Who gets a QWR or DVL and When?

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

After some reflection, legal research and analysis I have come to the conclusion that a very good way for homeowners to put tracks in the sand that they can use later with success is to use the following protocol — subject to the opinion of local counsel:

  1. Send QWR and DVL to “servicer” and nobody else. Under statutes, service to one is service to all anyway.
  2. In cases where the creditor is either asserted or implied to be a bank as trustee for a REMIC trust, send a second QWR and DVL to the trustee expressly demanding that they acknowledge that they are in fact the creditor who purchased the alleged underlying obligation and that they have a record of such purchase.
  3. After receiving an evasive answer, file an FDCPA suit against the trustee only alleging that it is renting its name to third parties who are using it to collect money on the fake premise that money is owed to them.
    1. As an alleged debtor, if there is a change in who is allowed to collect the debt, the debtor is entitled to receive direct notice from the old creditor that they are not the creditor anymore and that the new creditor has been identified. You never received that notice from the old creditor. You went the extra step of asking for it. You still didn’t get the answer.
    2. For transactions in which the homeowner is treated as current, you want to deposit the money into the court registry until they comply with the statute. ANd you want fees, costs and statutory damages.
  4. In judicial states, file a motion for summary judgment (not an affirmative defense) along with an affidavit that asserts that the bank trustee and the trust have failed to produce any proof of payment for the underlying obligation and an affidavit from the homeowner stating failure to receive notice of change of creditor and failure to receive notice of appointment of the servicer from the old creditor or the new creditor. An unsigned notice that comes from the servicer is not notice from the old creditor — by definition. It is a company proclaiming itself to be the servicer without identifying its authority to make that announcement.
  5. In all cases after a Notice of Default is issued, litigation should include declaratory and injunctive relief to declare the notice invalid and enjoin the would-be servicer from issuing such notices absent acknowledgment from an officer of the bank that serves as a trustee of the REMIC trust that the bank maintains a trust accounting ledger on which the debt from the homeowner is reported as an asset of the REMIC trust —- and in which the Trustee has appointed the “servicer” to act as servicer and that the servicer does, in fact, handle money receipts and disbursements of payments from homeowners such that the servicer is the actual recipient of such funds and is the actual disbursement agent of such funds.
  6. In nonjudicial cases, the same protocol would be appropriate in my opinion.

The object of this protocol is to undermine the premise that the proceeds of foreclosure sales go to creditors who are reducing an asset that they paid for and to offset the loss from failure to receive scheduled payments. You don’t have to believe it or understand it. Just use it!

PRACTICE HINT: Do not attempt to prove an allegation that the debt does not exist or that the parties seeking to enforce have no authority to do so. Limit the attack to the ability of the foreclosure mill to produce required proof of payment that is required when a debtor makes the challenge. Do nothing that puts the burden of proof on the homeowner. Make no allegation of fact except that you asked and failed to receive the notices you were supposed to get.

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ON WEBINAR ENDS 9/22/21

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

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

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack the “Successors”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Click

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

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Latest Moratorium Extensions Are Two-Edged Sword

The new president is facing incoming fire from all directions. If he does not extend the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, hundreds of thousands of people are going to be homeless. But the extension does not come without costs.
*
As you have seen on these pages, I am quite confident that none of the scheduled payments from homeowners are legally due. On the other hand, I am loathe to tell homeowners or tenants that they should withhold payments if they can make them.
*
The reason is basically extortion or duress. By withholding a scheduled payment without a court order telling you can don’t need to make the payment, you put yourself and your home in jeopardy. the Wall Street foreclosure team will use that as their excuse for pursuing collection and enforcement ending in foreclosure and eviction if you don’t properly defend.
*
The situation with tenants is even more dire. Many if not most rental units are owned by small landlords who do not possess the resources to get through this pandemic period. When the time comes that their units are exempted from moratoriums by time or edict, they will be required to pay the “arrearage” just like everyone else. Those homeowners who are using the moratorium as an excuse to withhold payment without having a plan of attack are headed for trouble — possibly the kind they can’t fix.
*
The obvious answer to this problem is for homeowners to launch preemptive lawsuits against the securitization team. But my observations and experience show that most judges will not allow such lawsuits to go forward. this is because it is seen as an attack on the financial system generally and because judges are afraid that allowing such lawsuits will invite many more that will clog all the court systems. I have had many judges agree that the lawsuit did state a claim but dismissed it anyway sometimes after as much as 14 months of sitting on the motion to dismiss.
*
Some people believe that the judges don’t get it. But most of them do “get it” — at least in part. Since those judges believe the loan exists, the loan account exists and that the homeowners almost certainly owe the payments, they see little harm in waiting until enforcement action is brought against the offending homeowner. Then they will occasionally rule in favor of a homeowner who reveals fatal deficiencies in the proof of the claim.
*
It is during the moratorium periods that homeowners have an unprecedented opportunity to start actions against the securitization team — but not entirely the way most might think. By sending a proper Qualified Written Request and Debt Validation Letter you open up a more palatable action for the Judges in advance of enforcement. This is the opening step in the homeowner’s challenge.
*
They must answer and they risk some rather harsh sanctions if they lie — so they withhold information. But the information they give in response to the statutory inquiries will most likely contain inconsistencies with their correspondence.
*
Your questions need to be very specific. And they should start with existence, ownership, and authority over a loan account receivable on the ledger of some company; that entry can only be legal and valid if value was paid in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the loan account receivable (aka underlying debt or underlying obligation). This is the most basic requirement established by law and custom over centuries in English common law and statutes, American common law; it is also established as the law in every jurisdiction in their adoption of Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
*
Next, the homeowner can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the Consumer Division of the Attorney General of their State. Once again a response is mandated by statute and the securitization/foreclosure team does no dare withhold a response. but once again their response is going to be filled with legalese evasion of admitting the simple fact that they don’t own the loan account receivable and they have not been given any authority from anyone who does own it.
*
Homeowners should not allege nor try to prove that all securitization of residential “debt” is a fraudulent scheme or a lie, even though that is true. It scares judges and it sounds like a conspiracy theory to them. So keep it simple and to the point.
*
Foreclosure is about restitution for an unpaid debt. If the claiming party has no actual ownership of the debt arising from a real-world transaction in which they paid value in exchange for owning the loan account receivable they fail the test of the condition precedent set forth in 9-203 of the UCC. And that opens the door to “limited” actions for violations of the FDCPA (title X, 124 Stat. 2092 (2010) and other statutes. Those statutes have a bite to them and the foreclosure mills are afraid of them.
*
The advantage of the preemptive action by the homeowner is that very often the securitization/collection/foreclosure team is not ready with fabricated documents containing false information about transactions that never occurred.
*
The rule of thumb is to create a vehicle that can be gradually expanded as more information is obtained and the judge is gradually educated as to the true facts of the case. And remember that attorney fees are often recoverable in such actions along with statutory or compensatory damages.
*
Once filed and discovery is underway, the best practice is to take information gleaned from discovery and then request a leave of court to amend the pleadings to include a broader action for declaratory, injunctive, and supplemental relief.
*
The homeowner would be seeking damages for illegally trying to enforce a debt, and disgorgement of amounts paid to parties who had no nexus to ownership, or authority over the claimed “debt.” While this premise is true in virtually all cases in which securitization claims were in play, it can only be established by revealing the inability or unwillingness of the opposition to answer the most basic questions about existence, ownership, and authority over the debt.
*
They can’t but you must do much more than accusing them. You must out litigate them which is why you most likely should have a lawyer who knows how to file motions to dismiss, discovery requests and motions to enforce discovery requests, along with motions for sanctions, motions for the court to adopt a negative inference against the opposition and motions in limine.
*
If small landlords take heed, they can force the situation to tilt in their own favor, pass some of the savings to tenants and come out the other end of this crisis somewhat intact. If they don’t then it is unlikely that many of them will survive after the moratorium ceases unless their tenants have been paying rent in a timely fashion.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford. 

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

Click

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

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

TONIGHT! Why Lawyers Should Want Foreclosure Defense Cases and What They Are Missing $$$

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

SHARE THIS POST WITH LAWYERS YOU KNOW!!!

This show is devoted to convincing the lawyers who will listen that they are missing out on something very profitable and important. Representing homeowners faced with foreclosure papers can and does present an opportunity for large paydays, consistent victories in court, and playing a part in changing the trajectory of home finance in this country and around the world.

In 2008 I presented a seminar that provided the essentials of foreclosure defense as we knew them at that time. We repeated it several times in different parts of the country. In that seminar, I also presented a business plan for lawyers to do it. It was the hub and spoke plan that allowed homeowners to pay monthly based upon the known length of time that any foreclosure would last.  About a dozen lawyers followed my instructions and made millions of dollars.

It’s time for a new push.

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

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

ApplicationForLoanProcessAndFundingOfServiceFees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write it. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you fee you can afford.

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

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

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection, or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Chase loses again after trying sneaky maneuver

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER LEHMAN DEALS WHERE CHASE CLAIMED OWNERSHIP AND STOLE PROPERTY FROM HOMEOWNERS?

Neither Chase nor anyone else actually has a claim or a case against the homeowner if the premise is that either Chase or some other named “trustee” owns the loan through the magical process of “securitization”. The fact that securities were issued is not a license to lie. Using a label doesn’t mean anyone is telling the truth.

Even Chase couldn’t stomach defending a nonexistent securitization process; so it lied about something else. In this case it lied about ever receiving the note which would, in turn, have been evidence of transfer of title to the underlying debt/obligation.

Hearsay is hearsay. It is not admissible as evidence of anything. The affiant in submitting the affidavit stated only that he reviewed records and came to the conclusion that the note had been delivered, raising the presumption that the loan obligation had been purchased.

Courts are not interested in a witness’s conclusions. they are interested in the facts. And the facts are that the affiant did not attach the records about which he was testifying — in order for the court to come to its own conclusion.

The reason for all of this is that Chase never did get delivery of the note, never purchased the underlying obligation for value, and therefore did not own or control the transction that is labelled as a loan. It lied about everything, concealing the fact that a Lehman trust claimed ownership (which was also a lie).

See JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Tumelty, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 6766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

From Follow up by Bill Paatalo:

Nice mini-victory here. I’ve been assisting in this case. This goes to the heart of what we’ve been discussing and posting regarding the WaMu notes. Chase cannot overcome the obvious deficiencies. I mentioned this case on the Show and the fact that Chase admitted after judgment the loan was in a Lehman Trust.
*
The plaintiff asserts that it was in physical possession of the note at the time it
commenced this action. The note was not attached to the complaint. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Evan L. Grageda, an employee of the plaintiff. Grageda averred that, based on his review of the plaintiff’s records, the plaintiff took possession of the note on or about July 20, 2009, and that the plaintiff was in possession of the note when the action was commenced on September 13, 2012. There were no business records attached to the affidavit which demonstrate that the plaintiff took possession of the note on that date.
 
We agree with the defendant that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff lacked a
sufficient evidentiary basis to demonstrate that the plaintiff possessed the note when it commenced this action. Grageda’s averments relating to the date that the plaintiff possessed the note are inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value because they are based on unidentified records (e.s.) which were not included with his affidavit (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dennis, 181 AD3d 864; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cavallaro, 181 AD3d 688; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Carnegie, 181 AD3d 632; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197, 208-209). Since the plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). (e.s.)
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS, AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How and Why to Litigate Foreclosure and Eviction Defenses

Wall Street Transactions with Homeowners Are Not Loans

*
I think the biggest problem for people understanding the strategies that I have set forth on this blog is that they don’t understand the underlying principles. It simply is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a “loan” and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation.
*
None of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process.
*
The reason for this disconnect between me and most of the rest of the world is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. As a former investment banker, and as a direct witness to these seminal events that gave rise to the claims of “securitization” I do understand what happened.
*
In this article, I will try to explain, from a different perspective, what really happened when most homeowners thought that they were closing a loan transaction. For this to be effective, the reader must be willing to put themselves in the shoes of an investment banker.
*
First, you must realize that every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds.
*
The compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1% or 2% to as much as 20%. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities.
*
But the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in “residential lending.” And this way, they could receive 100% of the offering instead of a brokerage commission.
*
But as you’ll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers (homeowners) or investors.
*
In short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a “sale” consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner.
*
At the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws — as a “lender.”
*
Neither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers (based upon sales of “certificates” to investors), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of “mortgage-backed bonds.”
*
From the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of “payment histories” that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury.
*
Of course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers’ perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion.
*
By calling it “securitization of loans” and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage — against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (and law). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors.
*
Since the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser.
*
As shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them “in the fold.” By virtue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1998, none of the certificates were regulated as securities; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud (without any information) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading “hedge contracts” based upon the “performance” of the certificates — as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion.
*
It was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which Alan Greenspan, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks — a mistake that Greenspan later acknowledged.
*
There was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of 2008, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position (because the main aspects fo their transition were being misrepresented and concealed), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction — highly doubtful assumption.
*
The investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an “event” relating to the “performance” of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least $12 for each $1 that was paid to homeowners and around $8 for each $1 invested by investors in purchasing the certificates.
*
So the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks could’ve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the “obligation” allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money.
*
There was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation (which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowner’s services). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed.
*
Investment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in 1969, when I was literally working on Wall Street. Frankly, there was no bigger market in which they could participate. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels (Truth in Lending Act et al.)
*
So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through “intermediaries” that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit — a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and “disappeared” if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road.
*
Either way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation.
*
Under modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law — if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 §203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners.
*
And this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and cannot be owned.
*
In court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually (not always) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms.
*
The homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. They are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200% gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners’ participation, the 8% payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners’ apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. 
*
The obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank (through intermediaries) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised “loan contract.”
*

Payments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts

*
Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated.
*

Once the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance.

*
For the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were “servicers.” Even at the point of a judicial gun (court order) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after “receipt.” Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners.
*
Like their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they don’t know where the money goes.
*
As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of Black Knight. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction.
*
In order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources.
*
One source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as “servicer advances.” Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer.
*
Since there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account (or the underlying obligation). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as “return of capital” or “trading profits.” In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be “revenue.” This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged “foreclosures.”
*
By retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least $3 trillion. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that.
*
As a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In 1983, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was zero. Today it is $1.4 quadrillion — around 15-20 times the amount of currency.
*

