C&E Strategy is the beginning of a successful attack on the claimed enforcement of a mortgage or deed of trust.

Posted on April 18, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Attacks on technical deficiencies of assignments of mortgage is a great place to start, but it is not the finish line.

This is a follow up with the radio show we did last week on cancellation of assignments of mortgage, and upon successful cancellation of the assignment(s), the further cancellation of the notice of substitution of trustee, the notice of default, the notice of sale, and/or the lis pendens and foreclosure lawsuit.

The C&E (Cancel and Expunge) strategy has some good and even essential attributes of the defense and counterattack on the would-be enforcer of a mortgage. But here are some potential weak points. If you are not ready for them the strategy will fail.

see https://livinglies.me/2019/04/11/cal-3d-dca-wrongful-foreclosure-you-can-cancel-the-assignment-notice-of-default-notice-of-sale-and-reverse-the-sale/

You are still on the right track — especially where the notary certifies that the person signing had authority to do so. That is simply a lie. The notary has no idea. The problem with the C&E strategy is that it appeals to lay people and not lawyers.

*

The lay people like it because it sounds like a magic bullet that enables them  to avoid litigation over whether the claimant is real and whether the claim is real. The lawyers are reluctant because they know that courts will almost always side with the party who appears to be losing the benefit of an actual bargain in which the claimant paid money. It’s all about money, whether you like it or not.

*

The reality is that they are both right. And the place to start is always at the beginning — when and where and why the offending document was executed.

*
Lay people don’t understand what it means to have a facially valid document. They want to get a court to get rid of the whole document (and the presumed transaction behind it, whether it exists or not) because of some perceived invalid procedure in its execution. The world doesn’t work like that, nor should it.
*
The court looks at the substance. If someone paid for the loan they don’t lose their money because of a signature that is missing or in the wrong place. They are at least given opportunities to correct errors. If the errors are not corrected then that is a different matter. Even a frivolous lawsuit can result in a judgment and levy against property if the defendant failed to answer or appeal. That is the way the system works.
*
The court might temporarily decline to enforce an instrument because it does not comply with statutory requirements for facial validity — but it won’t invalidate the presumed transaction UNLESS the presumed transaction is either proven not to exist or the presumed transaction is not proven to exist. There is a difference between those two. Both involve proof. The difference is in who has the burden of proof.
*
Even with a deed lacking a witness —- the deed is valid as between the grantor and the grantee and anyone who knows about it. There are differences between states but the substance is the same.
*
If Person A executes a deed to Person B and Person B pays Person A then the court, in equity, will not allow person C to exercise the rights of a title owner in fee simple absolute unless Person C also paid Person A (assuming person A had title) AND the state has a race to record statute. If the state is not a “race” state, then the deed is valid against all who have notice of it.
*
At the end of the day courts will not ordinarily issue an order in which they think a party is getting cheated out of the benefits of a legitimate deal. The dominant public policy is preservation of contracts and legitimate transactions first, not the strict adherence to statutory requirements in execution of contracts or conveyances. So the only defense that works with consistency is the one in which either the claim or the claimant’s existence is not supported by sufficient evidence. This is the gray area that lay people don’t want to hear about.
*
But all that said, the attack on the assignments for lack of statutory requirements is correct in its strategy and its goals. The reason that is correct is not that the document is just defective in some technical way. The reason it is effective strategy is (a) the court should not enforce it until the needed correction is effectuated and (b) they can’t correct it without revealing the creditor who owns the debt.
*
The 20 year effort to conceal the identity of anyone who owns the debt is testimony to the fact that the investment banks don’t want anyone to know. The answer would be highly complex and probably involve matters of novel fact patterns and law.
*
By selling off the risk of loss did the investment bank thus sell the debt? If they sold the debt, but did not sell the rights to enforce the debt, note or mortgage, did the investment bank retain the right to enforce?  If so, that probably conflicts with all law in all jurisdictions that requires that the enforcer of a mortgage be the owner of the debt. If the enforcement is allowed what assurances does the court have that the proceeds of foreclosure will go to the benefit of the owner of the debt, however that ownership is defined?
*
While the courts have assiduously avoided addressing such questions they are moving inexorably in the direction of being required to address them and to finally decide what to do with the confusion and chaos created not by borrowers, but by the investment banks who sought to and did in fact create profits that were multiples of the amount loaned without paying the borrower for use of his/her name, signature or reputation.
*
So the attacks on technical deficiencies of assignments of mortgage is a great place to start, but it is not the finish line.

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, originator, Pleading, prima facie case, sham transactions, standing, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Stop Feeling Guilty — Be A Warrior

Posted on April 9, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Shame is the reason why most borrowers don’t contest foreclosures. That shame turns to intense anger when they realize that they were used, screwed, abused and now they are targets in a continuing blitz to embezzle much needed money from their lives and from the financial system generally.

The genius behind companies like Citi is… Deception by Branding.  “Citi” is not a company, it’s a brand of a conglomerate of companies.  Even its subsidiary “Citibank N.A.” is deceptive.  First let’s dispel the myth that subsidiaries are equal to their parents.  Not true, not even when they are wholly-owned subsidiaries.  They are separate companies, albeit owned by a common parent. —- From Anonymous Writer
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Probably the biggest goof of the court system in foreclosure litigation (and in business litigation) is mistaking a brand for a company and not realizing that there is both a business and legal distinction between even a wholly owned subsidiary and another subsidiary or parent company.

The reason that is such a big goof is that the actual transaction is being ignored while a small part of the transaction is being treated as the entire matter. That is like taking the spark plug out of car and then selling it to someone as though it was the whole car. It doesn’t work that way.

In conglomerates like “Citi” the brand intentionally blurs the factual and legal distinctions. And these distinctions make a difference precisely because the debt, note and mortgage are split and transferred multiple times between subsidiaries wherein each one is either moved off the books entirely or each subsidiary is showing an “asset” that it sells into the shadow banking market.

These practices results in a ten-fold increase in the apparent size of the asset, which is then owned by dozens, perhaps hundreds of different unrelated investors. And that enabled the banks siphon literally trillions of dollars out of the US economy and trillions more out of the world economy.

Through the devices of branding and “off balance sheet transactions” this wealth is controlled by handful of people; but this wealth is directly derived from one simple plan — to market the signature, reputation and identity of borrowers who were led to believe that they were executing loan documents. In fact they were executing the foundation documents for a string of transactions and book entries that would result in profits far beyond the amount of the loan.

These unsuspecting consumers had become ISSUERS without ever knowing it and they still don’t know it or understand it. So they still believe that somehow the investment bank behind the scheme is actually entitled to collect on a debt that the bank sold multiple times through multiple affiliates and subsidiaries in transactions that were often “off balance sheet.” And the fact that in virtually all cases the proceeds of foreclosure sales are not applied to reduce the debt owed to the owner of the debt is completely overlooked.

The clear issue that investment banks have been avoiding is that every one of their originated loans is part of a larger intended transaction, and that the homeowner gets absolutely no clue or disclosure that the bulk of the transaction is actually very different from a loan and actually the antithesis of a loan. Clearly the two were both unrelated and related.

The borrower thought it was a loan and it was a loan but the loan was a part of a larger transaction in which the attributes of a loan were shredded. So the loan was essentially a sham entry to allow the investment banks to profit regardless of the performance of the loan. Hence the transaction was not really a loan anymore. This is true even for loans acquired after origination by an actual lender.

Risk underwriting, the most basic part of lending, was thrown to the winds because it was irrelevant. And legally required disclosures were also thrown to the winds because lending laws (TILA) clearly state that compensation received after the loan closing must be disclosed.

What would have happened if the borrowers knew their signatures, reputation and identity were the real subject of the transaction and that they would be sold in a myriad of way producing compensation far beyond the amount of the loan. How would bargaining have changed? It’s obvious.

Even the most unsophisticated homeowner would have gone shopping for someone who would offer a share of the bounty. And that is why the “free house” PR gimmick is a myth. If the investment banks had not concealed the major attributes of the transaction, the mortgage meltdown would never have occurred.

And if “securitization” had proceeded anyway then homeowners would have received immediate and possibly total reductions in the amount due. Yes I recognize that this is a contradiction because if there is no loan then there are no derivatives to be sold. But that is not a problem created by homeowners or borrowers or consumers. It is a problem created by fraud and deceit by the investment banks.

In the final analysis the investment banks used homeowners and investors to issue unregulated securities and instead of turning the proceeds over to the issuers they kept the money. In any world of law enforcement they should have been jailed for that.

The goal was to get the signature and then sell it. That is not a loan. And the failure to disclose it violated everything about Federal  and State lending laws that require disclosure of identities of the real parties in interest and the amount of money they are getting as compensation for their role in “the transaction.”

The investment banks chose to unilaterally define “the transaction” as just the part dealing with the origination of the debt, note and mortgage. That was a lie. It concealed the fact that the borrower was in fact a real party in interest in a much larger transaction in which at each step profits, fees, and other compensation would be distributed in amounts vastly exceeding the amount that was disclosed to the borrower as the value of the transaction. For each $1 “loaned” there was $20 in profit.

By concealing this information the investment banks took all of the profit, fees and compensation without allowing the homeowner to participate in what amounted to a monetization of their signature, reputation and identity.

Thus the most essential part of the Federal and State lending laws was thwarted: that the “borrower” must know the identity of the parties with whom he/she is dealing and the “borrower” must know the amount of compensation being earned as result of the “borrower” signing documents at loan closing.

Instead the homeowner had become the issuer of unregulated securities, the proceeds of which were largely concealed and withheld from the homeowner. No lawyer would have permitted their client to enter into such a scheme — if the facts were known.

Borrowers get lost in the weeds when they make these allegations because they can’t prove them. Truth be told, even the bank could not prove them because of the number of transactions that occur “off balance sheet.” Abraham Briloff (in his book Unaccountable Accounting) first observed over 50 years ago, the invention of this ploy of “off balance sheet” transactions was an open door to fraud that would likely occur but might never be proven.

We are a nation of laws not opinions. Our laws depend upon findings of fact, not opinions or political views. That is the only control we have to prevent fraud or at least bring fraudsters to justice, or at the very least prevent them from continuing to reap the rewards of their multiple violations of statutory laws, common law  and the duty of good faith, honesty and fair dealing.

So when the robowitness signs affidavits, certifications or other documents or testifies at deposition or in court, be aware that in nearly all cases, he/she is either an independent contractor with absolutely no knowledge or authority concerning the subject transaction (as a have defined it herein) or an employee of a subsidiary with no connection to any transaction involving the homeowner or both.

You can reveal the lack of actual personal knowledge and thus then lack of foundation for evidence proffered in a foreclosure by discovery, motions to enforce discovery, motions in limine and good cross examination which always depends upon one single attribute to be successful: follow-up.

And in many cases the robowitness is not nearly as stupid as his/her script makes him out to be. The  robowintess often knows everything that is contained in this article. Good cross examination can frequently reveal that — that is where the case turns from enforcement of a legitimate debt to a case in which both the claim and the claimant have not been proven by any standard.

That is all you need to win. You don’t need to prove how they did it. You only need to reveal the gaps that exist because the substance is not there — the claiming parties have all long since divested themselves, at a profit,of any interest in the debt, note or mortgage. There is no debt left to pay, at least not to them. Stop feeling guilty and be a warrior.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, originator, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TILA, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | 6 Comments »

Tonight! How to use discovery in revealing fraudclosures!

Posted on April 4, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil F Garfield

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

Tonight’s Agenda:

  1. Interrogatories
  2. Request to Produce
  3. Request for Admission
  4. Motions to Compel
  5. Motions for Sanctions
  6. Motions in Limine

The devil is in the details. The details in litigation lie basically in discovery — asking and responding. Very few pro se litigants know how to construct good Interrogatories, Requests to Produce, or Requests for Admission. They know even less about how to use the responses, if they get any.

And they know still less about how to use inconsistencies or lack of response as the basis for enforcement and motions for contempt and sanctions and ultimately to limit the evidence that can be introduced by the claimant in foreclosure.

Failure to know about this is fatal because it is failure to understand the nature and procedure of litigation. Most lawyers don’t suffer from that ignorance. But they often do suffer from lack of motivation and thus they head for failure when they could be heading for success.

Judges are getting increasingly irritated by sloppy and bad discovery practices by both sides in litigation.

See Exterro-EDRM Judges Survey 2019 Series-…iscovery Specialists (ACEDS) – JDSupra

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | 2 Comments »

UCC: The Internet is no substitute for law school

Posted on April 3, 2019 by Neil Garfield

The way that borrowers lose cases is by picking out one thing from a case or statute and treating it as a magic bullet. If the law were that simple a computer would be deciding all cases. The distinctions between possessors of a note, rights to enforce, status as a holder, owning the debt and the status as holder in due course are extremely detailed and they are fairly rigid. That is because the UCC was designed to effectuate the free flow of commerce and protection of both parties under a set of rules that must be rigid to accomplish the goals of free commerce and protection.

To assist foreclosure defense attorneys and pro se litigants I offer my take on application of UCC rules to residential foreclosures. As to my foundation for doing so I offer the following: I was the winner of the American Jurisprudence book award in law school for bills and notes; I was deeply involved on wall street with the actual trading of bills and notes; I was the original drafter of hundreds of deals involving bills and notes; and I have spent 43 years litigating cases involving bills and notes.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Confusion arises because of references to holder in due course. A holder in due course is one who purchases a note for value in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. If such a transaction actually occurred it would be difficult in this context to say that the buyer was not acting in good faith or knew of the borrower’s defenses.

Here is a key rule to guide all foreclosure litigation: As long as the judge thinks that the sale of the home will be used to pay the down the borrower’s debt to a party who owns the debt the court will find any possible way to rule for the party claiming rights to foreclose.

The converse is equally true — after step by step takedown of the evidence of the claimant — no judge will knowingly allow a claimant to force the sale of a home where the proceeds are more likely than not going to be used for profit rather than paying down the debt.

Most losing attempts are based upon the premise that there is a way to block the remedy. Most winning defenses are based upon the premise that there is no remedy because there is no claim and there is no claimant.

*
So if good faith and knowledge are off the table that leaves payment of value. As a practical matter payment of value would be translated as purchase of the debt, rather than simply purchase of the note. In today’s context there is an actual question about that but for now just consider the purchase of the note to be the purchase of the debt IF the seller of the note owned the debt.
*
That is where the analysis gets dicey. In most cases, but not all, the purchase of the note was not actually a purchase of the debt because the seller may have had ownership of the note but had not paid value or otherwise possess ownership of the debt.
*
You can ONLY acquire the debt by payment of money to the owner of the debt (or an agent authorized to accept payment on behalf of the owner of the debt). The job of defense counsel  is to show that the opposition refuses to disclose the identity of the creditor (owner of the debt) thus blocking the defense and the court from confirming that the authorization is real. That refusal should either be taken as an admission against interest or it should be the basis for a motion in limine (or trial objection) to bar the claimant’s proffer of evidence of authority at trial.
*
The UCC governs how these paper instruments and their enforcement are governed. In all events the mere delivery of the original note is sufficient under most circumstances to raise the legal presumption that the delivery was intended to convey ownership of the note and the rights to enforce it. Exceptions exist but there is case law that even a thief could sue to enforce the note, although  with any defense the thief would lose at trial. Their possession of the note would be sufficient to establish standing to sue, but not, as some courts have done, establish standing at trial.
*
Thus almost anything gives a party claiming possession of the note, the right to sue to enforce the note. That doesn’t mean they have the right to enforce the mortgage because in order to do that they must show that they paid value for the debt, that they paid it to the owner of the debt and that the debt was transferred to them.
*
It also doesn’t mean that they will win at trial because possession is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. They must show the right to enforce and that is where the mythical securitization claims get in the way of truth. The right to enforce means by definition that someone who owns the debt has authorized one or more intermediaries to enforce the note on behalf of the owner of the debt,  and the authorization allows the intermediary to sue in its own name, leaving the question of how to divide the proceeds up to the real parties after the litigation is over.
*
The problem has been that the courts are presuming that such an owner of the debt exists rather than asking for disclosure as part of the prima facie case. So what foreclosure defense lawyers are all complaining about is that they are stuck with an undisclosed creditor suing through intermediaries who claim they are authorized but whose authority cannot be challenged or tested.
*
Without that, neither the court nor the borrower has any way of knowing that if the suit is successful the proceeds will actually go towards paying down the debt. In fact, the reverse is true. Another party could emerge afterwards and claim that he had no knowledge of the previous parties claiming authority, and that those parties had no authority and that they didn’t have the real original note. Such a party could also get a judgment against the maker of the note unless the borrower could show some sort of apparent authority of the thieves who first sued him.
*
So since the debt must be owned and in most instances, but not all, the payment of value for the debt and the delivery of the promissory notes makes the buyer a holder in due course, the shorthand way of referring to that is saying that the enforcer of the mortgage or deed of trust must be a holder in due course, even if that is not completely and always accurate. A holder in due course, by law, takes the note free from borrower’s defenses except where outright fraud is involved and can be proven.
*
So references to the effect that in order to enforce the note you must be a holder in due course are wrong. You can enforce a note without being the holder in due course.
*
And while there are presumptions that enforcement of the note is the same as enforcement of the debt, that is ONLY true if the enforcer owns the debt — i.e., has paid value. It is the legal presumption to the contrary that trips up defense lawyers.
*
And references to the effect that only a holder in due course can enforce the mortgage are mostly true; it remains possible for someone to pay value for a note without becoming a holder in due course because the note was already declared in default, because they were not acting in good faith ro because they had knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. So not being a holder in due course is not a total bar to enforcement of the mortgage or deed of trust.
*
The wrong turn on the road to justice and truth, was where the courts decided that standing to sue was the same thing as standing in a prima facie case and then the other turn, where they treated the holder of a note under the same rules as a holder in due course. This resulted in discounting or completely ignoring the borrower’s defenses and the judicial recitation echoed across the country that the loan was made, the borrower stopped payment, the rest is bullshit.
*
Foreclosure defense attorneys all understand that the deck is stacked against them. Yet they still win cases because they cast considerable doubt by undermining the assumption that the case is brought by an injured party (owner of the debt) who will suffer further financial injury of the property is not sold, and whose collection of the proceeds of sale will go to pay down the debt. They are successful when they reveal the gaps in the prima facie case through discovery and cross examination and properly placed timely objections at trial.
*
As a summary of my premise that has been expounded upon throughout this blog for 12 years, here is the reason why foreclosure defense works if properly applied.
*
The actual creditors (owners of the debt) change over time. In securitization it starts with the investment banker.
*
The sale of certificates is not a sale of any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage, all of which is retained by the investment bank. It is in the sale of “contracts” to subsequent investors who are betting one or or another on the success of the certificates that the rights of ownership of the debt have been sold.
*
So by the time foreclosure comes up, the entire chain is missing the actual creditors. Neither the certificate holders nor the owners of contracts have any rights to enforce the note or mortgage.
*
So the investment bank controls the paper but cannot enforce the mortgage because it has sold the debt and the investors cannot  enforce the mortgage because they have waived the right, title and interest to enforce the note or mortgage.
*
Hence in the many successful foreclosures the proceeds are retained by the investment bank legally in accordance with their contracts, and booked as trading profit rather than as payment on a receivable they hold on their books as reported to the public and regulatory authorities. That is because they do not hold the receivable on their books of account.
*
This is not an indictment of securitization. It is a description of how claims of securitization were false. Borrowers have no role in creating this mess.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | 14 Comments »

“Lost notes” and the Sudden Appearance of “Original Notes.”

Posted on March 27, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Think of it this way: If someone wrote you a check for $100, which would you do? (1) make a digital copy of the check and then shred it or (2) take it to the bank? Starting with the era in which banks made what is abundantly clear as false claims of securitization the banks all chose option #1. And they collected incredible sums of money far exceeding the Madoff scam or anything like it.

Back in 2008 Katie Porter was a law professor and is now a member of the US House of  Representatives. For those of who don’t know her, you should follow her, even on C-Span. She nails it every time. She knows and other congressmen and women are following her lead. Back in 2008 she uncovered the fact that in her study of 1700 filings in US Bankruptcy court, 41% were missing even a copy of the note, much less the original note.

Around the same time, the Florida Bankers Association, dominated by the mega banks and who absorbed the Florida Community Bank Association, told the Florida Supreme Court that, after the purported “loan closing,” digital copies of the notes were made — and then the original notes were destroyed. FBA said it was “industry practice.” It wasn’t and it still isn’t — at least not for actual creditors who loan money. Out in the state of Washington on appeal, lawyers for the claimant in foreclosure admitted they had no clue as to the identity of the creditor. The state banned MERS foreclosures, along with Maine.

That admission, with full consent of the mega banks, raised the stakes from 41% to around 95% — a figure later confirmed in Senate Hearings by Elizabeth Warren. The other 5% are loans that were truly traditional — funded by the “lender” (no pretender lender) and still owned by the lender who had the original documents in their vault.

The law didn’t change. In order to enforce a note you needed the original. And in order to plead you “lost” the note, you had to allege and prove very specific things starting with the fact that it was lost and not destroyed. Then of course you had to prove that the original was delivered to you, which nobody could because the original was destroyed immediately after closing and a fax copy was the only thing used after that.

Typically destruction of the note means that the debt is discharged or forgiven — something that is actually a natural outgrowth of the same debt being sold dozens of times in varying pieces under various contracts, none of which give the buyer any direct right, title or interest in the “underlying” debt, note or mortgage. In short, neither the debt nor the note exist in most cases shortly after the alleged loan closing.

The representatives of the mega banks who started the illusion of securitization of mortgage debts could neither produce the original note (because it was destroyed) nor tell a credible story to explain its absence. So they did the next best thing. They recreated the note to make it appear like an original using advanced technology that could even mimic the use of a pen to sign it.

Some of us saw this early on when they failed to account for the color of the ink that was used at closing. Those were among the first cases involving a complete satisfaction of the alleged encumbrance, plus payment of damages and attorney fees, all papered over by a settlement agreement that was under seal of confidentiality.

While obviously presenting moral hazard, the process of recreation could have been legal if they had simply followed the protocols of the UCC and state law to reestablish a lost note. But they didn’t. The reason they didn’t is that they still had to prove that the note was a legal representation of a debt owed by the borrower to a creditor that they had to identify. But they couldn’t do that.

If they identified the creditor(s) they would admitting that they had no claim because a person or entity possessing a right, title or interest in the debt did not include the named claimant in the foreclosure. Naming a claimant does not create a claim. A real claim must be owned by a real claimant. That is the very essence of legal standing.

If they had no claim they would be admitting that the securitization certificates, swaps and other contracts were all bogus. That would tank the $1 quadrillion shadow banking market. That is where we see the evidence that for every $1 loaned more than $20 in revenue was produced and never allocated to either the debt of the borrower or the investment of the investors. The banks took it all. $45 trillion in loans and refi’s turned into $1 quadrillion in “nominal” value. Nice work if you can get it.

So then they did the next next best best thing thing. They simply presented the recreation of the note as the actual original and hoped that they could push it through and that has worked in many, probably most cases.

It works because most borrowers and their lawyers fail to heed my advice: admit nothing — make them prove everything. By giving testimony regarding the “original” note the borrower provides the foundation and the rest of the foreclosure is preordained.

For some reason, lawyers who are usually suspicious, refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that the entire process is a lie designed to take property, sell it and apply or allocate the sale proceeds to anyone except the owner(s) of the debt. They hear “free house” and get scared they will look foolish.

A free house to those persistent and enduring souls who finance the great fight is a small price to pay for the mountains of windfall profit of the banks and related parties. As for the banks, adding the proceeds of a house that should never have been sold is adding insult to injury not only to the homeowner but to the entire society.

If anyone wants to know why so many Americans are angry, look no further than the 40 million people were directly displaced by illegal foreclosure and the additional 70 million people who were affected by those dislocations. Voters know that if the many $trillions spent on bailouts had been used to level the playing field, 110 million Americans and millions more worldwide would have never faced the worst effects of the great recession.

And we will continue voting for disruptors until a level playing field re-emerges.

see Lost notes and Bad Servicing Practices and Incentives SSRN-id1027961

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

 

Filed under: bankruptcy, boarding process, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, escrow agent, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Beware of Magic Bullets

Posted on March 19, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Departing from my usual format, there are a few things I want to say to people who are looking for relief from foreclosure and are hearing what they want to hear.

  • ONLY A COURT ORDER CAN STOP A FORECLOSURE. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
  • YOU CAN’T GET A COURT ORDER UNLESS YOU FOLLOW THE RULES AND THE LAW.
  • NOBODY HAS EVER OBTAINED SUCH AN ORDER WITHOUT A PROLONGED COURT BATTLE.
  • If someone tells you “just do this” they are partially or entirely wrong or worse.
  • Like everything life is complicated and that includes litigation. Any thought you are entertaining that you have some magic elixir in which you will summarily get a court order is delusional.
  • Every plan looks good on paper until it is implemented.

I am worried that those who in good faith are trying to find the magic bullet are promoting a misguided set of principles that will continue to make bad law. I admit that I contributed to this initially back in 2008 when I proposed that a quiet title action should wrap things up. I was dead wrong and the people who continue to pursue that strategy are always getting the same result: the homeowner loses and another case is either decided badly or worse, makes bad law with a legal opinion issued by a judge or panel of judges.

The truth is that a successful quiet title action is a rare bird along with similar strategies. And remember that an unenforceable document by one party is no reason to lift an encumbrance from the chain of title. In order to remove an encumbrance from the chain of title, the instrument must be completely void and no voidable. That means it should never have been recorded in the first place or that it is now void by operation of law. That is the ONLY circumstance in which a mortgage or deed of trust or assignment of mortgage can be lifted out of the chain of title.

I do agree with the strategy of attacking the assignments in a lawsuit or motion. The motions don’t get much traction but the lawsuits tend to do better if they are pursued aggressively and persistently, with full recognition that no bank or service is going to roll over and play dead even if you are completely correct on the law. Your opponents and their lawyers will do everything in their power to wear you down, undermine your confidence and the undermine the confidence of the lawyer representing the homeowner. Your strategy must be laser-focussed, supported by substantive law and procedure.

But I don’t agree that any lay person can accomplish an attack on assignments without a lawyer representing them. If the practice of law was just about the contents of a statute we wouldn’t need courts. It’s about procedure, rules of evidence and basic notions and biases of fairness.

It’s true that the substitutions of trustee, the assignments, the indorsements etc. are probably legally void. For the most part they are fabricated. An assignment of mortgage probably lacks any foundation.

But what you’re up against, for example, is the fact that an assignment of mortgage is often assumed to be an assignment of the debt and the note. An indorsement of the note is often assumed to be an assignment of the debt. Possession of the note is often assumed to be possession of the debt. Possession is then assumed to be the result of delivery. Delivery implies authority. Transfer of the note implies a transfer of the debt. Transfer of the debt implies the assignment of mortgage was proper under state statutes. And a proper assignment supports a declaration of default and foreclosure. A proper assignment means that party foreclosing is going to get the proceeds of sale on foreclosed property. End of story.

So that is where you stand when your challenge begins. Don’t kid yourself. The task is daunting.

Those conclusions are all legally valid assumptions and presumptions because that is what the law says should be done with these documents and events. Facial validity is like possession — it’s 9/10 of the law.

If you think you can simply challenge these assumptions and presumptions and events and quickly get an order that completely undermines the parties attempting to foreclose — without going through a grueling court battle — you are simply wrong.

That said, thousands of homeowners have indeed won based upon such challenges. Nearly all of those cases have been buried under seals of confidentiality. The way they won was by educating the judge, one small piece at a time, using persuasive court techniques that nobody other than an experienced trial lawyer knows how to use. By the time the case ended, the court, unwilling to strike all such foreclosures, was careful to detail the specific abuses and gaps in the case against the homeowner.

Bottom Line: If you have the money and the time and the commitment to oppose these illegal foreclosures, by all means do it. And if you must do it pro se, know that the opposition will steamroll you on procedure and the laws of evidence. So you must have some knowledgeable lawyer giving you specific guidance as each point becomes an issue. Don’t pursue any strategy that promises to be a quick fix.

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, education, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Pleading, prima facie case, quiet title, Servicer, sham transactions | 10 Comments »

PTSD: A Breakdown of Securitization in the Real World

Posted on March 18, 2019 by Neil Garfield

By using the methods of magicians who distract the viewer from what is really happening the banks have managed to hoodwink even the victims and their lawyers into thinking that collection and foreclosure on “securitized” loans are real and proper. Nobody actually stops to ask whether the named claimant is actually going to receive the benefit of the remedy (foreclosure) they are seeking.

When you break it down you can see that in many cases the investment banks, posing as Master Servicers are the parties getting the monetary proceeds of sale of foreclosed property. None of the parties in the chain have lost any money but each of them is participating in a scheme to foreclose on the property for fun and profit.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

It is worth distinguishing between four sets of investors which I will call P, T, S and D.

The P group of investors were Pension funds and other stable managed funds. They purchased the first round of derivative contracts sometimes known as asset backed securities or mortgage backed securities. Managers of hedge funds that performed due diligence quickly saw that that the investment was backed only by the good faith and credit of the issuing investment bank and not by collateral, debts or mortgages or even notes from borrowers. Other fund managers, for reasons of their own, chose to overlook the process of due diligence and relied upon the appearance of high ratings from Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch combined with the appearance of insurance on the investment. The P group were part of the reason that the Federal reserve and the US Treasury department decided to prop up what was obviously a wrongful and fraudulent scheme. Pulling the plug, in the view of the top regulators, would have destroyed the investment portfolio of many if not most stable managed funds.

The T group of investors were traders. Traders provide market liquidity which is so highly prized and necessary for a capitalist economy to maintain prosperity. The T group, consisting of hedge funds and others with an appetitive for risk purchased derivatives on derivatives, including credit default swaps that were disguised sales of loan portfolios that once sold, no longer existed. Yet the same portfolio was sold multiple time turning a hefty profit but resulted in a huge liability when the loans soured during the process of securitization of the paper (not the debt). The market froze when the loans soured; nobody would buy more certificates. The Ponzi scheme was over. Another example that Lehman pioneered was “minibonds” which were not bonds and they were not small. These were resales of the credit default swaps aggregated into a false portfolio. The traders in this group included the major investment banks. As an example, Goldman Sachs purchased insurance on portfolios of certificates (MBS) that it did not own but under contract law the contract was perfectly legal, even if it was simply a bet. When the market froze and AIG could not pay off the bet, Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs literally begged George W Bush to bail out AIG and “save the banks.” What was saved was Goldman’s profit on the insurance contract in which it reaped tens of billions of dollars in payments for nonexistent losses that could have been attributed to people who actually had money at risk in loans to borrowers, except that no such person existed.

The S group of investors were scavengers who were well connected with the world of finance or part of the world of finance. It was the S group that created OneWest over a weekend, and later members of the S group would be fictitious buyers of “re-securitized” interests in prior loans that were subject to false claims of securitization of the paper. This was an effort to correct obvious irregularities that were thought to expose a vulnerability of the investment banks.

The D group of investors are dummies who purchased securitization certificates entitling them to income indexed on recovery of servicer advances and other dubious claims. The interesting thing about this is that the Master Servicer does appear to have a claim for money that is labeled as a “servicer advance,” even if there was no advance or the servicer did not advance any funds. The claim is contingent upon there being a foreclosure and eventual sale of the property to a third party. Money paid to investors from a fund of investor money to satisfy the promise to pay contained in the “certificate” or “MBS” or “Mortgage Bond,” is labeled, at the discretion of the Master Servicer as a Servicer Advance even though the servicer did not advance any money.

This is important because the timing of foreclosures is often based entirely on when the “Servicer Advances” are equal to or exceed the equity in the property. Hence the only actual recipient of money from the foreclosure is not the P investors, not any investors and not the trust or purported trustee but rather the Master Servicer. In short, the Master servicer is leveraging an unsecured claim and riding on the back of an apparently secured claim in which the named claimant will receive no benefits from the remedy demanded in court or in a non-judicial foreclosure.

NOTE that securitization took place in four parts and in three different directions:

  1. The debt to the T group of investors.
  2. The notes to the T and S group of traders
  3. The mortgage (without the debt) to a nominee — usually a fictitious trust serving as the fictitious name of the investment bank (Lehman in this case).
  4. Securitization of spillover money that guaranteed receipt of money that was probably never due or payable.

Note that the P group of investors is not included because they do not ever collect money from borrowers and their certificates grant no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. When you read references to “securitization fail” (see Adam Levitin) this is part of what the writers are talking about. The securitization that everyone is talking about never happened. The P investors are not owners or beneficiaries entitled to income, interest or principal from loans to borrowers. They are entitled to an income stream as loans the investment bank chooses to pay it. Bailouts or even borrower payoffs are not credited to the the P group nor any trust. Their income remains the same regardless of whether the borrower is paying or not.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Unworthy Trusts

Posted on March 12, 2019 by Neil Garfield

The simple fact is that the REMIC trusts do not exist in the real world. The parties named as trustees — e.g. US Bank, Deutsch, BONY/Mellon — are trust names that are used by permission through what is essentially a royalty agreement. If you are dealing with a trust then you are dealing with a ghost.

Discovery is the way to reveal the absence of any knowledge, activity or reports ever conducted, issued or published by the named Trustee on behalf of the “trust” or the alleged “beneficiaries.” Take deposition of officers of the named Trustee. Your opposition will try to insert a representative of the servicer. Don’t accept that.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
*
For purposes of clarity I am using US Bank as an example. It is the most common.
*
US Bank has NO information about the trust, the servicer or the account for the borrower. Thus the purpose of any deposition of any officer of US Bank should be solely to establish the absence of events and data that should otherwise be present.
*
This is why as counsel for the lender, lawyers will not recommend going forward with the refinancing. Your opposition is asking you to accept their word for the “fact” that they represent a creditor who is entitled to payment not just because there is paperwork indicating that, but because they are really owed the money.
*
Knowing the truth is a basis for establishing gaps and revealing it to the trier of fact but should NOT be a basis of making allegations that you will be required to prove. It’s a thin line and the lawyer needs to be aware of this division, or else you will end up with a burden of proof you cannot sustain and unanswered questions that prevent the closing of refinancing — unless the “source” of refinancing is from another player in the world of securitization.
*
The fact that securitization players would accept the paperwork is only testament to the willingness of all securitization players to engage in such conduct as to maintain an illusion of legitimacy. Other lenders rely on such conduct at their peril. Other lenders do not receive the reward from multiple resales of the same debt.
*
So in your inquiries to officers of US Bank you want to establish the following, in order to force the true creditor to come forward (if there is one):
    1. US Bank has no duties normally attributed to a trustee.
    2. The “US Bank” name is basically a royalty arrangement in which the name can be used but there is no further substance to its “role” as trustee.
    3. There is no bank account established or maintained by US Bank for the alleged Trust.
    4. US Bank has never received any money through any means in connection with the subject debt. The borrower’s payments to the servicer have never been received by US Bank on its own behalf, as conduit or as trustee for any trust.
    5. In prior foreclosures involving the same trust, US Bank did not receive the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.
    6. US Bank has no reason to expect that it would receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale involving the subject debt.
    7. US Bank has no mechanism in place where the payment of money to satisfy the claimed debt would be actually deposited into a bank account for the trust that is controlled by US Bank.
    8. The beneficiaries of the trust do not receive any money from borrower payments, foreclosure sales, or prepayments, refinancing or any other monetary transactions. US Bank probably does not know if this is true or not. US Bank has nothing to do with what, if anything, the “beneficiaries” of the “trust” receive or don’t receive.
    9. US bank has no information regarding the identity of the beneficiaries of the “trust.”
    10. US Bank has no information regarding whether any party is a beneficiary of the “trust”.
    11. US Bank has no information regarding the existence of the trust other than the documents forwarded to it for purposes of the deposition.
    12. US Bank does not keep or maintain accounting records pertaining to the trust.
    13. US Bank does not keep or maintain any records or documents pertaining to the trust.
    14. US Bank does not issue reports to anyone regarding the trust or the subject debt, note or mortgage.
    15. US Bank does not include information relative to the business activity of the “trust” or the subject debt, note or mortgage in any report to any regulatory authority, Federal or State.
    16. Except for fee income, US Bank does not include information relative to the business activity of the “trust” or the subject debt, note or mortgage in any financial report published to the public or to any regulatory authority, Federal or State.
    17. There is no “trust officer” appointed by US Bank to actively manage the affairs of the “trust.”There is no “trust officer” appointed by US Bank to actively manage the affairs of the subject debt.
    18. US Bank neither accepts nor gives any instructions to anyone regarding the affairs of the “trust.”
    19. US Bank neither accepts not gives any instructions to anyone regarding the subject debt, note or mortgage.
    20. US Bank has no power to either accept or give instructions regarding the trust or the subject debt.


Keep in mind that there are experts who believe that the debt no longer exists, and that you are dealing with the ghost of a creditor and the ghost of a debt. This is because the debt was resold multiple times and redistributed to multiple parties (new investors) under the guise of different instruments in which the value of the instrument was ultimately derived not from the debt, in actuality, but from the marketplace where such isntruments are traded. This is an ornate interpretation that has the ring of truth when you examine what the banks did, but this theory will not likely be accepted by any court.

*
That theory explains why when appellate and trial courts asked the direct question of whether the creditor can be identified the answer was no. The response was that the courts stopped asking.
*
But the issue at hand is whether, pursuant to state law governing foreclosures, a creditor is before the court possessing a valid claim to collect on a debt. If there is, then that creditor is entitled to payment. If there is not, then the claimed “creditor” is not entitled to either payment or foreclosure. 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, prima facie case, Servicer, standing, STATUTES, TILA, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Stop Referring to Defaults as Something Real

Posted on March 11, 2019 by Neil Garfield
Referring to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, completely undermines your argument that they have no  right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure. 

…when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from you as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale.

Questions to the servicer about how, when and where they made payments to Deutsch, or Deutsch as Trustee, or any trust, or any group of investors holding certificates will reveal their absence from the money trail. No such payments exist nor will they ever exist.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
I take issue with the practice of referring to “the default.” When someone refuses or stops paying another person that does not automatically mean that a default exists. A default only exists if the the payment was due to a specifically identified party and they didn’t get it. Failure to pay a servicer is not a default. Failure to pay a servicer who is sending your payments to a creditor IS a default.
Since the fundamental defense for borrowers that wins cases is that the claimant has no right to be in court, it seems wrong to refer to”the default.” It should be “the claimed default.”
If your refusal to make payment was in fact a default as to Deutsch as Trustee of a real trust or as authorized representative of the certificate holders (they never make that clear), then all of your arguments come off as technical arguments to get out of a legitimate debt. You will lose.
On the other hand if your position (i.e., your denial and affirmative defenses) is that Deutsch is not a party on its own behalf and that it is being named by attorneys as being in a representative capacity for (a) a trust that does not exist or (b) for holder of certificates that do not convey title to the debt, note or mortgage and are specifically disclaimed, then you have a coherent narrative for your defense.
And if you further that argument by asserting that Deutsch has never received any payments and does not receive the proceeds of foreclosure on its own behalf nor as trustee for any trust or group of investors and will not receive those proceeds in this case then you push the knife in deeper.
So if Deutsch is not appearing on its own behalf and the parties that the lawyers say it is representing either don’t exist or are not identified, then the action is actually being filed in the name of Deutsch but for and on behalf of some other unidentified party who may or may not have any right to payment.
What is certain is that Deutsch is being represented as the owner of the loan when it is not.  The owner of a loan receives payments. Deutsch never receives payment from anyone and the investors never receive payment from the borrowers. If they did the servicer would have records of that. 
So when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from the homeowner as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale. 
If Deutsch didn’t suffer any default it could not legally declare one. If the declaration of default was void, then there is no default declared. In fact, there is no default until a  creditor steps forward and says I own the debt that I paid for and I suffered a default here. But there is no such party/creditor because the investment bank who funded the origination or acquisition of the loan has long since sold its interest in the loan multiple times.
Thus when lawyers or as servicer or both sent notices of delinquency or default they did so knowing that the party on whose behalf they said they were sending those notices had not suffered any delinquency or default.
When homeowners refer to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, they completely undermine their argument that they have no  right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure. 
And remember that the sole reason for foreclosures in which REMIC claims are present is not repayment, because that has occurred already. The sole reason is to maintain the illusion of securitization which is the cover for a PONZI scheme. The banks are seeking to protect “profits” they already have collected not to obtain repayment. That is why a “Master Servicer” is allowed to collect the proceeds of a foreclosure sale rather than anyone owning the debt.
Also remember that while it might be that investors could be construed as beneficiaries of a trust, if it existed, they actually are merely holders of uncertificated certificates in which they disclaim any interest in the debt, note or mortgage.  Hence  they have no claim, direct or indirect, against any individual borrower. 

PRACTICE NOTE: Don’t assert anything you cannot prove. Leave the burden of proof on the lawyers who have named an alleged claimant who they say or imply possesses a claim. Deny everything and force them to prove everything. Discovery should be aimed at revealing the gaps not facts that will prove some assertion about securitization in general. Judges don’t want to hear that.
Appropriate questions to ask in one form or another are as follows:
  1. Who is the Claimant/Plaintiff/Beneficiary?
  2. Who will receive the proceeds of foreclosure sale?
  3. Before the default, who received the proceeds of payment from the subject borrower? [They will  fight this tooth and nail]
  4. Did the trustee ever receive payments from the borrower?
  5. Does the trustee in this alleged trust have any contractual right to receive borrower payments?
  6. Do holders of certificates receive payments from the borrower through a servicer?

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Investor, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Is that Mortgage or Deed of Trust Void or Just Unenforceable?

Posted on March 5, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Proving that an instrument is unenforceable does not void the instrument unless it is unenforceable by anyone. Better to prove that it should never have been written.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
The DOT could only be void if it was not facially or actually valid. That, in my opinion, means that the the DOT should never have been written, should never have been executed and should never have been recorded. It must the equivalent of uttering a false instrument and have the qualities of being a wild deed.
You need to look at your state statute that authorizes the use of a Deed of Trust. Look for the elements. If they are present, the DOT is not void on its face. If the elements are falsely presented then the  instrument can still be proven void. 
Proving that an instrument is not enforceable by the party trying to enforce it does NOT prove that nobody could enforce it. Hence it isn’t void until you can show that there is nobody who can or will enforce it. You must show that the DOT should never have been presented, signed and certainly not recorded.
That isn’t easy. And it is nearly impossible without investigation and discovery in which some party claiming to have an interest admits that there are fatal defects in the DOT. Defects in assignments or legal standing do not prove that the original instrument is void.
Put yourself in the shoes of a party whose money was used to give you the loan. Would you want your collateral wiped out because your servicer did something wrong in enforcement?
So in Washington DC the operative statute says as follows:

§ 42–801. Execution, acknowledgment, and recordation in same manner as deeds.

Mortgages and deeds of trust to secure debts, conveying any estate in land, shall be executed and may be acknowledged and recorded in the same manner as absolute deeds; and they shall take effect both as between the parties thereto and as to others, bona fide purchasers and mortgagees and creditors, in the same manner and under the same conditions as absolute deeds.

So then we are referred to the execution of absolute deeds. That statute says as follows:

§ 42–401. Effective date of deeds; exception.

Any deed conveying real property in the District, or interest therein, or declaring or limiting any use or trust thereof, executed and acknowledged and certified as provided in §§ 42-101, 42-121 to 42-123 [repealed], 42-306, and 42-602 and delivered to the person in whose favor the same is executed, shall be held to take effect from the date of the delivery thereof, except that as to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers and mortgagees without notice of said deed, and others interested in said property, it shall only take effect from the time of its delivery to the Recorder of Deeds for record.

And you may have trouble with this one:

§ 42–403. Defective grants recorded on or after April 27, 1994.

Any instrument recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds on or after April 27, 1994, shall be effective notwithstanding the existence of 1 or more of the failures in the formal requisites listed in § 42-404, unless the failure is challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 months after the instrument is recorded.

But look at this —-

§ 42–404. Failures in formal requisites of an instrument.

(a) The failures in the formal requisites of an instrument that may be cured by this act are:

(1) An omission of an acknowledgment or a defective or improper acknowledgment;

(2) A failure to attach a clerk’s certificate;

(3) An omission of a notary seal or other seal; or

(4) An omission of an attestation.

(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to eliminate the requirement that a deed be under seal. Any deed accepted for recordation without a seal but made effective by operation of this act shall be deemed a sealed instrument.

(c) Nothing in this act shall be construed to validate any instrument with respect to which there was any misrepresentation, fraudulent act, or illegal provision in connection with its execution or acknowledgment.

(d) Any person convicted of a fraudulent act, in connection with the validation of any instrument under §§ 42-101, 42-402, 42-403, and 42-602 shall be subject to the penalties set forth in § 22-3222.


So putting it all together you probably cannot prove that the instrument is facially invalid but you can prove that it is invalid for misrepresentation of the lender and the terms of the loan referenced by the DOT by its reference to the promissory note. The actual terms were that a remote undisclosed party would sell the borrower’s signature multiple times reaping huge rewards without any application of sale proceeds to the borrower’s account. 
*
The part about the wrong name being inserted as the lender is a good one. But that could be theoretically corrected by an affidavit of scrivener’s error, although supporting such an affidavit would be nearly impossible. 
*
But since the statute speaks to the commission of a fraudulent act you might be able to invalidate the the DOT without appearing to invalidate the debt. Or you could attempt to reform the DOT to name the actual lender, which I think might be a more productive tack, since it completely avoids the appearance of seeking a free house. 
Remember thought that fraud must be specific: You need a representation that was false, which the party knew was false, for the purpose of getting you to reasonably rely on the representation to your detriment and to their advantage. I think you have that here.
*
And remember that once you prove by clear and convincing evidence that the DOT was void for being part of a fraudulent scheme, any assignments of the mortgage or assignments of the beneficial interest in the void deed of trust are equally void because assignments convey only the interest possessed — they do not create interests. 

