Livinglies's Weblog

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

The big problem in legal practice is acceptance of the idea that the servicer is the servicer. The practice guide is simple: test that proposition before you do anything else. This is the same strategy as what the litigator should do with the REMIC Trust, the REMIC Trustee and others. None of them are doing what you think they are doing. They have only one goal — to increase revenues and profits for the “team.”

NOTE TO HOMEOWNERS: GETTING AN EXPERT OPINION IS NOT LIKE GETTING A NOTE FROM YOUR MOTHER. THE OPINION WON’T REVEAL SKULDUGGERY WITH ANYTHING LIKE THE CLARITY OBTAINED WHEN THE OPPOSITION REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH BASIC DISCOVERY DEMANDS. 

The grand illusion of nonsecuritization of debt requires the nonservicing of the non-loan. But because the actual receipt and disbursements are distributed over multiple players, none of whom know about the others, you have occasions like this where Mr. Cooper f/k/a Nationstar moved ahead with prosecuting a nonexistent claim despite multiple attempts by the homeowner to set the record straight.

In this case, Nationwide nka Mr. Cooper was hit with a large judgment for compensatory and punitive damages which they richly deserved. The lawyers boldly attempted to appeal the jury decision and lost.

The only thing missing from the whole discussion and therefore not reviewed in the courts was the question of what Nationwide was actually doing. I now reiterate my report that the entire reason for this case and many others like it is that Mr. Cooper, just like so-called REMIC Trustees is only a name under which multiple companies operate using the self-proclaimed servicer who is not a servicer as the flag while they are all operating to protect and enrich the investment bank that started the deal.

To most people outside the world of investment banking, this report is either impossible or unbelievable. I do not ask that you believe it. But basic common sense requires that you test it in QWR, DVL, and legal discovery. Wouldn’t you want to know if Mr. Cooper’s records were just printouts from multiple other third parties who are neither contractually related to Mr. Cooper nor under its control? Would that not cause you to move to strike exhibits from them and object to the introduction of evidence from them? Doesn’t this follow the heart of the hearsay rule?

The only reason these facts exist is that Nationwide was not doing anything. It was all other companies doing parts of the work on correspondence, notices, and accounting — all automated to enable the claim of plausible deniability when things blow up. May v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2017): Things like this can only happen when multiple companies are following conflicting instructions without any oversight.

May received her first mortgage statement in March 2013. The statement erroneously included thousands of dollars in “lender-paid” expenses. Also, rather than applying a $51 credit to May’s account, Nationstar improperly debited $5,162 from the account. Nationstar’s errors caused its records to incorrectly reflect a delinquency of $8,534.94 on May’s mortgage. Nationstar initiated collection efforts.

May received her first collection call from Nationstar in March 2013, the same month that she began receiving mortgage statements. May immediately contacted Nationstar, but Nationstar’s employees—acting on erroneous records—informed May that she was delinquent on her mortgage. During the next several months, May regularly received calls from Nationstar at her home, in public and, most often, at work.

In April 2013, prompted by a call from May, Nationstar submitted May’s file to its research department. Nationstar determined on May 15, 2013, that it had made an accounting error in May’s account and directed its cash department to credit the account from Nationstar’s internal bankruptcy fund. Nationstar’s cash department rejected the requested credit, however, because May had been discharged from bankruptcy and her account no longer reflected a bankruptcy code. Nationstar’s research department never followed up on this discrepancy, and Nationstar never credited May’s account.

Instead, Nationstar resumed its collection efforts and presented May with two options—vacate her home or accept a loan modification. The proposed loan modification would have added the erroneously calculated arrears to May’s principal balance. May refused, and Nationstar initiated the loan modification anyway. May repeatedly attempted to correct the accounting errors by calling and sending written complaints to Nationstar. Although May continued tendering monthly mortgage payments, Nationstar began rejecting the payments in September 2013 because its internal policy required it to accept only full payments. Nationstar deemed May’s payments insufficient because of its erroneous determination that her account was in arrears. Nationstar initiated its foreclosure process. May retained counsel.

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

---

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate 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: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

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 ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.

*

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

*

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

*

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

*

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (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.

• But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
• Yes you DO need a lawyer.
• If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: foreclosure |