French bookkeeping: an old anecdote that reflects reality. Three sets of books. One for himself, one for his partner and one for the government. If permitted in discovery virtually every homeowner could easily show that there are multiple sets of accounting for “loan” payments, multiple sets of accounting for insurance and multiple sets of accounting for modifications. Some are for investors based upon complete fiction.
Some are for homeowners which are mostly fictitious. And then there is a new set of books for each “servicer” that ever claimed the right to administer the alleged loan account.
Trustees have no books and records because the trust doesn’t really exist and no real world transactions were ever conducted using the name of the trust. THAT record is just paper that is changed as quickly as you edit a document in a word processing program.
Get a consult! 202-838-6345
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
*
I am seeing, with increasing frequency, a phenomenon that can only be explained by reference to the false assertions to “Securitization” or as Adam Levitin has coined it — “Securitization Fail.”
*
We have too many stories to recount here. But a representative sampling shows that it all starts with bad posting of transactions between the alleged servicer and the homeowner who is described as a “borrower.” It is difficult to imagine how this could get through the courts, but many times, as I have personally witnessed, judges demonstrate an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that the homeowner did nothing wrong. Such judges compound their erroneous rulings by reference to the fact that a long period of time has elapsed since the homeowner made their last payment.
*
In each case, the “servicer” or “holder” claims a default. In each case, the homeowner had been making timely payments — right up until the moment when the servicer or bank said they wouldn’t accept payments unless the homeowner paid up an imaginary sum of money to “reinstate” the loan or to start a new modification. And even where the money was paid, the foreclosure continued. Money paid by the homeowner is not subject to accounting and neither are the original records of receipts and disbursements. The courts allow “new originals” based upon an IT platform that will produce anything desired by the user — something like the way WordPress allows me to say anything I want here in this article.
*
Sometimes it is about the “servicer” getting it wrong about the insurance, and then forcing the homeowner into forced placed insurance caused by the “negligence” of the servicer. Then the servicer accepts the regular monthly payments without payment for the surcharged forced placed insurance; BUT on an entirely independent set of books it shows the account as increasingly delinquent for non payment of the forced placed insurance that never should have been charged in the first place. Suddenly, without any provocation arising out of the homeowner’s conduct, a letter is received and then another reciting the delinquency on the other set of “books” and declaring a default and acceleration of the entire principal amount.
*
Efforts to get the “trustee” to back off because they are not proceeding on valid information are useless because they are using a third set of books that is not based upon payments from a borrower.
*
The point was well stated by a manager for Bank of America in Massachusetts: “we are not in the modification business. We are in the foreclosure business.” And the reason is the same as I have been saying for years: foreclosure produces the first and only authentic legal document in a chain of fraud. It is self perpetuating because of the presumptions that arise from a foreclosure judgment and a foreclosure sale.
*
The fact that it is nearly impossible to get the current “servicer” to correct its books for an error made by them or a predecessor absolutely corroborates the complaints that the banks simply ignored the requirement of performing real reviews. And the reason they didn’t do the review has nothing to do with negligence. The banks NEED foreclosures. They need as many loans as possible to go into foreclosure because that is the only path available to create a presumption of facial validity to the false chain of paper — a path littered with the lives of decent people many of whom had paid every cent required by a legally void note and mortgage.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure |
This is the best post from Neil that I have seen in many, many years. Yes. French book keeping. On right track here Neil.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.
I questioned a nearly $300k advance and received different copies if loan histories w different dates for “transaction”. If it involves Chase, CFPB looks the other way. On fraudulent transfer to PennyMac i did receive debt validation notice, challenged it and their verification included Truth In Lending statement that was unsigned, w different terms and changed the address to reflect one unit instead of two. PennyMac lawyer lied again to CFPB and city basically helped them illegally foreclose and eviction. The purpose of settlements and all laws completely ignored. Los Angeles CA
I never imagined any bank being worse than BofA regarding mortgages, but am finding that Bayview may be worse. They’re my new servicer, and have admitted in writing that they do not provide ‘borrowers’ mortgage statements when/if said borrower is currently in Bankruptcy. They’ve also not cashed (nor posted) my payment for October sent out on October 12. Also admitted on CFPB website that they did not send me a debt validation notice for the same reason.
Reblogged this on boglinwordpresscom and commented:
My new “servicer” refuses to send me a debt validation form, because I’m in active Bankruptcy. They also have refused to post my first payment to them and state that it is their policy to NOT issue monthly mortgage statements to customers in active bankruptcy.
Exactly what Wells Fargo did to me. As nothing more than a servicer. Stopped taking payments. Had robosigned docs. Incorrect balance. FRAUDCLOSURE on behalf of Freddie Mac. I fought pro Se with all this on my side and still the house was stolen.
Ha. You make an excellent point. The bank gives me a statement with my balance and something called “an advance”. This is where they bill be legal fees and home preservation fees so they can inflate the amount of my mortgage with in-house fees I never agreed to while seeking a modification. The set of books for the investors makes my $67k debt look like a loan of $131k to the share holders. It is of course a lie and a fabrication by the bank.
Sent from my iPhone
>