 

Filed under: bankruptcy, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, Servicer, sham transactions, STATUTES | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Enforcement of Note vs. Enforcement of Mortgage

Posted on February 25, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Watch out for the discrepancy between enforcement of a note and enforcement of an encumbrance. Enforcement of the note requires proof that the claimant is the owner of the debt, or has been authorized by the owner of the debt to enforce the note. Enforcement of the mortgage requires that the claimant be the owner of the debt. 

Judgment on the note can be rendered based upon legal presumptions arising from the UCC as adopted by state law as it applies to negotiable instruments. Mortgages (deeds of trust) are not negotiable instruments. The courts err when they apply Article 3 presumptions to the enforcement of a mortgage.

And take note that not all promissory notes are necessarily negotiable instruments and that therefore they too are not entitled to the benefit of legal presumptions under Article 3.

Always remember that legal presumptions are not intended to created findings of act that are contrary to reality. Quite the contrary, they are intended only as a convenience by which the court, in the absence of any meaningful objection, can presume such facts as part of its conclusion; no presumption should be employed if the evidence is tinged with a self serving nature and produced by the named claimant, and all such presumptions are rebuttable by exposing the reality. 

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

 Possession of the original note usually results in a presumption that the possessor is a holder, and being holder usually results in the presumption that the holder is authorized to enforce as an agent of the owner of the debt.

Those are the rules for negotiable paper (notes). It is easier to state a case for enforcement of the note than enforcement of a mortgage or deed of trust. The intent in the law is to make it easy for notes to flow through the marketplace as cash equivalents. 

It is entirely possible for the same party to be awarded judgment on a note and denied judgment for enforcement of a mortgage or deed of trust, which are not negotiable instruments. An assignment of mortgage without a transfer of the debt is a nullity. But when the note is transferred, that is generally treated as though title to the debt has been transferred. That is an error in most cases involving claims of “securitization.” The reason it is an error is that the transferor of the note did not own the debt.

Both the endorsement of the note and the assignment of the mortgage can be attacked on the basis that authorization from the owner of the debt has not been shown. But the burden is on the claimed debtor (You) to rebut the assumptions and presumptions.

The only way to do that appears to be through discovery in which you request the owner of the debt to be identified. This is tricky and the other side knows it. They will reply that a designated party has some sort of authority to claim ownership without actually saying that they are the owner. So if you merely ask for the owner of the debt to be identified you probably won’t get very far.

You need to probe deeper than that. Go to an accountant and find out what the attributes are under GAAP and the FASB of an owner of the debt. The answer will be that the owner will have entries in its own books and records of an asset consisting of the claimed debt. Those entries must include an entry on the asset side of the amount of the supposed debt. Usually on the liability side there is a reserve for bad debt or default.

Any accountant will tell you that if the loan is not carried as  an asset on the books and records of the named claimant, they are not the owner of the debt.

This dichotomy is revealed easily in Article 3 UCC as adopted by state statute, which applies to notes and Article 9 UCC as adopted by state statute which applies to mortgages.

The legislative intent is that nobody should be allowed to enforce a mortgage without actually owning the debt. This is backed up by your jurisdictional argument, to wit: the party named as claiming the right to foreclose is not the party who will receive the benefits of that remedy because they have no financial injury in the first place. 

It’s one thing to get a money judgment against someone. But the legislature of every state has already decided that is quite another thing to take the homestead away from a homeowner. The big safeguard is the requirement that the claimant in foreclosure actually has ownership of the debt and therefore would be injured financially if the encumbrance were not enforced. 

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, prima facie case | Tagged: , , , , , , | 20 Comments »

Caliber and LSF9 Trust Example of Smoke and Mirrors

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Neil Garfield

The lesson is keep your eye on the ball. The natural human reaction to an affidavit is to assume it is true. We assume that it would not be submitted if the lawyers knew it wasn’t true. And in most cases people don’t lie in affidavits. But they do mislead sometimes by leaving out context. And then there are affidavits and declarations fabricated, executed, filed and even recorded in  foreclosure cases which are mostly lies and virtually all misleading.

To reveal this you must take your time in reviewing the documents and affidavits submitted. They were created so that at a glance everything would seem in order. On closer reading you can see that they don’t actually say anything of value and therefore should not be considered facially valid documents conveying or certifying anything.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

Bill Paatalo wrote the following in September 2018:

In 100% of the cases I’ve investigated regarding “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust,” the servicer (most often “Caliber”) provides the exact same type of affidavit. This is all they ever produce, and here, the court says it doesn’t cut it.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2017/2017-ny-slip-op-50218-u.html

“Moreover, Mr. Cantu is not an employee of Plaintiff or Wells Fargo and therefore can not attest to what is in the possession of the Plaintiff or Wells Fargo. As noted above, the copy of the Note and allonge does not contain any endorsement or date which would support that the Plaintiff had possession when the action was commenced. The affidavits of Caliber’s Default Service Officer did not give any factual details of a physical delivery and, thus, failed to establish that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time the action was commenced, and as such Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment. (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Burke, 125 AD3d 765, 766 [2d Dept 2015]; US Bank N.A. v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575, 577 [2014]; Bank of NY Mellon v Gales, 116 AD3d 723 [2014]). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is denied, and it is further”

So what foreclosure mill lawyers are doing is filing affidavits and declarations. That part of it is true. They are filed and sometimes recorded.

But what is in those affidavits and declarations is not supported by anything on the face of the instrument, or what is attached to it, nor even by reference within the instrument to a fact or document in the public domain. So it is wholly useless without resort to extrinsic evidence (testimony and exhibits), which means that it cannot be considered a facially valid document.

Putting this into practice is actually not hard. You simply need to break down the wording so that each phrase or statement is analyzed for the truth of the matter asserted.

The LSF9 Master Participation Trust is but one example. It is named but not described. So where normal custom and practice would dictate that it be named and described, the foreclosure mill lawyers are convincing judges to treat it as though it was described.

When the homeowner is described it is usually with a name, and place of residence or as title owner of certain property. When a Trust is described it is named without a place of residence and with no direct statement that it owns anything. In other civil pleadings, if the LSF9 Master Participation Trust was real, it would say that it was a common law (or statutory) trust organized and existing under the laws of the state of XXXXX with its principal place of business at YYYYYYYY in the City of ZZZZZ.

If you do a thorough search of all cases, you will not find a single instance in which a trust is named as Defendant except certain cases where the homeowners are suing the apparent trust under the misapprehension that it is an existing legal entity. On the finance side nobody refers to the trust much less sues it. There are a few cases in which banks claiming to be Trustees of a claimed REMIC Trust sued someone for delivering improperly underwritten loans, but no case in which the allegation is made that the Trust actually purchased those loans. All those cases settle long before trial.

Back to LSF9:

The lawyers submitted an affidavit that was probably forged. But assuming it wasn’t, the affidavit said nothing that could be accepted as evidence of anything because the knowledge of the alleged affiant, the employment of the alleged affiant and the authority of the alleged affiant were nonexistent.

But it gives the appearance of having facial validity even if there is none. It has a named affiant, a statement  and a notarized signature.

As the court found in New York, the affiant failed to state the basis for his knowledge which could NOT be implied from the affidavit since it did not recite that he was an employee of the Trust, the Bank or any other presumed party in interest.

Consider the following hypothetical extreme example which translates the affidavit:

My name is John Smith. I am an independent contractor for Caliber. I was hired to sign this affidavit. I have no knowledge of anything contained in this affidavit. I was not present in any capacity when any of the events or documents recited in this affidavit occurred or were created. I have never been an employee of any entity whose records are described in this affidavit nor did I have any role or knowledge of the events or the documents or records referred to herein. However I am familiar with the name Wells Fargo and I can see the name “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” on the affidavit prepared for me to sign.

Such affidavits are common place ONLY in one place, to wit: in the courtroom where a foreclosure is pending. And in all cases, except foreclosures, such affidavits are instantly rejected.

Filed under: boarding process, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CASES, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forgery, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, standing, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Why Fabrications? Why Forgeries?

Posted on February 11, 2019 by Neil Garfield

In an increasing number of foreclosure cases, homeowners are going head to head with the lawyers who file claims on behalf of entities on the basis of fabricated and/or forged instruments that in many cases were also recorded in county records. Lawyers like Dan Khwaja in Illinois are getting clearer and clearer about it. They hire experts who understand exactly how the notes are mechanically created and the endorsements are not real signatures.

The key question is why would the notes have been fabricated and forged when there actually was a closing and a note was actually signed? We’re talking about the financial industry whose reputation depends upon safeguarding all signed documents. If they didn’t safeguard the documents and instead destroyed them or “lost” them, why was that allowed to happen?

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

So we have a case in Illinois where lawyers filed a judicial foreclosure on behalf of Bank of New York/Mellon (BONY) as trustee (i.e. representative of) “holders” of certificates. The lawyers attach a copy of a note and indorsements. Khwaja hired an expert who found quite definitively that the note and the endorsements were all fabricated (forged). Khwaja has filed a motion for summary judgment.

Here is my analysis:

*
The lawyers who filed the claim have a serious problem. If they cannot convince the judge that they have no need to respond they are dead in the water. They must either pay someone to commit perjury or seek to amend with an actual original note. In view of prior studies that show that most (or at least half) of all notes were “lost or destroyed” immediately following the “closing” combined with your expert on hand, coming up with the original note is not an option.
*
And that brings us to the question of “why?” If there really was a closing at which the borrower signed documents, why do they need fabricated documents? To me, the answer is simple. In order to sell the same loan multiple times they needed to convert from actual to imaged documents. The actual one had to disappear. And the handful of megabanks who had a virtual monopoly on tens of millions of mortgage transactions made it “custom and practice” to use images rather than actual documents. [This practice has spilled over to property sale contracts where neither party gets an original].
*
And we have the additional issue which is presented by the foreclosure complaint. It says that BONY appears on behalf of the holders of certificates. The simple question is “so what?”
*
Being holders of certificates means nothing. It leaves out any assertion that the holders of the certificates are owners of the certificates, or anything that might identify those “holders”. So the proceeds of foreclosure could then go to whoever was chosen by the parties actually pulling the strings.
*
They are asking the court to fill in the blanks. They want the court to draw an inference without ever stating the fact to be inferred, to wit: the holders of the certificates are owners of the certificates who are therefore owners of the debt, note and mortgage. There simply is no such allegation nor any exhibit indicating that is true. The reason is that it is not true.
*
So who is really the Plaintiff? Supposedly not BONY who is appearing in a representative capacity.
*
If “sanctions” were applied against the “Plaintiff” BONY would claim it is not the actual party and that the unidentified “holders” of certificates are the proper party or perhaps an implied trust.
*
So then is it the certificate holders, represented by BONY? But they don’t have any right, title or interest to the subject debt, note or mortgage. The prospectus and certificate indentures make that abundantly clear in most cases.
*
Examining what happens after a foreclosure is “successful” provides clues. Neither BONY nor any certificate holder ever receives the actual money from the proceeds of the purported sale of the property.
*
So who does?
*
As the one party with actual control over the loan receivable, the investment bank that created the “securitization” scheme is the only party that comes close to being an actual creditor. But here is their problem: that loan receivable has been sold multiple times. This not only leaves them with no claim to the debt, but a surplus of funds over and above the amount due on what was the loan receivable. It’s basic accounting and bookkeeping. And if that were not true the banks would not be doing it.
*
So in the real world it is the investment bank that gets the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. But they do it as the “Master Servicer” of an implied (and nonexistent) trust. The money simply disappears.
*
In order to get away with selling the debt multiple times they had to make each sale a non recourse sale. And they did that. So the buyers of the debt, note and mortgage had no actual legal title to the debt, note and mortgage and no recourse to the borrower to collect on the unpaid debt.
*
THAT leaves NOBODY as owner of a debt that has probably been extinguished and reveals the paper issued to buyers/investors as essentially the issuance of cash equivalent instruments (also known as currency). And THAT is the reason the banks, after  two decades of this nonsense, have yet to come to court and simply say “here is proof of our funding of the origination or purchase of the debt, note and mortgage.”
*
If they did, they would be admitting to lying in millions of foreclosure cases over at least a 15 year period of time. Their scheme effectively concentrated the risk of loss on investors and borrowers while literally retaining all the benefits of supposed loan transactions for the sole benefit of the intermediaries, who then leveraged loans multiple times.
*
This translates as follows: the money taken from investors is an unsecured liability of the investment bank. To be sure that has a value — but not a value derived from loans to homeowners. THAT value was taken by the investment bank who cashed in on it already.
*
Note: For certain second tier investment bankers there were transition periods in which they were at actual risk. Examples include Lehman and Bear Stearns. But the top tier was able to sell forward on the certificates and never commit a single dime of their own money into the securitization scheme even in transition. But by pointing to Lehman and Bear Stearns they were able to convince policy makers that they were in the same position. This produced the “bailout” which was essentially the payment of even more money for losses that did not exist.
*
In an odd twist of irony, Wells Fargo was the only party (2009) that admitted to no loss but was forced to take bailout money so that other “less fortunate” parties would not be singled out as weak institutions.
*
In truth the AIG bailout and similar bailouts were merely payments of extra profits to Goldman Sachs and some other players, leaving investors and borrowers stranded with nearly worthless investments and collapsed markets for both homes, whose prices had been inflated by over 100% over value, and a nonexistent market for the bogus certificates that the Fed chose to revive by its purchasing program of “mortgage bonds” that were neither bonds nor backed by mortgages.
*
Despite the complexity of all this, on a certain level most people understand that the banks caused the misery of the meltdown and profited from it.  They also understand that it is still happening. The failure of government to deal appropriately with the existential threat posed by the megabanks clearly played into and perhaps caused the social unrest around the world in the form of “populist” movements. And until governments deal with this issue head-on, people will be looking for political candidates who show that they are willing to take a wrecking ball to the banks and anyone who is protecting them.
*
In the meanwhile, an increasing number of homeowners (again) are walking away from homes in the mistaken belief that they have an unpaid debt to the party named as the claimant against them.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

Facial Validity vs Enforceability

Posted on February 5, 2019 by Neil Garfield
It is universally accepted that a mortgage or deed of trust may not enforced except by the owner of the actual debt. The debt exists regardless of whether it is in writing or not. While a promissory note might be enforced by a party who does not own the debt (Article 3 UCC), forfeiture of a homestead requires that the mortgage be enforced by the actual debt owner (Article 9 UCC), or someone who can prove the identity of the debt owner and delegation of authority from the debt owner to the party enforcing the mortgage or deed of trust. 
A facially invalid document is neither void nor unenforceable, but it does require more proof to enforce than a facially valid document.
 
If you received the money or payments were made on your behalf, you owe the money simply because of the act of receiving or benefiting from a money transfer. 
 
The debt is normally “merged” (see Case Analysis) into the promissory note if the Payee on the note and the owner of the debt are the same person or entity. If the Payee and Debt Owner are not the same entity the debt still exists even if there is no written instrument that reflects the transaction between the person or entity who advanced their own funds and the person(s) usually designated as “borrowers.” 
 
But the terms of payback can only be determined by reference to extrinsic evidence because the operative note does not name the Debt Owner nor does it show on its face any specific reference of authority on the face of the note to represent the Debt Owner. If essential terms or provisions can only be ascertained through external evidence (“Parole Evidence”) then the instrument is not facially valid. 
 
For these reasons and others, we believe the Case Analysis will reveal that both the note and the recorded encumbrance are not facially valid. The fact that an instrument is not facially valid does not mean it cannot be enforced. It simply means that no factual or legal presumptions can be applied to the instruments. In turn, that means that if someone wants to enforce the note or mortgage or deed of trust, they must allege and prove the origination of the debt by proving the elements of a monetary transaction, the identity of the Debt Owner and explicit authority of the party enforcing the debt, together with the authenticity and validity of the note and instrument of encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust). 
 
For strategic recommendations as to how to use this information, please Order the Case Analysis which looks at BOTH recorded documentation (which is the subject  of the TERA) and court documents, correspondence, statements, notices etc. that were not recorded in county records.  
==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forgery, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, standing | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

Federal Court 2015 Deutsch Bank Case Reveals Bank Willingness to Lie Directly to the Court

Posted on January 31, 2019 by Neil Garfield

A mere glance at the procedure invoked by the attorney supposedly representing Deutsch Bank reveals the arrogance with which the lawyers present false cases based upon false documents and false execution of documents.

“Words matter, especially in real estate transactions. See Univ. Sav. Ass’n v. Springwoods Shopping Ctr., 644 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.1982) (“the terms set out in a deed of trust must be strictly followed”); see also Mathis v. DCR Mortg. III Sub I, L.L.C., 389 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex.App. — El Paso, 2012) (“The rules of interpretation that apply to contracts also apply to notes and deeds of trust.”). Based on the words of the 2011 assignment, MERS was no more acting on its own behalf than was the bank’s own law firm.”

see deutsche-bank-nat27l-trust-co-v-burke2c-117-f-supp-3d-953-dist

So here is an attorney asking the court to vacate a decision in which the homeowner won. The lawyer had already falsely represented the status of Deutsch, the existence of a  trust and any implied transaction by which Deutsch or a trust took an interest in the Burke mortgage.

And here is part of what the court said in response, denying the absurd motion.

judgment was based on findings and conclusions that Deutsche Bank had failed to prove chain of title back to the original lender, now defunct. The sole proof on which the bank relied — a purported assignment from “MERS as nominee for the lender, its successors and assigns” — was held void, because the assignor did not exist when the document was signed.

Deutsche Bank’s first argument is based on a misrepresentation of the trial record. Deutsche Bank claims that it introduced into evidence the Burke note indorsed in blank by the original lender (IndyMac Bank), thereby establishing its right to foreclose as holder of the Note. (Dkt. 84, at 4). This claim is baseless, because, as the trial transcript makes clear, the only version of the Note successfully introduced by Deutsche Bank at trial contained no indorsement of any kind.

Prior to taking testimony, the Court sustained the defendants’ authenticity objections

from the very beginning of trial, Deutsche Bank’s counsel was on notice that if it wanted to introduce its version of the Note indorsed in blank, some proof of authentication would be necessary.

Based on that earlier transaction, Wells Fargo became Cornerstone’s “assign,” and MERS thereby acquired the authority to act as nominee for that entity in transferring the Deed of Trust. In this case, however, that critical element is missing.

There is simply no proof of an existing assignor with an existing right in the property capable of being assigned in 2011. It is undisputed that Indy-Mac Bank had been “dead” since 2008, several years prior to the 2011 assignment. (P. Ex. 6, at p. 1). Thus, any post-mortem transaction by that entity would be a nullity under Pool v. Sneed. [e.s.]

The only apparent “successor” to IndyMac Bank was IndyMac Federal Bank, but that entity was likewise shuttered in March 2009, nearly two years before the 2011 assignment. (P. Ex. 6). Even had that entity survived to 2011, substantially all of its assets had already been disposed of by that time. According to the FDIC notice admitted as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, “On March 19, 2009, IndyMac Federal was placed in receivership and substantially all of its assets were sold.” (Id. at p. 4) To whom those assets were sold, and whether the Burke Note was among those assets, are matters of sheer speculation on this record. [e.s.]

Logically, there are only two possibilities here, neither of which are any help to Deutsche Bank: either there was no assignee, in which case the 2011 assignment is necessarily void for reasons already given; or, there was an assignee, in which case there is necessarily another, prior assignment not found in this record. In other words, the 2011 assignment would merely be the last link in a chain of title consisting of at least two (and possibly more) links. If indeed there is such a gap in the chain of “assigns,” Deutsche Bank’s claim fails under Texas assignment law. See e.g. Pain Control Institute, Inc. v. GEICO, 447 S.W.3d at 899 (an existing right in the assignor is a precondition for a valid assignment); Leavings v. Mills, 175 S.W.3d 301, 310 *958 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (party seeking to enforce note must show “unbroken chain of assignments” to the original mortgagee); Jernigan v. Bank One, Texas, N.A., 803 S.W.2d 774, 777 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (“possibility of an intermediate transfer” precludes judgment as a matter of law concerning bank’s capacity to sue on note).

an agent is one who consents to the control of another, the principal, where the principal manifests consent that the agent shall act for the principal. First Nat’l Acceptance Co. v. Bishop, 187 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2006). The party claiming agency must prove the principal has (1) the right to assign the agent’s task and (2) the right to control the means and details by which the agent will accomplish the task. Laredo Medical Group v. Lightner, 153 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 2004); Lyons v. Lindsey Morden Claims Mgmt., Inc., 985 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1998); Schultz v. Rural/Metro Corp., 956 S.W.2d 757, 760 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997). [e.s.][Editor’s note: This requirement is not fulfilled unless the principal is disclosed].

courts have long held that a party has no authority to execute a deed or contract on behalf of unnamed “heirs” or other parties not specifically named in the instrument. [e.s.] See Baldwin v. Goldfrank, 88 Tex. 249, 31 S.W. 1064, 1067 (1895) (upholding exclusion of deed where “names of heirs for whom [the attorney-in-fact] purported to act appeared neither in the body nor the signature to the instrument”); Stephens v. House, 257 S.W. 585, 591 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1923) (administrator of estate not authorized to bind unnamed heirs, despite recitation in contract that administrator acted “for myself and the heirs to the estate of the aforesaid Mary Owens”); see also Thompson v. Houston Oil Co., 37 F.2d 687, 689 (5th Cir.1930) (conveyance ineffective to pass title as to parties not named either in the body of the instrument or under signature of grantor acting under power of attorney, citing Baldwin).

it was Deutsche Bank’s burden [e.s.] under Texas law to prove the existence of that principal/agency relationship in 2011. Under the precedents cited above, the mere reference to IndyMac Bank’s “successors or assigns” is insufficient, because it fails to specify the names of those persons or entities (assuming they even existed). [e.s.] Nor has Deutsche Bank submitted any extrinsic evidence which might identify MERS’s principal. [e.s.]

 

 

Deutsche Bank’s third argument is a red herring.

The problem here is not a voidable defect that a defrauded assignor might choose to disregard — it is the absence of a valid assignor [e.s.] (i.e. a real entity owning the right to be assigned) in the first place. Cf. L’Amoreaux v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 755 F.3d 748, 750 (5th Cir.2014) (considering homeowner’s challenge to validity of MERS assignment on its merits, implicitly rejecting bank’s “voidable” argument).

Texas law is clear that a party seeking to foreclose on a home equity loan bears the burden to demonstrate its authority to prosecute the foreclosure. See, e.g., Tex.R. Civ. P. Rule 736.1(d)(3)(B) (petition must describe “the authority of the party seeking foreclosure”); Rule 736.6 (“the petitioner has the burden to prove by affidavits on file or evidence presented the grounds for granting the order [allowing foreclosure]”). When the entity seeking to foreclose was not party to the original transaction, then that entity must be able to trace its right to foreclose back to the original mortgagee. [e.s.] See e.g. Leavings v. Mills, 175 S.W.3d 301, 310 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (party seeking to enforce note must show “unbroken chain of assignments” to the original mortgagee); Miller v. Homecomings Financial, LLC, 881 F.Supp.2d 825, 829 (S.D.Tex.2012) (citing cases).

Texas has long followed the common law rule that “in order to convey by grant, the party possessing the right must be the grantor, and use apt and proper words to convey to the grantee, and merely signing and sealing and acknowledging an instrument in which another person is grantor, is not sufficient.” Agric. Bank v. Rice, 45 U.S. 225, 4 How. 225, 242, 11 L.Ed. 949 (1846). Applying this rule in an early case, the Texas Supreme Court declared as “wholly inoperative” a deed signed by a spouse who was not named as grantor in the body of the deed. Stone v. Sledge, 87 Tex. 49, 26 S.W. 1068, 1069 (1894). The bank’s position here is less compelling than that rejected in Stone, because “MERS as beneficiary” appears neither in the signature line nor in the body of the 2011 assignment.

There remains one additional matter. In the last sentence on the last page of its last brief to this court, Deutsche Bank asks to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.” (Dkt. 90, at 7). No authority or excuse is offered for this breathtakingly late request. Even assuming such evidence exists, Deutsche Bank does not pretend that it is “newly discovered”, nor that the bank was excusably ignorant about it until after trial despite using due diligence to discover it. See 11 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2808 (2012). After four years of litigation, including court-ordered mediation and trial on the merits, the time for such a deus ex machina maneuver has long since passed. The Burkes are entitled to the finality of judgment that our judicial process is intended to provide. The bank’s request for a do-over is denied.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, Fabrication of documents, FDIC, foreclosure, forensic investigation, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, prima facie case, quiet title, Servicer, standing | 4 Comments »

Facially Invalid Recorded Documents

Posted on January 30, 2019 by Neil Garfield

The view proffered by the banks would require them to accept declarations of fact from potential borrowers without any indicia of truth or reliability. It is opposite to the manner in which they do business. Currently they have it both ways, to wit: for purposes of borrowing you must submit documents that are facially valid without reference to external evidence and which can be easily confirmed but for purposes of foreclosure, none of those conditions apply. 

As part of the the scheme of “securitization fail” (see Adam Levitin) banks, servicers and third party vendors have been creating, fabricating and executing documents that are not facially valid nor do they comply with industry standards or even common sense. But once recorded judges take them “at face value” by assuming that somehow the document makes sense, when it clearly does not comport with law or logic. Defenders of foreclosure act at their peril when they fail to attack the facial validity of the documents upon which the foreclosure claims rely.

In a recent article written by Dale Whitman for the ABA he states the following “Conclusion. The recording system is archaic and fraught with the potential for yielding wrong conclusions. Conversion by many recording jurisdictions to computer-based electronic indexes has been helpful, but most of the legally problematic flaws continue to exist. Title insurance has been invaluable in making the weight of the recording system bearable, but it adds a further layer of complexity as buyers try to understand the limitations of their title policies. It seems unlikely that major changes will occur, so it is essential that real estate lawyers understand the peculiarities and limitations of our present system.” (e.s.)

As he points out recording is not required to make a document valid, but once it is recorded the document takes on a life of its own. It also presents numerous trapdoors and pitfalls that should be analyzed before answering the initiation of a foreclosure proceeding with any action on behalf of the homeowner including the motion to dismiss in judicial states, the answer, affirmative defenses and the Petition for TRO or lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure.

see what you didn_t know about recording acts_whitman (2).authcheckdam

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

Common sense tells you that for a document to mean anything it must say enough that a reasonable person would be able to confidently draw meaning from it. Analyzing the facial validity of documents used in foreclosure reveals a pattern of misrepresenting the facial validity and misdirecting judges into NOT looking closely at the documents from which they are making assumptions and thence to legal conclusions that bind homeowners into proving matters beyond their control.

I proffer here an analysis that I just completed (our TERA report) as an example.

  1. We have already seen documentary proof that BONY Mellon does not receive the proceeds of the sale of property subject to the power of sale in a nonjudicial state or the forced sale in a judicial state. There are many reasons for this.
  2. Analysis of the facial validity of the use of various names and descriptions reveals the absence of an actual party, unless extrinsic “parole) evidence is added. Hence the documents upon which the above language relies does not support facial validity.
  3. BONY Mellon is said to be the “successor to JP Morgan Chase.” It is not and never has been a successor to JPMorgan Chase. There is nothing in the public domain to support that assertion. There is no instrument attached and no description of any transaction in which, as to this subject property and loan, we can ascertain how BONY Mellon became the successor to JPM Morgan Chase. Hence the documents in which BONY Mellon appears are not facially valid and are defective in terms of proof of title. This could be corrected by affidavit or any process that is allowed in the state where the property is located but it hasn’t been done on record, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has been done but is not recorded. The usual and acceptable manner of phrasing such a succession, if it were true, would be “as successor to JP Morgan Chase pursuant to that certain agreement of transfer by and between JPMorgan Chase (and /or other parties) and BONY Mellon dated July 6, 200X.” The absence of such description leaves the reader to pursue extrinsic or parole evidence to determine if the succession is documented and if so whether that documentation is facially valid. This is all absent.
  4. The succession suggests that it is in the role of trustee. There is no instrument attached and no description of any transaction in which, as to this subject property and loan, we can ascertain how BONY Mellon became the successor Trustee to JPM Morgan Chase. Hence the documents in which BONY Mellon appears as trustee are not facially valid and are defective in terms of proof of title. This could be corrected by affidavit or any process that is allowed in the state where the property is located but it hasn’t been done on record, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has been done but is not recorded. The usual and acceptable manner of phrasing such a succession, if it were true, would be “as successor to JP Morgan Chase, trustee pursuant to that certain agreement of transfer by and between JPMorgan Chase (and /or other parties) and BONY Mellon dated July 6, 200X.” The absence of such description leaves the reader to pursue extrinsic or parole evidence to determine if the succession is documented and if so whether the documentation is facially valid. This is all absent. The absence of a description of a specific trust and trust instrument is yet another factor that renders the instrument facially invalid, but theoretically correctible.
  5. This leads to a further question of extrinsic evidence being required. Other than by the use of parole evidence (outside the information contained on the document itself) the reader cannot ascertain the existence or description of a specific trust organized and existing under the laws of any jurisdiction. In addition, the issue of a transfer or change of trustees of a trust, if one can be found, is not supported by language such as “pursuant to the provisions of the trust agreement dated the 3rd day of May, 200Y in which the trust named ‘Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II, Inc. Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust’ was created under the laws of the State of New York”. Without such reference the facial validity of the instruments remains invalid although theoretically correctible. Without the knowledge of the legal existence of the trust being confirmable by public record, there is no support for the implied trust. Without support for the implied trust and the trust agreement creating it, there is no obvious support for how trustees could exist or be changed. Without support on the face of the instruments for how trustees of a trust could be changed, the description of the change of trustees is merely a declaration that is not supported by anything on the face of the document.
  6. JPMorgan is implied to have been the trustee of the potentially nonexistent trust. Once again the implied assertion leaves the reader to determine if the trust was created pursuant to the laws of any jurisdiction, and if JPMorgan was named as trustee for the trust.
  7. In either event both BONY Mellon and JPMorgan are described to be acting in a representative capacity on behalf of “holders… of pass through certificates” and not as “trustees” of any “trust.” The certificates are identified as Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-12. The reference to being a “trustee” and the implied representation of the holders of certificates would be acceptable if the “holders” were described as beneficiaries. The extrinsic evidence often shows that such holders are not beneficiaries. This leads to the question of how and why there is representation of the holders, apart from the alleged trust, Is the representation implied from the trust agreement that is not described? Is the representation the result of some other trust or agency agreement? It is not possible to ascertain the answers to these vital questions without resort to extrinsic evidence, thus making the instruments relying upon such language, facially invalid.

Every state has statutory requirements for an instrument to be facially valid. A deed between Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse as Grantor and Grantee respectively would not be facially valid because both the grantor nor the grantee are fictitious names of cartoon characters and unless used as a egla fictitious name for an actual entity doing business under that name the document could not be corrected to become a valid document suitable for recording.

Yet county recorders are allowing the recordation of millions of documents across the country with exactly that defect. By allowing such documents to be recorded they are lending support to the legal presumption that Donald and Mickey are real people with rights to transfer interests in real property and even foreclose on real property. At the end of the chain of written documents someone holds paper that is recorded but based upon a chain of title with two large gaps in it — Donald and Mickey, and by the time the foreclosure occurs probably Minnie Mouse as well (or maybe Fannie or Freddie whose names are being used, just like the “REMIC trustees”, but who have no part in any transaction involving the subject loan).

Back to Real Property 101.

  1. Who is the grantor? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.
  2. Who is the grantee? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.
  3. What is the effective date of transfer? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.
  4. What is being transferred? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid — or, in the case of a mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust if the instrument declares a transfer but without the underlying debt, the instrument is facially invalid and unenforceable both because of state statutes regarding facial validity and the UCC Article 9 requiring value to be paid (see above linked article).
  5. What is the legal description of the property affected? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.

An instrument that is not facially valid should be returned by the recording office with notes specifying what needs to be corrected. This vital step is being overlooked on all documents relating to foreclosures. If rules, laws and procedures were followed with regard to such documents there would not be any foreclosure or, if the corrections could actually be made, there would be no defense. It is in the valley between those two notions that all foreclosures based on “successors” are based.

By overlooking the obvious lack of clarity on the face of the documents county recorders keep creating a vacuum that the banks are only too happy to fill with MERS — an IT platform that is the opposite of tamper-proof allowing virtually anyone with a login and password to create the illusion of authority where none existed before. Hence the use of MERS and other systems to give depth to the illusion of facial validity.

The conclusion is that documents containing the language described above should not have been recorded.  The county recorder should have rejected such documents as being facially invalid, requiring additional documents to be attached, if they existed.

Such language is a substantial deviation from custom and practice as well as common sense and logic.  Custom and practice of the same banks that are listed in the language described above requires that they not accept such language without the additional documentation and confirmation of facts that are declared on the face of the instrument.  Common sense dictates that the reason why such custom and practice exists is that most fraudulent schemes involve written instruments in which various declarations are made that are untrue or lack support.  For purposes of recording, any declaration on the face of the instrument that requires the attachment or description of documents that are readily available in the public domain would be unacceptable, much as, for example, a deed without a signature.  The property must be described with precision (or later corrected by affidavit), the grantor must be described with precision (or later corrected) and the grantee must be described with precision (or later corrected).  Without the required corrections, the documents are facially invalid.

For purposes of case analysis, the absence of facially valid documents, even though they were improperly recorded, negates the potential use of legal presumptions arising from the facial validity of documents.  Therefore such documents should be rejected without proper foundation in connection with the use of such documents for any purpose, and the attempt to introduce such documents into evidence in any court or administrative proceeding.

In the case currently under analysis, this means that the proceedings in which the property was allegedly foreclosed, were themselves all improper and based upon invalid terms.  Whether this renders the proceedings void or voidable depends upon case law and interpretations of constitutional due process.

However it is safe to say that based upon the above analysis, it is obvious that all such documents including the deed upon foreclosure are defective in several material respects.  Therefore, our conclusion is that the current title chain in the county records regarding this property is at best clouded.  The procedures for correcting clouded title vary from state to state and are subject to both federal and state laws.  Individual research on each case in each state is required before taking any action.

The view proffered by the banks would require them to accept declarations of fact from potential borrowers without any indicia of truth or reliability. It is opposite to the manner in which they do business. Currently they have it both ways, to wit: for purposes of borrowing you must submit documents that are facially valid without reference to external evidence and which can be easily confirmed but for purposes of foreclosure, none of those conditions apply. 

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Rogue REMICs? 2016 Study Reveals Lack of Standing

Posted on January 29, 2019 by Neil Garfield

I read a lot. I came across this article today published in 2016. Nobody has paid attention to it but as far as I can tell on first skim, the author has both coined the name “rogue REMIC” and described it well enough to come to a conclusion, to wit: everything about them is a scam and no legal standing exists with respect to them. I would only add that the author is incorrectly assuming that any securitization took place or if it was, as Adam Levitin coined the phrase, “Securitization Fail.”

see campbell – capstone inquiry into rogue remics

Significant quote from the abstract of the article:

The business of privatized mortgage loan securitization (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits or “REMICS”) is so arcane and specialized that few people outside of that realm of investment knowledge understand, or even care to understand how loan securitization functions. However, if the difference between a legitimate REMIC and a Rogue REMIC is adequately explained, one can begin to understand why Rogue REMICs must be exposed as unlawful enterprises whose affiliates are not only able to disregard existing federal securities and tax laws, but are also able to circumvent state and local foreclosure laws at will. [e.s.] These ongoing violations result from the intentional and commonplace shortcutting of the proper mortgage loan securitization processes during the several years preceding the 2008 financial crisis. This Inquiry will not focus primarily on how and why Rogue REMICS violate federal tax and securities laws [e.s.]; although those aspects are part of the discussion by necessity. I will argue that all Rogues lack the perquisite legal standing to prosecute both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. I will present compelling evidence that, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, foreclosures by Rogues may have exceeded 10% of all foreclosures. I will further argue that county officials may be violating state laws by recording the documents that impart false legal standing to the Rogues. I will conclude with a suggestion to homeowners on how to proceed if a mortgage assignment to a Rogue turns up in the local County public records. [e.s.]

And then there is this:

federal government regulators have no will to criminally prosecute the Rogues for financial crimes against individual homeowners even though the crimes are being committed by nationally-chartered investment banks. And so individual homeowners are left to fend for themselves against these behemoths. As a result, a hodge-podge of civil cases in State courts have created such a plethora of conflicting decisions that, in the aggregate, only serve to obfuscate the overriding principle of standing.

and this:

If a borrower’s loan did not leave the “warehouse” timely (if ever) to be incorporated into any REMIC, which includes memorializing that transfer in the local county, the REMIC trustee cannot create standing years later by filing a bogus assignment. As Levitin (2010) explains that “Securitization is the legal apotheosis of form over substance, and if securitization is to work it must adhere to its proper, prescribed form punctiliously” (p. 3).

and finally diagrams of a Rogue REMIC which is an empty pool (something I have been railing about for 12 years). The author describes it as

“A REMIC in name only. A shell of financial instrument. It never had any mortgages assigned to it when it was created and, years later, it is now closed to the introduction of new loans.”

Reaching the conclusion

homeowners were unwitting participants in an elaborate pump and dump scheme to deceive and profit from unwitting REMIC investors. By failing to record assignments during the warehouse phase of REMIC creation, the big investment banks created REMICs that existed in name only; then sold shares of them to the public as if they were the real thing.

And then they foreclosed on homeowners using the fake trusts as the name of the claimant, never revealing the true parties in interest because that would expose them to investigation aid discovery in which their lies would be obvious.

Filed under: bubble, burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, forensic investigation, forgery, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

The Facts Behind Smoke and Mirrors

Posted on January 24, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Nearly everyone is confused as to the identity of the real holder in due course, or the “creditor,” or the owner of the debt. Nearly everyone thinks that ultimate it is investors who purchased certificates.

In fact there is no holder in due course and there never will be in most instances. There was never any possibility for a holder in course claim because in most cases the origination of the loan took place in what is called a table funded loan, which is against public policy as a matter of law (as expressed in the Truth in Lending Act).

The creditor or owner of the debt is actually a party who was never disclosed in any of the dealings with borrowers and is not adequately disclosed in the secondary market or pretend underwritings and sales of certificates.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

A Client just asked me if we should consider all the disclosed players as a single entity. Here is what I replied:

You could take that position but in reality they are all taking orders from a single entity that does not appear anywhere in the paper trail.

But it’s not like they are receiving orders on specific cases or events. They have standing orders to which they have agreed.

The party from whom they are receiving instructions is an investment bank who posed as an underwriter for the issuance and sale of bogus certificates from a nonexistent trust. The investment bank used money obtained under false pretenses from investors.

The investment bank might, under law, be considered a creditor — but it can’t assert that without opening itself up to a myriad of liabilities. In fact the investment will move heaven and Earth to avoid the revelation that the only financial transaction that means anything as a basis for foreclosure involves the investment bank and NOT any of the other disclosed parties with whom you are in litigation.

So in the end, the bottom line is that there is party who is willing to step up and claim status as creditor or owner of the debt — ever.

If you push this to the extreme in litigation you get some interesting results. Instead of being afraid that they will pop out a real creditor or owner of the debt, you should know that that in the end they will refuse to produce any such party.

And you will know that when they do assert or imply that this is the creditor you should look carefully at their wording and realize they are using a sham entity to cover up the fact that the investment bank who started it all is the real party in interest.

It is the investment banks’ unwillingness (for good reason) to be revealed as having anything to do with the loan, foreclosure or any other transactions that can be used as leverage if you push hard enough.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, Servicer, TILA, TILA rescission, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Tolling the Statute of Limitations by Initiating Administrative Processes

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Neil Garfield

A recent case brought to mind a possible argument for tolling the applicable statute of limitations (SOL) on certain claims. By submission of complaints to the CFPB (TILA, RESPA, FDCPA etc) you are starting an administrative process. It might even be true that by submitting a QWR (under RESPA) or DVL (under FDCPA) you are starting an administrative process. One could argue that while you were in that process the statute of limitations on certain claims should be tolled.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document. LendingLies provides forms and services regarding initiating administrative processes including Qualified Written request, Debt validation Letter, Complaint to State Attorney General and Complaint to Consumer Financial Protection Board.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth avoiding a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

The argument would be that you were exhausting your administrative remedies and that therefore the statute of limitations barring your claim should be tolled (extended). The argument against that position is usually that you didn’t need to exhaust your administrative remedies and therefore there should be no tolling of the statute. General doctrine and decisions weigh the balance of the goal of finality of claims and the desire to see all meritorious claims be litigated in pursuit of justice. The courts vary so do your legal research.

Your position is obviously strongest where you MUST exhaust administrative remedies BEFORE filing a claim, as provided by a statute. Your position is weakest where you didn’t need to exhaust administrative remedies. But equitable arguments often prevail.

Remember that if you are successful the statute of limitations will only be tolled during the period that you were pursuing administrative remedies so the filing of complaint with the CFPB and the AG office in your state is probably a good idea if it’s done sooner rather than later. The fact that administrative remedies were available for a time does not seem to advance your position unless you started some procedure invoking administrative action.

And remember that while you can’t bring a claim for remedies under a tort of statutory violation that is barred by the statute of limitations you CAN raise the same issues as an defense under the doctrine of recoupment. Procedurally recoupment only applies if you are sued. State laws and common law vary so again be careful to do your legal research.

If the foreclosure is contested I believe that under the US Constitution, this requires the foreclosure to become judicial — something that every judicial state has in fact made provision for.

As I have insisted for 12 years, the fact that nonjudicial foreclosure is available for uncontested foreclosures should not be an excuse for changing the burden of proof in contested foreclosures.

Hence the proper (constitutional) procedure would be realignment of the parties to where the claimant for foreclosure must judicially claim foreclosure and prove it while the homeowner merely defends with an answer and affirmative defenses and/or counterclaim.

As it stands, courts resist this approach and that gives the claimants in unlawful and wrongful foreclosures the ability to skip proof and go straight to foreclosure. In my opinion that reveals  an unconstitutional application of an otherwise valid statutory scheme for disposing of uncontested foreclosures.

Unlawful detainer or eviction is an attempt to eat fruit from a poisoned tree if in a nonjudicial foreclosure state a contested foreclosure did not require the claimant to assert and prove its claim for foreclosure.

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

MERS Is NOTHING — The Correct Translation of “MIN”

Posted on January 18, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Without a contract in writing executed with the formalities required for transfer of interests in real property, it is highly probable that any instrument executed on behalf of MERS means nothing without the necessity of drilling into the authority or knowledge of the signor. In fact, it might just be that the execution of an assignment might be the utterance of a false instrument for purposes of recording, which in and of itself constitutes illegal activity.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
Upon close inspection, investigation and research of hundreds of cases we have found no evidence that MERS ever enters into any contract for agency or anything else with originators who are not lenders. So we conclude that in cases where the originator is named on the note as Payee and on the Mortgage as Mortgagee or on the Deed of Trust as beneficiary, no such written contract exists and no correspondence or other communication exists between the originator and MERS.
*
The current consensus is that MERS is a naked nominee, something I have repeated myself. But that appears to be true only in cases where the originator is a member of MERS and has therefore entered into an agency agreement with MERS.
*
Entities like Broker One and American Brokers Conduit, whose name tells the whole story, are not likely to have had any contract, email, correspondence directly with MERS and are probably not party to any agreement in which the originator, if it exists at all, has agreed to let MERS be its agent and if so, under what conditions and for how long.
*
I think the mistake we might have all made is in accepting the implied agency contract inferred from the face of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust. In many if not most courts the assignment by MERS of a Mortgage or Beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust is seen as the act of a “disclosed” naked nominee.
*
First, basic law dictates that any contract in which the transfer of title to real property is involved must be written not oral, inferred or implied. Second, each state varies but all require the recording of the instrument.
*
Third, there was no disclosure prior to closing which violates TILA disclosure requirements. This raises possibilities  of claims in a lawsuit by the homeowner or affirmative defenses of a homeowner if they are sued. As affirmative defenses they would claims of recoupment.
*
Nobody tells the prospective borrower that when they sign the Mortgage or Deed of Trust they will be handing over an interest in their new or existing home to an entity that might serve the interests of just anyone. But, in fact, that is what is happening which means that on the face of the Deed of Trust or Mortgage, the originating parties are violating the provisions of TILA that make table funded loans against public policy. And as any 1st year law student will tell you any contract that violates public policy is probably void.
*
At closing, if the borrowers are reading at all, MERS doesn’t show up until the day of closing and it is never pointed out by closing agents, originators or anyone else acting as mortgage broker or lender. Nor is the written agreement appointing MERS as “nominee” appear anywhere ever.
*
If the appointment of MERS is void it might void the Mortgage or Deed of Trust. Or, it might be surplusage which is more likely. That means the mention of MERS means nothing.
*
Hence the assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust would be required to be executed by the named lender, who in turn probably could not assign the mortgage because at the time they are asked to sign such an instrument they (a) don’t exist and/or (b) don’t own the debt and probably never did. As such they would be uttering a false instrument for recording which amounts to two illegal acts probably constituting crimes.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: ASSIGNMENT OF A MORTGAGE WITHOUT TRANSFER OF THE DEBT IS A NULLITY. Lawyers for the foreclosure mills are often using MERS assignments as a substitute for transfer of the debt.

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, Title, trustee | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: