Brilliant Analysis of Securitization Sleight of Hand

A person with whom I am well acquainted and who prefers to remain in the background just sent the following email to me, Bill Paatalo and Charles Marshall.

Thanks to the Virus, I had some free time to catch-up on Neil’s blogs and radio shows; as such, I just listened to your piece with Charles on the Christiana Trust counter-suit.  One thing that took me by surprise is that Rushmore is seemingly linked to that trust (or phantom trust).

While you may recall, one of my cases (my principal mortgage) that began with GreenPoint, then supposedly was taken-over by Capital One, was passed to Rushmore upon Cap-One exiting the mortgage business, but then oddly got repositioned with Carrington.  I discovered that Carrington was the principal player of Christiana Trust and its nesting of it, into Wilmington.  However, that trust tomfoolery now has been superseded by the Stanwich Trust bag of snakes.

Hence, Stanwich is nested into Wilmington.  It seems to me that the real player is Carrington.  I discovered that Stanwich has lots of offshoots, i.e. a list of trusts (A, B, C, etc.) registered in Delaware, but also other entity permutations of “Stanwich” (https://whalewisdom.com/filer/stanwich-mortgage-acquisition-company-llc).

If you prowl around SEC docs, you’ll notice that the signatory of Stanwich Acquisition is Andrew M Taffet.  Mr. Taffet also happens to be the Chief Investment Officer & Head of Asset Management at Carrington Capital Management (i.e. LINKEDIN).

After looking in a bunch of dusty corners, I suspect that my mortgage, originated by GreenPoint in 2005 (then a wholly owned subsidiary of North Fork Bancorp) was likely securitized (I’m thinking either Lehmann or Bear, but could have taken another or other routes).  Since CapOne retained the image datafile, they had access to an image of the Note which they then reconstituted and indorsed the falsified/forged note and presented it as prima facie evidence of ownership.  But piecing together my conjecture, it gets worse…

When CapOne decided to jettison all of these dubious notes and claims in 2018, they handed the box of bullshit to Carrington who poses as the new servicer, saying that Wilmington is the Owner.  But not really Wilmington per se.  “Wilmington as Trustee of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A”. This is a bit of sleight of hand.  Wilmington “as” Trustee “of”.  For this charade let’s turn to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. “of the People, by the people and for the people” – three distinct prepositions (Of, By & For).  Wilmington claims in its moniker to be “of” Stanwich, not “for” Stanwich.  Example if Tom Brady plays some tag football with me and my buddies in the park, he is still Tom Brady “of” the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, but he is not playing with us “for” the Buccaneers – a subtle but profound difference.

Digging deeper, I found that Cap-One seems to own shares/units in Stanwich Acquisition Securities, which causes me to think that there was no money changing hands, CapOne simply exchanged fraudulent mortgages for shares  After all, the (CapOne) had no skin in the game anyway.

The GreenPoint saga is equally as convoluted.  I know that you know that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. “surrendered” is California operation back in 2004.   But this tale is very circuitous and dubious.  Without belaboring the details.  GreenPoint Bank evolved in to GreenPonit Financial, with GreenPoint Bank and GreenPoint Mortgage as subs in or around 1998.  Notwithstanding, there was another Corporation registered in NY (Credit Suisse Asset Management, Inc.)  Somehow, in 1999 coinciding with GreenPoint merging with Headlands Mtg of California and folding in a couple of other acquisitions, the company took on the moniker GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc nearly simultaneously with Credit Suisse Asset Management Inc. changing its name to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.  This also coincided with t a shell company set up in Delaware of the same name.  it’s quite a labyrinth of which I ‘ve unraveled some but not all.

Anyway, I though the Stanwich/Christiana trust thing might be of interest to you, Charles and Neil.  As you likely know, Cristiana Trust is a division of Wilmington Savings Fund… https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/11/02/1173772/0/en/WSFS-Announces-Formation-of-Christiana-Trust-Company-of-Delaware.html  Anyway, I suspect that the trust game Cristian and Stanwich, are just part of the game to cross state lines for the mortgages being claimed to be in the trust.  However, Delaware statutory trusts (DST), which exist to facilitate 1031 exchanges and REITs, are there to use Wilmington as a disguise to file foreclosure suits across state lines.  But in truth, a DST is likened to a corporation not a traditional trust, and if Wilmington is acting “as” trustee “of” a trust, then the underlying trust has no personal jurisdiction to cross state lines to sue.

Hope you find this interesting,

5 Responses

  1. Seems there are actual people signing off on these SEC , FHA docs under penalty of fraud. Why don’t fc lawyers raise these issues or better help homeowners make criminal charges and not get stuck in fc court trap?

  2. Want to add — Congress bill did nothing to help the people. Forbearance means have to pay all up front after period is over. They can add onto the terms of the loan – but likely they will not. You will be in foreclosure status no matter what. You will have to battle that even if you are “current” (which includes modifications and does not mean they never placed you in default – even though you never defaulted). In addition, non-bank servicers not addressed. I have asked to have high rate lowered. Pleaded. NOPE is the answer

    This Bill was done by Reps and Dems. What the heck were they thinking? Protecting the industry.

    I think you will have many more “posters” here soon Neil. .

  3. It it is so confusing with name changes, defunct entities, affiliates, etc.

    Two things stand out in this email — 1) “there was no money changing hands, CapOne simply exchanged fraudulent mortgages for shares ”

    and 2) “But in truth, a DST is likened to a corporation not a traditional trust, and if Wilmington is acting “as” trustee “of” a trust, then the underlying trust has no personal jurisdiction to cross state lines to sue.”

    2 is critical for representation, and could possibly be an issue if in federal court as to diversity jurisdiction. If it is a corporation, and not a “traditional” trust – the trustee is not the legal holder. Must go to the “members” to determine diversity. This is then not about statutory registration of a trust — but the registration of a legal entity – a corporation. Possibly, a REIT. There is no fiduciary trustee for a corporation or REIT. Crossing state lines is interesting.

    This comes back to Junior’s post — we are told the “SERVICER” is the lender and they own the loan. But servicers also hire sub-servicers. When foreclosure comes, suddenly the fiduciary trustee to an old trust is the claimed “holder.” This can’t be given all that has occurred since the crisis, and how can this occur only in foreclosure? What about those paying? Who is their legal holder? (Agree with Bob G here — used to ask my micro-economics students the same thing as Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller — Anyone? Anyone?)

    As to number 1 – this can only be done with unsecured debt. Transfer of collection rights is by assignment only and the “Note” is not relevant. I wonder how “CapOne” was even involved. But credit card companies have always had your number.

    You know Barney Frank fought for BK changes after crisis exploded. I think he knew. He was voted down.

    REPRESENTATION in Courts is a BIG problem.

  4. Has this person actually sent a form to the SEC of Delaware asking if this trust or all these trust are statutorily registered with the SEC of Delaware? Or just looked them up to see if they are listed? Because all the trust I actually sent the form to sent certified letters stating the trust were not statutorily registered and were never registered with them and they were closed several months after they were opened. A con game to get them on the list but never finish so they looked registered but were not.

  5. And just how exactly can we use this information to win foreclosure actions? Buehler? Buehler?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: