Why Are Modifications So Sluggish? Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show 6pm EDT

Posted on July 30, 2015 by Neil Garfield

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 24,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.

===============================

For more information please email us at gtchonors.llblog@gmail.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.

===========================
Everyone has the same question in the back of their minds. The loans should be worked out rather than foreclosed. That is what is done with commercial loans, that is what was done in residential loans and it is still done with credit cards and other consumer loans. So why are we having problems with workouts and modifications?
The answer is simple: we are not dealing with the creditor. We are dealing with an intermediary whose instructions are to get the loan into foreclosure. So they tell borrowers that they can’t qualify for a redo of their loan unless they stop paying, they say and do a lot of things that encourage the borrowers to do things that make them look like deadbeats when the case goes to foreclosure judgments. The borrowers are not deadbeats. They are victims just as the investors are victims. But we never hear from the investors because they don’t know that anything is wrong with their investments — because they are getting paid regardless of whether the “borrower” pays or not.
Many judges have been asking two questions for years even as they give the banks the benefit of the doubt:

(1) why is the modification process so enigmatic and random (and why are there not more workouts like it used to be in civil courts and bankruptcy courts) and

(2) why are we seeing this shell game with first some bank or other entity claiming it is the owner of the loan, denying even the existence of the REMIC Trust, then they admit the existence of the Trust and claim the loan is owned by the Trusts, then they say the servicers have the right to foreclose and not the trusts or the investors, and then they keep switching servicers and trustees? To the Judges that ask these questions, it looks like a shell game but without appropriate pleading and evidence they can’t rule on it — or get the answers to their questions.

The truth has emerged in many cases where it was determined that the trust never owned the subject loan — or any loan. The trust never comes to court. The self-appointed servicer shows up with a robo-witness. Many cases decided in favor of the borrower (and there are thousands of them) show that the “servicer” is (a) not a servicer because it neither accepts nor pays money in connection with “processing the loan,” and (b) not authorized to act as a servicer even with fabricated powers of attorney introduced in court.

All this has everything to do with the modification process. The alleged “servicers” are the only parties that will talk to the homeowner about a workout– modification. But they actually have no power to do so. And what this “servicer” wants is a foreclosure judgment and sale not a modification which of course means they have a conflict of interest with the investors. The “servicer” who is really an enforcer to put up another layer of corporate shield against the borrower, is really doing the bidding of the Master Servicer. The Master Servicer is ordering all cases into foreclosure judgment and sale and to minimize the modifications (but not eliminate them because that would look bad for the banks).

The reason why the Master Servicer orders all cases to be on foreclosure track and a minimum number set for modification is simple: they have been paying the investors to make the investors think that their bonds are performing perfectly when in fact they are not. The bonds the investors have on their statements are worthless because they were issued by a trust that never received the proceeds of sale from the sale of their mortgage backed securities.

In fact the issuing Trust never even started business, much less ended it during the mandatory 90 day period. It never had any money and never even had a bank account. SO it couldn’t have purchased the loan. The lawyers come to court with the “servicer” because they can’t come to court with the owner of the loan (investors). If they came to court with the investors or any representatives of the investors, the investors would say that they have no default because they have been paid. THAT would mean there is no default and that would mean the volunteer payments from the servicer would never be recovered. So they absolutely need the foreclosure and absolutely remain committed to minimizing modifications.

And the enforcer or pretends to be a “Servicer” gets paid to act as a barrier against any inquiry into the inner workings of the fraud practiced on the borrower, the courts, and the investors. The investors end up taking a loss which in the case of pension funds has meant that the funds do not have the resources to maintain the pensions of retired workers. As a result of their reduced income they end up on the bad end of a foreclosure — in some cases by a trust whose investors include the same pension fund that lost money because of the fraudulent issuance of the mortgage backed securities that were never mortgage backed and never issued by an operated entity (Trust) under any theory.

And the whole scheme is to hide the real profits made by the banks in (a) stealing money from the investors and (b) paying themselves unauthorized fees and profits from illusory trades that are booked only at their trading desk and (c) immediately betting against the worthless bonds. .

It is the investment banks that pay the so-called “servicer advances” from a slush fund that is actually disclosed in the prospectus issued to investors. They pay that money as long as it (a) encourages the investors to buy more bonds (b) discourages the investors from suing the investment banks and exposing the entire toxic criminal scheme and (c) they can control the court actions such that most of them end up with a foreclosure judgment or the nonjudicial sale exercised by a power of sale in the nonjudicial states.

If the investment Banks allowed more modifications in would require them to continue making payments as “servicer advances” indefinitely. But even more sinister is the fact that while they could stop paying servicer advances then a whole lot of investors would come to know that their bonds were inf act worthless and the loans were never acquired and the loans were mostly nonperforming and that the foreclosures pressed by the enforcer/servicer is actually costing the investor most of their investment.

Filed under: foreclosure |

« »

84 Responses

  1. Shadowcat, on August 3, 2015 at 10:22 pm said:

    Even Reverse mortgages are not fc safe….
    Them pesky what ?????
    You had to love nailing them on the annuity purchases requiments …
    Here we go again…rewriting the words…I mean rules..lol

  2. Shadowcat, on August 3, 2015 at 10:06 pm said:

    Dwight…you should have left the recession alone and nailed them on obstruction and failure to prosecute under the SOL after a suit is filed.
    You should have hired that lawyer.

    The other issue I see is the taxes and ins….
    If you know there is no escrow account…never mind.
    You never answer my question on who is paying the land trustors =real estate taxes and insurance.

    You see…when an additional $5000 in escrow reserves disappear….
    I am smart enough to start paying the corresponding parties directly with out a fee machine thievery in the middle.

  3. Hammertime, on August 3, 2015 at 8:22 pm said:

    With TILA and now this hopefully we’re getting back to some sanity and you and the rest of us will get a portion of what was taken from us Dwight – we’re not benefiting or asking for help, bailouts, free house, windfall. It’s manipulation your description shows it’s not an either/or question like alot of these issues that lobbyists, officials have jammed down our throats. And manipulation of language etc. The law is not that complicated like banks cry about. It’s basic cause and effect, you accelerate there’s consequences period. It’s their exotic products and loopholes that create the chaos so they can rob us blind. Their marketing machine and bribery let them get away w it for the past 10 years.

  4. DwightNJ, on August 3, 2015 at 7:48 pm said:

    Hammer .. That Statute of Limitation case in NJ Bankruptcy court is my main argument right now in my case. Wells Fargo servicer accelerated when they filed in September 2007 … They just filed again in 2014 … In NJ they changed the law and allow banks 20 years to foreclose. But as the federal bankruptcy judge explained, NOT after the bank accelerates because by doing so they have created a new maturity date.

    The judge in my case is defiant and rejected the argument..he says that the maturity date is still the one stated on the mortgage 30 years from the origination … I replied that a contract cannot have two different maturity dates ..the bank triggered a clause in the contract when they chose to accelerate ..and by calling the entire debt due, they created a new maturity date. The NJ Statute says 20 years to foreclose or 6 yrs from the maturity date … I argued that the intent of the lawmakers was not to allow a bank to litigate for 20 years , it was only meant for those mortgages that had somehow fallen thru the cracks and never been foreclosed on .. But once a bank does attemp to foreclose and they accelerate , the six years from the accelerated maturity date is what they get …they don’t get 20 years to litigate a foreclosure.

    Well my judge disagreed and granted WF the Summary Judgment.

    Hopefully the Appellate Division agrees with the Bankruptcy judge and reverses my case.

  5. johngault, on August 3, 2015 at 5:46 pm said:

    from Louise’s link:
    “In the current case, the pension funds accused Bank of New York Mellon of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for doing nothing to remedy Countrywide’s inadequate servicing of home loans contained in the trusts.

    The bondholders said Bank of New York Mellon failed to take possession of loan files, including the original mortgage notes, or require Countrywide to fix or buy back defective loans.”

    Well, color me stumped again. If the trusts didn’t take possession of the loan files, including the notes, and the notes are negotiable instruments regulated by article III, subject to movement by endorsement and possession, on what interest is the plaintiff suing? They may well have some interest pursuant to the UCC (security interests?), but how can claims be made under ownership of the loans if the notes were neither transferred nor possessed? Not a rhetorical question. Wonder, too, what was the “inadequate servicing of (the) home loans” (and still, how are they “contained in the trust” without transfer or negotiation)?
    Didn’t these guys come up with some story that so and so was (now?) their document custodian? In other words, if So and So, Inc were the custodian for CW, what are the elements necessary to turn So and So, Inc into the custodian for someone ELSE, the trust? And isn’t it true that these secn trustees try to decry any fiduciary duty? Doubt there’ll be any adjudication on the merits. I see another settlement, which while maybe good for the plaintiffs, will do nothing to address the issues. My 2 cents.
    If anyone sees the complaint online, hope you’ll link it.

  7. Hammertime, on August 3, 2015 at 2:51 am said:

    Thank you and good night! Lol

  8. Shadowcat, on August 3, 2015 at 1:45 am said:

    And the last nail in the coffin….Hammertime!

  10. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 9:09 pm said:

    From my 523 a.m. comment, which I missed.
    “However, the trust does not recognize any new liability or note payable to the servicer, and remittance reports (jg: to the trusts) often do not report monthly advances and reimbursements.”

    “Often” = probably never? What? The servicer alone has the records of its advances and reimbursements? I think not, and if it’s anywhere near true, certainly the trustee is patently derelict. And if it’s true, big fat IF, then for one thing and one thing only, it’s the servicers alone whose accounting is controlling the perceived (stated?), artificial value of the derivatives.
    For instance, if the servicer has a right to be reimbursed for advances made on Henry’s loan by the first in time sale of Claire’s house, I’m hard pressed to see how the trust hasn’t created a liability since it may still owe the advances on Claire’s loan out of other trust funds. The only thing which might be true is that if the sale of all the collateral for the loans in the trust doesn’t cover the collective advances, the trust has no continuing liability. But, at least to me just now, the trust is in fact liable by way of the provisions in the PSA to the servicer for its advances (we just don’t know if it’s under the notes, which is what we care about and which it doesn’t look like). Plus, the trust has to, apparently, pay the interest if the servicer has to pay any on borrowed funds for the advances! If trust choose to pretend this liability doesn’t exist, it’s just more double-dealing. If not, these guys might just plain be partners, a ghastly thought, and one not as far as I know contemplated by the law regarding these trusts.
    Obviously I think we need to be finding ways to get at f a c t s. What it’s probably fair to say we know (at least non-agency loans):

    The servicers are obligated to make certain advances to the trusts.
    the reasons for this seem untoward and self-serving (avoid seasoning, prop up deriv prices, might make money at the note rate to add to their .25 to .375 if not .50 pm for servicing, and servicing fees remain in effect on defaulted loans until liquidation)
    .
    The servicers, except maybe as to agency loans, are authorized in the psa’s to “get theirs” not only by liquidiation of the collateral, even those unrelated to any particular advances, and, at least by some psa’s, are at the top of the food chain for their receivables, that is, the receivables, which receivables aren’t even allegedly tracked by the trusts(!), are to be paid before any derivatives, and so more (possibly interest-bearing) advances are required for the next month and so on (I get that right?).

    Give servicers something to either bet on or insure and charge the borrower for the cost of doing so by way of increase to her rate.

    Sometimes got the borrower to commit to pay the advances UNDER A NEW NOTE by way of Including the advance amounts advanced as principal in the new note.

    What we want to know is are our loans delinquent? And that appears to exclusively depend on the relationship among these players and their own contractual agreements with each other if not other third parties. We may be found to have no standing regarding issues in those agreements by and large, but imo what we can’t be found to have no standing about is whether or not third party payment on our loans means the (alleged) Creditor has no beef with us.

    So now ABC Servicer has decided there’s no merit (for it) in continuing to make these advances. So ABC stops and, using a handy “mers’ assignment, assigns the loan to the trust to whom it’s already remitted payments including servicer advances, as if the trust has been the Creditor, the successor in interest to the original lender and has been due on that basis the payments it’s already remitted! Why did ABC make payments and advances to a party, a trust, which heretofore had no interest (other than perhaps a security interest by way of the now-applicable UCC) in the loan)? Has ABC Servicer been making payments on the “group’s” ( v trust’s) security interest and now want done with it because it’s played out? The numbers don’t work to keep making advances or for any reason? So then it’s like I said a couple years ago “here, take this turkey!” When servicers remit figures re: what’s allegedly owing on the loans, to WHOM have they been remitting payments (since the assignments are postured as CURRENT events, that is, just NOW (allegedly) making a trust the creditor with the right to payment?

  11. dandiener1, on August 2, 2015 at 8:43 pm said:

    Louise,

    Please post the URL to the article you mentioned.

  12. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 7:38 pm said:

    “Eligible advances receivables are required to be repaid in the order made. Under the PSA, a new servicer would have to repay the old advances on a loan before reimbursing the new advances on a loan

    (jg: hmmmm..”repay” the advances? Now I’m stumped, UNless this means the new servicer must ‘repay’ because the funds for the advances were BORROWED.)”

    I think that second sentence more accurately should read ” Under the PSA, a new servicer must repay the old advances on LOANS (PLURAL) before repaying the old servicer / anyone ITS own or anyone’s new(er) advances on LOANS (again plural)”.

    So take Nationstar and aurora’s former 1 billion. Looks to me like Nationstar must deal with that particular 1 billion before it may grab any funds for its own reimbursement (and or to pay off loans it has gotten to make advances after acquisition of aurora’s 1 billion). Don’t know what NS paid for those advances receivables, but something, and it wouldn’t be next to nothing UNless it were a fire-sale, which it might’ve been. So NS takes money from the sale of Claire’s collateral to pay an “antecedent” debt, which partly is advances on Henry’s loan.

    “Antecedent Debt. A legally enforceable obligation, which has been in existence prior to the time in question, to reimburse another with money or property.
    Under statutes governing Bankruptcy, a transfer of property made by a debtor because of an antecedent debt might be considered a Voidable preference, depending upon the length of time between the creation of the debt and the filing of the petition for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy court may set aside a voidable preference since it gives one creditor a better right to payment than other creditors who are similarly situated.
    Under statutes governing Bankruptcy, a transfer of property made by a debtor because of an antecedent debt might be considered a Voidable preference, depending upon the length of time between the creation of the debt (or the sale of an asset – sic) and the filing of the petition for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy court may set aside a voidable preference since it gives one creditor a better right to payment than other creditors who are similarly situated.

    This is about that “claw-back” power of a bk trustee and the impact of A to D’s bankruptcy on (alleged) sales to trusts. But, it could also be about Aurora as to its advance-receivable sales to NationStar if Aurora did in fact file bk or imo if NS is really Aurora by another name (and it could apply to others who borrowed servicing advances). Businesses may not recreate themselves to avoid creditors. If Aurora had sold the (alleged) receivables to NS and then filed bk or were, probably, even just insolvent, its bk trustee and or creditors could use long arms to claw back the receivables as preferential, even if Aurora had to be the subject of an involuntary bk petition. (Is this advance-business part of what happened to Lehman, who didn’t get bailed out? What? They didn’t have AIG write-your-own terminals in their offices?!)
    Not sure how that works if an Aurora doesn’t file bk, but is insolvent nonetheless.But I’m pretty sure we need to know if THESE trusts may lawfully create, by any means, accounts payable and are these payables secured by anyone’s particular loan or not? The servicers, prior to the advances, aren’t creditors of the trusts. Sec’n trusts don’t have creditors – all they have is payment streams to holders of derivatives and I suppose some fees to the trustee, which theoretically or factually are deductions from the money in, not an amt independently payable.

    The UCC, btw, think it was, speaks to the use of a prom note as payment for an antecedent debt. Saw it in a case a long time ago, but don’t remember the upshot or really anything else x it had to do with a title company and a home loan. Mentioning it for the ben of anyone who wants to look into it. But I’d say It’s possible the seller to the trust, by his non-delivery, has created as I opined a couple years ago, a security interest for the trust in the loan (v a true sale), which could likely be categorized as an antecedent debt of the seller not much later. “A commerical instrument that has been given in exchange for an antecedent debt is deemed by the Uniform Commercial Code to be supported by adequate consideration.” Not sure what all that means, but it may apply to the seller trying to now assign the loan to the trust in payment of the antecedent debt t(security interest) the seller created by his non-delivery to what is now just a group of investors. Well, then, the party taking a note to extinguish a debt (security interest) surely must agree to accept it, and recordation by the guy trying to extinguish the security interest certainly isn’t evidence that party has. That party may be accepting the note, but the recordation of an assignment doesn’t establish this. imo.

    The servicer may and prob does, at least some, borrow the moolah for its advances. Now what, if anything, might this mean a trust possibly owes yet another party?? Did Aurora fund its own advances, the 1 BILLION (!), OR did aurora itself borrow the funds and what does THAT contract look like? Someone just made Aurora an unsecured loan which got to a billion? Not. But what was the collateral, then? (I’d think servicers aren’t particularly asset-heavy since they’re merely in the servicing industry; they don’t sell ‘stuff’ so have no inventory, say, and even if they did, prob most companies who re-sell (retailers, say) stuff haven’t paid for it yet and it’s already the subject of, say, wholesale-vendor liens.) Is the fact that a servicer borrows money for advances a reason AIG, say, would have to waive subrogation?
    Did Nationstar pay back a lender of Aurora’s advances? If so, what is the impact of this? This is some heavy-duty business law (and trust-law), I believe and I can’t really go any further. Can just see what are imo some dispositive questions.

    Do advance-making servicers give their own creditors liens on WHAT? and or rights of subrogation? (But as to AIG, whatever it insured, appropriately or not, it’s said to have waived subrogation). Are servicer advances payable under the NOTE? or has an entirely separate obligation been created by the trust, and if so, is it lawful?
    Is the repayment of servicer advances (esp considering the way they’re gotten back by servicers) a lawful ‘activity / business’ of these trusts?

  13. louise, on August 2, 2015 at 5:19 pm said:

    Here is an article on the lawsuit in SC against BNY Mellon relating to the state’s pension fund (for judges & clerks of Court, etc.) for selling them bogus mortgage backed securities. They settled out of court of course.

  14. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 5:00 pm said:

    “Does anyone know of actions against pension fund managers and/or their investments advisors for not exercising “due diligence” before investing billions of dollars of pension plan members’ continuations in the Mortgage Backed Securities we as homeowners were scammed into “funding”?”

    Unfortunately, I don’t, anyway. And also unfortunately, I don’t know why not because imo there sure as heck out to be lots of them. However,
    the managers will claim reliance on (the bogus) ratings, etc. Still, since the managers may not be attorneys themselves, it may have been their DUTY to seek advice on the “barely discernible” provisions. Clearly in the long run, there was also detrimental reliance on 1) the alleged values of the underlying collateral and 2) that they wouldn’t absolutely tank, even as home values are known to be cyclical and 3) a perception that homeowners by and large want to keep their homes and thus make payments (the pension managers may not have been able to learn homeowners couldn’t – to me “impossibility of performance” – because they never qualified).

    But fwiw, I’m staying at we’ve been too kind to the investors by now.
    They need to join us on the hot seats, as to them, as recipients of non-sheltered investment income / returns. But, it’ll be said that the debt forgiveness deal was our side of that coin. Bull! We lost our homes and the country is losing who we are (or I don’t know, who we thought we are as to law and its enforcement defining that maybe to great extent). Imo, the real debt forgiveness deal was instituted by the certainty that there was NO certainty as to the party to whom the money was owed.

  15. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 4:41 pm said:

    NG: “The reason why the Master Servicer orders all cases to be on foreclosure track and a minimum number set for modification is simple: they have been paying the investors to make the investors think that their bonds are performing perfectly when in fact they are not. The bonds the investors have on their statements are worthless because they were issued by a trust that never received the proceeds of sale from the sale of their mortgage backed securities.”

    I’ve thrown out a few reasons why master servicers (someone) might make advances. “Lenders” knew they were making garbage loans with the intent of foisting the insane risk on others. And they also knew the risk of borrower default became insanely high after the expiration of the very limited term of the teaser rate (often a couple months) and if that didn’t do it, the fact that they, as an industry, hadn’t seen to it that people actually qualified would. So, they knew many loans would be defaulting in very short order. Can’t have that (and thus NO time for seasoning) They needed to sell more derivatives and how’re they gonna do that when the ones they already sold are in the tank? They propped up (or I don’t know why it wouldn’t work this way) the derivatives to make them appear to be performing investments, but kept themselves to minimum damage, if any, by provisions barely discernible in the PSA’s.

    I hadn’t figured the why of what I saw as FNMA’s largesse in guaranteeing payment, but then, of course, when I learned of the undisclosed “g-fee” charged to the borrower at .25%in his rate, it no longer appeared as largesse. On a 400k loan, that “largesse” translates to somewhere in the neighborhood of Thirty Thousand Dollars to a borrower over the life of a 30 year loan. By year 15, with interest, one could pay for his kid’s first year college tuition. I’ve mentioned “self-insuring” loans before and heretofore thought it was akin to pmi and pays on loans over 80% ltv. Now I’m wondering if this “self-insurance”, premium added to rate to borrower( this part not supposition) wasn’t also added to nonconforming loans and is what AIG, say, got paid – to insure the servicer’s obligation to make servicer advances (maybe framed as borrower-default, but the advances likely create a more insurable interest since servicers don’t own the loans) which is not the same as pmi. Since Aurora alone apparently racked up 1 Billion in advances (now owed to NationStar), imagine the amounts collectively across ALL servicers.

    I still don’t know if on at least non-gse loans the advances become due against the borrower UNDER THE NOTE (I think not) or if the trust has merely created an account payable independent of any particular loan. But I see no way around the manipulation going on here to 1) avoid seasoning, required or not, and 2) prop up the value of the derivatives, primarily if not exclusively so they could sell more. For the latter to be true, it has to be that the payable created is not recognized as a liability (since it would offset the value) by the trust. For all at least most of us know, these particular trusts aren’t to have liabilities of this nature, being limited to paying out actual payments received which require no “repayment” and certainly not interest on that payable.
    I think we’ve all got it now that advances are universally made by servicers. Now we need those agreements to determine how, if at all, they relate to us (beyond what was apparently done to some borrowers – and the trusts – in the alleged “modifications” in one article I posted here. Modified alright – got the homeowner to sign a new note wherein the note amt included the advances. In states where deficiency judgments are allowed, one defaults, now no question about the advances: they’re owed by the borrower / consumer UNDER HIS NOTE. And yet, no new disclosures required (apparently, I think as long as the new principal doesn’t exceed the original principal, which it might have)! No new good faith estimate, no new Reg Z Truth in Lending Statement. No Right of Rescission! NO way of knowing one was signing up to pay an obligation allegedly (“allegedly” since these trusts might not be able to create obligations period) now owed as part of an obligation* of the alleged Creditor to a third party and withOUT knowing if in fact the Creditor’s obligation to the third party created an obligation of the borrower UNDER THE EXISTING NOTE.

    *The amts the trust now is said to owe the servicer, at least in one set of books, is a collective amt, on all the loans in the trust and as we see, it’s possible those obligations were paid prior to a borrower getting a loan “modification” (say from the Henry and Claire scenario or others).

  16. dandiener1, on August 2, 2015 at 3:57 pm said:

    “Pension plan members’ contributions” …

  17. dandiener1, on August 2, 2015 at 3:55 pm said:

    JG,

    These were very interesting posts!

    Does anyone know of actions against pension fund managers and/or their investments advisors for not exercising “due diligence” before investing billions of dollars of pension plan members’ continuations in the Mortgage Backed Securities we as homeowners were scammed into “funding”?

    Had the Pension fund managers not been duped by the promises and Investment Banks’ promotional Prospectus, and had the pension plans’ Investments Advisors not been pushing these “Ponzi Products” to be “as safe as the real estate mortgages that have traditionally been stable investments,” there would not have been the “rush to the TBTF banks to acquire these title-deficient ‘trust certificates’.”

    It seems that the Pension plans managers’ total efforts to exercise due diligence were just to glance at a Prospectus and say “Gee, will you look at that! There’s a ‘Trust’ involved… Trusts are good because they are bound to the “Prudent Man” fiduciary standard…. also, there’s mortgages involved – and we all know no investments are safer than that ’cause residential housing will never go down …. there’s so many people buying houses and they are being built on land that God is no longer making…. Oh, and look at this! There are “bonds” involved – everyone know bonds are safe…. Oh, and look at this…. the yields are higher than my community banks or credit unions pay for savings accounts or certificates of deposits! Boy o’ boy, are my plan members going to love this! Where’s the dotted line – sign us up for millions a month!”

  18. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm said:

    re: my comment at 10:40 – this is confusing. Old fnma info says the servicer must make the advance not to fnma, but to the trust, and then bill fnma for the advance, the net result of which is that the trust is kept whole and indicates no deficiency in payment received. With this scenario re: the advances, it becomes an issue between fnma and the trust / investors, IF there is any issue at all (me: there isn’t) since fnma guaranteed the payments in its prospectus and to my knowledge has no right of recovery. It’s only recourse to end the guarantee payments is to repurchase, and of course, it will do so at balances which reflect the guarantee payments, the ones I don’t see being reflected in amts owed by the borrower.
    If the trust, for the ben of cert holders, is owed, say, 10m one month, and advances of 1M have to be made pursuant to the guarantee.to submit the 10m payment, how is that accounted for as to the loans? The trust / investors are kept whole, but individual loans yet show delinquent?

    The Texas AG was apparently just indicted for securtiies fraud. All I can get out of the article is that he encouraged investment, pre-office, in some deal. So also apparently, enforcement of securities violations still exists, at least when it’s not inconvenient.

  19. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 5:34 am said:

    ‘This excerpt taken from the OCN 8-K filed Jul 16, 2009.’

    “However, we are only obligated to advance funds to the extent that we believe the advances are recoverable. Most of our advances have the highest standing and are “TOP of the waterfall” so that we are entitled to repayment from loan proceeds before any interest or principal is paid on the bonds, and in the majority of cases, advances in excess of loan proceeds may be recovered from pool level proceeds. The costs incurred in meeting these obligations include, but are not limited to, the interest expense incurred to finance the servicing advances.”

    jg: I had mentioned the interest a servicer might pay if it financed its advances, and acc to this, the trust gets the bill.

    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Ocwen_Financial_%28OCN%29/Mortgage_Servicing_Fees_Advances

  20. johngault, on August 2, 2015 at 5:23 am said:

    “Before getting into the details of various asymmetric situations, a brief discussion of servicer advances is required. Servicers are generally required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”) to advance to the trust delinquent principal and interest payments due from but not paid this month by obligors. The servicer is obliged to continue advancing until he deems that the unpaid note balance plus the cumulative advances will exceed the net liquidation value of the underlying property. When the property is liquidated, the servicer is first in line for reimbursement. If the liquidation proceeds do not cover its advances, the servicer then has access to all funds collected by the entire trust in order to recover its “non-recoverable” advances. In this way, the servicer is not at risk of non-payment for its advances.

    For its part, the trust receives the servicer advances and applies them to the monthly cash distribution waterfall. However, the trust does not recognize any new liability or note payable to the servicer, and remittance reports often do not report monthly advances and reimbursements.

    In 2002, during a routine visit to subprime servicer Fairbanks (now Select Portfolio Servicing), we asked about an amount being billed to a borrower. We were told that it was for interest on a servicer advance. The following exchange ensued.

    MBIA: “You can’t charge borrowers (or anyone else) interest on servicer advances.”

    Fairbanks: “Where does the PSA say that we can’t?”

    ……Years later, as MBIA’s insured subprime loan pools liquidated down to relatively small numbers of remaining loans, another anomaly began to show up in the remittance reports. In some cases, trusts began to report NEGATIVE principal collections on a monthly basis. It is certainly possible that an older trust supported by a small number of (possibly delinquent) loans might have zero principal collections, BUT HOW COULD COLLECTIONS EQUAL SOME NEGATIVE NUMBER?

    In 2008, this was the question MBIA had regarding the subprime servicer reporting the negative collections. Under what circumstances could a trust experience a NEGATIVE principal collection amount? Several tortuous weeks later, the answer was finally extracted. The subprime servicer was modifying loans in the following fashion:

    First, it found a delinquent borrower willing to sign a NEW note with a LARGER unpaid principal BALANCE and a significantly lower interest rate so that the monthly payment would decrease AT LEAST A LITTLE. (jg: gee, thanks)

    The amount of the INCREASE in the note balance was equal to the servicer’s cumulative SERVICER ADVANCES advances to date.
    (jg: so some slug thinking he was getting a loan mod was actually committing to a new loan amt which included the amt of servicer advances the servicer had already made: old loan balance + servicer advances = new “modified” loan amt on NEW note. The next para describes the benefit to the servicer).

    Because this transaction had the effect of transferring the servicer’s UNSECURED loan balance to the trust, the servicer advances to the borrower became “non-recoverable”, and the servicer could be reimbursed in the month of the loan modification from the top of the collections waterfall – that is, from ALL principal collected that month by the trust from ALL obligors. In this way, the servicer didn’t have to wait until the loan liquidated for reimbursement of its advances.(and apparently this trick ended up in negative collection amts to the trust).

    http://www.subprimeshakeout.com/2012/03/servicers-behaving-badly-an-insiders-perspective-on-the-root-cause-of-this-recurring-problem.html

  21. johngault, on August 1, 2015 at 10:40 pm said:

    “Remitting to Fannie Mae for Delinquent MBS Mortgage Loans

    The servicer must remit interest to Fannie Mae on scheduled/actual remittance type mortgage loans and must remit principal and interest on scheduled/scheduled remittance type mortgage loans regardless of whether it actually receives payments from the borrower. For a delinquent mortgage loan, the servicer must advance the remittance until the delinquent mortgage loan is reclassified as actual/actual remittance or removed from the MBS pool.”

    “Delinquency Advances

    Because the servicer of scheduled/actual and scheduled/scheduled remittance types must remit funds to Fannie Mae when they are scheduled to be remitted rather than when they are actually collected, there may be times when the funds collected are not sufficient to make the servicer’s required payment. In those cases, the servicer must advance its own funds to cover funds due for delinquent mortgage loans if the funds have not been collected. Funds advanced for this purpose are referred to as “delinquency advances.” See C-3-01, Responsibilities Related to Remitting P&I Funds to Fannie Mae for additional requirements related to delinquency advances. ”

    For tons of new edicts from fnma, google

    “advances fnma july 8, 2015” or just servicer advances

  22. johngault, on August 1, 2015 at 5:16 pm said:

    “Eligible advances receivables are required to be repaid in the order made. Under the PSA, a new servicer would have to repay the old advances on a loan before reimbursing the new advances on a loan ”

    If one takes the first sentence alone (and why not with the way these guys “so very carefully couch” what they’re saying – and that’s taking it easy on them – ) it’s possible this means that if advances were made on Henry’s loan before they were made on Claire’s, when Claire’s home is foreclosed first, THE TRUST is obligated to repay the servicer for the advances made on Henry’s loan out of the proceeds from Claire’s f/c sale! The sentence doesn’t necessarily state that it’s the servicer’s loan (for the advances) which is the thing which must be repaid in the order made (here borrowed), though that may be likely. But, if it even means that, it’s all a heck of a mess because indentures, or at least some form of account payable or offset is being made 1) in the first place by the trusts and 2) against the loans (allegedly) in the trust collectively, i.e., advances on Henry’s loan won’t necessarily be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of HENRY’S house (might be out of the proceeds of the sale of Claire’s house or Sue’s or Steve’s or all the above) So I can’t see the mol newly created trust-obligation (at least an obligation created post-trust-creation-and-closing-date) as one which is payable UNDER any particular note. It’s a cluster-you know what to unravel as an accounting issue and then I guess try to apply that to any particular loan balance. The master servicer or someone didn’t just agree to make Henry’s missing payments; it also had the trust agree to possibly either 1) pay back Henry’s advances out of Claire’s proceeds or 2) pay off the loan for Henry’s advances to its lender, which I’m thinking now is what a default servicer is mol. One way or another, our loans have become part of blanket deals, whereby no one loan is treated to dollar for dollar accounting (x one of the various sets of books and then only when the loan is paid off or foreclosure occurs) by other agreements impacting any particular loan’s balance with the (alleged) Creditor.

  23. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on August 1, 2015 at 4:44 pm said:

    referents to MERS AS MORTAGEE FOR TRUST. THE TRUST WOULD HAVE TO BE A PARTY TO MERSCORP. A MEMEBER OF MERSCORP.
    AND I KNOW THEY AREN’T. AND I DO KNOW THE MY DEPOSITOR FOR THE TRUST , IS AND NEVER WAS A MEMBER OF MERSCORP.
    SO EVEN BEFORE THE PSA WAS DONE, BECAUSE THE LOANS WERE SOLD TO DEPOSITOR. AND WAS NOT A MEMBER OF MERSCORP.
    MER WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY WHAT SO EVER TO DO ANYTHING WITH A ASSIGNMENT 6 YRS LATER TO TRUST FOR FORECLOSURE.
    david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 31, 2015 at 9:11 am said:
    Non-Recordation of Assignments; Possession of Mortgages
    The seller will not be required to record assignments of the mortgages to the trustee in the real
    property records of the states in which the related mortgaged properties are located.
    ( Other than ) with
    respect to the mortgage loans recorded in the name of MERS
    , GMACM will retain record title to the
    mortgages on behalf of the trustee and the certificateholders.
    SO ALL MORTGAGES IN THE TRUST THAT WERE MERS MORTGAGES HAD TO BE ASSIGN TO THE TRUSTEE AT THE TIME OF PSA.

  24. Shadowcat, on August 1, 2015 at 11:12 am said:

    JG. .. They kept changing the wording in the mortgages.
    So not all mortgages are worded the same.
    After the title issues arose…the attempted to rewrite them.

  26. Shadowcat, on August 1, 2015 at 10:45 am said:

    Shoot..the link is not working..
    Google…MERS admits to no control over notes…
    Assignments have no effect.

    Chhun vs MERS

  28. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 7:29 pm said:

    I said, “But Hultman said in a depo that mers got no instructions from ANYone to do this or that, anyway, right?”

    If mers got no instructions from anyone, it’s likely for one of two reasons: 1) monopoly club members were allowed to rely on the info in the mers computer program, “info” entered on a strictly voluntarily basis by club members with NO oversight of which I’ve ever become aware (and likely one of the topics leading to the Consent Order and that darn 7 year contract with GENPACT) or 2) it’s because as thee alleged ben, it wouldn’t necessarily need any instructions. I tend to think Hultman’s testimony was a result of his reliance on option 2 – or one I can’t think of.

  29. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 7:18 pm said:

    Hmmm….the servicers theoretically get the payments around the 1st to 15th, but don’t have to fork over the monies to the trusts (or whomever if not securitized) til the end of the month. With mortgage loans, when one makes a payment, she is paying the principal for the current month but the interest is paid in arrears, meaning when she makes her February payment, she is paying the interest for January. Fwiw, trusts are REALLY getting the interest is arrears since they don’t get the interest for January until the very end of February (instead of near the beginning). When this deal was set up, it was before sec’n, and prob even back when lenders serviced their own loans, so the lender itself was the guy getting the interest paid in arrears on or around the 1st of the following month. It was set up this way because interest isn’t payable until it’s earned; it’s not paid in advance. This may mean absolutely zero (probably), but thought I’d point it out, anyway.

  30. louise, on July 31, 2015 at 5:45 pm said:

    JG, the servicers are stealing the money. There is nothing in the trusts. I have 3 assignments that send the note to the trust from an entity which is bankrupt and out of business through the infamous MERS to a trust that closed five years or more before the assignment. I have two notes, one is a copy and the other is forged with an autopen. For my next lawsuit…..

  31. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 2:25 pm said:

    Servicing as we now know is Big Business. Borrowers’ payments are due on the first (and delinquent on the 16th, think it is = late fee, and I think the servicer gets the late fee, pretty sure). But, servicers don’t have to fork over the money to the trust which was paid to the servicer by paying borrowers on the 1st of the month or nearto until the end of the month, so that money sits in an account which is allowed to earn interest for the month FOR THE SERVICER (which I find odd since those are essentially trust accounts, which are, I thought, generally prohibited from earning interest). Nice gig if you can get it.

  32. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 1:58 pm said:

    sc: “You became a MERS member the day you conveyed title to your estate over to them in the instrument.”

    Can you (or anyone) please direct me to a “mortgage” (not a dot) posted online somewhere, anywhere? Thanks. I’ve only seen one mtg in a case in NJ a very long time ago.

  33. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:54 pm said:

    I refer to them as…..
    REVERSE REPOS

  34. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:50 pm said:

    In my book…identity theft makes a party the creditor and the debtor.
    Hence why thee are sueing the original creditor…..
    Not just the borrower.

  35. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:46 pm said:

    Your Trust…is a Party to MERS.
    Read the Instrument!!!!!

    The Estate is the _____________ & ________________ .

  36. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:44 pm said:

    JG…what about compound interest?

    A statutory trust is one in which the parties have not complied with all the terms.

    Hence enforce the Contract….

  37. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 1:33 pm said:

    sc – I don’t think there’s a “default law rate”. Just that the note continues to accrue interest at its stated rate after default (unless of course someone else is making the payment). There IS such a thing as a statutory rate which applies to judgments, i.e., if Tom gets a money judgment against Harry, that judgment accrues interest at the rate set by law. It may be 9 right now. Last I thought I knew it was 8. lay opinion, of course.

  38. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 1:27 pm said:

    david: “referents to MERS AS MORTAGEE FOR TRUST. THE TRUST WOULD HAVE TO BE A PARTY TO MERSCORP. A MEMEBER OF MERSCORP.”

    ALL note owners along the way, if mers is merely an “agent” holding place in public record (me: bah), must have been club members. Otherwise, mers, if it WERE an agent, couldn’t have done anything, including allowing f/c in its name (if one of the Creditors were a non-club member). As an agent, it couldn’t even have assigned the interest of its principal. As to the trust not being a member, the alleged assgts are to the trustee, who is purportedly a mers member FWIW and to me still as of this moment, it’s a big FWIW. But mers is not doing assignments on behalf of the trusts as an agent. It’s the last noteowner, the one before the trust, which must give an agent its marching orders (that is,when the agent may do the thing it’s ordered to do. But Hultman said in a depo that mers got no instructions from ANYone to do this or that, anyway, right?
    David posted info on mainly “statutory” trusts and from that info, it appears a trust trustee may hold title for the trust. But whether or not that applies to THESE TRUSTS ( don’t know a statutory trust from a hole in the ground), I couldn’t say myself. But I think I noted there was a change to the law allowing trustees of stat trusts to do this in 2009 – gee, wonder how that came about if it’s relevant to these trusts – but I could’ve gotten that wrong because I hated reading it – requires real brain cell participation).

  39. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:24 pm said:

    Pretty dag gone good reason to keep a loan in default.

  40. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:22 pm said:

    JG. .. I think its based on default law rate. 9%?

  41. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:19 pm said:

    Even when you get that satisfaction of mortgage…..
    You do Not get back the title to your living estate ……
    Sheeple Sheeple are owned….they own nothing.

  42. Shadowcat, on July 31, 2015 at 1:12 pm said:

    Knucklehead….You became a MERS member the day you conveyed title to your estate over to them in the instrument.

    You Are MERS!
    You deposited…..irrevocably as trustors the title to your livING estate.
    Thus the reason the are trying to BK the Estates…
    They could care less about the house!

  43. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 31, 2015 at 8:49 am said:

    referents to MERS AS MORTAGEE FOR TRUST. THE TRUST WOULD HAVE TO BE A PARTY TO MERSCORP. A MEMEBER OF MERSCORP.

    AND I KNOW THEY AREN’T. AND I DO KNOW THE MY DEPOSITOR FOR THE TRUST , IS AND NEVER WAS A MEMBER OF MERSCORP.

    SO EVEN BEFORE THE PSA WAS DONE, BECAUSE THE LOANS WERE SOLD TO DEPOSITOR. AND WAS NOT A MEMBER OF MERSCORP.

    MER WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY WHAT SO EVER TO DO ANYTHING WITH A ASSIGNMENT 6 YRS LATER TO TRUST FOR FORECLOSURE.

  44. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 5:21 am said:

    Anyone give any thought to this which I mentioned the other day: wouldn’t a servicer get paid back it’s advances on p & i at the note rate, so if he borrows the funds at 3%, say, that’s a nice spread, right? Seems like it to me, but I feel like maybe I can’t quite see it straight. Think that’s right, they’d make the spread?

  45. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 5:15 am said:

    re: my comment at 4:24 (yikes): there’s a 5th reason for servicers to make advances: to willfully artificially inflate the value of the securities, and the more I think about it, the more it seems a big motivation.

  46. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 5:00 am said:

    http://www.ocwenbusiness.com/documents/pdf/LoanAdvancesReceivables.pdf

    “What Does a Mortgage Servicer Do?

    Mortgage servicers are hired by owners of whole loans
    (“Owners”) or trustees of a securitization trusts (“Trusts”) to:

    Collect payments from mortgagors
    Provide customer service to mortgagors
    Make escrow disbursements
    Perform loss mitigation such as lo an modifications and short sales
    Foreclose on delinquent borrowers
    Repair, market and sell foreclosed properties (i.e. REO)

    **Make required advances & remit to Owners or Trusts cash collected and provide reporting to Owners and Trusts

    For securitization trusts, servicers work under a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) which obligates them to make advances, and guarantees that they can reimburse themselves from cash collected at the top of the waterfall (i.e. before all note holders receive payments).

    What is a Servicer Advance Receivable?

    In most mortgage-related securitization trusts, to the extent there is a shortfall in monthly collections from a particular borrower/obligor, the servicer is required, if it reasonably believes that such advance ultimately will be recoverable from the individual loan/obligor to make an advance for missed payments, and to advance costs necessary to protect and foreclose on the underlying mortgaged property.

    (jg: imo, then, some servicers have made a decision that property values will rise and they’ll get more money if they hold off on foreclosure. If so, also imo, this could lead to a very legitimate aff defense of laches. Their expectation, reasonable or not, doesn’t create an “excuseable” delay.

    In the course of servicing, advances of principal and interest are required to be made directly to the Trust accounts to provide liquidity (not credit support).

    (jg: “provide liquidity”? Mullarkey! What’s that double speaking pig-latin for? No offense to pigs.)

    Other expenses associated with delinquent loans like real estate taxes, hazard insurance and foreclosure costs
    are made to third-parties, again purely to provide liquidity and preserve the lien on the underlying mortgaged property for the Trust.

    (jg: third parties? Do they mean like with the less than arm’s length infamous force-placed insurance with their subsidiary?)

    Typically, servicing advances are recovered first from collections and liquidation proceeds at a loan-level, and then if those funds are insufficient, from cash collected from all other loans in a Trust.

    (jg: payments on these loans, at least on the derivs, are clearly not dollar for dollar, except in one set of the multiple books. One’s own payment can pay something ELSE – UNTIL one’s loan is a) foreclosed or b) paid off, and when either a or b occurs, then one of the multiple books is used, i.e., the one with the dollar for dollar treatment. Cripes.)

    The servicer collects all payments of P&I and proceeds from property liquidations and deposits those funds in the collection account for the Trust.

    Eligible advances receivables are required to be repaid in the order made. Under the PSA, a new servicer would have to repay the old advances on a loan before reimbursing the new advances on a loan

    (jg: hmmmm..”repay” the advances? Now I’m stumped, UNless this means the new servicer must ‘repay’ because the funds for the advances were BORROWED.)

    The right to be paid for servicing advances is senior to the AAA securities issued by the underlying MBS trusts.

    (jg: holy moly. This is the “indenture” I mentioned yesterday and the lawful propriety of which I questioned, and it’s even worse since the indenture to the servicer is flipping senior to the triple A securities.)

    Servicer advances can be divided into three general categories, including:

    1) P&I Advances:
    advances for delinquent principal and interest payments

    2) Escrow Advances:
    advances for delinquent real estate taxes and hazard insurance payments

    3) Corporate Advances:
    advances for property protection and foreclosure costs including attorney fees, property maintenance fees, etc.”

    jg: There’s a bit more info at the link, so anyone interested might check it out. This all stinks so bad, I can smell it coming off my screen.

  47. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 4:24 am said:

    david: “If proceeds from the assets of the trust are not
    sufficient to make all payments provided for under the pooling
    and servicing agreement, investors will have no recourse to
    the depositor, the seller, the servicer or any other entity,
    and will incur losses.”
    jg: if servicers are making (and they must be or NStar wouldn’t
    have ended up with Aurora’s gazillion, right?), it’s absolutely
    inconsonant with this statement. Surely they didn’t want to avoid
    the seasoning requirement so badly they ended up HAVING to make
    the advances? I can’t figure out for the love of ivy why they
    are making advances.
    And if they get them BACK when they foreclose (assuming the sale
    at least covers their advances), it just doesn’t make sense (and
    in my view, the advances artificially impact the value of the
    certs)
    I heard Aurora filed bk, but like I said, I couldn’t find it
    anywhere. Seems like it would have to do with that monster train
    it was allegedly pulling – a BILLION dollars in advances. I mean
    holy sheeite. WHAT would compel a business to 1) get in and 2) get in THAT deep?
    Only things I can think of for Aurora (a sub of Lehman) or any banksters, actually: 1) an unwritten result of a consent order, 2) a penalty for not seasoning loans it sold 3) originating, buying and selling garbage or 4) the bk of a seller which precipitated a bk trustee’s clawback (hmmm….lehman filed the biggest bk in the world in 2008, remember? But does that toss my theory about mers’ value as
    beneficiary on the coll instruments? Well, I don’t know, but maybe not if part of the ‘consensus’ leading to mers’ Consent Order was that mers is NOT the beneficiary, that it was a scam. But then they’re still at it, so what the hey?
    Anyone got any other ideas about WHY advances are made? I think I got how at least F & F and fha and va’s are supposed to work, but I still don’t know WHY even on those.

  48. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 3:16 am said:

    david: “The transfer of the mortgage loans from the seller to the depositor is intended by the parties to be and has been documented as a sale.
    However, if the seller were to become bankrupt, a trustee in bankruptcy could attempt to recharacterize the sale of the mortgage loans as a loan secured by the mortgage loans or to consolidate the mortgage loans with the assets of the seller. Any such attempt could result in a delay in or reduction of collections on the mortgage loans available to make payments on the certificates.”

    jg: This basically describes the “claw-back” available to bk trustees, depending on the length of time between the date of sale and the seller’s bankruptcy,* which has seemed to me another reason for “mers”, that is, a different entity (no offense to the word “entity”) to hold “legal title” to (or actually be thee ben of) the collateral instruments (so stinking illegitimate, it’s hard to even write about some days). I’m thinking they thought doing this would prevent a bk trustee’s claw-back of the collateral, making many if not all these notes not good for much, long and short. Why do this (if this is one reason they did it, that is, get mers in the act)? I guess to assure that no bk trustee could successfully claw back the loans the trusts were (supposed to be) purchasing. And come to think of it, if B only made a promise to pay and so did C, and D were the seller to the trust, then those loans could in fact be clawed back by ANY of their bankruptcies and this may well be true even had B and C actually paid instead of just promising to pay.

    *holy cow – I can’t frame it this minute, but I bet this plays a part in the actual date of alleged assignments to trusts, which I had heretofore pinned exclusively on something else, and the ‘something else’ had to do with wanting to foreclose and making a public record of alleged sale and assignment to the trust (of a loan in default no less!!) Or maybe it’s as simple as there, this moment, appears to be no risk of the bk of the assignOR (starting with the 0-sum balance sheet mers):

    “When Can the Bankruptcy Trustee Use the Clawback Provision?

    The trustee has the power to void fraudulent or preferential transfers made prior to bankruptcy and recover that money or property for your unsecured creditors.

    Payments or transfers made within 90 days of bankruptcy. If, in the 90 days preceding your bankruptcy (this applies to businesses, as well), you transferred money or property worth over $600 in aggregate to one of your creditors while you were insolvent (meaning you had more debts than assets) and that payment resulted in the creditor getting more than it would have been entitled to through your bankruptcy, it is considered a preferential transfer. In most cases, the trustee doesn’t have to prove your insolvency because bankruptcy law automatically presumes that debtors are insolvent during the 90 days prior to their filing date.

    Payments or transfers to insiders. The same rules discussed above also apply to transfers of money or property to insiders (such as friends, family members, or business partners). However, instead of 90 days, the transfer will be considered preferential even if made within one year prior to your bankruptcy filing date.”

    jg: You know, I always thought the seasoning requirement I can’t prove (wish like heck I could) was strictly about ascertaining the borrower’s ability to pay before sec’tizing these loans, but it may just as well have been about this claw back stuff. If a loan were held for 12 mos, say, prior to securitizing, it would’ve put the loans outside the “long arm” of the bk trustee. Dang. So I guess mers looked pretty darn handy for a lot of things.

  49. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 2:16 am said:

    Louise: “How come more of the investors have not figured this out? We do have some big lawsuits out there by investors but nothing major has come out yet.”

    “Taxes” is my guess. IF investors admit there are no loans in trusts, that they weren’t actually purchased and delivered, etc., they face some significant and nasty taxes on the money received to date (for which more law suits would be necessary to recover these damages). Like I said, we’ve been too kind to the investors, some of whom have had the means to sue (but they sue over quality, not non-delivery). WE’RE as a class on the hot seat – we lose our stinking HOMES and with it our pride and self-worth (for starters). Report the late assignment everywhere you can think of. Eventually we’ll have some company on that hot seat. In another few years, when more of the dust has settled on everything shoved under the rugs, they’ll be back to their lousy, stinking, immoral, and illegal predatory loans. We need to see to it that no one wants to even pretend to buy them. We need to burn this candle at both ends.

  50. johngault, on July 31, 2015 at 1:35 am said:

    ANTITRUST SUIT IS OVERDUE:

    “United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the FORMATION OF CARTELS and prohibit other COLLUSIVE practices regarded as being in RESTRAINT OF TRADE. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a MONOPOLY and the ABUSE OF MONOPOLY POWER.

    The Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, state governments and private parties who are sufficiently affected may all bring actions in the courts to enforce the antitrust laws. The scope of antitrust laws, and the degree they should interfere in business freedom, or protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers, are strongly debated (AS TO MERS, NOT BE ME). One view, mostly closely associated with the “Chicago School of economics” suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while a broad range of legal and economic theory sees the role of antitrust laws as also controlling economic power in the public interest.[”

    AT&T was the defendant in probably the most famous antitrust case
    in the U.S. It went thru 4 AG’s and took 7 years to bust up the monopoly. Let’s hope the one due MERSCorp & its bad-seed child from hell MERS doesn’t take that long.

    usedkarguy: There prob is nothing to stop banksters from such dastardly deeds with judges, but I guess you know such an act is criminal. Plus if the releases were to be recorded, of course anyone could look them up. As much as I loathe some of the absurd, inane, unsupported, and illogical rulings I believe I’ve seen, I sure don’t want to believe many judges would go along with such a criminal act. But I have to admit it makes one wonder sometimes and fwiw, I don’t personally have any trouble admitting I think some judges have bents which control their rulings.

  51. usedkarguy, on July 30, 2015 at 9:29 pm said:

    I would like all to consider the following proposition:
    What stops the banks from bribing the judges by filing MERS satisfactions of mortgage in the county records and giving the judge a new loan for a reduced amount?
    NOTHING!
    All it requires is the filing of a forged document. No cash to follow. No bank deposit or records. Just a filing in the county record to thank the judge for his efforts.

  52. michael keane, on July 30, 2015 at 6:51 pm said:

    Well done DB,

    You wrote:

    SO MERS IS MORTGAGEE FOR ALL MORTGAGES IN TRUST, BUT DOES NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGES??HUM

    It is a phony gambling parlor, but, instead of past-posting results on a racehorse, it is past-posting results on your mortgage performance.

    The amount owed, among the gamblers, is over 682 trillion.

    The bankers are, as a direct result, Insolvent.

    The only “INTEREST” the MERS tracks are the payments made to multiple gamblers on multiple bets that each have multiple variations on interest, with these multiple “bets” made against your mortgage.

  53. Ian, on July 30, 2015 at 5:44 pm said:

    DB- properly argued in court, MERS can be shown, via various court rulings, to have no rights to do anything. Unless the judge adheres to the rulings which show that MERS does have rights of some type. But the end is near, with so many conflicting rulings. Thanks for all your posts and research.&

  54. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 5:36 pm said:

    For each of these mortgage loans, MERS will serve as mortgagee of record on the
    mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee, and does not have any
    interest in the mortgage loan.

    SO MERS IS MORTGAGEE FOR ALL MORTGAGES IN TRUST, BUT DOES NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGES??HUM

  55. Melissa, on July 30, 2015 at 5:09 pm said:

    David,

    You are providing great information and getting people to understand, but it is getting to deep in the hole. You will lose without a lawyer that also understands all of this. Keep it simple. Otherwise all will have the knowledge and no homes. Just like stated before go after the contract, they meaning the banks are in breach way before the homeowners.

  56. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 4:59 pm said:

    Issuing Entity
    The depositor will establish a trust with respect to the GMACM Mortgage Pass Through
    Certificates, Series 2006-J1 on the closing date pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. The
    pooling and servicing agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York. On the closing date,
    the depositor will deposit into the trust a pool of mortgage loans that in the aggregate will constitute a
    mortgage pool, secured by one to four family residential properties with terms to maturity of not more
    than 30 years. All of the mortgage loans will have been purchased by the depositor from the seller
    pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase agreement, dated as of the closing date, between the seller and the
    depositor.
    The pooling and servicing agreement provides that the depositor assigns to the trustee for the
    benefit of the certificateholders without recourse all the right, title and interest of the depositor in and to
    the mortgage loans. Furthermore, the pooling and servicing agreement states that, although it is intended
    that the conveyance by the depositor to the trustee of the mortgage loans be construed as a sale, the
    conveyance of the mortgage loans shall also be deemed to be a grant by the depositor to the trustee of a
    security interest in the mortgage loans and related collateral.

  57. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 4:56 pm said:

    The transfer of the mortgage loans from the seller to the depositor is
    intended by the parties to be and has been documented as a sale.
    However, if the seller were to become bankrupt, a trustee in bankruptcy
    could attempt to recharacterize the sale of the mortgage loans as a loan
    secured by the mortgage loans or to consolidate the mortgage loans with
    the assets of the seller. Any such attempt could result in a delay in or
    reduction of collections on the mortgage loans available to make
    payments on the certificates.

  58. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 4:51 pm said:

    The value of your
    certificates may be
    reduced if losses are
    higher than expected.
    If the performance of the mortgage loans is substantially worse than
    assumed by the rating agencies, the ratings of any class of the certificates
    may be lowered in the future. This would probably reduce the value of
    those certificates. None of the depositor, the servicer or any other entity
    will have any obligation to supplement any credit enhancement or to take
    any other action to maintain any rating of the certificates.

  59. Melissa, on July 30, 2015 at 4:41 pm said:

    Does anyone have a distribution report from the trust where their mortgage and note are suppose to be? I have a couple different of the reports, but what is interesting is mine is not in the Jan. 2009 report, but is in the Jan. 2010. So the trust did not have my mortgage or note in Jan. 2009, but started foreclosing in May 2009, but the assignment didn’t happen until 2010. so look at the distribution reports before they initiated foreclosure.

  60. Deborah wynn, on July 30, 2015 at 4:03 pm said:

    Note / the DISPOSITION of certain assets
    Was the ” asset” in a remic trust
    What was the disposition before i rescinded ? And also
    After i rescinded?
    What was the disposition before servicer went into receivership and
    After the assets were sold
    Fact is we do not know.

  61. Deborah wynn, on July 30, 2015 at 3:55 pm said:

    DB
    Lets look at the security interest
    Described as
    A security interest is a property interest created by agreement or by operation of law over assets to secure the performance of an obligation, usually the payment of a debt. It gives the beneficiary of the security interest certain preferential rights in the disposition of secured assets.
    From
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_interest

  62. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 3:47 pm said:

    The offered certificates are complex securities…….

    .BUT HOW COULD THAT BE

    . I WAS TOLD THAT MY MORTGAGE WASN’T TURNED INTO A SECURITY??

    AGAIN IT GO’S TO TRUST AND SECURITIES LAWS. YOUR MORTGAGE WAS TURNED INTO A SECURITY CERTIFICATE AND OR BOND.

    YOUR NOTE IS PAYED , YOUR MORTGAGE IS PAYED. MANY TIMES OVER.

  63. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 3:21 pm said:

    Payments on the mortgage
    loans are the primary
    source of payments on
    your certificates.
    The certificates represent interests only in the trust. The certificates do
    not represent an ownership interest in or obligation of the depositor, the
    seller, the servicer or any of their affiliates.

    If proceeds from the assets of
    the trust are not sufficient to make all payments provided for under the
    pooling and servicing agreement, investors will have no recourse to the
    depositor, the seller, the servicer or any other entity, and will incur losses.

    AGAIN HOMEOWNERS DO NOT HAVE TO PAY A PENNY ON THERE MORTGAGE . IT DOESN’T MATTER. THE TRUST REPERSENTED TO INVESTORES THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THIS MUCH MONEY EACH MOTH, ON THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST. TRUST TRUST .. SO THE CONTRACT IS WITH THE TRUST. NOT THE HOMEOWNER.

  64. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 3:12 pm said:

    Do you realize the IRS is not a government agency and that all our income taxes leave the country and go to foreign banks?

  65. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 3:04 pm said:

    Did you know that the US has been under Marshall Law since 1861?
    And the US Congress secretly renews it behind closed doors?
    All our property deeds are given to the banks and the states only give us warranty of title?

  66. Deadly Clear, on July 30, 2015 at 2:27 pm said:

    Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  67. Hammertime, on July 30, 2015 at 1:48 pm said:

    7 years after the toxic meltdown investors and government continue to be bribed. As Fleishman Chase whistleblower said very easy to figure out MSB, derivatives a fraudulent, criminal scheme. No excuses for judges, lawyers when our rights and democracy is under attack. They’re with us or against us.

  68. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 1:31 pm said:

    DB. .. You are on a Roll!
    👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

  69. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 1:03 pm said:

    The funds in a trust account, which shall include any dividends or interest thereon, shall be trust funds subject to the following terms: (1) The trust can be revoked, terminated or modified by the depositor during his lifetime only by means of, and to the extent of, withdrawals from or charges against the trust account made or authorized by the depositor or by a writing which specifically names the beneficiary and the financial institution. The writing shall be acknowledged or proved in the manner required to entitle conveyances of real property to be recorded, and shall be filed with the financial institution wherein the account is maintained – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EPT/7/5/7-5.2#sthash.NypkkZBj.dpuf

  70. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 12:48 pm said:

    Living Estates

  71. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 12:47 pm said:

    Sara….
    Good Move!
    Have you ever defended the non borrowing party in a reverse transaction? If you have…you have the Power!

    Best Wishes!
    Avoid probate….? 😷

  72. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm said:

    And under BK law if my husband filed a chapter 7….
    Justice Would be Served.
    But the man worked 40 years and has a pension and a 401k in addition to other assets….then there is me…lil old granny with her cookie Jars.

    Don’t get caught with your hands in my Cookie Jars!

    Dirty Handed Baskers !

  73. Shag the Banksters, on July 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm said:

    All of this legal stuff makes my head spin. I really need assistance fighting Ocwen and Wells Fargo. I would like to send Ocwen and Wells Fargo/Park Place Securities a letter about the rescission that I sent in 2013 to Ocwen. ]

    The trust information from David sounds great but it really makes no sense to me. I read and read only to become more confused. I must have shell shock from my military stint during the Viet Nam era.

  74. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 12:28 pm said:

    DB…. That’s why I hired an Estate Attorney with experience in Title…Estate…Trust..and Mortgage Law.

  75. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 12:21 pm said:

    go and read people.

    UNIFORM STATUTORY TRUST ENTITY ACT
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Prefatory Note………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
    [ARTICLE] 1
    GENERAL PROVISIONS
    SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
    SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
    SECTION 103. GOVERNING INSTRUMENT. ……………………………………………………………….. 9
    SECTION 104. MANDATORY RULES………………………………………………………………………… 14
    SECTION 105. APPLICABILITY OF TRUST LAW………………………………………………………. 17
    SECTION 106. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. ……………………………………………………………….. 18
    [ARTICLE] 2
    FORMATION; CERTIFICATE OF TRUST AND OTHER FILINGS; PROCESS
    SECTION 201. CERTIFICATE OF TRUST. ………………………………………………………………….. 20
    SECTION 202. AMENDMENT OR RESTATEMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF TRUST;
    STATEMENT OF CORRECTION. ……………………………………………………………………… 21
    SECTION 203. SIGNING OF RECORDS………………………………………………………………………. 22
    SECTION 204. DELIVERY TO AND FILING OF RECORDS BY [SECRETARY OF
    STATE]; EFFECTIVE TIME AND DATE. ………………………………………………………….. 22
    SECTION 205. CORRECTING FILED RECORD…………………………………………………………… 24
    SECTION 206. CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING…………………………………………………. 25
    SECTION 207. NAME OF STATUTORY TRUST. ………………………………………………………… 26
    SECTION 208. RESERVATION OF NAME………………………………………………………………….. 28
    SECTION 209. AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS. …………………………………………………. 30
    SECTION 210. CHANGE OF DESIGNATED OFFICE OR AGENT FOR SERVICE OF
    PROCESS. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
    SECTION 211. RESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS. …………………… 31
    SECTION 212. SERVICE OF PROCESS, NOTICE, OR DEMAND…………………………………. 32
    SECTION 213. [ANNUAL] [BIENNIAL] REPORT FOR [SECRETARY OF STATE]………. 33
    [ARTICLE] 3
    GOVERNING LAW; AUTHORIZATION; DURATION; POWERS
    SECTION 301. GOVERNING LAW……………………………………………………………………………… 36
    SECTION 302. STATUTORY TRUST AS ENTITY……………………………………………………….. 36
    SECTION 303. PERMISSIBLE PURPOSES. …………………………………………………………………. 37
    SECTION 304. STATUTORY TRUST SOLELY LIABLE FOR DEBT, OBLIGATION,
    OR OTHER LIABILITY OF STATUTORY TRUST. ……………………………………………. 39
    SECTION 305. NO CREDITOR RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY. …………………………………. 40
    SECTION 306. DURATION…………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
    SECTION 307. POWER TO HOLD PROPERTY; TITLE TO TRUST PROPERTY. ………….. 42
    SECTION 308. POWER TO SUE AND BE SUED………………………………………………………….. 42
    [ARTICLE 4]
    SERIES TRUSTS
    SECTION 401. STATUTORY TRUST HAVING SERIES. ……………………………………………… 44
    SECTION 402. LIABILITY OF SERIES TRUST……………………………………………………………. 45
    SECTION 403. DUTIES OF TRUSTEE IN SERIES TRUST……………………………………………. 47
    SECTION 404. DISSOLUTION OF SERIES………………………………………………………………….. 47
    [ARTICLE 5]
    TRUSTEES AND TRUST MANAGEMENT
    SECTION 501. MANAGEMENT OF STATUTORY TRUST. …………………………………………. 49
    SECTION 502. TRUSTEE POWERS…………………………………………………………………………….. 49
    SECTION 503. ACTION BY TRUSTEES. …………………………………………………………………….. 50
    SECTION 504. PROTECTION OF PERSON DEALING WITH TRUSTEE………………………. 50
    SECTION 505. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR TRUSTEES…………………………………….. 52
    SECTION 506. GOOD-FAITH RELIANCE. ………………………………………………………………….. 53
    SECTION 507. INTERESTED TRANSACTIONS………………………………………………………….. 55
    SECTION 508. TRUSTEE’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION……………………………………………… 56
    SECTION 509. INDEMNIFICATION, ADVANCEMENT, AND EXONERATION. …………. 56
    SECTION 510. DIRECTION OF TRUSTEES. ……………………………………………………………….. 58
    SECTION 511. DELEGATION BY TRUSTEE………………………………………………………………. 59
    SECTION 512. INDEPENDENT TRUSTEE IN REGISTERED INVESTMENT
    COMPANY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
    [ARTICLE] 6
    BENEFICIARIES AND BENEFICIAL RIGHTS
    SECTION 601. BENEFICIAL INTEREST. ……………………………………………………………………. 63
    SECTION 602. VOTING OR CONSENT BY BENEFICIAL OWNERS……………………………. 63
    SECTION 603. CONTRIBUTION BY BENEFICIAL OWNER. ………………………………………. 64
    SECTION 604. DISTRIBUTION TO BENEFICIAL OWNER. ………………………………………… 66
    SECTION 605. REDEMPTION OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST………………………………………… 67
    SECTION 606. CHARGING ORDER……………………………………………………………………………. 67
    SECTION 607. TRANSACTION WITH BENEFICIAL OWNER…………………………………….. 69
    SECTION 608. BENEFICIAL OWNER’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION…………………………… 69
    SECTION 609. ACTION BY BENEFICIAL OWNER…………………………………………………….. 70
    [ARTICLE] 7
    CONVERSION AND MERGER
    SECTION 701. DEFINITIONS……………………………………………………………………………………… 73
    SECTION 702. CONVERSION…………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
    SECTION 703. ACTION ON PLAN OF CONVERSION BY CONVERTING
    STATUTORY TRUST. ………………………………………………………………………………………. 75
    SECTION 704. FILINGS REQUIRED FOR CONVERSION; EFFECTIVE DATE…………….. 76
    SECTION 705. EFFECT OF CONVERSION. ………………………………………………………………… 77
    SECTION 706. MERGER…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79
    SECTION 707. ACTION ON PLAN OF MERGER BY CONSTITUENT STATUTORY
    TRUST……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 80
    SECTION 708. FILINGS REQUIRED FOR MERGER; EFFECTIVE DATE…………………….. 81
    SECTION 709. EFFECT OF MERGER. ………………………………………………………………………… 82
    SECTION 710. [ARTICLE] NOT EXCLUSIVE……………………………………………………………… 84
    [ARTICLE] 8
    DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP
    SECTION 801. EVENTS CAUSING DISSOLUTION. ……………………………………………………. 85
    SECTION 802. ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION…………………………………………………………….. 85
    SECTION 803. WINDING UP………………………………………………………………………………………. 86
    SECTION 804. NOTICE TO CLAIMANT……………………………………………………………………… 87
    SECTION 805. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE. ……………………………………………………………….. 88
    SECTION 806. ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION…………………………………………………….. 90
    SECTION 807. REINSTATEMENT FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION. .. 91
    SECTION 808. REVIEW OF REJECTION OF REINSTATEMENT. ……………………………….. 92
    [ARTICLE] 9
    FOREIGN STATUTORY TRUSTS
    SECTION 901. GOVERNING LAW……………………………………………………………………………… 94
    SECTION 902. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION…………………….. 95
    SECTION 903. ACTIVITIES NOT CONSTITUTING DOING BUSINESS. ……………………… 95
    SECTION 904. FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION…………………………………… 97
    SECTION 905. CERTIFIED COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION………………….. 97
    SECTION 906. NONCOMPLYING NAME OF FOREIGN STATUTORY TRUST. ………….. 98
    SECTION 907. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION……………………….. 98
    SECTION 908. CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION…………………. 100
    SECTION 909. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO HAVE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.. 100
    SECTION 910. ACTION BY [ATTORNEY GENERAL]. ……………………………………………… 101
    [ARTICLE] 10
    MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    SECTION 1001. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION……………….. 102
    SECTION 1002. RELATION TO ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND
    NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT……………………………………………………………………….. 102
    SECTION 1003. SAVINGS CLAUSE………………………………………………………………………….. 102
    SECTION 1004. RESERVATION OF POWER TO AMEND OR REPEAL. ……………………. 103
    SECTION 1005. APPLICATION TO EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS……………………………… 103
    SECTION 1006. REPEALS. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 105
    SECTION 1007. EFFECTIVE DATE…………………………………………………………………………… 106

  76. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 12:18 pm said:

    SECTION 307. POWER TO HOLD PROPERTY; TITLE TO TRUST
    PROPERTY. A statutory trust may hold or take title to property in its own name, or in the
    name of a trustee in the trustee’s capacity as trustee, whether in an active, passive, or custodial
    capacity.
    Comment
    Principal Source – Delaware Statutory Trust Act §§ 3801, 3805 (2009).
    By providing that a statutory trust may transact and hold property in its own name, this
    section implements the concept that a statutory trust is an entity separate from its trustees and
    beneficial owners. The property of a common-law trust, by contrast, must be held in the name of
    the trustee in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity.
    This section also permits a statutory trust to take title to property in the name of the
    trustee in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity, similar to a common-law trust. The drafting committee
    reasoned that allowing a statutory trust to do so would facilitate transactions with or by a
    statutory trust in a state that has not provided for a statutory trust entity in its title recording and
    other property laws. However, nothing in this section affects the liability rules stated in Sections
    304 and 305. Even if the statutory trust takes title to certain property in the name of the trustee in
    the trustee’s fiduciary capacity, the statutory trust and not the trustee is liable for a debt,
    obligation, or other liability arising from ownership of the property. A similar outcome obtains in
    a common-law trust, in which the trustee is protected from personal liability for a debt,
    obligation, or other liability arising from ownership or control of trust property, or is personally
    liable only to the extent of the capacity of the trust estate to support indemnification of the
    trustee. See Uniform Trust Code § 1010 (2000); Austin W. Scott, William F. Fratcher & Mark L.
    Ascher, 4 Scott and Ascher on Trusts § 26.4 (5th ed. 2007).
    To police the boundary of the trustee’s personal property and the property of the trust, the
    common law imposes on the trustee duties to earmark trust property and not to commingle it
    with the trustee’s own. See Uniform Trust Code § 810 (2000); Restatement (Third) of Trusts §
    84 (2007). The drafting committee contemplated that, under appropriate circumstances, Section
    505(b) will require similar conduct by a trustee of a statutory trust that takes title to property in
    the name of the trustee in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity

  77. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 12:17 pm said:

    Common Law Trusts

  78. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 12:15 pm said:

    DB. ..define statutory trust.

  79. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 12:14 pm said:

    SECTION 305. NO CREDITOR RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY. A creditor of a
    beneficial owner or trustee may not obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable
    remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust or any series thereof.
    Comment
    Principal Sources – Delaware Statutory Trust Act § 3805 (2009); Uniform Limited
    Partnership Act § 701 (2001); Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Uniform Limited Liability
    Company Act § 501 (1996); Revised Uniform Partnership Act § 203 (1997).
    By confirming that a creditor of a beneficial owner or a trustee has no recourse against
    the property of the statutory trust, this section implements the concept that a statutory trust is an
    entity separate from its trustees and beneficial owners.
    With respect to a trustee, the rule of this section is familiar from the operation of
    common-law trusts. See Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 42,
    cmt. c (2003); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 308 (1959). The rule of this section is also
    consistent with federal bankruptcy law. Property in which a trustee holds legal title as trustee is
    not part of the trustee’s bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(d) (2009).
    With respect to a beneficial owner, the parallel provision in the Delaware Statutory Trust
    Act is discussed in Wendell Fenton & Eric A. Mazie, Delaware Statutory Trusts § 19.4, in 2 R.
    Franklin Balotti & Jesse A. Finkelstein, The Delaware Law of Corporations and Business
    Organizations (3d ed. 2009 Supp.).

  80. scott thompson, on July 30, 2015 at 12:10 pm said:

    Still trying to “legally” fight these violently despised morons ???

  81. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on July 30, 2015 at 12:03 pm said:

    a must read.

    believe a securitzation trust falls under this.

    SECTION 305. NO CREDITOR RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY. A creditor of a beneficial owner or trustee may not obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust or any series thereof.

    UNIFORM STATUTORY TRUST ENTITY ACT

    UNIFORM STATUTORY TRUST ENTITY ACT

    Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES

    at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-EIGHTEENTH YEAR IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO JULY 9-16, 2009 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT 8 2009 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS March 31, 2010

  82. Shag the Banksters, on July 30, 2015 at 11:50 am said:

    I seem to be involved in this racket with Ocwen. Some how Wells Fargo entered the picture with a Park Place Trust that seems to be a closed shell game.

    In 2013 I send various documents to Ocwen: The documents were went USPS Certified Mail with return signed receipt.

    1. Rescission of the Loan 5/3/2013
    2. Revocation of the Power of Attorney/ Public Recorded 3/11/13
    3. Canceled the Servicing Agreement/Termination of Contract and
    rescinding all signatures on any and all agreements associated
    with the account. I also recorded this with the Public Recorder.
    4. I also hand wrote on the Deed ofTrust…Terminated/Canceled/
    Rescinded/Revoked. This document was also Recorded.

    I live in Colorado (non judicial) and was denied my Rule 120 hearing after the response fee was paid and more that adequate reasons on the Response to have the hearing granted. The Judge basically denied me the Hearing because the clerk for the Judge asked me why I was there for a hearing and she told me that no one…not even the attorneys appear. So basically I just railroaded by the Judge.

    The Motion for Order for Sale was filed on Sept. 22, 2014 by the attorney for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for Park Place Securities, Inc. Asset-Backed Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-WCH1 for an Order Authorizing the Public Trustee to Sell Certain Real Estate under a Power Of Sale Contained within a Deed of Trust.

    In order to stop the Sale, I filed for Chapter 13 just for the Stay of Sale but did not follow through with the BK…7 months went by and then the attorney for the Bank placed a bid on the property to proceed with the sale. Until a bid by the bank is sent to the Public Trustee, the sale would be postponed until the following week…every Monday I would have to call the Public Trustee to see if a bid was place. When the bid was finally again placed on the property a couple of weeks ago, I again filed a Chapter 13 BK just to stop the sale.

    I have delivered the proof of the documentation mentioned above to the Public Trustee and he contacted the attorney for the bank with the info about the rescission and the Statute of Limitations was discussed
    with the attorney and the Public Trustee. The loan was taken out in 2004. I explained the 20 day response time and it was not their call on the time element.

    I sent the banks attorney all of the documents mentioned above about a week ago so I do not know where their position is. OPPS..I forgot to mention…the discussions about the rescission with the Public Trustee and the bank attorney was about a week before the attorney placed a bid so he was aware of the rescission prior to placing a bid on my property. It was only after the attorney found out about the rescission that I sent…he hurried up and filed the bid after knowing about the rescission. The Public Trustee told me he had to do the sale because it was ordered by the Judge from the Rule 120 hearing that I did not get to have.

    That is pretty much the story…I also had a securitization done and included it with my Response for the Hearing but the judge did not care about any of the information within the report. I gave him a copy with my response paperwork supplied to the court. It was a signed Affidavit by the person that did the Securitization. The judge basically did not accept any of the negative information about the banks doings.

    Anyway, I am reaching out for opinions and thoughts from the readers of this blog. I have been following this blog for a long time and it has helped me alot. I spent hard earned money hiring an attorney a while back only to be ripped off. I do value some of the information from a few posters on this blog so any information on what I should do next to stop the sale would be very helpful. I cannot afford hiring another attorney due to a shortage of funds but I need to save my property from the bankster thieves.

    Please give me a little help and comments
    Thanks

  83. Shadowcat, on July 30, 2015 at 11:49 am said:

    When people wake up….. They will see that they are FCing the Estate..
    Not a House!
    Wake Up People!!!!

  84. louise, on July 30, 2015 at 11:32 am said:

    The scam is still going on since 2008 and nothing has been done to take the criminal activity to task. The banks still own Congress and now I see that Wells Fargo, who is my master servicer, is the one making the advance payments to keep up the illusion that this fraud is actually working. How come more of the investors have not figured this out? We do have some big lawsuits out there by investors but nothing major has come out yet.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d