Why don’t homeowners get to share in the bounty created by their issuance of paper dubbed “Loan Documents?”

Thanks to one of our paralegals I just discovered an explanation of securitization with which I mostly agree. An interesting question is raised on the link below and that deserves research and analysis — whether the banks should disgorge their enormous profits from the multiple resales of the same loan and pay that, at least in part, to homeowners. In most cases it would pay off the entire loan and possibly a windfall to homeowners instead of the windfall received by the banks who falsely claimed losses in the 2008 crash.

I have suggested this before — years ago. But here is a credible narrative supporting that theory.

Is it a mortgage loan or a license?





35 Responses

  1. @ Anon – thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if I made an unwarranted assumption there. The world needs fewer kool-aid drinkers. Good luck to you!

  2. Mr. Garfield may I email u what I have of default court paper work? Please? Analise my situation I lost my home due to @WellsFargo Fake 🏠 Modification?
    No body in your place answering or returning my call to donate $$$ & PayPal is not working w me since my card number been changed?!
    Please! Say yes to email u my doc.

  3. David — I will call you when I can. My law does not come from FB or you-tube

  4. @ Anon – You don’t want to hear what I have to say. You learned law on Facebook and youtube, and automatically reject contrary information. If you want a real conversation, find my number and call me.

  5. David Seal — you have a good day too.

    Oh — very relevant for title — old sir.

    It would be helpful if you explained WHY it is irrelevant. But, you chose to the leave scene instead. Typical.

  6. Here’s where you don’t get it. That stuff is 99.9% of the time IRRELEVANT and GETS YOU NOWHERE. I put that in capitals so you would not miss it. Good luck, I’m done playing here. I’ll continue succeeding at litigating cases for good clients. If you’re not doing the same, reconsider your approach. That is all. Good day sir.


    Kalifornia is trying to put the pieces together that some attorneys just let slide by.

    Note the recent admission by Wells Fargo that they foreclosed on hundreds of loans that they should not have foreclosed upon. In what capacity were they acting?? Servicer?? Lender? Investor??? .

    Asking you again — would be very helpful for your answer — -WHO IS THE MODIFICATION with?? THE LENDER? WHO IS THE LENDER?? INVESTOR? WHO IS THE INVESTOR??? THE SERVICER? SERVICER FOR WHO???

    Simple response is appreciated.

  8. @ Kalifornia So, you are citing me to footnotes in ancient historic Caljur as a means of having a pissing contest with me? I’ve actually litigated these issues. You may think reality is “silly” but it is still reality.

  9. @ David Seal


    Silly wabbit…OOPS!

    Silly Seal.

    See [FN9] through [FN14], which is L…A…W….

  10. @ Kalifornia – You’re out of your depth debating me. You don’t have any skin in the game, except maybe a pro per loss or two on your end. Void vs. voidable goes much farther than your caljur excerpt. And, no one uses Caljur anymore. It’s a relic.

  11. I like a WHOLE pie; not by the slice.

  12. @ Davis Seal

    Below is a relevant excerpt from CalJur, which may be useful for the benefit of a client IN A COURT OF LAW, to wit:

    A promissory note is personal property,[9] and the deed of trust or mortgage securing a note is a mere incident of the debt it secures with no separable, ascertainable value,[10] and cannot be separately transferred without the note.[11] An assignment of the trust deed without a transfer of the obligation (e.g., the promissory note) is completely ineffective.[12]

    A purported assignment of the security is void and ineffective unless accompanied by an assignment of the note, and the purported assignment or delivery of possession of the mortgage or deed of trust without a transfer of the obligation secured is either completely ineffective and a legal nullity,[13] or else operates to extinguish the security interest, rendering the note unsecured.[14]

    [FN9] Civ. Code, §§ 657, 663; Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co., 183 Cal. App. 3d
    57, 62, 227 Cal. Rptr. 785 (1st Dist. 1986) (disapproved of on other grounds by, Summit
    Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co., 27 Cal. 4th 705, 27 Cal.
    4th 1160a, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 541, 41 P.3d 548 (2002)).
    [FN10] Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co., 183 Cal. App. 3d 57, 62, 227 Cal. Rptr. 785
    (1st Dist. 1986) (disapproved of on other grounds by, Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd.
    v. Continental Lawyers Title Co., 27 Cal. 4th 705, 27 Cal. 4th 1160a, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d
    541, 41 P.3d 548 (2002)).
    [FN11] Nagle v. Macy, 9 Cal. 426, 428, 1858 WL 818 (1858).
    [FN12] Kelley v. Upshaw, 39 Cal. 2d 179, 192, 246 P.2d 23 (1952); Johnson v. Razey,
    181 Cal. 342, 344, 184 P. 657 (1919); Adler v. Newell, 109 Cal. 42, 46-49, 41 P. 799
    (1895); Polhemus v. Trainer, 30 Cal. 685, 1866 WL 831 (1866); Ord v. McKee, 5 Cal.
    515, 516, 1855 WL 843 (1855); Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc., 270 Cal. App. 2d
    543, 553-554, 76 Cal. Rptr. 529 (1st Dist. 1969); Santens v. Los Angeles Finance Co.,
    91 Cal. App. 2d 197, 202, 204 P.2d 619 (4th Dist. 1949).
    [FN13] Kelley v. Upshaw, 39 Cal. 2d 179, 192, 246 P.2d 23 (1952) (mortgage); Hyde
    v. Mangan, 88 Cal. 319, 327, 26 P. 180 (1891); Polhemus v. Trainer, 30 Cal. 685, 688,
    1866 WL 831 (1866). See Johnson v. Razey, 181 Cal. 342, 344, 184 P. 657 (1919). See
    also Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc., 270 Cal. App. 2d 543, 553, 76 Cal. Rptr. 529
    (1st Dist. 1969). This decision reviews the authorities and concludes that a deed of
    trust, like a mortgage, “is a mere incident of the debt it secures and that an assignment
    of the debt ‘carries with it the security’ (Civ. Code, § 2936 [other citations omitted]);
    that a deed of trust is inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt …;
    and that a deed of trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may not be
    assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the deed of trust
    without a transfer of the debt is without effect [citations omitted].”
    [FN14] Restatement Third, Property: Mortgages § 5:4 cmt.e (1997) states: “In general
    a mortgage is unenforceable if it is held by one who has no right to enforce the secured
    obligation.” Accordingly, “[w]hen a note is split from a deed of trust, ‘the note becomes
    as a practical matter unsecured.’” In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 915-916 (B.A.P. 9th
    Cir. 2011).
    See also Civ. Code, § 2936; Cal. Com. Code, § 9607, subd. (b).

  13. David Seal — You have no idea- I am in the real world. Unfortunately for that. You don’t understand.

    Thanks Roger — for your input.

  14. @Seal: If TARP paid off on the bond or swap, you bet the Treasury is taking the house as an undisclosed real party in interest. The foreclosure judgment even has the language although it’s a private label securitization.. SIGTARP’s non-response to the evidence provided to them says volumes. USDOJ and IRS would be all over the tax fraud of booking interest on a note that was discharged nearly two years ago in a Chapter 7 if they weren’t complicit. The Office of Lawyer Regulation wouldn’t be suspending foreclosure attorneys if we weren’t so close to the truth. Through this website people have gained an understanding of an opaque fourth arm of government: the Federal Reserve. Using the Treasury Department and silencing the Attorneys General with slush fund money did the trick. Silence was achieved. Kind of.

  15. @Anon, that is wonderful until you step into oucrt, i.e., the real world. You can be right in your online world, but you are wrong where it matters. This is why there are laws against practicing law without a license. The strength of your belief that you are right doesn’t change reality. And, by the way, the Earth is round also, regardless of how flat you perceive it.

  16. David Seal — you are the one confused and not addressing the issues.

    You do not understand that these loans in these so called private label REMICs were loans reported in default to begin with — without disclosure to the investors or the borrowers. These loans were NEVER valid mortgages and notes. And not valid refinances. That is why the whole fake securitization collapsed. It does not matter how many times the loans were subsequently moved around. The loans should NEVER have been there in the first place.

    You are discussing procedure for valid mortgage loans. That is not the case here. You can’t make something valid that was never valid to begin with.

    There is no valid “assignor” or pieces of pie. There is no valid REMIC. There ARE only debt buyers who refuse to show their face – in violation of the law.

  17. @ Kalifornia – Nope. You don;t get it. You can’t see the forest for the conspiracy theory.

    Look, let’s talk about your damn pie for a minute. Let’s say there are 5 slices each 20% of the pie. Let’s say one assignee is buying one 20% slice of the whole 100% pie. OK? With me so far? Good….

    How much do ya think that assignee will pay for it? Full value of the entire stream of payments (a 20% share)? No. Of course not. That would be silly. They would discount it to present value. And they are in business to – get this – make a profit! So, they try to negotiate the best deal they can with the assignor. Hey, assignor, you get your money now, not in drips over 30 years with dry spells when the borrower loses jobs, etc. So, you should take less. And they do. Of course they do. It’s their business model.

    Now the same thing happens with the other “slices.”

    So the assignor, the initial holder, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t get paid multiple times the amount of the loan. They get paid less than the value of the loan, because they are getting it all now, with risk and the time value of money, and profit for the buyers of the rights, all factored in. And the assignor can still make a nice profit because it does this over and over, and maybe even gets paid a little bit to do the servicing.

    The borrower has no conceivable rights to any of that. Anyone who says they do is batty and just spends too much time learning “law” (in quotes for a reason on Facebook.

  18. @ David Seal

    Thank you for the case verification information. The proper link is:


    Stand by while I grind it up, roll it up, lean the seat back & put my feet up, then smoke it….

    Meanwhile, disabuse yourself of your own notion that a “borrower is paying the borrower.”

    No wonder you are confused.

    And…please inform us of the dispensary where you are acquiring, because I too want to experience your trip into your parallel universe of euphoria.


  19. @ rogerinaldi: Are all the loans that were touched by TARP via Maiden Lane payoffs on swaps vulnerable to foreclosure by an undisclosed real party in interest called the Treasury?”

    That makes no sense. Have you been hanging out with Ken Dost?

  20. @ Kalifornia, Hernandez v. PNMAC, second district court of appeal, case number B258583. Link: https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20160627014
    Smoke that for a while then come back when you can talk sense.

  21. @ Kalifornia – stop trying to be cute with pie plates and all that. I’m all ears if you can just use logic. but how do you get so twisted around that the borrower is paying the borrower?

  22. @rogerrinaldi I’m always willing to consider information. It might take me a few days to get to it. In the meantime, I’m working on an appellate brief for something that makes sense on a common-sense level. Unlike the argument that a borrower gets to share in the borrower’s payments on the borrower’s home loan. Haven’t heard a seal noise used after my name since college, it brings back good times and memories.

  23. @DavidSeal, arf arf: I have my loan appearing in two MBS. One EX-99 as part of an 8K, and on on a Bloomberg report with a different origination date. my email is usedkarguy@yahoo.com and I will keep yours confidential. I will send you exhibits filed that document the fraud. The “multiple payments” came from multiple swaps obtained against the loan account. We talk about “re-finances” because most of these loans were defaulted and re-securitized (much like my loan account if you follow the PSA’s and the evidence as provided). Many of the PSA’s Wells Fargo participated in allowed them to purchase the collateral after trigger events occurred. Any bond that had Wachovia as a Trustee defaulted to Wells after they were subsumed. We’re talking about multiple pledges of the “payment stream” wherein the “collateral” never moved: i.e. valid assignment and recordation of the mortgage after sale from the originator. After the loan closing everything else is an unknown. And not just to the homeowner, but also the courts and even the plaintiff lawyer.
    Are all the loans that were touched by TARP via Maiden Lane payoffs on swaps vulnerable to foreclosure by an undisclosed real party in interest called the Treasury?

  24. @ David Seal

    One pie-on-a-plate analogy was published — only one.

    For clarification, with regard to the MAKER’s ownership of the empty plate — not the suggested proceeds of payments — the empty plate is the NOTE & DEED OF TRUST, which is personal property of the MAKER; required to be returned to the owner (MAKER).

    Surely you can follow the logic that the slices of the pie were purchased FOR VALUE by the various bond/debt/REMIC purchasers, who hold, or held, commensurate debt purchased, don’t you?

    On your purported handling of an Yvanova-related appeal that was remanded, for verification please provide the appeal number and COA district.

  25. @ Kalifornia , you have made so many analogies that you’ve confused yourself. The trustor (borrower) doesn’t own the rights to the proceeds of the borrower’s (trustor’s) mortgage payments.

    (And I’m very familiar with Yvanova, since I handled the only Yvanova-related appeal which made its way back to the trial court. The others all lost on rehearing in the Courts of Appeal).

  26. @ David Seal

    One more point of COMMON LAW, the empty plate is owned by the MAKER (“trustor” or “mortgagor”) who is the BAILOR in the BAILMENT of the pie & plate.

    That means the MAKER is the owner of the empty plate, which, as a matter of law, a BAILEE is collaterally estopped from claiming to own.

  27. @ David Seal

    Your answer was decided in Yvanova, wherein the Supreme Court found the logic of “defendants‘no-prejudice argument implies that anyone, even a stranger to the debt, could declare a default and order a trustee‘s sale—and the borrower would be left with no recourse because, after all, he or she owed the debt to someone, though not to the foreclosing entity. This would be an odd result indeed.” (Citing Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at p. 225.)

    The flaw is in your core premise that the FULL AMOUNT of an original debt was paid FOR VALUE by the purported buyer(s) of servicing (debt collection), rather than the bond/debt/REMIC purchasers at the inception of the securitization scheme.

    An anology: The origination transaction created a whole pie held by a pie plate for serving.

    At the inception of the securtization scheme, the originator-to-securitizer transaction caused the slicing of the pie, which was then sold “FOR piece-by-piece VALUE” to various bond/debt/REMIC purchasers. Thus, the pie is gone, piece-by-piece; however, the serving plate, with nothing in it but crumbs, still exists as past evidence that there was once a whole pie.

    Having sold the slices of the pie FOR VALUE, the empty serving plate is then “sold” (assigned), but not FOR VALUE; ad infinitum.

    Does the purchaser(s) of the pie plate own the whole pie, or a majority of the slices?

    If so, then the proof is in the present existence of the pie.

    If all that exists is the empty plate, see Yvanonva.

  28. @ Anon – Your response is non-responsive. You address an entirely different situation and issue than I did.

  29. David Seal — where you are wrong is that there is no assignment to “receive the proceeds.” The assignment is for collection rights. Just like a credit card debt. There is no longer a mortgage. There is no longer a note. It has been charged off. Collection rights are transferred by assignment. If the borrower never knows the name of the debt buyer who purchased those collection rights for likely pennies on the dollar, the debt is never paid even by bankruptcy or foreclosure. Also, the borrower has the right to try to negotiate on charged-off debt with the actual creditor. If they do not know the true creditor, that debt is not only never paid, but also the opportunity to save his/her home is never experienced. .

    I am not saying a debt is not owed. It is owed to someone, but not to the party claiming it is owed to them, and not at the inflated amount. And, the debt is no longer a secured one. The mortgage/note is gone. Debt collection is the biggest business in the world with massive fraud in collection. . . .

  30. Isn’t that like “unjust enrichment”? They keep getting paid and yet ask the ‘borrower’ to continue paying for a loan that the bank already got paid for. If so, why is the consumer continuing to pay, especially if original debt was acquired fraudulently? But they don’t want to address that;just passing the buck-literally. This country is amazing… the way banks are still allowed to harm consumers… TBTF

  31. So, is the author talking about taking and reselling the same loan, i.e., the rights to receive its proceeds of payment from the borrower, over and over? How does that work. You only have one borrower (or set of borrowers if husband and wife), and they’re only making one mortgage payment each month (if that). How then does a bank re-sell and re-assign something which by definition would be worthless after the first assignment? Is this a semantic error, or is the whole concept an urban myth?

    What does happen – and no one is disputing this – is the lender assigns the right to receive the proceeds to another entity. Then that entity has the right to receive the proceeds. It presumably paid a discounted rate to the 1st lender, to account for default risks, present value discounting of the future income stream, etc. Now that it has those rights, it can and sometimes does re-assign them to another and so on. It doesn’t really matter, but none of that results in the original lender being paid over and over by multiple 3rd (4th and 5th) parties for an assignment of the same set of rights. (And indeed we’d see a lot of litigation from second assignees if that were attempted).

    Where am I going wrong here? It is a myth. It gets homeowners wound up and thinking they have a case when they don’t because “fraud”. There is fraud, there are mortgage cases, but this theory is bunk.

    “Prove me wrong.”

  32. So painfull u know so much mr Garfield but the nerve the bank keep hurting thei clients! Took my down payment $50. and higher interest! For years then they threw us like plastic botles on st due to their Fake modification then the prepaid legal shield referred my to predator lawyer Mark Gallagher he did not have a name on my eviction case!

  33. they (the banks and attorney) were hoping you would never discover this info, now you can beat them every time

  34. What is the explanation of securitization with which You mostly agree with in the first paragraph?


    Leo Blas 907-350-5369


  35. I’ve been saying this for years as well !!!

    And where did my $100,000 hard cash down payment go ????

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: