Tonight! Investors Are Definitely NOT Beneficiaries Neil Garfield Show

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

with Neil F Garfield and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

OK this is another one I contributed to like Quiet Title. Don’t try for Quiet Title because you have a 99.99% chance of losing for good reasons that I missed when I first suggested it. 

Now stop thinking about investors as beneficiaries under a REMIC Trust (PSA), a Deed of Trust, mortgage, note, debt or anything else when it comes to residential mortgage loans — which may or may not be “loans” in any conventional sense. Just like we have torts without a name as long as you can plead duty, breach and proximately caused damages, we might  have a similar situation here with an agreement without a contract that is called a bond without any definite promise to pay. 

And the courts agree. When investors sue to take advantage of terms or provisions of the so-called trust instrument, the courts tell the investors they have no standing because they are not part of the trust instrument. They are not beneficiaries, they have no right to view the assets, or to complain about mismanagement. They waive all right, title or interest to the debts, notes and mortgages that are increasingly looking like they are not “underlying.” That word implies things that are not true. Investors never see your payment and never receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale and neither does the so-called REMIC Trust which as I have repeatedly pointed out does no exist in most instances. 

So the investors are not part of the trust and not a part of your loan deal. For example look at this:

No breach of contract claim under the pooling and service agreement was made by VNB against Wells Fargo because VNB, as a certificate holder, was not party to the pooling and service agreement.  VNB did argue that it was entitled to the benefits of that agreement because of its status as certificate holder, but the Court, without deciding whether VNB was entitled to those benefits or not, held that the rule prohibiting the negligence claims would still apply. VNB Realty v. US Bank, 2015 WL 8490948  (D.N.J. 12/10/15) 


7 Responses

  1. What do people who lost their homes through illegal foreclosures do?

  2. Bob G. where do you find in contract or in law that the verbally or written notion [prospectus – not within the words of any actual final agreement] that the investors were the intended third-party beneficiaries of [a] trust agreement with the offeror with rights against the underlying loans/debts/notes/mortgages even exists?

  3. So Boots, whatever happened to the notion that the investors were intended third-party beneficiaries of the trust agreement?

  4. Another good one from Neil. And there’s more to it —

    And, you know, there was an “exper”t on business channel talking about the Fed’s concern about possible “bubble” with corporate owed debt. So, the anchor says — “well that can cause a bobble. With the financial crisis fraud — only a small percentage defaulted, but the entire market went under quickly. Why?” No one could answer. But, it was more then was ever divulged.

    Hundreds of billions of dollars in loans that were fake loans — not mortgages/deeds of deeds of trust at all. Hundreds of billions of dollars — and they are still out there. .

    So the trustee comes in foreclosure, but if borrower paying and claims issues — then it is claimed the trust owns and the servicer is the TRUST. Hmmm — how did that come to be? How did the servicer get to be the trust? And,how is anything accounted for?

    Keep going Neil. .

  5. According to the LAW of Subrogation , substitution of one thing for another, , or of one person into the place of another , with respect to rights , claims or securities . This is an equitable device used to avoid injustice!! In other words, I have Dominion as director and Beneficiary of my Legal Person/Corporation, I am here to claim my Rights to my bond and securities NOW, through Subrogation, and DISCHARGE the entire debt, and balance the books!!! And by law they have to, and if any issues to try NOT to, go for there, Registration Statement Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, Demand to see there form OMB No. 1124-0001 , I want PROOF of Authority, they are PUBLIC, and we are Private!!

  6. So, if the courts have determined that investors/certificate holders of an alleged MBS/REMIC trust have no rights or recourse to the underlying debts, loans, notes or mortgages alleged to have been purchased by or transferred into the alleged trust, from where does the claimed trustee of the alleged MBS/REMIC trust claim the right to foreclose on any mortgage on behalf of the investors/certificate holders? Is it not true that one can only enforce in agency or trust those rights which the principal/grantor/investor possessed themselves?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: