Some people have discovered that in the settlements that have been published, the major financial institutions and the governments of various states have agreed to programs in which monetary relief was granted to the states, but not the homeowners to any material degree.
The recognition that false documents were being used to make claims of administration, collection, and enforcement of promises that were fraudulently extracted from homeowners under false pretenses, did not result in any required changes in the chain of title.
The effect of this defect, was to allow actors to pretend that they were creditors or acting on behalf of creditors, thus depriving homeowners of due process before they were deprived of the title and possession of the property. There is no more basic violation of constitutional due process than the behavior of both government and the banks after the settlements were concluded.
see https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085814000139/bac9302014ex99.htm
If you dig down into the wording of the agreements, you will find things like this:
Countrywide’s business model was to serve as an intermediary between borrowers seeking residential mortgages and investors seeking to purchase loans in the secondary market.
For me, there are three main issues presented by the statement:
- There is a recognition that Countrywide was an intermediary and not a lender. I agree that the issue is left in a gray area. But the clear import of this statement is that it was serving as an intermediary. This is true for virtually every company that appeared as the payee on virtually every promissory note issued in connection with what appeared to be a mortgage loan transaction and a mortgage loan closing.
- There is a recognition that people were seeking to become borrowers by obtaining a residential mortgage. But there is a failure to recognize that while they came to be viewed as borrowers, the unpaid loan account that serves as the basis for any residential mortgage was absent.
- There is a recognition that investors were seeking to purchase loans in the secondary market. But there is a failure to recognize that while there was an investment, the investors failed to obtain any ownership or equitable interest in any payment, obligation, legal debt, note or mortgage.
This is exactly why transactions were structured without regard to whether they were viable as loans. The parties in control of the transaction (the “investment banks”) never intended to become lenders nor did they intend to allow anyone else to become a lender that could claim any interest in any payment, obligation, legal debt, note or mortgage.
=======================
*
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
Neil 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.
Filed under: foreclosure |
This is an excellent article that discusses the ‘motives’ behind the underlying transactions – having nothing to do with Countrywide but is an excellent example of any ‘transaction’ wherein the realty ‘agent’ was stating the ‘loan’ would be ‘sold’ on secondary markets – having nothing to do with a bona fide ‘mortgage’ – it doesn’t matter the name Neil uses – simply replace Countrywide with Joe Blow Lender – the intent is the same; the names change but the game never did. Thanks Neil!
I get it and it can be shown by the handling of Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) being seized as none of the WAMU Ginnie pooled loan were purchase and only transferred to Wells Fargo Bank (Wells) through ROBO signing the Assignments of Deed of Trust. Ginnie seized this portfolio without announcing that it seize it, and got the blank endorsed Notes out the hand of WAMU before the bank would be seized and involve in a bankruptcy where the debt would have to be proven, but as Ginnie does not purchase any mortgage loans or MBS there is no proof to be given to the court under UCC9 as most of the loans were purchased by WAMU through its correspondent unit with other banks closing and having the loans funded.
Sir question as to why you are still talking about Country Wide? Aren’t they long gone? Why not speak of current trusts and servicers? Thank you