How to ask the right questions in discovery

Discovery is part law, part art, and part intuition. The lawyer must generate questions that can be used, by themselves, to bring certain issues in front of the judge either because the opponent answered the questions or because they didn’t answer.

If your point is that your opponent doesn’t own the claim even though they either said or implied that they do own it, then you need to do some investigation first so you can ask the right questions in the right way. If your point is that there are two agreements, one for loan and the other for securitization, the same thing applies. Either way you face an uphill climb as you attempt to persuade a judge who is not an investment banker and doesn’t understands securitization but still thinks he or she understands residential homeowner transactions.

So continuing with our example, you want to show the judge that despite the requirements for legal standing your opponent does not have standing. In order to have standing the claimant must have an injury. Financial injury qualifies and that is what the banks are relying upon when they try to foreclose.

How does one have financial injury? Actual financial damages occur when one actually loses money or permanent value of some property — tangible, intangible, real or personal property all qualify.

By “actual” that means you can count the money that was lost as a direct and proximate result of the action or inaction of the defendant or, in this case, the homeowner.

If the homeowner doesn’t make a payment that had been expected, then several things occur in the law that makes this fairly simple proposition complex.

  1. Does the homeowner owe any money to the party to whom payment was previously being made? If not, then the complaining party had no right to declare, much less enforce the claim of default. The subheading here is counterintuitive — does the debt exist as  an asset owned by any entity, including the claimant? Assuming that the answer to these questions is in the affirmative is an assumption that compromises the entire defense of a foreclosure case. Assuming the answer is no, then discovery will be on the right track.
  2. BUT having previously made payments to the complaining party, the homeowner has been acting against his/her own interest and that is often treated as an implied admission that payment was previously made because the homeowner thought it was due. To take a contrary position now is contradictory and diminishes the credibility of the homeowner who later says that the money is not due.
  3. Was there an agreement under which the homeowner agreed to make the payment? Not so fast. This is more complicated than anything you can imagine because there is no agreement, no matter what was signed or what was even done, unless the agreement is enforceable. In the eyes of the law an unenforceable agreement is no agreement — a legal nullity. And there are very precise elements of a legally enforceable agreement, each of which must be present. this isn’t horseshoes — close is not enough.
  4. Is the claimant a party to the agreement? In the context of loans this is easy if there really was an original lender and a borrower. In the context of securitization, this condition can only be satisfied by the claimant if it purchased the underlying debt for value in exchange for a conveyance of the ownership of the debt. In today’s foreclosures this element is the focal point for most litigation. The claimant always has a conveyance, but never produces any proof of payment for the debt. That makes the conveyance (assignment of mortgage or indorsement of note) void even if it was executed and recorded. It is regarded in all jurisdictions as a legal nullity. If the conveyance was void then the claimant is not a party to the agreement. Litigation is between the bank forces using legal presumptions arising from the apparent facial validity of the conveyance and the actual facts which are absent showing that value was paid for the debt in exchange for the conveyance.
  5. Was there mutual consideration? If not, there is no agreement. In the context of loans this means that the original agreement produced mutuality. In other words, the party that is disclosed as “lender”, pursuant to the provisions of the Truth in lending Act, gave money to the borrower and the borrower took it, in exchange for a promise to repay the money to that party. At least 65% of all loans from the year 2000 to the present were not originated by the party named as “lender” in the “agreement” (note and mortgage). They are table funded loans against public policy. But they are often enforced under the belief that the originator was in privity (agreement) with the source of funds. In the context of securitization, which covers around 95% of all such loans, there was no privity because the source of funds did not want to liable for lending violations (inflated appraisals, nonviable loans etc). The issue is complicated by the fact that the borrower did receive consideration and did make the promise to pay the originator — but neither the note nor the mortgage were supported by consideration from the originator. Any “purchase” from the originator was therefore void, and any conveyance of the mortgage or note from the originator was void unless the grantee had already paid for the underlying debt. In virtually all cases in which securitization claims are present, the grantee has never paid for the debt, nor has it ever possessed the resources to purchase the debt. It is a
    “bankruptcy remote vehicle” which is to say that it is there in name only and possible not even as a legal entity. If you can show that fact or show that the other side refuses to answer properly worded questions about the status and ownership of the debt, then you can raise the inference that the claimant doesn’t possess a claim and therefore lacks standing.

So the questions that should be constructed and posed should center on the following guidelines, for purposes of this illustration:

  1. In which bank account were prior payments received and who controlled that bank account.
  2. On what general ledger of what company is the claimed debt appearing as an asset receivable of that company?
  3. What was the asset account from which the claimant entered a debit to pay for ownership of the debt?
  4. Does the named claimant as beneficiary or Plaintiff own the claimed debt as a result of a transaction on a certain date in which it paid value for the debt to a grantor who owned the debt in exchange for an conveyance of ownership of the debt?
  5. To whom did the servicer forward payments received from the borrower/homeowner?
  6. What person or entity did not receive money as a result of the claimed default?
  7. What is the date on which the named claimant received ownership of the underlying debt?
  8. On what dates has the named claimant issued any payments to third parties whose contractual rights to such payments were in any way related to payments received from the borrower/homeowner?
  9. What is the name and contact information of the officer(s) or employee(s) of the named claimant who is in charge of accounting and finance for the named claimant?
  10. What is the name and contact information of the officer or employee of the named claimant who is the custodian of records relating to the underlying debt, payments received and payments disbursed that were in any way related to the underlying debt, payments made by the borrower/homeowner, or payments received by third parties (possibly investors).
  11. Describe source and the amount of the remuneration and compensation received by the named claimant in connection with the creation, administration, collection or enforcement of the subject underlying debt, note and mortgage.
  12. Describe dates and names of the lockbox contract(s) maintained with third parties for the collection of borrower/homeowner payments relating to the subject loan.
*
Don’t use the above as the actual wording of your interrogatories, request for production or request for admission although some cutting and pasting could be used. Check with local counsel before you attempt to enter the legal process of discovery, motions to compel, motions for sanctions and motions in limine.
*
This article is not a complete treatise on discovery in foreclosure actions. It is not a substitute for seeking advice from an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.
*
KEEP IN MIND THAT THEY WILL NEVER ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. DON’T EXPECT ANSWERS. EXPECT THE ABSENCE OF ANSWERS. THEN USE THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER AS THE BASIS FOR RAISING INFERENCES AND PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST THEM.
 *
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How to Fight Those “Declarations” from False Claimants in Foreclosures

The bottom line is that the loan account was extinguished contemporaneously with the origination or acquisition of the account. There is no loan account claimed as an asset of any company.

The records  of the self-proclaimed servicer are not records of the loan account or the establishment of the loan account on the books of any company. Therefore they are not records of the creditor.

Besides being fabricated those records are irrelevant and inadmissible without foundation testimony and proof that the loan account has been established on the books of some creditor and even then, even that is irrelevant unless that creditor was the named Plaintiff or beneficiary on a deed of trust.

All of this is completely counterintuitive to lawyers and homeowners — but not to investment bankers who continue to profit from each foreclosure without paying one cent to reduce the claimed obligation supposedly due from the homeowner.  And they do this all without ever appearing as a party in court.

Nice work if you can get it.

So here is something I drafted recently in response to a memorandum in opposition to the homeowners’ motion to strike the declarations of the “plaintiff”.

Counsel for the named plaintiff is engaging in procedural and substantive strategies of evasion.
*
While the action is clearly filed for the benefit of “certificate holders,” counsel continues to refer to the plaintiff as Bank of New York Mellon.
Counsel steadfastly refuses to identify the certificates or the holders.
*
In addition, counsel implies a representative capacity on behalf of the “certificate holders” in which the Bank of New York Mellon supposedly has the authority to represent them. As defendant has previously demonstrated to the court, Bank of New York Mellon has consistently rejected any allegation or implication that it served in a representative or fiduciary relationship with certificate holders both in this particular series and in other securitization schemes.
*
Counsel for the named plaintiff supposedly appears on the behalf of unidentified holders of unidentified certificates. Or counsel for the named plaintiff is claiming a fictitious representative capacity in which it represents Bank of New York Mellon. But as previously stated by defendant, opposing counsel has no agreement for legal representation between itself and Bank of New York Mellon.
*
Instead, it has been retained by a party who is a self-proclaimed “servicer” – Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., and counsel for the named plaintiff asserts that SPS is the “attorney-in-fact” for Bank of New York Mellon.
*
However counsel for the named plaintiff has never alleged nor demonstrated that Bank of New York Mellon has ever been party to a transaction in the real world in which it paid value for the underlying debt in exchange for conveyance of ownership of that debt. Accordingly even if SPS is the attorney-in-fact for Bank of New York Mellon, such an assertion is both irrelevant and a distraction from the fact that there is no creditor present in this lawsuit.
*
The truth of the matter is that opposing counsel represents neither Bank of New York Mellon nor the certificate holders. Its sole relationship and contact is with SPS, owned by the real player in this action, Credit Suisse — who seeks only profit from the sale of homestead property since the loan account and the underlying debt were retired in the parallel securitization process.
*
There is no such debt or loan account and therefore there can be no owner. And if there is no owner of the debt or account then there is no creditor, lender or successor lender. SPS may have some agency with Bank of New York Mellon but that does not create the rights they seek to enforce.
*
Counsel for the named plaintiff asserts “the declaration was clearly executed by a person with “personal knowledge” as required by the foreclosure order.” This is not a true statement. Counsel is being disingenuous with the court.
*
The declaration was executed by somebody identified as a “document control officer.” The declaration says nothing else about any personal knowledge acquired by the signatory. In fact it does not even define “Document control officer.”
*
The declaration itself does not establish the foundation for testimony about the subject loan despite the characterization advanced by opposing counsel. The statement in the declaration is that “SPS holds and maintains all of the business records relating to the servicing of this loan.” There is no statement or allegation or any other evidence in the court file, nor could there be, that the records of SPS include entries that establish the subject debt, note and mortgage as an asset of any entity. That is because no such entity exists and no such loan account presently exists.
*
Opposing counsel disingenuously attempts to distract the court by focusing on the familiarity with the record-keeping practices and record-keeping systems of SPS. Such familiarity is irrelevant if the records are not those of the creditor. This is irrelevant if SPS is not an authorized agent of the party who has paid value for the debt in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the debt. No such allegation or evidence exists except through the use of presumptions related to documents that are not even facially valid.
*
Accordingly the opposition filed by opposing counsel is simply another step in the attempt to distract the court from the simple fact that no loan account has ever been established nor has the ownership of such an account been established. Opposing counsel has relied upon innuendo, implication and self-serving inferences to establish facts that do not exist in the real world.
*
The declaration of opposing counsel is false. Neither the attorney nor the law firm represents the Bank of New York Mellon. In addition, the attorney falsely alleges “personal knowledge” without specifying how that knowledge was obtained. Like all other documents in this case, the creation of this document is meant to create an illusion based upon a cursory glance at the document rather than an analysis of it.
*
The declarations in this case do not survive any credible analysis.
Similarly, the creation and execution of a “limited power of attorney” on March 5, 2020, after the lawsuit was filed and after the motion for summary judgment was filed, is another disingenuous effort to distract the court. The execution of the power of attorney, even if it was valid, is irrelevant if the grantor had nothing to grant. There has yet to be any reference, allegation, exhibit or evidence submitted establishing the identity of any entity that maintains the subject loan account as an asset on its financial statements.
*
In conclusion, any reasonable attentive analysis of the documents submitted by opposing counsel reveals the absence of any allegation that counsel represents any party on whose behalf this action was filed, according to the complaint and subsequent filings. Taken individually or collectively, the documents are a smokescreen for the pursuit of profit of a third party (Credit Suisse) rather than restitution for an unpaid debt that no longer exists. 
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

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

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

see US Bank LSF9 v Verhagen 7-20-20

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

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

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

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some important quotes from the above cited article:

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

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

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

 

It’s Not a Default If You Stop Paying — Unless Someone owns Your Debt and Can Prove Financial Loss

NOTE: BE AWARE THAT WELLS FARGO AND OTHERS MAY HAVE PUT YOUR TRANSACTION IN A FORBEARANCE PROGRAM WITH UNKNOWN TERMS.

========

I think that the banks have unfairly benefited from assumptions regarding the connection between the cessation of payments by homeowners and the existence of a default.
*
I think that there are elements of a default that we have never had to think about before.
*
The first element, in my opinion, is that somebody must have suffered a loss or injury
*
The second element is that the loss or injury must be the approximate result of a breach of Duty
*
The third element is that the Duty must be owed to them by the person who breached the duty.
*
If you don’t have both elements, I don’t think you have a default, nor do I think that anyone has the authority to declare one.
*
When this thing began we didn’t know if cessation of payments has actually produced an injury or loss. now we know.
*
There is no correlation between cessation of payments and any injury or loss to any party. In fact, my analysis reveals that no such loss or injury occurs.
*
Going further, my analysis strongly indicates that payment has been received directly and indirectly multiple times without being credited to any asset account in which a homeowner obligation is held as an asset. And the reason is simple — there is no such account anywhere. How can there be a default?
*
One thing you may not know about me is that long ago I literally taught auditing under generally accepted accounting principles when I received my Masters in Business Administration. A guy by the name of Abraham Briloff wrote a book called Unaccountable Accounting back then. I actually have the right to republish it granted by his daughter. He accurately predicted this situation because of changes that were being allowed in the rules. But some things don’t change and haven’t changed.
*
Perhaps because of my background on Wall Street I have always seen this as an accounting problem more than a legal problem. In accounting, the approach is very straightforward.
*
If a company wants to claim ownership of an asset, it will have an entry on its balance sheet either for that asset or for a category that includes that asset. If the company does not report that item as an asset it is not legally claiming ownership of it. And if it does not claim that item as an asset it has no account to post deductions as a result of payments or offsets. 
*
And if the company makes a claim anyway in court or out of court it is making a false statement. While there is probably nothing to prevent it from alleging the claim, and there may be presumptions that theoretically could support the claim, they cannot legally recover on the claim if it is challenged. There are several legal reasons for this result: lack of jurisdiction, failure of condition precedent etc.
*
There is only one way for an item to appear on the balance-sheet of any person or company. There must be a transaction on the general ledger in which the company has paid for the asset. Under Double Entry bookkeeping, this would be shown as a deduction from some other asset like cash in exactly the same amount as the addition of the new asset. In the world of securitization no such transaction exists. And the reason that it doesn’t exist is because nobody wants to be called the lender because that would result in potential liability for violation of lending and servicing laws.
*
The purpose of an auditor is to determine whether or not that asset exists in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as now published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Unless the auditor finds objective proof is that a transaction occurred on the general ledger which is backed up by actual proof of payment, sales receipt Etc,  the posting of the asset on the balance sheet by management will be removed or the auditor will refuse to issue a clean bill of health for the audit, stating that the financial statements do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles.
*
Go back to the default. If no such account exists in any company or person, then no company or person has actually experienced a default. accordingly there is no reason to declare a default on behalf of such a company or person. The fact that the company or person knows not a homeowner I stopped making payments to a party that he was otherwise paying, makes a witness not a creditor.
*
Legally I think we have all committed a grave error by admitting or ignoring the allegation of a default and not challenging it aggressively, we are inherently admitting the status and ownership of the debt and therefore inviting the inevitable foreclosure result.
*
Starting in 2006 I said that the expert that people needed was not a securitization expert like me but a CPA who specializes in forensic auditing. This is a person who could specifically state that the loan was not an asset on the books of the claimant and that the claimant suffered no injury or loss as a result of anything that the homeowner did or didn’t do. I had some extensive talks with the prestigious accounting firm in Tucson Arizona which almost resulted in the marketing of these services. They backed out when Bank of America retained their services and created a conflict of interest.

There is no valid cause of action for foreclosure arising from the Uniform Commercial Code. There is a cause of action under common law contract — but nobody has alleged that in claims or defenses.

The only way that enforceability of the homeowner transaction can be preserved is through common law contract, in which UCC presumptions would probably not apply

I recently received a question from a paralegal asking a question I constantly receive — where do I find my loan. Or more specifically how to find out which trust owns my loan. the answer is that (a) you are asking the wrong questions and (b) you are admitting that the loan is actually in a trust. That simply is not true.

Here is my reply:

I appreciate the work you are doing. I think your work would be much easier if you concentrated on a more simple point.

*
It seems like you are assuming that the loan is actually in a trust. in order for that to be true, one of two scenarios would have to be true.
*
Either the named trustee of a valid trust has purchased the loan for Value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt, note and mortgage or a trustor or settlor has conveyed ownership of the underlying debt, note and mortgage to the trustee or the trust. I am quite certain that you will find that neither one ever occurred.
*
By examining various reports by the investment Banks with the goal of determining which some Trust owns the loan, you are admitting that securitization occurred. The truth is that securitization probably did not occur. For securitization to occur, an asset would need to be sold to multiple investors. No investor ever bought any debt, note or mortgage. Nobody else did either.
*
Because you have not gone to law school, you might be missing will you find her, and more important, points in the litigation. Every case I have ever won was based upon the findings and conclusions of law published by a judge stating that the plaintiff or claimant in foreclosure have failed to produce evidence of ownership of the underlying debt.
*
Ownership of the underlying debt can only be achieved through payment of value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt. This is often presumed when the promissory note is issued and subsequently transferred. that presumption can often be easily rebutted both in Discovery and in objections at trial.
*

The goal of securitization was to eliminate the role of the lender or creditor so that there would be no lender or creditor and therefore no liability for violations of lending or servicing laws. Without a company that has engaged in a transaction in which it paid value for the loan in exchange for a conveyance of the loan from someone who owns it, there can be no claim under Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions.

*

I have written extensively on the result of this analysis.

*
In cases involving false claims of securitization, there simply is no cause of action or foundation for initiating any foreclosure process based on presumptions arising out of the Uniform Commercial Code.
*
The only way that enforceability of the homeowner transaction can be preserved is through common law contract, in which those presumptions would probably not apply.
*
And the only way that a common law contract could result in enforceability of the obligation of a homeowner is to have the court create one by the process of reformation, using the doctrines of Quasi contract and Quantum Meruit.

*

And the only way that the court could have any Authority or jurisdiction to impose a common law contract would be if an interested party filed a lawsuit asking for reformation.

*
In the absence of such a request, the obligation of the homeowner is not enforceable under current law, which has existed for centuries. Forfeiture of a homestead cannot occur unless the claimant actually owns the debt and therefore can claim financial injury as a result of the action or inaction of the homeowner.
*
In cases where the claimant arrives on the scene by virtue of language arising from claims of securitization, it has always been my opinion that such a Plaintiff or claimant probably doesn’t exist at all as a legal entity and most certainly does not possess any legal claim arising out of the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 3 or Article 9.

*

As a result of my opinion that a common law contract would preserve the homeowner obligation (and the securitization infrastructure), I do not believe that final judgments or orders dismissing the Foreclosure or vacating a sale results in extinguishment of the debt, note or mortgage. Therefore I believe that quiet title does not apply.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Who is PennyMac and Why Was It Needed by Wall Street Banks?

I received an email from one of my most prolific contributors that I am republishing here because virtually everything in it is entirely correct. I especially approve of her point about the fact that servicer advances are funded from proceeds of public offerings of stock that were all purchased by the Wall Street banks who did the underwriting.  Substance over form: the banks were giving PennyMac the money to make servicer advances. The banks were using the investor sourced money supply to buy the fake stock offering. None of it was real.

The end result is that all roads lead back to one thing, to wit: all of the money trail and all of the paper trails lead back to a handful of Wall Street banks who had “successfully” created a void between the real parties in interest — investors and homeowners — and the found a way to create the illusion of filling the void that cut out the financial interests of those real parties in interest. 

The banks were only intermediaries. They successfully posed as the real parties in interest when they were trading and issuing derivatives. But at the other end of the stick they maintained their position as intermediaries who had no interest in the debt and therefore could not be defined as lenders subject to the obligations and restrictions imposed by statutory and common law governing lending, consumer practices, servicing or anything else.

All of the fabricated documents that ensued were designed to cover up the fact that there was no person or entity that owned the underlying debt of any homeowner. Hence nobody could claim financial injury — a basic requirement for getting into court or making any claim.

who is PennyMac (PM) and why are they needed.
I think we need to look back at the PM history to answer this question.
PennyMac is a renamed Countrywide Financial which now operates at least 4 (four) known to me organizations.
1. PennyMac (one of most criminal, with Kurland and Spector)
2. Caliber Home Loan Inc, a middle-level intermediary, operated by Chris Mozilo who pass money from table pools to homebuyers via Black Knight (originator)  and smaller “Lenders”
3. BAC Home Loans
4. LandSafe Appraisal (purchased by CoreLogic) . In 2014 BOA sold a very similarly named system, LoanSafe to VA which is now handles all appraisals; plus CoreLogic gradually purchased most smaller appraisal companies*
Why Bank of America needed PennyMac to appear as a Large Lender and a Biggest servicer?
For the same reason why Countrywide needed American’s Wholesale Lender; and Fidelity National needed two (2) DocX,LLC and LPS – to create an additional corporate curtain to cover for the real parties.
Plus to use PennyMac and other “Servicers” as recipients for new bailouts.
If you take a closer look at PennyMac’s finances, here are nothing even close to $368+ billions worth of mortgages financed and 2 million homes serviced by PennyMac.
Moreover, if you see their Prospectuses, you will find out that the underwriters of PM securities (issued by PennyMac) are the same Stockbrokers who purchased PM’s securities, leaving about $29 million in fees to Penny Mac. I doubt is BOA or GS actually “purchased” anything from PM under this “offering” which they issued under glimpse of PennyMac.
But according to the legend, PennyMac now has to pay pay “servers’ advances” to “investors” for four months from their “own funds” until GSE’s (who sold their bonds to Fed. R. in advance) who cover these MBS, will step in and pick up the payments on “behalf of taxpayers  – while  GSE cannot even identify any Trusts where mortgages were pooled.
These GSE SOLD their unsecured bonds to Federal Reserve who buy about $30 Billion per WEEK from GSE beginning March 2020 to present time. Note that no Trusts were involved in these sales and no one homeowner was informed about the cage of ownership of their “debt”
I don’t know which “Servicers’ advances” and to whom PennyMac “pays” now, when the ownership of the “MBS” bonds was passed to Federal Reserve. At least Federal Reserve keeps it secret.
Apparently Kurland and know all risks involved and decided to steal some data from BK to create more money for themselves.
On May 2, 2019 they sent me a letter that “servicing” was transferred to them – but not mentioned by whom.
On May 3, 2019 PM sent a letter to BK informing them that PM is not going to extend their contract.
soon after Black Knight claimed that they “noticed some irregularities of use” their system by PM – apparently after I brought it to their attention. This is why no assignments were recorded reflecting the “sale” of my loan to PennyMac who cannot identify the Seller.
Since Oct. 31st  BK terminated PM as a client .
In Complaint  filed by PM against BK, they insist that the owner/investor is Ginnie Mae (who sold their MBS to Federal Reserve) – but continue to lie to me and DIFS that PennyMac is “owner/investor” in my loan.
The bottom line, as Neil said – these “servicers” and “lenders” are nothing. They are thin-capitalized clowns for hire and nobody sold any loans to GSEs because loans were destroyed at the beginning to create “manipulated data” in Black Knight system which Big Banks  sold as unsecured derivatives which GSE either sell to Federal Reserve or obtain payments from Stockbrokers directly, like FHFA v. Goldman Sachs
“GSE’s ownership” is the same myth to force people paying a long-time non existing “debt”.
So-called “universal income” proposed by Democrats is a camouflaged attempt to make Big Banks  pay royalties from trades to people .
Of course the Government cannot disclose the Truth since it will reveal that during last 40 years they allowed Stockbrokers to destroy property Titles to virtually ALL homes in America; plus create a slavery never existed before, where a small group of people enjoy tax-free profits from free servitude provided to them by the rest of the Country – plus income from stolen homes.
*Lagow worked at LandSafe, Inc., an appraisal company owned by Countrywide Financial and ultimately acquired by Bank of America, from 2004-2008. According to his unsealed complaint, Mr. Lagow observed widespread disregard for laws that regulate Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting and home appraisals.

Specifically, he claimed that Countrywide conspired with LandSafe and homebuilder KB Homes to inflate the appraised value of homes, boosting the size of the lending giant’s loans to homebuyers. In order to accomplish this, the lending giant allegedly used a number of strong-arm tactics to pressure appraisers to report favorable home values.
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How did Wall Street make all that money on “securitization.”

Servicers did not make any advances. They never did and they never will. They said they did but they didn’t. If you read the prospectus carefully you will see that the money from investors is divided into three parts.

*
The first part is the purchase of a certificate that promises payments to the investor based upon a formula that is independent of any homeowner debt, note or mortgage. It does not commit the Investment Bank to using the funds in any particular way. But the payments are partially indexed on the performance of an arbitrarily chosen group of loans that are not owned by anyone.
*
The second part is the establishment of a pool of funds controlled by the Investment Bank which also does not have any restrictions as to its use. The prospectus reveals that investors may be receiving payments out of the pool of funds, which obviously comes from their own money. This is the source of what is labeled as servicer advances.
*
By labeling these payments as servicer advances, and by providing that servicer advances will be paid to the master servicer (i.e., the Investment Bank) the so-called securitization scheme creates another Profit Center.
*
Investment Banks can claim return of servicer advances that they never advanced. By doing that they not only create the profit Center but they also able to claim that it was not Revenue for tax purposes.  A lot of the bookkeeping, financial reporting and tax reporting is based on this strategy.
*
In my opinion it is not legal. But I am certain that it is not legal from the perspective of the homeowner, who gets no credit for any payments or profits made in the scheme because nobody maintains an account in which the homeowners debt is claimed as an asset; this results in literally no place to credit the homeowners debt for incoming payments and profits that actually offset any potential liability of the homeowner.
*
The third part exists by implication. The normal agreement (prospectus) would provide for a specific use of proceeds from the proceeds of an offering of any Securities or certificates for mortgage bonds. This is absent.
*
The reason that it is absent is because the balance of the funds are pure profit to the Investment Bank. this is because of the second tier of a yield spread premium that is not widely understood in legal circles because in legal circles they mostly have no experience or knowledge of Finance. I do. As a former investment banker who actually practiced literally on Wall Street I understand exactly how this happened.
*
The investment bank has complete discretion as to what to do with the money that investors have paid them — something that never exists in the offering of securities to investors but does exist in so-called securitization plans. This is the holy grail for investment banks — issuing securities in the name of nonexistent entities. Instead of getting their normal fee of at most 15% of the proceeds, they get it all. 100%.
*
They issue certificates in the name of a trust that does not exist. The actual Trust Agreement (NOT THE PSA) corroborates this by stating that the trustee has only one function: to hold legal title to loan documents. The beneficiary is the Investment Bank.
*
And of course the role of a trustor or settlor is completely absent because there is nobody who has paid value in exchange for receiving a convenience of ownership of the underlying debt of any homeowner. *
So the Investment Bank, to simplify for this article, is promising to pay the investor at a rate which appears to the investor to be in excess of market rate but is far below the amount charged to homeowners. This strategy enables the Investment Bank to profit on several different levels.
  • first, the yield spread premium is the difference between the amount of money that needs to be paid to homeowners for issuance of what is labeled as loan documents, versus the amount of money the investment bank received from investors.
    • So if an investor paid $1,000 expecting a 5% return, the investor was expecting $50 per year.
    • But the Investment Bank funded a loan at 7.5%.
    • This means that in order to satisfy what they had to pay to the $1,000 investor they only needed to to pay the homeowner around $666 leaving a $334 pure untaxed profit.
    • Right there for every $1 they paid the owner the investment bank received $0.50.
    • In addition, by placing themselves in the position of Master servicer, they were the ultimate recipient of payments received from homeowners which in many cases exceeded any planned payments to investors.
    • NOTE THAT THIS IS WHY SUBSERVICERS LIKE OCWEN ET AL REFUSE TO TELL YOU WHERE PAYMENTS FROM HOMEOWNERS ARE SENT. FIRST THEY DON’T ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE MONEY AND SECOND THE MONEY IS NOT BEING SENT TO THE CLAIMANT IN FORECLOSURE, CORROBORATING THE DEFENSE NARRATIVE THAT THE NAMED PLAINTIFF OR BENEFICIARY IS NOT THE PROPER CLAIMANT NOR DOES IT POSSESS ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER.
*
The fourth aspect is that under current systems and processes that are generally accepted on Wall Street, most Investments are held in street name. Investors do not receive any written document like a stock certificate or a bond when they buy it. Holding a security in street name means that for all practical purposes the Securities firm owns it for the benefit of an investor. THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP THE INVESTOR GETS IS A STATEMENT FROM THE SECURITIES FIRM IN WHOSE NAME THE SECURITY IS REGISTERED.
*

And while it is true that the law says that an investor is the beneficiary of an arrangement wherein the securities firm holds title in trust for the investor, there’s nothing to stop the Securities firm from trading on the existence of the certificate as if it were their own. This Is how they are able to obtain insurance contracts and hedge contracts that are payable to the investment bank rather than the investors who put up the money.

*
Note that this sleight of hand maneuver lies at the center of what is falsely labelled as the securitization of residential mortgage debt. The designation of a competing bank to serve as trustee of a nonexistent trust gives the scheme an institutional appearance, which in turn causes lawyers and judges, who know nothing of finance, to assume that they are dealing with an institution versus a lowly homeowner.
*
They further assume that XYZ law firm represents U.S. Bank as trustee blah blah blah. But U.S. Bank has no retainer agreement with XYZ law firm and never heard of them. U.S. bank neither directs the lawyers nor will it allow its name to be used on any settlement or modification agreement that in the ordinary course of business would be legally signed by U.S. Bank. Any insistence that U.S. Bank sign, even though it is named as beneficiary or Plaintiff, is simply a deal killer.
*
And don’t forget that U.S. Bank is not a trustee. That is another label used to misdirect homeowners, lawyers and judges. A trustee is someone who actively manages the active affairs of trust property. there is no trust property. There is no trust business. ANd the party named as “trustee” doesn’t even have the power to inquire as to any matter that might be called the business, assets, liabilities, income or expenses of the so-called trust.
*
By naming U.S. Bank as the legal title owner for the benefit of the investment bank they are saying nothing. U.S. Bank did not receive legal title to anything. In order to get legal title it had to be the recipient of a conveyance. That is where the banks want the court to stop. But the conveyance, under all current law going back centuries can ONLY be issued by one who possesses rights to the asset conveyed to the trustee to hold in trust for the beneficiary of the trust.
*
Note also that investors are not and never have been beneficiaries and that claims or arguments or implications that they are somehow, as creditors, represented by a nonexistent trust or nonexistent trustee are preposterous.
*
In fact, there is no claimant, the foreclosure mill has no client that is in litigation and the named Plaintiff usually does not exist.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

It’s time to reassess the role of investment banks, originators, servicers and other players claiming “securitization” before the next foreclosure tidal wave.

Since foreclosures are about to start another meteoric rise, this would be a good time to write a new article on what went wrong the last time, what is going on now, and what is still likely to go wrong this time.
*
I know that some of the rantings on the internet seem like the spillage of conspiracy theorists and some of them are just that. But overall they are right.
*
The bottom line is that back in 1993, investment banks latched onto a scheme that had been partially developed by Michael Milken, who went to prison. The new scheme was patently illegal, which made it one step over the line that Milken actually didn’t cross. His junk bonds were perfectly legal. Drexel Burnham disclosed the real risks. But Michael had bigger plans. The plan was to raise the perception of junk bonds to investment grade.
*
But then he went to jail. But upon release he was immediately paid $50 million and then hundreds of millions more to help devise the scheme. His actual role is subject to conjecture.
*
The goal was to tap the largest market for debt in the world — home lending. It required all the major investment banks (Citi, Goldman, JPM, Credit Suisse) to “cooperate” (i.e., conspire).
*
They had to each support the “securitization” schemes of each other, entice other lesser investment banks into playing (Lehman, Bear Stearns) and then influence or buy off fund managers (pension funds) to purchase the junk bonds they were issuing as “Certificates.”
*
It as the “holy grail” of investment banking. Issuing trash securities as though it was for a third party issuer when in fact the issuer was the investment bank itself.
*
To justify the purchases by stable managed funds, the investment banks paid off and coerced the insurers into issuing insurance contracts and the rating agencies to issue highest quality ratings based upon false assumptions about diversification of risk. The error is simple: diversification is irrelevant if the entire group of loans is (a) not owned and (b) tainted by bad underwriting.
*
And the insurance contracts were payable not to the investors nor even for their benefit but rather for the profit of the investment bank who purchased it. The contracts were based upon index performance not actual losses.
*
The same is true for the bailouts that occurred. No losses were paid off because the parties receiving the benefits of insurance or bailout had no loss. See the evolution of the definition of TARP from something covering loan losses, to something covering losses on certificates issued by investment banks, to an undefined toxic asset category.
*
The now infamous AIG bailout was primarily for the benefit of Goldman Sachs. Having installed their former CEO as US Treasury Secretary, a very reluctant President Bush was convinced to bailout AIG on the false premise that the financial markets would collapse if he didn’t. But the proceeds went to Goldman Sachs as pure profit.
*
AIG took the money to pay off Goldman for its bet that the certificates would decline in value. The decline in value was based upon a contractual provision that gave Goldman the sole right in its sole discretion to declare the event. The money covered no losses because Goldman had no losses. It was pure profit. And when the money was received (around $50 billion from the bailout, bonuses, parties and lavish spending ensued.
*
Meanwhile the only two real parties to the scheme — investors and homeowners — were left out in the cold.
*
At the end of each securitization cycle, the goal was to avoid liability for violations of lending and securities laws. Avoiding lending laws was easy. They used sham entities to act as “originators” who served for a fee and who appeared on the note and mortgage as a lender.
*
Avoiding violations of securities was also easy. they disclosed enough to be able to say they told investors what they were doing, the investors were sophisticated and should have been able to ascertain the risks, and through leveraging the typical herd mentality on Wall Street they created a stampede in all securities brokerage firms to buy and sell the certificates. The world was hooked on a financial weapon of mass destruction.
*
Eliminating the liability of a lender in form and substance meant that the role of creditor or lender had to be eliminated. That was accomplished by actually eliminating the homeowner’s debt without notice to the homeowner. Hence the “boarding process” asserted in court is fake. There can be no boarding of a debt that does not exist and a history of payments on the nonexistent debt is irrelevant.
*
Each party other than the investor got paid in full. But the homeowner never received any notice of reduction due to receipt of payment because nobody maintained an accounting entry on any books of record that showed that the debt was owed or owned.
*
The debt could not be owned without a corresponding entry that showed value being paid for the debt. No such transaction had never occurred since the only actual value was paid by investors, who didn’t own the debt.
*
The investor never purchased any debt, note or mortgage. At the end of the day there was no person or entity that legally owned any debt, note or mortgage and therefore no lender or lender successor who could be liable for violations of Federal and State lending laws.
*
The scheme then required foreclosure on debts that had already been fully paid several times over. To do this the investment banks had to again resort to using sham entities who would fake their roles using fabricated, false, forged and backdated instruments literally manufactured out of thin air. Despite numerous settlements in all US jurisdictions for such practices, they continue unabated.
*
And the proceeds of foreclosure are ultimately received by the investment banks who pay out lavish compensation for the players who contributed to the foreclosure process. *
Since no loss is covered or paid or recorded on any books of account, the money is literally free money in which for tax purposes, is falsely reported as payment on loans. So the foreclosure proceeds are pure profit which is untaxed, at least up until this point in time. Investors never see a penny and homeowners are never the wiser that their debt does not exist anywhere.
*
In order to accomplish all this the banks needed to coordinate their activities. enter Black Knight who is literally a  successor to DOCX, which was acquired by Lender Processing Systems (LPS). Lorraine Browne took one for the team when she became the only person in the scheme to go to jail for fabrication of documents.
*
Somehow the courts continue to apply presumptions that are supposed to only raise from inherent credibility of documents that are patently false. This results in foreclosure on the erroneous assumption that even if the paperwork is somehow false or even fabricated the proceeds will find their way to the investors. That presumption is wrong.
*
Black Knight is the hub in which all things are centralized to prevent foreclosure of the same homeowner transaction by more than one entity — something that would expose the false nature of all of the foreclosures.
*
By getting a foreclosure judgment the investment banks succeeded in getting a legal stamp of approval on everything that had transpired before the foreclosure was initiated and the grounds on which they could report the proceeds as return of loan. Basically all fabricated false documentation emanates by or at the direction of Black Knight.
*
Judges of all stripes have always been curious about the muscle chairs strategy of presenting several servicers, plaintiffs and other parties. Maybe this time, with a little help from the press, they might be open to considering the fact that the investment banks are not saving the economy, they are stealing from investors and homeowners alike. And if they start asking for fake bailouts again they are stealing from the government and taxpayers. 

