McDonough v Smith: High Court Open Door on Fabrication of Evidence

This decision is extremely important for 2 reasons.

1st, it reaffirms a right under federal law to bring an action for damages for fabrication of evidence.

2nd, and equally important, it establishes that the time to bring such a claim does not start until the conclusion of litigation, whether successful or unsuccessful.

see Article on McDonough v Smith McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485 (U.S. Jun. 20, 2019)

See U.S. Supreme Court mcdonough-v-smith-5

see 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

I am uncertain at the time of writing this as to whether or not any attorney has thought to bring an action for damages based upon this statute. but it certainly seems applicable to foreclosure actions in which assignments, endorsements, notices, correspondence, and even deeds are fabricated for the purposes of obtaining a judgment in court.

[Additional Comments: after analyzing the cases, it would appear that this federal statute provides the basis for a cause of action for money damages and injunction.

However, close analysis of the cases involved strongly indicates that a homeowner will be able to use this statute only if he prevails in the prior foreclosure action.

While many attorneys are bringing wrongful foreclosure claims, and claims based upon fraud, this federal statute is probably an important addition for 2 reasons: (1) the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the case and foreclosure is over and is probably tolled by active concealment; (2) it appears as though the burden of proof might be a mere preponderance of the evidence that fabricated instruments and fabricated testimony were used in the pursuit of a wrongful foreclosure.]

If I am right about the SOL, that eliminates a primary defense of the potential defendants. If I am right about the burden of proof, it makes it far easier to prove a case against the defendants than using a cause of action for fraud.

This statute could be used in conjunction with virtually all foreclosure defenses and which claims of securitization are made and documents are fabricated, robo-signed and forged.

At this point, as any foreclosure Defense Attorney and most pro se litigants can tell you, virtually all foreclosures are based upon some chain of title that includes various alleged transfers or apparent transfers of the subject debt, note or mortgage.

Nearly all such alleged transfers do not exist except for the paper on which a reference is made to an assignment, endorsement, power of attorney or some other document that may or may not exist, and in all probability has been fabricated, backdated, forged and/or robosigned. all such documents are only valid if they refer to an actual event in real life. In connection with loans, the only relevant events are transfers of money. And in real life, in nearly all cases, no transfer of money ever occurred in connection with the execution of documents that were fabricated for the sole purpose of obtaining a foreclosure sale.

if I am correct in my interpretation, the statute could be used to include multiple defendants that might otherwise escape liability for actions alleged in a complaint for damages related to the fabrication of evidence and the use of fabricated evidence in furtherance of the scheme to obtain a wrongful foreclosure.

Illinois Court of Appeals Cracks Code of Silence on Who Pays Foreclosure Mills

The wording of the decision strongly suggests that whether the claimant is US Bank, Deutsch or BONY Mellon et al, the third party who is actually paying the lawyer must be disclosed — at least if the homeowner asks.

Given the nature of the role that the alleged Trustee plays — i.e., none except to give the appearance of institutional involvement — this decision opens the door not only to disclosure but to possibly answering the question of who is pretending to be the creditor.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. 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) 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.
========================

Hat tip Gregg DaGoose

Note that I endorse the reasoning here. The case should not used as authority as precedent except in the 1st District of Illinois. And of course the decision might further appealed.

see  https://jnswire.s3.amazonaws.com/jns-media/32/15/1386226/Margules_v_Beckstedt_appeal.pdf

We conclude that neither attorney-client privilege nor the Rules of Professional Conduct shield the identity of Steck’s third-party client, so affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Relevant here, the citation requested “[a]ll documents evidencing any payments received by [Steck] or any others employed by [him] with respect to any representation of John Beckstedt [or When 2 Trade Group LLC] or by any other individual or entity acting on [their] behalf.” In addition, the citation requested “[a]ll documents evidencing any retainer received or held by No. 1-19-0012 – 3 – [Steck] or any others employed by or in partnership with [him] with respect to any representation of John Beckstedt [or When 2 Trade Group LLC] whether paid by [them] or by any other individual or entity acting on [their] behalf.” Steck, while noting and reserving some objections, denied having been paid by the debtors or anyone purporting to act on their behalf.

Steck responded that he had “no invoices, evidence of payment or other like records” because he had never billed or issued statements to Beckstedt or When 2 Trade. It was in this series of e-mails that Steck first asserted that “any information [he] ha[d] about [his] clients other than When 2 Trade and Beckstedt is privileged, including their identity.” [e.s.]

Attorney-client privilege “must be strictly confined within its narrowest possible limits.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197, ¶ 41. Generally, the privilege does not protect a client’s identity. Cesena, 201 Ill. App. 3d at 104-05 (citing People v. Williams, 97 Ill. 2d 252, 295 (1983)). Two exceptions have been recognized: (i) where “the client will be prejudiced in ‘some substantial way’ if his identity were disclosed” (id. at 105 (quoting Williams, 97 Ill. 2d at 295)) and (ii) where protection would be in the public interest (id. (citing Shatkin, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 525); see also People v. Doe, 55 Ill. App. 3d 811, 815 (1977) (collecting cases)). The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing that it applies. Shatkin, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 525.

plaintiffs cannot even attempt to put forward “some evidence” until they know the identity of the third party. Steck’s assertion of privilege as to his client’s identity has cut off the litigation before questions about plaintiffs’ evidentiary basis No. 1-19-0012 – 10 – could even be asked. Steck inserted the issue of attorney-client privilege into this case, and as the proponent of the privilege, he must show its application. [e.s.]

In Shatkin, the court recognized that a client’s identity is not protected by attorney-client privilege because “disclosure of the identity of an attorney’s client provides proof of the existence of the relationship, provides the opposing party with proof that his [or her] opponent is not solely a nominal party, and provides proof to the court that the client whose secret is treasured is actual flesh and blood.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shatkin, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 525; see also Doe, 55 Ill. App. 3d at 814.

It follows then that requests could be made in discovery.

The first is whether the named claimant (e.g. US bank) has any retainer agreement with the foreclosure mill.  This is relevant to the issue of an award of fees in judicial foreclosure proceedings.

The second is “all documents evidencing any payments received by [foreclosure law firm] or any others employed by it with respect to any representation of [e.g. US Bank, BONY Mellon, Deutsch] or [e.g. Ocwen, SPS] or by any other individual or entity acting on [their] behalf.” In addition, the request for production should probably include “all documents evidencing any retainer received or held by [foreclosure law firm] or any others employed by or in partnership with it with respect to any representation of [e.g. US Bank, BONY Mellon Deutsch] whether paid by [them] or by any other individual or entity acting on their behalf.”

The third is possibly a subpoena making the same demand for discovery made to the alleged servicer and its predecessors. This is relevant to the issue of whether the named claimant is in fact the real party in interest or, as set forth in the defense narrative, is acting as a sham conduit or front for third party actors.

No the Mortgages Are Not Securities, But the “Certificates” Do Not Qualify for Exemption As “Mortgaged Backed”

For those straining to find a way to categorize mortgage loans as securities I offer this based upon my licensing, training and experience as a Wall Street Broker and Investment Banker and as an attorney who has practiced law, including securities law for over 42 years.

You are climbing the right tree but you are on the wrong branch, in my opinion. Despite possible legal and logical arguments for your point of view there is no way any court is going to take the common mortgage loan and say it is a security, and therefore was subject to regulation, registration, disclosure and sales restrictions. And the secondary market does not rise to the level of a free exchange. While loans appear to be traded under the guise of securitization they are not actually traded.

BUT
I like your reasoning when applied to (a) certificates issued by investment banks in which the investment bank makes promises to pay a passive income stream and (b) derivative and hedge contracts issued on the basis of deriving their value from the certificates.
*
The specific challenge I think should be on the status of the certificates or “bonds” issued by the investment banks. If securitization in theory were a reality then under the 1998 exemption they would not be treated as securities and could not be regulated.
*
That would mean that the fictitious name used by the investment bank was a real entity, an existing Trust (or special purpose vehicle) (a) organized and existing under the laws of some jurisdiction and (b) the trust actually acquired loans through (i) purchase for value or (ii) through  conveyance from a trustor/settlor who owned the loans, debts, notes and mortgages.
*
But that isn’t what happened in practice. The entire business plan of the investment banks who participated in this scheme was predicated on their ability to sell the loans multiple times in multiple ways to multiple layers and classes of investors, thus creating profits far in excess of the amount of  the loan.
*
Right now each of those sales is considered a separate private contract that is (a) separate and apart from the loan agreement and (b) not subject to securities regulation due to exemption under the 1998 law that does not allow securities regulation of mortgage-backed instruments.
*
So the goal should be to show that
*
(a) the securitization scheme was entirely based on the loan agreement under the single transaction and step transaction doctrines and therefore was not separate from the loan transactions
*
(b) the certificates or bonds were not mortgage-backed because the holders have no right, title or interest to the loan agreements, debts, notes or mortgages and
*
(c) the derivative and hedge contracts deriving their value from the certificates were securities based upon the certificates (“bonds”) that are more in the nature of warrants and options on the value of the certificates rather than any direct interest in the debt, note or mortgage of any borrower.
*
Hence both the certificates and hedge contracts and all other derivatives of the certificates would be subject to regulation as securities. Based upon information I have that is very suggestive although not conclusive, it appears that the Internal Revenue Service has already arrived at the conclusion that the certificates are not mortgage-backed and the trusts are not viable entities because in order to have a valid trust it must have assets and active affairs. It must also have identifiable beneficiaries, a trustor etc.
*
None of those elements are present or even alleged or asserted by the lawyers for the foreclosure mills. The only “beneficiary” is the investment bank, not the certificate holders who all expressly or impliedly disclaim any right, title or interest in the loans, debts, notes or mortgages and have no right to enforce. This has already been decided in tax court. The owners of certificates are not the holders of secured debt.
*
There is no “res” or “thing” that is entrusted to the named Trustee of the so-called REMIC Trust for the benefit of identifiable beneficiaries. There is no settlor who conveyed loans to the Trustee to hold in trust for identifiable beneficiary except that as a catch-all the investment bank is named as beneficiary of any title to anything that might be attributed to the trust, if only the trust existed.
*
Attacking this from the top down is the job of regulators who refuse to do so. But the attack can occur from the bottom up in courts. As shown above, in any case where a trust is referenced in a foreclosure there is no legal standing. That is there is no existing entity that owns the debt. The investment bank funded the origination or acquisition of the loan but contemporaneously sold off the value of the debt, the risk of loss, the cash flow and other attributes of the loan.
*
The notes had to be destroyed and a new culture based upon images had to be put in place even if it violated law. The problem with the courts is not that they don;t get it; I think a lot of judges get it but don’t like the outcome of applying the law as it currently exists. So they wink and nod at fabricated notes, assignments and endorsements.
But those same judges, when confronted with unexplained deficiencies are forced to rule in favor of borrowers. And they do. This would best be done in mass joinder, class action or some other vehicle where resources could be pooled, but the procedural deck is stacked against such efforts.

===============================
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. 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) 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.
========================

How to argue the “allonge”

An Allonge is defined as follows:
*
Allonge. Additional paper firmly attached to Commercial Paper, such as a promissory note, to provide room to write endorsements. An allonge is necessary when there is insufficient space on the document itself for the endorsements.
*
So the elements for a prima facie case involving proof of an allonge are as follows:
 
  1. It’s on a paper that is separate from the instrument (promissory note) itself.
  2. It contains endorsements (technically spelled “indorsements”). The endorsement conveys an interest in the note from the current owner to a new owner. It might contain restrictive covenants as to whether it is conveyed with or without recourse. 
  3. A condition precedent seems to be that there be insufficient space on the original instrument (note). This has not gained clarity in litigation. The presentation of an “allonge” contained a simple small stamped endorsement when there was room to place it directly on the note is indicative of foul play. At the very least it requires an explanation of why the endorsement wasn’t placed on the original. 
  4. It must be so firmly and permanently affixed to the note that it is actually part of the original instrument. In normal transactions involving commercial paper this requirement is strictly construed. In securitized residential loans this has not been strictly construed and applied. It is important to note that this requirement is meant to prevent the very thing that has been occurring for the past 20 years — unauthorized trading in debts that are neither owned by the buyer or the seller. 
An allonge can contain an endorsement to nobody, in which case it became “bearer paper.” Whoever has it in their possession is the owner of the note. But we have seen in securitization that being the owner of the note and being the owner of the debt are not the same thing. 
*
Notwithstanding the difference, the note can often be enforced without evidence of ownership of the debt because of legal presumptions arising from possession of the note. 
*
However, the fact that a party is entitled to judgment on a note does not mean they are entitled to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust which does require ownership of the debt as explicitly and expressly required by statutes in all US jurisdictions who have adopted verbatim the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 §203 which requires payment of value as a condition precedent to enforcement of the encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust). 
*
It is custom and practice of the “industry” involved in foreclosures to use fabricated allonges that are not attached and never were attached to the original note. Such allonges are often executed by either a stamped endorsement or the signature of an “authorized signer.” In many if not most cases the authorized signer turns out to have been the real estate or mortgage broker on the loan at the time of origination. As such their “authorization” can be challenged. 
*
Upon investigation, discovery and analysis it usually turns out that neither the endorser nor the endorsee had ever paid value for an interest in the debt or the note. This revelation is useful in defeating presumptions arising from possession of the note. This revelation thus raises questions that may be sufficient to rebut legal presumptions that the court might otherwise employ in deciding the case. 
*
In fact, it could be used to defeat the presumption that the note is now evidence of the debt or that the merger doctrine, designed to prevent dual liability, even applies. This leaves the note as a separate claim for liability — separate, that is, from the debt itself. If the mortgage or deed of trust states that it secures the note that could mean that the mortgage is void or has become void. However if the security instrument ( mortgage or deed of trust) refers to the debt, then the security instrument would not be void unless the debt never occurred — i.e., there was no loan. 
*
You should refrain from making any decisions or taking any actions based upon “interpretations” or “advice” from the internet even if it from a knowledgeable licensed attorney like myself. You should get assistance from a professional who analyzes your specific situation to determine whether you can get traction in raising defenses or claims related to these issues. 
*

My Final Word On Quiet Title Strategies

Most people do not have a clear understanding about Quiet Title, because it means one thing to them and another thing in court. The common misconception about quiet title is that it is a thing that just happens, like the result of a magic bullet. In fact quiet title is a court process that begins with a lawsuit by the homeowner and ends with a court order declaring that the mortgage or deed of trust should be removed from the chain of title.
*
The most typical use of quiet title claims is clearing the chain of title of recorded documents that mistakenly or fraudulently describe the wrong property. The use of quiet title against a mortgage or deed of trust does not generally get traction in a court of law.
*
But the more recent strategy of attacking the assignment of mortgage and seeking nullification of that instrument has met with some success and it should succeed, because you are attacking the facial and substantive validity of that specific instrument and not the entire mortgage or deed of trust. That strategy merely attacks the technical requirements for creation and recording of an an instrument affecting title to real property and attacking the substantive validity of the assignment by revealing that the debt was not transferred to the assignee by a party who owned the debt.
*
The current fad of proving unenforceability of the indebtedness does not provide the foundation for quiet title unless you can prove that that (a) the indebtedness never existed or (b) the debt has been satisfied. It is entirely possible for a court of law to determine that the mortgage or deed of trust cannot be enforced by the parties who initiated foreclosure. But that does not mean that the mortgage or deed of trust is a nullity. So winning the case on the debt against a particular party who sought to enforce it does not automatically mean that you proved a prima facie case that the debt was never or is not now subject to enforcement by anyone.
*
The elements for quiet title are fairly simple. The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment finding, as a matter of fact and law, that the encumbrance is a nullity, which means that legally the encumbrance does not exist — not that it should not exist. In plain language that means that a judge finds that the mortgage or deed of trust does not secure any indebtedness owed by the owner of the property to the mortgagee on a mortgage or the beneficiary on a deed of trust.
*
 The “mortgagee” or “beneficiary” includes legal successors to the named mortgagee on the mortgage or the named beneficiary (lender) on the deed of trust. Successfully attacking the assignment means that you have negated the assignment which returns the title to the mortgage to the previous party who might be the the original mortgagee or beneficiary or lender.
*
Where MERS has been used as a buffer in the title chain legal practitioners should be aware that the MERS relationship to the original “lender” is tenuous at best and most probably nonexistent to pretenders who claim to be successors — because most loans were table funded without any legal or equitable relationship between MERS and the investment bank that funded the origination or acquisition of the loan. Since no transfer of beneficial interest or interest of a mortgagee legally exists without transfer of the debt, it is nearly impossible for anyone to show an assignment with a legal transfer of the debt from an owner of that debt.
*
The only way the pretender lenders can succeed is by wearing down the homeowner who must be willing to expend considerable time, money and energy defending his property. They can do this by using legal arguments that come from legal presumptions a rising from the apparent facial validity of self serving documents they have fabricated, forged or robosigned to create the illusion of a legal chain of title.
*
Securitization has opened many doors to homeowners who persistently and effectively challenge the parties who initiate foreclosures. It is now almost always true that the party who initiates a foreclosure is not the actual owner of the debt nor does that party represent a legal entity that owns the debt. Transfer of a mortgage without the debt has been stated by courts throughout the 50 states to be a “nullity,” which means that the transfer never legally occurred despite the writing on a face of a document purporting to be an assignment of mortgage.
*
The word, “nullity” is what you are after and it probably only applies to the assignment. It probably will never be applied, despite arguments to the contrary, to the actual encumbrance except after a period of years after the attempts to foreclose have failed multiple times, it is evident that the the debt will never be enforced or is otherwise barred by the doctrine of latches or the statute of limitations.
*
Thus strategically it is important to start off with an analysis of legal title performed by a title analyst who has education and training to do it. That normally means an attorney but it could mean a person who writes title policies or who assesses title risk for title insurance companies. After the analysis, then you need someone who can suggest strategies and tactics that can be reviewed and implemented by local counsel  or pro se with the guidance of local counsel using hybrid legal services.
*
We provide the title analysis if you don’t already have it based upon a current title search, including copies of the recorded documents, and we provide a 30 minute recorded CONSULT based upon a review of both the title analysis and unrecorded documents such as notices, correspondence or statements from some party purporting to be the “servicer.”
*
Nothing contained in this email or anywhere on this blog should be considered legal advice upon which you can rely. Get a lawyer.

SCOTUS Revives Qui Tam Actions

Until this decision I had assumed that Qui Tam actions were essentially dead in relation to the mortgage meltdown. Now I don’t think so.

The question presented is whether actions brought by a private person acting as a relator on behalf of a government entity can bring claims for damages under the False Claims Act. Such actions are barred by the statute of limitations, which requires a violation to be brought within six years of the violation or three years “after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances.”[3] 

In a unanimous decision the Court held that the tolling period applies to private relator actions. This does not by any stretch of the imagination create a slam dunk. Relators must have special knowledge of the false claim and the damage caused to the government. It will still be necessary to argue in an uphill battle that the true facts of the securitization scheme are only now unfolding as more evidence appears that the parties claiming foreclosure are neither seeking nor receiving the benefit of sale proceeds on foreclosed property.

Some claims might relate back to the origination of mortgages and some relate to the trading of paper creating the illusion of ownership of loans. Still others may relate to the effect on local and State government (as long as the Federal government was involved in covering their expenses) in the bailout presumably for losses incurred as a result of default on mortgage loans in which there was no loss to the party who received the bailout, nor did such bailout proceeds ever find the investors who actually funded the origination or acquisition of loans.

And remember that a relator needs to prove special knowledge that is arguably unique. The statute was meant to cover whistleblowers from within an agency or commercial enterprise but is broader than that. The courts tend to restrict the use of Qui Tam actions when brought by a relator who is not an “insider.”

See https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-recognizes-longer-statute-limitations-qui-tam-plaintiffs-false-claims

See Review of False Claims Act 18-315_1b8e

See Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt

I also find some relevance in the decision penned by J. Thomas writing for the court as it applies to TILA Rescission, FDCPA claims, RESPA claims and other claims based upon statute:

Because a single use of a statutory phrase generally must have a fixed meaning, see Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 143, interpretations that would “attribute different meanings to the same phrase” should be avoided, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. 320, 329. Here, the clear text of the statute controls. Cochise’s reliance on Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U. S. 409, is misplaced. Nothing in Graham County supports giving the phrase “civil action under section 3730” in §3731(b) two different meanings depending on whether the Government intervenes. While the Graham County Court sought “a construction that avoids . . . counterintuitive results,” there the text “admit of two plausible interpretations.” Id., at 421, 419, n. 2. Here, Cochise points to no other plausible interpretation of the text, so the “ ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438, 462. Pp. 4–8. (e.s.)

Point of reference:

I still believe that local governments are using up their time or might be time barred on a legitimate claim that was never pursued — that the trading of loans and certificates were transactions relating to property interests within the State or County and that income or revenue was due to the government and was never paid. A levy of the amount due followed by a lien and then followed by a foreclosure on the mortgages would likely result in either revenue to the government or government ownership of the mortgages which could be subject to negotiations with the homeowners wherein the principal balance is vastly reduced and the government receives all of the revenue to which it is entitled. This produces both a fiscal stimulus to the State economy and much needed revenue to the state at a cost of virtually zero.

In Arizona, where this strategy was first explored it was determined by state finance officials in coordination with the relevant chairpersons of select committees in the State House and Senate and the governor’s office that the entire state deficit of $3 Billion could have been covered. Intervention by political figures who answered to the banks intervened and thus prevented the deployment of this strategy.

I alone developed the idea and introduced it a the request of the then chairman of the House Judiciary committee. We worked hard on it for 6 months. Intervention by political figures who answered to the banks intervened and thus prevented the deployment of this strategy. It still might work.

See also

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/809786/White+Collar+Crime+Fraud/False+Claims+Act+Statute+of+Limitations+Relators+Now+Get+Up+to+10+Years+to+File+Suit

The Court also held that the relator’s knowledge does not trigger the limitations period. The statute refers to knowledge of “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances[.]” Had the Court interpreted this provision to include relators, fears of protracted tolling by relators would largely dissipate because the qui tam action would have to be filed within three years of the relator’s knowledge or six-years of the violation, whichever is later. The Court rejected this approach, finding the express reference to “the” government official excludes private citizen relators. The Court held it is the government’s knowledge that triggers the limitations period.

The Court, however, left unanswered the question of which government official’s knowledge triggers the limitations period. The government argued in its briefs and at oral argument that such official is the Attorney General or delegate. As we have noted in prior posts (see Holland & Knight’s Government Contracts Blog, “ Self-Disclosure and the FCA Statute of Limitations: Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States v. ex. rel. Billy Joe Hunt,” March 27, 2019), there is a broader question as to whether knowledge by governmental actors outside of DOJ, including knowledge trigged by self-disclosure, should start the limitations period. The Court did not rule on this question, though its decision hints at an interpretation that includes only the Attorney General. If true, DOJ becomes the sole repository for disclosures that trigger the limitations period. That is, unless defendants can argue that DOJ “should have known” of the violation when investigative bodies such as the Office of Inspector General or the FBI have actual knowledge of the violation … more on this latter issue is sure to come.

The Big Hoax: Are “Sales” of “Loans” and “Servicing” Real?

References to sales of loans and servicing rights are usually merely false assertions to distract homeowners and lawyers from looking at what is really happened. By accepting the premise that the loan was sold you are accepting that the loan was (a) real and (b) owned by the party who was designated to appear as a “Seller.”

By accepting the premise that the servicing data and documents were transferred you are accepting that the transferor had the correct data and documents and that the designated servicer is actually in position to represent the accounting records of the party whose name was used to initiate the foreclosure.

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.
========================

As Reynaldo Reyes of Deutsche Bank said in deposition and in recorded interviews, the entire structure and actual events are “counterintuitive.” The banks count on that for good reason. Most lawyers and almost all homeowners assume that at least some of what the banks are saying is true. In fact, nearly everything they say, write or produce as “business records” is a fabrication. But homeowners, lawyers and judges buy it as though it was solid gold.

In defending homeowners from foreclosure, lawyers who win more cases than they lose do so because of their willingness to believe that the entire thing is a hoax. Their withering cross examination and use of discovery reveals the complete absence of any corroborating evidence that would be admissible in court.

Even the most “biased” judges will concede that the case for foreclosure has not been made and they rule for the homeowner. But this only happens if the lawyer takes the opposition to task.

Chase did not acquire loans from WAMU and WAMU did not acquire loans from Long Beach etc. At the time of the claimed “acquisition” those loans were long gone, having been funded or purchased by one of the big 4 investment banks, directly or indirectly (through intermediate investment banks or simple cham conduit fictitious names or entities). In fact the ONLY time that the actual debt was clearly owned by anyone was, at best, a 30 day period during which the investment bank had the debt on its balance sheet as an asset.

So all sales from any seller other than one of the investment banks is a ruse. And there are no references to sales by the investment banks because that would be admitting and accepting potential liability for lending and servicing violations. It would also lead to revelations about how many times and in how many pieces the debt was effectively sold to how many investors who were NOT limited to those who had advanced money to the investment bank for shares in a nonexistent trust that never owned anything and never transacted any business.

Similarly the boarding process is a hoax. There is generally no actual transfer of servicing even with the largest “servicers.” They are all using a central platform on which data is kept, maintained, managed and manipulated by a third party who is kept concealed using employees who are neither bonded nor trained in maintaining accurate records nor protecting private data.

There is no transfer of servicing data. There is no “boarding” and no “audit.” In order to keep up the musical chairs game in which homeowners and lawyers are equally flummoxed, the big investment banks periodically change the designation of servicers and simply rotate the names, giving each one the login and password to enter the central system (usually at a server maintained in Jacksonville, Florida).

BOTTOM LINE: If you accept the premises advanced by the lawyers for the banks you will almost always lose. If you don’t and you aggressively pound on the legal foundation for the evidence they are attempting to use in court the chances of winning arise above 50% and with some lawyers, above 65%.

To be successful there are some attitudes of the defense lawyer that are necessary.

  • The first is that they must believe or be willing to believe that their client deserves to win. A lawyer who thinks that the client is only entitled to his/her time or a delay of the “inevitable” will never, ever win.
  • The second is that they must believe or be willing to believe that the entire scheme of lending, servicing and foreclosure is a hoax. Each word and each document that a lawyer assumes to be valid, authentic and not fabricated is a step toward defeat.
  • The third is that the lawyer must fight to reveal the gaps, consistencies and insufficiencies of the evidence and not to prove that this is the greatest economic crime in human history. All trials are won and lost based on evidence. The burden is always on the foreclosing party or the apparent successors to the foreclosing party to prove that title properly passed.
  • Fourth is arguably the most important and the one that is most overlooked. The lawyer must believe or be willing to believe that the foreclosure was not initiated on behalf of any party who could reasonably described as a creditor or owner of the debt. The existence of the trust, the presence of a real trust in any transaction in which a loan was purchased, sold or settled to a trustee, and the various permutations of strategies employed by the banks are not mere technical points. They are a coverup for the fact that no creditor and no owner of the debt ever receives any benefit from a successful foreclosure of the property.

Yes it is counterintuitive. You are meant to think otherwise and the banks are counting on that with you, your lawyer and the judge. But just because something is counterintuitive doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

What is the difference between the note and the debt? What difference does it make?

NOTE: This case reads like  law review article. It is well worth reading and studying, piece by piece. Judge Marx has taken a lot of time to research, analyze the documents, and write a very clear opinion on the truth about the documents that were used in this case, and by extension the documents that are used in most foreclosure cases.

Simple answer: if you had a debt to pay would you pay it to the owner of the debt or someone else who says that you should pay them instead? It’s obvious.

Second question: if the owner of the debt is really different than the party claiming to collect it, why hasn’t the owner shown up? This answer is not so obvious nor is it simple. The short version is that the owners of the risk of loss have contracted away their right to collect on the debt, note or mortgage.

Third question: why are the technical requirements of an indorsement, allonge etc so important? This is also simple: it is the only way to provide assurance that the holder of the note is the owner of the note. This is important if the note is going to be treated as evidence of ownership of the debt.

NY Slip Opinion: Judge Paul I Marx carefully analyzed the facts and the law and found that there was a failure to firmly affix the alleged allonge which means that the note possessor must prove, rather than presume, that the possessor is a holder with rights to enforce. U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee v Cannella April 15, 2019.

Now the lawyers who claim U.S. Bank, N.A. is their client must prove something that doesn’t exist in the real world. This a problem because U.S. Bank won’t and can’t cooperate and the investment bank won’t and can’t allow their name to be used in foreclosures.

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.
========================
Words actually matter — in the world of of American Justice, under law, without words, nothing matters.
*
So it is especially important to presume nothing and actually read words without making any assumptions. Much of what we see in the language of what is presented as a conveyance is essentially the same as a quitclaim deed in which there is no warranty of title and which simply grants any interest that the grantor MIGHT have. It is this type of wording that the banks use to weaponize the justice system against homeowners.
*
There is no warranty of title and there is no specific grant of ownership in an assignment of mortgage that merely says the assignor/grantor conveys “all beneficial interest under a certain mortgage.” Banks want courts to assume that means the note and the debt as well. But that specific wording is double-speak.
*
It says it is granting rights to the mortgage; but the rest of wording  is making reference only to what is stated in the mortgage, which is not the note, the debt or any other rights. So in effect it is saying it is granting title to the mortgage and then saying the same thing again, without adding anything. That is the essence of double speak.
*
In the Cannela Case Judge Marx saw the attempt to mislead the court and dealt with it:

The language in RPAPL § 258, which this Court emphasized—”together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage“—stands in sharp contrast to the language used here in the Assignment—”all beneficial interest under a certain Mortgage”. If such language is mere surplusage, as Plaintiff seems to believe, the drafters of RPAPL § 258 would not have included it in a statutory form promulgated for general use as best practice.

So here is the real problem. The whole discussion in Canella is about the note, the indorsement and the allonge. But notice the language in the opinion — “The Assignment did not go on to state that the referenced debt “…. So the Judge let it slip (pardon the pun) that when he refers to the note he means the debt.

*

The courts are using “the debt” and “the note” as being interchangeable words meaning the same thing. I would admit that before the era of false claims of securitization I used the words, debt, note and mortgage interchangeably because while there were technical  difference in the legal meaning of those terms, they all DID mean the same thing to me and everyone else.
*
While a note SHOULD be evidence of the debt and the possession of a note SHOULD be evidence of being a legal note holder and that SHOULD mean that the note holder probably has rights to enforce, and therefore that note “holder” should be the the owner of a debt claiming foreclosure rights under a duly assigned mortgage for which value was paid, none of that is true if the debt actually moved in one or more different directions — different that is from the paper trail fabricated by remote parties with no interest in the loan other than to collect their fees.
*
The precise issue is raised because the courts have almost uniformly assumed that the burden shifts to the homeowner to show that the debt moved differently than the paper. This case shows that might not be true. But it will be true if not properly presented and argued. In effect what we are dealing with here is that there is a presumption to use the presumption.
*
If Person A buys the debt (for real) for value (money) he is the owner of the debt. But that is only true if he bought it from Person B who also paid value for the debt (funded the origination or acquisition of the loan). If not, the debt obviously could not possibly have moved from B to A.
*
It is not legally possible to move the debt without payment of value. It IS possible to appoint agents to enforce it. But for those agents seeking to enforce it the debtor has a right to know why he should pay a stranger without proof that his debt is being collected for his creditor.
*
The precise issue identified by the investment banks back in 1983 (when securitization started) is that even debts are made up of component parts. The investment banks saw they could enter into “private contracts” in which the risk of loss and other bets could be made totalling far more than the loan itself. This converted the profit potential on loans from being a few points to several thousand percent of each loan.
*
The banks knew that only people with a strong background in accounting and investment banking would realize that the investment bank was a creditor for 30 days or less and that after that it was at most a servicer who was collecting “fees’ in addition to “trading profits” at the expense of everyone involved.
*
And by creating contracts in which the investors disclaimed any direct right, title or interest in the collection of the loan, even though the investor assumed the entire risk of loss, the investment banks could claim and did claim that they had not sold off the debt. Any accountant will tell you that selling the entire risk of loss means that you sold off the entire debt.
*
* Thus monthly payments, prepayments and foreclosure proceeds are absorbed by the investment bank and its affiliates under various guises but it never goes to reduce a debt owned by the people who have paid value for the debt. In this case, and all similar cases, U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee (or any trustee) never received nor expected to receive any money from monthly payments, prepayments or foreclosure proceeds; but that didn’t stop the investment banks from naming the claimant as U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee.
*
**So then the note might be sold but the alleged transfer of a mortgage is a nullity because there was no actual transfer of the debt. Transfer of the debt ONLY occurs where value is paid. Transfer of notes occurs regardless of whether value was paid.
*
US laws in all 50 states all require that the enforcer of a mortgage be the same party who owns the debt or an agent who is actually authorized  by the owner of the debt to conduct the foreclosure. For that to be properly alleged and proven the identity of the owner of the debt must be disclosed.
*
That duty to disclose might need to be enforced in discovery, a QWR, a DVL or a subpoena for deposition, but in all events if the borrower asks there is no legal choice for not answering, notwithstanding arguments that the information is private or proprietary.
*
The only way that does not happen is if the borrower does not enforce the duty to disclose the principal. If the borrower does enforce but the court declines that is fertile grounds for appeal, as this case shows. Standing was denied to U.S. Bank, as Trustee, because it failed to prove it was the holder of the note prior to initiating foreclosure.
*
It failed because the fabricated allonge was not shown to be have been firmly attached so as to become part of the note itself.
*
Thus the facts behind the negotiation of the note came into doubt and the presumptions sought by attorneys for the named claimant were thrown out. Now they must prove through evidence of transactions in the real world that the debt moved, instead of presuming the movement from the movement of the note.
*
But if B then executes an indorsement to Person C you have a problem. Person A owns the debt but Person C owns the note. Both are true statements. Unless the indorsement occurred at the instruction of Person B, it creates an entirely new and separate liability under the UCC, since the note no longer serves as title to the debt but rather serves as presumptive liability of a maker under the UCC with its own set of rules.
*
And notwithstanding the terms of the mortgage to the contrary, the mortgage no longer secures the note, which is no longer evidence of the debt; hence the mortgage can only be enforced by the person who owns the debt, if at all. The note which can only be enforced pursuant to rules governing the enforcement of negotiable instruments, if that applies, is no longer secured by the mortgage because the law requires the mortgage to secure a debt and not just a promissory note. See UCC Article 9-203.
*
This is what the doctrine of merger is intended to avoid — double liability. But merger does not happen when the debt owner and the Payee are different parties and neither one is the acknowledged agent of a common principal.
*
Now if Person B never owned the debt to begin with but was still the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage you have yet another problem. The note and debt were split at closing. In law cases this is referred to as splitting the note and mortgage which is presumed not to occur unless there is a showing of intent to do so. In this case there was intent to do so. The source of lending did not get a note and mortgage and the broker did get a note and mortgage.
*
Normally that would be fine if there was an agency contract between the originator and the investment bank who funded the loan. But the investment bank doesn’t want to admit such agency as it would be liable for lending and disclosure violations at closing, and for servicing violations after closing.
*
***So when the paperwork is created that creates the illusion of transfer of the mortgage without any real transaction between the remote parties because it is the investment bank who is all times holding all the cards. No real transactions can occur without the investment bank. The mortgage and the note being transferred creates two separate legal events or consequences.
*
Transfer of the note even without the debt creates a potential asset to the transferee whether they paid for it or not. If they paid for it they might even be a holder in due course with more rights than the actual owner of the debt. See UCC Article 3, holder in due course.
*
Transfer of the note without the debt (i.e. transfer without payment of value) would simply transfer rights under the UCC and that would be independent of the debt and therefore the mortgage which, under existing law, can only be enforced by the owner of the debt notwithstanding language in the mortgage that refers to the note. The assignment of mortgage was not enough.
Some quotables from the Slip Opinion:

A plaintiff in an action to foreclose a mortgage “[g]enerally establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default”. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v Sabloff, 153 AD3d 879, 880 [2nd Dept 2017] (citing Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti, 118 AD3d 688, 689see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683, 684). However, where a defendant has affirmatively pleaded standing in the Answer,[6] the plaintiff must prove standing in order to prevail. Bank of New York Mellon v Gordon, 2019 NY Slip Op. 02306, 2019 WL 1372075, at *3 [2nd Dept March 27, 2019] (citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d 983, 983-984HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Calderon, 115 AD3d 708, 709Bank of NY v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279).

A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by showing that it was the holder of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced. Sabloff, supra at 880 (citing Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361U.S. Bank N.A. v Handler, 140 AD3d 948, 949). Where a plaintiff is not the original lender, it must show that the obligation was transferred to it either by a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note. Id. Because the mortgage automatically passes with the debt as an inseparable incident, a plaintiff must generally prove its standing to foreclose on the mortgage through either of these means, rather than by assignment of the mortgage. Id. (citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v Zwisler, 147 AD3d 804, 805U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754).

Turning to the substantive issue involving UCC § 3-202(2), Defendant contends that the provision requires that an allonge must be “permanently” affixed to the underlying note for the note to be negotiated by delivery. UCC § 3-202(1) states, in pertinent part, that if, as is the case here, “the instrument is payable to order it is negotiated by delivery with any necessary indorsement”. UCC § 3-202(1) (emphasis added). The pertinent language of UCC § 3-202(2) provides that when an indorsement is written on a separate piece of paper from a note, the paper must be “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.” UCC § 3-202(2) (emphasis added); Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Kelly, 166 AD3d 843 [2nd Dept 2018]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, supra at 985see also One Westbank FSB v Rodriguez, 161 AD3d 715, 716 [1st Dept 2018]; Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208, 212 [2nd Dept 1989] (“The note secured by the mortgage is a negotiable instrument (see, UCC 3-104) which requires indorsement on the instrument itself `or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof’ (UCC 3-202[2]) in order to effectuate a valid `assignment’ of the entire instrument (cf., UCC 3-202 [3], [4])”).

[Editor’s note: if it were any other way the free spinning allonge would become a tradable commodity in its own right. ]

The Assignment did not go on to state that the referenced debt was simultaneously being assigned to Plaintiff.

 

Applying Common Sense and Law to Assignments of Mortgage

Every time a homeowner wins in foreclosure the investors are actually protected. It’s the sale of the property and/or entry of the foreclosure judgment that cuts investors off from their investment. Weird, right?

An article in the recently published Florida Bar Journal illustrates perfectly the confusion that occurs within the courts and by lawyers when they stray from the simple pronouncement of accepted law in all jurisdictions.

Here is one simple proposition declared by the Florida Supreme Court which is a mirror of similar pronouncements from the Highest courts in all other U.S. Jurisdictions: The case is Johns v Gillian 134 Fla. 575, 184 So. 140 (1938).

“the mere delivery of the note and mortgage, with intention to pass title, upon proper consideration, will vest the equitable interest in the person to whom it is so delivered.”

The obvious implication is that such a person can enforce the mortgage. The other obvious implication is that a claimant who claims to have received possession by delivery of the note and mortgage cannot enforce the mortgage if there was no intent to transfer title to the mortgage, or if there was no payment of consideration.

The obvious takeaways from this simple, basic and completely accepted point of law are

  • delivery of note and mortgage is important and potentially dispositive BUT
  • defects in the instrument of assignment of mortgage are not fatal IF
  • intention to pass title is present AND
  • payment of proper consideration is present
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.
========================

The jumble occurs when anyone of those points is taken out of order or entirely out of consideration which is what the courts and even some foreclosure defense lawyers are missing.

Delivery of the original note and the recorded mortgage document is important and potentially dispositive. This is true if proper consideration was paid and there was an intent to pass title.

But the banks would have us believe that only the intent to pass title is important, even if the transferor has no title. There is no law and no case decision that agrees with that proposition. And the banks would have us believe that the intent to pass title is the only thing that matters even if no proper consideration was paid. There is no law and no case decision that supports that proposition.

By law, as adopted in the statutes of all 50 states when they adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, consideration must be paid for an effective transfer of the mortgage.  UCC Article 9 section 203. All the case law agrees and there is no case law contrary to that proposition.

BUT there is plenty of case law where the courts ignore it mostly because the pro se homeowners or foreclosure defense attorney didn’t present the issue clearly.

The money proves the intent and the intent justifies the money.  Without the money the transfer is a complete nullity which legally means it never happened.

While there are presumptions about transfer of the debt when the “original” note is supposedly delivered (as though transfer of the note was title to the debt), the only thing that actually transfers the debt under law is payment of money with intent to purchase and sell the debt and the mortgage.

Where’s the money?

In virtually all cases the money is absent, which leads directly to the point of the law to begin with — foreclosure should only be granted in circumstances where the proceeds of foreclosure will go to the party claiming that equitable remedy. Here is the plain truth. Those proceeds are not going to anyone who has value/consideration in the deal.

The investment bank’s legal strategy of claiming that it once paid consideration is defeated entirely by its sale of the “risk of loss” (i.e., the debt) several times over in the shadow banking market.

Dubious? Check the proposed and actual regulations concerning the retention of a share of the risk of loss by investment banks. That is the big dispute. For loans that were created up until around 2010, there was zero retention of risk.

The meaning  of that eludes most people unfamiliar with the terminology of Wall Street. So here it is: if you have no risk you own no debt.

My sources say that is still true and the regulators are powerless to stop it because of the right to enter into contracts that are disguised sales of the risk of loss, which is to say disguised sales of the debt by the one party who is always the one controlling events on the ground in foreclosures — the investment bank.

Do you need to prove all that? Nope. Just demand proof of consideration. And don’t stop demanding it no matter what the opposing lawyer says and even regardless of what the judge says. In the end, you’ll be right. Every time a homeowner wins in foreclosure the investors are actually protected. It’s the sale of the property and/or entry of the foreclosure judgment that cuts investors off from their investment.

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

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.

 

Stop Feeling Guilty — Be A Warrior

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.

Tonight! How to use discovery in revealing fraudclosures!

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

UCC: The Internet is no substitute for law school

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.

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

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.
========================

 

Beware of Magic Bullets

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.

 

PTSD: A Breakdown of Securitization in the Real World

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.

Unworthy Trusts

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. 

Stop Referring to Defaults as Something Real

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?

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

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 §§ 42-10142-121 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 §§ 42-10142-40242-403, 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. 

 

Enforcement of Note vs. Enforcement of Mortgage

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. 

%d bloggers like this: