Discovery: Your BlackKnight in Shining Armor?


Maybe it is time to drill down a little deeper into ways to obtain Discovery. The same company that brought us the DOCX line of “original” fabricated documents has created a software platform used by the mega banks to streamline closings. Closing Insight and its predecessors (I think Chase uses its own version of this platform) could provide information on the real facts of each “closing”. Discovery requests should be directed to access the information on the platform which is now owned and operated by LPS/BlackKnight.

Note that most loans over the mortgage meltdown period that are still in existence were refi’s and not original loans. Most lawyers and judges presume that the closing paid off the old loan. But this is often not the case. Since the party on the prior “mortgage” and “note” was simply a conduit, they would not have received a penny from the new closing with the “borrower.” The reason for this is simple: they never had a dime of their own money in the loan nor were they in a contractual relationship with anyone who did have money in the deal. Hence they would not have received any money since the source of both deals was a dynamic dark pool of money where “trust” money was commingled in a way that made it impossible or nearly impossible to trace any specific investor to any specific loan deal.

Add all that up and you get (1) a satisfaction of mortgage from a non-mortgagee and (2) no consideration for the signing of the loan documents and (3) withholding that information from the “borrower” who in fact borrowed no money from the “refinance” of his prior “loan.” This means to me that the loan documents should never have been signed or delivered much less recorded. It also means that the current loan documents (and possibly the previous loan documents) are VOID and thus subject to an action for a Quiet Title action.

None of this means that there is not some liability for repayment of the party(ies) who DID have money in the deal in which they could plead to get repayment of their money. But two things are true: (1) the statute of limitations has probably run on most of those liabilities and (2) the injured party would need to know they are injured. Since the borrower clearly does not know the identity of the injured party, the borrower cannot be said to be guilty of creating a situation where the debt is diminished or nullified. And since the injured party(ies) don’t even know they are injured, much less how or in relation to what deal, they are prevented from stepping forward to claim their due.

Once upon a time such schemes would be cleared up by courts very quickly. Back then they understood that foreclosure was a drastic remedy that should not be taken lightly. But today the erroneous presumption that the borrower received money (presumed even by the borrower) leads courts to bend and break laws, rules and regulations such that any claiming bank or servicer will win regardless of whether they are in fact a creditor and regardless of whether or not they have any actual authority to represent the other victims of this scheme — the investors.

PRACTICE NOTE: It is necessary to be very aggressive and very well prepared to argue for discovery on these closings. The Judge arrives with the assumption in mind that what happened back then is none of your business and already established. Potentially an affidavit from a forensic analyst or expert witness might assist in discovery litigation. The problem with waiting on the affidavit or declaration until trial is that the expert can only offer an opinion without corroboration. If discovery has been fought and won, the expert’s opinion will be nearly self-evident. If discovery has been fought and lost, it should provide very strong grounds for appeal.

13 Responses

  1. Anyone have a clearcut definition of a refinance versus a new mortgage? I see how it would benefit the “lender” to do away with necessity of filing a mortgage satisfaction piece. A concise legal explanation would be greatly appreciated.

  2. This could be what happened in our situation and I have had this disscussion with my partner but he assumes the bank is on the up and up … “why would they do that” – facts: in 2002 we had a refi of our 1995 nonMERS loan appear it was a America’s Warehouse Lender (that is what the underwriter requested to be put on the insurance policy). That loan was really good for us it lowered term and payment – it was a VA loan – in 2003 CW kept calling us as they were quite sure we could get a better deal and since – so, we thought we were refinancing to another VA loan – now we realize that the 2002 loan was about a 40% interest rates with the fees – and interestingly the 2003 was reported to be a jumbo loan… at that time we did not know what a jumbo loan was – now research it was no where near a jumbo loan amount even with a 50k advance to pay off a second – it appears the new loan was just added onto the VA loan and only a jumbo loan for Countrywide – Closing docs shows they wired payoff money to CountryWide Home Loans Servcing, LP – VA reports that they don’t release the loan until we apply for a new certificate ? We were literally forced into a loan modification by Recontrust, Bank of America Home Loans, LP and Bank of America, N.A. …. we even had fake foreclosure papers taped to our door … the recontrust man knew the bank of doing illegal things and told me bank of america could do whatever the F it wanted to in washington state … and it appeared that was true … he was clear … if we did not accept whatever modification that was offerered we’d be thrown out in the street with all our belongings … the non-judicial foreclosure was a shock … never realized this sort of fraud could happen .. yes, it was meant to be a “sacred trust” in Wa state …. it is far from such when now the government and a secret trust pool #1 now claim to be the “owner of the note” … neither are on any document and only a xerox copy of the note has been provided … and that note’s signature page matches our 2002 note NOT the 2003 note … I change my signature every year to allow me to put my intentions in action each time I sign my name … so I know that MY signature is from 2002 now appearing on the 2003 note!

  3. Specifically to Rich; I have an almost identical document recorded as reconveyance for the first deed of trust. It was requested by Washington Mutual Bank, FA, no longer in existence at that time in 2007. The well-known crew of Jocelyn Tate, Miriam Hapner, Gregorio Miniano and D. Pekusic signed it in Duval County. When I researched them about five or six years ago, they are all known robosigners. There is no wording about actually a satisfaction of the first DOT, but surely a substitution of trustee to California Reconveyance. I have been unable to find my loan anywhere, in any trust. Imagine that, the same cast of characters signed both our Reconveyance documents!

  4. Does anyone know where I can find a list of LPS employees that may have been deposed?

  5. How do we find out our Promissory is fabricated by DOCX? There is a bar coding at the bottom of every page.

  6. I have been reading/following your site since around 2008. So many great comments and arguments. Yet, it all comes down to the fact that the judges are corrupt and they have been bought by the bank and many of us cannot seem to win. Very few have the money to hire an attorney, pay for a forensic analysis, pay for an expert witness, etc, etc only to have a judge blow you off/dismiss your case and then you appeal and then what?? Most.throw in the towel and i beleive thwre are only about 5% of us who keep fighting. The news media could care less abiut the crisis that in their eyes is not longer a crisis. When the judges have their retirement money tied up in the very entities we are in battle with, why would they rule in our favor and allow the flood gates to open for the rest of the homeowners? Even with Jesinoski, I’ve uncovered very few cases helping the rest of us get to where we need to be and we the people are following the rule of law. Unfortunately, they (the banks and judges) do not play by the same rules because they are above the law. Is anyone really paying attention anymore? Investors are gobbling up homes for pennies on the dollar and flipping them within weeks. Nobody is paying attention and the banks, judges and investors are smiling all the way back to where we began…all the way back to the bank!

  7. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  8. Neil you are on to something bigger than you think. We were in the property records researching a WAMU refinance and we noticed something on pages for other properties that had loan releases recorded. Normally, you see a release and the Presumption” is that its paid off – right – that is what the judges will do.

    But we saw the releases on these other properties were signed by the same person from WAMU one Jocelyn Tate, Lien Release Assistant Secretary from Duval County Fl but with vastly different signatures. Thus we assumed she a robo-signer. It was notarized by Miriam E. Hapner Commission: DD385383 Expiring 10-24-2008

    So we did a forensic analysis of the original note that was supposed to have been paid off by the new WAMU loan and it was securitized to WAMU Pass Through Certificate Series 2007-OA1 with LaSalle as Trustee. The analysis showed that the mortgage was never assigned to the TRUST.

    Other RED FLAGS: The release came from “Washington Mutual Bank, FA, last assigned Mortgagee and holder of a certain mortgage”…the release should have come from the Trust not WAMU.

    WAMU never delivered the canceled Note back to me to burn in my fireplace.

    I believe they never paid off the Note and stole $1 million from the use of proceeds detailed in my HUD statement. Look at your records to see if you also have Jocelyn Tate on a loan release

  9. So when the purported closing settlement statement says Payment to XYZ Mortgage but there was no payoff and the lender/servicer admit this as in my case that should end it. Everything else is deception. Isn’t this a basic contract issue? Basic discovery a homeowner can do is request the paid note that was understood to b paid, if they fail it violates our right and proper reconveyance. Basic discovery that homeowners can do on their own and lawyers should have insisted on from the beginning. There could be no meeting of the minds.

  10. Wouldn’t that be great if DocX/Blackknight actually helped someone for once…

  11. MD CODE 9-336 Real Property: Commingled goods cause identity to be lost. The SECURITY DOES NOT EXIST.

    Changing the state of the Negotiable Instrument forever= A Stock derivative, once carrots have been made into carrot juice, can never be a carrot again
    Also, once a loan has been written off, it is discharged. Once a loan has been securitized, reattachment is impossible.
    Permanent Conversion: the note converted into a stock as a permantent fixture, its nature is forever changed. Now it is treated as a stock and governed by the SEC
    Since the Deed of Trust secures the note, once the note is destroyed the DOT secures nothing. Therefore, the Trust is invalid.

  12. Yes, under the umbrella of the company called “Black Knight”, Docx, ServiceLink, ServiceConnection, all known as formerly named LPS. Change the name, to disguise the “same” game, document fabrication. Nothing new or different under the sun, as it says in the book of Ecclesiastes.

  13. Off topic but this is very encouraging

    At least Microsoft is getting it.

Contribute to the discussion!