*
New foreclosure rocket dockets will emerge unless these practices are controlled or stopped. If the claimant is not the owner of the debt, present, existing, black letter law, does not allow foreclosure. In fact, enforcement of the note or separately, the debt, is not allowed unless the right to enforce comes from the owner of the debt. The law is clear, unless someone pays value, they can’t own the debt. Assignments of mortgage without the debt are a legal nullity.
*
To “save” the economy the only legal option available is to reassess the homeowner transaction using the equitable powers of the court. It might be true that the homeowner obligation can be enforced after such a reassessment — but only after the facts are all exposed and all stakeholders are brought to the table.
*
This would require that the court hear a properly filed pleading requesting equitable reformation of the contract to allow for maintaining the homeowner obligation because without that, the entire securitization infrastructure is in danger of collapse — even though nobody in the securitization infrastructure actually ever owns the debt or suffers a loss from nonpayment.
*
To make the homeowner obligation enforceable the court must allow a designee or nominee to pose as creditor. Further the court must adopt procedures that allow a party to act as the designator, even though neither the designee nor the designator own the debt and will suffer no loss from any payment or nonpayment by a homeowner. The current practice of allowing such designees to reap such rewards is  not legally sustainable and probably unjust and unfair.
*
The legal analysis requires a beginning point of analysis the contracting intent of the contracting parties. And that in turn requires an analysis of the identity of the contracting parties.
*
That analysis results in an indisputable truth: taken separately there was no meeting of the minds — because the homeowner wanted a loan and the investment bank , acting through the originator, wanted the issuance of securities — the note and mortgage — without anyone assuming the substantive role of a lender.
*
But taken together a contract can be fashioned in which the homeowner transaction can be treated as a loan contract and the absence of any creditor can be adjusted to insert a designee or creditor who can enforce. but ti do that, the entire contract must be taken into consideration.
*
If the homeowner was seeking an actual loan under lending laws but didn’t get it, what is the consideration for entering into a deal that was so profitable for the other contracting parties, whether they were stated or concealed?
*
If the answer is nothing, then the court must determine the proper amount of consideration that the homeowner should have received for being drafted into a risky securities scheme — a scheme in which his rights as a consumer, borrower or customer were virtually eviscerated by the substance of the deal.
*
The only other legal option is common law rescission. That will result in dismantling the entire securitization scheme.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Hawaii Supreme Court: Bond on Appeal Should be Based Upon Evidence of Potential Loss Pending Appeal, Not the Value of the Property.

Many thanks again to Attorney Gary Dubin for bringing this to my attention.

==

The current hodgepodge of decisions that I have always maintained were merely vehicles to discourage appeals is taken to task in this well-reasoned decision.

In Hawaii the rule is now no bond pending appeal or low bond pending appeal.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has merely applied principales that are already stated in all US jurisdictions and applied it to limit the discretion of the trial court or even an appellate court to set an arbitrary amount to stay the effect of an adverse judgement.

But this does not mean that a stay order will always be granted.

see Kelepolo Hawaii decision 2020-scwc-18-0000138

The reason that judges abuse their discretion in setting bond for appeals is that they have already made a decision and they don’t want it reversed. Reversals look bad on a judge’s record and too many reversals can impede their ambitions to be on higher courts or higher political office.

And up until now the court’s have been reluctant to intrude upon the wide discretion allowed to trial courts and appellate courts (either one can grant a stay and set bond).

Finally an element stated but rarely used as the basis for a decision on whether the lower courts based their discretion has been elevated to where it belongs, to wit: courts may not use high bond to discourage appeals.

Just because the property is worth $1 million does not mean that the bond should be set at $1 million — unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the entire value of the property will be lost pending appeal.

In a rising market it is perfectly acceptable to have no bond, particularly where bond causes undue hardship (like bankruptcy) on the appealing party.

While authoritative in Hawaii this case may be cited as persuasive and linked to the state specific decisions of every state in the U.S. It merely states the results of the doctrines already used in all states.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How to Use the Business Records Exception to Hearsay Rule to Keep Out “Servicer” Records in Foreclosure Cases

Fundamentally you must understand that the investment banks want you and everyone else to look only at the payments history — not the debt, who owns it and whether anyone suffered a loss resulting from any lack of payment by the homeowner.
*
Their strategy is to get the court to presume that in the absence of payments someone must have suffered a financial loss since the debt was clearly established in a transaction in which the homeowner received money and issued a note and mortgage. In the present securitization era that paradigm is wholly untrue but not obvious because the banks turned “lending” on its head. The homeowners took what they thought was a loan but the banks were not lenders and had no intention of becoming lenders.
*
The problem is that most homeowners believe the myth promulgated by the banks because they don’t understand what really happened in what the banks call “securitization.”
*
The truth is that nobody has suffered a financial loss from “nonpayment” by the homeowner.
*
Everyone has already been paid as to the principal obligation.
*
Collection efforts directed at the extinguished obligation are pure business strategy designed to increase already astonishing profits achieved through “Securitization” which like everything else is not in substance what the label conveys, to wit: the homeowner obligation was never sold to investors and therefore cannot be said to have been securitized. 
*

One of my most prolific contributors points out how Fannie Mae uses a company who to this day incredibly remains out of the limelight despite being the only company whose division president, Lorraine Brown, went to jail for falsifying documents. It wasn’t really her fault. There were no transactions that fit the mold required to have an enforceable claim in foreclosure. But the banks wanted the money anyway. So they invented the appearance of transactions even though nothing had happened in the real world.

*

It isn’t just Fannie Mae. Most homeowner transactions are established on LPSDesktop.

*

The banks, in their never ending quest to send us down rabbit holes only present the “servicers” and their “business records”.

They do that to (a) avoid the hearsay rule because someone comes in without knowledge and says he has knowledge that these records were created in the ordinary course of business and they were created at or near the time of the transactions — which is only partially true and (b) to avoid the pesky problem of presenting details about the transaction that could show that the debt and the role of the creditor were extinguished in the process they’re calling “Securitization.”

*
Practitioners would be wise to keep in mind two things:
*
(1) the “servicers” are not servicers in the sense that anyone thinks of a servicer. They do process payments from homeowners but they do not process anything else. — The “servicer” records do NOT show where payments were forwarded, which would identify and confirm that the claimant or Plaintiff in foreclosure is in fact the owner of the debt.
*
(2) the payment record from the “servicer” reflects only those payments received by that servicer (and perhaps an unaudited compilation of prior payments reported through LPS Desktop). The payment history might be admissible in evidence but only as to the record of payments, about which the practitioner should object for lack of foundation. — Without testimony or other evidence that (a) the debt was established as owned by a specific creditor anad (b) that the payment history is part of the records of the creditor, not just the servicer, the payment history should be excluded. 
*
(3) A subpoena issued to Black Knight fka Lender processing Systems, aka LPS, demanding records relating to the subject debt, note or mortgage will be met with a barrage of objections, which if properly litigated will probably result in a favorable decision for the homeowner.
*
(4) The object of litigation of foreclosure defenses is to show that the debt was removed from the chain. You accomplish this by relentlessly and aggressively pursuing the identity of the creditor. there isn’t one where any REMIC is involved.
*

(5) Without a creditor there can be no delegated authority to enforce, collect or even administer the loan. “Authority” does not exist in a vacuum. there must be a source of authority. And the source of authority must be someone who legally owns rights to the debt over which he can delegate, as owner, the rights to enforce. 

see Black KnightÕ latest innovation: LoanSphere supports entire loan lifecycle – HousingWire

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Coming this fall! A new wave of illegal foreclosure claims. Will we get it right this time?

Some have pointed to some articles indicating that the securitization ponzi scheme collapsed already.

It might be more accurate to say that the scheme was reorganized rather than collapsed. But even if it collapsed the Wall Street banks will continue sending servicers and foreclosure mills into the field to file foreclosures. After, all, it’s free money if they win, and there is so far, a statistical certainty that in nearly all cases they will win simply because of the erroneous belief by homeowners that they have done something wrong and that they have a moral obligation to leave the house, once they stop paying.

So homeowner will give their precious house to people who have no right to receive it.

*
We are a long way from when homeowners realize that they were flim flammed from the very start and that taking the substance of the homeowner transaction in total and in perspective, the homeowner (a) did not owe any money to anyone claiming it and (b) the homeowner was probably owed more money from the investment bank than he/she could possibly owe under the note and mortgage that was issued.
*
It wasn’t a loan and we should stop calling it that. The “lender” side had no lending intent. At the conclusion of the process there was no creditor holding the homeowner obligation as an asset. Therefore they were not lenders or even creditors and accordingly not liable or accountable to act in accordance with lending and servicing statutes.
*
The confusion emanates from the fact that all homeowners entered into the transaction with borrower intent. But there was no lending intent from the other side. The other side masked the real transaction as a loan to deceive the homeowner into accepting the label “borrower”.
*
The real transaction was payment to the homeowner for issuance of note and mortgage to start the securitization processes. It was in reality a simple commercial transaction, to wit: the investment bank, through intermediaries agrees to pay money to the homeowner in exchange for the homeowner issuing a note and mortgage and putting up their home as collateral for an obligation that offsets the payment received. It could have been a loan, but it wasn’t.
*
Because the banks lied about the transaction to the homeowner and to further make it look like a loan, they got the homeowner to issue a note and mortgage in most cases to an entity that never paid any money. This might negate the consideration for the transaction altogether because they were making a payment  but also getting a promise to pay even more to unknown creditors who would be illegally designated later. That part is a close question.
*
But in quantum meruit, quasi contract and reformation, the only legal way that their designation system could be made legal is by getting consent from the homeowner to that system of designation of a creditor to act as a lawful creditor even though it wasn’t. That was the real reason for MERS, the use of Originators and the offering of “modifications.” The players on paper are designees or nominees — not real players. They are using the language of the notes and mortgages to imply consent to a “no creditor” transaction.
*
But that is not informed consent or real consent, nor is it legal without other language of contract. A binding contract must have offer, acceptance, clear terms and consideration between the parties to the contract. In most cases the homeowner transactions were therefore not binding contracts. The Payee on the note was not a creditor. The doctrine of merger cannot apply when the payee is different from the source of funds unless there is a specific express contractual provision stating that. The mortgagee is usually a nominee which I think is a tacit admission that there is no creditor.
*
In order to foreclose, the party asking for foreclosure remedy must be a creditor. A creditor is only one who either (a) owns the debt or (b) represents someone who owns the debt. Ownership of the debt is only accomplished in one way — payment of value in exchange for an instrument conveying title to the debt from an owner of the debt to a new owner of the debt.
*
The ONLY time any value was paid was by investors. But they did not get any instrument of conveyance of the debt. Quite the contrary. The intent was to make certain that they would never be considered lenders. What they received was a discretionary promise from the investment bank dba REMIC trust to make payments that were partially indexed on but not dependent upon receipt of payments from homeowners.
*
It is therefore impossible for any transaction to have occurred wherein value was paid for ownership of the debt after the investors paid the investment bank. Even if someone wanted to pay value in exchange for an instrument of conveyance of ownership of the debt, there was nobody to pay.
*
The only party who paid value was the group of investors or arguably the investment bank. But neither of those entities had ever received any instrument of conveyance of ownership of the debt and in fact they disclaimed any such ownership because it would have made them lenders subject to TILA and other lending and servicing laws.
*
BUT in order to foreclose, the papers filed by the foreclosure mill would need to show that a creditor was applying for the remedy of forfeiture. See Article 9 §203 UCC. So that required assignments of mortgage to be prepared, executed and recorded even though there was no financial transaction between the parties. In short, the scheme required the preparation, execution and recording of false utterances in false documents that were forged and illegally recorded.
*
Since the homeowner has always assumed the homeowner transaction was a loan agreement, almost nobody has thought to credibly and properly challenge these assignments as legal nullities.
*
The credible challenge would be not only that there was no consideration paid for the assignment, but that the payment of consideration was not a commercially reasonable basis for the execution and recording of the instrument, since the only consideration came from parties who did not and do not want ownership of the debt.
*
The absence of any valid assignment is not just a fact; it is legally impossible under current securitizations schemes to have a valid legal assignment. The investment banks as intermediaries between investors and homeowners have structured the cash flow such that the investment banks get most of the benefits from the securitization process at the cost to and detriment of investors and homeowners — the only two real parties in interest in the homeowner transaction which is mistakenly called a “loan.”
*
The note, payable to a party with whom the homeowner unknowingly conducted no actual business, creates a liability under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code regardless of the lack of consideration. The maker of the note has defenses to be sure, but if someone buys the note for value, without knowledge of the maker’s defenses, and in good faith, then the maker must pay the note and the only remedy available to the maker is by making a claim against the Payee on the note and anyone else that induced him to execute a note in favor of someone who gave him/her nothing.
*
The foreclosure mills for claimants in foreclosure do not plead status as a holder in due course because they can’t prove the elements: payment, good faith and lack of knowledge of borrower’s defenses. But they induce both homeowners, their attorneys and the courts to treat the claimant as a holder in due course because of the complexity of legal analysis in distinguishing between an HDC, holder, possessor and anyone with rights to enforce.
*
As a result, because the position is not properly challenged, the court then often reduces or even eliminates discovery on the central issue — whether the claimant is a creditor of the homeowner.
*
The “rights to enforce” argument almost always leaves out the presumed component that is a condition precedent to any such analysis, to wit: that the creditor has authorized the enforcement. But if there is no creditor — i.e., anyone holding the debt as an asset — then such authority cannot legally exist.
*
This explains the appearance of false, fabricated, forged, backdated and robo signed documents that are still regularly used. Since there is no creditor the pursuit of foreclosure is a pursuit of profit rather than restitution for an unpaid debt. It is not recovery on a loan.
*
And if the transaction was unraveled from its complex appearance, it is plain as day that the homeowner is entitled to credits and probably payments from the investment bank under quantum meruit and quasi contract for being drafted into a highly profitable securitizations scheme that gave the homeowner nothing for initiating the scheme.
*
We are about to be besieged with new foreclosure claims. Let’s get it right this time. The “flood of litigation” argument for rocket dockets is not valid because it presumes that the claimant does have status as a creditor and that the foreclosure is for restitution of an unpaid debt.
*
Aggressive and persistent demands for identification of the claimant and for evidence of proof payment for value — along with thoughtful, credible and persuasive presentation might well result in prevention of a flood of foreclosures because there is no entity that actually stands to lose any money arising from the action or inaction of any homeowner.
*
They won’t plead injury because there is no injury. They can’t prove any injury. They can only induce the court to presume it based upon erroneous application of legal presumptions arising from the apparent facial validity of documents that are neither facially valid nor true representations of any transaction in the real world. 

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Has any homeowner transaction ever been sold to investors? No? Then why are we accepting the bank myth that it was securitized?

Bob gives me a mortgage and I sign a note for $300k. Bob assigns the mortgage and note to Steve in exchange for “certificates / securities.” Bob retains the note and pledges to Jim in a collateral assignment to raise money to fund more loans. (i.e. WaMu and the Federal Home Loan Banks). I stop paying and soon Steve declares a default and tries to foreclose. My defense is that Steve doesn’t have the note, never took the note, and the note was collaterally assigned elsewhere before Steve filed the foreclosure action. If so, we can make that same defensive argument in every case it would seem.

No that is not a good defense. Your defense should be centered on who owns the debt. And only someone who has paid value for the debt can own it. If someone pays value in exchange for ownership of either the note or mortgage, then it is presumed that they own the debt — and it would be very hard to rebut that presumption.

So if someone pays money without getting or being entitled to a document that transfers the ownership of the debt from the current owner to the new owner, they have not acquired the debt.

Similarly, if someone has not paid value for the debt or note and they do get such a conveyance of ownership of the debt, even from one who is the owner of the debt, they too don’t own the debt. And a non-owner of the debt cannot issue any rights or instructions regarding the debt without deriving authority from an owner of the debt who paid for it.

*

The transaction between Bob and Steve was a sale. Steve paid value unless the certificates or securities he used as payment were known to be worthless at the time of the sale. The fact that Bob retained possession of the note does not change the analysis. When Steve seeks to enforce the note he either has to get Bob to produce it or if he can’t, then he needs to plead a lost note. The transaction that you have used as an example does not convert the note to a security.

*
Steve also has the option of suing Bob in the event that Bob is reluctant to turn out for possession of the note. but in all events Steve can show that he bought the note, which means that he bought the debt, and therefore is probably a holder in due course or at least a holder with rights to enforce as the owner of the debt.
*
But the analysis does change if the example is changed slightly. If Bob was loaning you money because Steve was contemporaneously taking Bob out of the loan, then in substance the conduct of the parties shows that Steve was the actual lender and that Bob was simply an intermediary. This is the essence of a table funded loan which is against public policy as set forth in the Truth in Lending Act.
*
So if Steve did not take possession of the note because Steve did not want to be accountable or liable for violations of lending laws as a lender, there is a case to be made that the nature of the transaction shifted. And if Steve gave Bob the money to lend to you because Steve was contemporaneously divesting himself from any risk of loss on the loan, then the argument would go one of two ways.
*
Either the next person in the chain acquired ownership interest in the debt and note — or if Steve was merely selling derivatives whose value was indexed on the performance of your loan, then then the debt and note probably lost a creditor who could legally claim rights to enforce. As I see it, this would definitely be true if nobody in the chain was carrying the debt and note as an asset after Steve made his sale of derivatives.
*
But I don’t think that under Securities analysis, the latter example would result in finding that the note had been converted to a security. It’s hard to see any analysis that would support that conclusion. If nobody was paying for legal ownership of the note then how would the note be converted?
*
Of course that could be one possibility that would preserve the securitization infrastructure. And maybe if the courts catch the Wall Street banks with their hands in the cookie jar, the banks themselves might push that idea.
*
Given the political climate that allows Wall Street to make up its own rules, that might happen, leaving both investors and homeowners out in the cold. That is why I’m starting to push Reformation as the better alternative which takes all stakeholders into account.

What is Real in “Securitization”?

The first thing to remember about securitization is that it isn’t real. No Investor ever bought any debt, note or mortgage on residential property. That makes all the documents used in foreclosure of “securitized” loans totally fake. And that is why there was a 50 state settlement and hundreds of other settlements with regulators, attorneys general and investors.

What was left out of all those settlements was any means by which illegal foreclosures could be stopped and any credits earned by homeowners or any credit which reduced the amount owed by the homeowners. As it turns out — nothing ever reduces the homeowner’s debt. Not even payment. Not even foreclosure. 

This could only be true if there was no account on any books of account in which the homeowner’s debt was held as  an asset. You cannot reduce what isn’t there. So failure to credit the nonexistent account is somehow treated as a completely legal event. think about it.

There is nothing wrong about hypothecating an asset in service of a financial transaction. As Wall Street has shown us anything could be an asset and therefore subject to a legal transaction. what they didn’t show us is that there was no legal transaction, which means nobody paid money except at the front end. And those who paid — the investors — didn’t buy any debt, note or mortgage.

*
If I issue a note to someone who actually did give me money as a loan, and he asks me for collateral, I can conditionally assign my rights to a mortgage I actually own because someone issued me a note and secured it with a mortgage. How “conditional” is the assignment? That depends upon state law and the contents of the assignment.
*
And in turn the Payee on the note I issued now has an asset upon which he can borrow. etc. The asset is the receivable from me that he has on his books which got there because he paid out money. So he debited CASH and Credited ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. Classic double entry bookkeeping.
*
The ONLY question is whether the paperwork is a memorialization of actual events in the real world or if the paperwork is merely an attempt to create fake facts, an illusion that supports the designee of a non creditor to foreclose on property.
*
If all the events are real then the law allows it and recognizes it and enforces it. But that enforceability under current law stops at the door of paperwork that does not memorialize an actual financial event in the real world.
*
People think that it isn’t so simple. But it is. People say that there would be no foreclosures if I was right. But it is they who are wrong because they don’t understand legal procedure and the banks not only understand it, they were also responsible for writing it.
*
So by codifying into law the proposition that the holder of a note is presumed to own the debt until rebutted, they have thus created a vehicle for deceit because judges are not presented with evidence in rebuttal. The truth is that the claimants are not even “holders”. And dig a little deeper they are not even possessors because the original note was destroyed.
*
And because judges are sloppy people just like the rest of us, they will often treat a non creditor claiming to possess a note as a holder in due course — thus denying homeowner attempts at discovery. All without any allegation of HDC status or any evidence that the claimant is a party who paid value in good faith without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Why Reformation Makes Sense as a Response to Illegal Claims of Servicing, Collection or Enforcement of Homeowner Mortgage Obligations

In the world of pretend REMICs, there can be no debate that investors who buy “certificates” are unsecured creditors of the investment banks and that investment banks are not legally creditors of homeowners. So why are we allowing investment banks to administer, collect and enforce homeowner obligations?

This has been my point from the beginning in 2006 when I started writing and appearing on TV and Radio. The “Securitization” never happened. Investors became unsecured creditors of the investment bank (IB) not secured creditors of homeowners. In turn the investment bank also wanted to avoid accountability and liability as lender so the IB never accepted any legal document saying that it had paid for and it owned the underlying homeowner obligation.

But for purposes of enforcement through foreclosure the IB designates a non-creditor to initiate foreclosure proceedings. There is no basis in law for this behavior and it is both illegal and inequitable for this conduct to be allowed.

  • The claim that  the action is brought on behalf of  or for the benefit of investors who own certificates is false.
  • The implied assertion that whatever deficiencies exist in the presentation of parties and documents in foreclosures, the granting of a foreclosure will result in payment to a creditor who would otherwise have suffered a loss is also false.
*
That leaves nobody to own the debt. Under current law, absent a contract that says otherwise, nobody can administer, collect or enforce a debt without owning it or representing someone who owns it. Since nobody owns it nobody satisfied that condition precedent as set forth in Article 9 §203 UCC.
*
In the absence of a creditor the obligation can only be enforced by a designee or nominee that is accepted by the debtor.
*
It will take a court decision to decree that since there is no alternative remedy at law, the homeowner is consenting to the designation of a party to enforce who then becomes the lender for purposes of accountability or liability under lending and servicing laws.

*
There is no contract that says otherwise  unless and until a court declares it under the rules of reformation, quasi contract and quantum meruit.
*
So in all homeowner transactions arising within the scope of claimed securitization, homeowners lost their access to any party who claimed to be a lender or creditor except the originator who was not lending any money and who was in most cases thinly capitalized such that penalties for lending and servicing violations would simply result in bankruptcy and no relief to homeowners. 

*
And in the underwriting process, despite the obvious and expressly stated requirements of law no lender was left who had any stake or risk of loss in ensuring the validity of the appraisal or the viability of the loan.
*
They might call it a loan transaction, but it wasn’t. It was deceitful process for obtaining the homeowner’s participation in a highly profitable securitization scheme. A scheme where the profits were neither disclosed as to existence or amount and that withheld consideration from the homeowner for his/her participation.
*
As such the apparent “loan agreement” was simply a cover and a vehicle for concealment of the true nature of the transaction with the homeowner.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How to Use the Real Deal On Securitization to Homeowner’s Advantage

Like citizenship in this country litigation is not easy. We keep banging our heads against the same wall expecting a different result. We need a strategy that directly addresses the inescapable realities of every homeowner transaction and every securitization cycle.

My substantive analysis of the transaction is that the homeowner was drafted into a securitization scheme which in my opinion clearly triggers quasi contract and quantum meruit — the only possibility for inquiring into the adequacy of consideration. Lawyers and litigants have shied away from this because of its complexity and because they don’t know how to approach it.
*
In simple terms the homeowner transaction was a “”Qualified Financial Contract” (QFC), part of which contained some apparent attributes of a loan, but which went much further and diverged extensively from a “loan” as the term is currently used in custom and practice in the financial industry and society in general.
*
The QFC is not some invented term for this article. it is defined in all securitization documents. Investment banks knew they were not creating a loan. The job of litigants and their attorneys is to point out and argue that the documents submitted as a foundation for their claim of legal standing contains language that opens the door to quasi contract and quantum meruit. 
*
In logistical terms, the homeowner delivered the only service the investment bank was seeking, to wit: issuance of the note and mortgage. Neither the investment bank nor the originator designee of the investment bank was at all interested in making a loan, collecting revenue from repayment nor assuming any meaningful risk of loss.
*
Although the homeowner entered the transaction desiring a loan he/she didn’t receive a loan. If there is no legally responsible lender or creditor at the conclusion of that transaction, it isn’t a loan.
*
And since too many bona fide third party transactions have occurred to rescind or unwind the transaction the only possibility remaining is to have a court reframe the agreement to include the basis upon which the investment bank entered into the transaction — i.e., the creation, issuance, selling, trading and hedging of unregulated securities.
*
We know the investment bank had no intention of becoming a lender and that there was no intention to make investors lenders.
*
And we know that the investment banks funded the origination or acquisition of the loan through originators and aggregators.
*
Further we know that investors paid value for the certificates which excluded any right, title or interest in any debt, note or mortgage.
*
The result, obviously intended, is that while parties were paying value, none of them ever received a conveyance of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
And we can easily see that anyone who received such a conveyance (a) did not pay value and (b) was not acting as an authorized agent or representative of anyone who paid value in exchange for a conveyance of an ownership interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage.
*
It was partly a scheme for avoidance or evasion of lending and securities laws.
*
The reason for this is blatantly stated in all of the promotional material for sale of certificates, to wit: no liability for violation of lending or servicing laws using “bankruptcy remote” vehicles  for origination and acquisition of homeowner obligations.
*
And scratch the surface and you discover that the only thing that makes the transactions bankruptcy remote is that the underlying obligation, note and mortgage are not included in the schedules of bankruptcy because they were never owned by the originator or aggregator.
*
The problem for the last 20 years has been that nobody has been asking the obvious question: “if they don’t own the loan, then who does?” Or at least nobody has followed up on that question in which they truly persisted in aground war to get the answer.
*
So any such conveyance was either a legal nullity (mortgage assignment) or did not carry the right to enforce (note). If the conveyance didn’t include the obligation there are very specific rules that apply.
*
Authority to enforce the note can only come from one who is entitled to enforce. And the premier person who has the right to enforce is owner of the underlying debt that the note is supposed to memorialize. Under the laws of all jurisdictions nobody gets to own the obligation without paying value.
*
This seems to be challenging not only for the courts but for defense lawyers. It is a very simple logical progression. In the end enforcement of the note is intended to pay the debt. If it doesn’t pay the debt the maker of the note is subject to multiple liabilities for the same transaction. And that is what happened. Since the originator did not substantively fund the homeowner transaction the issuing of the note and mortgage in favor of the originator was a legal nullity. The issuance of the note created a new liability that was not merged with the underlying obligation to repay the money, if any, that was received or paid on behalf of the homeowner.
*
So the reason I mention all of this is that I have somewhat reluctantly but persistently arrived at the conclusion that the homeowner transaction was not a loan and yet the obligation to make payment survives even in quasi contract or quantum meruit.
*
This is an unavoidable conclusion because we know that where money was funded to the homeowner or on his/her behalf and where the homeowner issued a promise to pay money, the obligation to pay arises and can be secured by a lien (mortgage or deed of trust) which in fact is enforceable.
*
But note that since there is no lender or creditor at the conclusion of the securitization cycle, the intent of the homeowner is thwarted — i.e., he/she does not have a loan agreement. It is something else. And that is where quasi contract and  quantum meruit come into play.
*
The homeowner could have bargained away reasonable compensation or consideration for his/her role in initiating the only documents that made securitization claims possible — i.e., the note and mortgage.
*
Our legal system is not designed to correct stupid mistakes in bargaining or negotiation in transactions or agreements.
*
Our system is designed to enforce the intent of the parties. So we can’t get away from the intent to create an obligation and the intent to have that obligation enforceable and memorialized by a note and mortgage. In fact, I propose we should embrace it.
*
The reason is that the intent to create the enforceable homeowner obligation was not the only intent operating. Since the securitizations cheme — and the homeowner’s vital role in it — was not disclosed (actually actively concealed), the homeowner did not, could not and never did bargain away rights to compensation or consideration for his role and risks in this dangerous risky transaction.
*
Thus we enter the realm of quasi contract and quantum meruit. 
*
So now the question is how much consideration  did the homeowner actually receive for issuance of the note and mortgage? Since it wasn’t a loan, even though that was what was intended by the homeowner, the receipt of money must be categorized as payment of consideration. And that is a lot of consideration by any standard.
*
But now the issuance of the note and mortgage becomes a service rather than the result of an underlying obligation to repay.
*
So the consideration of the receipt of benefit from the funding of the homeowner transaction is entirely offset by a promise to pay more than the consideration received in the form of money paid to the homeowner. That might still result in a court finding some consideration, since the money on the front end might not be found by a court to exactly equal the money promised on the back end.
*
On the other hand there is good reason to find that the consideration for issuance of the documents required to start securitization claims, securities, selling trading and hedging was entirely negated by the concurrent promise to pay more than the money received. But assuming there was a finding of consideration, was it enough?
*
In a court of equity wherein rescission is no longer an option the court must determine what a reasonable homeowner would have bargained for or received through the process of free market forces if disclosure had actually been made regarding the securitizations scheme and the vast profits and revenue generated under the scheme.
*
The court would hear testimony from a variety of experts and reach a conclusion as to whether the homeowner had received enough consideration or if the homeowner should have received more as per the quasi contract and not just what was presented as a loan agreement.
*
The range of possibilities is nearly infinite. From zero to a majority of the pot because the investment bank secretly tricked the homeowner into a dangerous transaction, the risks of which were unknown to the homeowner. Using the shadow banking marketplace (i.e., where all derivatives are traded for nominal value) as the external reference point for heuristic projection, it may be fairly assumed that the average revenue generated from each securitization cycle was $12 for each $1 transacted with homeowners. Additional securities analysis reveals that the figure could be much higher.
*
In a free marketplace where there was no asymmetry of information the fair question could be posed as follows: from the investment bank’s perspective they would be saying that they are going to make $12 on each $1 during the securitization cycle, perhaps more.
*
The homeowner and investor sitting at the same fictional but still legal table would inevitably concede that for inventing and managing such an ingenious scheme the investment bank might be entitled to the lion’s share of the profit.
*
The investors would say their role as investors is critical to the existence and success of the securitization cycle. And since capital is valued more highly than labor they would claim a greater share than that awarded to homeowners. Homeowners would make the same argument as investors — without them there is no securitization and there are no revenues and there are no transactions claimed as “loans.”
*
So looking at the customs and practices of the financial industry the investors would probably initially claim 40% as angels and the homeowners could justify a claim of around half that amount for their indispensable role.
*
Or one could look at the money actually spent (commissions, bonuses etc) on getting homeowners to execute the required note and mortgage while concealing the truth about the transaction as a measure of what the homeowners should get. Or a license or royalty arrangement might be adopted.
*
All of them in my opinion average around 15%-20% of the total revenue generated by the scheme. this would leave the investment bank with 40% or more of the securitization cycle revenue which is around 1000% of normal revenues for underwriting and sale of debt securities.
*
So the court would offset the obligation with whatever it decided was reasonable consideration for the homeowner. It would either order payment to the homeowner of any excess consideration due or order the homeowner to pay the balance of the obligation after offset for the consideration due. And if the homeowner still owed money both the note and mortgage would be enforceable.
*
But here is the rub. None of this is possible without creating a contract by decree in which it is possible to designate a party who is not a creditor to act as a creditor — in a transaction to which the homeowner agrees that for all purposes the designee will be a creditor. And that creditor is subject to lending and servicing laws. This is essential because under current law only the owner of the debt can enforce the mortgage and only someone representing the owner of the debt can enforce the note unless they are a holder of the note in due course — which means they purchased it for value in good faith and without knowledge of the  maker’s defenses. 
*
So it becomes necessary to plead for this attribute to be made part of the newly minted agreement because without it, you don’t have an enforceable agreement  Without an enforceable agreement you’re left pleading for damages under RICO, wrongful foreclosure, etc. And while the note and mortgage might not be subject to enforcement, they still exist. No lender or buyer will complete a transaction with that hanging over the deal.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Are Lawyers Missing the Boat Again on Foreclosure Defense?

The problem is that while most people think everyone has been bought off, and to a certain extent that is true, the real problem is that the clever plan of securitization is so counter-intuitive that nobody believes the truth that is in plain sight. The reason for fabricated documents is that there were no transactions, so the documents had to be fabricated to fit facially with the requirements of law for administration, collection and enforcement.
To anyone who is not conversant in the language of finance, that seems impossible, unlikely, or just plain wrong. So rather than keeping an open mind about it, they react to such assertions with aggression and incredulity.

I recently received a question from a fairly knowledgeable reader. Why are lawyers dropping the ball on foreclosure defense? His specific question, along with similar questions from other readers is where are the trust lawyers, the securities lawyers, the property lawyers, the civil litigations lawyers, the personal injury lawyers (emotional distress etc), etc.?

Here was my answer with some edits for typos which all of you know I am prone to make and miss on edits.

*
The question you posed is the million-dollar question. I think you are correct in your analysis. I have attempted to enlist attorneys who specialize in those areas but I have failed.
*
The only explanation that I can give you that has any truth to it is that lawyers, despite their reputation, are easily intimidated, lazy and greedy. I surveyed hundreds of lawyers over a two-year period In 2008–2009.
*
The proposition was simple. assuming a client with sufficient financial resources to pay any reasonable fee, were they willing to represent homeowners in distress?
*
The fact that the answer was in the negative was frustrating enough. But the reason most often cited was that they would rather represent “the bank.” And when I pointed out that they did not represent any banks nor did they have any prospects for doing so, that’s when they said that it didn’t matter.
*
Some did express reservation about the assumption that the client could pay. I pointed it out that if they were not making a monthly payment for housing, they could easily pay. That made no difference. They saw the entire endeavor as futile and unprofitable — but in reality I could tell, like any trial lawyer could detect, that I was dealing with raw unbridled fear.
*
So I attacked it with seminars on foreclosure defense that highlighted business strategies in which the lawyer could become rich, and some of the attendees did. Others made a good living.
*
But it was based on lowering of expectations. By adopting a hub-and-spoke strategy some lawyers, adopting the business plan that I proposed, began servicing hundreds of homeowners at a time. But like all such practices, their business success depended upon settlement of the cases, which meant modifications. This resulted in adding to the illusion that the servicer had any right to be in the picture.
*
My latest plan is that I am working on potential pleadings for a case in Reformation in which the investment banks are literally drafted into the litigation. The Court decides whether the homeowner received consideration for issuing the documents (note and mortgage) that enabled the securitization plan, and whether the homeowner received or should receive adequate or additional consideration that could offset the claim. (There is a lot more to this but for purposes of this article I simply state in brief form).
*
I have no doubt that there is an opportunity to achieve immense wealth simply by pursuing the obvious. But it appears that the General Public, law enforcement, the Judiciary, and most lawyers have succumbed to the party line that enables the Investment Bank to sit in the shadows and designate names of irrelevant parties with no stake and the outcome to administer, collect and enforce obligations that were long ago retired through securitization, proof of which is easy to obtain, to wit: is there any company showing the existence of the debt as an asset on their balance sheet and a loss from nonpayment? 
*
I definitely know the answer to that question. Current law therefore does not allow the current scheme of securitization to exist nor should it. It depends entirely upon concealment of the most relevant data in any transaction — the terms and conditions under which each party intends to serve the other and the terms and conditions under which each party might profit from the transaction.
*
Most of all under the federal and state lending and securities laws (and general laws requiring fair dealing) the identity of the counterparty must be included in order to make the agreement an enforceable contract.
*
This concealment allows investment banks to act illegally and against the idea of free markets or capitalism. It prevents both investors and homeowners from bargaining for adequate consideration based upon the true nature of the transaction. 
*
The problem is that while most people think everyone has been bought off, and to a certain extent that is true, the real problem is that the clever plan of securitization is so counter-intuitive that nobody believes the truth that is in plain sight. The reason for fabricated documents is that there were no transactions, so the documents had to be fabricated to fit facially with the requirements of law for administration, collection and enforcement.
*
To anyone who is not conversant in the language of finance, that seems impossible, unlikely, or just plain wrong. So rather than keeping an open mind about it, they react to such assertions with aggression and incredulity.
*
Some lawyers do get it and they win their cases most of the time. Everyone else seems to argue for their own weaknesses (See Steven Covey’s Book) without looking to actual information or data. They insist that the foreclosure cases are both unwinnable and are morally unconscionable if they give the homeowner a free house.
*
I insist that there is no debt because the investment bank was never depending upon the economics of a loan to make money. Foreclosures are gravy. They made all their money creating, selling, issuing, trading, and hedging securities. The labelling of the homeowner transaction as a loan was a false representation. The investment bank, who never appeared on any of the paperwork, was the real party in interest and at the end of the day there was no person or company who owned the so-called debt from the homeowner. 
*
If that plan had been disclosed — as it was required to be disclosed under both “lending” laws and “securities” laws — both investors and homeowners would have had the opportunity to bargain for more more compensation and better terms — because they would have known they were taking a much larger risk than the one that was actually presented.
*
Indeed, investors that were pension or other types of “stable managed funds” would not have been able to invest at all had they known the true nature of the certificate scheme into which they they were investing the futures of workers and companies that had contributed to the fund.
*
Such funds, as investors, were critical to the success of the securitization scheme. Investment banks would have been legally required to present additional safeguards to the fund managers such as participation in the trading profits, hedge contracts and insurance contracts in order to make the sale of certificates to stable managed fund investors. 
The same logic holds true for homeowners.
*
They were making the largest investments of their lives based upon their reasonable belief that the apprasial was real and the loan was viable — all resposnibilities imposed on the “lender” by law (see TILA).
*
Had they known the true incentives and motives and existence of the investment bank they would have understood that this was no loan. It was a service they were performing and an investment — for which they were being paid to issue documents that required them to pay money over time in order to enable the securitization scheme.
*
If the true profits of the securitization scheme were disclosed as as required by law, homeowners and originators would have been able to compete for a greater share of the securitization pie or they would have had the opportunity to choose not to do business in such a hazy scheme. 
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

PennyMac and Other Companies are Making False Claims as “Servicers”: Black Knight, the king of fabricated documents is behind 62% of all “servicing records.”

The bottom line is that companies claiming to be servicers are not servicers although they perform some servicing functions as “clients” of Black Knight.

This provides a veil of plausible deniability for lying in court about testimony and documents. Hiding behind litigation immunity foreclosures are being pursued and granted resulting in windfall payments to intermediaries who never had any stake in the financial stake of any homeowner transaction. 

Examination of the facts shows that the “boarding process” is nonsense i.e., a lie). “New Servicers” simply log on to the Black Knight system. There is no boarding required. It is a total lie to fool courts into believing that the records were tested when they were not. 

Black Knight is not mentioned in part because of its prior record of criminal conduct. That record gives rise to inferences of lack of credibility or questions or credibility — either one of which is enough to prevent the employment of legal presumptions arising from what appear to be facially valid documentation. Without those presumptions there is no case because none of the claimants can offer proof of transactions in which actual ownership and control over the underyling obligation can be established. 

There is nothing like an admission that can change the course of thinking by a judge, lawyer, homeowner or law maker. Except for one thing: when the party not only admits the truth of the matter asserted but affirmatively alleges it in a lawsuit against someone else.

Exhibit A, brought to my attention by multiple sources and contributors to my blog. It is a lawsuit by someone who professes to have no connection with the alleged “servicing” of any transactions that are referred to as residential mortgage loans. It is never named in any lawsuit as a servicer. It does not show up in court as the source of servicing records. It does not send any robowitness to court to say that he/she is familiar with the books and records of this company. And yet, here is Black Knight, formerly Lender Processing Services and DOCX infamy (Lorraine Brown, President went to jail).

In a lawsuit against PennyMac, Black Knight asserts that PennyMac infringed upon its proprietary system that supplies the servicing records for 62% of all “servicing” performed in the U.S., — and that means that in 62% of all foreclosures, the companies that were proffered as servicers were not the servicers or at least did not perform all servicing functions — especially, as you read the complaint, as to payment histories and relevant documents for foreclosure.

So we have the only company that was ever caught red handed with fabricating, falsifying, recording, forging, robosigning false transaction documents. They changed their name but not their business model. Their business model is being the central repository of all the data that is created, stored, and manipulated with respect to 62% of all alleged “loans.”

That makes Ocwen and other loan servicers liars. And I have successfully pointed that out in trial. When you look at the copies submitted to qualify for an exception to the hearsay rule as a “business record” you can see that this did not come off of any particular system. And upon questioning of the witness they will profess ignorance as to the location of the server on which documents and records are created, maintained and manipulated.

No document is ever produced showing that Black Knight was named as servicer for any trust. That is because the trust has nothing and Black Knight is not working for nothing. Black Knight is working for investment banks who are the prime and only drivers of all trading, administration, collection and enforcing of contracts relating to securities and homeowner transactions. The transaction data (38%) not controlled by Black Knight is primarily controlled by a Chase controlled entity in the same way.

So the bottom line is that when the servicer representative comes into court to testify as to the foundation of the payment history, there are two things to remember for cross examination.

First, the copies he/she is attesting to are not from any system owned or controlled by his company and are not the records of the trustee or trust of any REMIC Trust.

Second those records are always missing any references to what goes out. Without entries showing disbursements to creditors, the records are incomplete. Without records showing establishment of the debt as an asset of some creditor, the records are incomplete. And THAT is what undermines the foundation for the admission of the records and can lead to objection and a motion to strike the exhibit during trial.

Failure to object and failure to attack in this way leads inevitably to a finding that the documents are real and that the information is true which then proves a default because the payment history says so.

But it doesn’t prove a default and the litigator must be able to show that. A default is established ONLY when proof of ownership of the asset (Loan) is established in the name of the claimant or Plaintiff. This never happens because there is no creditor showing the loan as an asset on its financial statements.

In current securitization practices, there is no creditor that actually claims ownership under generally accepted accounting principles that require a financial transaction (payment) in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt as a required by Article 9 §203 UCC as adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions. And if they are not creditors then they can’t be considered lenders and therefore can claim that lender liability does not attach to them. 

And without any officer of the trustee or trust testifying that those are there records of test rust, the copies preferred by the foreclosure mill and the robowitness are just props and not evidence and do not qualify as exceptions as business records. Accordingly they are barred by the hearsay rule which stands in the way of any evidence that lacks credibility.

Black Knight vs PennyMac Lawsuit

So why am I saying all this?

Here are some quotes from a complaint filed by high end lawyers representing Black Knight against PennyMac who they say falsely and illegally used the Black Knight systems, namely MSP© and Navigator©. Here is what Black Knight says, which corroborates, word for word what I have been saying for 14 years:

“Black Knight’s proprietary MSP® System, including its interdependent NavigatorTM electronic reference and procedural library, is the mortgage industry’s leading mortgage servicing software [e.s.] package. The result of years of research, complex coding, and continuous improvement, the MSP® System is used to service over 62% of the first lien mortgage loans in the United States, providing its users – the country’s largest and most successful lending institutions – with the ability to manage their portfolios in compliance with a broad set of laws and regulations. Black Knight protects its proprietary system through secrecy, and users of the MSP® System are granted access only under strict nondisclosure agreements with individual access controls.”

Now to be sure, they will claim that they are only providing software that “servicers” use. But that is not the way it actually happens. Black Knight owns, operates, maintains all servers with an iron hand as directed by the investment banks who like Black Knight want to be out of sight and therefore out of mind of any court.

The facts that every litigator should know is that the two parties who are not mentioned — the investment bank who started ands till controls the securitization scheme and Black Knight who is the central repository for all data to make sure that there is no public competition for claiming the same loan, are the only ones that actually out as real parties real witnesses.

So then we come to the fact that claims of servicing by PennyMac are completely false. If you read carefully and make appropriate inquiries one fact stands out: PennyMac is acting under Black Knight. PennyMac may get to make certain entries which in turn are tested by Black Knight and PennyMac may get to print out copies of reports that are produced by certain algorithms at Black Knight but PennyMac has no role in creation or maintenance of business records on Black Knight, who in turn does not do anything for trusts because it has no contracts with trusts. it has contracts with investment banks.

Notice how they are keeping the agreement between PennyMac and Black Knight a secret. Also note that the agreement names Fidelity Information Services, Inc. an Arkansas corporation as the principal and PennyMac is referred to as “client”.

“Pursuant to that certain Master Agreement entered into as of April 30, 2008, together with any addenda thereto (the “Master Agreement”), PennyMac became a registered user of the MSP® System and was granted a limited right to access and use the MSP® System in order to process PennyMac mortgage transactions.[e.s.] The Master Agreement includes clear and comprehensive restrictions against misuse of the MSP® System and associated confidential materials. Due to a confidentiality requirement in the Master Agreement, as well as the volume of documents, Black Knight attaches hereto as Exhibit “A” the cover page of the Master Agreement. A complete copy of the Master Agreement is in the possession of PennyMac, but a duplicate copy will be provided upon request.”

So the lawsuit is couched as a copyright infringement case. But the real purpose is that of the investment banks — to prevent the decentralization of data records that could reveal the fact that loans were sold multiple times in multiple ways. Of course there is also the monopolistic position that Black Knight enjoyed and wanted to protect. But without the support of the investment banks it would never have filed this lawsuit,.

“The MSP® System is made of a number of interdependent “modules,” with each performing a different function in the process of servicing a mortgage loan. These modules work together synergistically to produce the familiar experience and end product that is critical to the system’s success.”

“For example, the following specific aspects of the MSP® System contribute to its unique value: data schema and fields; user experiences and interfaces; files and records; transaction-type codes and sequence codes; input, processing and output transactions; workstation guides; technical support services; and documentation of the foregoing. Data collected are organized in specific files incorporated in a table that includes multiple records, each of which is a row that also includes a series of fields or cells, each of which has a specific name and position range. The confidential logic and business rules that drive the collection and manipulation of the data provide Black Knight a competitive advantage.” [e.s.]

“The NavigatorTM application is a critical component of the MSP® System. Acting in effect as an extremely detailed electronic reference and procedural user manual, it provides authorized users of the MSP® System with comprehensive information regarding each MSP® System module and workstation necessary to understand and use the MSP® System to service mortgage loans. This includes confidential details of MSP®-specific files; data dictionaries; data schema, records, and fields; MSP®-specific transaction-type and sequence codes; processing operations associated with MSP®-specific files; and MSP®-specific input and output transactions. It also contains confidential workstation guides and other user materials explaining how to work with MSP®-specific files and initiate execution of MSP®-specific operations. The NavigatorTM application and its related documentation are made available only to authorized users of the MSP® System for limited uses and are specifically designated by Black Knight as confidential proprietary, and trade secret information.

An authorized MSP® System user can also access data from the MSP® System in real-time using MSP® Mortgage Web Services. Like the NavigatorTM application, MSP® Mortgage Web Services contains detailed confidential documentation explaining its functionality and unique and proprietary data formatting structures and request codes, among other topics. And like the NavigatorTM application, MSP® Mortgage Web Services and its related confidential documentation”

One of our prolific readers and contributors “summer chic” has offered the following information that I consider useful in framing complaints:

On June 8, 2020 Black Knight announced that former OneWest CEO (aka OCC) Joseph Otting joined Black Knight’s  Board of Directors…..
 
 Black Knight is a renamed Lenders Processing Services/DocX who forged millions of assignments which were filed in Courts around the Nations to steal homes from American families.
 
 Bill Foley (FNF) , owner of LPS, DocX, Black Knight, ect. continues its illegal practices as of today while deceive borrowers with bogus Title Insurances. 
 
Speaking about monopoly, Mr. Foley owns majority of US Title Companies.
 
PennyMac is a renamed Countrywide Financial 
 
Caliber Home Loan is a renamed Countrywide Financial
 
HomeXMortgage is a renamed Fremont Loan and Investments
 
Matrix Private Capital is a renamed Lehman Brothers
 
New OCC Mr. Brooks is also a former OneWest CEO….
 
Former BlackRock CEO Michael Bright was CEO of Ginnie Mae….
 
VA Appraisal system is controlled by Bank of America via Core Logic LoanSafe program which is  renamed Countrywide’s LandSafe Appraisal system which BOA sold to VA in 2014….
 
Ginnie Mae’s Senior VP Michael Drayne is a seasoned  fraudster from Chevy Chase bank who was sued by investors and insurers for over $5.2 Billion securities fraud. Drayne was never charged for any damages.

*Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

*Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Moratoriums Extended: That Doesn’t Mean You Won’t Be Out On the Street Or Living With Relatives

Governor Ron DeSantis (R) Florida, issued a new order extending the moratoriums on foreclosures and evictions.

*

The investment banks on Wall Street like this turn of events because they no longer need to lie orally to homeowners in order to get them to fall behind in payments. Their goal is foreclosure and eviction mostly except for abandoned properties after foreclosure which are called Zombie properties.

*

Practically everyone who has had an issue with mortgage payments has heard the familiar refrain: “you don’t qualify for a modification because you are not delinquent in your payments. You must be at least 90 days behind in payments before you should submit your application for a modification.”

*

Since it was oral communication (not written) and either not recorded or the recording is later destroyed, the foreclosure mills, hiding behind litigation immunity are free to deny that the homeowner ever received that information — which by the way is practicing law without a license (a felony in many states).

*

Judges hearing that story are very skeptical of that story even though it is true. They are skeptical because why would any creditor want a “borrower” or obligor to not pay them? Why would anyone want to lose money in a transaction? It just doesn’t make sense to judges, which is why Mr. Reyes from Deutsche bank got away with it when he said the entire securitization system is “counter-intuitive.”

*

The Judge’s attitude comes with the assumption that he/she is dealing with an actual creditor. If you drop that assumption everything makes sense. The only way a non-creditor can make money is by pretending to be a creditor and foreclosing on a property in which it has no interest — and of course getting away with it.

*

The bonus is that once the foreclosure is successful it has a legal presumption of validity which means that all prior illegal acts are subsumed into the foreclosure.

*

So don’t believe the moratorium any more than you believe the tune that you must stop making payments in order to qualify for a modification. The banks are counting on you spending money that would have otherwise gone to making payments such that when the 90 day period is over or when the moratorium is over you are so far behind that you cannot catch up.

*

That is exactly what the banks want even though that seems crazy to the casual observer, including judges.

*

Now if you are already involved in foreclosure there is nothing but confusion as to the effect of the roders on moratoriums. Exactly what do they stop?  We don’t know.

*

But most judges are interpreting the orders as meaning they can hear nothing on any foreclosure or eviction which is probably correct — or else there will be a landslide of motions seeking to set aside orders granted while the moratorium was in effect.

*

But I wonder if a motion to compel discovery or demands for discovery are still allowed. I think they might be.

*

And I repeat for the umteenth time that you can’t prove anything against the foreclosure mill or any supposed client of the foreclosure mill. You don’t have the evidence or data. I issue that reminder because everyone who loses their fight against the foreclosure mill comes to the same erroneous conclusion: they can’t win. They skip the part about having gone down the wrong path.

*

The winning strategy, every time is based upon the knowledge, not the evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the foreclosure mill and its “clients.”

The winning strategy is simply challenging the assertions, implied references, assumptions of fact, and presumptions at law through the proper and timely use and enforcement of discovery.

*

That means crafting discovery questions that are simple, easy to understand and that can be defended as being central to the issue of ownership and authority over the underlying obligation. People seem to avoid getting proper help from a knowledgeable source on drafting discovery. It also means that you have a memorandum of law ready with citations to statutes, rules of procedure and cases interpreting those rules in which you should clearly and convincingly that your questions are simply designed to test the basic question that a creditor or representative of a creditor is present in court.

*

The people that claim they cannot get answers in the discovery process are missing the point. If your opposition could answer those questions without admitting they have no claim they would do so. But they don’t. So when you DON’T get answers, that begins your journey toward revealing and demanding an inference that the foreclosure mill has no basis to assert or imply that the foreclosure will result in payment against a debt on the books of some creditor — i.e., a creditor who is the claimant/beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure or the plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure.

*

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.

BETA TEST — DISCOVERY SUPPORT

Discovery

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

*Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

The Best Article Yet on Illegal and Immoral Practices by Investment Banks Making False Claims About “Securitization of Debt” by Francesca Mari on Aaron Glantz Book “Homewreckers”

Francesca Mari in the JUNE 11, 2020 ISSUE of The New York Review of Books, has written a truly excellent piece on a book called “Homewreckers” by Aaron Glantz. 

If you ever had any doubt about whether homeowners have the moral high ground and whether the investment bankers have no moral or legal grounds for what they did, you should read the article and buy the book. ( I get nothing from sales of the book and I have not met either author — although I will contact them for interviews on my show).

The only point that I think both Mari and Glantz miss is that the loans were never securitized. Securitization is the process of selling assets in pieces to multiple investors. No residential loan to my knowledge has ever been sold to investors even on paper much less in reality.

Let me put it this way: there has never been a transaction in which investors buying certificates, investment banks or anyone else paid value in exchange for ownership of any debt, note or mortgage. They paid value but not for the loan. And they received the benefit of their bargain.

At the end of the day there is nobody who has paid value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. Claims of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage are all false even though they are documented. Documents are not transactions. They are evidence of transactions. And if there was no such transaction then the documents are false.

And that is why all of the documents in foreclosures are false, fabricated, forged, backdated and robosigned. The documents are false but they are presumptively valid if they conform to statutory requirements. The point missed by most homeowners, lawyers and judges is that just because they are presumed valid doesn’t mean they cannot be tested and rebutted.

%d bloggers like this: