Servicers do not write their correspondence or mean what what they say

In May, 2022 to the CFPB finally corroborated what I have been saying for 16 years. The actors who are named as “servicers” are not performing servicing functions.

*

Those are performed by third parties who are the actual servicers, in terms of receipt, collection, depositing, and disbursement of funds. The actor might still be labeled as a servicer since its name is permissively used as a front for the parties performing and controlling such functions as are normally attributed to “servicers.” These third-party (FINTECH) servicers do not work for the actor who has been named as the servicer. They work for an investment bank.

*

The actor named as “servicer” is just that – an actor. This is just one example of the misdirection practiced by Wall Street, which has contributed to the mythology of what they call “securitization” but does not involve the sale of a single loan account.

*

The problem is that both pro se litigants and lawyers typically accept the reference to the actor as a “servicer.” By doing that they are creating a legal admission that binds the court and all further proceedings. If the actor is performing servicing functions in connection with the receipt, collection, accounting, processing and distribution of funds, then it must be true that a loan account exists I am the “servicer” is “serving” a principal who is the owner of the underlying obligation (unpaid loan account).

*

Once the “servicer” has been named and accepted by both sides, the litigation outcome is mostly inevitable. If the “servicer” is really a servicer, then having it name a new actor as the owner of the loan account is perfectly within reason. The problem of course is that none of that is true.

*

Correspondence from the designated actor who has been named by third parties as the “servicer” – using a fake letterhead of the named “servicer,” is entirely meant to mislead the reader, including a judge who might see the correspondence or notice that has actually been produced by third-party services who are not employed by the designated actor that has been given the label of “servicer.”

*

Here is an example of some recent correspondence between me and a former and prospective client that illustrates the misleading nature of all communication between the actor portrayed as “servicer” and the unsuspecting homeowner:

*
Keep in mind that Statements like the one [in your most recent correspodnece in which you questioned the authority of SPS] often sound good but are factually incorrect and legally misleading.
*
1st “note holder” means a person in possession of the original note or who has a right to such possession. But they are still not a holder unless they have been granted the authority to enforce it. That grant must come from someone who possesses the authority to enforce it and ultimately derived from ownership of the underlying obligation.
*
The statement that SPS is responsible for enforcement of the deed of trust and the note on behalf of the note holder is also wrong.
*
First, it assumes that SPS is actually performing servicing functions and has been granted the authority to enforce the lien right by the owner of the underlying obligation. They are invoking theories derived from article 3 of the uniform commercial code which governs the enforcement of notes.
*
But the enforcement of lien rights is governed by article 9, which requires that the enforcer of paid value for the underlying obligation.
**
[At this point the misdirection is accomplished by going to caselaw instead of statute. If a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have no power to do anything other than enforce the statute. The statute in question is the adoption in each US jurisdiction of §9-203 of the uniform commercial code, requiring that the enforcer have paid value for the underlying obligation. Some people get confused by the term “underlying obligation.” It simply means the unpaid loan account and reported on the books and records of the alleged creditor.]
**
As such, the fact that an actor might be in physical possession of the note does not empower that actor to grant authority to anyone to enforce the note or the lien.
*
Transfer of the servicing rights does not create any new rights. This is a mistake made by many pro se litigant and even many lawyers. Goldman Sachs calls this “laddering.” It gives the impression that the grantor was the owner of the note, the lien or the implied loan account (underlying obligation).
*
Lastly, having the actor who is designated as “servicer” give you the name of the “note holder” give you no information at all upon which you can or should legally act. That information should come from the party claiming to be the the note holder, which should include information as to whether or not they are the owner of the note or have merely been authorized to enforce it.
======================
*
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 DONATENeil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting 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. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for 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 CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. 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. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

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.

 

 

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: