Fundamentally you must understand that the investment banks want you and everyone else to look only at the payments history — not the debt, who owns it and whether anyone suffered a loss resulting from any lack of payment by the homeowner.
*
Their strategy is to get the court to presume that in the absence of payments someone must have suffered a financial loss since the debt was clearly established in a transaction in which the homeowner received money and issued a note and mortgage. In the present securitization era that paradigm is wholly untrue but not obvious because the banks turned “lending” on its head. The homeowners took what they thought was a loan but the banks were not lenders and had no intention of becoming lenders.
*
The problem is that most homeowners believe the myth promulgated by the banks because they don’t understand what really happened in what the banks call “securitization.”
*
The truth is that nobody has suffered a financial loss from “nonpayment” by the homeowner.
*
Everyone has already been paid as to the principal obligation.
*
Collection efforts directed at the extinguished obligation are pure business strategy designed to increase already astonishing profits achieved through “Securitization” which like everything else is not in substance what the label conveys, to wit: the homeowner obligation was never sold to investors and therefore cannot be said to have been securitized.
*
One of my most prolific contributors points out how Fannie Mae uses a company who to this day incredibly remains out of the limelight despite being the only company whose division president, Lorraine Brown, went to jail for falsifying documents. It wasn’t really her fault. There were no transactions that fit the mold required to have an enforceable claim in foreclosure. But the banks wanted the money anyway. So they invented the appearance of transactions even though nothing had happened in the real world.
*
It isn’t just Fannie Mae. Most homeowner transactions are established on LPSDesktop.
*
The banks, in their never ending quest to send us down rabbit holes only present the “servicers” and their “business records”.
They do that to (a) avoid the hearsay rule because someone comes in without knowledge and says he has knowledge that these records were created in the ordinary course of business and they were created at or near the time of the transactions — which is only partially true and (b) to avoid the pesky problem of presenting details about the transaction that could show that the debt and the role of the creditor were extinguished in the process they’re calling “Securitization.”
*
Practitioners would be wise to keep in mind two things:
*
(1) the “servicers” are not servicers in the sense that anyone thinks of a servicer. They do process payments from homeowners but they do not process anything else. — The “servicer” records do NOT show where payments were forwarded, which would identify and confirm that the claimant or Plaintiff in foreclosure is in fact the owner of the debt.
*
(2) the payment record from the “servicer” reflects only those payments received by that servicer (and perhaps an unaudited compilation of prior payments reported through LPS Desktop). The payment history might be admissible in evidence but only as to the record of payments, about which the practitioner should object for lack of foundation. — Without testimony or other evidence that (a) the debt was established as owned by a specific creditor anad (b) that the payment history is part of the records of the creditor, not just the servicer, the payment history should be excluded.
*
(3) A subpoena issued to Black Knight fka Lender processing Systems, aka LPS, demanding records relating to the subject debt, note or mortgage will be met with a barrage of objections, which if properly litigated will probably result in a favorable decision for the homeowner.
*
(4) The object of litigation of foreclosure defenses is to show that the debt was removed from the chain. You accomplish this by relentlessly and aggressively pursuing the identity of the creditor. there isn’t one where any REMIC is involved.
*
(5) Without a creditor there can be no delegated authority to enforce, collect or even administer the loan. “Authority” does not exist in a vacuum. there must be a source of authority. And the source of authority must be someone who legally owns rights to the debt over which he can delegate, as owner, the rights to enforce.
see Black KnightÕ latest innovation: LoanSphere supports entire loan lifecycle – HousingWire
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
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:
*
*
*
*
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. 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.
*
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing |
it appears that “Servicers” like Caliber and PennyMac do not perform ANY servicing functions except call themselves “Servicers” to defraud borrowers and Investors.
As we see from Black Knight’s complaint, Servicers are merely given a very limited access to BK’s system.
All CASHING is done by BK.
All payments are collected by Transcentra, Inc and their branch Regulus who have lockbox agreements with Big Banks
It requires more investigation since it makes Servicers as fake parties as “Lenders” who have nothing to do with any loans or trusts or any servicing at all – except respond to customers’ inquiries and provide them copies of payment history if requested.
This is the ONLY function “servicers” do and paid fees to assume all risks.
RBS Citizens Financial Group has been looking to consolidate its suite of cash management services, including its wholesale lockbox offering, for the last three years.
The bank, which is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, has begun working with TransCentra on this consolidation effort. Before this agreement, RBS had two wholesale lockbox offerings: a proprietary site in Boston and a national network from Bank of New York Mellon. TransCentra has now taken over RBS’ Boston lockbox operation.
A lockbox is an intermediary that collects checks and electronic payments into a single data stream, reducing clients’ billing costs and streamlining the payment process. The Norcross, Ga. based payment software provider will use its transaction management system platform to control RBS Citizens’ lockbox network. This platform serves as a single hub for wholesale, retail, and remote lockbox processing.
Look at the agreement with Wells Fargo bank.
TransCentra, Inc. (“Processor”), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (“AmeriCredit”) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee (the “Trustee”), agree as follows:
1. Servicing Arrangements. AmeriCredit, as Servicer (the “Servicer”), AFS SenSub Corp., as Seller (“Seller”), AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2012-1 (the “Trust”) and the Trustee entered into a Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 2, 2012 (as amended, supplemented and otherwise modified from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), relating to the Receivables (as such term is defined in the Sale and Servicing Agreement), pursuant to which the Receivables were sold, transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed to the Trust. The Sale and Servicing Agreement contemplates the engagement of a processor for lockbox services, and the Indenture contemplates that the Lockbox Account (as defined herein) will be assigned and pledged to the Trust Collateral Agent. The Sale and Servicing Agreement does not include specific terms for the provision of data processing services of remittance items. Such terms are set forth in this Lockbox Processing Agreement (the “Agreement”). For avoidance of doubt, Processor is not a depository institution. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
2. Remittance Processing Services. In order to provide a means of collection of the Receivables which will allow the Trustee to receive the proceeds of the Receivables and related security without AmeriCredit or its Affiliates having access to the funds, the parties hereto agree for the benefit of the Trustee that the processing services (the “Service(s)”) of Processor will be used for the collection and the deposit of remittances related to the Receivables and related security.
3. Customer Remittances. Obligors of the Receivables will be directed by AmeriCredit to forward their remittances to Processor at a post office address (the “Lockbox”) assigned by Processor. Processor, acting for the exclusive benefit of the Trustee, shall have unrestricted and exclusive access to the mail directed to this address. AmeriCredit agrees to notify Processor thirty (30) days in advance of any change in Obligor remittance statements and/or mailing schedule.
4. Collection of Mail. Processor will collect mail from the Lockbox at regular intervals each business day, but not less than two times daily.
5. Endorsement of Items. Processor will process, on behalf of AmeriCredit, checks and other deposited items that appear to be for deposit to the credit of AmeriCredit or its Affiliates in accordance with Processor’s Lockbox Processing Agreement and Instructions, or other applicable agreement and related service terms (individually and collectively, the “Processor Documentation”), as appropriate.
6. Credit of Funds to Account.
(a) Processor will process the checks and other deposited items and credit the total amount to the account described below (the “Lockbox Account”). The Lockbox Account will be established at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (ABA No.: 122100024) as account number 976484519. The Lockbox Account will be maintained and all banking functions will be provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
LOCKBOX PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Already been there, done that.
I have an expert witness CPA that did the accounting for these types of MBS transaction at a major public pension fund. And he’s reasonable…$350 for a sworn, expert witness declaration.
Let me add my own spin to the Biz Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule: If the banksters are going to rely on that exception, then defendants need to invoke it as well. If they have all these records, and have them at their fingertips, and they are the banksters’ biz records, than subpoenaing those bankster accounting ledgers and records showing payment for the debt should be a piece of cake for the banksters, their servicers, and their attorneys.