Why is the Address of the Trustee and Trust the Same as Ocwen?

The first notice is the hook to your self-destruction. 

The simple answer is that the trust exists nowhere except as a fiction created by word salad in the name of the claimant.

I thought that this was self evident, But based upon some recent questions people are still confused about this.

When you receive correspondence or a notice from Ocwen (or any other company claiming to be the a “Servicer”), you are actually receiving a notice prepared by and probably sent by a third party party vendor who loads the image into an IT platform that is operated by another third party vendor (like Black Knight fka Lender processing fka DOCX). Ocwen doesn’t even know about it until they receive a call or  letter from you or instructions on preparing for foreclosure.

The named implied (and probably nonexistent) trust is put there by the third party vendor who prepared the notice or correspondence upon instructions from an intermediary for an investment bank. The fact that it is named doesn’t mean it exists.

The address is shown to be that of the servicer because there is no address at which mail can be received by an entity that only exists as a fiction. You can send things to the named trustee because it is a real legal entity (like US Bank, Bank of New York, Deutsche etc.).

But that is intercepted and sent to Ocwen or whoever is claiming to be a servicer. The same thing happens to to any payment made by a borrower or any proceeds from the forced sale of homes. It is intercepted and goes through a series of steps in which the implied trust is avoided and the money goes through intermediaries and eventually distributed to the foreclosure players as revenue.

Ocwen, as an example in this scenario is not a servicer. It has no authority to administer anything. It does not represent the trustee or any implied trust. It serves at the pleasure of a “Master Servicer” who also has no authority to administer the loan.

The Master Servicer serves based upon contract with the implied (and probably nonexistent) trust. But neither the named trustee nor the named implied trust have any financial or legal interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage. The objective of all these players is to pursue foreclosure for further fun and profit.

If the trust really existed and was a holder of the promissory note in due course the foreclosure mills would say so and prove it thus ending all litigation over all foreclosures involving securitization claims. The note would be prima facie and conclusory evidence that the party seeking foreclosure was the owner of the debt. Hence the proceeds of forced sale would reduce the debt by the amount distributed from the sale. That is not what is happening.

Since the trust does not and cannot own the debt, any document asserting transfer of the mortgage is false. An Assignment of mortgage without an actual transfer of the debt is a legal nullity. Hence the trust neither owns the debt or mortgage, without which it has no authority over the debt and hence no authority or right to appoint anyone else to administer the debt or mortgage.

Thus by creating the appearance of a “holder” they uttering false instruments and making blatant misrepresentation in court. The possessor of a note cannot enforce it unless they at least assert the right to do so either because they own it through payment (holder in due course) or because they received authority from someone who did pay for the underlying debt. If that is not the case then they are simply gambling on Article 3 which gives them the right to sue, but not collect, on the note unless the claim is uncontested. 

Since the trust lacks authority, the fact that is has a contract with an investment bank in which that securities brokerage firm is appointed Master Servicer means nothing as to the subject loan, debt, note or mortgage. The appointment by the “Master Servicer” of an asserted “subservicer” also does nothing —except assist in the creation of an illusion (that the subsericer is  representing the interests of the trust, trustee or “certificate holders” whom I have already established as having no right, title or interest to any debt, note, mortgage or loan).

So the reason why the address is the same as the fake subservicer is that there is no place else to send a response. And when you do, you are tacitly admitting that they are authorized to talk to you about a loan which very well might not exist on the books of any legal entity anywhere.

The first notice is the hook to your self-destruction.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. IN FACT, STATISTICS SHOW THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FAIL TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE PROPERLY. EVEN THOSE THAT PRESENT THE DEFENSES PROPERLY LOSE, AT LEAST AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AT LEAST 1/3 OF THE TIME. IN ADDITION IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

3 Responses

  1. Courts are buying that the “trust” exists. There are distribution reports. I suspect they only exist for the remnants to enforce foreclosure. SEC told me — “they are no longer active.” But those reports exist.

    And, a trust can NEVER stand alone. Case law is clear on this all across the country. I suspect, judges don’t care about case law. They ignore.

    Look — I finally got to the “Trustee” – a division of the “Bank” – and they tell me I am in default to two trusts? Okay — how can I be in default to TWO trusts? And, I have never been in default. And they do NOT hold the mortgage or note. What they HOLD is default security. Security administrator? Some often confuse a fiduciary trustee with a security administrator. And who reports on those distribution reports? The servicer.

    The CFPB is aware of this — quote from original complaint against Ocwen –

    “Ocwen, for example, boarded incomplete or incorrect payment
    histories onto REALServicing, such as payment histories that include
    misapplied payments and transactions that occurred BEFORE the loan
    was even originated.” (my emphasis).

    Nothing was incorrect — THAT IS WHAT WAS REPORTED TO OCWEN. (by LPS/Black Knight).

    So waiting to see if CFPB ever addresses this. Ocwen has been vehemently fighting this lawsuit. Much is under “SEAL.”

    Yes Bob G – no one in chain of title paid value for the NOTE. Need a judge who gets that. They tend to avoid issues, and focus on technicalities. WHY???

    One judge in Brooklyn died from COVID-19 the other day because he packed hundreds of people into a courtroom. He told the people “You don’t like it – leave.” Judges not too smart.

  2. yup…been there, done that.

  3. If you go into court with the “they don’t own the debt” argument, you will lose. Period. Full Stop.

    If you go into court proving that nobody in the chain of title paid value for the NOTE, you will have a good chance of winning or getting a decent settlement, but only if you or your attorney know what you are doing from that point on.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: