Fake Foreclosures Using the Fannie Mae Name

  1. The central issue is not whether the homeowner owes a “servicer” any money. The central issue is whether the homeowner owes a creditor money.
Wall Street securities firms (Investment Banks) have many tricks by which they make fictitious claims appear to come alive. It is like those movies in which animated characters join the “Real-Life” figures. We accept this because we are there to be entertained, and we do not concern ourselves that neither animated characters nor the “real-life” characters are, in fact, real. They are imaginary, and we watch them to be entertained. And to be entertained, we must accept the story and characters as true.
Securitization and foreclosure are the same. The animated characters are those “mortgage-backed securities,” and the “real-life” characters are either fictional names of nonexistent entities or fictional use of names of business entities that technically exist but have no business interests in creating to a claim to collect money from anyone.
But in this case, the ticket price is always in six or seven figures. The homeowner may eventually lose the house to a non-creditor party, or the investors will lose their money by buying certificates that convey no interest in any loans. But this does not stop Wall Street intermediaries and sham conduits from being named by ignorant lawyers as being the parties on whose behalf a foreclosure is initiated.
One of the favorite tools used to force the sale of homesteads strictly for profit and not to pay off any debt is invoking the name “FANNIE MAE.”
So here is my answer to most questions involving the foreclosures in which FANNIE is used as a foil either directly or indirectly.
As for Fannie Mae, I think you might be oversimplifying the situation.
  1. I totally agree that if FNMA is not the creditor — either on its own behalf or on behalf of a legally existing trust as Master Trustee, then any records of FNMA or anyone claiming to enforce a claim for money on behalf of FNMA is irrelevant, and even potentially subject to sanctions.
  2. To know whether FNMA is a creditor, a lawyer purportedly representing FNMA must be willing to assert that status based upon a declaration or confirmation from FNMA that the subject homeowner owes FNMA money.
    1. This is one of the places where procedural tricks take the place of substantive allegations or arguments.
    2. The issue under the rules of evidence is whether the declaration from FNMA is truthful, and perhaps just as important whether an officer of FNMA gave such a declaration. This highlights how the banks weaponize the rules of procedure. The outlook is cloudy.
      1. If you do not stay razor sharped focussed on the central issue, you will get (a) an acknowledgment or declaration from a person (probably a contract worker) singing on behalf of a “servicer” (whose function as a servicer is not supported by any evidence) who claims representative rights for litigating on behalf of FNMA.
      2. The central issue is not whether the homeowner owes a “servicer” any money. The central issue is whether the homeowner owes a creditor money.
      3. The FNMA servicing agreement DOES grant such powers to Wells Fargo and other qualified banks.
      4. By focusing the court’s attention on the existence of those powers, the opposition is able to distract the court from the central issue of litigation: whether the homeowner owes money to FNMA.
      5. The liability of the homeowner is initially presumed from any document that looks even close to being facially valid. So the job of the homeowner and homeowner’s counsel is to rebut that presumption or to remove the right to use it. Since the homeowner cannot rebut the presumption without an admission from the opposition, there is only one strategy that has a good chance of success: attacking the right to use the presumption.
    3. Attacking the use of the presumption means either (1) attacking and objecting to the “facial validity” of a document (typically the endorsement of the note or assignment of the mortgage) and/or (2) attacking the right of the opposition to put on any evidence since it has violated the discovery rules contained in the rules of civil procedure. The opposition violates those rules when they fail to answer the question and produce a copy of the unpaid loan account on the books of FNMA.
      1. By failing to provide evidence or information likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the existence and ownership of the presumed underlying obligation, they have waived their right to presume that the underlying obligation exists or is owned by FNMA.
      2. They can still produce such evidence at trial, but only if they have complied with discovery demands and the court’s orders compelling compliance with the discovery rules and with the orders issued by the court.
The central issue in the litigation is not whether powers are granted between parties but rather whether any of them ever had any relevant powers as the foundation for the claim to collect money from the homeowner.
Ironically, due to the court doctrine that denies homeowners the right to be proactive in challenging the “servicer” and “creditor” until after the foreclosure is launched, and in many jurisdictions, after the foreclosure is completed, the best time to present this might be by tracking the events after judgment and after the sale.
It is there that the truth comes out. The judgment, credit bid, or right to sell is often transferred multiple times to conceal the fact that FNMA did not get any money from a forced sale and was never intended to receive it. The paperwork, as always, is vague and confusing. But homeowners do have the right to inquire where the money went and the amount of the loss that was covered on which account or ledger of what party.
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.

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, 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)


But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 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.

One Response

  1. What I been saying is that in my case we got Wells Fargo Bank claiming that Ginnie Mae is the investor (owner) of the loan, as in the State of Nebraska for non-judicial foreclosure the statute were require the investor who owns the loan can foreclose. Now Ginnie stated in a letter to me that they are not an investor as they said they don’t buy or sell mortgage loans or invest in their MBS. However, when Wells Fargo through CFPB still claims that Ginnie is this owner investor.

    Wells foreclosed where they sold the property to the Dept of the VA, while not having a proper title as Wells did not purchase the loan from Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) but after WAMU stopped existing on Sept 25, 2008, without ever calling the loan due to that date, Wells would have MERS create a Assignment of Deed of Trust on Oct 22, 2009 to Wells as if they purchased the loan.

    Wells never extended a loan to me, so they are without harm, and took the proceeds of the foreclosure and sent it to Ginnie who them said they released the loan to Wells. 11 days after the foreclosure. Ginnie pooled loan are to be released before a foreclosure, if not it put the horse before the cart. The lender/issuer is to repay the investor first for the loan that the issuer taken out against the pooled loan as it is a debt the issuer owes, however because of WAMU death they cannot pay the investor and there is no one that owes the investor due to the fact WAMU does not exist. So, Wells foreclosed and could not pay WAMU for the debt but sent the monies to Ginnie and that was the end of it.

    Had not the VA purchased the property and with the VA Guaranty Fund insurance claim this crime could not have been able to be conducted, because there a gap between the originator and Ginnie in the county records. Ginnie never going to be in title because they are never the owner of the debt! Wells does not worry about this in dealing with the VA because the agency is stupid and Ginnie is in on the scam!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: