Why “REMIC” Certificates Are Not Mortgage Backed

One of the things tying the SEC and the IRS in knots is that the securitization scheme was a scam that is now institutionalized. The Certificates pr “bonds” are not mortgage backed and that means the so-called REMIC trusts are not REMICs.

In answer to a question addressed to Bill Paatalo and myself about that I wrote the following:

The answer to the question is that the investors buy a certificate which is a contract, much like a promissory note. The certificate promises to pay certain money (a varying stream of revenue) based upon an index to several events outside the scope of the contract (certificate).
*
The certificate is unsecured in that it grants no right of enforcement against any collateral. While the indexing system  includes the behavior of residential mortgage loans, the investor is merely advised of the way in which a computation of his payments will be made.
*
The investor never receives any right, title or interest to those loans and never receives any right to enforce the terms of the debt, note or mortgage. The investor has not purchased the debt from which the loan agreements were drafted and thus would be barred by law from attempting to enforce a mortgage or deed of trust.
*
But investors are further barred by the indenture to the certificate which normally expressly waives any right, title or interest to the debt note or mortgage on any loan. Even if the indenture does not contain such an express waiver the investors are barred by the other restrictions contained in the Prospectus offering the Certificates to qualified investors. Thus the phrase “mortgage-backed” is merely a tag line that creates an illusion.
*
For all of these reasons the judges in tax cases have determined that the holders of REMIC certificates or “bonds” are not the holders of any secured obligation. The fact that the words “mortgage-backed” are used does not make the certificates backed by mortgages. They are not. But simply asserting that they are and naming them as such is sufficient to raise questions of fact that must be determined by courts.
*
This is particularly important in foreclosure cases where the case is asserted to be on behalf of the holders of the certificates. Since the holders have no right to foreclose it is obvious that  anyone representing the holders would have no more power than the actual holders of the certificates.
*
If you want further analysis and the development of strategy or tactics for a particular situation, the you must retain me to do and probably Bill as well. Since he can provide the actual exhibits and other evidence that would prove the analysis contained in this email.
I would add to that answer that the banks are succeeding procedurally where they cannot succeed substantively. First they make it appear that it is the banks who are foreclosing when it is the “trust.” So judges grant them more credibility than the debtor or borrower.
*
Second, the complexity of the securitization scheme is such that it takes a great deal of time for a lawyer, much less a judge to be convinced of what is written in this article. Once they do the work they know it and believe it. But they don’t do that work if they are not paid to do it, and most homeowners are unwilling to unable to pay for the education of the lawyer, who must then embark on educating the judge.
*
Hence you get what you pay for. The lawyer, ill-prepared to argue or reveal the complex points merely inserts stalling tactics seeking a modification, because that is all that the homeowner is willing or able to pay for. Judges, seeing this, are the led to believe that there are no real defenses to these foreclosures and that the foreclosure will end up paying the debt, which they don’t.

55 Responses

  1. Storm,
    Also, please pontificate on how to protect ourselves from the Real Estate Escrow closer who is using an “Indemnity Agreement” to hold them harmless when the servicer uses a “Lost Note Affidavit” to attempt to clear the debt. I would love to hear how you feel the escrow agents are fulfilling their fuduciary duty to both sides, when they accept indemification without disclosing this to the seller or buyer.

  2. Storm,
    In Brown v. Dept of Commerce, the justice department is legislating from the bench and eliminating the language in our signed contracts which states we are to address the “LENDER.” The “LENDER” is defined on our Promissory Notes.

    It’s interesting that you feel it’s okay for the courts to eviscerate the contract that we signed at the closing table.

  3. You have explained nothing. The “note” was not valid. Who claims to own a bogus “note” is the problem that goes on across the country.

    I suspect you are a debt buyers advocate. Debt is transferred by assignment – not “negotiable” notes. I also suspect that you like things just the way they are — BOGUS. It won’t last. Economy won’t take it. Everything goes in cycles.

    OH – and “Roger over and OUT” is a contradiction — “over and out” comes from “Roger Wilco over and Out.” It actually means — “I don’t want a reply,” So “over and out” means “I’m trying to sound as if I knew what I was doing, but I don’t”

    .

  4. ANON, that was my point, all of this nonsense is irrelevant; whoever owns or holds the note can foreclose–PERIOD!!!!

    I’ve wasted far too much of my time trying to explain how things actually work in the real world. Therefore, I’ll sign off. Its too hard trying to deprogram people that have been brainwashed into believing things that aren’t true. This isn’t high math, people just need to know what the courts opinions say regarding these stupid arguments I see on this blog and others, and maybe then they’ll catch on before its too late.

    If anyone would like to contact me, I’d be more than happy to point them in the right direction. Roger, over and out!

  5. Poppy, if you read my case than you know the court ruled in my favor, on the TILA claims, but against TILA rescission, that’s why I filed the lawsuit in the 1st place to get the law overturned in my circuit. Which the 4th cir. overturned themselves right after the judge issued his order denying rescission; and then Jesinoski happened after that. I argued the plain meaning rule, which the Jesinoski court found was the correct argument. Subsequently my bank went bankrupt, and when they come out of it, there will be rescission.

    As far as getting before the courts, its obviously different depending if its a judicial or a non-judicial state

  6. Storm — you miss the point – the distinction is irrelevant. Opinion does describe how a “covered person” may be beyond the creditor definition for TILA purposes according to new law. The definition of creditor is not altered. Nevertheless, whether creditor or covered person is used — security investors are neither. They do not lend directly to borrowers — their business is with the security underwriter. So — who is the real creditor – or “covered person” — when loan is claimed to be securitized? Security investors irrelevant to a borrower when in foreclosure or not. They never were relevant — even before private label securities. None of borrowers’ business. Will the real creditor please stand up?? The real “PETE” matters according to the law, and title. And, PETE is not the trust, security investors, trustee, or servicer — no matter what they tell you. Bridge still for sale.

    The Board also believes that Section
    404(a) of the 2009 Act does not alter the
    definition of ‘‘creditor’’ as currently
    used in TILA or Regulation Z. Thus, the
    fact that a person purchases mortgage
    loans and provides disclosures under
    § 226.39 does not by itself make that
    person a ‘‘creditor’’ for purposes of
    TILA and Regulation Z (even if the
    disclosure provided under Section
    404(a) uses the term ‘‘creditor’’).
    Accordingly, in describing the persons
    subject to the requirements of § 226.39,
    the interim final rule uses the term
    ‘‘covered person’’ rather than the term
    ‘‘creditor.’’

    Generally,TILA and Regulation Z cover only
    parties that are regularly engaged in
    consumer credit transactions, who are
    expected to have the capacity to put
    systems in place to ensure compliance
    with the rules.

    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.

  7. Can you be civil here? Ease up…I read your case and if I am right, you filed a TILA. The court rules against you saying: the TILA claim is dismissed, but the FDCPA claim moves forward. Reasoning by the court on TILA: you didn’t file suit within one year after sending the notice…now, that is wrong. Operation of law…Period! We all agree with you about much of what you say, that is not an issue.

    You also claim “possession” of the note was not acquired prior to proceedings against you. Yup…can you tell us how this played out? Be fair here. My stuff is all out here. What difference does it make?

    Give us a bite of how to get properly before these courts. What is legal, may not be lawful and common law v. commercial law, then a court of equity and equitable relief are different. Show me a sign.

  8. ANON, I not only read the definition I gave it to you, you don’t understand what you’re reading that’s why you haven’t provided YOUR facts, because Your facts are based on not understanding what you’re reading. That’s abundantly clear! This is an example of YOUR facts, completely inapposite. to the REAL facts.

    Once again, you said the : “covered person” is the creditor according to definitions.”

  9. Poppy – don’t say uncle – you are correct.

    Storm — read the definition yourself — TILA applies to creditors – who is the “covered person” described in the now codified law (opinion has become codified as part of the law). Not going to argue with you on this — call the fed res yourself. Not going to do homework for you.

    Here is the problem you don’t get — some tranches were NOT securitized. The original SERVICER kept them for themselves. In that case, there is no fiduciary trustee. The servicer concealed their debt ownership under the guise of a pass-through trust. Look at distribution reports — even though the top tranches have all been paid out, in many cases, large amounts have money have been shifted to the bottom tranche – never securitized — and held by the servicer. Now who was the original party paid — at the beginning you paid? It was not the claimed servicer for the trust for many.

    You sound like a debt collector yourself.

  10. Okay Storm, uncle…stays mean nothing, bankruptcy means nothing, etc…after a breach on the homeowner’s end, due to the unilateral contract you signed, the only right you have is pay or else. Judges and courts have no authority over them. I am so over this. Funny thing is: seems to be working exactly the way you say it does, Storm. You know an awful lot about the way the “lenders”, lmfao get rich, off others backs. And they say crime doesn’t pay…depends now, doesn’t it? Too tired to care…thanks for the banter folks. Signing out!

  11. Poppy, what difference does any of that make, even it was true, if the PETE can foreclose.

    Going to my boat.

  12. Why do internal documents say they do? Why do the internal documents say they are the investor? Why do documents claim properties are REO’s? ….the list is long, just a few herein. I signed a contract with New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC), they went bankrupt. They merged with the New Century Liquidating Trust (NCLT)…in 2008. The servicer comes along in 2012 acting as “attorney in fact”, for New century while the note is in the bankruptcy estate…asserting rights to collect on their, NCMC behalf, not NCLT. A stay is in place, by the federal court too, for NCMC…then here’s the servicer going to state court filing a claim for injury, by the REMIC on behalf of NCMC (dead)…Bwah, Bwah, Bwah…while the stay is active, pending suit is moving through the court and the corporation is “DEAD”. Please humor me and tell me how this works. If this works, I am done fighting. It means to me, the entire system is f***ed. A free for all. Actually, free houses for all of these bums. Homeowner’s pay for some who gives shit…Ha, Ha, Ha, if you can find anyone.

  13. Poppy, two points. Servicers don’t buy anything from tranches.

    As to your question: “what contract do they rely on for rights to collect?” The one you signed at closing.

  14. ANON, once again its clear, you don’t understand what you’re reading.

    First the language you posted doesn’t come from Regulation Z.

    This is the language from REG. Z 226.39:

    A “covered person” means any person, as defined in § 1026.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation IF the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.

    This is from the Official Staff Commentary on Regulation Z interpreting paragraph 39(a)(1):

    Covered persons. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any “covered person” that becomes the legal owner of an existing mortgage loan, whether through a purchase, or other transfer or assignment, regardless of whether the person also meets the definition of a “creditor” in Regulation Z. The fact that a person purchases or acquires mortgage loans and provides the disclosures under THIS SECTION DOES NOT BY ITSELF MAKE THAT PERSON A “CREDITOR” AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATION.

    Your said the : “covered person” is the creditor according to definitions.” Well, you’re obviously wrong!

    Its clear you don’t understand what you’re reading, and this is probably true about how you learned YOUR facts as well.

  15. If the servicer buys the lower tranches of the mortgage pool, they know what they have bought. In fact, they may have only been transferred rights, with someone in the background getting payment…no good discovery on that. Either way, if they, the servicer is the investor-owner-holder and servicer, it is a grave conflict. They are dishonest to all.

    If the loans are not in the trust, what contract do they rely on for rights to collect? Why do they continue to come before the courts as a REMIC? In my case, I would be better fighting with Ocwen, the servicer, in their own name. The reality is: they can get a default judgment against me, if they acquired the note. Just not after the SOL is run and they know it.

    What is the necessity to hide who they are employed by, if mere possession is enough? Makes no sense, logically. Just come to the court with your receipt and documents…Done!

  16. Ian – Storm doesn’t care — it is all about MONEY. Always is.

    Storm — Dodd Frank changed the TILA, and the Fed Res then gave an opinion – which became codified as law. See below. And, there are many problems with the “Note” including – 1) who the real party who claims to have originally signed, 2) charge-off status of debt at origination 3) Who is giving authority to hold anything? 4) how much was the right to debt collect purchased for? I have seen notes altered during a trial (yes attorney won that case). Now, I do agree that servicers sometimes purchase debt. But, they have to say so, and validate it – but they don’t. See last paragraph below. I have asked you this question over and over, but you do not respond — If the servicer claims to “hold” – how did they get the authority — from who? The trustee? You do not define “beneficiary” — which, according to below, is not a creditor. Also, when a loan is modified, who makes the decision and on behalf of who?

    Note from below — “covered person” is the creditor according to definitions., The Fed Res opinion is now law is codified at Federal Register Volume 74.

    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
    12 CFR Part 226
    [Regulation Z; Docket No. R–1378]
    Truth in Lending

    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.

    Under TILA section 131(f)(2), a
    party servicing the mortgage loan is not
    treated as the owner of the obligation if
    the obligation was assigned to the
    servicer solely for the administrative
    convenience of the servicer in servicing
    the obligation.

    .

  17. 15 U.S.C. § 1640. Subsection (f) exempts servicers from liability unless the servicer also is or was the CREDITOR or assignee of the obligation. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f).

    Bingo…

  18. Ian, as usual, you’re wrong. Nothing in the TILA amendment “states that the Servicer is never the creditor”. It’s you who’s serving the Koo-Aid. This is the 2nd time I had to correct your disinformation.

    Congress amended TILA’s civil liability provision and liability of assignees provision as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-22, § 404(g), 123 Stat. 1632, 1658. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 amended TILA in two ways: First, it added subsection (g) to 15 U.S.C. § 1641, requiring that new loan owners notify the borrower of certain information about the assignment. Second, it added the phrase “subsection (f) or (g) of section 1641” to the civil liability provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1640. Subsection (f) exempts servicers from liability unless the servicer also is or was the CREDITOR or assignee of the obligation. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f).

  19. ANON, I was not trying to be disrespectful, I was just pointing out that some of your comments were not true, which is a fact.

    Also, you claim the justices of the Sup. Ct. of Washington didn’t read the law. What they held IS the law, and has been the law for years. Moreover, their not the only court that has ruled that way:

    The Commercial Law Article makes clear, however, the distinction between a holder and an owner. As the Comment to § 3–203 states, “[t]he right to enforce an instrument and ownership of the instrument are two different concepts.” THE HOLDER OF A NOTE IS “ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE INSTRUMENT EVEN [IF IT IS] NOT THE OWNER OF THE INSTRUMENT OR IS IN WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF THE INSTRUMENT.” Id. at § 3–301. See also In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 909 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.2011) (“Article 3 does not necessarily equate the proper person to be paid with the person who owns the negotiable instrument.”); SMS Financial, LLC v. ABCO Homes, Inc., 167 F.3d 235, 238–39 (5th Cir.1999) (noting that a party’s status as a holder and its attendant right to enforce an instrument is separate from the party’s status as the owner of that instrument); In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 280 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2012) (“[T]he borrower’s obligation is to pay the person entitled to enforce the note (who need not be the ‘owner’ of the note).”); In re Simmerman, 463 B.R. 47, 60 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2011) (noting that “the holder of the note may differ from the owner of the note”). As the court noted in In re Veal, “[u]nder established rules, the maker [of a note] should be indifferent as to who owns or has an interest in the note so long as it does not affect the maker’s ability to make payments on the note.” 450 B.R. at 912.

    Again, the owner can’t foreclose unless, they’re the PETE as well, except in one circumstance: “[N]othing in the statute allows an ‘owner’ to enforce the note without possession, except where the instrument is lost or destroyed.” (citing § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2009)).

    You continue to insinuate that I don’t know what went on, so you will “clue” me in. You again are making assumptions, you don’t know what I know. However, I do know how the law works and so do the courts, and neither I or the courts need anyone to “clue” us in.

    Again, you and I can not discuss YOUR facts until you produce them; that’s what I’m talking about being a waste of time—no disrespect intended.

  20. ANON- nicely put- I am not in foreclosure either./when I fell behind in payment s years ago, I was shell shocked and looked everywhere for answers, which is how I found Neils’s site. My most recent fraudulent activity on the part of my servicer was 3 weeks ago when I got a renewal notice from my homeowner insirance, when I noticed that my mortgage servicer had listed themselves ( again) as the mortgagee. They first did that in 2010 and i objected. They responded by changing their status to “ first named insurged” and I let it go. Now I’m
    Pondering my response. The 2008’TILA amendment states that the servicer is never the creditor.
    With 2 kids in private colleges (NESCAC), and one in boarding school, I struggle st times to keep payments timely.Also, I printed out the 119 pages of trusts registered w the irs in the relevant quarter of the relevant year and out of 4200. Trusts their alleged trust was not listed, so it didn’t exist. So they are a lying bunch of dortbaga, and if I ever pay off the mortgage I won’t get a clear title. My assignments are plagued by rodosignors, 1 orlf them never worked for the bank she claimed to be signing for (14 phone calls
    As d hours of searching), and the Chicago
    title co. president hung up on me twice when Inpolitely called looking for information. Also my MERS number had only 17 digits rather than then required 18 on my courthouse docs and MERS
    Mortgage AOMs.
    What a bunch of lowlifes. Oh- the company purporting to hold my mortgage here in 2019 was ridiculed by their state Secretary of State in 2009 for not having a net worth or being able to post a bond of $150.,000 in order to fulfill The capital requirements to remain in business, so they were issued a cease and desist order.
    In 2009 and went out of business. I have more money on hand than that for my lowly contracting business.
    Anyway, storm bradford is selling his kool aid to those who want to drink it.
    Please email me at your earliest convenience and updat eme as to your case.

  21. Storm – you lose your credibility when you are not business-like polite. Your other post was a bit more cordial — and i respect that Not here. Anger is here and I don’t know why.

    The importance of any affidavit is critical, and you know that – the wording is immaterial. The reluctance to do so is also obvious in many states. It is not happening. .

    There are no “ifs” — and aunts and uncles parts are not relevant.

    Fundamental questions are not answered. Beneficiaries are not owners. Obviously, the Washington court did not read the law – codified by the Federal Reserve as to “creditor” and “TILA.” (Dodd Frank) Beneficiaries are not owners.

    You are not wasting time on me. I am not in foreclosure. i am trying to “clue” you in as to what really went on. You can take it or leave it. Up to you. Your personal attacks are not warranted. There are no bad feelings on my end — use it or lose it. If you can help your foreclosure victim “clients” with any direction, I hope you will look at it. If you choose not to — that is your choice. Of course, if they are not really your clients — no one should be responding to you. I have been polite. I expect the same in return. We all deserve courtesy. I have never been rude to you. I respect all opinions. This is a heartbreaking situation for so many people. We all ask to be treated with dignity. And, our country deserves the truth.

    Thanks for your input. No hard feelings. Your road is your road, but respect that some disagree. We can agree to disagree- politely.

  22. ANON, to many “ifs,” if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

    Again, you employed another scammer tactic, claim someone said something when they didn’t. Never said: “just pay” anyone. I quoted from a Washington State Sup. Ct. case, pay the PETE and the note is discharged, that’s how the law has worked for ever. I’m sorry you don’t like the law.

    Also, you claim that the court said: “THERE MUST BE “undisputed declaration under penalty of perjury that it is the actual holder of the note.” that’s not what the court said at all. It said: “We further hold that a party’s undisputed declaration submitted under penalty of perjury that the party is the holder of the note satisfies the DTA’s proof of beneficiary provisions.” Never said “there must be a undisputed declaration under penalty of perjury.” Big difference between what you said.

    This is part of the problem, most people not literate in law read what they want to read, not what the law actually says.

    Again, you supplied more rhetoric with no facts, because you’re basically wasting my time I won’t waste anymore time replying, until you ever supply YOUR facts. But when you do, I assure you what you believe is mostly nonsense and far from how things actually work, so I’ll be more than happy to correct your misconceptions at that time.

  23. Storm – be careful – you are advising people to “just pay” anyone. Quoting you – “borrower is typically unconcerned with the identity or separate existence of the owner—the party to whom the proceeds of the loan will ultimately be paid. If the borrower pays the PETE, the borrower’s obligation is satisfied.”

    Borrower should be concerned — look at title in judicial states – but, should apply to all states the same. You pay the wrong party — you are doomed for life. Now, if you lose your house, who cares? But, if you keep your house – you must care – you will not get that money back to pay the “real” party – it will be gone – and it will affect title. .

    Who is real beneficiary? Not “was”, at one time, but is NOW. Try to think outside box of enforcement, and under debt collection and title. .

    Case you cite emphasizes that there must be “undisputed declaration under penalty of perjury that it is the actual holder of the note.” If the servicer holds -there must be authority from the trustee. Not only is that never produced, but also, trustee is never even represented.

    While you are correct that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae currently hold 98% of mortgages, they did not have this share during the financial crisis. Private label securities (PLS) came close to equal to GSE market share. However, GSEs invested in the PLS. Explain how this happened — thanks.

    Today, foreclosures much more straightforward, but if you have a financial crisis loan — not so. The problems deep and current “beneficiary” not so easily ascertained. Not many attorneys will sign any declaration under oath today — they know better.

  24. The case you cite is even applicable, your talking apple and oranges. CPM was not an institutional lender and was not the PETE.

    Ownership is the right to economic benefits of the note, and includes monthly payments, the proceeds of a voluntary payoff or short sale, and foreclosure proceeds. The significance of these two sets of rights, ownership and PETE status, is sharply distinct. PETE status refers to rights against the maker of the note—the borrower. Thus, a borrower can negotiate with the party having PETE status to modify the loan, accept a payoff for less than the face amount owed, or approve a “short sale” or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and be assured that any agreement reached with the PETE in any of these negotiations will be binding. On the other hand, the borrower is typically unconcerned with the identity or separate existence of the owner—the party to whom the proceeds of the loan will ultimately be paid. If the borrower pays the PETE, the borrower’s obligation is satisfied.

    While these two sets of rights may well be, and often are, held by the same party, they can also be separated. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, own 98% of all non-jumbo loans in the US, normally deliver possession of a note to the servicer when it is necessary to foreclose. Hence, the servicer becomes the PETE, while Fannie or Freddie remains the owner and has the right to the proceeds of foreclosure.

    “As we have explained, that factor is relevant because the servicer holds the note, has authority to enforce the note, has authority to modify the note, is the person to whom the borrower owes her obligation, and is the person to whom the borrower pays to DISCHARGE her obligation… (“[A]n instrument is paid to the extent payment is made … to a person entitled to · enforce the instrument[, a PETE]. To the extent of the payment, the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged….”(emphasis added)). After discharging its obligations to the PETE, the borrower cannot thereafter be held liable on the note by another party, such as the note owner. !d.

    In sum, the borrower owes and discharges his or her obligation to the PETE. The PETE enforces and modifies the note. This relationship remains the case “even though the [PETE] is not the owner of the instrument.” RCW 62A.3-301. The PETE’s possession of the note provides the borrower “with a relatively simple way of determining to whom his or her obligation is owed and, thus, whom to pay in
    order to be discharged.” Brown v. Washington State Dept. of Commerce, 359 P. 3d 771 – Wash: Supreme Court 2015.

    You need to read that case, it lays it out quite well.

  25. In re Columbia Pac. Mortgage:
    “”The forwarding of funds to CPM did not satisfy the security interest; and the Johnstone’s, through their agent, Lawyer’s Title, acted at their risk in closing the escrow without obtaining possession of the note and a reconveyance of the deed of trust.”

  26. Storm — I have the facts – and did not discover until many, many years later. Everything done to the “T” at closing, but nothing occurred as stated – causing a nightmare for us, and fraud upon investors.

    Now, was this just an outside incident? No. Can support that it was not. And, major “players” involved.

    Sit back, cool off, and think — on whose balance sheets were these loans supposed to be reflected for securitization, and whose balance sheet do they now lie?

    If you are as smart as you try to convey, and I do not dispute that you are — you will get that something went very wrong.

    The problem is it takes work to figure it out. Courts are not capable of putting two and two together – must spell it out. But, first, you must do the home work, and that home work does not start and end with last transaction. THAT is the major problem. People see anomalies but they don’t know why. Those anomalies do not exist just by “clerical” but for a much larger reason.

    Wish you the best for your “clients,” and hope those clients are not debt buyers.

    Have a good day.

  27. perpetualWAR, not a “false claim.” I back up my comments with the law, let’s see yours, and I bet it doesn’t contradict what I posted.

  28. Storm,
    You falsely claim if you pay the servicer, you don’t owe anything more. In my state, there is case law that if the borrower doesn’t know they paid the correct party, they still owe the debt.

    So, please stop your generalities. thanks.

  29. Poppy, you help people by giving them strategies that actually; not selling worthless chain of title/securitiztion/forensic loan audits, or stall arguments that not only waste time and money, but actually cost the homeowner more money.

    Don’t get me wrong, these audit scammers and stall attorneys are “helping.” Helping enrich themselves by stealing money from homeowners, and eventually helping homeowners lose their homes!

  30. What a wonderful world it would be if people were not flawed…and every unexpected situation was within our control. The courts are on overload with this type of stuff. One must know the right questions to ask. Much of the time, you understand way late in the game. The originators of the contract know…always a way around the problem, but very expensive. The hustle is always the same. Teaser rates, high appraisals, “as is” sales, no money down…you can afford it, monthly payment, yada-yada-yada…yeah, well I have a bridge for sale too. Not my plight, but I have seen so many, when resolution was possible and refused. Storm, most people still trust and believe even bankers will do the right thing. Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha ….good luck with that!

    Being uniformed should not cost anyone their lives work, family and health. That price is way high, for making a mistake or falling on misfortune. Just help them, damn it.

  31. Poppy, I’ll tell you just like a judge will tell you. “You have a duty to read, if you didn’t read the contract, that’s on you. If you didn’t understand what you were reading, you should have brought a lawyer with you.”

    The court’s aren’t biased, the homeowner breached the contract, and and agreed the bank could take the property if they did. The court listens to some dupe with a bunch of stupid arguments he heard from some scammer, or his stall attorney makes that has nothing to do with the subject matter–did the borrower breach the contract. They’re not biased, just upholding the contract, if they have no contract defenses.

    If I borrow money to open a restaurant, and I have terrible food, terrible service and the business goes belly up, is the bank to blame, is the judge who gives judgement to the bank biased, No, and I’m not a victim, I’m a bad business man.

  32. My comment is this and I do not want to waste more time on the “fake lenders” – debt collectors. I don’t know anyone who has read these mortgage contracts in full, before the signing. The note, easy. I think
    # 20, mortgage-DOT where they talk about sales, assignments, transfers, etc…I am subject to the court because it was brought before the judge. I must play by those rules, unfortunately.

    My comparison is this: fighting with “debt collectors” many years for different reasons (not just for me, my dad, brother)), an easy win. The contract is always the issue, as you say. Clearly, I am no legal scholar. The lender guys, even with serious problems associated with their paperwork and behavior, a win is so difficult, in the mortgage=loan situation. They are the one’s screaming: it’s in the trust, it’s secured, your honor. The captions say it all…if you are saying, it doesn’t matter, then why bother with all that. It’s a bearer instrument and go get your money.

    I have so many questions and doubts about the underlying metrics here. We can agree on the manner in which one needs to take the fight, but I cannot believe, the fight is in any way, just, fair or unbiased with the courts. Over time I have seen judges change their mind i.e. memorandums in favor of homeowner’s disappear from plain sight, reports from accounting firms showing the deception long before a bankruptcy was filed (default expectations and problems, KPMG report), files are missing paperwork and now destroyed, etc…pumping -dumping these shell companies, making Billions.

    If these cats were on the up and up, how does it take so long to prove to the court they have rights? Show a receipt, for your loss-injury, done. These contracts are unilateral. This situation is worsening with arbitration agreements, in some cases work order’s replacing actual contracts, …they’ll finance anything, a rock, then claim foul. Out of control. Average people are unequipped to deal with these finance contracts. And this economy, is not cash-stable. It wouldn’t take much for this to dump again…

    Just saying…my opinion and I do not fully agree with the courts.

  33. ANON, I had a homeowner tell me the same thing about notes; I told him “that’s scammer nonsense;” he said; “when I told the judge the same thing, the judge said that’s crackpot lunacy, and then granted the bank’s summary judgement motion.”

    What facts do you have to support your legal conclusion that there’s “no “NOTE” — charged off – before borrower ever signed any transaction”? And back it up with some cases, like I do.

  34. Storm — you miss the point!! There is no “NOTE” — charged off – before borrower ever signed any transaction. This is just unsecured debt collection. I know YOU know that.

    No one should pay debt without it being validated. BELIEVE ME — I MADE THAT MISTAKE IN PAST. You are doomed – forever.

    It is a major mistake to keep paying. You just don’t get it. Ruined my life by it —

    People are not idiots.— smarter than me. They know a scam when they see it. Don’t be part of it. Don’t know you — but, I really don’t think you fall into that scam category. You just need to dig deeper.

    Do NOT tell anyone to pay something to someone when they don’t know that party has any rights. THAT Is BAD advice.

    Not an attorney myself, I don’t advise. Just saying I made a mistake – not once – but several times. Don’t advise something you know is WRONG. And, if you do not know it is wrong – I DO know it is wrong —
    I have lived it.

  35. Poppy, what were the “unknown” caveats” in your contract?

  36. And so you know: my faith in oncologists, cardiologists, any “ologist”…has waned. Trust is not something I give freely…too many have slapped my hand reaching across the table. Then I am stuck alone, picking up the shattered remnants. So many here and across the country. It would be nice to know what we are getting into. Life has many unexpected outcomes…predatory behavior is not always obvious.

  37. I am not questioning what you do…What I am saying: most average people got caught in the middle of this and because of the contracts, that were written with “unknown” caveats…a lot of people lost everything and it cost them their lives, family and health. The price is way too high. We can do better in this country. Remember Wall Street sold many of these junk mortgages to other countries. depending on how they handled it, the outcomes were better. Denmark, Norway I think….reduced the homeowner’s mortgage to reflect the real value.

    One USA Example: the money from the fiasco that was garnered for the “underwater” homeowner’s, was taken to fill a budget shortfall in the state of NC? Where are the law suits over that?

    This could have been handled better…is all I am saying. 100% get IT!

  38. Poppy, we can have all of the academic debates we want, who’s right and who’s wrong. That’s not what my company is about, we’re about a remedy for someone in foreclosure.

    An analogy for us would be we’re oncologists; we don’t care how or why you got cancer, we have strategies to cure it, and the patient doesn’t care about the how or why either, they just want to end their suffering.

  39. ANON, you proved my point: “they stopped paying because they didn’t know WHO money would go to.” they listened to scammer nonsense, prior to 2006, would even have thought of that. And if you paid the Servicer the note would be discharged: IN RE VEAL, 450 B.R. at 912 (“[Plaintiffs] should not care who actually owns the Note-and it is thus irrelevant whether the Note has been fractionalized or securitized-so long as they do know who they should pay.”).

    Moreover, in this press release I explained what a homeowner could do to eliminate the problem of who to pay: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/mortgage-fraud-examiners-warns-homeowners-to-beware-of-the-latest-foreclosure-rescue-scam-securitization-audits-682670.htm, “if homeowners and their legal counsel really had doubts about who had the legal right to foreclose they’d file what’s known as a interpleader action listing everyone who might have a claim, deposit their mortgage payment with the Court, and let the lenders and assignees fight it out. However, you never see that, since defaulting homeowners and their counsel really don’t care who has the right to foreclose, so long as it’s not THE bank foreclosing now. It’s just about stalling, and lining the pockets of ‘pretender defenders.'”

    Lastly, why you would think your an “idiot” for honoring a contract you signed strains credulity. In actuality, you should be admired

  40. Like you, I can put on many names of people, that didn’t just stop making payments. And further, at a point the “alleged lenders” were telling people they could receive no assistance unless, they were 2-4 payments behind. These people were actually encouraging defaults. I know, because the faux lender told me that too.

    It’s more complicated Storm. I scoured documents early on and found teaser rates, pushing upwards of 12% when they reset. People that owed minimal money and were not allowed a refinance or mod. Yet, these cats were handing out money for first time home buyer’s that clearly couldn’t afford a house. You’re arguments are compelling. But, there is much more to this…just saying. These debt collectors are lining their pockets. Not altruistic in any way…I hear everything you are saying. Takes two to tango. I was honest, they were not.

  41. OH — and courts are held hostage to the scams. Not sure judges fault – or attorney representation fault. We will get to that too – in time. .

    Thanks!!!

  42. NO Storm — they stopped paying because they didn’t know WHO money would go to. Believe me — you pay wrong party – you are PERMANENTLY SCREWED.

    And miss one payment — no one would accept ANYTHING after that. They were also TRAPPED — high interest rate, with underwater home value. What idiot would pay but me??? Admit – I am AM an IDIOT to keep paying. I admit that. BIG REGRET. BIGGEST REGRET IN MY LIFE.

    OH — never missed one payment since purchase of home more than thirty years ago — OH — and have proof of all payments. Does that matter? Nope. NO one cares. .

    But I had no choice – believe me. Can’t say why. But, what I discovered is BEYOND what is discussed here. I think you can figure it out. Cause no one else is doing it here. GO TO IT!!! You can do it!!!!
    I am sure you can do it!!! Unless – you are on the other side. I just can’t figure out whether you are or not. Keep pondering it. Not sure.

    Have a good day.

  43. ANON, glad to hear you haven’t breached your contract, you won’t believe how many homeowners stopped making their payments because they bought into the scammer nonsense.

    BTW, I don’t pay attention to the media, but we all have to pay attention to what the courts hold; even though sometimes we might not like their holdings.

  44. Storm — if you believe what the media told you about the financial crisis– I have a bridge to sell. It is very nice – you will like it!! Promise!!.

    Look — not going to argue case decisions that are far from the truth. I admit – these cases are not good. But they do not tell the truth. The truth is never allowed.

    I have nothing against securitization. As long as there is no fraud. But, fraud we have.

    I am not in foreclosure. I have nothing to worry about. BUT — I am not going to cry “Uncle.,” I will stand by every single foreclosure victim I have come to know. I will continue, and at the expense of my own situation, for the truth and principle. . .

    Thanks for your input!! Appreciate it!!

  45. ANON, 1st, the financial crisis was not caused by securitization. Securitization arguments are frivolous. I’ve already posted plenty of cases, where the courts laugh at such nonsense. Sorry you don’t like the truth, but securitization is “valid”

    And to your other comment: “all that foreclosure victims can establish is missing or fake documents, and that the real party is not there.” of course that’s all they can argue, because they never attacked the contract.

    The courts understand these cases are breach of contract cases, but because you have all of these scammers and legal illiterates throwing mud in clear water, these poor homeowners are going down rabbit holes, and at the end of the hole is foreclosure. MOHAMMED DANESH-BAHREINI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALAW et al., Defendants and Respondents.(No. A146911.Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two.Filed March 8, 2018.) (“A NONJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS A PRIVATE, CONTRACTUAL PROCEEDING…”); HORVATH V. BANK OF NEW YORK, N.A
    , 641 F.3d 617, 624 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Of course Horvath is right that “deeds of trust and their underlying notes are `separate and distinct’ documents’. . . . But it is equally clear that `NOTES AND CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN AGREEMENTS EXECUTED AS PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTION WILL BE CONSTRUED TOGETHER AS FORMING ONE CONTRACT.’ Where `neither document varies or contradicts the terms of the other, [the] terms of one document which clearly contemplate the application of terms in the other may be viewed together as representing the complete agreement of the parties.’ Here, that `agreement’ is that the note and deed of trust form part of one transaction, that the note may be transferred freely with the purchaser or recipient inheriting full rights to enforce, and that the deed of trust follows the note.”) (quoting Va. Rous. Dev. Auth. v. Fox Run Ltd. P’ship, 255 Va. 356, 497 S.E.2d 747, 752-53 (1998) (quoting Jim Carpenter Co. v. Potts, 255 Va. 147, 495 S.E.2d 828, 833 n. 5 (1998); Richmond Postal Credit Union v. Booker, 170 Va. 129, 195 S.E. 663, 665 (1938))) (internal citations omitted) (alternations and emphasis in original); Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 841 F.3d 550 (1st Cir. 2016), (“A MORTGAGE CONTRACT CAN VALIDLY MAKE MERS THE MORTGAGEE AND AUTHORIZE IT TO ASSIGN THE MORTGAGE ON BEHALF OF THE LENDER TO THE LENDER’S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.”).

    I could post hundreds more. You want to win attack the contract, and leave all of these stupid arguments that nobody has ever won.

  46. Anon- very succinctly put.

  47. Storm — I understand securitization — background in finance. The problem is —it was still a contract that was supposed to pay off the prior loan by the borrower. This did not occur. Also, In order for securitization to be valid, it must first be held as an asset on SOMEONE”s balance sheet. This did not occur.

    I understand your points. It is just that the financial crisis was just that — a crisis, as securitization was not, and did not do, what it was supposed to do. I also understand that the government will not backtrack on this. But, with each court battle, all that foreclosure victims can establish is missing or fake documents, and that the real party is not there. And, no one questions WHY. If securitization was valid, which it was not, we would not have these questions – and the financial crisis would never have occurred.

  48. ANON, a securitized deal begins with an agreement between a lender and a borrower as to the amount borrowed, interest rate paid, collateral to secure the loan, and loan maturity. The borrower’s obligation is then sold or pledged to a trust along with a variety of other similar loans, creating the securitized product.

    Contrary to what these legal illiterates and scammers would have you believe, securitization is not a new concept. Securitization originated in its most basic form in the late 18th century with farm securitization by railroads to assist in funding the expansion of the railroad system across the United States.

  49. This is not the issue. The issue is — what was securitized in the first place??? Not what anyone here thinks. Maybe Storm does – but he is not saying.

  50. Storm Bradford thinks courts are not corrupt. That is specious.

  51. Courts, IRS and lawyers going along part of fraud business model

  52. Paatalo’s case where the court laughed at his stupid securitization arguments. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12271706159927051549&q=Paatalo&hl=en&as_sdt=10006

  53. More useless, rhetoric. and an admittance everyone loses making this argument. Every court in the country that has heard this securitization nonsense laughs at it.

    UPPERMAN V. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT’L TRUST CO., No. 01:10-cv-149, 2010 WL 1610414, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2010) (rejecting claims because they are based on an “erroneous legal theory that the securitization of a mortgage loan renders a note and corresponding security interest unenforceable and unsecured”); RODENHURST V. BANK OF AM., 773 F. Supp. 2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) (“The overwhelming authority does not support a [claim] based upon improper securitization.”) “[S]ince the securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the Note and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of securitization fail.” LAMB V. MERS, INC., 2011 WL 5827813, *6 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (citing cases); BHATTI, 2011 WL 6300229, *5 (citing cases); HORVATH V. BANK OF NY, N.A., 641 F.3d 617, 626 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011) (securitization irrelevant to debt); COMMONWEALTH PROP. ADVOCATES, LLC V. MERS, 263 P.3d 397, 401-02 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (securitization has no effect on debt); ); HASKINS V. MOYNIHAN, No. CV-10-1000-PHX-GMS, 2010 WL 2691562, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010) (rejecting claims based on securitization because plaintiffs could point to no law indicating that securitization of a mortgage is unlawful, and “[p]laintiffs fail
    to set forth facts suggesting that Defendants ever indicated that they would not bundle or sell the note in conjunction with the sale of mortgage-backed securities”); LARIVIERE V. BANK OF N.Y. AS TR., Civ. No. 9-515-P-S, 2010 WL 2399583, at *4 (D. Me. May 7, 2010) (“Many people in this country are dissatisfied and upset by [the securitization] process, but it does not mean that the [plaintiffs] have stated legally cognizable claims against these defendants in their amended complaint.”).

    I could post hundreds more!!

    Moreover, you continue to give credit to this securitization audit scammer. He testified he used information provided by ABSNet, a subscriber service that provides “back accounting” information on mortgage-backed securities. Rivera v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. (In re Rivera) (B.A.P. 9th Cir., 2016). If they’re not mortgage backed securities, he wouldn’t be able to find them on ABSNet.

    Furthermore, why would anyone want to hire this legal illiterate; he lost his cases making stupid arguments, and all of the people that have bought his useless audits have as well, or are about to.

  54. can someone help me find Ken Lauer who signed an endorsement on my note.

  55. This comment I am 100% sure of…no REMIC. But, contracts are being used, alluding to the REMIC, which is all a fabrication. Transferring an interest with no consideration = no injury. Show the receipt, I’ll shut up, done! Why would they keep going and going, like the energizer bunny. Spending endless funds to litigate? “cause they have no real loss”, or injury. A business model like that makes no sense, if they paid the note off and spent thousands in court. They show show a document of default…and copies of ledgers, overlapping from a service transfer. Whatever! The Department of Motor Vehicles has move oversight. Just saying…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: