If you take anything that the said by the foreclosure mill seriously or even the named trustee of a supposedly REMIC trust, you are going down a rabbit hole.
Here is my response in one such case.
Step by step:
- Bank of America is successor to the underwriters of the certificates that were sold to investors.
- Bank of America may or may not have the title of Master Servicer of one or more trusts, REMIC and otherwise — but that gives it NO administrative or servicing rights over your loan unless it has a servicing agreement with a party who paid value for the debt in exchange for ownership of the debt.
- So any introduction of BofA should be challenged properly and persuasively. BofA is irrelevant unless there is evidence that the trust is identified, still exists and owns the subject loan and has named BofA as Master Servicer.
- Mr. Tsang probably had nothing to do with the trust department because BNY has nothing in trust.
- BNY is also irrelevant —see yesterday’s post on questions to ask in discovery. They won’t answer —they will file objections, on which there must be a hearing after which they still won’t answer which is why you file a motion to compel then hearing then order compelling answers then still no answer then motion for sanctions and raise the inference that the debt is not owned by and therefore can’t be enforced using the name of BNY on anything.
- BNY has no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. therefore granting a power of attorney implies that is has the power when in fact it does not. A challenge should arise as to whether the grant of the power of attorney gives rise to the presumption that BNY had any power to grant it.
- CWALT is a fake conduit entity having legal existence but no business.
- CWALT trust does not exist but even if it did it never had any loans entrusted to BNY or anyone else to hold in trust for beneficiaries of the trust who were NOT the investors in any case.
- Investors are not beneficiaries. They are creditors.
- Remember there is no person or entity that is carrying your loan as an asset on their balance sheet under any heading even remotely related to the label “loan receivable.”
- Such an entry doesn’t exist both because there is no such receivable owed to them and because nobody wants to step into the shoes of “the lender” because that would mean active concealment of the real parties in interest.
- The sudden emergence of entirely new parties might give rise to lending and servicing law violations that were quite possibly or at least arguably tolled by the active concealment and fraud by the parties who wanted to loan money without being regulated by lending laws.
- It would also reveal the hidden yield spread premium between what the investors gave and what the borrowers got. And that certainly would give rise to lawsuits by investors.
- But just for background there is no real party in interest because the investors paid value but did not receive ownership of the debt either legally or equitably. they waived it. After that nobody had any reason to pay anything.
- The investment bank took money they received from investors and paid out part of what they received as a cost of doing business. They pocketed the rest as profit. That payout was labeled a loan. But the receivable was wiped off the books of the underwriter within 30 days because of the accounting treatment of receipt of funds from investors. There was a sham sale to the trust, which didn’t exist.
- Thus while the investment bank also paid value, they also chose not receive ownership of the debt, note or mortgage — something that is directly contrary to what they were telling the investors.
Filed under: foreclosure |
This is great, but ten years too late. They won already.
Wells Fargo came in as HSBC because the were succesor in interest to Wachovia in the real securitization, making them subject to my counterclaims. HSBC as Trustee was just a ruse.
God bless you, Neil.