Does the REMIC Trust Exist?

In all jurisdictions, even if the trust has some assets, and therefore legal existence as a legal person, if the asset in question has not been entrusted to the trustee on behalf of beneficiaries, the existence of the trust is completely irrelevant. And all claims arising from the supposed existence of the trust are also irrelevant and lack Foundation.

I agree that the existence of the Trust might be a subject for debate.

However, the fact that a trust exists on paper does not mean that it exists relative to any loan or debt or note or mortgage.

In fact, the fact that it exists on paper does not mean that it exists at all in many states.

In those jurisdictions in which a trust is drafted on paper and recognized as a business entity, the trust is considered inchoate, which means sleeping. The failure to recognize this fact has led to the failure of many family trusts and the payment of high taxes.

In all jurisdictions a trust that does not have any assets, liabilities, income, expenses or business is not treated as a legal entity.

In all jurisdictions, even if the trust has some assets, and therefore legal existence as a legal person, if the asset in question has not been entrusted to the trustee on behalf of beneficiaries, the existence of the trust is completely irrelevant. And all claims arising from the supposed existence of the trust are also irrelevant and lack Foundation.

*
An asset cannot be entrusted to the trust or trustee unless title to the asset has been conveyed to the trustee to hold in trust according to the terms of the trust agreement. And there can be no conveyance from someone who doesn’t own the asset. The only way you get to own a debt is payment of consideration to someone who paid consideration for the asset. That is the law and it is not up for debate.
*
It is the payment of consideration that determines ownership of an asset or debt or note or mortgage. 
*
Note that the PSA  often cited as the trust agreement often is not the trust agreement and that even if it says it is the trust agreement there is another instrument in which the named trustee acknowledges that its purpose is to receive bare legal title to security instruments and notes on behalf of the investment bank who often also serves as Master servicer. I have never seen such a conveyance to the trust or trustee from anyone who owned the debt note or mortgage.
*
And without conveying the debt, there can be no conveyance of the mortgage. therefore all assignments (without a concurrent sale and purchase of the debt from someone who owned it) avoid.
*
But if you don’t raise this issue you might waive it. and by waiving it you are giving a windfall to the participants in a business venture that has the title of a foreclosure action. That business venture os for profit and has nothing to do with recovering losses from an unpaid loan or debt.

*
This is important because when the Foreclosure Mills pursue foreclosure they have only one witness. The witness is a robo witness who is employed as an employee or independent contractor of a self-proclaimed servicer. the witness provides testimony that the records introduced by the servicer are the records for the trust.
*
This testimony is either direct testimony or it raises the inference or presumption that the records are the records of the trust, because the servicer is supposedly working for the trust. But if the trust has nothing to do with the “loan,” then the servicer is working for an entity that has no legal relationship with the debt note or mortgage.
*
That is the point at which the defense and raised a motion to strike, once it has been established that this fact pattern is the only one before the court. Assuming defense Counsel has raised the appropriate objections along the way, the record submitted by the self-proclaimed servicer should be stricken from the record as not being the records of a creditor. The case collapses because no evidence is legally before the court.
*
Even if the servicer was actually collecting payments or actually doing anything, which is clearly debatable since most of these activities are probably actually conducted by Black Knight, the appearance of the servicer would not be the appearance of the Creditor, who is therefore not the named claimant or plaintiff.
*
The servicer becomes a witness at best and not a very credible one. If discovery has been conducted properly, the defense can clearly raise the inference that the servicer has an interest in the outcome of the litigation. This means that the attempt to get the servicer’s records into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule can be defeated. This is especially true if the servicer is not actually processing any business transactions. This dovetails with the evidence that the lockbox system is actually controlled by Black Knight.
*
And THAT is important because it undercuts the claim of a “boarding process” which in most cases has never existed. It is only through the fictitious boarding process that the records of prior self–proclaimed servicers are able to come into evidence. The truth is that all of those records are mere projections and estimates and the foreclosure mills depend upon the failure of the homeowner and their counsel to actually compute whether the records are even true.
*
One last comment is that one of the big failures in foreclosure defense is the failure to question who is receiving payments from the self-proclaimed servicer. An inquiry into this subject would reveal that the servicer is not receiving any payments and is not making any payments to anyone else. This would undercut the foundation for the inference or presumption that the self-proclaimed servicer is actually performing servicer functions.
*
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:
*
*
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. 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.

6 Responses

  1. Re: PennyMac Prospectus

    This only means that the Government was involved in Big Banks scheme from the beginning in 1970th and covers it as of today.

    Prospectus: The Legacy Loans Program would provide financing for loan purchases from U.S. depository institutions. On July 8, 2009, the U.S. Treasury and the FDIC issued [.] The announcement stated that the FDIC will be prepared to offer the Legacy Loans Program in the future as needed to cleanse bank balance sheets.

    Attention to details!

    PURCHASES! from DEPOSITORY Institutions to cleanse banks balance sheets. End of story because no one can sell something they don’t own; and actual loans never been placed on banks balance sheets. Plus, PennyMac does not have money to buy anything since they are not a Depository Institution or a bank.

    According to Black Knight v. PennyMac. Black Knight/Lending Processing Services operates during last 50 years, or since NIXON as a President, they collecting about 62% of all US loans in their database and converting them into manipulated DATA – nobody can own any loans even hypothetically.

    Black Knight is NOT a Depository Institution who can buy or sell loans. BK does not buy or sell anything except a LIMITED license to use their data – manipulated particles of the loans.

    In other words, Black Knight clients are USERS with a limited licensed to get an access to loans information which were placed into Black Knight by SOMEONE ELSE.

    The US Treasury Secretary at this time was Goldman Sachs’ top CEO Hunk Paulson* appointed by Bush § 560.319 United States depository institution.

    The term United States depository institution means any entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, or any agency, office, or branch located in the United States of a foreign entity, that is engaged primarily in the business of banking (for example, banks, savings banks, savings associations, trust compnaies, ect )

    Good luck to find under which jurisdiction and law are REMIC Trust are organized. Or Deutsche Bank National Trust, as Trust

    If you read Black Knight v. PennyMac complaint, you can see that with Black Knight’s depository here are NO loan purchased can be made even hypothetically – because nobody can sell or trade something they do not own.

  2. Summer — an old prospectus excerpt. What does this mean for you?
    Recall their name from back then. Was an odd name.

    PROSPECTUS
    16,000,000 Shares
    PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust

    Common Shares

    Government Programs. We may participate in programs established by the U.S. government. In March 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced certain details, which are subject to change, concerning its Public-Private Investment Program, including the Legacy Loans Program. The Legacy Loans Program would provide financing for loan purchases from U.S. depository institutions. On July 8, 2009, the U.S. Treasury and the FDIC issued a joint statement that indicated that the FDIC remains committed to building a successful Legacy Loans Program for open banks. The announcement stated that the FDIC will be prepared to offer the Legacy Loans Program in the future as needed to cleanse bank balance sheets and bolster the ability of banks to support the credit needs of the economy. The announcement further stated that the FDIC will continue to work on ways to increase the utilization of this program by open banks and investors. The announcement also noted that the Legacy Loans Program is intended to boost private demand for distressed assets and facilitate market-priced sales of troubled assets and indicated that the FDIC will provide oversight for the formation, funding and operation of a number of vehicles that will purchase these assets from banks or directly from the FDIC. As described in the announcement, private investors will invest equity capital and the FDIC will provide a guarantee for debt financing issued by these vehicles to fund asset purchases. The FDIC’s guarantee will be collateralized by the purchased assets and it is contemplated that the FDIC will receive a fee in return for its guarantee. We will continue to monitor developments concerning the Legacy Loans Program and we will seek to take advantage of attractive opportunities that may be presented by this or any other government programs.

  3. Very interesting … specially in the view that actual loans are not sold..

    https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/ppip_whitepaper_032309.pdf

  4. Yes Bob G. PennyMac was also part of the Government Legacy PPIP (Public Private investment Program) related to Maiden Lane.

  5. PennyMac is not a lender. It is a buyer of mortgage notes.

  6. https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/11/07/black-knight-ceo-addresses-lawsuit-with-former.html

    California-based PennyMac, the fourth largest mortgage lender in the U.S., was a Black Knight customer for 11 years

    PennyMacs’ contract generated about $31 million in annual revenue for Black Knight, but Black Knight’s suit estimates the damage done by PennyMac creating a competing product allegedly based on its proprietary code exceeds $340 million.

    PennyMac Loan Services notified us that they were working on an MSP replacement.

    “Soon after, we noticed some anomalies in the usage of MSP and began a more in-depth review, which uncovered actions by PennyMac that show their improper use of the MSP system to unfairly accelerate the development, testing and implementation of PennyMac’s system.

    “Even after we identified these violations, we attempted to reach a long-term agreement that would allow us to continue a business relationship with PennyMac. In September, we determined that we were unable to agree to terms that would protect our trade secrets, our business and our shareholders.

    “As a result, yesterday we filed a lawsuit against PennyMac for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. PennyMac deconverted from MSP at the end of October.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: