For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
RESCISSION IS NOT A GIMMICK. IT IS PUBLIC POLICY! TILA is designed to punish banks who play outside the rules. It is designed to put all the power into the hands of the borrower. AND it has worked up until it stopped working with hundreds of erroneous decisions by trial and appellate courts that only got corrected by a unanimous Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia. The playing field is level again. Let the chips fall where they may.
==========================
I received an email from one of my most knowledgeable anonymous contributors. It raises an interesting question. If the lender was not disclosed at closing, then is a TILA rescission effective? My first answer is that if the rescission notice is sent, then the mortgage and note are nullified by operation of law unless the “lender” files a lawsuit within 20 days contesting the notice of rescission. So whether you were right or wrong, it would be my opinion that if the “lender” does not respond, the matter is closed and that is the end of the note and mortgage. And if there is no note and mortgage then anything that happens afterwards is void because you can’t get a foreclosure on a mortgage that legally does not exist even if a copy of the mortgage is sitting in county records. And a sale would also be void. That is the way I see it.
But the interesting direct answer already found in the court system is that if the lender is not disclosed there can be no consummation because there is no loan contract unless you have at least two identified parties. If there is no loan contract there is nothing to rescind. But an admission from the “lender” or a finding by the court that TILA rescission is not available because the loan contract was never consummated or did not exist leads inexorably to one conclusion: the borrower still wins. The borrower can then sue to nullify the note, mortgage, debt, foreclosure and even auction on the basis that they are void by operation of law because there was no deal. And the borrower could then, in my opinion, sue to have the banks and servicers return the monthly payments and other payments they collected on the nonexistent contract for all the money they collected. This too is supported by some case decisions where Bank of America and others have been required to disgorge money they received when they had no right to collect it in the first place.
So while there is a specific legal theory on how to deal with this issue there is also a hidden issue that probably puts the pretender lenders in the corner. In order to challenge the rescission they must file a lawsuit within 20 days asking for declaratory relief that the rescission is not effective. If their grounds are that TILA rescission is not available because there was no contract, then they are essentially arguing that the borrower can’t rescind because there was no contract. Either way they lose the deal, the mortgage, the note etc.
But that is not the only problem for pretender lenders. In order to establish standing to challenge the rescission they must allege that they or their predecessors were the real lenders and were the actual source of funding. Those allegations puts the burden of proof on the pretender lenders. They must prove the original loan and the acquisition of the loan not just by paperwork that says it happened by by showing that money exchanged hands both at origination and acquisition of the loan.
Here are the thoughts of anonymous:
“Just of interest in regards to getting into TILA rescission attempts past the 3 year mark of when loan was supposedly “consummated”, and trying to use lack of such as an argument. I came across the following case of Weintraub in 4th circuit saying, “No consummation, No TILA rescission.” http://www.bankersonline.com/infovault/weintraub.pdf
Then you have the following theory, no consummation, TILA never tolled, good for a past 3 year-er:
(1) Ramsey v. Vista Mortgage Corp, 176 BR 183 (TILA RESCISSION IN BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 CASE). In this case, the court laid down the test of when the three year right to rescind begins to run and specifically tackles the concept of when a loan is “consummated.” Several internal citations also help clarify this point. Here is what the Ramsey Court said:“When Ramsey signed the loan documents on September 13, 1989, he knew who was going to provide the financing. Courts recognize the date of signing a binding loan contract as the date of consummation when the lender is identifiable.” The Court also cited to the Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d case (9th Circuit 1989), a NON-BANKRUPTCY CASE, and said: “the Ninth Circuit held that under California law a loan contract was not consummated when the borrower signed the promissory note and deed of trust because the actual lender was not known at that time. Under these circumstances, the loan is not “consummated” until the actual lender is identified, because until that point there is no legally enforceable contract.”
Now, I have to say I am more in the camp of the 4th saying that if you have no contract, there is nothing to rescind, but I guess you could say that it’s merely a discovery point and the rescission is conditionally effective until discovery is complete as to what actually occurred and can be put together by the court from the evidence (Then maybe a TILA rescission will be effective, maybe not; if not because there is no contract, what does the homeowner care? Nearly same result, plus he gets to sue for fraud and other damages suffered I guess….?), but what’s a past 3 year-er to do when arguing TILA?
……. if it turns out that consummation did not occur because the bank willingly withheld the table funded partners identity, or alternatively was acting as straw-man for undisclosed investors, and was using their money directly instead of funneling through the REMIC to purchase the home loan (therefore it really was not a buy-sell transaction, it was a disguised buy using duped investors money who expected a legitimate buy-sell to occur, but REMIC was not properly funded), then what angle do you think is best for TILA- Leave consummation out of the initial argument, and hang your hat on equitable tolling if past 3 year mark, or keep it in and argue both points”
And here is an article I found that describes the process of rescission. I think some of the issues presented might not be entirely correct, but it is definitely one point of view that deserves consideration.
The procedural question of whether a notice of rescission can be challenged outside the 20 day period provided in the Federal Truth in Lending Act is something that lawyers need to consider before they tell a client they cannot rescind. If there is an arguable basis for sending the notice on the belief that it is proper, then the defenses to the rescission can only be raised by operation of a legal proceeding — in a court room.
Hence, it is my opinion, that while there are risks in doing so, the sending of a notice of rescission that is based upon incorrect assumptions does not mean the rescission is void. Quite the contrary, in my opinion.
The receipt of that rescission means there is no more mortgage and there is no more note until a court says otherwise. And the court can’t say otherwise unless the “lender” brings a lawsuit to challenge the rescission within 20 days of receipt. Since there have been no such lawsuits filed to my knowledge it therefore appears to me that all notices of rescission that were ignored or “rejected by letter” had the effect of making the mortgage and note permanently void by operation of law without any lawsuit needed to enforce that presumption (see US Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scalia).
Some people or perhaps most people regards this strategy as a gimmick. But Congress passed it to avoid a super size regulation system with thousands of agents. It was designed to punish banks who screwed with the system so they would essentially police themselves. Obviously that premise didn’t work until now. It is national public policy not a gimmick. They gave the “lenders” a very short window to undo the damage if they thought the borrower was wrong but if we read the plain words of the statute and the plain words of the Supreme Court, if they don’t do it within the 20 day window, they have lost the loan. They might still theoretically be able to collect on the loan but only if they can prove they loaned the money or paid for the debt. Their action would essentially be for unjust enrichment. And it would be unsecured.
Right of rescission lets you back out of some loans
Federal law gives you a cooling-off period when you get a home equity loan or line of credit, or when you refinance with another lender.
It is called the right of rescission. It allows you to rescind, or cancel, some types of home loans and walk away without losing money.
The right of rescission provides a three-day period when you can back out of the loan before you get the borrowed money, no questions asked. Within 20 days, the lender must give up its claim to your property as collateral and must refund any fees you paid.
A law called the Truth in Lending Act, which is designed to shield borrowers from unscrupulous lenders, grants the right of rescission. The law is intended to thwart smooth-talking loan officers who try to fleece elderly or unsophisticated borrowers out of their money and even their homes.
The law also protects consumers from themselves. The homeowner who takes out a home equity line of credit to buy a car, then thinks it over for a couple of days and decides that such financing would be a bad move, can rescind the loan. Likewise for the homeowner who takes out a home equity loan, then finds a better deal a day or two later. The homeowner can rescind the first deal within three business days and take the second.
Right doesn’t apply to all loans
The right of rescission is not available for all mortgages. Most importantly, there is no right of rescission for a mortgage made to buy a house. Borrowers and lenders can get tangled up in whether a mortgage is a purchase loan. Take, for example, the way financing is set up for many built-to-order houses. You get a short-term construction loan while the house is being built; then, after the house is finished, you pay off the construction loan with a permanent mortgage. You don’t have a right of rescission with either loan because both are considered purchase money.The right of rescission also is not available when you refinance your loan with the same lender, when the house in question is not your primary residence (in other words, if it’s your vacation home or an investment property), if you borrow the money for your business, or if you’re borrowing from a state agency.
That leaves a lot of situations where you do have the right of rescission: when you refinance your mortgage with another lender and when you take out a home equity loan or line of credit (unless it’s part of a “piggyback loan” designed to avoid paying mortgage insurance).
Cash-out refi rules
Things get complicated if you do a “cash-out refi” — refinancing for more than you owe on your current mortgage, and taking the difference in cash. If you do a cash-out refi with the same lender, you have the right to rescind only the cash-out portion; if you do a cash-out refi with a different lender, the entire amount can be rescinded.It doesn’t matter what kind of home you have: if it’s a single-family house, a condominium, a floating home or a manufactured home permanently anchored to land you own, you have the right of rescission.
A borrower must exercise the right of rescission within three business days of signing the loan papers, receiving all the loan disclosures, and getting a copy of the notice that there is a right of rescission. Usually, all three of those requirements are met on the same day; if they aren’t, the clock starts ticking only after all three conditions have been satisfied.
When the clock ticks …
That clock ticks only on business days. Much has been written by federal regulators about what counts as a business day. In general, every day is a business day except Sundays and federal holidays. Saturday counts as a business day, even if the lender’s office is closed on Saturdays. The right of rescission expires at midnight concluding the third full business day after the papers are signed and all other conditions are met. So, for example, if you close a home equity loan on Thursday, the clock starts ticking Friday, continues to tick on Saturday, stops on Sunday and resumes on Monday. The right of rescission ends Monday at midnight.To exercise your right of rescission, you must inform the lender in writing — a phone call won’t do. The letter doesn’t have to be postmarked by the deadline — you merely have to drop it in a mailbox by the deadline. That means that if your right of rescission ends at midnight Saturday night, and you mail the letter just before the deadline, and Monday is a federal holiday so the letter isn’t postmarked until Tuesday, you still have rescinded the loan.
Not surprisingly, the loan officer might call after the rescission period has ended, just to ask if you’re still going ahead with the loan.
It is possible to waive the right of rescission so you can get the money immediately, but only in emergencies. To stay out of trouble with regulators, your lender is unlikely to let you waive the right of rescission unless the loan officer is convinced that you truly have an emergency and you’re not simply impatient. Examples of acceptable emergencies: your roof has blown off in a storm and you need a home equity loan right now to pay for a repair, or you need the money immediately to pay for a medical procedure.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: 3 year statute of limitations, consummation, equitable tolling, loan contract, TILA rescission, Weintraub |
Actually, way back at the beginning about 7 years ago, I spoke to an attorney who was interested in helping homeowners (he is now deceased), and he told me the HUD-1 looked like it was written as a refi. However, to be in full disclosure, I had two HUD-2’s, and they did not match. FYI, the documents are screwed up from beginning to end. Create a timeline with each event from the application for the loan all the way through to today. Every assignment, notary signature, records filed with the Reg. of Deeds, notices, bankruptcies, etc.
Wow – I’m in Federal Court now on the Puchase Money Loan – TILA issue which is why I reached out to you. I wish you success, however what do you mean it was treated as a Refi – how did you find that out?
I also had the crooked American Brokers Conduit, and it was treated as a refi AND at my trial, the transcript was tampered with to remove issues of closing attorney who went to Club Fed for 3 years for wire fraud, and no proper assignments and notary fraud and possible fraud on the court and more issues than that. I am still at the “everything but the kitchen sink” form of litigation in appeals Court. Will be going to State Supreme court if I do not prevail. Then, I have options of bankruptcy again with adversarial proceeding and/or federal lawsuit related to rescission. It has cost the other side in total more than $450,000 to defend against me on a $88,000 loan. They have much to hide.
@louise “Rescission is available only on refinances not purchase money loans. Well, here was the situation on my alleged loan: it was a purchase money loan, but the crooked atty, mortgage broker and bank American Brokers Conduit (no longer in business) treated the loan as if it was a refinance not a purchase money loan”…..
What happened? I’m interested at seeing the outcome of certain situations like yours when Banks deal with this Purchase Money Loan issue.
DaveLester41 Can you send me a copy of your rescission. I have a pretender lender too. This loan was made by wamu FA in June 2005. Can I still do a rescission? Thanks LaurenNYny@aol.com
I sent in my letter of rescission last month and the pretender lender has until the 6th of June to void the note the mortgage and return the funds since I did my refi back in 2005 on my primary residents. The deed of trust and the note list Americas wholesale lenders as a corporation under New York laws as the lender so sense awl never was a corporation and only a DBA, well we’ll see.
good info, Reuben.
There is another aspect to the Recission question when lender’s do a modification that is in reality a refinance but is done to avoid the disclosure requirements.
In Sims vs Carrington, NO. 13-0638 (2013) p. 5, fn 12 the court said:
12 CMS points to the Federal Reserve Board’s definition of a “refinancing” requiring new Truth In Lending Act disclosures under Regulation Z when refinancing is undertaken by the original creditor, or a holder or servicer of the original obligation. Under this definition, a refinancing is “a new transaction requiring new disclosures” that “occurs when an existing obligation that was subject to [federal “closed end credit” disclosure requirements] is satisfied and
replaced by a new obligation”. 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(a); 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, supp. 1, cmt. 20(a) (Official Staff Interpretations). Some transactions, however, will not be treated as a refinancing under this section, including “[a] change in the payment schedule or a change in collateral requirements as a result of the consumer’s default or delinquency, unless the rate is increased, or the new amount financed exceeds the unpaid balance plus earned finance charge and premiums for continuation insurance . . . .” Id. § 226.20(a)(4).
If you have done a modification and tried to rescind do the math to determine if it was in reality a refinance.
Modifications do not require new disclosures but a refinance does.
In some cases lender’s increased the rate “or exceeds the unpaid balance plus earned finance charge and premius for continuation insurance.”
Breaking News Report: StopForeclosureFraud.com Website Attacked
Posted on March 8, 2015 by Deadly Clear
Gary Dubin FHShortly after posting the Foreclosure Hour press release yesterday for today’s program, StopForeclosureFraud.com became inaccessible and the site remains down today, reports the system’s administrator. Coincidence? Not likely.
The Foreclosure Hour promises to bring us compelling new and overwhelming evidence that even after a $25 BILLION dollar settlement and Consent Judgment – the banks’ continue to commit and produce forgeries. Click HERE to listen to the show today at 3 pm Hawaii time / 6 pm PST / 9 pm EST. Spread the word, post to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, LinkedIn and reblog this information everywhere possible as one of our leading news sites has been attacked. Thank you.
StopForeclosureFraud.com published the following press release:
“Breaking news:
The Foreclosure Hour will have a genuine whistle blower on the show tomorrow who is going to reveal that he personally worked recently (four months ago) as part of an army of robos in one of four Bank of America mortgage assignment manufacturing factories throughout the country (he will name their locations and give vivid details including names), falsifying loan documents, signing under oath not before notaries who have been similarly false swearing, for MERS and for the Big Banks such as Chase and for Securitized Trusts such as Bank of New York Mellon, as their supposed Assistant Vice Presidents and supposed Assistant Secretaries, AFTER the Bank of America signed the AG National Settlement agreeing to stop the practice.
It is amazing the arrogance that the ruling banking class has, believing apparently true that it controls the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Attorney General.
Gary the host of The Foreclosure Hour will be asking whether any of his listeners are being or have been foreclosed on as a result of such fraudulently sworn-to loan documents, including made-up allonges and falsely rubber-stamped endorsements on their promissory notes, recorded and used against them or that will be used against them in their foreclosure cases.
Gary will be asking if any state and federal judges and any state and federal legislators and any state recorders are listening and what if anything are they going to do about it or just themselves robotically accepting these false documents as evidence, ignoring one thousand years of Anglo-Saxon-American evidentiary jurisprudence.
I just cannot understand how our judges will be able to continue to kowtow and genuflect before such fraudulent evidence submitted to them by licensed banks and licensed attorneys in the future after tomorrow’s radio broadcast.”
Share this:
CAN I METAPHYSICALLY CONVERT LOANS
TO SECURITIES ON MY BALANCE SHEET?
For liquidity purposes, state tax planning, capital requirements or other reasons, financial institutions
might wish to convert whole loans to one or more classes of securities. The accounting
for loans differs from the accounting for securities in several respects:
p Loans which are held for sale (or for a securitization to be accounted for as a sale), are
carried at the lower of cost or market in the aggregate. Thus, temporary declines in market
value due to rising interest rates might require a charge in the income statement.
p Loans held for investment require allowances for losses under FASB 5 and are subject to
the impairment accounting provisions of FASB 114.
p Securities are accounted for under FASB 115 and are not written down via a charge to the
income statement unless there is an “other-than-temporary impairment” or the trading
classification is elected.
To accomplish the goal of converting loans to securities on the balance sheet and accounting
for them under FASB 115, a QSPE is generally used as the transferee. The QSPE may be a
grantor trust issuing a single class of pass-through certificates or it may involve a more complex
structure with multiple classes of senior and subordinated interests. In a significant change
from FASB 125, FASB 140 requires that at least 10 percent of the fair value of the beneficial interests
in the QSPE be acquired by independent third parties, otherwise the entity will have to be
consolidated and the transferor is back to where it started—with loans on the balance sheet.
23Can Warehouse Funding Arrangements Be Off Balance Sheet?[36] An exception has been granted for mortgage loans in a guaranteed mortgage securitization,
which requires a substantive guarantee by a third party (one that adds value or liquidity to the
security). No part of the beneficial interests needs to be sold to outsiders because the guarantor
provides legitimacy to the transaction. This exception cannot be extended to any other types
of loans. Because no proceeds are raised, these securitizations are neither a sale nor a financing
under FASB 140. In a guaranteed mortgage securitization, the historical carrying value of the
loans, net of any unamortized fees, costs, discounts, premiums and loss allowances plus any
accrued interest, is allocated to the sold interests, if any, and the retained interests (including
servicing) in proportion to their relative fair values. However, if the transferor retains all of the
resulting securities and classifies them as debt securities held-to-maturity, then FASB 140 does
not require a servicing asset or a servicing liability to be established. [13]
DO BANKS HAVE TO ISOLATE THEIR ASSETS
IN A TWO-TIER STRUCTURE TO GET SALE TREATMENT?
Okay. It’s like this, maybe. If you and I draft and execute an agreement for me to sell you deb’s loan and you pay me good and valuable consideration, do you even need to take possession of the note, endorsed or not, for a SALE to have occurred? I’m not talking about enforcement. I’m talking about a sale, about ownership, and you now being the party with the right to payments made by the maker. I think the answer is yes (but I think I can find out. Prob is the guy I have to ask is really busy all the time). I also think that if I take poss of the note, and some will think I’ve really been in the sauce, that the note doesn’t even need to be endorsed at all. When it comes to enforcement because of a default, why can’t I present the note and my purchase agreement? Don’t these evidence that I’m a successor in interest?
Where the UCC might come into play is if I don’t fork over the note. I think the UCC, now looked at to resolve a dispute as I’ve said before*, would find that you have a security interest in the note until I do (what that’s actually good for, I can’t say). I have no right to payments, I have no right to enforce. You, in that state, have a right to payments but will play hell enforcing in the event of default without the note. For one thing, you need the note to establish there is one. Before you may enforce, you may have to sue me for the note and if it’s lost, I don’t know how it’s established. There has to be a way because notes must legitimately get lost (right?) on occasion. But let’s say the note’s not lost, i just won’t fork it over. So you take me to court and sue to get it, for specific performance. The court would look at the agreement between us (and you prove you paid me for it if you have to) to determine who owns the note. The court would find pursuant to the UCC that you have a security interest in the note (senior to any other claims to the note as of the date of the sale agreement) and order me to fork it over.
What’s to stop me (the named payee) from trying to enforce if the maker isn’t aware of the sale (which would be pretty thick on your part)? If you didn’t get an assgt of the coll instrument and record it, the maker may know nothing of the sale, and I could try if I’m a crook. If you did get an assignment of the collateral agreement, but you didn’t take poss of the note, then what? I think the loan isn’t enforceable until you get the note, but the NV SC has ruled that the note follows an
assignment(!), way I got it, pursuant to some “Restatement” deal. When I first read that, I bout gagged and did til about 10 minutes ago, when I acknowledged that the reliance on the (recorded) assgt of the dot in the “old days” to foreclose is something that’s been nagging me.
*re: UCC – there WAS a controlling agreement, but i failed to perform by not giving you the note I maybe said was in my safety deposit box in Hoboken.
If this note I sold and you bought isn’t payable to me but is endorsed in blank or to me by the orig payee, say, I don’t know what if anything that would change. Would that compel a transfer by endorsement and delivery between us? I don’t know, and maybe it seems like an off the wall question. I’m not sure it is and I think the answer may be important, for one when we consider how notes were (allegedly) moved to the depositor or could’ve or should’ve been up that chain. Isn’t it really an absurd proposition that notes were physically moved around the country at least 2 times for endorsement before hitting trusts? I mean, it takes an aggregator alone time to get those loans. And don’t forget they had to establish those “strike prices” at each movement. A strike price is the price paid for a loan relevant to “par”, but don’t try to go there. It’d be like me trying to understand some of the stuff I think it’s iwantmynpv says. The cost of money and thus the value of the notes changes minute by minute. The only way to minimize l & s that very real fact is if they all ‘sold them forward’ at the same time. I think that’s the right expression. What it means is the prices from b to c to d were all determined at the same time which would be a hell of a calculation since the loans weren’t uniform in rates and amts and interest on the notes was paid by the makers (monthly loan payment) and interest accrued, as well. Well, duh on me. The only way to do that is, I think this minute, is by way ofcoordinated bulk purchase and sale agreements (not endorsements). Here I admit I only somewhat know what I’m talking about that I’m calling selling forward, so if you got left in the dust, you’ll have to research (in which case you may disagree) or take my word for it that the way to do it is with a sales agreement (if you’re interested, that is). Even then it seems an impossible task to me (to establish prices and coordinate and move the loans that fast). That reminds me. I’ve heard that loans had to be “seasoned” before they were eligible for sec’n. Seasoning means a track record for the borrower’s payment has been established. I think, as I’ve said before, if that’s true, the banksters fashioned their own but illegitimate cure in the form of guarantee payments for at least what should’ve been the seasoning duration.
Ian: “It is, after all, the document which gave birth to
The “mortgage. In other words, without the PSA, there would be no mortgage.”
Would you try that again please?
https://www.fdic.gov/about/freedom/IndyMacLoanSaleAgrmt.pdf
wow. this is in-tense. Unfortunately I have to print this sucker to be able to read it right (have to go back and forth on pages, least I do). I stumbled on this doing a search for bulk transfers. Hugely recommended reading (it’s not too bad). Cripes. I just read this and already I’ve forgotten a couple conclusions I thought were warranted
about loan sales. This is the agreement between IndyMac Fed and One West for the purchase and sale of loans. Oh, yeah, I remember one. I’ve asserted that an assgt requires acceptance. Imo, this agreement supports that proposition.
CM, I’m pretty sure most of us would appreciate it if you would stop disparaging this site and its readers. Is there some reason you simply must comment here? I have no bone with the info you provided at your last one, for instance, but come on, woman, can’t you just drop it and run?
**If you want people to stop paying their taxes, isn’t there a venue or
89 where people are actually interested in its justification? **
We already know there’s trouble in river city. Fancy that. But I just don’t think your ‘stuff” is going to influence people to go against their grain.
If you can’t stop ranting for the sake of Lord knows what, any chance that when you have a beef with NG or anyone else, you intelligently support your opposition and some specificity would be swell? You don’t seem to get around to that. You want to make rubbish of our stuff, have at it. But I’m now sort of wondering if you even can. I know you’re fond of affirmative action for saving one’s home, so why don’t you draw us pictures aka contribute? I’ll give you this: were it not too late for many of us, that’s just what we probably should’ve done (if only we’d had
years of study under our belts). Why you need to rub it in people’s faces that they might have done something else, got the h me. But really, I think you could contribute to OUR cause, not yours or not JUST yours, if you wanted. I’m just saying…..
Venu
Really move on. People here still dream (and poorly, at that). Get an attorney and protect yourself from this blog: it has nothing to offer but disgruntled, ignorant people with an ax to grind… against the wrong people and with no perspective whatsoever.
All-American 49-million-broke Clinton is one of the investors In Blackstone. People will still vote for her while arguing ad nauseam against one individual on this damn blog. Wesley Clark is a Blackstone adviser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blackstone_Group
This country is so done, I’m waiting for the Chinese to instill some sense in it: at least, they jail bankers. And they shut up morons.
Blackstone Buys America’s Most Iconic Skyscraper With Rent Collected As “America’s Landlord”
Tyler Durden’s pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 03/08/2015 21:50 -0400
Deutsche Bank Foreclosures Housing Market Michigan None Private Equity Real estate Sears
As we’ve noted previously, the post-crisis, Fed-subsidized rush to acquire distressed real estate resulted in none other than Blackstone becoming the US’s largest landlord. The giant PE firm — which borrowed $3.6 billion in seed money from Deutsche Bank to get its real estate empire up and running — accumulated a portfolio of some 50,000 single family homes after spending billions buying foreclosures at bank auctions. The properties were quickly converted to rental units and the rent checks were (naturally) securitized into the first ever rental-home-backed-securities. All of this has had the predictably sad effect of driving down US home ownership and driving up rents.
More recently, Blackstone introduced the “landlord loan” wherein the firm lends prospective real estate speculators cash to buy homes, then securitizes the loans. Deutsche Bank intends to bring the first landlord-loan-backed securities to market over next several weeks.
Now we learn that the firm, whose real estate ambitions apparently know no bounds, is set to buy Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) in a deal worth some $1.5 billion.
Via WSJ:
Private equity giant Blackstone Group LP is in advanced discussions to buy the Willis Tower in Chicago, the country’s second-tallest skyscraper, for about $1.5 billion according to a person briefed on the talks.
If completed, it would be by far the highest price paid ever for a building in Chicago, and well above the $841 million that the iconic black tower—formerly known as the Sears Tower—last traded for in 2004 when it was sold to a group that includes New York investors Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian…
The 1,451-foot tower is often viewed within Chicago as second-tier real estate despite its soaring views and height, given that much of the city’s top-quality property is concentrated on the other side of the Chicago River and closer to Lake Michigan.
The potential deal with Blackstone, reported Friday evening by Crain’s Chicago Business, comes as the ownership group has long been eyeing a sale.
***
The bottom line: Wall Street destroyed the housing market, waited for prices to collapse, stepped in and bought up all of the foreclosures turning a nation of homeowners into a nation of renters in the process, securitized rental cash flows, and used the proceeds to buy the nation’s second largest skyscraper.
CEO Stephen Schwarzman made $690 million last year.
Enormous amount of BlaBlaBla.
@ Venu,
Do you get the drift? Move on to serious help before you get swallowed by mediocrity. That’s all you get here.
John Gault- in the preponderance of pleadings, the PSA is referred to as the “governing document”. It is, after all, the document which gave birth to
The “mortgage. In other words, without the PSA, there would be no mortgage.
In a case from dan edstrom:
“In early 2013, a former Chase Bankruptcy employee filed a wrongful employment termination lawsuit against Chase.
The former employee’s complaint contained various allegations regarding her employment (which had ended in mid-2012), including that her electronic signature was used on legal documents without her full knowledge or consent.”
Gee. I wonder how many documents such as affidavits and declarations have been submitted to courts claiming to be from “Mary Employee” when not. Or really, if any such person with that name even exists.
yes, e.tolle, you smart fellow. I rec’d it as I was writing, meant to attend to it but forgot. But, I’m sure I forgot because, well, I didn’t want to. It would be good to be accurate, of course. But the point was that the sale of the loans was accomplished by contract v by transfer / endorsement of the notes. So if you can dissuade me from that position, I would as I said like to hear it if you care to weigh in. I really do think that while transfer – endorsement if not possession – would be prudent, I don’t think it’s necessary to accomplish the sale. I’m thinking just now the endorsements being called for is for why I said – enforcement in Mers’ name, or call it by mers if one must, but here the same thing: reliance on the UCC for the right to enforce. I have an old case which doesn’t prove anything, but I remember it nonetheless. An unwitting att for a bankster told the court “and then that endorsement you see there in blank. That’s the way they want it to foreclose.” It struck me at the time and stayed, so that’s just about verbatim.
They didn’t want it that way because it represented a sale of the note; they wanted the blank endorsement to stand on bearer provisions in keeping with the m.o. designed for enforcement by MERS et al as expressed in their membership agreement. If it were otherwise, the
notes would’ve been endorsed to the trusts.
Hey JG, I’m probably reading your thoughts wrong….I’m good at that….but….might you be confusing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, usually referred to as the P&S agreement, with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, affectionately known as the PSA?
While the P&S agreement may point to a sale of some sort, the PSA is what legally describes how and by when and whom the sale is to be consummated. UCC allows this further refining of exactly what the parties intend under NY trust law, therefore, the PSA is the controlling language. At least that’s my take, and I’m sticking to it.
Not following the language in the PSA describing the exact necessary relay i.e.:
A (originator) = B (sponsor) = C (custodian) = D (trust)
is what Adam Levitin referred to as non-mortgage backed securities, or technically:
E = No Tickeee (MBS Screwed) = No Laundry (No foreclose either)
At least until the government ratifies all of the criminal behavior through some global Okie Dokie Banker Bill, as they’re want to do.
When I said, fwiw, that the PSAs remained executory until all its terms were met, I didn’t mean to imply the sales hadn’t occurred. Imo, they had- by acceptance of payment, but some of the performance required in the agreement was not yet complete. I think the transaction was complete upon a price being fixed and accepted (as well as the tenets of any contract, which I forget this minute). I don’t actually think
that possession was even necessary to affect a sale**, although it would be prudent – to preclude anyone else from citing the inapplicable UCC’s bearer provisions, say, as grounds for his own enforcement (which is exactly what happened). I think the banksters called for the endorsements (the ones we’ve been trained to think are necessary) so they could use the bearer provisons in conjunction with the MERSCorp’s membership agreement. Wow. what bums. To f/c in mers name, mers said it’s straw officer had to have poss of a note end’d in blank. That’s why the banksters wanted endorsements on the notes. They crafted the PSA’s to first give the appearance of the applicability of Article III, knowing how the deal was to work to foreclose in mers’ name: by (alleged) poss of a bearer note by its straw officer. Think not? Go look at their original membership rules.
I think the sales occurred by way of a purchase and sale agreement. The snafu was in the enforcement of these loans, which required notice of successor interests.
** but to evidence the trust’s purchase would require production of the PSA.
An unanswered question, I think: since / if the purchase and sale agreement was all that was needed to effect the sale, could and did the parties agree therein that the notes were to be regulated by the UCC? Did calling for the endorsements on the notes in the PSA create such an agreement? Or did it simply describe acts to be done (even tho it accomplished the goal of the bankster – enforcement of a bearer note?). The notes may have been moved by the transfer mechanisms found in the UCC from A to C***, but imo they were moved by a purchase and sale agreement to the trusts.
***Well, they might have been had they actually been transferred.
Well, it’s a slow work day and as usual, I’ve got stuff I don’t wanna look at. So try this on for size, if you will. What i’m saying here is that if things had been done right (so let’s pretend here they were). By that I mean we’re not looking at, say, who funded the loan or not and we’re assuming the trusts paid for the loans as buyers of loans already made. If anyone will hang with me on this, we can see how that not being the case stacks up “later”.
The loans were already sold to trusts and the current sale and assignments being recorded are baloney. Now if you’ve got a good argument against this proposition, lay it on me as I’d love to hear it.
Isn’t a PSA just that? A purchase and sale agreement? The seller
sold and the buyer (trust) purchased, did they not? The UCC is
merely default law used to determine rights generally in the absence of
a controlling agreement. Is the PSA not such a controlling agreement?
Hasn’t the sale been completed upon payment? Is the receipt of
payment acknowledged in a PSA? Obviously I don’t know.
The PSA calls for endorsement and delivery of the note and it also
calls for an assignment. This, imo, is what makes the contract yet
executory. Had the endorsement and assignment not been called for
in the contract, assuming consideration, the sale would’ve been a done
deal and the buyer, the trust, could establish its rights by presentation
of the PSA.
The PSA is a blanket sale and assignment of millions of dollars
worth of loans imo. Why is that not true?
But, where the blanket sale hits the bumps is the
lack of notice as required for enforcement. In any contractual scenario,
one party simply must have notice of the rights and interests of the other (a successor) in order for that other to assert them against the first party.
One simple solution would’ve been to record the PSA (as long as the
descriptions of the loans were done with sufficient peculiarity to identify them).
Article III or any article of the UCC doesn’t provide a vehicle for the movement of notes. The UCC merely determines, in the absence of a controlling agreement, whether or not one has occurred. Humor me and take that as a fact just now. Why would the PSA not stand as an agreement which demonstrates that a transfer by sale has occurred?
I believe, at least just now, it would and does. Where it got messy was
calling for endorsements and assignments. But, they did that for the
drafter’s own reasons, untoward imo. But also because of Notice. And it’s all about enforcement (which was complicated by the MERS Consent Order).
Land records must reflect the name of the guy who now has an interest in the collateral instrument. That’s the only legitimate reason, albeit a monster, imo to call for assignments. But had they not, the sale terms of the PSA would have been met withOUT regard to the UCC and without individual assignments of the collateral instruments. After all, the PSA’s were contract for the purchase of loans and the loans are evidenced by the notes and collateral instruments which
in the PSA are (supposed to be) identified as to particular properties.
But, even had they called for individual assignments to Notice their
interest in land records, that still wouldn’t notice the sale of the note,
EXCEPT that assignments currently being done purport to include a
sale of the note as well as the assgt of the collateral instrument.
Some courts, unbelievably to me, relying apparently on some
Restatement deal, have found that the assgt of a collateral instrument
drags the debt obligation with it and not the other way around,
(neither of which I believe personally but could change my mind fwiw).
The assignments being done today as current events imo are impossible because the acts alleged to be done in them today were actually done years ago by way of the PSA. It’s the posture of the sale and assignment being done as a current event that’s fatally flawed imo, not so much that the trust can’t accept a late assignment (altho imo a trust may not as a matter of law, but that’s another subject).
The alleged assignor has nothing to sell and assign because the trust
bought the loan already by way of the PSA. Well, there’s no evidence that a loan in question and alleged being moved by way of a current “assignment” is one which belongs to the trust being identified therein as the assignee, so unless one can paint an inescapable picture that the sale and assignment alleged to be a current event is not a current event and can’t be and is therefore without force and effect, we’re still at needing the PSA.
The MERS’ consent order and not being able to enforce in MERS’
name has really messed them up. But in true gansta’ style, it proved no
hill for climbers. Enforcing in MERS name hid myriad sins / omissions.
Or even if not, for lack of that recordation, i.e., notice in public record,
they’re being forced to execute and record alleged sales and assgts as
current events. They tried back-dating these, but courts said “not”.
Further, recording the PSA, even if it established the sale in, say,
2006 to a trust, wouldn’t arrive at a complete chain of title since it
would leave out all necessary sales from origination to the party
selling to the trust (like, say, Smithie’s Brokers, Inc to Wells fargo Wholesale Co., the next guy) But,
that’s what we’ve got in public record right now. Records which don’t
establish the interests of the party who sold the loans to the trusts. The
obvious reason for not having them is that they weren’t done, recorded
or not (and it’s not or they’d record them). Had they been done, they would have been binding on the parties thereto, just not anyone else, like the borrower until recorded (Notice) in the proper order. They had to be done, even if unrecorded until notice was required for enforcement. At first glance, one might say no they didn’t, not if MERS
were thee ben. But MERS wasn’t the ben, having no beneficial interest
in the coll instrument or anything else (x to get paid to use the program). No how no way is MERS presence in the coll instrument a reason not to execute assgts between beneficial parties, even as they’d be unrecorded while MERS holds their place in public record until
enforcement, and thus notice, is required.
But the current sales and assignments purport to go right from MERS to the trusts, something we may reasonably suspect as bull if for no other reason than the bankruptcy remoteness required
for the trusts (I think, and that doesn’t even consider no known facts by which MERS could be the party selling the note to anyone, incl a trust). But since they are purporting these as current sales or even if not, without MERS, they’d have to establish all parties in the act, including the true identity of anyone who was the guy who sold the loan to the trust way back when (and that ID imo is the seller id’d in the PSA.)
So what I’m saying is the assignor has nothing to sell or assign because these loans were already sold to the trusts by way of the
PSA’s. You can’t memorialize or change an event from 10 years ago by dressing it up as a current transaction. As a current event, it’s non-existant and the sale and assgt as recorded does not a thing (and is a false instrument). Imo, at least today……?
Breaking News Report: StopForeclosureFraud.com Website Attacked
Posted on March 8, 2015 by Deadly Clear Shortly after posting the Foreclosure Hour press release yesterday for today’s program, StopForeclosureFraud.com became inaccessible and the site remains down today, reports the system’s administrator. Coincidence? Not likely.
The Foreclosure Hour promises to bring us compelling new and overwhelming evidence that even after a $25 BILLION dollar settlement and Consent Judgment – the banks’ continue to commit and produce forgeries. Click HERE to listen to the show today at 3 pm Hawaii time / 6 pm PST / 9 pm EST. Spread the word, post to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, LinkedIn and reblog this information everywhere possible as one of our leading news sites has been attacked. Thank you.
StopForeclosureFraud.com published the following press release:
“Breaking news:
The Foreclosure Hour will have a genuine whistle blower on the show tomorrow who is going to reveal that he personally worked recently (four months ago) as part of an army of robos in one of four Bank of America mortgage assignment manufacturing factories throughout the country (he will name their locations and give vivid details including names), falsifying loan documents, signing under oath not before notaries who have been similarly false swearing, for MERS and for the Big Banks such as Chase and for Securitized Trusts such as Bank of New York Mellon, as their supposed Assistant Vice Presidents and supposed Assistant Secretaries, AFTER the Bank of America signed the AG National Settlement agreeing to stop the practice.
It is amazing the arrogance that the ruling banking class has, believing apparently true that it controls the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Attorney General.
Gary the host of The Foreclosure Hour will be asking whether any of his listeners are being or have been foreclosed on as a result of such fraudulently sworn-to loan documents, including made-up allonges and falsely rubber-stamped endorsements on their promissory notes, recorded and used against them or that will be used against them in their foreclosure cases.
Gary will be asking if any state and federal judges and any state and federal legislators and any state recorders are listening and what if anything are they going to do about it or just themselves robotically accepting these false documents as evidence, ignoring one thousand years of Anglo-Saxon-American evidentiary jurisprudence.
I just cannot understand how our judges will be able to continue to kowtow and genuflect before such fraudulent evidence submitted to them by licensed banks and licensed attorneys in the future after tomorrow’s radio broadcast.”
Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInEmailRedditPress ThisPrintPinterestStumbleUponTumblrGooglePocket
Conversion … Conversion … Conversion
FASB140
Can be converted back with permissions.
Or lack of objections…..
Simply Speaking of course……
I do not and can not give legal advise.
Hire an Attorney in the Jurisdiction the property is located.
Fee Simple ….
Awe John, she can’t help it. She claims to have spent a great many hours studying law. I don’t know how she took time away from staring into that reflective pool with such love and devotion.
So she has a few nasty traits…. that doesn’t make her all bad….
Nettling
Abandoning
Resentful
Contemptuous
Imperious
Superficial
Sociopathic
Impersonator
Spiteful
Treacherous
On second thought, maybe it does….
So True. Frank Zappa did have some really good quotes: If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.
Some people were fortunate to be born with both brains and initiative.
Some of those people were further fortunate to find an attorney to make something of his client’s efforts. That hasn’t been true for so many here. I once said the reason I was looking at the Truth in Lending Act was because I saw an attorney who didn’t know jack about tila yet took 30k from a client to represent her in a tila-based action. 30k later, and it was summarily dismissed. I was appalled. That attorney knew he didn’t know jack and took the case anyway. The ink on his degree was still wet, he was as green as grass, clearly knew nada of tila, less than me, I saw as I read his pathetic complaint, and imo took the money simply to pay for his new office. As distasteful to me as that was, it”s no where near as distasteful as I find the acts of anyone who was fortunate enough to be born with some brains and initiative and who also found a better-than-average professional to carry the packages and do the heavy lifting to come here and belittle and berate those not so fortunate.
Many readers here are probably in the throes of foreclosure or have already lost their homes. Hindsight is generally of little avail to those who don’t have a significant war chest to pay a heavy lifter to navigate the intracies of procedural rules necessary to unring certain bells. It does no good to add to their misery. It’s unkind, unproductive, and leaves one to wonder what character flaw commands such an effort.
To be honest, I would have to say that I believe there are few attorneys involved in “homeowner defense” capable of meeting the challenges presented by the acts and omissions of the banksters. I can’t imagine finding those challenges (generally) surmountable by pro se litigants,
especially those not the beneficiaries of good fortune.
I appreciate it if anyone has a road map for what to do in a time when it can be done. Maybe for anyone here who lays claim to such road map, the new direction might be to instruct.
And FWIW i bank with local credit union – the members are the shareholders. Thing is im not worth much in terms of savings they got it all, so whatever the price on my hands. !
This recission debate has been decided
In jesinowski v countrywide it encompases complex area
I think one if the key words is creditor
AnywAy im testing it !
“The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.”
Frank Zappa
I still see people with business and checking accounts with the likes of Wells Fargo and BofA. Makes no sense especially because you receive far better service from small banks and credit unions. The most disheartening feature of all of this for me is the corruption of the judicial system, and the constant stream of forgery, fraudulent documents and fraud on the court. Felonies R us!
Louise, I agree wholeheartedly about cutting off the banks, I just don’t see it happening either as a theory or in any kind of practice. A Bing or Google search of the letter’s W and B, will always return a search with Wells Fargo and B of A in the first few returns, showing just how embedded this country is with the criminal class a.k.a. FIRE.
The bad guys are in power because we allow it, no doubt. But I see the need to exchange the entire power center before any real change can occur. Whenever a legislator fails to act for his/her constituency i.e. voting against the populace and for the dollar interests (like what’s going on with the drug war), I’d like to see a return to a real stocks, that of placing that senator (or regulator or what have you) in wooden stocks on the street corner for all the world to shame and spit upon. That’s a stock market to get excited about.
Next up, congress-critters lightly basted in tar and rolled in a feathery mix, served with evening cocktails. Yeah baby!
that last one is for christine and rock, its all about mortgages turn/coverted into security with out the borrower permission, now that gos to rescission. no one was told that there mortgage and notes were goin to be converted into a security bond/certicate.
please read the laws, of what i put up. 2001 fasb, 125 and 140.
learn something from a person that only wants to help all get back there homes , and not get foreclosed on. thats all here should be doing , showing telling others what to do . or look for.
so sorry, once a mortgage/note gets turned/converted to a security certicate, its stays a secrutiy certificate,. and can not be turn back into a mortgage and note.
fasb
140
Securitization Accounting under FASB 140
The Standard Formerly Known as FASB 125
1ST
EDITION
JAN 2001
Just when we thought we had mastered FASB 125, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
went ahead and replaced it with FASB 140. The new statement keeps the same title, Accounting
for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities, but calls for
some sweeping changes. As a result, securitizers should carefully review their deal templates
used in past transactions. What’s worked for you in the past might need to be tweaked to work
in the future.
This booklet only deals with securitizations. It does not attempt to deal with the other transactions
covered in FASB 140—repos, dollar rolls, securities lending, wash sales, loan syndications,
loan participations, banker’s acceptances, factoring arrangements, debt extinguishments
and in-substance defeasances. This FASB 140 transaction potpourri explains why many securitization
marketplace participants find it cumbersome to work with the actual Statement.
We highlight below some of the more significant provisions of FASB 140 affecting securitization
deal-structuring beginning with the answer to the question, What’s so good about being a QSPE?:
FASB 140 states unequivocally that the assets and liabilities of a Qualifying Special Purpose
Entity (QSPE) do not get consolidated into the financial statements of the transferor. This is true
even when the transferor retains 100 percent of the so-called equity class and even when there
is no “equity class.” If the issuer fails to qualify as a QSPE, third-party investors must make
equity investments that are substantive (e.g., more than 3 percent of assets), controlling (e.g.,
more than 50 percent of ownership), bear the first dollar risk of loss and take the legal form of
equity; otherwise, the transferor or other sponsor consolidates.
FASB 140 adds additional qualifications to be a QSPE. It has to be more brain-dead than ever
(i.e., DOA), with additional restrictions on the activities it can conduct, the assets and derivatives
it can hold and which assets it can sell and when.
FASB 140 significantly beefs up disclosures about securitization
Structured Finance Litigation Team
In mid-2007, at the very outset of the crisis, Patterson Belknap formed its interdisciplinary Structured Finance Litigation Team. As one of the few elite firms positioned to be adverse to most major banks and other financial institutions, and with attorneys who have decades of relevant experience in complex financial litigation, we were well positioned to advise a broad array of clients. Over the past four years, we have recovered over $3 billion on behalf of our clients in this area. Since its formation, this team has played a critical role in cutting edge matters arising out of today’s constantly changing financial markets environment.
This market positioning has led to a host of complex matters in this area. One area of particular focus has been the work of the RMBS Group, a sub-group within the larger Structured Finance Litigation Team that focuses on disputes involving residential mortgage-backed securities transactions. Due to our team’s early formation and insight, we were able to make a substantial footprint and establish leadership before the crisis received significant global attention in 2008. As a result, we believe that we are now one of the most active law firms in the area with 13 active litigations and dozens of RMBS transactions in various stages of investigation and/or negotiation.
In particular, we have become the leading law firm representing the financial guaranty (or “monoline”) insurance industry in its efforts to recover against financial institutions and other sponsors of RMBS for breaches of representations and warranties and other claims relating to the quality of the mortgage loans included in these transactions. We currently represent five monoline insurers in connection with their remediation efforts relating to dozens of separate RMBS transactions, including investigation and prosecution of billions of dollars in claims for breaches of representations and warranties and other wrongdoing against some of the world’s largest financial institutions, as well as advising on restructuring and other loss-mitigation options.
We are also very active in representing institutional investors in RMBS with diverse goals and strategies, including investors that are initiating investigations and/or pursuing legal actions pertaining to misrepresentations in the issuance of RMBS, as well as investors interested in advice relating to legal risks and opportunities associated with investment in legacy RMBS.
Consistent with our leadership position, we believe that we have one of the largest groups of any law firm focused on these matters, with 12 partners, three counsel, and more than 50 associates from our litigation, creditors’ rights, corporate and real estate departments collaboratively working on various aspects of these matters.
Chambers USA has recognized Patterson Belknap’s RMBS litigation practice, with one commenter noting that, “[t]he caliber of people at both partner and associate level is exceptional.” The firm is also “Highly Recommended” for Litigation – New York in Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC’s Benchmark Plaintiff 2015 guide. Benchmark quoted a client as saying, “for residential mortgage-backed securities litigation, they are a go-to firm.”
Following are some of the RMBS Group’s principal activities and accomplishments over the last three years:
Analyzed representations and warranties, “put-back” mechanics, direction and indemnity provisions, no action clauses, waterfalls, and other key aspects of PSAs and MLPAs for hundreds of separate RMBS transactions, and advised clients as to the risks and opportunities associated therewith;
Engaged and oversaw the work of seven different forensic loan file due diligence firms in their analysis of tens of thousands of mortgage loan files for breaches of representations and warranties;
Analyzed provisions of dozens of originators’ underwriting guidelines pertaining to key issues in dispute, including origination standards applicable to “stated income” loans;
Worked with statisticians to develop sampling and extrapolation protocols to aid in analysis of breach rates in large pools of loans;
Advised clients in connection with “put-backs” associated with breaching loans as a result of findings of pervasive fraud, failure to adhere to applicable underwriting guidelines and misrepresentation of key loan characteristics (e.g., debt-to-income ratios and occupancy);
Assisted in the negotiation of repurchase obligations;
Represented numerous clients in the negotiation and execution of loan-by-loan and global settlements aggregating more than $2.5 billion;
Represented clients in connection with the bankruptcies of RMBS sponsors/originators;
Brought 19 lawsuits (including the following currently active lawsuits) on behalf of monoline insurers and investors against major financial institutions, involving several billion dollars in claims, including breach of representations and warranties and, in certain cases, fraud or violations of federal or state securities laws:
– Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Index No. 651612/10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC et al., Index No. 603751/09 (N.Y. Sup.)
– Ambac Assurance Corp. v. EMC Mortgage, LLC, Index No. 650421/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– Syncora Guarantee Inc. v. EMC Mortgage Corp., Index No. 09-CIV-3106 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.)
– Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc. et al., Index No.
650705-2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– Ambac Assurance Corp. vs. EMC Mortgage LLC, et al., Index No. 651013/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– Ambac Assurance Corp. v. First Franklin Financial Corporation et al., Index No. 651217/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Capital One, N.A. Index No. 12-cv-07937 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y.)
– Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Index No. 651359/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Index No. 651178/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
– NCUA v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 13-cv-6705 (S.D.N.Y.)
– NCUA v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, No. 13-cv-6736 (S.D.N.Y.)
Implemented a number of servicer terminations and negotiated servicing transfers to improve collateral performance; and
Implemented amendments to numerous transaction documents to achieve various client objectives.
For additional information regarding our Mortgage and Credit Crisis Team, please contact Philip R. Forlenza, Erik Haas, or Alexander Shapiro.
1133 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036TEL: 212-336-2000FAX: 212-336-2222DisclaimerAttorney AdvertisingAlumni Login
© 2015 Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
This is a primer on holders in due course. And imo it’s a good one
for discussion of its isms (for those who subscribe to article 3 having relevance).
http://business.olivet.edu/classes/bsns3511f/pdf/bltch20.pdf
It’s an industry-wide practice to only execute and record an assgt to a secn trust AFTER the borrower’s result. This salient fact may imo be demonstrated thru judicial notice of something reliable found online or
by something else which demonstrates this fact. Something else which demonstrates this fact is or may be found at any recorder’s office. Visit or go online and look at your county recorder’s office by searching the records for assgts which have been recorded shortly before (or even shortly after) a NOD issued. Start with a search in rec’d documents for “MERS” or some stinking servicer known to have infiltrated the area. Copies at recorder’s can be expensive, but you maybe won’t need the actual docs. All you want is the longest list of properties you can stand to get where the assgt was done at a time when a loan was in default and not before. I’d also look to see if there are many (because I doubt it post-consent order) assgts done long before the NOD.
Imo there won’t be many if any of those. What we’d be trying to prove is that no assgts of the notes are done prior to default. (remember, they are being executed and recorded as current events) This shows imo that industry-wide, no trust or anyone else who alleges to take its interest by way of that assgt (which alleges to be a sale of the note) after the borrower’s default can be a hdc. If one is
not a hdc, than the borrower may assert tons of defenses to the note, and ask why the assignee bought a loan in default, which imo is a more than reasonable question and leads to any number of things we want to know all about in regard to the claim.
Demonstrating this industry-wide practice, or even your own trust’s (as assignee), may not meet the ‘clear and convincing’ evidence standard as to post-default-defeating-hdc-status, but imo it would meet the ‘preponderance’ standard, the one I believe is the appropriate standard. If we all did this, we could have ourselves a ‘nice little catalog’. Well, it’s a thought. It seems like a lot of work, true, but really only 4 to 8 hours (?) of one’s time.
E.Tolle, my point about too many foreclosures is the same as not going back to the banks and using them. If we all did not pay our mortgages, how would that work? Like the student debt crisis as AMan said–what if we all did not pay?
venu – you’re asking for legal advice on a particular deal. No one here is going to give it. Sorry!
We’re not lawyers and even if we were, we’re not familiar with your case other than the little detail you cited. I will say this: imo you haven’t stated any grounds for rescission, below:
“Our mortgage was with Countrywide Home Loans and later acquired by Bank of America, possibly by de facto merger.
**B of A assigned the mortgage to Bank of New York Mellon four years after the closing of the CWABS Trust. This seems like depositing money in a closed blank. Could we file Rescission? **
The mortgage is now serviced by a seemingly sub servicer called Specialized Loan Servicing LLC threatening foreclosure.
KINDLY ANSWER MY QUESTION.”
** You want to rescind because your loan is allegedly assigned to a closed trust? Even if courts held that assgt to a closed trust is void
(glaski – CA), how does that create a right of rescission? Wouldn’t that just mean the party to be doing the foreclosure would (ultimately) just be the guy who tried to assign to a closed trust?
I personally know next to jack about subservicers or default servicers other than what may logically be inferred: the loan is in default so its servicing has a new home. The question is why and I don’t know, except to speculate some stuff having to do with the re-classification of the alleged asset and or payments being made to who knows who for who knows why. To me, it’s about a limited number of things (with other facts in support):
HDC v holder status to the extent art III is even applicable
the restriction on the class of people who may enforce found in the note
(which does not include a mere note holder)
That one must have something to assign, more so maybe even than
the status of the alleged assignee
That the assignment today purports to be a current sale and transfer of
both the note and the dot
(support: there is no current sale going on and even if there were, the assignee trust, even if it could accept such a late assgt, has no way to pay for the sale alleged to be a current sale. In other words, even if
an assgt to a closed trust is merely voidable (gag) where’d they get the money for the current transaction? It’s not all about that bass; it’s all about that “current”. If the trust is not a 1) good faith purchaser 2) for value 3) without notice, it’s at least not a HDC and is subject to all
affirmative defenses or claims made in a counter-claim, including those for which the S of L is otherwise up as a cause of action. (I’ve asked Neil to discuss 3rd payment payment and the collateral source rule so that we know if 3rd party payment is an appropriate defense or not. I don’t know of any other bar to 3rd party payment as a defense or even counter-claim.)
lay opinions – ask a lawyer
david b – “good catch”: that case you cited re rescission
“Christine, your colostomy bag is leaking again. You may want to see to that.” That’s a very old one regularly thrown at Tnharry when he was posting here. What’s happening? Running out of juice?
“How many foreclosures is too many foreclosures?”
One, since they are pulling the paperwork out of their asses.
Speaking of….Christine, your colostomy bag is leaking again. You may want to see to that.
T. Unwanted is right….they’ll pretend that notice never took place, and then the judge will shake the trees for them while they rake the leaves. The fed judge in my case argued against me as to why I never properly served the bank, twisting and disheveling procedures to serve his needs. The bank’s attorney just sat there reveling in the fact that the judge was doing his job for him. The amount of leverage some of these judges exert shows way beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are in fact deeply embedded with the dark forces of the evil Lord Sauron.
But…..what do any of them care when there’s ZERO regulation, ZERO prosecution, and ZERO demotions of pay or stature when pulling the rug out from under America’s homeowners en masse? It matters not to them.
They laugh all the way to….themselves.
A Man…. She is a Winner. Not many of those here…..
Enough Said…….
Many Blessings to All!
Good point, A Man. If we all do not pay our loans, what are they going to do? How many foreclosures is too many foreclosures?
Christine are you a lawyer?
NEVER AGAIN
johngault,
question, as i think i should , i feel i should have a copy of the rescind letter i sent out, to be recorded at registry of deeds.??
wouldn’t that be a good thing??
and by the way, what did you mean , good catch???
thanks
Venu,
What state are you in? You are not in foreclosure. Now is the time to attack all the parties. Don’t wait until FC has been filed. Attack first.
Do you have a timeline of everything that has transpired since inception? Have you received N.O.D.s and do they jibe with the statements of mortgage? Have you checked your monthly statements (did you keep them?) to verify that you didn’t get charged fees which weren’t listed? (You probably did).
Do you have an attorney or do you need a referral to a solid and affordable one?
Our mortgage was with Countrywide Home Loans and later acquired by Bank of America, possibly by de facto merger. B of A assigned the mortgage to Bank of New York Mellon four years after the closing of the CWABS Trust. This seems like depositing money in a closed blank. Could we file Rescission? The mortgage is now serviced by a seemingly sub servicer called Specialized Loan Servicing LLC threatening foreclosure.
KINDLY ANSWER MY QUESTION.
good catch, db!
I’ve said over time that failure to record an assgt, i.e., notice of one’s interest in real property, is at the peril of the party who chooses not to record. The non-receipt of a notice of rescission is one such peril. Because the non-recorder made that decision, imo he can’t later sqwauk he didn’t get notice as he gave none himself.
Some banksters, like Aurora Loan Services, relied on many falsehoods in court proceedings to wiggle out of this or that as we all know. ALS, for instance, for a reason I forget claimed that transfers of servicing (which have never ever been recorded – and can’t be imo) were recorded so that they, as servicer, received notice. This says they were saying notice to them was notice to the lender. Major pity this can’t bite them in the heiny since they’re toast (re-emerged as NationStar imo or at least their servicing if not employees were transferred there). ALS is infamous for claiming to be the rpii but then, wait, no, just the immune servicer when it came to successor liability-ish for bad origination acts.
But I didn’t mean to dilute what I was saying. If a creditor chooses not to give notice of his interest, he shouldn’t (can’t in my book) be allowed to sqwauk when he doesn’t receive it himself.
Louise – I’m going to bet your loan was a high loan to value. Maybe they treated it as a refi to exceed the ltv for a purchase…..? Well, if so,
of course they shouldn’t have, but I wouldn’t know just what to call it other than predatory lending. It sounds like fraud, but I can’t frame it.
TU – guess you didn’t read and or agree with my thoughts re: whom to notice of rescission. One thing I posited at the last post, long and short, is that imo notice is adequate to the party named in public record as the ben (along with the servicer). And one could include the party id’d in public record as the trustee. The borrower receives no other notice of the id of the other party to his agreement. and he therefore imo relies
appropriately on public record. If a proof of claim has been filed in a bk proceeding, I think that fact supports sending the NOR to the party making the claim, but I would note in the transmission that sending the NOR to that party isn’t an admission that that party is the creditor.
This is absolutely NOT advice, but I (me, not you) would record the
Notice of Rescission. If I wanted to rescind a loan I had taken, and were going to record it with a cover sheet entitled Notice of Notice of Rescission which identified the property by legal description and commonly known as street address and had the parcel number on the upper left hand corner within the recorder’s margin requirements, my actual letter of rescission attached to this notice would show that it was cc’d to everyone and his brother (ben of record, ben of record’s registered agent, servicer, reg’d agent for servicer, some state dept
like dept of business and finance, trustee as shown in public record, and so on. My letter would absolutely include a cert of mailing to each party I included in my NOR.
Of course, I would only do this if proper grounds for rescission existed and I would only do it while I remained the owner of record, i.e., before a trustee’s sale.
lay opinions as always – ask a lawyer
usedkarguy, Rescission is available only on refinances not purchase money loans. Well, here was the situation on my alleged loan: it was a purchase money loan, but the crooked atty, mortgage broker and bank American Brokers Conduit (no longer in business) treated the loan as if it was a refinance not a purchase money loan. Of course, that was just one more illegal aspect of the transaction along with a warehouse lender.
to all
first, usedkaguy, am well aware of the res-cap bk, all should be because included 5 other banks, and over 500 BILLION in
mortgage securitization trusts. so yes it big news, to all that want to know really what’s going on. should read all doc’s in
that bk. and by the way, I did. including the most important doc’s. as you all should know by now, that a company ,any company,
entity, MOST OWN THERE ASSETS, TO TRANSFER THAT ASSET!!! OR SELL THAT ASSET!!! NOW THAT IS THE LAW………..
so this is why I read all 3000 pages of ASSETS OF ALL IN MY ELEGGED TRUST, THAT WOULD BE
GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORTION,INC, GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC, GMAC INC,GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST,INC,RESIDENAL MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST,INC,LLC, ALLY,GMAC, RESIDENAL REO ,LLC,GMAC MORTGAGE ,REO,LLC, ETC,ETC.
so yes I went thru all doc’s. as of the filing of bk, they all had to show ALL OF THERE ASSTES OF THAT FILING. GET IT NOW.
and none, i mean none had as a asset my mortgage,note, showing as a asset. as of filing for bk. hum, thats begs a question?
how could a defenk,bk, company ASSIGN OR GIVE MERSCORP,MERS, ANY AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE
TO A TRUST, 6YRS AFTER TRUST CLOSED. ???????????? HAVENT FIGURED THAT OUT YET. HAHAHAH
1/ sign mortgage and note, 11/08/2005. without the following truth and lending disclosures, of true lender of funds, at lease 3 other party’s
of interest of the mortgage and note NOT DICLOSED, 1/ MERSCORP, AS THEY OWN THE MINS, NUMBER ASSIGN TO MORTGAGE, GMACM MORTGAGE TRUST,INC, ON MORTGAGE DOC’S,HIDEN ON LEFT BOTTOM SIDE,IN VERY SMALL PRINT, WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1 ( THE “BANK” ) AS DISCRIDE
IN FORECLOSURE NOTICE, JUST RECEIVED. AND GMACM MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIERS 2006 -J1, RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS,INC, CITIGROUP GLOBLE MARKETS,INC, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGEUSTRATION SYSYTEMS,INC,BEAR,STERNS & CO.INC, DTCC,DTC,.
THIS GO’S TO THE QUESTION, DID YOU AS A BORROWER GET ALL OF THE REQUIRED TILA DISCLOSURES, ON ALL PARTYS TO THE LOAN TRANSACTION,
AND OF THE , AS WAS REPORTED TO CONGRESS BY, SHEILA BAIR AND OTHERS, UNDER OATH, THESE ARE CONCIDERD BY THE BANKING AS ( NON-TRADITIONAL MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS. )
and as I see it, the answer is NO I DID NOT GET ALL REQUIRED DISCLOSURES, BY LAW. BY ALL PARTYS TO LOAN CONTRACT.
AND, you all are saying right now,that the borrower is not party to the pas, THAT IS FACTUALY UNTRUE, in congresstional statesments,
by banks admitting ,by the OCC doc,treasury doc,fed doc, all stating that without the borrower THERE WOULD BE NO, GET IT, NO SECURITZIED MORTGAGE TRUST. AND IN ALL TRUST DOC’S ALL HOMEOWNER INFO IS IN THE DOC’S, I.E. SSN,CREDIT,ADDRESS,LOAN NUMBERS,ETC,ETC.
so please get off that , ALL FEDERAL CHARTS,THE OCC CHARTS,BANKS TRUSTEE SERVICE COMPANY CHARTS, ALL SHOW THE NUMBER ONE PERSON TO
ALL SECURITZATION PSA, IS THE ( BORROWER. ) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/ note and mortgage SIGNED AND DATED over , pay to the order of, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.WITHOUT RECOURSE,
SIGN BY D.CHIODO,ASSISTANT SECRETARY GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,INC. WITH HIS SIGNATURE.
3/ copy of THE WIRE TRANSER FUND, THE BANK ? SENDING THE FUNDS TO MY RE-FI, the funds were DATED 11/14/2005, SEE SOMETHING YET?
4/ the funds came from, yup you guess it, Deutsche bank trust company Americas!! and on what date,. 11/14/2005. that would be 6 days after signing
mortgage and note!!!
5/ SO BY LAW. AS OF 11/8/2005 , GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, OR ANY ONE , OTHER THEN , DEUSCH-BANK-TRUST-AMER- HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS MORTGAGE AND NOTE. NOTHING,NATA,ZIP.
6/ as all should know by now, once a original mortgage and note is destroyed, and turned ( meaning CONVERTED, INTO A CERTIFICATE,BOND, IT IS NO LONGER A MORTGAGE/ AND NOTE. HAS NO VALUE. AS MORTGAGE AND NOTE. AND THIS WHY ALL should be CONSELTING A SECURITYS EXPERT.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS NOW. and anything to do with it, is under securities laws. and the laws say, ONCE A NOTE IS TURNED INTO A SECURITY,
IT CAN NOT BE TURN BACK INTO WHAT THE ORINENAL WAS. THATS THE LAW.
SO, it go’s to show that ALL COURTS,JUDGES IN THIS COUNTRY that is excepting ANY MORTGAGE AND NOTE, is excepting and involved in fraud a pond the courts . you cant bring into court a lost or destroyed mortgage and note, AND SAY IT’S ALSO IN A MORTGAGE SECUIRTIE TRUST. IMPOSSABLE. BY LAW. and most of ALL, COMMON SENSE.
I COULD GO ON FOR DAYS,
sorry for all caps see better
LONG LIVE NEIL GARFIELD THE TRUE DEFENDER OF DUE PROCESS AND CIVIL RIGHTS.
What are the banksters gonna do with the student loan revolt? Take there degrees away? hahahahahahahahahaha
NEVER AGAIN
I’m not feeling this post Neil.
Someone could potentially not give notice to the proper party of rescission and then spend money to be a Plaintiff in a lawsuit where we knew the prejudiced judges (who should provide equal opportunity under the law but are the biggest discriminators in the fake legal system) will hold the Plaintiff to the highest level of proof if the word Bank, or Trust, or some common name that would mean a bank or trust is not the Plaintiff’s identity.
So the other side can claim to not have received notice.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
UKG, call me anytime. Or email me. You have both.
david, are you aware of the GMAC/ResCap
Bankruptcy in SDNY? you should have been there by now.
AND VAPOR MONEY ARGUMENTS WON’T AND DON’T WORK.
And everybody knows that rescission is only available on refinances, right? Not “purchase-money” loans. And
and louise is right: one of my exhibits was a phony cashiers check.Judges are bought and paid for.
christine, I need to speak with you, when you have time.
http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/andrewsclassactiondefense_ord.pdf
this is the Andrews case above. Read it and learn. Also Carlsen, WI
Old timers on this site are hopeless. When will people learn to attack BEFORE defaulting? NG won’t teach it: he derives his income from fighting after FC has been filed. So backwards, he’s the only one making a great living. Anyone getting ahead? Nope. Let’s hear it from the hyenas.
The estate is a corporation.
david b, if you’re interested, you can see my thoughts on that rescission letter you posted at the last NG post.
Of course a corporation may make a loan. But individuals calling themselves a corporation can’t make a loan as a corporation if there is no corporation, and I’ve as said, it’s illegal to hold oneself out as a corp when not a corp.
I’m no expert on dba’s but I think even to do business as a dba (in that name, like say americas wholesale lender, the dba must be of record
wherever they’re of record, as in I don’t remember where that is. The
“where that is” may vary from state to state or maybe even county to county.
you may be asking why i ask that question to you. because i have gone down to the sec of states office in mass and ask how could a corporation lend money. they said they cant. thats why am asking if that is what you are saying.
because, my mortgage and mortgage note, is this.
gmac mortgage corporation as lender!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
johngault,
you stated , not a corporation , why?
Apart from the qualifying language in the note about who may enforce, If anyone wants it to matter whether or not the lender named in the note was the lender, he has to establish that the current claimant is
at least not entitled to the presumption of hdc status. Otherwise
the court isn’t (as unbelievable to some as this may sound) going to
care one iota and will find hat who the orig lender was has nada to do with the right to rescind or as a defense to the note.
I would never allege lack of contract as a grounds for rescission of whatever occurred (I got money, someone gave it to me), nor would I assert it as anything other than an alternative ground for relief. The only time I might do this is if I were putting the capacity to contract of the other party named in the document (not a corporation, can’t contract as a corporation, for instance) A party may advance mutlitple, even conflicting, theories of the crime or defenses and this one wouldn’t be on top of my list.
NG: “But that is not the only problem for pretender lenders. In order to establish standing to challenge the rescission they must allege that they or their predecessors were the real lenders and were the actual source of funding. Those allegations puts the burden of proof on the pretender lenders.”
Poppycock! They won’t be made to allege any such thing imo beyond what is alleged and or presumed by their action or complaint. They’re going to rely on article 3 poss of a bearer note. The court is going to give them the presumption, warranted or not, of hdc status.
I think NG is putting his own spin on successor liability, tho slightly diff because he’s asserting there were no identified lender and as such, there was no one from whom the current bankster could have succeeded on the facts (not the record, the facts, because by the record, there was an identified party). He wants the current claimant to demonstrate that it got its interest from the unidentified by true lender (rue lender in his book). But good luck on that one because a hdc may in fact imo succeed to the interests created in the note. The question for a court won’t be whose interests. It will or may only be is the current claimant a holder in due course. Whether or not rescission and hdc isms collide, I don’t know. Depends on exactly how successor liability works. But NG isn’t going to address it if and since he would rather argue there was no contract. What there was is someone gave someone else a loan. NG wants the current claimant to justify his successor interest in the original claim of an unidentified lender, not anyone id’d as the lender in the note. That position assumes it makes any difference to the claim of a hdc that he acquired his interest from the id’d lender (or another along the way from the id’d lender) and since I’m not sure it would, I sure as heck wouldn’t base my only assertion on it not making any difference. In other words, does it matter to a HDC that the note doesn’t id the true lender. If I’m a crook and sell your note, the guy who buys it from me may be accorded hdc status even though I didn’t have it myself. I’m pretty sure the UCC, as applicable (I say as applicable because I favor the restriction about who may enforce in the note itself) will find a good faith purchaser, for value, and without notice unaffected by the fact the note doesn’t name the real lender.
The document that shows the lending by the warehouse lender and not a party to the mortgage and the note (the transaction itself) would prove there is no contract. Some have produced this document to the judge and still he will not take proper judicial notice of it.
Here is some good case law that was cited in the CFPB’s brief in Jesinoski related to what happens to the mortgage once the borrower rescinds. The case is FAMILY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. SPENCER, 41 Conn. App. 754 (1996)
(http://www.leagle.com/decision/199679541ConnApp754_1717.xml/FAMILY%20FINANCIAL%20SERVICES,%20INC.%20v.%20SPENCER)
The Spencer Court states: “The plaintiff did not accept the defendant’s rescission. The plaintiffs failure to acknowledge the rescission or to take proper actions after receipt of the notice of rescission within the twenty day period allowed by statute, terminated its security interest and prevented the mortgage from being foreclosed.”
The Spencer Court further states: “We conclude that the trial court properly interpreted and applied 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (a) and (b). The tender of property is not required by § 1635 (b) as a condition preceding rescission. The notice given by the defendant properly rescinded the transaction. The failure of the plaintiff to accept the valid rescission by the defendant nullified the plaintiffs security interest. Because the [41 Conn. App. 771] plaintiffs security interest became void, it was barred from foreclosing on the mortgage. The trial court correctly concluded that TILA does not require tender back in order effectively to rescind the mortgage.”
NEVER AGAIN.
Is your name A man?
I haven’t lost my home, thank you.
David can you lower your voice? You are giving me a headache.
Aman. ..its that kind of thinking that caused you to lose your home.
Neil…you know hearsay is not admissible evidence.
Christine…take 2 aspirin and a nap. I know I am going to take both. 😴
CHRISTINE, AND HER ROCK,
AM SO BALANCE , AS A VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARMY, INFANTRY.
PROTECTING MY COUNTRY CITIZENS IS MY PRIORITY. AND THAT FROM FOREIGN OR ( DOMESTIC ENEMY’S )
DOMESTIC MEANING WALL STREET,THE FED , AND ANYONE ELSE HURTING AMERICANS. AND MY FAMILY.
SOMEONE CALLED ME HERE, IS THAT AM
Your insight and comments are most erudite. LOOK IT UP!!
I KNOW YOU HAVE A HARD TIME READING OR LOOKING UP THINGS SO I WILL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU.
er·u·dite
ˈer(y)əˌdīt/Submit
adjective
having or showing great knowledge or learning.
synonyms: learned, scholarly, educated, knowledgeable, well read, well informed, intellectual; More
Karma can be a B#tch
NEVER AGAIN
The Judges and the other public servants own the Junk investments. The bankster are gonna stiff you and your pensions. If not make sure you loose your jobs. Suckers
NEVER AGAIN
And David, that “all caps” thing doesn’t prove much other than how unbalanced one might be. I don’t read all caps.
“I received an email from one of my most knowledgeable anonymous contributors. It raises an interesting question.”
Sounds like a reliable source right there!
so CHRISTINE, ROCK, PLEASE GO AND READ THIS FWP, ITS SHOWS 1027 MORTGAGES, AS BEING PAYED OFF AS OF 2/2/2006. THEN ON SAME DOCS SHOW THEM SELLING ALL LOANS FOR THE INFLATED APPRAISELS PRICES. AS IN MY CASE, THAT WOULD BE $500.000 DOLLARS.
THE WORDING YOU NEED TO LOOK AT. IS AS FOLLOWS.
ISSUE DATE,BALANCEPAID TO DATE, 2/2/2006
IF YOU DONT KNOW , LAW, ONCE A DEBT IS PAYED, IT CAN NOT BE PAYED TWICE, NO MATTER WHO PAYED THE DEBT OFF. SIMPLE.
SO ALL 1027 MORTGAGES IN THIS DEAL. SHOW ALL BEING PAYED OFF AND THEN SOLD AS IF THEY THINK THEY OWN ALL MORTGAGES/NOTES.
AND THEY WERE SOLD FOR THE FRAUD APPRAISEL PRICES. GET IT. NOW REMEMBER, ALL WERE INSURED ALSO, BY ALL FROM AIG,AND OTHERS, OH AND FOR THE AMOUNT OF, YUP, ALL THE FRAUD APPRAISEL PRICES..SO LETS LOOK AT TOTAL SO FAR ON A 350,000 DOLLAR LOAN/CONTRACT.
1/ BORROWER GETS 350,000
2/ GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/ TAKES NOTE TO FED/TREASURY AND GETS A CREDIT OF 30 TO 40 TIMES THAT AMOUNT, LETS SAY 12,000,000. THATS MILLIONS.
3/ NOW GMACM GO’S AND SELLS THESE SECURITIZED MORTGAGE TRUSTS TO INVESTOR, FOR WHAT. YUP THE FRAUD APPRAISEL PRICES, SO HOW MUCH MONEY HAS ALL MADE SO FAR. ON JUST 1 SINGLE LOAN OF 350,000 DOLLARS?? OH FORGOT THEY COULD OF SOLD THIS AS MANY AS 10,20 TIMES. SO LETS SAY ANOTHER 20 MILLION.
WELL I SEE ABOUT 30 MILLION DOLLARS SO FAR.
NOW DO YOU GET IT. THIS IS WHY ALL INSURANCE COMPAMY ARE SUEING NOW, LIKE ASSURD,AIG, THIS IS WHY IN 2008 WHEN MARKET CRASHED, AIG LOST ALL BETS, IN THE TUNE OF ABOUT 25 TRILLON DOLLARS, THAT (PAULSON ) RAN TO CONGRESS TO GET THE 800 BILLION/ REMEMBER. WELL THEY ALSO GET OTHER WAYS TO PAY THAT NO ONE NOTICE,
CHINA THAT BAUGHT MOST OF THESE JUNK, WAS CALLING IN THERE CHIPS ON THE FRAUD. SO PAULSON A VERY VERY GOOD FREIND OF CHINA, SAID DONT WORRIE I WILL GET THE MONEY. HUM HE DID. AMERICANS PAYED OFF CHINA IN THE TUNE OF TRILLIONS OF TAX PAYERS MONEY, AS TO OTHER INSURANCES, BETS THEY ALSO GOT PAYED.
SO PLEASE GET OFF THE HIGH HORSE, IF AMERICAN KNEW THAT THEY COULD GO TO FEDS/TREAS AND GET 30 TO 40 TIMES THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, THEMSELFS, DO YOU REALLY THINK WE NEED WALLSTREET/ NO WAY.
LIKE WALLSTREET I WOULD OF TAKEN THE 1200000 MILLION THEY GOT FROM MY NOTE, AND IN MILASECS WOULD OF MADE 10 TO 20 TIMES THAT AMOUNT. IN ONE DAY, THEN I WOULD PAY OFF THE CREDIT OF 1200000MIL, AND WALA
AM 100 MILLION AHEAD.
FREE WRITING PROSPECTUS PRELIMINARY POOL INFORMATION
GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
SERVICER AND SPONSOR
RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS, INC.
DEPOSITOR
GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1
ISSUING ENTITY
GMACM MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2006-J1 (THE “CERTIFICATES”)
prior to closing , as i now look at all doc’s i received from closing attorney last yr, on 11/08/2005. it show this gmacm mortgage trust? in all doc’s sign, on bottom left corner. so i did some investigations. hum. guess what. before signing mortgage and note, gmacm is a complete seperate company. and enitiy., inc. so the mortgage and note were already sold prior to signing mortgage and note.
GO AND READ THIS WHOLE FWD
GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1 – ‘FWP’ on 2/9/06 re: GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1
On: Thursday, 2/9/06, at 4:09pm ET · Accession #: 1352221-6-5 · File #: 333-125485-25
Previous ‘FWP’: ‘FWP’ on 2/3/06 · Next & Latest: ‘FWP’ on 2/24/06
in Show and
Help… Wildcards: ? (any letter), * (many). Logic: for Docs: & (and), | (or); for Text: | (anywhere), “(&)” (near). ↓Bottom
As Of Filer Filing For·On·As Docs:Size Issuer
2/09/06 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1 FWP 1:391K GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1
Free Writing Prospectus — Rule 163/433
Filing Table of Contents
Document/Exhibit Description Pages Size
1: FWP 2006 J1 Collateral HTML 939K