Success in Litigation Depends Upon Litigation Skills: FOCUS

*
I have either been lead counsel or legal consultant in thousands of successful cases defending Foreclosure. Thousands of others have been reported to me where they used my strategies to litigate. Many of them resulted in a judgment for the homeowner, but the majority were settled under the seal of confidentiality.
*
Thousands more have reported failure. In reviewing those cases it was clear that they were either litigated pro se or by attorneys who were not skilled in trial practice and who had no idea of the principles contained in this article and my many other articles on this blog. I would describe the reason for these failures as “too little too late.” In some ways, the courts are designed more to be final than to be fair. There are specific ways that information becomes evidence. Most people in litigation do not understand the ways that information becomes evidence and therefore fail to object to the foundation, best evidence, hearsay etc.
*
Even the people that submit wee phrased and timely discovery demands fail, more often than not, to move for an order to compel when the opposition fails or refuses to answer the simple questions bout the establishment, existence, and ownership of the underlying alleged obligation, debt, note or mortgage. Or they failed to ask for a hearing on the motion to compel, in which case the discovery is waived. Complaining about the failure to answer discovery during the trial when there was no effort to enforce discovery is both useless and an undermining of the credibility of the defense.
*
Since I have been litigating cases for around 45 years, I don’t expect younger attorneys to be as well-versed and intuitive in a courtroom as I have been. It’s also true that many lawyers, both older and younger than me, have greater skills than I have. But it is a rare layperson that can win one of these cases without specific training knowledge and experience in motion practice and trial law.
*
In the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often make the mistake of saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary.
*
When such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. But there are two possible strategies that definitely work.
*
The first is to do your legal research and find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged REMIC trust for failure to take action that would’ve protected the interest of the investors.
*
The outcome of all such cases is a finding by the court that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the “Trust,” and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it cannot be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called “judicial immunity.”
*
The second thing you can do is to ask, probably during mediation at the start, whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example “U.S. Bank.” Or you might ask whether US Bank is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented “Ocwen” or some other self-proclaimed servicer.
*
Keep in mind that when you go to mediation, frequently happens that it is attended by a “coverage lawyer” who might not even be employed by the Foreclosure bill. Such a lawyer clearly knows nothing about the parties or the case and will be confused even by the most basic questions. If they fail to affirm that they represent the named trustee of the named fictitious trust, that is the time to stop  the proceeding and file a motion for contempt for failure to appear (i.e., failure of the named plaintiff or beneficiary to appear since no employee or authorized representative appeared.)
*
And the third thing that I have done with some success is to make an offer. You will find in most cases that they are unwilling and unable to accept or reject the offer. A substantial offer will put them in a very bad position. Remember you are dealing with a lawyer and a representative from the alleged servicer who actually don’t know what’s going on. Everyone is on a “need to know” footing.
*
So if you make an offer that the lawyer thinks could possibly be reasonable and might be acceptable to an actual lender who was holding the loan account receivable, the lawyer might be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Rejection of an offer that the client might want to accept without notifying the client is contrary to bar rules.
*
But both the lawyer and the representative of the alleged servicer know that they have no authority. So they will often ask for a continuance or adjournment of the mediation. At that point, the homeowner is well within their rights to file a motion for contempt. In most cases, the court order for mediation requires that both parties attend with full authority to settle the case. In plain language, there is no reason for the adjournment. But they need it because they know they have no authority contrary to the order mandating mediation. Many judges have partially caught on to this problem and instruct the foreclosure mill lawyer to make sure he doesn’t need to “make a call.”
*
Every good trial lawyer knows that they must have a story to tell or else, even if the client is completely right, they are likely to lose. You must focus on the main issues.
*
The main issue in foreclosure is the establishment, existence, and ownership of the alleged underlying obligation. All of that is going to be presumed unless you demonstrate to the court that you are seeking to rebut those presumptions. There can be no default and hence no remedy is there is either no obligation or no ownership of the obligation by the complaining party.
*
Discovery demands should be drafted with an eye towards what will be a motion to compel and proposed order on the motion to compel. They should also be drafted with an eye toward filing a motion in limine. Having failed and refused to answer basic questions about the establishment, existence, and ownership of the alleged underlying obligation, the motion in limine would ask the court to limit the ability of the foreclosure mill to put on any evidence that the obligation exists or is owned by the named Plaintiff or beneficiary. They can’t have it both ways.
*
Failure to follow up is the same thing as waiving your defenses or defense narrative.
*
So that concludes my current attempt to explain how to win Foreclosure cases for the homeowner. I hope it helps.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS, AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection, or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Document Review for Dummies: Why homeowners and their lawyers get confused by documents proffered by foreclosure mills

It occurs to me that most questions I receive contain either an inquiry about the meaning of documents or statements as if they know the meaning of documents. So here is a short primer on reviewing documents that might help.

WHAT (IF ANYTHING) IS THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT?

While this seems to be simply a matter of reading and common sense, there is more to it than that. If I draw a rough picture of a dollar bill and hand it to you, nobody will accept it as payment for anything even if the writing on it says “United States Currency” or “One Dollar.”

The reason for that is simply one short statement: No document is an event. And no label can change that. In the case of my artistic dollar, the event would have been a law that says anyone can draw a dollar bill and that everyone must accept it for all debts, public and private. No such preceding event has ever happened nor is it ever going to happen. People don’t issue currency.  Governments do that.

Labeling it as “one dollar” has no more meaning than angel wings in the snow. But while it is a lot less fun than angel wings, a really good fabricated picture of a dollar is likely to be accepted as if it was a real dollar bill. But passing the fake dollar is an illegal act subject to criminal and civil liability.

APPLICATION: Just because a document bears the label “deed,” “assignment” or “allonge” doesn’t make it so. But most homeowners, lawyers, judges and even regulators fail to recognize this basic common sense precept that has been enshrined in law since the law was first written. This error has even become doctrine, supported by legal presumptions if the face of the document confirms to what would ordinarily expect on the face of such a document.

EXAMPLE: An “assignment” is not an assignment of the mortgage unless (a) the grantor owns it and (b) the assignment also conveys ownership of the underlying debt (or the underlying debt was conveyed in a separate instrument by a grantor who owned the underlying debt). [NOTE: Even then the assignment might not be legally effective such as in the case where someone with toxic waste liability conveys the property to a dummy corporation to avoid being hit with damages, fines and penalties. The grantee must expressly or tacitly accept the assignment.] Ref: Article 9 §203 UCC.

WHY WAS THE DOCUMENT CREATED?

The answer to this question there’s actually another question, to wit: what was the event in real life that the document was intended to memorialize?

This reminds me of what my contract professor in law school pounded into our heads on a daily basis, to wit: The note is not the debt — although it may be evidence of a debt.

The debt exists only in the event of a real-world transaction that is enforceable by law. In the case of loans, that is created upon delivery to the closing table. The debtor is the one who accepted that money with eh understanding he/she had to pay it back and the creditor is the one who gave him/her the money. The debt exists regardless f whether there was my written document. It exists independently of any written document.

If the Payee named on the promissory note is the one who paid money to the debtor/maker), the note is admissible evidence in court to prove the terms of repayment and the existence of the debt. In fact, the law has developed that such a note merges with the debt such that the maker and debtor are the same and the Payee and creditor are the same.

BUT if the Payee named on the promissory note is NOT the one who paid money to the debtor/maker), the note is NOT admissible evidence in court to prove the terms of repayment or the existence of the debt. HOWEVER, under modern law, the execution of the promissory note gives rise to its own independent liability of the maker regardless of whether there was any debtor-creditor relationship between maker and payee. Ref: Article 3 UCC.

Such liability can be enforced over the objection of the maker (that here was no real-world transaction giving rise to the obligation) if the party enforcing the note was a bona fide purchaser for value, acting in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses at the time the note was purchased.

APPLICATION: Generally speaking, if there is no real-world event memorialized by the document proffered by a party in litigation, the document is inadmissible as proof of the matter asserted — i.e., that the homeowner owes a debt to the party seeking to enforce it. If there is some real-world event (i.e., the homeowner received the money), then the question becomes whether there existed a legal binding relationship between the Payee on the note and the party who paid the money.

BUT, if the party who paid the money did so with no intent to acquire it or retain ownership of the debt, directly or indirectly, then the payment to the homeowner must be categorized as something other than a loan.

There might still be a liability of the homeowner, but only after the court is able to look at the transaction as a whole, and determine the reason for payment and whether that reason was satisfied by the homeowner’s conduct — which in the case of mortgage loans means the execution of documents that might not have any real value except to start the process of the sale of securities having no relation to the ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

Such a review would also take into account whether the real terms of the contract were disclosed and whether the homeowner had an opportunity to decline participation or bargain for other terms.

EXAMPLE: As explained above an assignment of mortgage is a legal nullity in all States unless the grantee has also paid value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt —from someone who owns it. Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all 50 states, takes it one step further requiring such purchase before anyone could even e considered as a bona fide claimant to enforce a security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust).

So the question is ALWAYS whether such payment of value for the underlying debt ever occurred as an event in the real world.

BUT, an assignment of mortgage that APPEARS to be facially valid is often taken at face value by the homeowner, the lawyers, the course, and the regulators even though the document is not facially valid. Sometimes this is the result of ignorance or laziness. And that brings us to the next point.

WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT? WHERE IS WALDO?

This can be really tricky and unless you are prepared to really look at the signature block like you might look at a painting where various figures and shapes appear, you will probably tacitly admit the entire case against you. You have to look long and hard. Think “Where’s Waldo?”

Take absolutely nothing for granted.

So in court, the correct answer is “I don’t know.” After 10-20 years the homeowner has no idea what he/she signed. He/she doesn’t know if the document presented is real or fabricated. He/she, therefore, doesn’t know if that signature on that document is real or fake. SO why admit it? Tell the truth. You don’t know. Make them prove that the document is authentic, valid, and was properly signed by the homeowner(s) at the time fo the original transaction (note that I don’t call it “loan closing” anymore because I don’t think the transaction is legally or logically a loan).

Next on that assignment of mortgage or beneficial rights under a deed of trust: can you tell me in easy English who signed that document and on whose behalf the document was supposedly executed? On close examination in most cases, you cannot. If that cannot be determined from the face of the document then the document is not facially valid. If the document is not facially valid no legal presumptions can arise about its authenticity or validity.

APPLICATION: In most cases, the validity of an assignment cannot be determined without reference to “parol” (external) evidence. Such instruments are facially invalid unless there is something in the public official record that clears up the mystery. Only official public records carry the legal presumption of authenticity and validity as proof of the matter asserted.

NOTE THAT EVEN DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR TO PASS THE FACIAL VALIDITY SMELL TEST MIGHT STILL BE EXCLUDED AS PROOF OF THE MATTER ASSERTED IF TIMELY OBJECTION IN PROPER FORM IS RAISED AS TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SOURCE: Self-proclaimed servicers are preferred by foreclosure mills as thought hey are third parties with no stake in the outcome of the litigation. Good discovery and motion practice could reveal that the reverse is true — the claimed servicer is really a foreclosure vehicle acting for concealed third parties and who goes out of business if the foreclosures are unsuccessful.

EXAMPLE: “John Smith, Official Document Examiner, SOLVANG SERVICING, LLC, as attorney in fact for CSLOBS, INC., successor to Jasmine Bank, as attorney in fact, for AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST, AS SUCCESSOR FOR MAKE A WISH MUTUAL BANKING, ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF CSLOBS, INC. PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES Series 2006-ZX1.”

There are lots of it assumptions that you could make about such a signature block at the end of the document. None of them would be true. And none of them would make any sense. But it is custom and practice to ignore such signature block as though an authorized signature had occurred on behalf of a grantor who possessed something to grant.

QUESTIONS:

      1. Does John Smith exist? [If you were creating a false document who would want to sign it with their real name?]
      2. Was John Smith an authorized signatory for Solvang?
      3. Was John Smith an employee who knew something about the content of what he was signing or did he just sign it because his job consisted of stamping it writing his signature on thousands of documents per day?
      4. Was John Smith employed by some other company that doesn’t appear on this signature block?
      5. Who owns Solvang? {If the answer is some investment bank then documents executed or created by them suffer from a lack of credibility that could bar their admission into evidence.]
      6. Is the power of attorney attached to the document?
      7. Is there any descriptive language that would enable the reader to ascertain the existence, provisions, and validity of any power of attorney at the time of signing? If not my opinion is that the document is facially invalid. External proof is required to determine whether such power exists and was granted by someone who (a) intended to grant it and (b) had ownership or control over the subject matter (i.e., the mortgage or deed of trust).
      8. Where does Make  A Wish Mutual Bank fit into the chain?
      9. Who is CSLOBS, Inc.?
      10.  Where and what is the registry of holders of certificates? See power of attorney analysis)
      11. Who are the holders of the certificates? [Since they are defined as the parties on whose behalf the document as executed, the absence of an actual name by which they could be identified renders the document facially invalid.]
      12. Are the holders of the certificates the owners of pro-rata shares of debts, notes or mortgages? How do we know that? If not, why are they mentioned?
      13. What exactly passes through where and who is involved in that?
      14. IS THERE A HIDDEN TRUST NAME INVOLVED IN THIS CHAIN? IF SO WHAT I OWNED BY THE TRUSTEE OR THE TRUST? WHO IS THE TRUSTEE? WHAT ARE THE TRUSTEE POWERS? WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES? WHO WERE THE TRUSTORS OR SETTLORS?
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
NOTE: I HAVE PREPARED A 2 HOUR PRESENTATION ON DOCUMENT ANALYSIS FOR A ZOOM PRESENTATION. I HAVE NOT YET SELECTED A DATE. THE PRICE IS $595 AND INCLUDES A FOLLOW UP ONE HOUR Q&A MEETING ONE WEEK AFTER THE PRESENTATION FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE LIVE. NO DISCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE. IT WILL PROBABLY BE THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT NEILFGARFIELD@ICLOUD.COM. CLE ACCREDITATION FOR LAWYERS IS EXPECTED. 
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

 

 

 

Why are conditions precedent so important in foreclosure cases?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

More Details on VendorScape, CoreLogic and Black Knight

Hat tip to “Summer chione”

So it is apparent that the banks are responding to discoveries about how orders are transmitted to lawyers, “servicers”, realtors etc.. While it is all the same playbook, they merely change the name of the characters. So internally the name VendorScape might still be used but externally, to the public, they are showing different names and even showing multiple names for the same “service”.

But is always the same, to wit: a central repository of data that has been robotically entered to support misrepresentations of investment banks that massage the data, control the reports, and initiate administration, collection and enforcement under the letterhead of “subservicers” who have almost nothing to do and are merely being kept alive to throw under the bus when this scheme explodes.

For those familiar with the game of Chess, think of the following entities as all being pawns whose existence is to provide a barrier to the encroachment of government or borrowers in litigation — and who can and will be sacrificed when the game explodes.

  1. Foreclosure law firms (“mills”)
  2. “Servicers”
  3. Trustee of REMIC Trust
  4. Trustee on Deed of trust
  5. MERS
  6. Companies that provide “default services”
  7. Realtors
  8. Property  Managers
  9. REMIC  trusts: remember that back in early 2000’s, the same trusts that are being named as claimants today were denied as having any existence or relevance. It was only after failure of naming a servicer or MERS that they fell back on naming the non functional trustee of a nonexistent trust as the claimant.
  10. Every other company that is visible to the investors and homeowners.

And keep in mind that the claims of a “boarding Process” or detailed audit of accounts when the name of one subservicer is changed to something else are totally and completely bogus. There is no transfer much less boarding of accounts. the fabricated accounts are always maintained at the central repository.

The argument over “business records” is sleight of hand distraction. There are no business records. Go do your research. You will see that nothing the banks are producing are qualified business records, muchless exceptions to the hearsay rule. 

It is or at least was universal custom and practice that before accepting  an engagement, lawyers, servicers and realtors needed to have an agreement in writing with their employer. In the wholly unique area of foreclosures, sales, REO and remittances this practice has been turned on its head.

As I have repeatedly said on these pages, lawyers in a foreclosure mill have no idea who hired them. They don’t know the identity of their client. They will and do say that their client is some “subservicer” (e.g. Ocwen), they file lawsuits and documents proclaiming their representation of some bank (e.g. Deutsche) with whom they have (a) no contact and (b) no retainer Agreement.

This is because all that Deutsche agreed to was the use of its name to give the foreclosure an institutional flavor. It is labelled as a trustee but it possesses zero powers of any party that could be legally described as a trustee. It has no fiduciary duty to any beneficiaries nor any right to even inquire about the business affairs of the trust — which we know now (with certainty) do not even exist.

So there is no reason for the foreclosure mill to have an agreement with Deutsche because (a) Deutsche has not agreed to be a real party in interest and (b) Deutsche has no ownership, right, title or interest in any loan — either on tis own behalf or as representative of either a nonexistent or inchoate (sleeping) trust with no assets or business or the owners of non certificated certificates (i.e., digital only). Indeed the relationship between Deutsche and the holders of certificates is that of creditor (the investors) and debtor (Deutsche acting as the business name only of an investment bank who issued the certificates).

So the lawyers in the foreclosure mill are misrepresenting its authority to represent. In fact it has no authority to represent the “trustee” bank.

So the banks have come up with a circular argument that is still erroneously used and believed in court: that because the subservicer (e.g. Ocwen) is the nominal client — albeit without any contact prior to the electronic instructions received by the foreclosure mill — and because the subservicer claims to be acting for either the trustee, teht rust or the holders of certificates, that eh lawyers can claim to be representing the bank, as trustee. In a word, that is not true.

So the foreclosure mill is falsely claiming that its client is the named “trustee” who has no power for a “trust” which has no assets or business on behalf of certificate holders who own no right, title or interest to any payments, debt, note or mortgage executed by any “borrower.”

Instructions from a third party with no right, title or interest that the lawyer should claim  representation rights for yet another party who has no knowledge, right, title or interest is a legal nullity. That means that, in the legal world, (like transfer of mortgage  rights without transfer for the underlying debt), there is nothing that any court is legally able to recognize and any attempt to do so would be ultra vires once the facts are known to the court.

The trick is to present it to the court in such a manner that it is unavoidable. And the best way to do that is through aggressive discovery strategies. the second best way is through the use of well planned timely objections at trial.

All of this is done, contrary to law and prior custom and practice to cover up the fact that all such foreclosures are for profit ventures.

That is, the goal is not paydown of any loan account, because no such account exists on the books of any creditor.

And that is hiding the fact that the origination or acquisition of the loan was completed with zero intent for anyone to become a lender or creditor and therefore subject to rules, regulations and laws governing lending and servicing practices.

They didn’t need to be a lender or creditor because they were being paid in full from the sales of securities and thus writing off the homeowner transaction. Bottom Line: There was no lending intent by the originator or acquirer of the loan. When the cycle was complete, the investment bank owned nothing but still controlled everything.

And the way they controlled everything was by hiring intermediaries who would have plausible deniability because they were using images and records that were automatically generated and produced based upon algorithms written by human hands — programs designed to facilitate foreclosure rather than report the truth.

So let’s be clear. Here is the process. The lawyer, realtor or subservicer knows nothing about the loan until it is time to foreclose. All activity that is conducted under its name is initiated by CoreLogic using the VendorScape system.

So when a lawyer, for example, comes to work, he sits down in front of a computer and gets a message that he doesn’t know came from CoreLogic under the direction of Black KNight who is acting under the strict control of the investment banks. There are no paper documents. The message on the screen says initiate foreclosure work on John Jones in the name of Deutsche Bank as trustee for the CWABS Trust 2006-1 on behalf of the certificateholders of CWABS Trust 2006-1 series pass through certificates.

Contrary to the rules of law and ethical and disciplinary rules governing lawyers, the lawyer does no due diligence to discover the nature his agreement with the naemd claimant, no research on whether the claim is valid, and requires no confirmation ledgers showing establishment of ownership of the debt and financial loss arising from cessation of payments. He/she sends notice of delinquency, notice of default and initiates foreclosure without ever seeing or even hearing about a retainer agreement with Deutsche whom he supposedly represents.

He/she has no knowledge regarding the status or ownership of the loan account. ZERO. By not knowing he/she avoids liability for lying to the court. And not knowing also provides at least a weak foundation for invoking litigation privilege for false representations in court, behind which the investment banks, Black Knight, CoreLogic et al hide. The same plausible deniability doctrine is relied upon by CoreLogic and Black Knight. They will all say that they thought the loan account was real.

But they all knew that if the loan accounts were real, the notes would not have been destroyed, the control over the loan accounts would have stayed close to the investment banks and compliance with lending and servicing laws would have been much tighter — starting with disclosure to investors that their money was being used to justify a nonexistent trading profit for the investment bank, and disclosure to homeowners that they were signing on for an inflated appraisal, immediate loss of equity, and likely foreclosure because after the origination, the only real money to be made off the loan was through foreclosure.

And both investors and borrowers were prevented, through the artful practice of deceit and concealment, from bargaining for appropriate incentives and compensation for assuming gargantuan risks they know nothing about.

This is like cancer and it is continuing. Nobody would suggest that we keep selling crops that were infected with ebola or which contained some tar substance that reliably and consistently produced cancer. The argument that a company or industry might collapse would not fly because in the end we value human life more than allowing companies to profit off of death and destruction. And the argument that allowing the judicial creation of virtual creditors who can enforce non existent debt accounts is going to save the financial system is just as pernicious — and erroneous.

Wall Street banks are merely protecting their profits. Don’t blame them for doing that. It is up to government and the public to stop it and arrive at something other than the false binary choice of either forcing people out of their homes or allowing a “windfall” to homeowners against the interest of all other honest people who make their mortgage payments. The real solution lies in reformation by judicial doctrine or through new legislation — but until that is completed, there should be no foreclosures allowed. Until it is determined how much concealed risk was piled on investors and borrowers, they should not be stuck with contracts or agreements that sealed their doom through concealment of material facts.

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

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

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

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, it is clear who handles all escrow accounts.
*On June 15, 2016, or the same day as I filed my application for the loan, Black Knight  ordered Flood Map determination acting on behalf of Perl. Determination was done by CoreLogic who is allowed to use FEMA’s forms and who owns a Hazard Map determination company.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my recent analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*
This is further evidence of deceptive servicing and lending practices. They are evading the responsibility imposed by law to identify the creditor and the authority to represent the creditor. They are evading the responsibility imposed by law to provide an accurate accounting for the establishment and current status of the alleged obligation.
*
The reason for this behavior is that there is no current obligation claimed by any company to be owed to them as a result of ownership of the loan account arising from a transaction in which value was paid for the underlying debt.
*
Accordingly there can be no authority to act as servicer, agent, or “acting lender”, nominee or designee.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Another Homeowner Victory In Hawaii! Gary Dubin, Attorney

US Bank v Compton 9335344481 Hawaii 2020 Dubin

So here is yet another example of litigation done correctly. This case demonstrates that the courts can and will be convinced to rule in favor of homeowners when the correct issue is raised at the right time in the right way. Here are some quotes from the case:

“Compton asserts that the evidence which U.S. Bank sought to admit through (1) the “Declaration of Indebtedness and on Prior Business Records” by Carol Davis (Davis), a “Document Execution Specialist” employed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (Nationstar), as servicing agent for U.S. Bank, attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and (2) the “Declaration of Custodian of Note” by Gina Santellan (Santellan), a “custodian of original loan records” employed by The Mortgage Law Firm, PLC (TMLF CA), attached to U.S. Bank’s “Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Its [Motion for Summary Judgment],” was hearsay and not admissible evidence.

“someone purporting to be a “custodian or other qualified witness” must establish sufficient foundation upon which to admit the note. In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt, 142 Hawai5i 37, 414 P.3d 89 (2018), the Hawai5i Supreme Court ...

“Davis does not attest to being a custodian of records, but an authorized signer for Nationstar.

“Davis declaration does not state that U.S. Bank possessed the Note at the time the Complaint was filed, merely stating that “[U.S. Bank] has possession of the Note,” and that based on Nationstar’s records, U.S. Bank “by and through Nationstar had possession of the original Note prior to 01/24/17, the date of the filing of the complaint in this foreclosure.”

“although Davis attests to Nationstar incorporating the records of Bank of America, the “Prior Servicer,” and relying upon the accuracy of those records, Davis does not aver that she is familiar with the record-keeping system of Bank of America or the lender Countrywide, which purportedly created the Note and signed the blank endorsement. Thus, Davis’s declaration failed to establish the foundation for the Note to be admitted into evidence. Behrendt, 142 Hawai5i at 45, 414 P.3d at 97; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mattos, 140 Hawai5i 26, 32-33, 398 P.3d 615, 621-22 (2017).

“Santellans’ declaration does not establish the foundation for admission of the Note to establish possession. That is, like the Davis declaration, Santellan does not attest that she has “familiarity with the record-keeping system of the business that created the record to explain how the record was generated in the ordinary course of business.” Behrendt, 142 Hawai5i at 45, 414 P.3d at 97 (quoting Mattos, 140 Hawai5i at 32, 398 P.3d at 621); Fitzwater, 122 Hawai5i at 365-66, 227 P.3d at 531-32) (determining that while there is no requirement that the records have been prepared by the entity that has custody of them, as long as they were created in the regular course of some entity’s business, the witness must have enough familiarity with the record-keeping system of the business that created the record to explain how the record was generated in the ordinary course of business) (quotation marks omitted).

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Compton, as we must for purposes of a summary judgment ruling, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank had standing to initiate this foreclosure action when it was commenced. Accordingly, we conclude that the Circuit Court erred in granting U.S. Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

“Based on the foregoing, the Judgment and the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against All Defendants and for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure,” both entered on August 10, 2018, by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, are vacated. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent …

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.

 

Just like I said: Megabanks are doing just fine despite economic downturn — at the expense of investors, taxpayers and homeowners.

Major banks, including CitigroupJPMorgan and Morgan Stanley used massive trading revenues to beat profit expectations despite the continued struggles of the United States economy during the coronavirus pandemic. Those trading units tend to perform best when markets are volatile, helping to guard the major banks against economic struggles.

see https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/17/without-big-wall-street-trading-arms-regional-banks-lean-on-mortgages-and-fees-to-beat-earnings.html

Way back in 2006 and 2007 and when I first started publishing articles about the mortgage meltdown (before most people realized there was a meltdown) I reported that the major banks were siphoning off much of the wealth contained inside the U.S.

I said that these mega banks were parking ill-gotten gains off-shore in various assets, — frequently using  a tax avoidance scheme based in Bermuda. And I said that they would repatriate that money only when they needed to do so.  And because they had taken trillions of dollars, they would forever use it to consistently report higher earnings whenever they needed to do so in order to maintain the value of their stock.

I said that they would do it by reporting higher trading profits. They are reporting higher trading profits merely by creating false trades at their trading desks between fictitious entities in which one of the subsidiaries is the “seller” who is reporting a profit.

Sure enough that is exactly what is happening. Small and regional banks don’t have that “nest egg.” They must rely on old fashioned fees and interest to earn money. But the big banks are reporting “trading profits” to offset deficits in interest and fee income caused by the huge economic downturn caused by coronavirus.

Part of those trading profits also come from foreclosures. The proceeds go to the megabanks, who have retained little or no financial interest in the alleged loans much less any losses from the alleged default.

There was no default in any obligation owed to any creditor because there is no creditor who maintains an accounting record on which it claims to own any homeowner debt, note or mortgage by reason of having paid value for it in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage from one who legally owns it.

Simple common sense. If you don’t own the debt you have no reason or authority to mark it “paid” even if you receive the money.  Homeowners and their lawyers should stop taking that leap of faith in which they admit the existence of a default. A default cannot exist on an obligation in which there is a complete absence of a legal creditor. Homeowners didn’t create this mess. It was all the megabanks who made a fortune stealing from investors and homeowners.

A default is the failure to perform an obligation or duty owed to a particular person — not a failure to perform a duty owed to the world in general.

There could be many reasons for the absence of a legal creditor — including the simple fact that everyone has received sufficient payments and settlements such that nobody needs to step into the shoes of a lender which could produce liability for violations of lending and servicing laws.

IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THE BURDEN OF HOMEOWNERS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE REAL CREDITOR. There isn’t one and the banks and their lawyers have been laughing at us for 20 years over getting away with that one. 

It was the mega banks that created loans without lenders — i.e., transactions in which there was no legal person or entity claiming ownership of the obligation.

The banks are using smoke and mirrors. They claim (through third party intermediaries) a “default” in the obligation to pay a nonexistent creditor. The money they receive from foreclosure is pure revenue offset only by the fees they pay to the other intermediary foreclosure players who exist solely to produce profits for themselves and the megabanks.

And pro se homeowners and even lawyers are confounded by this system. They admit the basic elements of the claim even though the basic legal elements are missing.

*
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.

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.
%d bloggers like this: