Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale

My confidence has never been higher that the handling of money after a foreclosure sale will reveal the fraudulent nature of most “foreclosures” initiated not on behalf of the owner of the debt but in spite of the the owner(s) of the debt.

It has long been obvious to me that the money trail is separated from the paper trail practically “at birth” (origination). It is an obvious fact that the owner of the debt is always someone different than the party seeking foreclosure, the alleged servicer of the debt, the alleged trust, and the alleged trustee for a nonexistent trust. When you peek beneath the hood of this scam, you can see it for yourself.

Real case in point: BONY appears as purported trustee of a purported trust. Who did that? The lawyers, not BONY. The foreclosure is allowed and the foreclosure sale takes place. The winning “bid” for the property is $230k.

Here is where it gets real interesting. The check is sent to BONY who supposedly is acting on behalf of the trust, right. Wrong. BONY is acting on behalf of Chase and Bayview loan servicing. How do we know? Because physical possession of the check made payable to BONY was forwarded to Chase, Bayview or both of them. How do we know that? Because Chase and Bayview both endorsed the check made out to BONY depositing the check for credit in a bank account probably at Chase in the name of Bayview.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

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). to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!



OK so we have the check made out to BONY and TWO endorsements — one by Chase and one by Bayview supposedly — and then an account number that might be a Chase account and might be a Bayview account — or, it might be some other account altogether. So the question who actually received the $230k in an account controlled by them and then, what did they do with it. I suspect that even after the check was deposited “somewhere” that money was forwarded to still other entities or even people.

The bid was $230k and the check was made payable to BONY. But the fact that it wasn’t deposited into any BONY account much less a BONY trust account corroborates what I have been saying for 12 years — that there is no bank account for the trust and the trust does not exist. If the trust existed the handling of the money would look very different OR the participants would be going to jail.

And that means NOW you have evidence that this is the case since BONY obviously refused to do anything with the check, financially, and instead just forwarded it to either Chase or Bayview or perhaps both, using copies and processing through Check 21.

What does this mean? It means that the use of the BONY name was a sham, since the trust didn’t exist, no trust account existed, no assets had ever been entrusted to BONY as trustee and when they received the check they forwarded it to the parties who were pulling the strings even if they too were neither servicers nor owners of the debt.

Even if the trust did exist and there really was a trust officer and there really was a bank account in the name of the trust, BONY failed to treat it as a trust asset.

So either BONY was directly committing breach of fiduciary duty and theft against the alleged trust and the alleged trust beneficiaries OR BONY was complying with the terms of their contract with Chase to rent the BONY name to facilitate the illusion of a trust and to have their name used in foreclosures (as long as they were protected by indemnification by Chase who would pay for any sanctions or judgments against BONY if the case went sideways for them).

That means the foreclosure judgment and sale should be vacated. A nonexistent party cannot receive a remedy, judicially or non-judicially. The assertions made on behalf of the named foreclosing party (the trust represented by BONY “As trustee”) were patently false — unless these entities come up with more fabricated paperwork showing a last minute transfer “from the trust” to Chase, Bayview or both.

The foreclosure is ripe for attack.

17 Responses

  1. The financial crisis mortgage fraud was far more than a conspiracy theory. It was well thought out and planned. Frankly, it was genius!! But fraudulent.

  2. Nice conspiracy theory, bro!

  3. Poppy. You have to go back to paperwork before the last refinance or the one before that if there were multiple. Have to go back to when an actual bank was in the paperwork. Any refinance by the likes of Countrywide, New Century , Ameriquest, Argent , IndyMac, Fremont etc were not valid mortgage refinances. Check the last discharge before these entities. Most likely LPS was involved and one of the big banks. Look at it carefully.

  4. Bob G….ledger states an amount to cover “alleged debt”, but no one wants to tell you where it came from? If they are legitimately collecting for someone, why would you lie or omit your stated loss? More oversight at the DMV…just saying.

  5. 100% correct ANON. Check your paperwork, but never trust what they say on it, it is trickery!

  6. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    It just keeps rollin’ on…

  7. The debt collectors known as servicers are trying to collect debt that is UNSECURED. I can’t believe we are still talking about this fraud 10years after the fact. What a banana republic. Happy 4th of July. Choke on your birthday cake Uncle Sam !!!

  8. In my case the “Capital Transfer Tax” (prohibited transaction) was owed to IRS, that the Fake Lender (America’s Wholesale Lender), Countrywide-BOA. Didn’t pay.
    The tax was $4,300,000, filed in the Court.
    Never paid. I paid for my home 4 times, REMIC, never existed.

  9. the check was probably obtained by the buyer of the property. who may have requested his bank to produce for him a copy of the cleared check. how neil got it is unknown.

  10. Great info to complete the picture. Is there actual case link. We should report the law firms to CFPB as robosigners even if it’s being dismantled by Trump.

  11. Our house was foreclosed with an affidavit from a person working for the servicer that Bank of New York Mellon has the note.. No original promissory note was ever produced despite repeated requests. What could we do now?

  12. No trust? That has been the case since the beginning. Supposed to be a Special Purpose Vehicle within a REMIC trust. IRS is not doing its job either. It appears that the scam encompasses every angle from origination all the way through to foreclosure, bidding, and final “checks” issued to the wrong entity.

  13. perhaps the “Trust Res” was never the Notes or Mortgages but was limited to the investment pool of funds collected from various investors to which they issued “certificates” for a LIE that the Notes and Mortgages had been placed within an RMBS and then securitized?

  14. Also, securities administrator, is a role the industry considers to be synonymous with a “trustee.” The fiduciary trustee, by the Prospectus, is usually the same as the “securities administrator.” No one asks — in what capacity is the trustee named — as a fiduciary for the trust, or a security administrator — who just holds the security. Two different roles, but the industry perceives them both as a “trustee.”

  15. How was a copy of the endorsed check optained?

  16. Reblogged this on California freelance paralegal.

  17. THE MONEY TRAIL is right!! And, this is why some foreclosure attorneys for servicers are removing the trustee, and claiming the servicer acts for the TRUST. But, this is impossible if the PSA is accurate, and according to SCOTUS. The trust can only operate through the trustee if it is a traditional trust (which a REMIC is). The servicer CANNOT get money to the Trust (or certificate holders) if the money does not go to the trustee. It is the trustee that passes the money to certificate holders — not the servicer or trust.

    So how does this happen? DERIVATIVES, which are not securities, and not part of the TRUST. They are contracts for loans REMOVED from trusts. And, who continues to service for these DERIVATIVE CONTRACT HOLDER? The servicer.

    Neither the trustee nor the trust nor the servicer own the claimed debt — which was never a mortgage to begin with. A debt buyer owns collection rights on nothing more than a fake debt. .

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: