller. The Seller shall be responsible for maintaining, and shall maintain, a complete set of books and records for the Mortgage Loans which shall be appropriately identified in the Seller’s computer system to clearly reflect the ownership of the Mortgage Loans by the Purchaser.
SECTION 6. Delivery of Mortgage Notes.
————————–
(a) On or prior to the Closing Date, the Seller shall deliver to the Purchaser or the Custodian, as directed by the Purchaser, the original Mortgage Note, with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned, endorsed without recourse in blank, or in the name of the Trustee as trustee, and signed by an authorized officer (which endorsement shall contain either an original signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized officer of the Seller, and if in the form of an allonge, the allonge shall be stapled to the Mortgage Note), with all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of title from the originator to the Seller. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired by the endorser in a merger, the endorsement must be by “____________, successor by merger to [name of predecessor]”. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired or originated by the endorser while doing business under another name, the endorsement must be by “____________ formerly known as [previous name].” The delivery of each Mortgage Note to the Purchaser or the Custodian is at the expense of the Seller.
In lieu of delivering the Mortgage Note relating to any Mortgage Loan, the Seller may deliver or cause to be delivered a lost note affidavit from the Seller stating that the original Mortgage Note was lost, misplaced or destroyed, and, if available, a copy of each original Mortgage Note; provided, however, that in the case of Mortgage Loans which have been prepaid in full after the Cut-off Date and prior to the Closing Date, the Seller, in lieu of delivering the above documents, may deliver to the Purchaser a certification to such effect and shall deposit all amounts paid in respect of such Mortgage Loan in the Payment Account on the Closing Date.
(b) If any Mortgage Note is not delivered to the Purchaser (or the Custodian as directed by the Purchaser) or the Purchaser discovers any defect with respect to a Mortgage Note which materially and adversely affects the interests of the Certificateholders in the related Mortgage Loan, the Purchaser shall give prompt written specification of such defect or omission to the Seller, and the Seller shall cure such defect or omission in all material respects or repurchase such Mortgage Loan or substitute a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan in the manner set forth in Section 7.03. It is understood and agreed that the obligation of the Seller to cure a material defect in, or substitute for, or purchase any Mortgage Loan as to which a material defect in, or omission of, a Mortgage Note exists, shall constitute the sole remedy respecting such material defect or omission available to the Purchaser, Certificateholders or the Trustee on behalf of Certificateholders.
(c) All other documents contained in the Mortgage File and any original documents relating to the Mortgage Loans not contained in the Mortgage File or delivered to the Purchaser, are and shall be retained by the Servicer in trust as agent for the Purchaser.
In the event that in connection with any Mortgage Loan: (a) the original recorded Mortgage (or evidence of submission to the recording office), (b) all interim recorded assignments, (c) the original recorded modification agreement, if required, or (d) evidence of title insurance (together with all riders thereto, if any) satisfying the requirements of clause (I)(ii), (iv), (vi) or (vii) of the definition of Mortgage File, respectively, is not in the possession of the Servicer concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof because such document or documents have not been returned from the applicable public recording office, or, in the case of each such interim assignment or modification agreement, because the related Mortgage has not been returned by the appropriate recording office, in the case of clause (I)(ii), (iv) or (vi) of the definition of Mortgage File, or because the evidence of title insurance has not been delivered to the Seller by the title insurer in the case of clause (I)(vii) of the definition of Mortgage File, the Servicer shall use its best efforts to obtain, (A) in the case of clause (I)(ii), (iv) or (vi) of the definition of Mortgage File, such original Mortgage,
@ Gene,
I appreciate you know of what you speak.
At the same time, I wouldn’t characterize the investors as “dumb”, except to say I feel they have been rendered mute largely because of the tax burdens inherent to claiming loans that never garnered the appropriate “pass-through certificates”.
Everyone has different experience. In my own case, I know, for a fact, I have destroyed thousands- more probably tens of thousands- of mortgage documents (liens and notes). I swore an affidavit in superior court stating specifically that.
This, I feel, is the main reason nobody knows who owns which loans and also the reason why the pools are devoid of assets.
On my primary, the “loan” never entered the REMIC until years after the trust had been closed.
I have a lawyer these days and I feel he has integrity… I feel he is an honest man.
I recognize that type of professional as necessary in this fight. I also know he sees the fraud I have been attempting to explain for close to 4 years now.
Thank you for the insight. I truly appreciate it and realize this situation requires more than generalization even as I will endeavor to repeat:
Until we know the number and nature of the naked short sales placed as derivatives against a borrower’s pledge to pay on the underlying asset, we will never understand the whole story.
David, GMAC stuck it to all of the investors, shareholders and mortgagors with the help of the United States Government. Had they not done a pre-packaged BK, the real shit would have hit the fan.
The Trusts were not paid in full via the BK settlement. They settled because the Trustees and the attorneys for the certificate holders felt they would get less as a possible unsecured creditor.
MERS has nothing to do with the GMAC BK because the Courts have already held they were only a nominee for the mortgage, and not the promissory note.
Finally, they are all MERS members from the fetch bank to the trustee and even all of the title companies. No fraud is complete without the biggest crooks on board…
Assignment of Loans
At the time of issuance of a series of securities, the depositor will cause the loans and any other assets included in the related trust to be assigned without recourse to the trustee or owner trustee or its nominee, which may be the custodian, together with, all principal and interest received on the trust assets after the last day of the month of the cut-off date, but not including principal and interest due on or before such date or any Excluded Spread. Each loan will be identified in a
39
Table of Contents
schedule appearing as an exhibit to the related agreement. Each schedule of loans will include, among other things, information as to the principal balance of each loan as of the cut-off date, as well as information respecting the loan rate, the currently scheduled monthly payment of principal and interest, the maturity of the mortgage note and the LTV ratio or combined LTV ratio and junior mortgage ratio, as applicable, at origination or modification.
If stated in the accompanying prospectus supplement, and in accordance with the rules of membership of MERSCORP, Inc. and/or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. or, MERS®, assignments of mortgages for any trust asset in the related trust will be registered electronically through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS® System. For trust assets registered through the MERS® System, MERS® shall serve as mortgagee of record solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee and shall not have any interest in any of those trust assets.
In addition, except as provided below for some series of securities backed by Trust Balances of revolving credit loans or as described in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the depositor will, as to each loan that is a trust asset, deliver to an entity specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, which may be the trustee, a custodian or another entity appointed by the trustee, the legal documents relating to each loan that are in possession of the depositor. Depending on the type of trust asset, the legal documents may include the following, as applicable:
• the mortgage note and any modification or amendment thereto endorsed without recourse either in blank or to the order of the trustee or owner trustee or a nominee or a lost note affidavit together with a copy of the related mortgage note;
• the mortgage, except for any mortgage not returned from the public recording office, with evidence of recording indicated thereon or a copy of the mortgage with evidence of recording indicated thereon or, in the case of a Cooperative Loan or a Mexico Loan, the respective security agreements and any applicable UCC financing statements;
• an assignment in recordable form of the mortgage, except in the case of a mortgage registered with MERS®, or a copy of such assignment with evidence of recording indicated thereon or, for a Cooperative Loan, an assignment of the respective security agreements, any applicable financing statements, recognition agreements, relevant stock certificates, related blank stock powers and the related proprietary leases or occupancy agreements and, for a mixed-use mortgage loan and multifamily mortgage loan, the assignment of leases, rents and profits, if separate from the mortgage, and an executed reassignment of the assignment of leases, rents and profits and, with respect to a Mexico Loan, an assignment of the borrower’s beneficial interest in the Mexican trust;
• if applicable, any riders or modifications to the mortgage note and mortgage, together with any other documents at such times as described in the related agreement; and
• if applicable, the original contract and copies of documents and instruments related to each contract and, other than in the case of unsecured contracts, the security interest in the property securing the related contract.
40
Table of Contents
Assignments of the loans, including contracts secured by liens on mortgaged property, will be recorded in the appropriate public recording office, except for mortgages registered with MERS® or in states where, in the opinion of counsel acceptable to the trustee, the recording is not required to protect the trustee’s interests in the loans against the claim of any subsequent transferee or any successor to or creditor of the depositor or the originator of the loans. The assignments may be blanket assignments covering mortgages secured by mortgaged properties located in the same county, if permitted by law.
If so provided in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the depositor may not be required to deliver one or more of the related documents if any of the documents are missing from the files of the party from whom the loans were purchased. For example, in the case of loans purchased under Residential Funding Corporation’s negotiated conduit asset program, the depositor will not be required to deliver documentation that was missing from the files of the seller.
In the case of contracts, the depositor, the master servicer or the servicer will cause a financing statement to be executed by the depositor identifying the trustee as the secured party and identifying all contracts as collateral. However, the accompanying prospectus supplement will specify whether the contracts will not be stamped or otherwise marked to reflect their assignment from the depositor to the trust and no recordings or filings will be made in the jurisdictions in which the manufactured homes are located. See “Certain Legal Aspects of the Loans — The Manufactured Housing Contracts” and “— The Home Improvement Contracts.”
Any mortgage for a loan secured by mortgaged property located in Puerto Rico will be either a Direct Puerto Rico Mortgage or an Endorsable Puerto Rico Mortgage. Endorsable Puerto Rico Mortgages do not require an assignment to transfer the related lien. Rather, transfer of those mortgages follows an effective endorsement of the related mortgage note and, therefore, delivery of the assignment referred to in the fifth preceding paragraph would be inapplicable. Direct Puerto Rico Mortgages, however, require an assignment to be recorded for any transfer of the related lien and the assignment would be delivered to the trustee, or the custodian.
If, for any loan including any contract secured by a lien on mortgaged property, the depositor cannot deliver the mortgage or any assignment with evidence of recording thereon concurrently with the execution and delivery of the related agreement because of a delay caused by the public recording office or a delay in the receipt of information necessary to prepare the related assignment, the depositor will deliver or cause to be delivered to the trustee or the custodian a copy of the mortgage or assignment. The depositor will deliver or cause to be delivered to the trustee or the custodian such mortgage or assignment with evidence of recording indicated thereon after receipt thereof from the public recording office or from the related master servicer or servicer.
In most cases, the trustee or the custodian will review the legal documents within 90 days after receipt. If any document is found to be defective in any material respect, the trustee or the custodian shall notify the master servicer or servicer and the depositor, and the master servicer, the servicer or the trustee shall notify the seller, including a designated seller. Other than with respect to loans purchased under Residential Funding Corporation’s negotiated conduit asset program or other loans as specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, if the seller cannot cure the defect within 60 days, or within the other period specified in the related prospectus supplement, after notice of the defect is given to the seller, the seller is required to, not later than 90 days after such
41
Table of Contents
notice, or within the other period specified in the related prospectus supplement, either repurchase the related loan or any property acquired in respect of it from the trustee or, if permitted, substitute for that loan a new loan in accordance with the standards described in this prospectus. The accompanying prospectus supplement will specify whether the purchase price for any loan will be equal to the principal balance thereof as of the date of purchase plus accrued and unpaid interest less the amount, expressed as a percentage per annum, payable for servicing or administrative compensation and the Excluded Spread, if any. There can be no assurance that the applicable seller or designated seller will fulfill its obligation to purchase or substitute any loan as described above. In most cases only the seller or the designated seller, and not Residential Funding Corporation, will be obligated to repurchase a loan for a material defect in a constituent document. The obligation to repurchase or substitute for a loan constitutes the sole remedy available to the securityholder or the trustee for a material defect in a constituent document. Any loan not so purchased or substituted for shall remain in the related trust.
For any series of securities backed by Trust Balances of revolving credit loans, the foregoing documents in most cases will have been delivered to an entity specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, which may be the trustee, a custodian or another entity appointed by the trustee. That entity shall hold those documents as or on behalf of the trustee for the benefit of the securityholders, for the Trust Balances thereof, and on behalf of any other applicable entity for any Excluded Balance thereof, as their respective interests may appear. In those cases, the review of the related documents need not be performed if a similar review has previously been performed by the entity holding the documents for an Excluded Balance and such review covered all documentation for any Trust Balance.
Under some circumstances, as to any series of securities, the depositor may have the option to repurchase trust assets from the trust for cash, or in exchange for other trust assets or Permitted Investments. Alternatively, for any series of securities secured by private securities, the depositor may have the right to repurchase loans from the entity that issued the private securities. All provisions relating to these optional repurchase provisions will be described in the accompanying prospectus supplement.
Representations With Respect to Loans
Except in the case of a Designated Seller Transaction, all of the representations and warranties of a seller relating to a trust asset will have been made as of the date on which the related seller sold the trust asset to the depositor, Residential Funding Corporation, GMAC Mortgage Corporation or one of their affiliates or the date that the trust asset was originated. In a Designated Seller Transaction, the Designated Seller would make substantially the same representations and warranties, which are not expected to vary in any material respect. The date as of which the representations and warranties were made typically will be a date prior to the date of issuance of the related series of securities. A substantial period of time may elapse between the date as of which the representations and warranties were made and the date of issuance of the related series of securities. The seller’s repurchase obligation if any, or, if specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, limited substitution option, will not arise if, after the sale of the related trust asset, an event occurs that would have given rise to such an obligation had the event occurred prior to that period.
42
Table of Contents
Except in the case of (i) a Designated Seller Transaction, (ii) loans acquired under Residential Funding Corporation’s negotiated conduit asset program, or (iii) loans underlying any private securities, for any loan, in most cases, Residential Funding Corporation will provided all of the representations and warranties required by the applicable rating agency or agencies. Residential Funding Corporation generally will represent and warrant that:
• as of the cut-off date, the information set forth in a listing of the related loans was true and correct in all material respects;
• to the best of Residential Funding Corporation’s knowledge, if required by applicable underwriting standards or unless otherwise stated in the accompanying prospectus supplement, each loan that is secured by a first lien on the related mortgaged property is the subject of a primary insurance policy;
• Residential Funding Corporation had good title to the loan and the loan is not subject to offsets, defenses or counterclaims except as may be provided under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or Relief Act, and except for any buy-down agreement for a Buy-Down Loan;
• to the best of Residential Funding Corporation’s knowledge, each mortgaged property is free of material damage and is in good repair;
• each loan complied in all material respects with all applicable local, state and federal laws at the time of origination;
• to the best of Residential Funding Corporation’s knowledge, there is no delinquent tax or assessment lien against the related mortgaged property; and
• to the best of Residential Funding Corporation’s knowledge, any home improvement contract that is partially insured by the FHA under Title I was originated in accordance with applicable FHA regulations and is insured, without set-off, surcharge or defense by the FHA.
To the extent described in the accompanying prospectus supplement, enforcement of any remedies for a breach of a representation and warranty may be limited to a specific period of time.
In addition, except in the case of a Designated Seller Transaction, Residential Funding Corporation will be obligated to repurchase or substitute for any loan as to which it is discovered that the related mortgage does not create a valid lien having at least the priority represented and warranted in the related agreement on or, in the case of a Cooperative Loan, a perfected security interest in, the related mortgaged property, subject only to the following:
• liens of real property taxes and assessments not yet due and payable;
• covenants, conditions and restrictions, rights of way, easements and other matters of public record as of the date of recording of such mortgage and certain other permissible title exceptions;
43
Table of Contents
• liens of any senior mortgages, in the case of loans secured by junior liens on the related mortgaged property; and
• other encumbrances to which like properties are commonly subject that do not materially adversely affect the value, use, enjoyment or marketability of the mortgaged property.
Sellers will typically make certain limited representations and warranties with respect to the trust assets that they sell. However, trust assets purchased from certain unaffiliated sellers may be purchased with very limited or no representations and warranties. In addition, unless provided in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the representations and warranties of the seller will not be assigned to the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the related series of securities, and therefore a breach of the representations and warranties of the seller, in most cases, will not be enforceable on behalf of the trust.
Someone called it damage fraud control or words to that effect,
Best to keep it simple, know your case its weaknesses and strengths.
everyone should go here, and read all. look at all the banks involved. and better look at all 500 of the trust. if all bond holder/certificate holders, investors, all have settle with all clams, in this bankruptcy, and all trustees of all these trust settled.
than how can anyone come foreword to foreclose in the name of any trust that settled??????
NOW COMES THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO ALL MORTGAGES USING MERS, THE PARENT OF MERS, IS MERSCORPHOLDING,INC
AND THE OWNERS OF MERSCORPHOLDINGS ARE ALL THE WALLSTREET BANKS,SERVICERS, . SO THE BANKS CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT,CHANGE WHAT THEY WANT TO FIT THERE NEEDS. TO HAVE ANY OUT COME ALSWAYS GOING THERE WAY. RIGHT, RIGHT.
NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING , YOU NEED TO GO TO, RESCAPRMBSSETTLEMENT.COM, AND READ THE TRUST.
Welcome To The ResCap RMBS Trustee Website
This website (http://www.rescaprmbssettlement.com) has been established by:
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AND
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
In their several capacities as trustees or indenture trustees (collectively, the “RMBS Trustees” and each, an “RMBS Trustee”), to the holders of Certificates, Notes or other securities (the “Certificateholders”) under certain residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (collectively, the “Settlement Trusts” and each a “Settlement Trust”), to provide public access to information of interest to Certificateholders under the Settlement Trusts, and to other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts.
On May 14, 2012, Residential Capital, LLC, and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, “ResCap”) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) (In re Residential Capital, LLC, Case No. 12-12020 (MG) and related cases) (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”).
This website concerns, among other things, proposed settlements of claims of the Settlement Trusts against ResCap and others in the Chapter 11 Cases. These claims include, without limitation, certain claims relating to the origination and sale by ResCap of mortgage loans and to certain aspects of ResCap’s servicing of those mortgage loans. The current proposed settlements (which have superseded prior proposed settlements in the Chapter 11 Cases), would, if approved by the Court, bind that Settlement Trust and related Certificateholders. Accordingly, the proposed settlements and related Court approval procedures materially affect the interests of the Certificateholders, and the RMBS Trustees respectfully request that all Certificateholders and other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts read all notices and related information posted to this website from time to time carefully in consultation with their legal and financial advisors.
THERE ARE OVER 500 SECURITIZED MORTGAGE TRUST INVOLVED. MAKING THIS VERY VERY IMPORTANT. ALSO 6 BANKS,NOT ONLY RESCAP.
UNDER THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL AND EACH OF THE 500 TRUST, AND TRUSTEE, AND ALL HOLDERS,BENIFICIAL,CERTIFICATES,BOND, ANY ONE HOLDING ANY INTEREST IN ALL THESE TRUST. HAVE SETTLED…MAKING ALL 500 TRUST , VOID, GONE,PAYED IN FULL .
SO PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW ANYONE GOING TO COURT SAYING AM ONE OF THESE TRUST ,THAT SETTLED, AND THE TRUSTEE NOW COME TO COURT SAYING AM HERE FOR THE HOLDERS OF ALL CERTIFICATE HOLDER,BOND HOLDER, . THIS IS FRAUD ON ALL HOMEOWNER. BECAUSE ALL HOLDER OF ANYTHING IN THESE TRUST HAVE BEEN SETTLED.
Correct i believe they are all in on it.
Gene, look at the Indy pledge and assignment agreement with the FHLB of San Francisco. The are all in on it. Pursuant to the advance and assignment agreement, the FHLB should have seized 13 billion in loans on July 11, 2014.
The FDIC merely exists to keep the loans bankruptcy remote and the credit in the system.
Moreover, in 2006 I tried to start a whistle case with the IRS. They told my attorney that the REMIC violations were already public record, and they did not care if they were qualified loans or not.
Michael
1. A pledge is different than a Purchase and Sale. A pledge can be done several times as collateral, though risky as all hell. Purchase and Sale is actually selling of the Note. I have been involved in litigation specifically on this subject. When reviewing pledges, one must look to the pledge agreement specifically to see what is allowed or not.
2. You are right about CW not transferring notes by possession. But here is what you miss. CW was also the loan custodian for many of the Trusts. The Custodian keeps the loan documents for the Investor per the various Trust Agreements. So this would invalidate that line of reasoning if CW was the custodian.
3. You quote Carpenter, but you do so without regard to State Laws, UCC and Trust Agreements. These play a huge role in any analysis. Then you mention an entity not in possession not having an ability to collect, but again you ignore UCC and its effect. You cannot make these arguments without consideration of all facts.
4. Here is a question for you. If the notes were sold multiple times to different trusts, why haven’t the bondholders like PIMCO and Blackrock filed suit on this type of practice? Or are they just too “dumb” to know what you know? Same argument applies to the loans never making it into the Trust that people try to allege. Would it not benefit them to file suit on that?
BTW, I work regularly with one law firm that was heavily involved in the CAL PERS MBS litigation. They looked heavily into these types of claims and found that there was no credibility to the claims that it was done as a regular practice. Only with companies like Taylor Bean and CHL and those were small fry.
5. Re-hypothication is another matter entirely. It has nothing to do with securitization as a whole. Yes, they take bonds and notes and pledge them as collateral, where the new “holder” pledges them again, but that is not illegal. Risky, hell yes, but it is allowed.
As to Anonymous, she knows not what she speaks on the change in Loan Numbers.
Issuing Entity
The depositor will establish a trust with respect to the GMACM Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1 on the closing date pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. The pooling and servicing agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York. On the closing date, the depositor will deposit into the trust a pool of mortgage loans that in the aggregate will constitute a mortgage pool, secured by one to four family residential properties with terms to maturity of not more than 30 years. All of the mortgage loans will have been purchased by the depositor from the seller pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase agreement, dated as of the closing date, between the seller and the depositor.
The pooling and servicing agreement provides that the depositor assigns to the trustee for the benefit of the certificateholders without recourse all the right, title and interest of the depositor in and to the mortgage loans. Furthermore, the pooling and servicing agreement states that, although it is intended that the conveyance by the depositor to the trustee of the mortgage loans be construed as a sale, the conveyance of the mortgage loans shall also be deemed to be a grant by the depositor to the trustee of a security interest in the mortgage loans and related collateral.
Some capitalized terms used in this prospectus supplement have the meanings given under “Description of the Certificates—Glossary of Terms” or in the prospectus under “Glossary.” The offering of the certificates described in this prospectus supplement is a “Designated Seller Transaction” as that term is used in the prospectus.
@Gene. My MERS min number looks like this : XXXXXXX-xxxxxxxxxx-X. My loan number from Fremont is the same exact number as the lower case xxxxxxxxxx part of my MERS min number. I closed with 2 loans and both of them the 10 digit middle part of my MERS min number is identical to my Fremont loan number. I have looked up the trust on a Wells Fargo ( the master servicer)’s site and found my loans with my loan information using that same number the 10 digit middle section of my MERS min number.
Come on everybody knows what is happening. The Judges (not all some are smart not to touch this with a ten foot pole) are basically finding and justifying excuses for Alleged Fraud Forgery etc……
NEVER AGAIN
Java gold- ANONYMOUS always said that changing loan numbers was a red flag, and she would know, after 10 years of litigation. I had 4 loan closings and 9 loan numbers. Plus an application which already had a MIN number on it when I received it. Plus the bogus settle ment sheet which one of the TBTF banks, in their infinite wisdom, sent to me. Both marked (stamped) ” paid in full”. One was faxed at 11:57 am, 12k cash out, the other was faxed at 3:51, 34k cash out. We got the small one. Someone else got the 34k. No idea who. New century, I think. Via FNMA.
That’s where all the fraud started.
@ Gene,
I believe “multiple sales” are a direct consequence of “naked short sales”: borrowing something you do not own and then selling it for “real money” to someone else.
I have heard notes were sold multiples of times and there are articles that relate as much:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/19/banks-sold-the-same-mortgage-over-and-over-to-investors/
In the first opening sentences, this article explains a court case wherein Bank Of America admits the practice as part of the testimony they offer in open court :
Apparently, Bank of America has admitted in a court filing that they sold the same mortgage loan in multiple pools to investors.
I have read, in Ellen Brown’s “The Web Of Debt”, that interest in stocks are “re-hypothecated” any number of times and I feel it is simply counter-feiting.
In one example, she explains the principal owner of his own company purchased every single stock available to that company. Then, he sat back and watched as others “borrowed” their interest in those stocks despite the fact he had stashed them in his sock drawer.
In Kemp v Countrywide, Bruce Levitt’s stunning expose’, his deposition of Countrywide’s in-house servicing expert, proves the interest to BOA notes were sold any number of times.
For example, if memory serves, the woman, Linda, explains it was standard procedure Countrywide NEVER PHYSICALLY TRANSFERRED THE NOTES.
In 1872, the supreme Court decision, Carpenter v Longan describes bifurcation of note from lien as rendering the mortgage a legal “Nullity”.
Put simply, “the lien follows the note”. It is confusing these words often double for one another.
Having said that, it may be a best practice to describe a person that doesn’t possess the actual contract also enjoys an inability to collect the terms on that contract.
Of course, to further complicate things, some in this argument would like to argue whether a signed note is a contract…
For me its pretty simple: to argue you own something that belongs properly in someone else’s sock drawer is a smelly argument indeed.
I just stumbled on this. Re read
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/06/12/11-17615.pdf
Keep in mind
Wow…more misconception to clear up.
1. The MERS ID number is not the lender or servicer loan number. I have never seen a case of this, even with Fremont loans.
2. When a loan is ready for docs to be drawn, the loan information is entered into the Registry and the MERS number is then assigned. Again, it is not the loan number.
3. Many banks never used MERS, or in few cases did so. WAMU, Wells, Chase, Citi and B of A did not typically register their loans with MERS, even though the loans would be securitized.
4. There are over 50 million first mortgage loans currently in the US, not including previous loans that have been closed. Lenders often used the same number or digits or numbering schemes as other lenders, especially if they are using common servicing platforms. When a servicer buys a series of loans, there is a reasonable chance that some of the loans purchased might have identical numbers to other loans in their portfolio. So when the loans are boarded, new loan numbers are assigned so as to avoid duplicates. It is not designed to make loans harder to track.
5. The MERS number is only used to track loan “ownership” and “servicership”. Nothing more. When the loan is transferred, the information is changed on the website, and nothing more. MERS does not keep track of payments or anything else.
6. I have never seen a case of where a note was sold multiple in all the work I have done. Nor do I know of anyone else having actually seen this. I know that CHL in Oakland and Taylor Bean did do some multiple sales when they got into trouble, but this was not a “common practice” that occurred. The belief that this was a common practice is incorrect.
Where I believe that the misconception comes from is the lack of understanding of CDO’s, CLO’s and other derivatives and how their were created.
7. As to javagold, I would suspect that the change occurred because the servicer went to a new servicing platform. That can cause a need for loan number changes.
8. Regarding Dale and Michael’s comments, it is not worth going into detail on these subjects because it would require time I do not have to explain the information needed to understand these complex issues.
Regarding change of account numbers, when my loan was allegedly sold to Ocwen and I do mean allegedly, my account number changed, too. I do agree that it was done to make things harder to track but also, INMHO, so that it would be easier to sell the notes multiple times. Right now, I have two forged notes in my case in two different law firms. Regardless of what you are being told, many, many attorneys are in on this scam starting with the title company attorneys.
@java my loan the min number on my recorded security deed which is the MERS min number in the MERS system was my original loan number with Fremont. I think I saw on MERS site how each number is unique and that is how they can track the loan. When my servicer switched to litton – litton gave me a different loan number – my guess – to mKe things harder to follow – since the MERS number was still the same – when I was switched to Ocwen again new loan number – never had account # change without a change of servicer
Until we uncover the shadow bankers and specifically, their dealings in the derivatives market, the whole story will never be known.
Currently, the DTC and DTCC, each owned and operated by private bankers masquerading as affiliated with the Federal Reserve Bank, enjoy zero oversight.
These same private entities operate and control the Federal Reserve and claim they are not private…
Well… shares are only available to banks affiliated with the 12 regional, Federal Reserve banks (you know, the usual suspects, banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc); shares are not available to the public. That makes them a private enterprise.
As residents of the central banking system- The Federal Reserve, they also claim they are “non-profit”…
Well… these privately-owned banks enjoy a “guaranteed” rate of return of 6% once they purchase their shares in their regional Federal Reserve Bank…
Of course, the aforementioned doesn’t describe the real windfall which is “fractional reserve banking” with returns delivered at a ratio of ten-to-one (a 100k mortgage delvers the affiliated banks an opportunity to create further loans of 1 million dollars).
If I were altogether immoral, it seems likely I would to create debts for other people, out of thin air, on a computer screen, and then force others to pay me the very real interest payments this scam entitles them to collect.
This is the product of the English banking system and it goes, hand-in-hand with “free trade agreements”… you know… create debt by offering low rates and then deliberately increase those rates and thereby cause financial calamity…
A deliberate “Boom-and-Bust Cycle”.
Nowadays, however, even here in the US, the criminals don’t even need to be this sophisticated. They instead, simply lie and commit fraud on the courts so they can redeem the multiple bets they placed against homeowners and their ability to pay these extortions now existing as derivatives in the DTC and DTCC.
Greece recently sent the central bankers a message they need to go away.
Once, upon a time, this country sent these criminal filth the same message…
Of course, nowadays, sacred words like “Freedom” are misapplied and used to sell convenience stores like Seven-Eleven.
It is disgraceful.
Its because our government employees (Judges Attorney Generals District attorneys etc….) are letting them get away with it up until now. Don’t blame Ocwen.
NEVER AGAIN
And we must consider as Absurdity #7: – – which is undoubtedly remaining undisclosed in this mess – – which absurdity is the great probability that there are significant criminal securitization of the mortgages themselves; along with the duplicated mortgage securitizations; along with an untold number and amount of derivative products each and all of which are going to be in probability left holding that famous proverbial “bag”. What a mess. Did it really take 20 years for the regulators to figure all this out or, is the truth of this grandiose mess that the regulators and their executive department bosses are part of the crooked deal all along??? There is in the end probably no way that any remedy and/or recovery will result from this vertically integrated criminal enterprise which has so injured and devastated so many thousands of families and investors and indeed the nation as a whole.
Can anyone answer why they think, the only servicer ever on the mortgage, within 18 months ago , while in good standing (although right after inquiring about a modification) would change the account # of the loan ?????