Response to QWR Response from Ocwen Re US Bank as Trustee of….hmmmm

So you have sent a QWR (hopefully a good one that qualifies as a Qualified Written Request or Debt Validation Letter) and Ocwen responds with a shotgun approach intended to intimidate the lawyer or homeowner who reads it. I recently did an anlysis and drafted a potential response for another lawyer representing a homeowner. I thought I would share it with you.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or You can also order an analysis like the one from which this article was taken. to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

RESPONSE to QWR: Remember they are only required to answer questions not to debate you on your conclusions.

  1. GMAC does not seem to have existed at the time (2013) they say it transferred servicing of your “loan” or “loan documents.” In 2012, during the mortgage crisis, Ally took its residential lending unit into bankruptcy in order to pay back the U.S. Treasury following its acceptance of bailout funds.[13] In November 2012, Ditech was formed from assets of Ally’s GMACRescap estate during the bankruptcy proceeding.[7]
  2. Ocwen admits they know nothing about the origination of your “loan.” Yet they purport to know the balance, and have the right to service your account.
  3. Their comment that assignments are not required as long as the MERS system is keeping track is absurd, not the law, and does not obviate the necessity of giving the homeowner the name of the creditor — if there is one.
  4. They do not state the identity of the creditor anywhere in the letter. Thus they cannot state that they have been authorized by the creditor to administer or enforce any alleged loan contract. By what authority do they claim to have the right to service your alleged loan? What is the duration of their servicing commitment? Who is the Master Servicer, if there is one?
  5. For reasons stated above it is possible that there could be an action for disgorgement of all money ever collected by Ocwen.
  6. You must specify the reason that you think the accounting is in error. They are right about that. But you can say that you know that the “lenders” in the chain have received money from Federal bailouts, non-subrogated payoffs and hedge products that reduced the amount of the loan receivable on the books and records and financial statements of whoever is the actual creditor. If they don’t know how that was allocated to loans receivable then they don’t know the balance of the debt that is due. If they do know, then how do they know it and where is the evidence of how those payments were received and allocated. So you therefore want to challenge “when payments were received.”
  7. They say that the “entity that currently owns the account and holds the note is” USB etc. series xyzzy. But that is not the same as saying that a Trust owns the debt or anything else relating to your loan. Further it doesn’t say that there is a trust specifically because they don’t name one. And perhaps most importantly taken as a whole “USB as trustee for … Certificates” is a statement that the USB is Trustee for the Certificates or the Certificate holders if you ant to broaden the inference” and NOT a REMIC Trust owning the loan. This is sleight of hand.
  8. USB is appearing not on its own behalf but as Trustee for (a) a stack of certificates or (b) the holders of each certificate which means that the “Trust” is not the REMIC Trust but rather a separate Trust in which the Certificate Holders of another Trust (potentially the REMIC Trust issued those certificates) entrusted those certificates to USB. Such a trust does not exist. And it cannot be said that this is a reference to the REMIC Trust because that would mean that the beneficiaries of the trust gave authority to the Trustee to hold the certificates in Trust as part of the REMIC Trust PSA (which is the trust instrument). That is perfectly circular reasoning. [Issue the certificates to beneficiaries of the trust who then turn the cetificates back to the trust to be administed as trust assets in addition to the loans that were supposedly acquired. Nothing in the Trust Instrument (PSA) says anything of the sort. That would mean that USB is active as a trustee when in fact it has no role to play as trustee of any REMIC Trust mentioned or inferred.
  9. So the question in the QWR is whether they are two trusts and if so would they please identify each of them.
  10. Incidentally the person who supposedly has knowledge how the certificates are kept and possibly how they are issued is Janel Gray Parkman Vice President, Business Development Officer, U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services Charlotte, NC Phone: 212.951.8549 Note that the title is NOT VP of Trust services but rather VP of business development. This was taken from Googling the contact number they gave you for the “Trust” even though we don’t know which trust or even if they realize that the name of USB is being used in connection with two alleged trusts, neither one of which actually exist.
  11. They say that Ocwen is the servicer. Where is the evidence of that? Are they named in the PSA? Did the Trust created by the PSA ever acquire the debt? Be specific that you are not asking for the “ownership” of the “account,” the “note” or the “mortgage.” You are asking for the document that says Ocwen is the servicer — perhaps a servicing agreement.
  12. Notably they did not give you the link for the PSA. This enables them to say that you googled the wrong name (especially since no trust is actually identified although two are implied).
  13. You should look at the PSA and see if
    1. It exists.
    2. It was signed by everyone who needed to sign it — i.e., are there blank signature lines with someone’s name underneath?
    3. All the exhibits to the PSA were filed along with the PSA? Especially the mortgage loan schedule.
    4. When was the PSA sent to the SEC?
  14. If the PSA is incomplete then it is reasonable to conclude that the inferred or implied transaction never took place in which a trust acquired your loan (or any other loan for that matter).

14 Responses

  1. WF tranfer the loan to un federal services as ifb it’s their own property

  2. Bruce Nelson…do not give up. Take your complaint to a higher court. Keep going. Judicial Notice to Judicial misconduct..look into the method with filing a ‘coram nobis’…its a correction to judicial misconduct…take it to each court going up the line, get her removed and void of her ‘judgement’ for the court did not and could not have achieved jurisdiction. They do not/did not/never will, have standing, 99.9% do not. You just have to keep at it. Jurisdiction can always be raised. WLROSS is a slimeball, (I’ll refrain from what everyone really knows him to be) Ross purchased shit loans for nickles and then turned them into full value, with, as Garfield says, slight of hand. SEC is onto him. Its just a matter of time. But do not give up. You can still fight this. DO NOT GIVE UP.

  3. Hah. That suspicious all right

  4. ANON
    I speculate that ALL is being done by the sub-servicers (like OCWEN) since they seem to have a file cabinet filled with Powers of Attorney for damn near every entity on the planet… I would not be surprised if there was a POA in there for you and me too!

  5. Cfpb also bublishe my story! To ?!

  6. CementBoots — Usually, the residual “tranche” was not securitized and was servicer owned. From all the PSAs that I have read, not one gives the servicer the authority to act for undisclosed default debt swap “contract” holder,. However, this is what they do and hide under the trust name. All in violation of RESPA and FDCPA. .

  7. Excellent point ANON.

    I wonder if there is anything in their contracts that say the REMIC has to assist the new debt buyer in collections even after the non-performing loan has been moved out of the trust – or – if the REMIC has residual rights to go after the debtor for the deficiency amount between what the debt buyer paid and its full 30 year value?

    Who knows, there might be cases out there that got settled and gagged.

  8. DERIVATIVES DERIVATIVES DERIVATIVES. So, Ocwen will say the “trust” owns the loan but, by fraud, may or may not, state that the TRUSTEE is the owner/holder of the mortgage and note. Under derivatives default swap contracts, the trustee has nothing to do with the debt. The trustee duties are only if the loan is performing, and the cash payments are ACTUALLY being forwarded to the trust. That is not the case when a loan is reported in default — whether or not it was actually in default. Once that reported default occurs, the “loan” is swapped out of the trust by derivative contract – after minimal “servicer advances.” That contract is not a security, and is NOT part of the trust by which the trustee is the holder and owner of ONLY the cash flows to the loan. And, cash flows are very explicitly explained by the IRS. They must be current. That contract states the default swap derivative debt buyer which is continuously withheld from the borrower. And that swap default derivative contract holder purchased the “debt” for likely pennies on the dollar. So — is the QWR response false? Absolutely. Neil is correct. Under the FDCPA and by QWR, the CURRENT creditor must be identified. That creditor is NOT part of any trust, or any trustee agreement. The problems is that courts claim borrowers cannot challenge assignments or PSAs. No one is challenging a PSA. Borrowers are challenging the assignment – as bogus, and not part of any PSA agreement. Derivative contracts are NOT part of the “securitized” trust. NOT EVER. MERS has no authority. However, they may hold the credit default swap agreement, and be able to produce it and provide the identity of the “creditor.” And the trustee acts in multiple roles — including as “securities and contract administrator.” I do not see one case — anywhere out there – that discusses derivatives swap default contracts.

    When will we see this??? .

  9. CFPB v OCWEN 9:17-cv-80495 Docket

    In case you wanted to know the progress of this case…

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. et al,_Inc_et_al

    Florida Southern District Court
    Judge: Kenneth A Marra
    Referred: William Matthewman
    Case #: 9:17-cv-80495
    Nature of Suit 890 Other Statutes – Other Statutory Actions
    Cause 28:1331 Federal Question

    Last Docket Entry: 8/22/2017

  10. Karen
    do you mean a deed or an ASSIGNMENT of “deed of trust” or mortgage?

    they do it all the time just ahead of or during a foreclosure…

    print out the original and the correction and look at them side by side…

    see if the entity supposedly filing this even exists anymore or if some other entity (like OCWEN) is purporting to do it with some non-existent Power of Attorney…

    you may have a case for slander of title?

    get a real estate lawyer to look at it.

  11. All is fraudulent and forged. The banks and servicers are still stealing homes.

  12. […] via Response to QWR Response from Ocwen Re US Bank as Trustee of….hmmmm — Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  13. And know Ocwen is filing what they call a correction deed that names the trust and themselves. How can you file a correction deed 8 years after the original deed was filed.

  14. Chief Justice of 12th Dist Fed Ct, Portland, OR denied my appeal to him re Judge Anna Browns “giveaway” of my Salem ,OR $340k free and clear home to Wilbur Ross’ AHMSI/HSBC/OCWEN FINANCIAL none of which ever produced any PROOF OF INTEREST under TILA. In fact, I did follow TILA requirements to “rescind” AHMSIs claim of unproven interest. Ross’ AHMSI still declined to follow the law and instead pursued my like the cop in Les Miserables pursuit of Jean Valjean for taking/stealing a loaf of bread. Judge Anna Brown gave my home to Ross AHMSI. et al and made me a pauper with no recourse to her “judgement”. The 12th Dist Fed Ct in Portland, OR PROTECTS the rich and the wealthy and takes from the poor and gives that to the likes of Ross(AHMSI)…and rejects my right to confront my adversaries in a court of law(s). 12tyh Dist fed Ct, Oregon, ignores the Federeal Laws under Truth in Lending as passed by the 1959 Congress for protection of consumer protection. In my opinion, the Fed Ct in Oregon protects only the “perceived rights of the rich Robber Barons who virtually destroyed our ECONOMY and the lives of millions of American Citizens…not JUST me, but milions of other lives

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: