Tonight! Neil Garfield makes it simple: Lying for Dollars: How to Apply Your Understanding of Securitization Claims to Win

Posted on April 8, 2021 by Neil Garfield

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

“Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure.” That is the first lie told in court as lawyers, and companies claiming to be servicers, lenders, or trustees continue to play their game of lying for dollars.

It’s obvious I have not simplified the explanation enough because both lawyers and homeowners still mostly don’t understand what I am talking about. That means they can’t use it effectively, as I have, and that means the judge won’t have any idea what you are talking about.

You can prove that the documents used by your opposition can’t be trusted. More importantly, you can prove that the lawyers opposing you cannot be trusted. And that means the opposition must prove their case by reference in well-founded relevant testimony from competent witnesses as to the actual transaction, proof of payment, etc. And they can’t do that.

That is how I win. And that is how homeowners across the country have won. And that is how all homeowners are faced with false claims of securitization or false claims of ownership where there is MERS or other signs of claimed securitization in the background.

So let me take a stab at another type of explanation of what happened. I concede that it is difficult for anyone to comprehend including Wall Street investment bankers. This will be the show tonight — my attempt at simplifying the explanation of why homeowners should win every time.

This will be an oversimplification. It is an example of the progression of events that occur when a legitimate loan is claimed to be subject to what is called securitization.

You must be tenacious, persistent, and unrelenting to the point where you can clearly demonstrate that the opposition is not complying with either court rules or court orders. That is when you have them in your sights and can shoot down their claim.

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, Investor, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 1 Comment »

Attack the “Successors”

Posted on April 6, 2021 by Neil Garfield

In analyzing the paperwork in front of you, make sure you read every word and do not accept anything said at face value. A popular ruse by foreclosure mills is the use of the word “successor.” I have been saying that this word is used as a cover-up for “we don’t have title to the debt, note or mortgage.” That means they have no loss connected with a claimed scheduled payment that was not received by a “Servicer” who had no right to receive it in the first place.

Hat tip to Gary Dubin, Esq. and Shelley Erickson.

If they have no loss, they have no claim. You don’t have a claim payable to you if you simply know that your neighbor has skipped a payment to someone. You don’t have the right to declare a default. There could be numerous reasons why the payments stopped that are none of your business. In that scenario, any action undertaken as if you did have the claim would be illegal in both the criminal and civil arenas. Such actions would include notice of substitution of trustee, a notice of default, a notice of sale, summons and complaint, etc. The practical problem is that the longer you wait to contest such actions, the more it seems like the perpetrator does have a claim.

Very often, you will see “Successor” used when it makes no sense if you even give it a moment’s thought. For example, if U.S. Bank is recited as successor to Bank of America, that is literally impossible. U.S. Bank did not buy, acquire or purchase Bank of America. They are referring, of course, to the “sale” of the position of “trustee” (without any legal trust powers) from Bank of America to U.S. Bank after Bank of America acquired LaSalle Bank, which is after LaSalle Bank had been effectively acquired by the owners of ABN AMRO, who had merged with Citi.

The key question is whether the position of a trustee if it actually exists, could ever be sold by the trustee without the advice and consent of the beneficiaries and/or the trustor/settlor. Of course, if that was alleged, i.e., that U.S. Bank had acquired the rights to be trustee through purchase, it would then need to disclose the content of the agreement of purchase and sale, and that alone would involve showing the consent of beneficiaries.

Because of the erroneous assumption/presumption that the beneficiaries of a REMIC trust are the investors, it is assumed that they must have consented. But the real beneficiaries are shown in the actual trust agreement (not the PSA most of which is a statement of future intention and not past events).

The real beneficiaries are securities brokerage firms (“investment banks”) which would, in turn, reveal that the investment banks are the primary parties in control of administration, collection, and enforcement — despite the fact that the investment banks retained no financial stake in the outcome of any transaction that was labeled as a loan.

People ask me whether there are cases supporting my analysis. there are hundreds of them, but they are rarely reviewed, much less used, by any homeowner or lawyer. Here is one such example from 2019 that has never been overruled, citing many other cases:

Certo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 268 So. 3d 901, 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (“On the other hand, it is insufficient for the plaintiff to rely on its acquisition of the other entity. See Fielding v. PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n , 239 So.3d 140, 142-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; Kyser v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 186 So.3d 58, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (despite testimony of merger, witness gave no testimony as to what assets exactly were acquired); Fiorito v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 174 So.3d 519, 520-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (testimony one entity “took over” another is not sufficient); Lamb v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 174 So.3d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (listing cases). Similarly, listing party status as “successor by merger” or claiming a title is not sufficient; a plaintiff must support its claim by evidence. See Buckingham v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 230 So.3d 923, 924-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding words “successor by merger” were insufficient to “establish the merger, let alone that the [plaintiff] acquired all of [the successor’s] assets”); DiGiovanni v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. , 226 So.3d 984, 988-89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (finding no standing where Deutsche presented no evidence “Bankers Trust had been renamed Deutsche Bank”); Murray v. HSBC Bank USA , 157 So.3d 355, 358-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (explaining “Option One California” was not “Option One Mortgage Corporation”); Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y. , 28 So.3d 976, 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (explaining plaintiff listing itself as “successor trustee” was insufficient).”)

Certo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 268 So. 3d 901, 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (“The trouble here, similar to the trouble in Conley , is Mellon’s link to Bank of NY and Bank of NY’s link to JP Morgan. Because the final special indorsement is to JP Morgan, Mellon needed to evidence how it obtained the Note or interest. It claims to have it because Bank of NY is a successor to JP Morgan and Mellon is the new Bank of NY. However, the record does not establish either of those necessary links.”)

The bottom line here is that there is no succession regardless of how many times they assert it. Attacking the pleadings, motions, and exhibits with your own motions, answers, affirmative defenses and potential counterclaims is probably a good tactical response to the assertion of this type of lie perpetrators use in the courts every day. Bernie Madoff got away with his Ponzi scheme for decades. It was in most ways identical to what the investment banks have done with what they called “residential lending.”
The banks called it “securitization” without ever selling a single loan to investors or any part thereof. Madoff called it options trading without ever trading a single option. It was all based upon the “hidden magic” and “genius” of some secret formula that nobody else could access. Compare it yourself. Madoff’s scheme, now exposed, reveals what was really happening with homeowner transactions, investor transactions, and “foreclosures” of nonexistent claims.
THE BIG QUESTION IS WHERE ARE THE REGULATORS? THEY MISSED IT WITH MADOFF DESPITE CLEAR SIGNS OF WRONGDOING AND THEY ARE DOING IT AGAIN WITH INVESTMENT BANKS TOUTING NONEXISTENT SECURITIZATION.
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

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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 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: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Homeowner’s Dilemma and Pro Se Nightmare: Wanting the system to change is not the way to win a case

Posted on January 6, 2021 by Neil Garfield

Homeowners win because there is no legal claim against them. But they will lose every time if they fail to establish the inability or unwillingness of the foreclosure mill to come up with concrete evidence that there is, in fact, a loan receivable entry on the accounting ledgers of the claimant and that it got there by virtue of a real-world transaction in which value was paid for the underlying obligation.

Unfortunately, as we all know, all perjury and fraud upon the court is illegal but always allowed unless it is challenged in a timely and proper way. We need to change the rules and the preapproved form pleading such that the main element of the playbook of the banks can be defeated. The main element is to force the homeowner Into a position where the homeowner must expend huge quantities of time, money, and energy defending a frivolous claim.

*

Their goal is to wear out the homeowner and the homeowner’s attorney. And they are using this strategy because it works. Over 96% of all foreclosures proceed by the default of the homeowner, to wit: they simply assume that everything alleged against them is true and they walk away.

*

The rules and preapproved form pleading are focussed on judicial economy and finality — i.e., how to quickly bring a dispute to final and complete resolution. They must start somewhere and in our system, they start with the claim. In most situations, the system requires a judge to treat the claim as true for most of the proceeding unless there is something obviously wrong that is clearly and indisputably known and demonstrated.

*

Claiming that aliens from the planet Zorcar gave you the assignment of mortgage would be an exception to the rule. Your claim will not be accepted as true under the rules unless you claimed (and attached exhibits) also to have proof that aliens were involved, that the planet  Zorcar existed, and that they were the owners of the underlying debt. Since your premise is outside of the normal knowledge of any reasonable person or lawyer or judge, it would be dismissed for lack of credibility — because in the absence of your allegations that you did have such proof, the presumption in that situation would be that you had no way of proving it.

*

In most of the small percentage of cases where homeowners contest the Foreclosure both they and their attorneys are seeking only delays in what they think is an inevitable result. So no real effort is made to reveal the fact that the attorneys in the Foreclosure Mill have absolutely no concrete evidence to support the claim they are advocating on behalf of entities that probably don’t exist. And in most of those cases, the homeowner admits that the “loan” exists, that the obligation exists, that the obligation is owed to the claimant, etc. In doing that, the homeowner falls into a trap. Once all of those facts are admitted by the homeowner, the defense becomes “yes, but” which rarely works.
*
It is only where homeowners are unrelenting in their contest of the f foreclosure and where they follow the rules on discovery, motions enforcing discovery, objections, and cross-examination that the homeowner wins. They win because there is no legal claim against them. But they will lose every time if they fail to establish the inability or unwillingness of the foreclosure mill to come up with concrete evidence that there is, in fact, a loan receivable entry on the accounting ledgers of the claimant and that it got there by virtue of a real-world transaction in which value was paid for the underlying obligation.
*
You might not like that answer but it is perfectly correct and true. Your only chance of winning these cases is by excepting the fact that the rules apply and that the judge is bound to follow them. You can use the rules against your opposition and reveal the fact that there is no concrete evidence for the basic elements of their claim. But if you fail to do that, the rules favor party that makes the claim. That is not just true in foreclosures, it is true in all civil cases.
*
If you want an analogy, think about a murder case. Everyone knows that it is against the law to kill somebody. And yet the murderer will go completely free without any damage to his reputation Or without any damage to his record and without any loss of freedom — unless someone catches him, charges him, shows probable cause, gets a conviction, and wins on appeal.
*
Homeowners must realize that is the essence of their defense is closely related to criminal fraud. That is never going to be presumed to be true at the beginning of the case. In our system, or people who are accused of such illegal behavior are presumed innocent even if they have exhibited a pattern of illegal behavior in the past. It is an age-old problem That in individual cases people are offended that such offenders go free. We could debate the philosophy behind those rules but we cannot debate the fact that those rules exist.
*
It is unfair that homeowners must master the rules of court in order to defend themselves against frivolous claims. While they are allowed to represent themselves in court they have no idea how to do that. They walk into court believing that being right is enough. It isn’t enough and it never is. So they will most often lose cases that a good trial lawyer would win. Or they delay hiring a lawyer until it is too late for the lawyer to do anything constructive under the rules.
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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Eviction, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, Unlawful Detainer | 4 Comments »

What Happened With Your “Loan” — By admitting that you received a loan you lose.

Posted on December 16, 2020 by Neil Garfield

The plain truth is that homeowners are losing their cases through assymetry of information. They think they understand when they do not have a clue. They are admitting the obvious, which turns out to wholly untrue. In so doing they give the court no choice but to enter judgment aganst them. 

ApplicationForLoanProcessAndFundingOfServiceFees

I am experimenting with new ways to present this. If you click on the above chart you will see that the application process is actually a dead end. Nobody actually agrees to lend any money. Nobody does lend money.

Money arrives later at the “closing” table but unknown to the borrower it is not a loan. Contrary to popular belief which is based on ignorance of the actual process, no loan is sold. No obligation is sold. Nobody ever becomes the owner of any loan or obligation. Nobody records a purchase of any loan obligation. And nobody maintains any loan account receivable.

Whether it is described as a loan broker or “loan originator” (for which there is no legal definition) it is there for the fees. It is not present to participate in any loan nor does it receive any profit from making a loan. It does not share in any profit from making a loan because there is no loan. There is no lender. Calling it a lender does not make it a lender.

But you can reverse that (and lose your case) by calling it a lender in your conversations, pleadings, motions, memoranda or argument in court.

  • As soon as you have done that, for purposes of that case, you have admitted the existence of the loan.
  • In so doing you have tacitly admitted that the loan broker or the originator was the lender.
  • In admitting that there was a lender you have identified the lender as the loan broker or originator.
  • By doing that you have admitted that the originator had ownership of the underlying obligation.
  • By admitting that, you have admitted that the originator or broker paid the money that appeared at the “closing table.”
  • By admitting that you have also admitted that the lender — or its “successor” — suffered an actual economic loss that was proximately caused by the “nonpayment” of the homeowner.
  • And so by admitting that you have admitted that the action for foreclosure is valid.

Just a word about “successors.” You will often find the word used. Sometimes “MERS and its successors.” Sometimes “MERS for XYZ and its successors.” A successor is a company who has purchased the obligation or who has purchased the company that owned the obligation. In residential transactions, there is almost no instance where such an event has occurred.

There are no successors. There are no companies even willing to pose as successors unless they are sham conduits — thinly capitalized to be thrown under the bus or thrown into bankruptcy. The way this is done is clever. Sometimes the sham is actually just a trade name masquerading as a company or a “trust.”

Trusts do not exist for legal purposes unless there is something of value entrusted to a person or company for purposes of administering that thing (res, in Latin) for the benefit of beneficiaries.

The place where many lawyers get hung up on that is that there exists an “allonge” or assignment of mortgage” or “assignment of beneficial interest” to, for example, U.S. Bank, as trustee for ABC-2006 certificates.

If you dig deep enough in discovery just under the surface you will find a “trust agreement.” The trust agreement never grants any powers to the administration of any affairs to the named trustee.  So U.S. Bank is actually prohibited from doing anything with the paper that is assigned to it. In fact, you will find that it lacks the right, power, or duty to even ask what is happening in “the trust.” So labeling it as trustee is merely window dressing and does not describe any trust relationship or position. But you can change all that and lose the case simply by your own reference to U.S. Bank as a trustee, which in turn admits the existence of a trust etc.

Note that the paper “entrusted” to the trustee is not for benefit of investors who, by the ay, are not beneficiaries of the trust. the securities broker is the beneficiary. And note also that the paper transfer of an interest in a mortgage is a legal nullity in all jurisdictions unless there is a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation. This is further amplified by Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all US jurisdictions, that requires payment of value as a condition precedent for filing any foreclosure action.

Please also take notice of the fact that the purported delivery of the original note is mostly fiction since the original note was most likely destroyed shortly after the “Closing.” But even if delivery of the original note is deemed to have occurred, the possessor is neither a holder nor anyone else entitled to enforce it unless they received a delivery from someone who owned the underlying obligation or note.

This is where the Wall Street brokers have snookered the courts, the lawyers, and even homeowners themselves. A holder is someone who has possession and has the right to enforce. The case for foreclosure fails on this point unless, here it is again, the homeowner admits delivery or fails to contest it and allows the assumption of authority to enforce to operate without rebutting that presumption through discovery.

So when U.S. Bank or Bank of New York Mellon says it is appearing “not on its own behalf” you should take them at their word. They have no interest. Treating them as though they do have an interest only leads to the same series of conclusions described above causing the court of law to conclude that your defenses are both technical and dilatory. You have already admitted the case against you — so why are fighting it? That isn’t bias. It is the standard operating procedure. Courts are not exhibiting bias when they do that. They are following orders based upon centuries of legal precedent and statutes.

I have many followers who are adhering to the untenable notion that the courts are acting out of bias or even malice. They are not — even when the judge appears irritated. You must get off that tack which will gain you nothing and lead nowhere and get on board with a defense that actually does work, based on the facts and existing law. Getting angry with me for saying that homeowners are losing their cases rather than “banks” winning the case is a failure to recognize the fact that few people are able to make sense out of the process called “securitization” — a process that never actually happened in residential transactions with homeowners.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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.
*

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write it. 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 fee you can afford.

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

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

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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, education, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | 4 Comments »

Repurchase agreements only advance the myth that loans were purchased in the first place.

Posted on December 14, 2020 by Neil Garfield

Investors would do much better if they stopped litigating the duty to enforce repurchase agreements. The repurchase agreement is void because there was no purchase. There are better claims to make that are more easily proven.

Homeowner litigants need to have more courage and attack the existence and ownership of the underlying alleged obligation much more explicitly and directly. They will be pleasantly surprised. While they will never get an admission that the whole affair is a scam, they will be able to raise the inference and thus limit the evidence in court that would ordinarily be allowed to prove the existence, ownership, and enforceability of what the claimant says is an unpaid debt. The key to winning any defense narrative is establishing insufficiency of the evidence.

As I stated in 2006 on TV, radio and articles published in many news outlets, both homeowners and investors should get on the same page. This was a sham. Investors probably can become creditors if they ask the court for a declaration of rights and maybe even appointment of a receiver. The debtors would be the Wall Street firms and possibly even homeowners — although not to the full extent of the purported obligation to repay the compensation paid to homeowners for assuming concealed risks.

see https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/opinion/will-cmbs-litigation-be-the-new-rmbs-litigation

This is how the legal system became twisted beyond recognition in dealing with claims arising from investors, homeowners, and GSEs. There was a faulty and totally erroneous assumption (in most cases) that there was ANYTHING to buy or sell.

Wall Street banks have successfully relied upon complexity to force everyone else to rely on a single source for explanation of the falsely proclaimed “securitization” process. That single source is Wall Street. As long as we are only getting our information from the perpetrators of this financial terrorism we will be paralyzed.

Now this is spilling over to commercial transactions where some securitization actually happened. As between banks it was called “syndication” of loans, but when they get outside investors to take a piece then it is called “securitization” because each investor gets some paper document proclaiming them to be the owner of part of the loan debt, note, and mortgage.

That never happened with residential loans. No investor ever purchased a share of any loan. No Wall Street securities brokerage firm (aka “investment bank”) ever established, maintained or sold any homeowner obligation. But the Wall Street firms did pretend to sell the note and mortgage, albeit without any conveyance of the alleged underlying obligation.

A paper transfer of an asset is evidence of transfer, but it is not the actual transfer. So homeowners can ask for proof of payment of value for the underlying obligation (see Article 9 §203 UCC) to rebut the appearance of a transfer. A transfer of a mortgage without transfer of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all 50 states, as it should be.

And unless Wall Street wants to tell us that such transfers were gifts, then those “purchases” were never completed because there was no payment of value one exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the alleged underlying obligation. This is one of the finer points that Wall Street is exploiting. They may point to the movement of money or value — but that movement did not result in a transaction in which an owner of the obligation (i.e.e someone who paid for it) was paid value for the obligation and executed a transfer document “for value received.”

Of course, the underlying obligation had been extinguished contemporaneously with the origination or acquisition of the obligation — because nobody wanted to be left holding the bag. Any entry on the accounting ledger of any entity that established the obligation as an asset purchased for value would make that entity liable for violations of lending laws. And nobody wanted to suffer a real loss if the homeowner failed to make scheduled payments to pay off a nonexistent debt.

So nobody wanted to own any debt from homeowners. And they didn’t need to own anything. The securities scheme was not securitization of any homeowner debt. It was a much larger scheme that used homeowner transactions only as an outside reference point for data reporting in the sole discretion of Wall Street firms who were the bookrunners in each scheme.

The securities were bets — not evidence of ownership of anything. The sale and trading of such securities, combined with insurance and hedge contracts produced so much money that the homeowner transaction became irrelevant excepts as a reference point for data. So everyone got paid in full and then some. Nobody needed to own any homeowner obligation and the fact that they didn’t own the obligation would not stop them from pursuing enforcement despite the lack of ownership.

In order to really sell an asset, you must own it. In order to own it you must pay for it. In order to transfer ownership of the asset, you must transfer the actual asset not just a piece of paper that talks about the asset. It is possible that some payment of value exchanged hands in which there was a reference to both residential and commercial loans. But in residential transactions with homeowners, it is mostly NOT possible that any underlying obligation was transferred (even if it appears to have been “sold”).

So “repurchase agreements” for bad loans were in fact a misnomer and perpetuated the myth that securitization of residential loans actually occurred. Litigation over rights that do not exist is a farce. But that is exactly where the courts are stuck. This is not a failing of the courts. It is the failure of litigants to bring the true facts to the court’s attention.

This failure arises from the lack of understanding of the process that Wall Street is calling “securitization.”

Litigants need to have more courage and attack the existence and ownership of the underlying alleged obligation much more explicitly and directly. They will be pleasantly surprised. While they will never get an admission that the whole affair is a scam, they will be able to raise the inference and thus limit the evidence in court that would ordinarily be allowed to prove the existence, ownership, and enforceability of what the claimant says is an unpaid debt. The key to winning any defense narrative is establishing the insufficiency of the evidence.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, investment banking, Investor, Presumptions, prima facie case, securities fraud, sham transactions | 1 Comment »

Think You Have a Loan? Think Again! Don’t allow the Wall Street “investment banks” to steal back money that was earned by homeowners. 

Posted on December 11, 2020 by Neil Garfield

What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it. 

*
Without knowing it, you are probably doing business with a Wall Street securities brokerage firm calling itself an “investment bank.” You didn’t know because they were never disclosed. And the money they paid to you was not a loan — at least not for them it wasn’t. They didn’t treat it that way on their own records and neither should you. That means they are attempting to collect back the money they paid to you even though it wasn’t a loan.
*
So what did they pay you for? When you issued the promissory note what were you buying?
*
The plain truth is that without an extensive background in investment banking — and all the experience, training, and education that requires — you have no way of understanding the nature of the transaction. So I’m breaking it down into its simplest components here — useful for litigation but not a complete description.
*
You asked for and thought you received a loan. After all, you did get the money, didn’t you? When you applied for a loan, you thought you had identified the lender with whom you were doing business. After all, the money came after you signed the “closing documents”, right? So when the judge asked if you received the loan, you say “yes” believing there is no way you could deny the “obvious.
*
And that is how Wall Street has been winning for 20 years. What is obvious is false but only investment bankers know it. 
*
Here is what you didn’t know (in nearly all cases):
*
  1. Yes, you asked for a loan, but the application you submitted was not to a lender.
  2. Contrary to the laws governing loan transactions many things were not disclosed to you.
  3. In most cases, the intake for the application for a “loan” is performed by a loan broker, who doesn’t care what the transaction is called as long as he/she gets the commission.
  4. The loan broker gets paid if you sign the closing documents. By signing the promissory note you have created an obligation — but is it enforceable? The answer is yes if it really was a loan transaction.
  5. The loan broker then forwards the information on the “loan” application to an IT platform that is controlled by a third party platform which in turn is acting for a securities firm preparing to issue and sell securities to investors. As far as they’re concerned they would prefer to pay you $1 rather than $200,000. But then how could they get you to sign a note for $200,000?
  6. The securities that are issued and sold are not a conveyance of any interest in your transaction. They are bets based upon reports issued by the securities firm. The prices of those securities are unrelated to the total amount of your transaction or any part of your transaction. So they can sell these securities indefinitely until the market is saturated (no more demand).
  7. On average, the dollar volume of revenue generated by the securities firm selling the securities is $12 for each $1 of your transaction.
  8. The amount they paid you was, therefore, on average, around 8.5% of the total revenue. It was a commission, not a loan. But you didn’t know that.
  9. You received a payment that was dressed up as a loan. You never thought to bargain for reasonable compensation for entering into a transaction that was the keystone of all the sales of all of the securities. And you never thought about whether you wanted to be part of a business venture whose purpose was to sell betting rights based upon reports about your transaction and whether you were making scheduled payments.
  10. Collection and enforcement of the obligation you created when you executed the promissory note is the act of taking back the commission they paid to you. And because they want all of it back plus interest that leaves you with negative compensation for initiating a huge business venture and allowing the use of your name and reputation. (They get all the benefits, you get the shaft).
  11. And even at the point of collection and enforcement you still don’t know that you are actually dealing with a securities firm that has no financial interest in your transaction. You don’t know because nobody is telling you that. They insist on calling it a loan and since it looks like a loan, everyone (including you) thinks it is a loan.
  12. When they get money from you or from the sale of your property they have no place to put it. They can’t debit an account receivable that reflects ownership of your obligation because there is no account receivable on the ledger of any company. Your payments constitute a return of the commission they paid to you — an amount that they deemed reasonable. That means that their payment is evidence of the amount of commission to the homeowner that the securities firm deemed reasonable. Ask any lawyer what that could mean.
  13. In court, they seek to increase their profits by forcing the sale of your house. But that can only be done legally if the forced sale is granted by a court because the action is a foreclosure. But it isn’t a foreclosure if the claimant is not the owner of your obligation. And they can’t be the owner of your obligation unless they paid value for it — which is why there would be an entry on the accounting ledgers of some company if anyone paid for your obligation and received a conveyance of ownership of your obligation. 
  14. In every loan, there is the lender and a borrower. You intended to be a borrower but you never made the journey. The biggest problem in foreclosure defense is the fact that homeowners and their lawyers (and the judges before whom they appear) believe that you did make the journey.
  15. That is because your counterpart was not a lender, had no means or intention of being a lender, and was seeking to avoid being called a lender at all costs — because they didn’t want to be held responsible for violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and other federal and state law governing lending, collections, and enforcement.
  16. The borrower has every legal right and legal expectation that the party representing itself as a lender is doing the underwriting of a loan with due diligence. That means they have a stake in the outcome of the transaction. It if its a loan, their revenue, profit, and assets are dependent upon repayment of the ”loan.” 
  17. In most cases, your transaction was conducted by the securities firm acting through sham conduit intermediaries. The sole purpose was to start the sale of securities. Some of those securities were bets against the performance data of your loan.
  18. So they had an incentive and a vested interest in seeing your “obligation” fail. That is why they inflated appraisals, granted no doc loans, granted NINJA loans, and offered “teaser” terms that were guaranteed to fail when the scheduled payments were reset.  The securities brokerage firm was betting on a sure thing. 
  19. In addition, the riskier the loan the higher the interest they could charge. That’s because everyone (except the Wall Street firm) thought it was a loan. And the higher the interest the less they had to pay out from the fund of capital generated by selling securities to investors. So if you had a $200,000 transaction where the securities brokerage firm set a price of 10% “interest,”  they were receiving around $400,000 from investors to cover that “loan” (which was actually a commission). That is why there is no loan account receivable on the books of anyone — not even the securities brokerage firm that funded it out of investor capital.
  20. Everyone on the “securitization” team got paid without exception. There is no debt.

So here is the message to homeowners, lawyers, regulators, law enforcement, and lawmakers:

Don’t allow the Wall Street “investment banks” to steal back money that was earned by homeowners. 

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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 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: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Investor, Mortgage, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 3 Comments »

After Complaints to AG and CFPB Follow UP!

Posted on December 1, 2020 by Neil Garfield

If you are not going to follow up on complaints to your attorney general or the CFPB, then you shouldn’t have filed the complaint in the first place. If you are not going to follow up on demand for discovery, don’t bother filing them.

The simple truth is that they never answer the question. They simply use the opportunity to propagate the lie that a loan was securitized when in fact no sale of the loan ever occurred.

Most people and many lawyers fail to recognize a simple legal strategy that is available to them, to whit: that the failure to respond to simple basic questions about The ownership and existence of the underlying obligation open the door for a clear win for the homeowner.

 

Your opposition is simply following the usual playbook. They are missed directing your question. And you should point that out to the AG office or CFPB after you file the complaint.

*
The basic thrust of your question is the identification of the creditor who maintains an account receivable for the underlying obligation, and whether the Obligation still exists.
*
Their answer Is that the word salad that they are using to label a virtual creditor (if it exists as a legal entity), is the note holder. You were not asking that. And if you did ask that question you would still be asking the same question — how did they become the “holder.”
*
Remember that a holder is someone in possession of the note with the right to enforce it. What everyone seems to forget is to ask the question of how the party in possession of the note received the right to enforce (which can only be granted by the party who owns the obligation or who represents someone who owns the obligation).
*
And remember nobody gets to own an obligation just because they say so. In order to own an obligation, a party must have entered into a legally recognizable transaction in which they purchased it for value pursuant to Article 9 §203 UCC as adopted by all 50 states. All states also recognize that a purported conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a conveyance of ownership in the underlying obligation is a legal nullity. 
*
Most states allow a rebuttable presumption arising from the possession of the note. The legal fiction adopted in most states is that if you have the note in your possession, or at least if you claim to have a note in your possession, that there must’ve been a delivery of the physical note along with the authority to enforce it.
*
Homeowners who fail to rebut this presumption lose their case and their home.
*
Homeowners who fail to understand legal procedure do not understand that the inability of the opposition to provide legally required answered to the basic questions about existence and ownership of the underlying obligation can easily be used as the basis to rebut that presumption.
 *
At the end of that claimed transaction, the purchasing party must claim ownership. If it says it is the owner of the obligation, then it must have entries on its accounting ledgers and banking statements that show payment of value for the underlying debt and the establishment of a loan account receivable.
 *

It is possible that the entire Wall Street strategy has been based upon the gamble that nobody other than accountants understands double-entry bookkeeping — the only bookkeeping system legally recognized as the starting point of any claim of ownership or transaction about anything.

 *

Without real transactions and real entries in their ledgers, nobody can claim ownership of the obligation. And nobody can claim authority from the owner of the obligation unless that mysterious virtual creditor has entered into transactions and currently maintains ownership of a loan account receivable. 

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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. Inthe 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Pleading, Servicer, sham transactions, trial strategy | 3 Comments »

Why You Need to Understand the Truth and How to Use It to Successfully Defend Foreclosure Cases

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Neil Garfield

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

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

You don’t need to believe me. You don’t need proof that what I am saying is true. You have every right in every court to file demands for discovery relating to the existence and ownership of the debt. Ask any lawyer or any judge. They will affirm this to be true. And ask any accountant. The debt exists only if someone maintains a current ledger entry on their own books of record that shows they paid value for the underlying obligation, along with having supporting documentation (proof of payment). If they didn’t pay value then they don’t own it — under both accounting rules and the laws of every jurisdiction.

Everyone is complaining about why homeowners are not winning more cases. They all seem to have their own specific grievance theory about lawyers, judges, regulators etc. But the real problem is the homeowners themselves. They simply won’t accept the fact that a claim filed against them has absolutely no merit.

So the first thing they do is admit the existence of the debt, the existence of delinquency, the existence of default, and then they go on to explain why they should be let out of what they have already admitted was a legitimate debt that is unpaid  — contrary to the agreement they signed. After losing the case, homeowners claim bias and any other theory that distracts from their own personal responsibility for their loss.

No judge is a mind reader or an investment banker. Acting as though a judge should be a mind reader or an investment banker is foolishness.

If the claim filed against you arises as a result of a claim of securitization of a debt, the claim is false. There was no securitization of debt. There was no sale of any debt. There is no authority arising from the securitization of debt. The document submitted by a self-proclaimed servicer both irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence in court — but only if a timely objection is raised. That is how the system works.

The same thing holds true when the named claimant is not a trustee. In most cases, the transaction was still the reference point for securitization, to wit: the issuance and sale of securities. And those securities were not conveyances of any right, title, or interest in any debt, note, or mortgage. So the fact that the securities were bets on data contained in discretionary reports issued by the” investment bank” posing as “Master Servicer” does not mean the debt was sold. It wasn’t. Like the supposed “REMIC Trustee” the named claimant has no loss and in fact has no interest in the outcome of litigation — except as a profiteer.

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

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

This is reminiscent of the repeated reports to the SEC of wrongdoing by Bernie Madoff. The reports were regarded as too absurd to be true on the scale that was reported — until 10 years later when Madoff himself admitted all charges and was sent to prison. Just because a lie is a whopper doesn’t mean that it can be turned into truth. Eventually, financial historians are going to see “Securitization” for what it is — a PONZI scheme. Nothing was securitized.

It is understandable that Homeowners are a bit put off by the apparent complexity of securitization. But it becomes much simpler when you realize that securitization never occurred. The securities that were issued and sold to investors did not represent ownership of any debt, note, mortgage, or payment.

It is also understandable that homeowners are not well-versed in court procedure, the burden of proof, or the rules of evidence. And it is even understandable for homeowners to assume that their debt still exists. We can’t expect homeowners to understand what has been completely concealed from them.

Because of limited judicial resources, the courts were forced into running roughshod over the rights of homeowners — solely because of the assumption that the debt existed and that somehow the money proceeds of the forced sale would find its way into the hands of investors who had directly or indirectly purchased the transactions that were labeled as loans.

  • Removing the assumption of an existing debt the homeowner who properly and timely files a denial of claims and or who files affirmative defenses should be permitted to rebut the legal presumptions arising from apparently facially valid documentation and to contest the actual facial validity of such instruments.
  • Removing the assumption of an existing debt requires the trial court to treat discovery demands seriously rather than as an annoyance.
  • Removing the assumption of an existing debt requires the trial court to strictly apply existing law instead of inventing new law.

If a lawyer meets a prospective client who admits liability, the lawyer is going to look for other means to protect the client from enforcement. If a lawyer admits liability on behalf of his client the judge is going to consider technical factors in the enforcement of the liability. But the judge is not going to deny enforcement on the basis that the liability does not exist. If the homeowner and the lawyer failed to bring that issue up, then it is not an issue that will be litigated. Those are the rules. That is not bias.

There is nothing more basic to a foreclosure action than the existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Homeowners and their lawyers have made the mistake of trying to prove the true facts of securitization or lack thereof. But all they really need to do is challenge the presumptions raised by the allegations and exhibits of the claimant — during the process of discovery. They fear this path because they fear the claim is real.

The problem is that neither homeowners nor their attorneys are going to do that. Instead, they are going to look for a magic bullet in the form of technical deficiencies of the allegations or exhibits. This almost guarantees that the judge will order foreclosure, a sale will occur and the homeowner will be evicted. How would you feel if somebody owed YOU money and they got out of it by poiinting out some minor technical deficiency?

You don’t need to believe me. You don’t need proof that what I am saying is true. You have every right in every court to file demands for discovery relating to the existence and ownership of the debt. Ask any lawyer or any judge. They will affirm this to be true. And ask any accountant. The debt exists only if someone maintains a current ledger entry on their own books of record that shows they paid value for the underlying obligation, along with having supporting documentation (proof of payment). If they didn’t pay value then they don’t own it — under both accounting rules and the laws of every jurisdiction.

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

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

But the burden is on the homeowner to raise the objections. The burden is on the homeowner to deny the allegations and challenge the exhibits. If the homeowner fails to timely raise the issues in proper form, then the debt does exist for purposes of litigating the case — even if there is no debt in real life. Courtrooms are not real life. All courtroom decisions are legal fictions in which the judge’s finding of fact is final even if it differs from the real world. If it were otherwise, courts could not work and no disputes would be resolved — ever. 

Your expectation that lawyers and judges should know about all of this is misplaced. The only people who would know this information for a fact are people like me. I was an actual practicing investment banker and I was physically present in the room when the seeds of the current scheme of securitization were discussed way back in 1970.

When I later read that someone figured out a way to separate the debt from a “mortgage-backed security” I understood completely what that meant and how it would be misconstrued by homeowners, lawyers, judges, and regulators. The Wall Street banks gambled that the sheer magnitude of their lie would overcome any objections. They were right.

But they don’t have to be right for future litigation. And that is why I am filing amicus briefs and drafting petitions for rule changes in all 50 states. Eventually, courts are going to have that moment when they realize what is going on. That day will be moved closer by you acting on what I say here on these pages.

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

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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 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: boarding process, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | 4 Comments »

To All Those Requesting an Amicus Brief on Illegal Foreclosures: A different strategy is needed in my opinion

Posted on November 12, 2020 by Neil Garfield
I have spent the last six months drafting, re-drafting, editing, researching and investigating the basis for filing a brief as a friend of the court.
*
The basis for an amicus curiae brief is the anticipated willingness of the receiving court to admit that there are factors involved about which the judge or panel lacks adequate knowledge or understanding. The problem with foreclosures is that judges think they understand all they need to know. Hence an amicus curiae brief is unlikely to be accepted or even read. Some judges might accept it into the court file, but they still won’t read it or give it any weight.
*
This is very much like the whole issue of fake news. In this case, the securitization players have spent billions of dollars convincing the American public, agency regulators, homeowners, lawyers, judges and appellate judges or justices that the transaction with the homeowner was a loan. Like all fake news, the more people read it and the more often they read it, the more they believe it. Judges believe in the value of precedent — decisions made previously by other courts.
**
CONFIRMATION BIAS: Each judge that has allowed the claim of securitization players to go forward as a foreclosure has reinforced the false narrative that the money received by homeowners was a loan and not payment for services rendered (i.e., payment to allow personal information to be used for marketing and selling securities, and payment for execution of documents bearing the label of loan documents so that securities could be sold).
**
So each time another court twists some law like the statute of limitations beyond recognition in order to save the foreclosure from being dismissed or vacated, they are contributing to the growing false narrative that somehow foreclosures are reducing the loss in an account receivable on the ledger of some company that has paid value in exchange for receiving a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt from someone who owned it.
***
But nobody has ever seen such an account. They have only seen the reports from a self-proclaimed servicer who refuses to assert for whom it is working and refuses to provide any confirmation that any money collected from any homeowner is sent to any creditor.
***
I have come to the conclusion that after months of drafting potential amicus briefs, it is a nonstarter and all that work was for naught. But that freed me to think about other strategies that might directly impact the current pandemic of confirmation bias. I think an administrative rule challenge might be that vehicle. 
****
A petition to the Supreme Court of each state asserting that the current loose pleading and certification requirements reflect a bygone era in which a known creditor with an uncontested account receivable sought a remedy to offset a loss from nonpayment. In the hundreds of thousands of contested cases at least one of the principal issues raised in defense has been the true status and ownership of the alleged obligation.
*
A requirement that the pleading or notice explicitly must assert the identity of the party currently carrying the account receivable (in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting principles -GAAP)— certified by the sworn statement an actual officer of that creditor would (a) narrow the issues in discovery and (b) quite possibly narrow either the number of claims, defenses or both.  The availability of that officer for deposition or other discovery should be a condition precedent to allowing any evidence seeking to prove the assertion that a loan account exists or is owned by anyone.
****
The basic pre-approved pleading forms and rules allowing foreclosures should be changed to reflect the new reality — or the court must consider whether it is going to allow, without legislation, changes in the law to allow virtual creditors to make and collect on claims.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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. Inthe 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 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: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, prima facie case, standing | Leave a comment »

Freddie Mac Changes Its Language from “Loan Portfolio” to “Reference Pool”

Posted on November 9, 2020 by Neil Garfield

see https://www.streetinsider.com/Globe+Newswire/Freddie+Mac+Credit+Protects+%24167.3+Billion+of+Single-Family+Mortgages+in+Third+Quarter/17554183.html

People still don’t believe it. Loans were not securitized but are being treated as though they were securitized. “Securitization” means selling off an asset in pro rata shares to investors who get a piece of paper telling them that they own X% of the asset.

Ask anyone who knows (or read it yourself) — all of the securitization documents are “forward statements” meaning they are referencing a future event. And none of the securitization documents convey any ownership, equitable or legal interest in any debt, note, or mortgage. And the future event never occurs. That’s the point for the Wall Street bankers.

Since they never retain any interest in any debt, note or mortgage they face no exposure to any risk of loss, and no liability for violations of federal and state statutes as issuers or lenders even though they are both. When they foreclose through various intermediaries (usually a bank appearing solely as trustee of a nonexistent trust) they still receive the net money proceeds but they have no loan account receivable to credit when they receive those sales proceeds.

ACCOUNTING NOTE: There is a difference between a loan account and a loan account receivable. A “loan account” can mean anything or nothing at all. But a loan account receivable is ane try on a general ledger that is reported on the issued balance sheet of a business entity showing that the company paid value (debt cash, credit assets) in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt (from one who legally owns it) — all as required by Article 9 §203 UCC which has been one existence, in one form or another, for centuries.

Without such a transaction there is nothing to report.

And without a conveyance of ownership of the asset receivable, there is no legally allowable entry on the general ledger claiming ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

The securitization of loans never happened. This means that all claims of rights or authority to administer, collect, or enforce any debt, note or mortgage are completely and utterly false if they are based upon securitization of the subject loan.

But the Wall Street PR machine has convinced virtually everyone including “borrowers” that the loans were securitized. And there are hundreds of appellate decisions referring to loan portfolios that do not exist but are treated as real nonetheless.

So watch for how bulletins and announcements are phrased. In order to avoid indictments and civil liability for outright lying, they are now referring to loan portfolios as “reference pools,” which is exactly what I have been saying for years.

Yes, there were securities created, issued, sold, and traded. And in fact, the indenture did indeed have references to groups of data derived from announcements by investment banks referring to the performance of those loans. But that is not securitization of loans. It is the securitization of proprietary data relating to the performance of the loans — not the ownership of loans (which is what is required to speak of securitization of loans).

SO WHERE DID THE LOAN GO? This could be a reasonable basis fr dispute — i.e., whether the loan was extinguished or simply became inchoate (sleeping) pending a reformation of the transaction such that a designated virtual creditor was replaced with a real one — as required by law.

DOESN’T THAT GIVE AN UNFAIR WINDFALL TO HOMEOWNERS WHO RENEGED ON A PROMISE TO PAY? Again subject to dispute, but my answer is absolutely not.

In fact, it reveals exactly the opposite.

The “lender” (securities brokerage firm doing business as an “investment bank”) is actually an issuer of securities that cannot be sold without the cooperative signature of the homeowner together with detailed personal information of the homeowner.

The resulting sale of securities produces a windfall to the investment bank equal on average to 12 times the principal paid, thus far, to the homeowner.

The homeowner is required under the disclosed part of the deal to repay the principal paid to him — which means that the homeowner did not receive any consideration for the concealed part of the securitization deal.

In addition, the homeowner has unknowingly taken on the risk that the investment bank has dumped. As a putative “lender” (not really) its sole business reason for the transaction is the issuance of securities without which it would not near lending to individual homeowners.

The more securities the merrier and the larger the windfall to the investment bank— all without giving any conveyance of any debt, note or mortgage. (You never see the investment bank as the grantee on any recorded conveyance).

Since the investment bank has no risk of loss, it does not care about the future performance of the alleged “loan transaction.” This one fact removes the basic balance between any person who is characterized as a borrower and any person who is characterized as a lender.

According to federal and state lending laws and basic common sense, the lender, as a sophisticated financial enterprise, is charged legally with determining the viability of the loan because it has a risk of loss.

Without that risk of loss, the only interest remaining is getting the “borrower” to submit personal data and to have the homeowner sign documentation promising to pay back the consideration (plus interest!) received for the concealed, involuntary participation in the securitization scheme.

In contract law, this is a classic example of a failure of an element of enforceable contract — no meeting of the minds. Borrower intent + NO lending intent = no contract. 

The homeowner is deprived of the opportunity to receive the benefit of bargaining for a share of the securitization scheme or not to participate at all.

Therefore my conclusion is that (a) the homeowner owes nothing because of contract failure and (b)is entitled to quantum meruit under quasi-contract law to reasonable compensation for the concealed securitization scheme that could never have existed but for the homeowner’s signature and personal data.

What does this mean? It means that NONE of the investors who bought or traded swaps, certificates, or other securities ever acquired any interest in any loan. None of them acquired the ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage. None of them ever acquired the legal right to administer, collect, or enforce any debt, note, or mortgage. And it means that all documents suggesting the contrary are fabricated and false.

Thus under such circumstances no servicer, trustee, trust or investor Including Fannie and Freddie) possesses any right, title or interest in administration, collection or enforcement of any loan.

DUMP THE RISK: The theory behind securitization is perfectly sound, legal, moral, and politically expedient. It is intended to attract investment by reducing risk. But Wall Street took this one step further. They completely eliminated the risk. In order to do that they had to completely eliminate the loan account from the general ledger of any company that was involved in the securitization process. The loan account was a cover for fraud. It doesn’t exist.

Nobody loses money when a homeowner stops paying. And when a homeowner does pay they are contributing to bonuses and largely untaxed profit of investment banks — and that is an apt description of what happens to the money when a homestead is forced into sale. NO entry is ever made decreasing the amount of a receivable because there is no receivable.

And that is the part that is completely “counterintuitive” to nearly everyone. It is also the reason that Foreclosure Mills consistently Stonewall any attempts to get discovery of information that would obviously lead to admissible evidence in court.

There are thousands of Foreclosure cases that have been pushed to the back burner for 10 years or more (I have one that is 12 years old) as a result of lawyers and pro se litigants experimenting with this concept.

The concept is simple. The claim brought against the homeowner either directly or indirectly asserts that the designated claimant exists in the real world and possesses a claim against the Homeowner. The homeowner says OK, tell me how you exist and how you acquired a claim against me. The Foreclosure Mail refuses to answer because it knows that the truth will kill the claim. 

BUT by sheer force of will and perseverance and infinitely deep pockets, the investment bank continues litigating a claim that has absolutely no merit. And in most cases, because our government regulators are sleeping the cost of defending the baseless claims falls onto the homeowner who lacks the resources of time, money and energy to preserve the largest asset he/she owns.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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 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: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, Free House, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES | 3 Comments »

Why are conditions precedent so important in foreclosure cases?

Posted on November 6, 2020 by Neil Garfield

The mischaracterization of a condition precedent alters the burden of proof. (e.s.) If compliance with the HUD regulation is a condition precedent to foreclosure, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving substantial compliance with the condition when it presents its case, so long as the borrower has made a specific denial of the plaintiff’s allegation that it had satisfied all conditions precedent (e.s.).2 See, e.g., Chrzuszcz, 250 So. 3d at 769–70. But if compliance with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 is an affirmative defense, “[t]he defendant, as the one who raises the affirmative defense, bears the burden of proving that affirmative defense.” Id. at 769 (citing Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1096 (Fla. 2010) (“An affirmative defense is an assertion of facts or law by the defendant that, if true, would avoid the action and the plaintiff is not bound to prove that the affirmative defense does not exist.”))Lakeview Loan Servicing v. Walcott-Barr. Judge Gross,  Concurring opinion.

Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been adopted as state law in all 50 states. It states that a claimant must have paid value for the underlying debt before seeking enforcement of a security instrument and it states that this is not mere guidance. It expressly states that it is a condition precedent to any attempt to enforce the security instrument (e.g. mortgage or Deed of trust).

The reason this is important is the technical construct of the burden of proof. If the homeowner denies that all conditions precedent have been satisfied then it is the claimant who must prove that all conditions precedent must be satisfied. Since one of those conditions precedent is the payment of value one exchange for ownership of the underlying obligation, a proper denial (answer in judicial cases) is sufficient in those cases to require the foreclosure mill to prove the payment of value. there are no exceptions.

In non-judicial foreclosures, this issue is muddied and its application is potentially unconstitutional. That is because the homeowner must file the lawsuit and declare that the foreclosure mill and its “client” failed to satisfy conditions precedent including the state statute adopting Article 9 §203 UCC.

In judicial foreclosures, the foreclosure mill will most likely be unable to actually prove that anyone paid value for the underlying obligation. The homeowner can seal the doom of the foreclosure mill simply by aggressively pursuing discovery seeking proof of payment. In non-judicial foreclosures, the homeowner must rely on discovery because the foreclosure has not made any allegations and therefore has nothing to prove.

Many lawyers and pro se litigants get confused in applying these “technical” requirements. The foreclosure mill will always rely on allowable legal presumptions arising from the apparent facial validity of notes, allonges, mortgages, and assignments. If the document is indeed facially valid then the presumption is that it can be admitted into evidence as both relevant and as proof of the matters asserted in the document — namely that the mortgage or note has been transferred. but you will rarely find an instrument that recites that the underlying debt was transferred. that is where legal presumptions enter the picture.

So the first thing a homeowner must do is challenge whether the document is facially valid. the answer to that often comes in the signature block where the actual party and their authority is unclear without parol evidence. If that is the case, then the document is not facially valid. Therefore no legal presumptions arise from facial validity. If the attack on facial validity fails then the homeowner must counterattack the evidence, which is now admitted, by rebutting the legal presumption, to wit: that no value was paid. That is done in discovery where the failure to respond to the discovery can if pursued correctly, lead to the conclusion that no such payment occurred. The condition precedent fails and the homeowner wins.

This is technical but not a technicality in the lay sense of the word. In the national code preceding the UCC and for centuries before it, forfeiture of property — especially homestead property — was considered to be a draconian remedy where only money was involved.

So it evolved that while you could get judgments for debts, you could not execute that judgment by selling the debtor’s property unless you had actually paid for the debt. That is why there are so many differences between Article 3 UCC and Article 9. Mortgages are not negotiable instruments.

But even with notes the fact that a claimant alleges possession of the original note does not mean they actually have it. they must prove it. And the fact that they possess it does not mean that they have the right to enforce it. But possession raises the presumption of the right to enforce. This is another area of mistakes and errors by homeowners, lawyers, trial judges, and even appellate judges.

The right to enforce can ONLY come from the one who owns the underlying obligation OR, under Article 3, someone who paid for the note in good faith and without knowledge of the maker’s defenses. There is no law in existence that will confirm ownership of the debt without payment — but payment is often presumed. So rebutting the presumption is key to winning foreclosure cases.

The absence of knowledge and use of these legal precepts is fatal to efforts to defend one’s home from unlawful seizure and foreclosure. The presence of knowledge is no guarantee of results but it raises the likelihood of a successful defense to highly probable.

BOTTOM LINE: It is not enough that you know the opposition never paid for the underlying debt. You must either force them to prove payment or prove they did not. The only other possibility that produces the same result is revealing that the opposition should not be permitted to submit evidence of ownership or authority over the debt because they refused or failed to respond to discovery — but that requires aggressive motion practice to succeed.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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. Inthe 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, Motions, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 1 Comment »

Trusts, Trustors, Settlors and Fake REMIC Trusts

Posted on October 28, 2020 by Neil Garfield

All trusts that are legally recognized as such have the following basic components: the trustor/settlor who (a) executes a written trust agreement and (b) conveys property into the name of the named trustee to hold and manage the conveyed asset(s) for the benefit of named beneficiaries. So the three basic components are (1) property (the res), (2) a trustor/settlor, and (3) beneficiaries. Pooling and servicing agreements when read closely reveal in all cases that they are missing all three components.

*

Trustees only exist in relation to a defined trust. A trust may technically exist if it is written down on paper. But it has no legal existence in court unless there is (a) something in it and (b) that something is relevant to the dispute being litigated in court. If it has no legal existence in court then the presumed powers of the trustee are irrelevant. The trustee’s power over claims or property are only as great as what is legally existing within the trust. That means that someone who owned an asset transferred it to the name of the trustee to hold in trust for the benefit of specific beneficiaries. In no case that I ever examined did such a transaction ever take place in connection with REMIC trusts or residential loans.

*
Several legal malpractice suits have been based upon the failure of the lawyer to advise his/her client that the trust that has been drafted and executed is still completely worthless if the trustor does not transfer assets into the trust. The beneficiaries find out the hard way that the trust may have indicated an intent to distribute certain assets to them, but if there is nothing owned by the trust, they get nothing. It’s like forming a corporation in whose name no business is ever done. It doesn’t matter that the intent of the founder of the corporation meant to conduct business in the name of the trust.
*
The corporation, like a trust, is a legal fiction equivalent (see Citizens United) to a legal person. That legal person cannot legally operate or own a car, directly or indirectly even through employment of a human, unless it legally buys the car and registers and insures it in accordance with state law. If the car gets into an accident then the person driving it is the one who will get sued because unless you can show that the person driving it was doing so at the behest of the corporation that did not own it, the corporation did nothing at all.
*
Going back to the original question, the REMIC Trust exists on paper and is either regarded as inchoate (sleeping) or nonexistent, depending upon state law. Being named as trustee of such a trust conveys no power over anything except for what has been conveyed by a trustor/settlor to the trustee for the express purpose of holding and managing the asset for the benefit of named beneficiaries. While there are several references to things that might happen in the future, no such conveyance is ever recited as an accomplished fact.
*
It therefore follows by simple logic that if a servicer is claiming the right to administer, collect or enforce a debt, it must be doing so on behalf of a legal person who is entitled to such administration, collection and enforcement. If the company claiming the label of “servicer” is claiming it is empowered by the trustee of a REMIC trust, then that trustee must have power over the asset (i.e., debt, note or mortgage or DOT). If a Bank party is claiming to be a trustee over the asset, then the asset must have been bought, conveyed, sold to the t trustee to hold and manage in trust for the benefit of beneficiaries. Conveyance of an interest in a mortgage or other encumbrance requires that the grantor legally own it and that the party receiving it pay value for it.
*
I have read the actual trust agreements that exist far from prying eyes of foreclosure defense lawyers. They specifically acknowledge that the trustee is getting, in name only, a conveyance that is (a) worthless since it does not include conveyance of the underlying obligation and (b) to hold for the sole benefit and subject to the direction of the investment bank that originated the securitization scheme. The investors who buy certificates are unsecured creditors, not beneficiaries.  I remind the reader that no such securitization scheme ever securitized the debt, note or mortgage of any residential homeowner.
*

BOTTOM LINE: ASK FOR THE ACTUAL TRUST AGREEMENT — AND DON’T ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS THE PSA.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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. Inthe 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, foreclosure defenses, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | 2 Comments »

What to do if the foreclosure mill refuses to give you an answer about ownership of the “loan”

Posted on October 24, 2020 by Neil Garfield
Summer Chic write me an interesting email and I wrote back. She poses a question that summarizes the entire situation:
She wrote:

Example: PennyMac claimed that they PURCHASED my loan on May 2, 2019  from someone whom they cannot identify. The financial statements from a non-identified company show that somebody “established a NEW loan” on May 9, 2019. Not a single word about the sale

Here is what I wrote back:
*
As unusual PennyMac (or Ocwen or whoever) claims that it purchased a specific loan (usually in bulk). So we all know that a claim is good for pleading but litigation is not about “because I said so.” It’s about proof as admitted by the judge.
*
In this case the discovery question is simple: who is the party from whom you acquired ownership of the subject loan in exchange for payment of value? They can’t answer that because no such person or entity exists. When you say “they cannot identify” does that mean you have submitted formal court discovery to them and they failed or refused to answer?
*
If you mean that you have asked by phone or standard letter and they couldn’t or wouldn’t say who they paid, that fact — the non answer — will have very little legal probity in the case.
*
If you mean that you asked in a Qualified Written Request or Debt Validation Letter, then you have invoked administrative process. Failure to answer that question is a failure to establish the single most important question of the case — is the claimant the owner of the underlying obligation (because it paid real value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the subject debt, note or mortgage (DOT)? That is, after all their claim if they are claiming ownership or claiming purchase.
*
If the named claimant is the owner of the underlying debt then the claimant is the owner of the loan account and can claim a financial loss resulting from nonpayment by the homeowner. Since they have suffered financial damage they are entitled to redress through the courts and that includes judgment on the debt, judgment on the note and judgment on the mortgage (or all three).
*
If the named claimant is NOT the owner of the underlying debt then the claimant is NOT the owner of the loan account and cannot claim a financial loss resulting from nonpayment by the homeowner. Since they have not suffered financial damage they are not entitled to redress through the courts and they have no right in law or equity to a judgment on the debt, judgment on the note and judgment on the mortgage (or all three).
*
So if administrative process in invoked and they refuse to answer (always the case) then you file complaints with the CFPB and state AG that says, in summary, I am being coerced into a relationship with PennyMac despite the fact that they will not reveal any transaction in which it acquired ownership of my obligation. PennyMac is neither my original lender or table lender nor a successor to anyone who was the original lender or table lender. Its response is required under applicable law. They won’t answer or they are admitting informally that they are unable to identify the transaction except by date but without any information about the “seller” whom they say they cannot identify.
*
Lying to AG and CFPB carries some fairly hefty penalties so the banks try to steer clear of flat out lying to those law enforcement agencies. So you usually will find inconsistencies between their answer to the CFPB complaint and what they have previously sent you. You can use those effectively in court as admissions against interest. There will always be inconsistencies because none of what they are saying is or ever was true. But it isn’t up to the judge to dig. It is up to you as litigant to put these inconsistencies squarely in the face of the judge and be able explain in clear persuasive language why this is important.
*
If you mean that you asked in formal court discovery, that is an entirely different story. That fact that you asked is relevant. The fact that they didn’t or couldn’t answer is relevant.  And the fact that they failed or refused to answer even after the court entered an order compelling the answer is relevant because you file a motion for sanctions asking for monetary penalties and striking their pleadings.
*
Then after they still don’t produce the answer you are in the very strong position of filing a motion in limine — unless the court has already entered an order striking the pleadings of the claimant.
*
You cannot pursue a claim if you are unwilling to say how you got hurt. If you are claiming loss from nonpayment you must show entitlement to payment. Otherwise nonpayment is irrelevant. A quick summary of the law is that if the inferences and presumptions arising from allegations of the complaint or exhibits are properly challenged, the homeowner is entitled to rebut those inferences and presumptions.
*
But the rebuttal does NOT consist of proving that the claimant does not own the debt, note and mortgage. The rebuttal arises when court rules prevent the claimant from introducing any evidence at trial that they own the debt, note or mortgage. So even if they did own it, and even if you did owe the money, they would still lose because they had not obeyed court rules.
*
The fact that a “new loan” seems to have appeared is not dispositive. If there really was change of ownership it is perfectly acceptable for the new owner to change the labels. But more importantly it might be a clue. The new labels might be an indication that the loan data has been included in multiple “portfolios.” Although none of the portfolios consist of anything more than data about the loans instead of ownership of the loans, they all represent different securitization schemes. By challenging the current portfolio and demanding answers to questions about transfers of the loan you can uncover the fact that more than one “implied trust” is being named by underwriters and foreclosure mills as the successor lender.
*
Just remember the paperwork introduced as exhibits to the foreclosure complaint or discovery or at trial in most cases is NOT facially valid because it requires the reader to pursue information that is not in the public record. A big error is NOT challenging the facial validity of a document. Failure to do that either waives many of your defenses or makes it a more difficult uphill climb.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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. Inthe 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, foreclosure defenses, Pleading, Servicer, sham transactions, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy, Unlawful Detainer | Tagged: | 20 Comments »

Foreclosures in Securitization World: deny everything they have to say and then pursue discovery — but in discovery you focus on the issues that are central to every foreclosure — status and ownership of the debt. 

Posted on October 14, 2020 by Neil Garfield

The danger is in the labels.

I have some devoted followers and readers who have been great contributors — doing research on the real action and dynamics between the homeowner on the one hand and all the intermediaries and people of interest on the other hand. One of the things recently raised was the discovery of who is listed as having paid tax or insurance or other expenses. The danger is in the labels.

The simple basic truth is that the banks are using a shell game that is based entirely on the false use of labels. So when we see something in writing we tend to assume it is probably true. Without that the entire securitizations scheme would have fallen apart before it began.

If you write a check to me for plumbing repairs, that label on the check “Plumbing repairs” does not mean in actuality that you expect me to do plumbing work nor that I will deliver such work. After all I’m a lawyer, not plumber. But if we both agreed to have the check made out in that manner it would be because we were concealing the true nature of the transaction. That still doesn’t mean that any plumbing work is ever getting done.

And, believe it or not, that is not illegal. In fact, just writing the check with that label on it raises an inference or legal presumption that this was payment for plumbing work. So when you walk into court the judge is already assuming that this is a dispute over plumbing work when in fact the agreement between us was for legal work. If some third party comes into the picture and either sues or defends a claim from either of us, they must respectfully challenge the label — “plumbing repairs” even though we all know that no plumbing work was done or intended.

You need to understand that there is a difference between the label on an account and ownership of it. And there is even a difference between ownership and the authority to make deposits and withdrawals.

*

It is entirely possible to direct payments to “Ocwen” for example. The payments are forwarded to an intermediary who in turn forwards the payment (if electronic) or forwards the check to the Black Knight/CoreLogic system we have been talking about. With Check 21 and other practices this is all done in seconds.
*

So your check to Ocwen gets deposited into an account labelled “ocwen” which is owned by Black Knight who has a contract with the investment bank in which it gives the investment bank or its agent full authority to make deposits and withdraw money.

*
Once again the misdirection comes from knee jerk reaction to seeing a label. We are culturally conditioned to assume the label means something when it doesn’t. In the above example, if the transaction was real, the check would be made out and deposited into the account of Morgan Securities, for example. The homeowner/”borrower” of course has no clue about any of this and simply assumes he is paying his mortgage payment on an existing loan account owned by some “investor”. All of that could alternatively be labeled as “Plumbing Repairs.”
*
But Morgan doesn’t want to receive the money directly because there is no business or legal reason it should be received by Morgan. Morgan holds no receivable from the homeowner/”borrower.” It is simply not entitled to receive that money even though it is happening every hour.
*
All such payments are pure revenue that is untaxed because for tax purposes it is labelled as either return of loan or return of capital or it is labeled as off balance sheet and doesn’t show up at all. The real money transfers are recorded in a jurisdiction that asserts taxing authority and then waives all tax. Bermuda was popular when I last looked at this.
*
For foreclosure defense you don’t need to prove any of that. You just need to know and believe it. Because then you can ask questions in discovery that you know they can never answer without admitting to tax fraud, theft, and other crimes.
*
It is their LACK of answers that is the useful tool in this litigation and the law is very clear — if you persist in demanding discovery, motions to compel, motions for sanctions and motions and in limine you will most likely win the case hands down without any right of the foreclosure mill to refile.
*
The banks want you to focus on how wrong the banks were in their behavior so you will make allegations that you will never be able to prove. The real defense is like Karate Kid (“no be there”). Just deny everything they have to say and then pursue discovery — but in discovery you focus on the issues that are central to every foreclosure — status and ownership of the debt.
*
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: 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. Inthe 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 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: boarding process, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | Leave a comment »

You might not know VendorScape but it sure knows you

Posted on October 12, 2020 by Neil Garfield

In a somewhat startling admission by CoreLogic, we now have an admission of many facts that might not have otherwise surfaced but for intensive and aggressive, persistent Discovery. I am not publishing the entire letter from them for privacy reasons. But it is worth mentioning that the letter was sent, after careful legal analysis, as a response to a complaint to the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Board — organized by Elizabeth Warren under the Obama administration. The response was (a) mandatory and (b) subject to charges of lying to a Federal agency.

The problem faced by CoreLogic was that on the one hand it IS and was the central repository of all data and electronic records for most residential loans in the United States. The main IT platform running several systems is called VendorScape which is owned, maintained and operated by CoreLogic pursuant to instructions from Black Knight (and perhaps others) who are serving the interests of investment banks who have no legally recognized interest in any of the alleged “loan accounts”.

But they don’t want the government or the public to know any of that because they are designating nominees to serve or pose as “servicers” who can be thrown under the bus at any that that foul play is actually addressed instead of settled (see 50 state settlement).

So here is what they said

Interesting.

image.png
And here is how it breaks down (legal analysis):
  1. VendorScape exists although they deny it is currently accessed through CoreLogic
  2. VendorScape is an “electronic case management system.” Taken in context with customs and practices in the industry in addition to simple logic, it is THE case management system and it is electronic which means that anyone with login credentials can get into it.
  3. VendorScape output consists of the following:
    1. centralized electronic workplace
    2. storage of “documents” — i.e., images not the original documents because they are not a records custodian for anyone. As the centralized place for “storage” it is VendorScape that is the source server from which all records are produced in printed reports that are merely generated from what is in VendorScape regardless of who added or deleted or changed anything.
    3. initiate workflows “defined by our clients”. This is odd wording.
      1. They appear to be saying that clients access the system and are simply using it as an IT platform to conduct business of the client.
      2. But VendorScape initiates workflows, which means that they have admitted that whoever is actually running VendorScape is making the decisions on when and how to initiate any action.
      3. Since the entire purpose of this system is preparation for foreclosure, the only logical conclusion is that it is a system to initiate foreclosures, notices of default, notice of delinquency etc. based upon human decision-making or automated decision making initiated by humans that control VendorScape.
      4. They will of course say otherwise and that seems to be what they are trying to say — that the client determines the definitions and circumstances of workflows.
      5. But dig a little deeper and you will find that the “client” has no right to make such decisions and that the decision is labelled as the decision of a client (e.g. Ocwen) by permission from Ocwen, who is not actually allowed to make such decisions and does not make such decisions. 
      6. So the reference to the  Client making such decisions is circular allowing anyone to say that it was CoreLogic or  VendorScape who made the decision (thus avoiding liability for Ocwen et al) OR to say that it was Ocwen, as they do in this letter.
  4. They admit that CoreLogic is the party who owns and maintains the storage and functions of the VendorScape system while at the same time implying that they have no connection with VendorScape.
  5. They assert that the data is owned by the clients. This is a common trick.
    1. The data is not owned by the clients because it doesn’t consist of any entries or proprietary information placed in the system by the client.
    2. The information or data is placed there mostly through automated systems controlled by Black Knight but operated by CoreLogic.
    3. Nominal “Servicers” (Ocwen e.g.), who are the “clients” actually have no way of knowing anything about a homeowner account until after it is placed in the system by third parties.
    4. This is why servicer records should not be admitted into evidence as exceptions (business records) to the hearsay rule.
    5. The deadly mistake by many lawyers in court is the failure to timely object to lack of foundation, best evidence and hearsay.
      1. A timely objection is one that is raised at the same time the admission of evidence is being considered by the court.
      2. Waiting until the end of questioning is spitting in the wind. It is already in evidence by that point.
      3. And the second mistake is that after the objection is sustained, the failure to move the court to strike the offending testimony and exhibits. That failure is equivalent to a waiver of the objection, thus leaving the offending testimony or exhibits in evidence.
*
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: 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 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: boarding process, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, foreclosure defenses, hearsay, investment banking, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Lack of Research and Knowledge About Court Procedure and Rules of Evidence Will Bury You

Posted on October 7, 2020 by Neil Garfield

There are many well intentioned people and lawyers who go into court to contest foreclosure cases with the expectation that the foreclosure mill must prove ownership and status of the loan. In plain language they don’t need to prove that because of a legal fiction called a “legal presumption.” That is a shorthand way of approaching evidence.

It creates conclusions of facts based upon common knowledge or legislative intent regardless of the truth of the matter. If the opposing party wants a different conclusion the opposing party must seek to rebut the presumption.

Rebutting the presumption is accomplished in only one possible way in foreclosure cases.

The homeowner will NEVER have actual evidence that the debt does not exist as a loan account on the books of any entity and will never have direct evidence that is admissible in court that the named claimant has no claim. So that is not a possibility. And arguing the case as if you did present such evidence is a fool’s errand.

But the same goal can be achieved if the foreclosure mill refuses to respond appropriately to direct questions in the discovery process. It is or appears to be an uphill battle but the key is merely persistence.

see https://livinglies.me/2020/10/02/boilerplate-answers-to-discovery-wont-cut-it-if-plaintiff-does-it-they-lose-the-claim-if-defendant-does-it-they-lose-the-defense/

  1. If a facially valid document is merely shown, it is presumed (at least at the pleading stage) that the original exists — even if it doesn’t. (see discussions about custom and practice in the industry to shred the original notes concurrent with the loan closing).
  2. A statement by affidavit or in testimony that the note is the original note signed by the maker (homeowner) is sufficient to get a facially valid document into evidence as the original even if it is not the original and was reconstructed expressly for trial to make it appear like an an original.
  3. Possession of that “original” is presumed to be evidence of delivery even though the note is a reconstruction.
  4. Delivery is presumed to convey a right to enforce even if there is nobody who could grant such right.
  5. The right to enforce gives rise to the presumption that the ownership of the underlying debt has been conveyed even though nobody paid for it — which is the only way you can legally own the underlying obligation.
  6. The presumed conveyance of ownership of the underlying obligation is the only thing that allows anyone to  foreclose on the security instrument pursuant to the state adoption of Article 9 §203 of the UCC — but all of that is legally required to be presumed in the absence of any rebuttal.

They don’t need to prove it. Under the rules of evidence the presumptions exist that they are who they say they are and the debt is what they say it is. YOUR burden is to show that they refuse to respond to inquiries about the status of the debt and its ownership. But it is more than that. You can’t just ask, you must ask in a venue where they are required to answer. This exactly where most lawyers and pro se litigants dig their own legal graves.

And the failure to respond won’t get  you anywhere unless you get a court to agree with you and enter an order commanding them to answer. And not even that will be conclusive until you get an order on sanctions after they violate the order compelling response. And the deal is not sealed until you get a definitive ruling on a motion in limine that says that due to their refusal to respond, they are prohibited from introducing any evidence of ownership or status of the debt at trial (i.e., motion in limine).

*
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: 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. Inthe 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 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: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, Motion Practice and Discovery, Pleading, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Tonight! Is it time to sue Black Knight? 6PM EDT 3PM PDT The Neil Garfield Show

Posted on October 1, 2020 by Neil Garfield

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Tonight I will discuss the curious case of blatant economic fraud on the entire country by investment banks. They figured out how to eliminate the risk of loss on lending, how not to be labelled as a lender subject to lending laws, and who pursue collection, administration and enforcement of obligations that do not exist.  And then by denying the receipt of funds that paid off the loan on their own books they continue to operate as though the loan exists, and to designate fictitious entities who are falsely represented by foreclosure mills as owning the defunct obligation.

Specifically we explore how to stop this scheme from operating at all.

Foreclosure litigation is like the game of Chess. The banks line up a set of pawns for you to fight with while their real players hide behind multiple layers of curtains. In my opinion it is time to subpoena Black Knight to the table in most instances. Make them produce documents and answer questions. Note that with Chase (and possibly Wells Fargo) there are periods of time when they had their own alter-ego to Black Knight, so forensic investigation is required.

Black Knight, fka LPS (Lender Processing Services), owner of  DOCX and employer of Lorraine Brown who went to jail for fabricating tens of thousands of documents to create the false impression that homeowner obligations still existed and that some designated hitter (e.g., US Bank as trustee for the registered holders of pass through certificates issued by the SASCO Trust a1-2009) owned the obligation.

And then following that logic, since they own  the obligation, the refusal of the homeowner to pay the obligation is assumed to have produced a loss (financial damage). And then, following the logic, being the owner of the obligation and having suffered a loss that was caused by the homeowner’s refusal to pay, the lawyers declare a default on behalf of this designated hitter. And then they foreclose.

The possibility that there is no obligation and that there is no financial loss suffered by anyone  is currently thought of as stupid theory, thanks to the prolific PR efforts of the investment banks. And yet there is not a single case in which any foreclosure mill has produced any admissible evidence regarding the establishment or current status of the account reflecting ownership of the alleged homeowner’s obligation. Not a single case where actual loss has been in the pleading or notices. For two decades this game has been played by investment banks.

In addition, after the origination  or acquisition of the apparent loan transaction,  a new player is introduced (e.g. Ocwen), who claims to have been hired to service the loan accounts that are apparently owned by the designated hitter. But Ocwen only partially “services” the account. It might  have authority to act as agent for the designated hitter,  but the designated hitter has neither authority or ownership of the obligation. So Ocwen is a designated hitter for who ever is really doing the servicing. That party is in most cases Black Knight. In the Chess analogy Black Knight is the Knight who serves its masters (investment banks) and is willing to sacrifice itself and the self-proclaimed “servicers” to protect the King (investment bank).

This means that all records, payment history and document handling does not originate with Ocwen, but rather with Black Knight, who is actually answering to an investment bank who receives both proceeds from homeowner payments, and proceeds from illegal foreclosure sales. And the investment bank receives it as off balance sheet transactions that are actually revenue that is untaxed.

So interrupting the game of foreclosure mills in using “representatives” employed by “servicers” like Ocwen undermines the admissibility of any testimony or evidence from that representative, including foundation testimony for the admission of “business records” as an exception to the hearsay rule. It also brings you one step closer to the King. The harder they fight against you for doing this the more confident you will become that you have hit a nerve — or rather, the achilles heal of this entire scheme that would be a farce if it wasn’t so real.

And lawsuits against the designated hitter might have more credibility if you included not only the designated fake servicer but also the real servicer like Black Knight. And remember the truth is that in virtually so-called loans the end result is that there is no lender and there is no loan account on the books of any company claiming ownership of the obligation. They all get paid in full from “securitization” of the data.  But that means that they never sold the debt, which is an absolute condition precedent and standing requirement for bringing a claim.

So when US Bank is named as a claimant by lawyers, those lawyers have had no contact and no retainer agreement with US Bank who is completely unwilling to grant such right of representation for litigation in their name. But for a fee they are willing to stay silent as long as they don’t really need to do anything. And when Ocwen comes in as servicer, they have no original records and they did not board the records of another servicing company. They merely have access to the same proprietary database maintained and owned and operated by Black Knight who has full control over entries (largely automated through the use of lockbox contracts and then scanned), changes and reports.

So maybe it is time to subpoena  Black Knight who serves as the representatives of the investment banks and maybe it’s time to sue them for being party to a scheme specifically designed to deceive the courts and homeowners.

Take a look at a submission I just received from Summer Chic:

I received the rest of prop.  taxes from 2017 and here is a very interesting detail I want to share.

On November 6, 2019 Black Knight (who deny any involvement to my property*) filed a legal case against PennyMac whom BK accused on theft of their trade secrets and removed from their system.

Almost immediately customers started to complain that PennyMac is unable to perform their “servicing” due to a “major glitch” in their “updated system”.

In other words, PM is NOT able to conduct any functions without access to Black Knight’s MSP.

Since 2017 my taxes were purportedly paid by Caliber – whose tax PO Box  was different than PO box for my check payments.

On Sept. 15, 2019 PennyMac purportedly “paid” my taxes.

But on December 31, 2019 (!) my taxes were paid  by CoreLogic while the receipt shows as Coreligic-PM. I assume these were Spring taxes (which are due in March) because I don’t see any March receipts.

On September 16, 2020 my taxes were again paid by CoreLogic , now without any reference to PennyMac.

During all time in question CoreLogic repeatedly deny any relationship to my property even though they also conducted appraisal for my property via  la mode appraisal software.

In other words, it is clear who handles all escrow accounts.
*On June 15, 2016, or the same day as I filed my application for the loan, Black Knight  ordered Flood Map determination acting on behalf of Perl. Determination was done by CoreLogic who is allowed to use FEMA’s forms and who owns a Hazard Map determination company.
*
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: 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. Inthe 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.
*
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 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.

 

Filed under: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Watch that modification agreement. You are being forced to accept a virtual creditor instead of a real one.

Posted on September 29, 2020 by Neil Garfield

“Morality is an existential threat to commerce and politics. Although we legislate morality we refuse to enforce it. It is OK to lie to consumers or borrowers but not OK to lie to a financial institution who by the way is lying to you.” Neil F Garfield, October 2009 speech to regional bankruptcy conference in Phoenix Arizona.

The proposed modification agreement is an attempt to force or coerce the borrower into accepting a NEW term of the loan agreement that any attorney would advise against, to wit: acceptance of a designated creditor instead of a real one.  

The transmission of a proposed Modification Agreement by a “servicer” like Ocwen, PHH, SPS. SLS, Bayview etc. would be mail fraud if it was sent via USPS. It seeks to extort a signature from the borrower that directly acknowledges and accepts the existence of a virtual creditor.

The obligation was funded by a third party (investment bank) who did not take ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

The reason the investment banks didn’t want ownership is that they were in the business of lending money without being subject (at least on the surface) to long standing federal and state statutes and common law restricting the behavior of lenders and requiring full and fair disclosure of the terms of the transaction. 

I recently received another modification agreement to review. The true nature of the agreement only appears when you read it carefully. If you do that, it is obvious.

In any normal circumstance where the lender existed and owned the underlying obligation because it had paid value for the note and mortgage, the lender, or its successor would be identified as such. And the Lender or Successor would insist on being named for its own protection, lest some third party claiming to be servicer runs off with the money.

This is not only custom and practice in the commercial banking and investment banking industry, it is also the only way, without committing legal malpractice, to draft such an agreement to protect the creditor from any intervention or claims.

But if you look carefully you will not see any reference like this: “Whereas, ABC was the owner of the loan account, note and mortgage and was succeeded by XYZ who purchased and paid value for said debt, note and mortgage on the __ day of ___, 2020,

Here is my recent analysis:

The modification agreement is very helpful because it corroborates what I have been saying.
*
The agreement first states that the parties to the agreement are the debtor, xxxxx yyyyy, and then two other parties, to wit: New Residential Investment Corp., [NewRes] who is not identified as to its role or relationship to the yyyyyyy loan, and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, [Ocwen] who is identified as the servicer or or agent for NewRes.
*
NewRes asserts in the public domain that it is an REIT. But records show that it grew out of a loan servicing business, which I believe to still be the case. In any event there is no representation or warranty in the modification agreement that states or even implies that NewRes is a creditor or lender. That status is raised by implication for the benefit of Ocwen. And who Ocwen is really working for is left out of the agreement altogether.
*
The statement that Ocwen is servicer for NewRes does not make Ocwen a servicer for the loan account. Unless NewRes is or was the owner of the account who paid value for the underlying debt, Ocwen’s agency might exist but it had nothing to do with the subject loan. This is why homeowners need lawyers arguing these points which, for most people, dulls the brain. “Because I said so” may work in the house with children but it was never intended to be accepted in courts of law.
*
So far the banks have fooled courts, lawyers and homeowners into thinking that this type of legal gibberish can be used with impunity and  that this gives the lawyers free license to characterize it in any way that is convenient for the success of a false, illegal and fraudulent foreclosure case. And they can do so because the lawyers are protected by the overly broad doctrine of  litigation immunity.
*
Authority is not magic. It can only occur if the loan account is owned by a creditor who paid value and authorized Ocwen to act as loan servicer or agent in their stead. Such a creditor would have the legal right to grant servicing rights to Ocwen in a servicing agreement (not a Power of Attorney).
*
When challenged, Ocwen is obliged under law to answer simple questions: (1) from whom did you receive authority to administer, collect or enforce the debt, note or mortgage? Is the grantor of such authority a person or entity that has paid value for the underlying obligation? If not, is the grantor representing a person or entity that has paid value for the underlying obligation?
*
Absent from the agreement is any reference or assertion or even implied assertion that NewRes paid value for the debt, or even the assertion that NewRes is the owner of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
This absence, in my opinion, is evidence of absence, to wit: that NewRes is not the owner of the debt, note and mortgage and does not maintain any entry in its bookkeeping records reflecting a purchase of the subject loan or any loan — at least not from anyone who owned it.
*

No such transaction could have occurred because the obligation was funded by a third party (investment bank) who did not take ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. In other words, there was nobody to pay and so payment was not made.

*
Instead the agreement says that Ocwen will be called the “Lender/Servicer or agent for Lender/Servicer (Lender).”
*
This statement corroborates my conclusion and factual findings that there is no loan account in existence, and therefore no creditor who possesses a legal claim for equitable or legal remedies to pay for losses attributed to the loan account as a result of the action or inaction of a homeowner.
*

If there was a party who had the yyyyy loan on its bookkeeping or accounting ledgers as an asset receivable it would be there because that entity had paid value for the debt — the key element and condition precedent to both ownership of the debt and the authority to enforce the note or mortgage.

Without authority from the owner of the underlying debt there is no legal foundation supporting the allegation that the claimant is a holder with rights to enforce. The allegation may be enough for pleadings but it is not enough for trial. Further the court has no authority to apply any legal presumptions arising out of the possession of the note unless the creditor is identified.

*
The agreement is clearly an attempt to insert Ocwen as the lender for purposes of the agreement. But Ocwen is not the lender nor a creditor nor even an authorized servicer on behalf of any party who has paid value for the underlying debt. NewRes appears to be yet another nominee in a long list of nominees and designees to shelter the investment banks from liability, even while they pursue profit by weaponizing administration, collection and enforcement of loans. 
*

The modification agreement is an attempt to force or coerce the borrower into accepting a term of the loan agreement that any attorney would advise against, to wit: acceptance of a designated creditor instead of a real one.  

*
This is further evidence of deceptive servicing and lending practices. They are evading the responsibility imposed by law to identify the creditor and the authority to represent the creditor. They are evading the responsibility imposed by law to provide an accurate accounting for the establishment and current status of the alleged obligation.
*
The reason for this behavior is that there is no current obligation claimed by any company to be owed to them as a result of ownership of the loan account arising from a transaction in which value was paid for the underlying debt.
*
Accordingly there can be no authority to act as servicer, agent, or “acting lender”, nominee or designee.
*
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: 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.
*
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 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: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, investment banking, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, TILA, TILA rescission, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 2 Comments »

Gary Dubin, Esq. Scores Another Victory for Homeowners in Hawaii in Notorious LSF9 Case

Posted on August 4, 2020 by Neil Garfield

More kudos to Gary Dubin who keeps producing favorable decisions for homeowners. This ruling is important for a variety of reasons. This time it is all about the rules of evidence and legals tanding to even bring the claim.

see US Bank LSF9 v Verhagen 7-20-20

*
The first reason is that it presents a court of appeal that drilled down on the actual facts rather than the presumed facts. This is a substantial departure from prior judicial practice. I think it reflects a change in judicial attitude. While nobody is willing to say that these foreclosures are entirely fraudulent, The suspicions and reservations about these actions are starting to surface.

*
So the second reason that this may be important is that the court made an effort to identify the labels used to identify people who supposedly had knowledge and Authority.
*

The third reason is that this decision brings us back to basics. This is not new. But it is instructive. If there was no claim to begin with then there is no foreclosure.

*
The fourth reason is that this deals within the infamous LSF9 “trust” for which US Bank is labelled as a trustee.
*
The fifth reason is that the decision deals explicitly with rules of evidence — what is admissible and what is not admissible evidence. And specifically affects the admissibility of records of self-proclaimed servicers.
*
Unless the robo witness can explain to the court’s satisfaction how he or she knows that the records of the “prior servicer” were created in in the ordinary course of the business that the lawyers are saying was bing conducted, then the only way those prior records can be admitted into evidence is by a custodian of records of the prior entity that was claiming the right to service the homeowner account.
*
What is clear is that no such witness is available because the “prior servicer” was not actually performing any servicing function on behalf of any creditor (because there is no creditor). The whole reason that Caliber became the designated “servicer” was to prevent Chase from being accused of perjury. This decision brings them back into something they don’t want to be in.
*
Chase knows that the debt was never purchased or sold by anyone to anyone. They know that the money received from homeowners was not for the LSF9 trust and they know that the foreclosure is not being pursued for the trust or the trustee, US Bank, nor the investors who bought certificates. Chase knows that this foreclosure is being pursued for Chase and Credit Suisse.
*
And Chase knows that if this simple fact is revealed, the court will demand that Chase and Credit Suisse prove they are entitled to receive those proceeds and that the court will question why the action was not brought in their name. Chase knows they can’t answer those questions because there is only one answer — they are pursuing foreclosure through intermediaries because they want the money — not to provide restitution for unpaid debt to someone who paid for it but to increase their swollen wallets with more profit.
*
The devil is in the details. And this time the details revealed the fatal deficiency in the foreclosure action. But it’s not over. Having vacated the Summary Judgment, the foreclosure mill is being given a second bite at the apple with a real trial. In all probability this case will be settled under seal of confidentiality and will never get to trial But if it does get there, then the lawyers must hold the trial judge’s feet to the fire and require actual testimony of actual personal knowledge as to the record-keeping practices of the prior servicer.
*
The lawyers should also focus on the most basic assumption — that Caliber or Chase were ever “Servicers.” If they are not then their records are suspect and are created solely for the purpose of foreclosure proof rather than being records of actual transactions. Such records are inadmissible without corroboration from a credible reliable source.
*
The way to attack this, I think, is by forcing the issue on who received payments from the servicer. You won’t find a creditor in that mix. The ancillary and more important question is who has previously received the cash proceeds from the forced sale of residential homestead property in foreclosures commenced in the name of the LSF9 trust? Neither US Bank nor the trust ever saw a dime — and they are never intended to receive anything.

*
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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
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.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

The missing second witness —Attacking the Business Records of A Servicer: Start with the fact that the company is self-proclaimed servicer with no proof of authority and then pivot to the absence of records establishing the debt as an asset.

Posted on July 29, 2020 by Neil Garfield

Excellent article written by attorneys at Blank Rome on the issue of Business Record exceptions to the hearsay rule. The hearsay rule is simple. It excludes from evidence any statement that is uttered out of court — whether that statement is in writing or was made orally.

see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/florida-supreme-court-resolves-conflict-20649/

So here is what it looks like in a typical old-fashioned foreclosure trial.

The witness testifies that he or she is the records custodian of a bank. He/she says she has the records of the homeowner/borrower from the bank and he/she testifies that he/she knows from his/her own personal knowledge that those records were made at or near  the time of every transaction between the borrower and the bank.

The witness testifies that he/she has the actual records with handwritten entries showing the establishment of the loan as an asset through purchase of the promissory note in a transaction in which the borrower received money or in which money was paid on behalf of the borrower.

The written record is admitted into evidence as proof of two matters asserted: (1) establishment of the debt or underlying obligation and (2) the borrower’s payment history.

The witness goes on to testify that he/she holds in his/her hand the original promissory note and mortgage executed by the borrower and that is ahs been under lock and key, under his/her supervision since the time of origination of the loan.

The note and mortgage are accepted into evidence as proof of the terms of repayment and the establishment of a lien.

The Judge compares the obligation (promise to pay) as set forth on the note with the payment history and arrives at a factual conclusion as to whether the homeowner is in breach of the agreement and renders a final judgment for the bank, assuming the homeowner has not made payments that were promised by the homeowner to the bank.

Now let’s look at the modern day nontraditional foreclosure. First of all nobody from the bank or “lender” makes any appearance.

My point is that a foundation objection should be made and preserved if this is the case.

If a witness is a person other than the employee or officer of the named claimant or plaintiff in the foreclosure case, he/she cannot testify about records, payment history or anything else relating to the foreclosure claim without someone else first testifying that the witness is authorized to do so and that the company for whom the witness works maintains the records that establish the debt as owned by the claimant and that said company is in fact the servicer of the account.

That second witness must be an authorized employee or officer of the named claimant/plaintiff. In plain language if BONY/Mellon is named as trustee of a trust, and that they are filing on behalf of certificate holders of the trust, no evidence should be admitted without first establishing the foundation for the inferences that the foreclosure mill wishes to raise.

And frankly the court should on its own reject any attempt to work around this requirement. But as a practical matter, the way it is currently working, if you don’t object continuously to the absence of such foundation then you will be treated as having waived the issue and with that, you will effectively be treated as though you had waived your defenses.

So if securitization was real, the witness would come in and say that they are the authorized representative of BONY Mellon and that they are the trust officer in charge of record keeping for BONY Mellon in relation to this named trust and the certificate holder.

The witness would produce the trust agreement authorizing BONY/Mellon to act as trustee and a certificate indenture in which the holders of the certificates have been granted ownership shares of a pool of mortgages owned by the trust and which explicitly grant to BONY/Mellon the right to represent the certificate holders in connection with the enforcement of loans owned by teht rust for their benefit. The witness would establish that the certificate holders are beneficiaries.

The bank trustee witness would produce business records of BONY/Mellon that show the transaction in which the loans were established, having acquired same from the originator in a specific transaction in which value was paid for ownership of the debt, note and mortgage.

Or, the witness would testify that pursuant to some agreement, BONY/Mellon had outsourced functions to some other company that is acting as servicer. And the witness would testify that the servicer was operating in compliance with the servicing agreement by tendering the required payments in the certificate indenture to BONY/Mellon as trustee who in turn makes payments to the certificate holders.

You will never see such testimony because none of these things happen in what is loosely described as “Securitization.” Certificate holders own nothing but an unsecured IOU from an investment bank doing business under the name of a nonexistent trust. No servicer even has access to any information, data or entries on any record establishing the debt as an asset of anyone. In fact, no “servicer” knows or pays any money to anyone in a transaction that would even imply they are working for the owner of the debt. That is where aggressive discovery will tip the scales.

In reality the “records” submitted by the servicer are proffered as the payment history but there is never any direct testimony that the payment history constitutes business records of the claimant. That is because they are not business records of the claimant. They are only reports issued for the purpose of foreclosure. And that is not allowed. Such reports are not admissible in evidence and if excluded, the case fails.

In one form or another, every case I have won for homeowners and every case I know that was won for a homeowner has turned on the absence of foundation for the evidence sought to be admitted into evidence — without which no legal presumptions can arise or be used in the case against the homeowner.

Bottom Line: In virtually all foreclosure cases there is an absence of the required second witness because there is no such witness — i.e., a person with personal knowledge that the facts assumed or presumed are true.

Here are some important quotes from the above cited article:

On July 2, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court issued its written opinion[i] in Jackson v. Household Finance Corporation, III, 236 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) to resolve a conflict with a case decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Maslak v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Specifically, the issue concerned whether the predicates were met for admissions of records into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule during the course of a bench trial in a residential foreclosure case. The Florida Supreme Court held that the proper predicate for admission can be laid by a qualified witness testifying to the foundation elements of the exception set forth in Section 90.803(6) of the Florida Evidence Code.

a party has three options to lay the foundation to meet that exception: (1) offering testimony of a records custodian, (2) presenting a certification that or declaration that the elements have been established, or (3) obtaining a stipulation of admissibility. If the party elects to present testimony, the applicable case law explains that it does not need to be the person who created the business records. The witness may be any qualified person with knowledge of each of the elements.

*
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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
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.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

 

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, hearsay, legal standing, Mortgage, Presumptions, prima facie case, sham transactions, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: