Modification Minefields as Foreclosures Resume Upward Volume

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

Listen to Neil Garfield Show on Thursday February 26, 2015 at 6pm EDT., and each Thursday



New Jersey now has an upsurge of Foreclosure activity. It is on track to become first in the nation in the number of foreclosures. What is clear is that the level of foreclosure activity is being carefully managed to avoid attention in the media. Right now, foreclosure articles and the infamous acts of the banks in pursuing foreclosures is staying off Page 1 and usually not  anywhere in newspapers and other media outlets online and and in distributed media. The pattern is obvious. After one area becomes saturated with foreclosures, the banks switch off the flow and then move to another geographical area. This effectively manages the news. And it keeps foreclosures from becoming a hot political issue despite the fact that millions of Americans are being displaced by illegal foreclosures based upon invalid mortgage documents and the complete absence of any real creditor in the mix.

As foreclosures rise, the number of attempts at modification also rise. This is a game used by “servicers” to assure what appears to be an inescapable default because their marching orders are to get the foreclosure sales, not to resolve the issue. The investment banks need foreclosures; they don’t need the money and they don’t need the house —- as the hundreds of thousands of zombie foreclosures attest where the bank forecloses and abandons property where the borrower could and would have continued paying.

The problem with modifications is the same as the problem with foreclosures. It constitutes another layer of mortgage fraud perpetrated by the Wall Street banks, who are now facing increasingly successful challenges to their attempts to complete the cycle of fraud with a foreclosure.

The “servicer” whom nearly everyone takes for granted as having some authority to move forward is in actuality just as much a stranger to the transaction as the alleged Trust or “Holder”. The so-called servicer alleged authority depends upon powers conferred on it by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement of an unfunded Trust that never completed its mission to originate or acquire loans. If the REMIC trust doesn’t own the loans, the servicer claiming authority from the PSA is claiming vapor. If the Trust doesn’t own the loan then the PSA is irrelevant and the powers conferred in the PSA are pure vapor.

This brings us full circle to where we were in 2007-2008 when it was the banks themselves that claimed that there were no trusts and that there was no securitization. They were, as it turns out, telling the truth. The Trusts were drafted but never funded, never used as conduits and never engaged in ANY transaction in which the Trust had funded the origination or acquisition of loans. So anyone claiming authority from the trust was claiming authority from a fictional character — like Donald Duck.

Complicating matters further is the issue of who owns the loan when there is a claim by Freddie or Fannie. Both of them say they “have” the mortgage online when they neither “have it” nor “own it.” Fannie and Freddie were one of two things in this mess: (1) guarantors, which means they have no interest until after a creditor liquidates the property and claims an actual money loss and Fannie and Freddie actually pays off the loss or (2) Master trustee (and probably guarantor as well) for a REMIC Trust that probably has no greater value than the unfunded REMIC Trusts that are unused conduits.

Further complicating the issue with the former Government Sponsored Entities (Fannie and Freddie) is the fact that many banks have been forced to buy back or pay damages for violating underwriting standards and other types of fraud.

So how do you get or sign a modification with a servicer that has no authority and represents a Trust that has no interest in the loan? The answer is that there is no legal way to do it — BUT there is a way that would allow a legal fiction to be created if a Court issued an order approving the modification and declaring the rights of the parties. The order would say that XYZ is the servicer and ABC is the creditor or owner of the loan and that the homeowner is the borrower and that the modification agreement is approved. If proper notice (including publication) is given it would have the same effect as a foreclosure and would eliminate all questions of title. Without that, you will have continuing title problems. You should also request that the “Servicer” or “Trustee” arrange for a “Guarantee of Title” from a title company.

For the tricks and craziness of what is happening in modifications and the issues presented in New Jersey and other states click the link above.

49 Responses

  1. E. Tolle,

    Don’t know what your personal issue is but don’t project, will you? Miralax is exclusively an American necessity. Constipation is exclusively American and “anal” is… an American state of mind (you seem to know a lot about that… first hand ?) The fact of the matter is that your country is dead. I never was so proud as to put all my eggs in one basket. Obviously, my way works: I’m happy and I win.. And, best of all, I really don’t give a S***t about your existentialist angst. Grow up. I found my crowd. You know: doers, makers and winners. Find yours. Catty sounds strange in a man though. Is that why so many catty losers flock to you? Some “birds of a feather thing”?

  2. They were kept off balance sheet and the notes were not recorded with the mortgages. Think of it as a reverse transaction. Brokers selling Walmart employees with combined household incomes of $30,000 a $300,000 loan and selling that crap to our pensions all for the sake of profit and that almighty paycheck. I know because I sat @ the table with them. There were a few honest people who knew their income on the final apps was fictitious and said something…. None the less the brokers told them to sign and they could correct it after closing. We were instructed to keep our mouth shut as we were unable to give legal advice and instructed to call the lender if the borrower had any questions and if we didn’t get the signatures we didn’t get paid. HA!!!! I lost a lot of pay….. When I found out LPS was attaching our notary acknowledgements to fabricated documents after the fact I blew up!!!

  3. @JG – A PLMBS is a private label mortgage backed securitization, versus agency or GSE / Agency.

    Fannie and Freddie were having a hard time competing with the private label trusts were able to take loans that did not pass DO / DU or DO / DU enhanced. As the mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders saw the ease of avoiding the closing of grade aaa credit loan files with the private conduits, versus doing there job through, most considered a bump to the rate for the borrower, and a lot less work for the brokers and fetch banks a win win.

    Fannie and Freddie could not compete with this model, and at one point in early 2000 sought out the help of Goldman Sachs to create structured financial instruments, which the GSE’s claimed allowed them to smooth out their earnings on their 10K filings over a defined period. In essence, a way to sandbag income.

    Contrary to popular belief, FNM and FRE did not have endless access to cash, and the only way to get their numbers up and compete with Wall Street was to increase volume.

    Think about it from this perspective – if you make money as the middle guy in loan transactions, and your main source of income is the difference between the basis that you secure dollars (issuing bonds for funds) and the yield you receive from the yield you receive from the assets (mortgage loans) you either have to increase volume or lower the basis on the cost of funds.

    If you are competing with a machine that had a reach across the globe, built on a lazy network of people gatherers and pension fund managers, and the greedy middle men had no recourse – and apparently no underwriting guidelines – you either have to raise the amount your willing to pay for loans or join the game.

    Can’t miss your whisper number on wall street or the equity portion of your business is crushed, along with your stock options, bonus and ability to secure funds through equity offerings.

    Why do you think the reserve system banks issued options to the Treasury and NY Fed Bank at the height of the collapse – think of how they were carried on their balance sheet…

  4. Did I mention sooner or later “Everyone is going to court”?

    This episode brought to you by the complements of to much Coffee.

  5. When you have properties you can’t sell because of corrupted titles….. You became a forced landlord.

  6. Banks used to hold the mortgages for 30 years collecting principal and interest payments but this kept money tied up so they created MBS. The sold BOTH the principal AND the interest payment streams freeing up money.

    KC only wanted to payoff principal on husbands loan after 2yrs… But some jackaas whom we will call Mr Greedy wanted KC to pay both.
    When hell freezes over………

    Then there is the issue of title……

    Gee…. Can’t imagine why they are so hell bent on foreclosure..Can You?

    Investor..Homeowner..Taxpayer..I have multiple personalities.

    My Cookie Jars

  7. Speaking of that g-fee, if it can be demonstrated that its inclusion in the borrower’s rate is an undisclosed payment to a third party, it’s poss it would be grounds for rescission. Boy, they’ll fight that one tooth and nail because it’s in all fnma loans, regardless of the loan to value. Most people have never even heard of the g-fee and maybe never would if it weren’t for this blog or others. I probably stumbled on it. It might be reflected in the a.p.r., think so but forget if I knew so, but maybe not in the amt financed or one other number on the tila Reg Z, the name of which escapes me just now. As far as I know, the borrower isn’t charged a two month or what not reserve, like with pmi. (for the record, one could be paying pmi on a loan over 80% ltv AND the g-fee. Ouch.)
    But the pmi is disclosed, unless the insurance is in one of those awful self-insuring loans. Those are loans where the rate was jacked to create their own insurance fund (on info and belief), primarily if not exclusively because no pmi company (PMI, which went bk for what they did insure, MGIC, GMAC) would insure because the loan was a piece of dog doo. Actually, they might have done away with self-insuring loans since they planned to foist the dog doo onto others – or – just use AIG’s computers to ‘write their own’ – or – because a new obligation was going to replace the obligation of the note.
    If calcs are done right, legit pmi will always be included in the a.p.r. and as I said, I think the g-fee would be, also, because it’s in the rate and the rate is considered in any calc of the a.p.r. Not much chance of leaving out the interest rate in the calculation.
    The banksters will claim, long and short, that THEY paid the money to fnma even if they raised the rate offered and accepted by the borrower to cover it. “Yeah, it was in the rate, but we raised the borrower’s
    rate to cover our own expense to fnma.” They might have the gall to say they absorbed it. Nah, they didn’t imo.
    Seems wrong to not disclose it when 1) the borrower had to pay it 2) to a third party for a liabiilty that third party was going to create (fnma’s guarantee on the certs).

    Hey, Bob, what’s your take on the g-fee? Should it have been disclosed?
    Here’s a little primer on the g-fee for anyone interested:

  8. Enforce the contract … Attack the Mortgage.

  9. In doing the PPM securities holders who are the registrations securities. Issuers were÷ allowed to construct a New York indenture holding g fractional shares of the estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably into trust. Therefore Shadowcat alleges facts establishing a basis for a claim for facts constituting ground for rescission of underlying transaction making instrument avoidable . Mr Greedy claims are are for a transferred asset..the loan..sold for value. Mr Greedy knew @ the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgage was not enforceable but did not disclose this fact to Shadowcat as a granter.

    Mr Greedy made the transfer… With the intent to defraud Shadowcat.




    Many Blessings to All

  11. “Why do you think the investors are getting settlements!!!”
    D I S C O V E R Y? No mtns to dismiss or being able to dodge them?
    Compliance with Rule 26 because the investors’ highly knowledgeable and skilled attorneys aren’t dweebs like me trying to figure stuff out?
    You know that expression “You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time”? I’d say the banksters have met people they can’t ever fool. And judges, not to disparage the majority of judges, don’t pretend to be fooled in the presence of learned men.

  12. Actually, iwantmynpv, they may have lowered their standards in 2004. I don’t know, but I have to question it. I can’t swear to the date the
    “ignoring” the guidelines started. I’m not aware of any event
    by then that would have changed their unlimited funds, like massively rising borrower defaults. But it would help if I knew what a plmbs is, and I’ll also try to incorporate what you said in your first paragraph about them having 2 components, something I don’t know about.

  13. iwantmynpv – below is as far as I’ve gotten, but already Ii know you’ve given me too much credit for things I don’t know.
    “….. the GSE’s primarily purchased whole loans, or pools of whole loans prior to the new millenium – they were on the verge of going out of business back in 2004 due to the rise of the PLMBS, and the resulting loss of market share.

    jg: I don’t know what a ‘plmbs’ is. F & F weren’t going to run out of money. It’s my understanding they had access to pretty much unlimited funds to buy whole loans. That may not have been true for GNMA. I don’t know.

    “Instead of giving up their lush, cushy ass slush fund jobs, the elite at the former GSE’s decided to hire Newt Gingrich to go lobby his former cronies. Newt’s success resulted in the investor guidelines being lowered at the GSE’s, which allowed them to head full force into the PLMBS market providing unimaginable liquidity to fuel the PLMBS Trust’s.”

    If I get what you’re saying, I’m afraid I can’t agree that the guidelines, if you’re referring to loan qualification, were lowered. They weren’t
    lowered – they were willfully ignored so those guys could get their
    fat, multi-million dollar bonuses based on production volume. Each is a sucky deal, but willfully ignoring existing criteria was really bad in my book – loans were underwritten either manually or using a software program called “Desktop” or “DU”, at any rate, programs created to
    determine qualification. Someone had to override or bogus up info to defeat the demanded critieria. F & F, it’s true, didn’t rerun every loan. They only did a sampling, a certain percentage from anyone they bought loans from.
    As to willfully ignoring criteria, I’ll give anyone this: My source was the media, but I’m not kidding when I say I’ll never forget hearing it in 2008. It’s right under where I was when I heard that Kennedy got killed. I know exactly where I was and what I was doing. My reaction was visceral. I’d like to ask you to believe I especially cared, which is what got that reaction and I suppose it’s been influential in my direction. But okay, either way it was about fat production bonuses, but they had the funds – that part’s not factual imo. It’s just a cover story. The ones who really benefited must’ve been the ones involved with sub-prime loans. THEY were the ones who needed funds / sales outlets since even with ignored u/w guidelines, F & F still wouldn’t buy their garbage. What’s more likely factual (remember I haven’t finished reading your comments) is that F & F mucks saw a way to better personally ‘cash-out’ by participating in securitization.
    Because it may well be a factor, remember if you will they started charging the ‘g fee’ (.15 to .25 each month) on each and every loan (for their guarantee on the certificates), and for the same reasons the mucks wanted the guidelines ignored, they didn’t care if that g fee ultimately ended up being a losing proposition for F & F. At least that’s how I see the g-fee and the mucks.

  14. @ John Gault – most of the stuff purchased by the GSE’s was through a private placement memorandum, and not registered certificates.


  15. @ John Gault The GSE’s, just like the FDIC, have two components – one corporate and the other Trust. The loans and RMBS certificates are purchased by the Corproate entity, and rescutritzed to issue GSE bonds.

    Although, the GSE’s primarily purchased whole loans, or pools of whole loans prior to the new millenium – they were on the verge of going out of business back in 2004 due to the rise of the PLMBS, and the resulting loss of market share.

    Instead of giving up their lush, cushy ass slush fund jobs, the elite at the former GSE’s decided to hire Newt Gingrich to go lobby his former cronies. Newt’s success resulted in the investor guidelines being lowered at the GSE’s, which allowed them to head full force into the PLMBS market providing unimaginable liquidity to fuel the PLMBS Trust’s.

    Most PLMBS Trust’s would carve out an entire tranche of loans that allegedly met the GSE purchase guidelines. Although, they would primarily purchase the certificates in the higher rated, they also purchased some of the lower tier yield producing crap to get their numbers and stock options up for Wall Street.

    If Raines was not romantically involved with Barney Frank, he would have gone to jail for the mess he created.

    Anyway, the GSE’s take the purchased collateral and resecuritized the cash and issued GSE Bonds against cash flow. Since the GSE Bonds had a triple AAA rating and the implicit backing of the United States Treasury they could issue their bonds at a lower yield and catch the spread.

    Unfortunately, bad greedy men and women wnated to increase their own personal gain at the GSE’s and they dipped deeper and deeper into sub-prime, eventually taking a beating when the defaults occurred.

    Last, that guy Nye Lavalle wrote a basic, and easy to read article and God told me last night that i have to work with Christine to bring her back into the fold….. LOL

    Oh yeah, slob on the knob Bob may be a redneck, but he is a super smart guy. The fellow he is always pumping, Storm – something or another, although a bit to feminine and thin-skinned for my taste, has certainly got it right. The real defense begins with the transaction and the appraisal fraud. Why do you think the investors are getting settlements!!!

  16. If there were a novation by way of the new obligation on the certs,
    the banksters had insurable interests – their obligation to pay on the certs. imo. Also imo, no one will acknowledge this. F & F might be saved by their agreements (to the extent a prospectus is an agreement per se – got me) to repurchase to end their payment obligations. Others might have made a / their novation to include a right to repurchase,
    buuuuut if so, why is the trust being shown as the foreclosing party? Because it’s just now easier for them and most courts are lining up in saying the borrower has no interest to holler about the assignments? Well, that doesn’t even work / dog won’t hunt if there’s been novation, because if there has been, and thus the loan agreement is toast, there’s nothing TO assign and there’s nothing for F or F* or anyone to repurchase.
    *if F and F’s guarantee or suretyship or w/e on certificates constitutes a novation.

  17. Some of us have wondered why the notes were destroyed, if they were.
    Maybe we’ve been barking up either the wrong tree or only one of them:

    “16.-6. It is evident that a simple novation, or the making a new contract and annulling the old, must, by the destruction of the obligation, discharge the surety. ”

    I’m not knowledgeable by any means on the ramifications of being one who endorses a note, but some material I’ve read suggests that party has some liability (if this actually relates to suretyship, I don’t know). Maybe the notes were destroyed because of a combination of the creation of a new obligation (payment on the certs) and endorser liability, but just now I’m thinking the replacement of one obligation by another with someone else.
    Was the creation and sale of certificates a novation between the trust and ?? Was the borrower’s obligation to perform replaced with someone
    else’s obligation to perform a diff obligation? It looks like it to me, but if it’s on the likes of me to prove it, we’re in trouble. But it looks to me like they had to destroy the obligation evidenced by the note. The reason to do that was about the certificates – the obligation created had to be a tradeable commodity is the only way i know to say it. First of all, once a trust was closed, it was closed (well, unless you’re the proponent of an assgt 6 years after a trust closing date). Without the certs, no one could alienate / sell his interest and no one could obtain a new one, at least not readily if at all.

    “In contract law and business law, “novation”[1] is the act of either:

    replacing an obligation to perform with a new obligation; or
    adding an obligation to perform; or
    replacing a party to an agreement with a new party.

    I used to think putting MERS in the dot was a novation, which by itself might be no foul x it bifurcates the note and dot from their ORIGIN (and significantly not at a later date for RE-unificiation to apply, your honor), but in order for it to have been a true novation, the lender would have to have been first named the beneficiary and then replaced by MERS as the novated – substituted – party. An assignment wouldn’t accomplish novation, imo, though that’s what they did originally – named the lender as the ben and then assigned to mers. Then they got really stupid, and decided novation was possible even tho the lender wasn’t named as the orig ben TO novate. So then they claimed MERS was their agent (because it wasn’t a novated party, which it might have been had they done it right), which bs-ness we all might see in all its blazing glory if we actually had access to the info of the underlying MERS’ Consent Order. What do you do when you find
    every loan made since l990-something names no beneficiary? Apparently not a whole lot. And it’s still going on.

    Novation was / is used when party A doesn’t want to be a named party to a contract. He pretty much hires someone else to be a party in his stead. Like say Henry is married and wants to buy his mistress a home. He doesn’t want his name on the deal, and he doesn’t want hers, either (she might dump his tail). He might hire someone to buy the house and retain title. This is an example of an untoward reason for novation, but it gets the job done. Henry hired Karl, so the agreement between the two of them controls what Karl may do. If Karl enters into an agreement with Sean about the house and says he, Karl, may do this or that, and Sean signs it, that doesn’t give Karl the right to do it. Only his agreement with Henry does. Karl isn’t Henry’s agent per se,
    though he’s bound by their agreement. But it wouldn’t matter if Karl were Henry’s agent. Sean can’t sign anything which authorizes Karl to do anything. If Karl writes in an agreement with Sean that he’s authorized to do something (for Henry), all it stands for is that Karl is saying so, not Henry, and Sean is only acknowledging that Sean told him he has authority. There are pi$$ing matches which could ensue from this situation, but the one and only legal starting point imo is that unless the agreement between Karl and Henry evidences Karl’s authority, he has none, certainly not by way of Sean’s signature.
    So who cares at this date? Probably not those who’ve already lost their homes. But no where in the dot does it say, even if you take it that
    the borrower’s signature means anything it does NOT, that MERS may
    assign the ben interest in the dot (as alleged agent), certainly doesn’t say MERS’ may assign the note. It prob won’t do any good unless you’ve got very deep pockets to take this on, because no one except homeowners want this to be acknowledged as true.
    The place to find what MERS may do (as alleged agent) is in the document which allegedly (key word) creates the agency, in this case the membership agreement, IF anything. But like many of us, I’ve read that agreement and it doesn’t say that “mers” may assign the note. The agreement has prob been changed since the Consent Order since foreclosures could no longer be done in MERS’ name. Prior to that it said the straw officer had to be in poss of the orig note to f/c in MERS’ name, but it most definitely didn’t say anyone could assign the dot or note in MERS’ name or that the straw officer could. This means they
    were relying on article 3 possession of a note (and apparently, regardless of endorsements missing or there) to foreclose, and yet, there they are in Hilmon swearing these notes weren’t subject to
    article 3’s holder analysis. Damn.

    lay opinions

  18. The other day I said re the issuers (whom to get the ben of gnma
    insurance must repurchase and be the foreclosing party because gnma makes its insurance only to the issuer, not the trust):

    “They’re not repurchasing; they posture the trust is that party and use the alleged and non-existant imo credit bid of the trust to f/c. I ‘dare’ say this because I’ve yet to see an issuer as the named plaintiff in a f/c action.”

    Even were that not true about issuers, and the trust is the foreclosing party and assuming all to be done were done, DOES the trust have a credit bid? The issuer, if it repurchased, imo would have a right to a credit bid because GNMA won’t pay, unlike F & F, until after the dust
    settles on the resale of the property, i.e., until the issuer’s loss is known. I think (only) it’s fair to say the trust, because of contracts
    between the issuer and GNMA which are intertwined with the trust agreements, has no right to its own credit bid. That stmt assumes the
    third party agreements (between the issuer and gnma) are binding
    on the trusts. F & F’s agreements are just plain between the certificate buyers and F & F by way of the prospectus. (The agreement re: the ben of gnma insurance with the issuers may be outright incorporated in
    those trust agreements. I don’t know, but they prob are). GNMA makes it clear it will only pay the insurance – again, after the dust settles – if the ISSUER repurchases from the trust. This doesn’t, IF the trust may legally otherwise foreclose, and with a credit bid as they do, preclude the trust from foreclosing. It just means no one’s getting the gnma insurance on any loss, and why would they do that? Bottom line for me, since I’ve seen no issuer as the foreclosing party, is the issuer isn’t repurchasing, is calling for foreclosure, doing it in the name of the trust, using the alleged credit bid of the trust, and should be foregoing the gnma insurance as a result. Does GNMA know what’s going on? Got me. All I know is that FHA has denied claims in the millions of dollars based on the bs underwriting (read borrower didn’t qualify) of fha loans.

    In order for the trust to have a credit TO bid, mustn’t the trust
    relinquish the certificates? Do they?
    If there’s a ‘normal’ pool of loans, like say ‘MFK, Inc’. is a company which rounds up investors to own pro rata shares of interests in
    mtg loans, those guys don’t get certificates, also, at least that I know of. They would have some kind of contract and payment record which evidences their interest and right to payment. If the right to payment for trust investors is created BY the certificates and not the loans per se, then how is it the trust would have a credit bid on the loans?
    Let’s just say the trust’s right to payment IS by way of the certificates but the party who agreed to pay on them isn’t paying on them. If the
    loans were true sales, they aren’t collateral for that party’s performance, right? So right there, to me, that says the loans aren’t collateral for that party’s payment, right? Is there some deal which says I (trust) won’t try to enforce these loans (!) unless you (other party) don’t pay me, in which case the loan would have to be in default, also? Take out the certs and that could be the case, but making the party who agreed to pay a what? What would they be called? A guarantor?
    That imo is what FNMA is (by its own design – why, I don’t know).
    Actually, is FNMA a surety and not a gurantor? A surety often or always has a right of subrogation,* like an insurance company but unlike a guarantor (like a personal guarantee on a business loan) or co-signor (like your uncle on your loan). FNMA has the right to repurchase to stand in the shoes of the party it made itself liable to. But WHAT then of the certificates for the loans FNMA must make good on?

    *suretyship is a defense to a contract. We don’t know this because
    we haven’t looked ‘there’. If the surety has performed and now owns the thing (here loan) subject to the surety, the surety has a claim against the note maker, which imo is the case when FNMA performs and repurchases the note. I don’t know if generally one who is a surety
    must actually purchase to ‘stand in the shoes of’. I only know FNMA’s prospectus, written by FNMA, calls for FNMA to repurchase to end its payments.

    When companies like ‘MFK, Inc.’ sell interests in pools of loans, they don’t agree to pay their investors themselves, either as guarantors or sureties or by way of some certificates (that I know of, but they could for all I know). MFK would simply pass along payments after taking their cut, and foreclose when need be pursuant to their contract with their investors. MFK (and I think only MFK) imo would have a right to a credit bid – because there’s no agreement for a third party to pay them on another basis. As to public record, it’s prob MFK who remains shown as the lender / creditor and not the investors (the buy-ins of the investors don’t call for true sales from MFK – there aren’t any; there’s just buy-ins for pro rata interests). MFK’s remedy for the note maker’s breach is to appropriately go after the collateral and or the borrower.

    But if 1) a third party pays the trusts on the 2) basis of certificates and 3) has created its own obligation (has it not ?), how is that cause to
    go after a notemaker for a note by the trust? How does that give a trust a credit bid against the third party’s obligation on something else, the certs? Isn’t the matter of the third party payments on something else preclusive of that? I’d have to say I don’t understand ‘derivatives’. If my perspective is in left field, is there anyone here who can put it ‘right’? It looks to me like the only real reason to create a trust was for a tax advantage and marketing (otherwise why not just create pools and sell interest-shares like MFK?) and at least on my no-derivative knowledge, it looks like a joke. Okay, one other reason: the certificates are themselves marketable, meaning one could get out in a hurry, and that’s probably thee biggie. I don’t know where they’re traded, but
    being traded anywhere is a big advantage.

  19. Hilmon didn’t, I think, challenge the authenticity of the endorsements.
    I can’t recall what, if any, presumptions exist as to those endorsements or if they must be authenticated by their proponent. Pretty sure it’s the latter. But, one needs to know beforehand and be ready for it. In the case where one of the endorsers had no corporate structure (AWL comes to mind), looks to me like that endorsement at least could be
    successfully challenged.

  20. elexquisitor, a few days ago, you were talking about how the bankster used your own testimony to establish the note (as the original)….by using only part of your actual testimony. I couldn’t believe how it was
    established in Hilmon. Hilmon refused to acknowledge that the signature was for sure his and that it was his original signature. His wife testified that it looked like her signature and his. The court looked at his signature on court docs. Then the court said because the signatures in the note and in court docs seemed to match and were in blue ink on the note, it was the original, even though Hilmon said there is equipment available now that will recreate a note, including the ‘right’ ink color. Court wasn’t having it. The judge, I guess, decided he was an expert on ink and could confirm the note. In fairness to the judge, deserved or not, an att for the bankster said he had gotten the note from the custodian.( I doubt that any party as the lawful custodian was actually itself established.)
    The attorney could really only say who he asked for the note. Not where it truly came from. But, if the standard to establish the note is only preponderance, maybe the judge was correct (disregarding the
    failure to establish the custodian).
    So I don’t know what else Hilmon could’ve done, except holler that the custodian wasn’t established, and the attorney could only establish who he asked for the note. Jan Van Eck has mentioned a particular program which recreates notes to look like the real thing. I don’t know if it would’ve been or would be any good to establish the existence of such a program. Maybe Jan V E has some thoughts on that. I don’t remember if Hilmon challenged consideration for the note or not (to make the claimant the party who would suffer by its non-payment and thus be entitled to jurisdiction). But I think this case exemplifies the

  21. Sadly, the media is owned outright by the corporate elite.

    If it were anything other, We would be learning daily of the heroic efforts of the Greeks.

    1. “Sanders Asks Fed Chief Yellen To Help Greece Overcome Austerity Policies Which Are Destroying Their Economy,” Sanders.Senate.Gov, February 9, 2015
    2. Yves Smith, “Is Syriza About to Score a Tactical Win Against the Troika?,” Naked Capitalism, February 9, 2015
    3. Paul Mason, “Greece shows what can happen when the young revolt against corrupt elites,” The Guardian, January 25, 2015
    4. Philip Tutt, “Greek austerity sparks sharp rise in suicides,” CNBC, February 4, 2015
    5. “Greece bailout talks: No agreement in Brussels,” BBC News, February 12, 2015
    6. “Sen. Sanders: Greece in midst of great depression,” CNBC, February 9, 2015
    7. Beat Balzi, “Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt,” Spiegel Online, February 8, 2010

    A phony aristocracy now holds sway over the planet and what used to be our democracy is no exception to their rule.

    The elites have conspired to rig the game and abandon, altogether, the rule of law.

    Sooner or later, the truth will be told. In the meantime, if you can, add your voice to those resisting the tyranny of the central bankers even if it is only through the simple act of signing petitions.

    In the meantime, get your money out of banks like Bank Of America and Wells Fargo and put it into credit unions.

    Someone just told me Direct TV doesn’t carry Fox News. If that is true I will be switching asap.

    At this late stage of the game to pretend one political party is better than another is to ignore the fact they are both owned by the banks.

    The banks are destroying our democracy and, like the Greeks, We The People should embrace that as the truth and stand with whatever individual politicians are willing to tell it like it is.

    Anything other than that is simply just a willingness to endure more of the same.

  22. Christine said:

    “Lack of focus, education and moral courage bother me tremendously.”

    Aw now, don’t let that get to you so….there are plenty of online education choices for your GED. Go for it girl! We’re with you 100%!

    “I love this country. I chose it for myself because of what it was originally made of and what it represented worldwide: courageous pioneers, doers, inventors and creators.”

    Cue Aaron Copeland track….overlay Monument Valley scenes,,,this is good!

    “In my romantic view of America, the mess we’re in was unthinkable.”

    More of the lack of critical thinking skills….it’ll come with practice. Focus! We’re with you all the way babe!

    “I’m here today, dealing with it and watching its people drown in it while incapable of taking action. Painful.”

    Sounds more like hemorrhoids to me. Have you tried a topical ointment? I’ve never had that problem, but private message me for some OTC recommendations. We’ll get a handle on this together, don’t you worry. You’ll be able to travel back just in time to see the Grexit firsthand!

    And maybe you’ll come to the inescapable conclusion that this isn’t the American populace failing….it’s the entire fucking planet that’s been taken over by the elite, just like Alien or Independence Day….they want it all….and nothing will stand in their way.

    But you get yourself healthy first. No one wants to go into battle with itchy hemorrhoids. You can thank me later.>/b>

  23. NPV,

    “Everyone seems to have their favorites, besides Christine, who seemingly rips all equally.”

    Right. Lack of focus, education and moral courage bother me tremendously. I love this country. I chose it for myself because of what it was originally made of and what it represented worldwide: courageous pioneers, doers, inventors and creators. In my romantic view of America, the mess we’re in was unthinkable. I’m here today, dealing with it and watching its people drown in it while incapable of taking action. Painful.

    It hurts when you bet on the wrong horse. It hurts even more looking at people betting on it over and over again, even though it is moribund. I still have two passports, one of them giving me access to 47 countries (going up with Grexit). The real estate here is fabulous. The people fucked it up for everyone themselves… in the name of: greed, fear, lack of morals, lack of courage, comfort, complacency, just name it.

    You bet I’m going to rip at lack of intelligence! 1/3 of this country is already in the hands of China, Russia, India and many others. With that input, we should be so much ahead of the game! I’m dealing with all of them. And I’m looking at the American people becoming… extinct for lack of action, refusal to open their mind to the world and… pure obsolescence, as a civilization.

  24. iwantmynpv: “I can assure you that they are all Trusts, keeps the loans BK remote and allows for the issuance of GSE Bonds.”

    Glad to hear it. Now please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to how you may assure us. I’m not taking issue; I just sure as heck want to know. I guess I could more readily believe that if the GSEs were the parties to get the loans to trusts, they might have. Not so much
    with jumbo and anything less that Alt A paper.

  25. I’ve referenced this case before but I don’t think I cited any actual language. This is from Hilmon v MERS, 2007 WL 1218718 (E.D. Mich. 2007)). MERS says note aren’t regulated by article 3 or 4, but by 9.
    From MERS’ mtn to dismiss, DC ED MI 06-13055, dkt 19:

    “Additionally, in a ‘brief’ attached to his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
    the promissory note is a negotiable instrument, and that MERS was not a holder in due course and therefore could not collect on the debt owed under the note.


    Promissory notes are not negotiable instruments under the UCC Article 4; rather they are security interests covered under Article 9…..
    As stated above, a promissory note is not a negotiable instrument to which the Uniform Commercial Code’s holder in due course analysis applies…..Diversified Financial Systems, Inc. v. Schanhals, 203 Mich.App.598, 513 N.W. 210.”

    jg: Well, shame on me. I, apparently like poor Hilmon, never got around to reading “Diversified”. Here’s what it actually says:

    “Plaintiff attempts to apply a holder in due course analysis to
    the guaranty contracts. CONTRACTS OF GUARANTY are not negotiable instruments, Aiton, supra, to which the Uniform Commercial Code’s holder in due course analysis applies.”

    This makes me sick. I think Hilmon was pro se. What a bunch of
    weasels. This may be fraud on the court or if not, it has another name. It’s at least a willful intent to influence the court with material known to be untrue. I mean, seriously. Misquoting a case?? Banksters often
    cite to cases that aren’t on point, but this is different. It looks like at least a rule 11 violation to me.
    However, regardless of the fact that MERS misquoted a case on which it relied, the fact remains that MERS is on record as swearing that
    these notes aren’t negotiable instruments to which the hidc analysis applies. I’m not sure how to make use of this, but maybe there’s a way. I really can’t say what stops a party from saying the sky is blue in one case and then saying it’s purple in another case of the very same issue. There must be something, some principle of estoppel or like that.
    Btw, the Diversified case has some clues about guarantors and their obligations.

  26. I can assure you that they are all Trusts, keeps the loans BK remote and allows for the issuance of GSE Bonds.

    I just read the NYE article on MERS, secutization, assignemnts blah blah. This is old news and just a consolidation of glarb that has been floating around every corner of the internet, courts media etc…

    I keep hearing people talk about the destruction of 9 trillion dollars in homeowner (equity wealth). Just like the purported cash involved in the securitization of mortgages, autos, school loans, credit cards etc… It never existed, albeit, for the media that encouraged the credit wealth, and the machines that recorded the termination of paper assets on one balance sheet and the entry on another lenders balance sheet – without a nickel swapping hands.

    Eliminate the credit from the system…. Just stop buying on credit… Intially the banks could get some support by the FRS, yet the unwind would eliminate them in the long run.

    With any credit scheme – you need new suckers or increased value to further sink the hook into the fish that are already indebted.

    Everyone seems to have their favorites, besides Christine, who seemingly rips all equally.

    Please reply with the name of your favorite foreclosure defender / blog guy. Just a name.


  27. e.tolle – this is dated 02 03 2015 (comes up with search of his name):

  28. Those are good ideas. But I thought I’d just tie a brick to the copy and throw it through a window

  29. “Ian, that’s a great idea. It might be easier and less costly to put the comments on cdrom (rather than copy and mail all those pages) and send the cdrom’s to judges. Please do! For a relatively small cost, you could hit judges in your local counties, judges sitting on appeal for your district, and the SC judges of your state.”

    “Please do!”

    Manipulation never gets old…

    I bet JG is willing to cover the “small cost”. But… there’s a catch! Ian must be willing to do the work and stick his neck out.

    Is that pitiful or what? Losers enticing other losers to do the work.

    I’m very confident JG will find people to do his bidding: in every therapy, there are always givers and takers… Choose your camp, people.

  30. Ian, that’s a great idea. It might be easier and less costly to put the comments on cdrom (rather than copy and mail all those pages) and send the cdrom’s to judges. Please do! For a relatively small cost, you could hit judges in your local counties, judges sitting on appeal for your district, and the SC judges of your state.

  31. Contacting Nye Lavalle is pretty difficult (different circle). Getting his prose is costly: it takes a few, real bucks. Max Gardner, Matt Weidner, Martin Andelman have their entry. Joe-six-packs, who never managed to draw a timeline and do his homework, may find it impossible.

    The man wrote. Some of it is accessible. Most isn’t.

  32. E.tolle – try or just google him. He is the son of Mildred Pew of the Pew Charitable Trust. Knows his stuff. I think he administers the Trust legalities. Or some such.

  33. iwantmynpv I don’t believe there are any Trust for GSEs.

  34. has anyone on this site heard about agency securitizations, and GSE Trusts?

  35. I don’t often agree with NG but I have to agree with him today: it is, indeed, a Modification Minefield (unless people are so desperate that they would be willing to “kick the can down the road”, which is exactly what this country as a whole has graduated in).

    Modifications were pushed by this administration for a few years as the solution to all-encompassing foreclosure problems. Modifications are tem-po-ra-ry. The first batch of suckers who fell for it just recently learned how tem-po-ra-ry: after 5 years of an economy going down, down, down, they have to resume paying the original amount. While in modification, no one has been able to sell and the titles are still so clouded, a tornado would cause fewer damages!

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, defending foreclosure is taking the wrong action much too late. You don’t “defend” foreclosure. You preempt it. There is no excuse for being on the defensive any longer.

  36. Javagold foreclosures are a State process and that why there are no Federal laws on the books. So the Federal Government saying what goes on in the State procedure means nothing at all and that why we here today. The Holm & Franklin case shows the problem the problem with Freddie coming into court claiming that Wells Fargo the servicer could foreclose for Freddie.

    The servicer in no case can come into a court with the case listing Bank A as the holder of the debt yet Wells is on the docket as the party foreclosing. Can they hire the outside legal and carry on the procedure as Bank A but it Bank A in title and not Wells or Freddie or Fannie.

    On Fannie and Freddie sites they say they are not lenders and the do not originate any home mortgage loans. These two agencies would have to be registered and overseen by a banking agencies in OCC or FDIC in order to lend.

    I believe because something was always done and no one had the ability to sue these agencies or even have legal help that understood what exactly that was going on. The two agencies are in titles in some places but because they are not the originator of the loans and if the ownership is question and its been done with a blank endorse Note they are required if question to produce a receipt of purchase. I even having an endorsed Note, the question is who are you regulated by and how as a non-lender how do you have a servicing agreement when it not a function you do yourself so how can you have another do so for you.

    One cannot foreclose in a name other than the party holding the Note and Debt, so a servicer cannot step into that position with its Name as the party bring the action. Your Attorney is not bringing the case in their name but it in your name against the plaintiff and it the same for a servicer who handling a foreclosure for Bank A. In fact it not the servicer at all that involve but the legal firm that handling the court action.

  37. Whether the GSE(s) are the Lender, Investor, Guarantor or owner of the mortgage, they end up being the “Title Holders” after a foreclosure sale

    Eugene. I kid you not. I’ve been spoke to both servicer and Fannie Mae representatives many many many times. And each time the person would SWEAR to me Fannie is the lender. The next time SWEAR they are only investor. The next time SWEAR they are owner of mortgage. It’s a never ending merry go round at the circus of fraud. ….. still waiting for a call back With the exact definition of what Fannie and Freddie are and how servicer is allowed to fraudclosed on houses in servicers name.

  38. Ian, no, I didn’t know he addressed them. Do you have a ink?

  39. E.tolle- have you read Nye Lavalle’s comments to the FLA Supreme Court? It’s 145 pages, I am on ph 100. My thought is to make copies, send a copy to each judge in several counties. It applies to every state in the US. This is one of the most all-encompassing assessments of the whole foreclosure fraud horror show. Read it and see if you agree.and keep posting or ranting. I think you have gene and rock in a corner licking their wounds.

  40. Oh, and I guess we’re supposed to just sit still and take it while millions of homes are foreclosed and seized through fraudulent means, then rents are raised through the roof (roofs once owned by us?)

    Housingwire had a story this week entitled, Experts: Unaffordable rents here to stay Isn’t that special?

    So let’s just all sit back and watch as millions of former middle class workers are displaced into neglected hedge fund owned but not maintained rental properties that used to be well manicured by us, the former owners, before being fraudulently foreclosed upon, with the expectation that our children and their children will be servicing these lords and masters in the new American-styled Downton Abby’s owned by the elite class behind these very same frauds.

    They co-opted the markets through fraud and theft and are now raising rental prices to unaffordable levels with rent being the only option left to millions, and there’s absolutely nothing standing in their way of continuing this Snidely Whiplash business model until the cows come home, sorry…until the cows come to the rental units.

    But have no fear, the investors will be very well compensated, as will their representatives in government. Serf’s up!

    I’m morphing into Ivent more every day.

  41. NJ Foreclosure Courts(judges) are corrupt. Rabner only singled out robo-signing in 2010. After the bank’s attorney demanded that they be protected(?) with the diligent search inquiry and a Special Master was appointed and certified that everything was oky doky in his report, the Special Master has now had to make a Second Report on Wells Fargo(the first bank, so far) as to the diligent search inquires not being in compliance. Rabner’s (second) administrative order pertaining to attorneys use of the time period to move forward on the Notice Of Intent was rescinded by him because the attorneys(18 cases were submitted) neglected the order. Two judges were appointed to rubber stamp the NOI.
    The Superior Court of New Jersey and the Office of Foreclosure are the two entities that control the foreclosures in New Jersey and Wolfe is an attorney that heads the Office of Foreclosure(?) which is suppose to insure that ALL the correct documents are in order before it recommends a Final Summary Judgment. They, like the judges just rubber stamp everything that ‘s thrown at their face. In the BK case where the homeowner Won on the statue of limitations, the judge showed his bias on the case by stating the homeowner shouldn’t have won. In another recent Bergen County case, the administrative judge is questioning the ghost writer of defendant’s motion. In my case, the judge questions my (dis)respect to the court for unintentionly chewing gum. This is a judge who has committed perjury before the court.
    To date, nothing has changed. OneWest Bank transferred the mortgage to Ocwen who claims to be the Lender/Servicer for FannieMae; Chase Home Finance, LLC transfers the mortgage to M&T who also claims to be the Lender/Servicer for FreddieMac. Whether the GSE(s) are the Lender, Investor, Guarantor or owner of the mortgage, they end up being the “Title Holders” after a foreclosure sale.
    I guess everyone forgets that the judges were the gatekeepers who allowed the banks and their attorneys to submit anything and everything.

  42. Neil says, “BUT there is a way that would allow a legal fiction to be created if a Court issued an order approving the modification and declaring the rights of the parties.”

    This has been a bone of contention of mine for years now with Neil, the concept of some legal body taking it upon itself to ordain this whole criminal mess and wave a global wand over the crime scene…there….all better now. Are we supposed to simply re-sign the dotted line, after years of constant and massive abuse by a well oiled fraud machine and continue on as if everything’s hunky-dory? There….fixed it! Bullshit.

    Who has this power? Welcome to ex post facto America, where we look the other way when the great and powerful decide to rape and pillage. This argument can’t sustain itself without accepting that the financial sector’s plunder has been so great that we all just need to look the other way while we attempt a global reset….just rearrange the game board so that, although we suffer greatly for generations to come, we’ll not upset the financial sector anymore than necessary, as they’re simply way too big and important to ruffle. The consequences could be dire! Just take your lump of coal and move on.

    I say bring it on….to hell with them all. The sooner it all breaks down the better chance we’ll have of locking up the bastards and moving towards an effective new order that doesn’t have us all proffering ourselves to these self proclaimed masters of the universe. Let’s see how they master the Saddam Shuffle. I’ll happily give them the final nudge off the stairway.

  43. Read this article on Bill Moyers site called “Obama’s Foreclosure Relief Program was designed to help the banks” written Feb 16, 2015. Great read!

  44. As anyone reading here knows I only talked about Ginnie Mae, but now we come full circle and it seem with the Holm case and re:Franklin where Freddie got not proof of purchase and a Note that not endorsed with Freddie as the owner nor Wells Fargo.

    Now the common denominator is Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) who is dead and has no say in the matter because they are DEAD. We know for a fact that Ginnie does not purchase the loans ever, so the never have ownership of the debt and never have the authority of granting a modification or foreclosed. There is no Trust for the Ginnie Mae pooled loans as it a securities that created by the banks and not Ginnie as Ginnie is only the “insurer” of the securities.

    The MBS is a post financial agreement between the lenders/issuers who structures the securities within the guidelines of the program just as the loan that are placed into the Ginnie pool are FHA & VA loans but they are not own by the FHA or VA Departments but just created using the program guidelines.

    Ginnie Mae needed to hide the fact that WaMu is separated forever from the blank Note even before they are seized because as Wells Fargo is made the servicer and custodian of records, in a procedure that not illegal because the Notes are suppose to be relinquished to Ginnie already and as they are not a lender or servicer yet in possession of a blank Note that they cannot in return endorse and transfer the Note with an additional endorsement, it make the Notes non-negotiable. It make the Notes void because they cannot contain a debt every again, and when WaMu goes belly up the jig is up!

    Freddie was suppose to have purchase loans, but it exposed that they did not purchase the loan. Now Ginnie cannot purchase any loans, and from the same 1.3 million loans that Wells is servicing of WaMu’s loans as with the Holm & Franklin loans, you got all the Ginnie pooled loan where its a fact that they could not be modified or foreclose after Sept 25, 2008 because they no owner on the debt. Wells is only in the issue because it suppose to be servicing for WaMu but they are defunct and Ginnie nor Wells has purchase the loans!

  45. Reblogged this on patrickainsworth and commented:
    Someone put Ocwen out of business. They are pure fraud.

  46. NG re FNMA and FHLMC:
    “(1) guarantors, which means they have no interest until after a creditor liquidates the property and claims an actual money loss and Fannie and Freddie actually pays off the loss..”

    I’m confused about why you say this and would be interested in your source material. You’re saying the agencies cover a loss after liquidation by another party. First of all, I don’t believe that’s how a guarantee works in general. If I were a guarantor on Mary’s loan, if Mary doesn’t pay, I’m expected to, and not until after liquidation. In fact, for all I know but sense, they could be waiving my guarantee by liquidating before coming after me for payments. If I were a guarantor, and Mary defaulted and I didn’t make good, any action on that loan would include me as a named defendant. FNMA, from what I get from its prospectus, doesn’t wait til liquidation to make good on its guarantee. It’s obligated to make payments when the borrower doesn’t and may repurchase to end the guarantee payments.
    It makes a monster diff – my version or the one you’ve asserted. In mine, which again, I’ve taken from their prospectus, fnma would be the foreclosing party unless it subsequently sold the loan to someone else after its own repurchase. I think one thing is clear after all this time:
    no one who might have been obligated to repurchase (F & F, the issuer pursuant to its agreement with GNMA) wants to because of uncertainty that they would be paying the right party (by paying the trust).

  47. This is exactly what I have Bern dealing with in the actual state of NJ since 2007. It is fraud of the highest order. Yet here it is in 2015 and very very very little had changed.
    Someone smarter than me better come up with a rock solid game plan and QUICK !!!!

  48. A nation that does not help its weak is a weak nation.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: