Hat Tip to Patrick Giunta, Esq.
Stumbled across this 5 year old article that supports the view that servicers are the real parties in interest who are protecting only their own interests at the expense of investor and borrower alike. The facts are undeniable. If the loans were modified or worked out, the investors would have done much better than the self inflicted crash imposed by banks posing as servicers on loans for trusts that exist only on paper and not in real life.
The fact remains that if the servicers were eliminated and a new venue was created to intermediate between borrowers and investors, the investors, the borrowers and the taxpayers would all be better off. Only the banks would ,lose out on prospective illegal gains that they have been faking for a decade. The government should have provided this venue. The crash would not have occurred and the economy would be far stronger.
Renewed Message to MBS Investors: Try it out. We will help you. The borrowers who read these pages are not looking for a free house at your expense. They only oppose the banks who up till now you have been thinking are presenting your interests. These borrowers will in most cases sign new documentation free from the claims relating to securitization, without foreclosure and without any of the potential liabilities attached to the defective and illegal originations by phantom entities and/or phantom funding. Anyone interested? Call 954-495-9867 and schedule a conference call with me. No charge. No obligation.
see http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/business/19gret.html?referrer=&_r=1
Opening the Bag of Mortgage Tricks
Mortgage-Servicing Methods, Exposed in a Court Case
December 18, 2010
ALL the revelations this year about dubious practices in the mortgage servicing arena — think robo-signers and forged signatures — have rightly raised borrowers’ fears that companies handling their loans may not be operating on the up and up.
But borrowers aren’t the only ones concerned about potential mischief. Investors who hold mortgage securities are increasingly worried that servicers may be putting their interests ahead of those who own the loans.
A servicer might, for example, deny a loan modification to a borrower because it also owns a second mortgage on the same property and doesn’t want to write down that asset, as required in a modification. Levying outsize default fees is another tactic — the fees typically go to the servicer, not the lender, but they can still propel a property into foreclosure more quickly. And foreclosures aren’t a good outcome for investors.
Last week, a jury in federal district court in Reno, Nev., awarded a group of 50 mortgage investors $5.1 million in punitive damages against defendants in a loan servicing case. Although the numbers in the case aren’t large, its facts are fascinating. Indeed, the case exposed some of the tricks of the servicers’ trade.
See NY Times for the full article. It will help you understand the mess created by the banks — for the purpose of covering up their illegal or criminal activity.
Filed under: foreclosure |
B8-7-01: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) (04/15/2014)
This topic contains information about MERS, including:
Naming MERS as the Nominee for the Beneficiary in the Security Instrument
Use of MERS Rider in Specified Geographic Areas
MERS Registration
Use of the MIN
Mortgage Assignment to MERS
Search guide content
BACK TO PART B
Naming MERS as the Nominee for the Beneficiary in the Security Instrument
A lender that wants to register a newly originated mortgage (but not a co-op share loan) with MERS may prefer to designate MERS as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, thereby eliminating the need for a subsequent assignment of the security instrument should the lender sell (or transfer servicing of) the mortgage to another lender that is a member of MERS. In such cases, the applicable security instrument must be modified to:
show MERS as the nominee for the lender,
define and name the originating lender, and
obtain the borrower’s acknowledgment of MERS’ role in the mortgage transaction.
Changes that must be made to create a standard MERS security instrument for each jurisdiction may be found in the Instructions document for each state-specific security instrument (see Security Instruments), with the exception of loans secured by property located in certain geographic areas. As described below, a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Rider (MERS Rider) (Form 3158) must be used in these jurisdictions, and the security instruments must be changed in accordance with the Instructions to the MERS Rider, which is posted on Fannie Mae’s website. As the MERS Rider must be used in these specified states, post-closing assignments into MERS are prohibited.
The lender is responsible for the accurate and timely preparation and recordation of the security instrument and the MERS Rider, when applicable, and must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the information on MERS is updated and accurate at all times.
Even when MERS is named as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, it has no beneficial interest in the mortgage. All actions that MERS takes with respect to a mortgage are based on the instructions initiated by the originating lender, Fannie Mae, or the servicer. The originating lender remains responsible for all of its Contractual Obligations and any liability that it or Fannie Mae incurs as a result of the MERS registration or any MERS transaction. In addition, the lender is solely responsible for any failure to comply with the provisions of its MERS Member Agreement, Rules, and Procedures and for any liability that it or Fannie Mae incurs as a result of the registration of the mortgage with MERS or any specific MERS transaction.
Use of MERS Rider in Specified Geographic Areas
In the states listed below, lenders must use the MERS Rider (Form 3158) when a newly originated mortgage loan (but not a co-op share loan) will be registered with MERS. Lenders must also follow the Instructions to the MERS Rider to make changes to the standard security instruments for the following states:
Montana,
Oregon, and
Washington.
As the MERS Rider must be used in these specified states, post-closing assignments into MERS are prohibited.
MERS Registration
If a lender registers a mortgage with MERS before delivering it to Fannie Mae, the lender must ensure that the Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) is registered in MERS and names itself as the investor. Additionally, the lender must include the MIN in the delivery data. After Fannie Mae purchases or securitizes the mortgage, Fannie Mae notifies MERS to update its records to reflect Fannie Mae’s ownership interest in the mortgage.
Note: For loans registered in MERS iRegistration where MERS is not named as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, the MERS MIN should not be reported on the loan schedules.
If a lender registers a mortgage with MERS after Fannie Mae has purchased or securitized the loan, the lender must name Fannie Mae as the investor during registration and notify MERS of Fannie Mae’s ownership interest in the mortgage. (The MIN will not have been included on the Loan Schedule or Schedule of Mortgages.)
Use of the MIN
For each MERS-registered mortgage, the lender must indicate the MIN on the security instrument and related documents, regardless of whether the lender retains the documents or sends them to Fannie Mae’s DDC or to the applicable document custodian. Because the status of a MERS-registered mortgage can change, the lender is not required to include the MIN on the mortgage note. Additionally, the lender is still responsible for making sure that the document custodian has sufficient information to determine whether a mortgage that is included in a subsequent transfer of servicing is registered with MERS at the time of the transfer. The lender must have adequate controls in its processes to enable it to readily identify MERS-registered mortgages.
The lender can choose from the following options:
place the MIN on the note when the mortgage is registered with MERS and, if the MERS registration is subsequently terminated for any reason, notify the document custodian to delete the MIN from the note;
wait to advise the custodian of the status of the MERS registration for a mortgage until a change in status actually occurs; or
notify the custodian about the status of the MERS registration for a mortgage at the time of a servicing transfer by providing the custodian with a listing of all MERS-registered mortgages that are included in the transfer and a certification that any and all other mortgages included in the transfer are not currently registered with MERS. (The listing may be prepared by the lender or, with the lender’s authorization, by MERS.) If there are more MERS-registered mortgages included in the transfer than there are unregistered mortgages, the listing may instead identify the unregistered mortgages—and, in that case, the certification should state that any and all other mortgages included in the transfer are currently registered with MERS.
Mortgage Assignment to MERS
If the originating lender is the beneficiary for a mortgage that it registers with MERS, the lender must prepare an assignment of the mortgage to MERS.
By delivering a MERS-registered mortgage to Fannie Mae, the lender:
warrants that MERS is the mortgagee of record (either by being named as an assignee in a recorded assignment of the security instrument or as nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument);
warrants that the MIN is valid and properly registered in MERS naming the lender as the investor; and
agrees that, in the event that either its membership in MERS or the MERS registration for an active mortgage is terminated for any reason while Fannie Mae has an ownership interest in the mortgage, the servicer is responsible for preparing and recording an assignment of the mortgage from MERS to itself, and then preparing (in recordable form) an assignment of the mortgage from itself to Fannie Mae and delivering that assignment to Fannie Mae’s DDC (or to the applicable document custodian).
Lenders are not required to include a copy of the assignment of the mortgage to MERS in the delivery package they submit to Fannie Mae’s DDC or the applicable document custodian. Lenders also are not required to prepare and submit an unrecorded assignment of the mortgage from MERS to Fannie Mae (unless Fannie Mae specifies otherwise for a particular transaction or transactions).
Related Announcements
The table below provides references to the Announcements that have been issued that are related to this topic.
Announcements Issue Date
Announcement SEL-2014–03 April 15, 2014
Announcement SEL-2012–06 June 26, 2012
Announcement SEL-2011–04 May 24, 2011
Announcement 08-37 December 19, 2008
Found this case out of NC that may be a useful template for MA.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1363736178793034319&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Skinner v Preferred Credit, 638 S.E.2d 203 (2006)
•”The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trust which holds notes secured by deeds of trust on North Carolina real property;”
•”The question presented is whether North Carolina courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over the 1997-1 Trust. To determine whether a nonresident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina, our Court employs a two-step analysis. First, jurisdiction over the action must be authorized by N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4, our state’s long-arm statute. Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 675, 231 S.E.2d 629, 630 (1977). Second, if the long-arm statute permits consideration of the action, exercise of jurisdiction must not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id.”
•”We hold that North Carolina courts lack personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trust that has no connections to this state other than holding mortgage loans secured by deeds of trust on North Carolina property. Because we decide this case based on personal jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to address when the statutes of limitations for plaintiffs’ claims began to run. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.”
i understand the 1 yr to file suit,. thats just to get all money back. all i want is for them to release lien as they have accepted the rescission. , they said we accept it.. so they owe me money either way.
but the agency responsible for making them comply to the rules of tila rescission. is CFBP. WHEN YOU HERE AGENCY , THEY ARE THE AGENCY. SO AM GOING TO LET THEM DO THERE JOB.
IF NOT , I WILL ALSO ADD THERE NAME TO SUIT, FOR NOT COMPLYING THE RULE OF LAW. THERE OWN LAW.
The 2nd and final attempt…..
Abandonment and FC on unrecorded lien.
Asks that KC not be allowed to redeem again.
But KC have receipts.
Keeps Good Records.
3 lawfirms later …they have a want of knowledge.
Judge allowed the first withdrawal with contingencies…
Lawyers needing Lawyers……
That’s how I Play!
DB… You have 1 year to file a lawsuit for recoupment or forever hold your peace.
Failure to Prosecute works both ways under SOL.
@David u got it! On my letter lawyer from different bank signed off, said it didn’t matter then changed her Sig. They can’t back up anything all lies and they have no respect for laws. What are they gonna do to u take ur house! Lol
EVERY ONE HERE SHOULD BE FILLING COMPLAINTS WITH THE CFBP, LET THEM SEE MILLIONS OF COMPLAINT COMING IN ON RESCISSION, NOW THAT THEY HELP THE SUPREME COURT RULE THE RIGHT WAY.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ASAP. IF MILLIONS COMPLAIN, THAT THE BANKS ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
SENT IN TO CFBP , THE EMAIL THE OCWEN LOAN SERVING SAID THAT THEY ACCEPTED THE RESCISSION , IN MARCH 4 2015, BUY AS OF THE DATE, THEY HAVE NOT DONE THERE PART,
SO I SENT THE CFBP, AS THEY ARE THE AGENCY FOR TILA, AND ASK THEM TO MAKE THEM FOLLOW THE LAW.
CANT WAIT TO SEE WHAT CFBP DOES. IT SO FUNNY,
THAT ALL LETTER COMING FROM OCWEN LOAN SERVICING STATES , THIS. IN BIG BLACK LETTERS. BUT THEY DENY THEY ARE. RIGHT.
THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT.
BUT THEY SAY IN COURT THEY ARE NOT A DET COLLECTOR, AND DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DEBT COLLECTING LAWS.
REALLY. HAHAHAHAH
Actually some good stuff past couple of days.
A lot of stuff going around with UCC. D how are u using this site Query I did on Chase, my name,city separately raises possible questions.
http://www.ucc411.com/
This is exactly the conclusion I’m coming to that were experiencing as a whole, deprivation of rights (and property) under color of law.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/junkyarddogg/blog/2015/09/kentucky-clerk’s-actions-are-about-deprivation-rights-under-color-la
L yup I’ve seen it at every level in my perfect storm case. As an advocate said gaining a stalemate is half the battle then making sure court isn’t against you like WA lawyer said. Other part is getting officials involved and documenting, and if necessary publicize. If we work together can turn this around.
Told u guys there was hostility lol!
He means Supreme Court ( SC) chica
Respect is earned.
SC. … Win 2.
H, it has gotten to the point where the banksters and the servicers basically do anything they want to steal the money. Nothing is beneath them: forgery, fraudulent documents, collusion, extortion, robo-signing, perjury, bad faith, RICO violations, fraud on the court. I am hoping this Fall will see some real progress.
Agreed. That’s my approach it “is” everything they do is illegal. 7 yrs of anger through to patience and faith. But we are at the end game and the right side no matter what they do.
Realize- they will fight, its their job
And they are paid well. Learn to play chess. Takes patience.
“Should be”
It is by operation if law
How can they get out of that
I await with bated breath to see what they will do next.
DW good stuff!
Will dig into rule already passed on to someone who can use it.
Sounds like they went forward on basis of letter alone so note, any sale should be void.
As with me will see if they respect SC.
Oh nooo im sorry
Teeny tiny iphone
Kegal is not what i meant it was legal,
Not kegal advice / lets get that straight Lol
Hammertime i rescinded in 09
Within the 3 years , signed contract in 07. Anyhoo – they being servicer said ( written response) no you csnt, i ssud yes i can – 3 letters later i saud yes tes yes i can and you are supposed to file for declaratory relief if you refyse to accept my notice they said no we don’t
The SCOTUS says – yes i can….but, for six years ive been forced to litigate the case because of everything i tried to have heard in court being, my right, has been hindered, because they could not go to court having to meet THEIR BURDEN. Im in court under rule 60 (b) (6). You might check it out / the rule.
Not a lawyer not kegal advice just sharing. Do your research and hire professional council.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
Great blog post by Neil Garfield discussing a New York Times article from several years ago which shows that even several years ago investors in Mortgage Backed Securities were becoming aware that the big banks and mortgage servicing companies are protecting only their own interests as the expense of the investors.
shadowcat a question to you was posted in previous post.
Trespass Unwanted
They’re trying to take my home as we speak and are trying to ignore the Supreme Court. When did you rescind?
You know whenever I say that ” they took my home
Let’s not get desensitized to that fact , they are taking away everyone’s home and rights thereto EVERYONES
Sorry … But I bloody mean it
Need the truth.., the whole truth and nothing but the truth
No Hammertime AND TILA
They took my home
Exactly Deb I think I’m seeing people ignore even hostile as to TILA. Makes no sense unless bankster trolls. If not careful will blow their chance to assert TILA rights and rescission.
Thing is you can’t look at FDCPA in isolation of a ton of other reasons why the debt is where it is.
Judges and County Clerks should be held in Contempt of Court if they dont follow the Supreme Court of the United States ruling. Just like Gay Marriage.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/clerks-to-license-marriages-as-their-boss-is-jailed/ar-AAdUq1U?ocid=spartandhp
NEVER AGAIN
BS eviction broker refers to servicer as owner while PENNYMAC CORP refers to itself as new owner and investor. Keep track of what they call themselves and tell them to prove it.
“Even if the . . . law firm intended the letter and documents to
give the Reeses notice of the foreclosure, they also could have —
and did — demand payment on the underlying debt. . . . A
communication related to (secured – sic) debt collection does not become unrelated to debt collection simply because it also relates to the enforcement of a security interest. A debt is still a “debt” even if it is secured….
The Reese opinion notes the rule that the law firm asked us to adopt — the same rule AHMSI is asking us to adopt here — “would exempt from the provisions of § 1692e any communication that attempts
to enforce a security interest regardless of whether it also attempts to
collect the underlying debt.” Id. at 583. We noted that proposed rule would create a big loophole in the FDCPA: “The practical result would be that the [FDCPA] would apply only to efforts to collect unsecured debts.” Id. at 583.”
“Based on the reasoning of Reese, it is apparent an entity that regularly attempts to collect debts can be a “debt collector” beyond § 1692f(6) of the FDCPA, even when that entity is also enforcing a security interest. ”
BIRSTER v. AMERICAN HOME MORTG. SERVICING, 481 Fed.Appx. 579 (11th Cir. 7-18-2012) , citing Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree &
Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir.2012).
jg: Before a debt collector nka a dot trustee (the servant and minion of an alleged beneficiary in a MAJOR ABERATION of the DOT Act, a factual characterization recently supported by changes to certain state laws generally inspired and urged by banksters) goes after the collateral, he first goes after the overdue amt, a monetary obligation. He doesn’t first seek the foreclosure: he FIRST seeks to collect the debt. The note is accelerated, which as I’ve said is itself a drastic remedy available to mtg lenders. Most of us don’t think about the monetary demand because we can’t pay the past due amts or the accelerated amt and only see the NOD as an effort to garner the collateral, but really, a monetary amt, a debt payment, is first demanded and they only get our homes if we can’t pony up that debt amount demanded.
Hi, David Belanger and Shadowcat
FYI, I added a comment about your statements in the previous post.
====================
That’s right Deborah wynn,
The words on the Deed of Trust or Mortgage are specific, that’s why a trustee is not a servicer, or lender, or substitute.
Words matter. Once our complaint is made known, the servicer has to show their delegated papers/powers to ‘steal’, and they don’t have it.
Court will accept copy of a note.
CFPB, is much more specific. Are you a bonafide debt collector or not, and if you are, are you following the rules.
[Rule keepers]
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, IN Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.
Bill Black wrote well about fraud control in his book ” The best way to rob a bank is to own one” aren’t we pretty much exasperated by the result of ” fraud control” it did not work as the S&L scandal proved, and I pray to god they show it doesn’t work now ( except we will need more jail cells this time if it’s done right)
Let me remind you all the servicer is not the lender
I have raised this many times in my correspondence with the IRS
They will not talk about it – 1099a issued by a servicer, admitted in court declaration that the foreclosure mill is acting for the servicer
The trustee of a MBS is in court for the investors …?? Aka certificate holders. We shall see the end game and an election is approaching I would vote for anyone with the guts to address the matter – as the law provides.
Yes, the beat goes on. This virtual theft and crimes of forgery and fraudulent documents just keeps on going, because nobody is charged criminally, tried and jailed. Look at the S&L crisis. Lots of people went to jail.
Depends on what WE DO with the info. The banksters are saying and National Mortgage Settlement Monitor Joseph Smith is giving them a pass that they fixed everything and case closed. We need to tell Prez, Boehner, Congress every official and agency thus is bullshit! We need to use this to demand the money due us like the $300 mil in CA and demand a stop to stealing our homes and to GIVE BACK STOLEN HOMES AND EQUITY.
“self inflicted crash” banksters admitted to.
County Clerk or Superior Court Judge that does not record or honor rescission notice must go to jail Just like Gay Marriage case
http://news.yahoo.com/latest-hundreds-protesters-gay-marriage-hearing-150541892.html
NEVER AGAIN
Hate to kill the messenger. But WTF good is an article from 2010, that all of us here already know. And even worse. Nothing has gotten any better in 5 years since.