Ocwen Admission Confounds Judges and Experts

This is a blatant attempt at deception  — a deceit without which none of the Trusts would be recognized as legal entities much less the owner of loans. Ocwen is admitting that there is no single owner of the loan it is allegedly “servicing.” “There is no single owner of the account, but rather the account is one of many in a securitized investment trust.”

For the uninitiated, this statement might suffice or at least be threatening enough as a challenge to their experience and intelligence to direct them away from the central false assertion that the trusts own any loan. They don’t.

Let us help you prepare for deposition or trial: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

Hat Tip Bill Paatalo

see Ocwen Responsive Letter – CFPB – 11-03-2017

In this real live case, Ocwen is fulfilling its job that includes obfuscation as one of its paramount duties. After first “answering” the CFPB requests with obfuscation it then states “The ownership status of the account is based upon our review of our records as of the date of this letter.” It doesn’t say that the information is correct or even believed to be correct. It doesn’t say they performed due diligence to determine whether a true chain of ownership exists, combing the various records of “predecessors.”

Nor is there a statement that Ocwen is authorized to service the account. It simply says that it IS servicing the account. And of course then they do not assert the basis of their authority since they never asserted their authority. It is implied. It is assumed. In court, it might well be presumed by the court, the foreclosure mill attorney and even by the borrower and the borrower’s attorney. This is one of the errors that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. An attack on what is missing instead of trying to dodge what is there would result in far more victories for homeowners.

The attorney’s client is Ocwen. Ocwen is impliedly asserting authority to service but can’t show it. In one recent case of mine, they came in with a Power of Attorney signed by someone who purportedly executed the instrument on behalf of Chase. The problem was that Chase was never mentioned before in any pleading, documents or testimony. The POA was false.

Back to ownership: “there is no single owner” implies that there are many owners. There are several problems with that assertion or implication that involve outright lying. Ocwen is saying that the loan is in a securitized investment trust which certainly would imply that the loan is not in transit nor is it owned by more than one trust.

Further if the reference (omitted) is to investors, that too is a lie in most cases. The certificate indenture usually contains the express statement that the holder of the certificate receives no right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage in “underlying” loans (which have never been acquired by the trust anyway).

So what are we left with? No single owner which means that the securitized investment trust doesn’t own it because that is one single entity. Multiple owners does not refer to investors because the express provisions on their certificates say they have no ownership of the debt, note or mortgage in the alleged loan.

The counterintuitive answer is that the bank’s are saying there is no owner. But there is an owner. It is a group of investors whose money was used to fund or acquire the loan. This was not done through any trust, as they intended and as was required by the “securitization” documents. If that was the case then the trust would have been named as lender or as holder in due course. That never happened.

But the holders of worthless securities can claim an equitable interest in the loan and perhaps even the collateral. In order to establish that interest the investors must go to a court of competent jurisdiction. But in order to do that the investors must know about the specific loan transaction(s), which they don’t. The fact that they don’t know about it and can’t exercise their rights does not mean that legally, anyone can intervene and assert ownership rights.

Ten years ago I said get rid of the current servicers and stick a government agency in as intermediary so that investors, as real parties in interest and borrowers as real parties in interest could do what the lending industry normally does best — work this out so that nobody loses everything and nobody gets a windfall. This could have all been over years ago and the impact on the economy would have been a powerful stimulus leaving no inherent weakness in our economy or our currency.

Unfortunately the courts strayed from making legal decisions and instead made a political decision to save the banking industry at the expense of homeowners.




12 Responses

  1. Sandy my lawyer won a case in 2017 unpublished of course on some of the same issues I brought. It was written about here on livinglieswordpress a few months back. The difference in my case and the other one was assignment after company went out of business. The same judge as in my case. Judge Hoffman appellate. If get a chance read it and have your lawyer look at it too. Hoffman finally questions power of attorney. He probably figured he would not see my lawyer back a year later after the beatdown he gave me in my case. Good luck.

  2. Sandy — Signed also and shared. Everyone should sign.

    Can you share your email?

    Everyone who has Ocwen should write to the CFPB. While they cannot help individually, the information is reviewed and the lawsuit is ongoing.

  3. Hammertime-Thank you.
    Michael-there is no justice for us in NJ.I’m in the Appellate Div, now. Wish me luck! My Note is payable specifically to a non-party. What will they say about that? So what, who cares? Should be interesting…..

  4. Sandy signed and shared

  5. A at at a minimum a new agency should give us our homes back or compensate us. SIGTARP also said local government has not fulfilled the mission to keep us in our homes. Rogue courts should be penalized or have funds from settlements taken away.

  6. I also filed a Cfpb complaint against Ocwen. I got the same reply also that there were many owners. I filed it in may 2017. The sheriff sale took place October 2017. The problem in New Jersey is the judges are bias towards homeowners. All they say is you didn’t pay your mortgage. In my case the complaint note was payable to the original lender. The indorsement appeared a year later for summary judgment. Assignment of mortgage 3 years after the loan closed to Deutsche Bank as trustee for certificate holders gsr loan trust 2007 oa1. No power of attorney. The appellate court ruled that it didn’t matter if they found them a Holder or a no holder they went by the affidavit of the servicer who said gsr trust was the owner. They ignored the fact that plaintiff lawyers testified to different notes that was presented for complaint and summary judgment. They ignored all genuine material facts. The Supreme Court would not grant certification on my question of Dilegent inquiry. How could diligent inquiry be true with different versions of the note and a fraudulent assignment. All the judges must have been cringing and puking to have to rule in favor of the bank at all costs in my case because it was well defended from the beginning. There is no due diligence given to Home owners. Ocwen is very corrupt. They sent me a letter while foreclosing that they had teamed up with 1st alliance lending to put me in a new mortgage. I got the same letter from 1st alliance also. Long story short I was approved for a new mortgage with a closing date set and ist months check. Ocwen did not show up for closing with documents. In fact the recording of lis pendens came 1 month later after the recording of the commitment of mortgage in the land records.

  7. I could probably show a dozen examples of nonsense produced by Chase and other homeowners w every other “good” banks that the CFPB and every agency accepted as a “response”. This is beyond political bias it’s theft under the color of law and conspiracy with every captured agency. Appreciate the info abd we need to keep filing strong cases but the hostile courts and corrupt agencies need to be accountable.

  8. I am totally confused with this. I have been through the ringer with all this mortgage stuff. Broker to IndyMac Bank to One West Bank to Ocwen….Lawyers and eventually a modification but the numbers of money owed etc and where the mortgage is and who cashes the checks I send just dont add up? Through all of this and not once have I ever seen Wells Fargo but…..they deposit my mortgage check. These big banks are their own science…….

  9. Reblogged this on California freelance paralegal and commented:
    Judges need to start enforcing the law and demand that servicers like Ocwen comply with their obligations under Federal law and the discovery statutes. That letter is a textbook example of verbose obfuscation.

  10. A section of Fed Res Opinion on TILA is below — of course – disclosure of creditor is under the TILA — NOT RESPA — by which one requests servicing information. Thus, statute of limitations is a short period to file. — One excerpt from the opinion (now law) is below: So if, Ocwen claims many investors own the loan — those investors must have acquired “LEGAL TITLE” outside the “beneficial interest… in the loan or a security interest.” Note — “covered person” is defined as the “creditor.”

    “To become a ‘‘covered person’’ subject to § 226.39, a person must become the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation. Consequently, § 226.39 does not apply to persons who acquire only a beneficial interest in the loan or a security interest in the loan, such as when the owner of the debt obligation uses the loan as security to obtain financing and the party providing the financing obtains only a security interest in the loan. Section 226.39 also does not apply to a party that assumes the credit risk without acquiring legal title to the loans. Accordingly, an investor who purchases an interest in a pool of loans (such as mortgage-backed securities, pass-through certificates, participation interests, or real estate mortgage investment conduits) but does not directly acquire legal title in the underlying mortgage loan, is not covered by § 226.39.”

  11. What do these mean to people whose homes were foreclosed illegally? Do they get them back?

  12. Note — Ocwen says — trustee does not “own the account” Since when is a loan called an “account?”

    The trustee to ANY trust, is the legal owner of claimed securities DERIVED from claimed loans – that are claimed assigned — to the TRUSTEE to a particular trust. If the trustee is not the trustee or legal owner — then there is no ACTIVE connection to the security trust.

    All monies claimed received by any servicer who claims association with a trust, must be forwarded to the trustee, the claimed legal owner. If the trustee has removed itself from cash distribution activity — the loan is no longer in the trust.

    There cannot be many different undisclosed investors/lenders to a borrower. This is contrary to TILA as, most importantly, these investors lend nothing directly to borrowers. They are claimed investors in securities DERIVED from loans — not the loans themselves.

    Nevertheless, according to new 2014 TILA, and the Federal Reserve Opinion of the new law, which finalized the new law, the largest investor must be disclosed. So, if Ocwen wants to claim many investors, the biggest investor should be disclosed. It is the only way to allow claimed “investor” loans to be subject to the TILA – one of few laws that attempts to protect borrowers. .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: