How to Distinguish Between Ownership of the Debt, Ownership of the Note and Ownership of the Mortgage (or Deed of Trust)

Amongst the lay people who are researching issues regarding who actually can enforce a mortgage, there is confusion arising from specific terms of art used by lawyers in distinguishing between a debt, a note and a mortgage. This article is intended to clarify the subject for lawyers and pro litigants. The devil is in the details.

Bottom Line: In most cases foreclosures are allowed because of the presumption that the actual original note has been physically delivered to the current claimant from one who owned the debt because they both had paid money for it. In most cases merely denying that fact is insufficient to prevent the foreclosure because the court is erroneously presuming that even if the foreclosure is deficient the proceeds of sale will still go to pay the debt.

In most cases those presumptions are untrue but must be rebutted. And the way to rebut those presumptions is to formulate discovery that asks who paid for the debt, when and who were the parties to the transaction?

The  lawyers from the foreclosure mills will fight tooth and nail to prevent an order from the court directing them to answer the simple question of who actually owns the debt by reason of having paid value for it and thus who will receive the foreclosure sale proceeds as payment for the debt. The answer is almost always the same — the foreclosure mill is unable to identify such a party thus conceding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing to bring the foreclosure action.

Eventually some party will be identified by changes in the law as being the legal owner of the debt. thus cleaning up the jurisdictional issue caused by utilizing parties who have neither suffered any financial injury nor are threatened with any such financial injury. But for now, the banks are stuck with the mess they created.

=======================================

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

Transfer of debt is by payment for the debt. Payment means you have a legal and equitable right to claim the debt as your own. Payor is the new owner of the debt and the Payee is the prior owner of the debt. There are no exceptions.

*
The note is evidence of the debt. It is not the debt.
*
Payment of money to a borrower creates a debt or liability regardless of whether or not any document is signed.
*
Signing a document promising to pay creates a liability regardless of whether or not there was ny payment of money. In fact, if someone buys the note for value they become a holder in due course and the maker is liable even if they never received any money, value or consideration.
*
Enforcement of the debt alone is governed by statutory and common law.
*
Enforcement of notes and enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust) is controlled strictly by the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
*
Article 3 UCC governs the negotiation and enforcement of paper instruments containing an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum on a certain date.
*
Article 9 governs the transfer and enforcement of security agreements (mortgages and deeds of trust).
*
Whereas Article 3 does not require the holder of the note to be the owner of the debt for purposes of enforcement of the note, Article 9 requires the holder of the mortgage to be the owner of the debt as a condition precedent to enforcement of the mortgage. No exceptions.
*
Ordinarily the execution of the note causes the debt to be merged with the obligations under the terms of the note. But this is only true if the owner of the debt and payee under the note are the same party. If not, then the execution of the note creates two distinct liabilities — one for payment of the debt and one for payment under the terms of the “contract” (i.e., the note).
*
Before securitization it was customary that the owner of the debt had paid money to the borrower as a loan, and the execution of the note formalized the scheme for repayment. Hence under the merger doctrine the borrower who accepted the loan and the maker of the note were the same party and the Lender of the money to the borrower was also the payee named in the note.
*
Now this is not always the case and appears to be not the case in most loans, which is why the banks have resorted to fabricated backdated forged and robosigned documents. The Lender in many if not most loan originations was not the party named as payee on the note. And the party named as payee on the note had no authority to represent the interests of the lender. Where this is true, merger cannot apply. And where this is true, enforcement of the note is NOT enforcement of the debt. Rather it is enforcement of a liability created entirely by contract.
*
Foreclosure of a mortgage must be for payment of the debt, not just the liability on the note. All states have case law that says that transfer of mortgage without the debt are a nullity. This executing and receiving an assignment of mortgage and even recording it is a legal nullity unless the recipient paid money for the debt and the transferor was conveying ownership of the debt because the transferor had paid money for the debt. If those conditions are not met the executed and recorded assignment of mortgage is a legal nullity and the title record must be viewed by the court as lacking an assignment of mortgage.
*
The judiciary has not caught up with these discrepancies in most instances. Hence a judge will ordinarily presume that the delivery and endorsement of the note and the assignment of the mortgage was equivalent to the transfer of title to the debt, with payment being presumed for the debt. So while the law requires ownership of the debt by reason having paid for it, the courts presume that the debt was transferred along with the paper, subject to rebuttal by the maker and borrower.
*
The rubber meets the road when in discovery and defenses the borrower raises the issue of who paid for the debt and when. In the current world of securitization the answer will be the same: the banks won’t tell you and they won’t admit that the party named as claimant in the foreclosure never paid for the debt, despite appearances to the contrary. 

Chase-WAMU: Is it time to Declare Non Judicial Foreclosure Unconstitutional As Applied?

Faced with a notice of foreclosure sale from a company claiming to be the trustee on a deed of trust, homeowners in judicial states are forced to defend using well known facts in the public domain that are not evidence in a court of law. This is particularly evident in scenarios like the Chase WAMU Agreement with the FDIC and the US Bankruptcy Trustee on September 25, 2008.

In my opinion the allowance for nonjudicial foreclosure in circumstances where a new party appears under a lawyer’s claim that the new party is the beneficiary under a deed of trust under parole claims of securitization is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional  statutory scheme.

All such foreclosures should be converted to judicial and the claimant must prove the essential element under Article 9 §203 UCC that it has a financial interest in the debt because they paid for it. Forcing homeowners to prove that such an interest does not exist is requiring homeowners to have access to knowledge that is unavailable and solely within the control of the party falsely claiming to have the right to enforce the deed of trust and promissory note.

In my opinion this is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional statutory framework. In plain language it favors expediency and moral hazard over truth or justice.

=======================================

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

I have received questions, most notably from Bill Paatalo, the famed Private Investigator who has provided so much information to lawyers, homeowners and a=everyone else about the foreclosure crisis relating to non judicial foreclosures and the Chase-WAMU farce in particular. Here is my answer:

If what you’re saying is that the FDIC never became the beneficiary under the deed of trust, that is correct. But the legal question is whether it needed to become the beneficiary under the deed of trust. As merely a receiver for WAMU the question is whether WAMU was a beneficiary under the deed of trust and the answer is no because they had already sold their interest or presold it before origination.

*
If WAMU was an actual beneficiary then the FDIC was the receiver for the beneficial interest held by WAMU. If that is the case the FDIC could have been represented to be beneficiary on behalf of the WAMU estate for foreclosures that occurred during the time that FDIC was receiver.
*
If WAMU was not an actual beneficiary and could not, as your snippet suggests, sell what it did not own, then the FDIC’s receivership is irrelevant except to show that they had no record of any loans owned by WAMU.
*
One key question that arises therefore is what is a beneficiary? In compliance with Article 9 §203 UCC I think all states that a beneficiary is one who has paid value for the debt, owns it and currently would suffer a debit or loss against that asset by reason of nonpayment by the borrower. Anything less and it is not a beneficiary. And if it isn’t beneficiary, it cannot instruct the trustee to send out notices as though it was a beneficiary.
*
So any notice of substitution of trustee, which starts the whole foreclosure process is bogus — i.e., void as in a nullity. The newly named trustee does not possess the powers of a trustee under a deed of trust. Hence the notice of default, sale and trustee deed are equally bogus and void. They are all nullities and that means they never happened under out laws even though there are lawyers claiming that they did happen.
*
Despite the Ivanova decision in California declaring that such foreclosures can only be attacked after the illegal foreclosure, this is actually contrary to both California law and the due process requirements of the US Constitution.
*
With more and more evidence of fake documents referring to nonexistent financial transactions, the time is ripe for some persistent homeowner, with the help of a good lawyer, to challenge not only the entire Chase-WAMU bogus set up, but to get a ruling from a Federal judge that the abr to preemptive lawsuits to stop collection or foreclosure activity is unconstitutional as applied.
*
In nonjudicial states it converts a statutory system which is barely within constitutional bounds to an unconstitutional deprivation of property and civil rights without due process, forcing the homeowners to come up with answers and data only available to the malfeasant players seeking to collect revenue instead of paying down the debt.

Finally a Judge Asks the right Questions about TILA Rescission and Invites Briefs

The time may now be coming where the court systems and Federal and State legislatures must come to terms with two inescapable legal facts:

(1) That borrowers who sent TILA rescission notices — and particularly those who sent them within 3 years of consummation of the mortgage — still own the land that was deemed “lost” in foreclosure.

(2) That such borrowers possess valid claims to recover title. possession and money damages. 

It was bound to happen and now it has. In one case, a judge is asking the following questions and inviting briefs on the following subjects:

  1. What is the effect of the failure to return consideration upon an attempt to exercise the right of TILA Rescission?  
  2. What is the effect on rescission if the borrower continues to pay? 
  3. Does TILA pertain to refinancing?

See HOW TO FRAME TILA RESCISSION IN YOUR PLEADINGS

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
The Tila Rescission Statute 15 USC §1635 requires, as a condition precedent to demanding payment of the borrower’s debt, that the parties who received money from the borrower arising out of the loan agreement return all such money to the borrower first before anyone can make a claim for repayment. This is why bank lawyers have long advised their arrogant bank clients that failure to follow the rules set forth in the TILA Rescission statute could not only result in loss of enforcement of the mortgage which is automatic, but also loss of the right to enforce the debt.
*
The investment houses, who were the real parties in interest behind the origination or acquisition of residential loans, have long been bullying their way through the TILA Rescission statute since it undermines the value of the derivative infrastructure built and sold over every loan. Thus far they have succeeded in getting virtually all courts. except the Supreme Court of the United States, to go along with the bank narrative regarding 15 USC §1635. In plain terms they got what they wanted: judges ignored TILA rescission and entered orders as though it didn’t exist. But it did exist by operation of law and the US SUpreme Court said so.
*
Failure to return consideration bars collection of the debt. And there are two other things that the “lenders” are required to do as conditions precedent (return cancelled original note, which we all know they don’t have, and file a satisfaction and release of the mortgage in the county records so that the world will know that rescission has occurred. This is the replacement for cancellation of the loan agreement. The new “agreement” is set forth by the statute.
*
The judge doesn’t ask “effect on what?” The mortgage in all events is void, by operation of law. Neither the borrower nor the  creditor can effectively take any out of court action that changes that.
*
There is no unilateral or bilateral action that can be taken by either or both parties to change something that is effective “by operation of law.” The only exception MIGHT be (and probably WILL be) that rescissions sent outside the 3 year period of expiration could conceivably be ignored, but if they are recorded in county records only a party with legal standing could have the rescission notice removed from the chain of title with a court order.
*
And the problem for the banks is that they have no party who could be defined as a creditor — a party who had paid value for the debt and owns the debt, to wit: a party to whom the debt is currently owed. Another way of saying it, if you were listening to to the forensic auditor seminar last Friday, is that only a party who was carrying the borrower’s debt as an asset on its balance sheet as a loan receivable could claim the status of owner of the debt i.e., creditor.
*
The genius of the way securitization has been practiced with respect to residential loans, is that there is nobody who takes a loss from nonpayment of any debt. Nobody is entitled to actually receives the borrower’s payments or the proceeds from a foreclosure or other sale. The money that is received therefore, is revenue upon which they pay no tax because they report it as repayment of debt rather than income. This explains why you can’t get a straight answer on “who owns my debt.” The answer is nobody. But that answer is counter intuitive which is another way of saying nobody wants to actually believe that.
*
The issue is whether the borrower’s should forfeit their homes on a scheme that was based upon receipt of revenue rather than repayment of debt?
*
TILA Rescission highlights this problem because it cuts down the veil or curtain behind which the banks hide. There is no more loan agreement and there is no more note or mortgage from which all sorts of legal presumptions can arise. While I would have thought this day would come sooner we finally have our first judge asking the right questions. Thus the hard “talk” begins.
*
  • What is worrisome is the Judge’s use of the word “attempt.” He phrases the questions in the context of an “attempt at rescission” rather than the event of rescission. Either the rescission was sent or it wasn’t. In Jesinoski v Countrywide that is the end of the issue. If it was sent then TILA rescission is effective by operation of law. There is no attempt which insinuates that TILA rescission is a claim rather than an action with legal consequence. There is no attempt and there is no claim.
*
Paying on the mortgage is only to protect the borrower’s credit rating and prevent action to foreclose on the mortgage that does not exist but will obviously be treated as existing in the current judicial climate. It does nothing to effect what has already occurred by operation of law. The loan agreement is cancelled and with it the note and mortgage became void. The only consequence, rather than effect, is such payments increase the amount of money due back from the parties to whom the money was given or from  parties who originated the loan agreement under TILA or unjust enrichment. No person, whether borrower or lender, can “waive” a legal event that occurred by operation of law any more than they can ignore a court order without being in contempt of court.
*
TILA does pertain to refinancing. I don’t know what is meant by instant “circumstances.” Many “modifications” are actually refinancing. The creditor has changed and remains concealed. The entire purpose of the banks in modification is to validate what is otherwise a void or unenforceable loan agreement using undue duress or even extortion to get the borrower to sign away rights.

How to Frame TILA Rescission in Your Pleadings

In many cases it is the homeowner or their attorney that is confused about the effects of TILA rescission. It is much simpler than what I am seeing. It is an error to present it as a claim. The simple fact about TILA rescission is generally that you are still the owner of the property, free and clear of any legal encumbrance on the title. The debt still exists but the method of collection has changed because of 15 U.S.C. §1635.

Foreclosure is impossible because foreclosure is the exercise of rights under a mortgage or deed of trust that no longer legally exists.

=======================================

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

The job of the forensic auditor in the context of TILA rescission, is simply to determine whether a notice of rescission was ever sent, when it was sent, when the loan agreement was consummated, and whether the notice of rescission was recorded in the county records. The report from a forensic auditor could quote 15 U.S.C. §1635 and then report on whether the notice of rescission complies with the facial elements of the statute.

If so, assuming the forensic reporter is not a title expert, the report could refer to the Jesinoski decision and opinions delivered by outside counsel that the property is owned by the homeowner, free and clear of the encumbrance. I do not believe the report should argue that the debt is uncollectible because enforcement is barred by a statute of limitations. That is a legal argument outside the purview of a forensic auditor.

The same instructions would apply to pleading by a homeowner or their attorney. The situation should be presented as the property is no longer encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust that no longer legally exists. If the foreclosure is based upon enforcement of the mortgage or deed of trust legal standing does not exist by definition. Neither a court nor any claimant possesses any legal right or even argument to take any action in or out of court if that action is based upon the enforcement of a document that legally does not exist anymore.

In a lawsuit against the many parties who seek to enforce void encumbrances, the homeowner should seek declaratory, injunctive and supplemental relief based on the simple fact pattern that the mortgage or deed of trust has no legal existence but the defendants are using it anyway. Therefore the homeowner needs a judgment from the court declaring that the defendants have no right to enforce a document that has no legal existence, issuing an injunction against the defendants preventing them from taking any action in or out of court based upon rights that no longer exist, and granting the homeowner money damages, if applicable.

The prima facie case for the homeowner is simply that the notice of rescission was sent, and that the statute makes rescission effective by operation of law, and that the defendants are proceeding as though they still have a right to foreclose or to collect the debt contrary to the method for collection described in 15 U.S.C. §1635.

I think the problem could be that lawyer’s favor pleading a violation of statute and therefore present TILA rescission as a claim. This is a mistake. It is an event. The pursuit of a foreclosure is not, in my opinion, a violation of the TILA rescission statute. It is the pursuit of a claim that does not exist. The claimant does not exist is the right to foreclose. The claim that still exists is the right to collect on the debt.

There is only one party category that possesses the right to collect on the debt under the TILA rescission statute, to wit: it is a party who has paid value for the debt and therefore owns it. Theoretically the party to brought the foreclosure could be owners of the debt, but usually that is not the case. Usually they are concealing any information about the identity of the owners of the debt. The can only get away with that if a notice of rescission has not been sent. It is only the notice of rescission that removes and cancels the original loan agreement containing the right to foreclose.

Therefore any pleading, motion or argument from a party whose legal standing was dependent upon the existence of the mortgage or deed of trust must be ignored unless they first establish that they still have legal standing because they paid value for the debt and they own the debt, or because they are authorized representatives of an identified owner of the debt.

While I have stated on these pages that any facially valid notice of rescission triggers the effects of 15 USC Section 1635, it is evident that the courts, including the US Supreme Court, will take the position that only notices sent within the three year period of expiration stated in the statute have any chance of being considered. But that is the ONLY occasion in which a notice of rescission can be ignored.

As stated by many bank lawyers, ignoring notices of rescission that are properly sent within the three year expiration period will likely eventually produce a result where the parties seeking to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust can neither enforce the encumbrance nor the debt. Those bank lawyers have warned about negative effects on the derivative infrastructure that is built over such loans if the debt can no longer be enforced because it is barred by statutes of limitation. The banks chose to bully their way through this.

In my opinion the outcome of all this doubt and uncertainty is clear. Eventually the investment banks will pay a very heavy price for ignoring lawfully sent notices of TILA Rescission sent within three years from the date that the loan documents were signed.

 

What to Think About on Appeal From an Unfavorable Trial Court Decision

In response to the rising number of requests for us to write briefs or narrations for briefs I submit this article which is my recent response to such a request. Here is an uncomfortable fact: most appeals arise because of mistakes made by the litigant in trial court, not the judge. All appeals MUST be based upon what did happen in the trial court not what should have happened. 

=======================================

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

*

Yes we write briefs or narration for briefs all the time. Costs run from a low of $6500 to a high (so far) of $15,000. It depends upon how much we need to do. Legal research alone is usually around $1500-$2500. You should have local counsel or appellate counsel to advise you on appellate procedure. There are time limits on everything including filing the notice of appeal which must state specifically what order is being appealed and that it is a final order. Sometimes people get kicked out of appellate process because their notice of appeal cited the wrong order and then the time limit for filing the correct notice has expired. It is very technical.

*
FACTOID: There are statistics on appeals. Generally only one in 6 appeals are successful by any measure and of those many of them are only partially successful requiring additional proceedings in the trial court. The higher you go in the hierarchy of appellate courts the less your chances your case will even be heard, much less decided in your favor. Neither the State nor the U.S, Supreme Court is under any obligation to hear your case. Of the 15% +/- that are “successful” at least half are criminal cases. That means cases involving a civil matter like foreclosure have about a 1 in 12 chance of being “successful” on appeal.
*
EXCEPTION TO THAT GENERAL RULE: It was pointed out to lawyers at a seminar at which bankruptcy judges were presenters, that the typical appeal from the decision of a bankruptcy judge is more susceptible to appeal than the ordinary decisions of courts of general jurisdiction. That is partly because bankruptcy judges) formerly called “magistrates” have limited jurisdiction and they frequently overstep their authority  to make any decision.
*
There are three separate and optional avenues for appeal. Most appeals from Bankruptcy court go to  a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel which is the least likely place to get a reversal. Second, many appeals are made direct to the Circuit Court of Appeals in which appellants typically don’t fare any better than the BAP. And lastly the one least used is an appeal to the Federal District Judge of general jurisdiction where the odds of success rise to 50%. The judges who pointed this out were perplexed why more people didn’t take that route.
*
When writing a brief, your audience is a clerk for the appellate judges. That is a young lawyer, so assume nothing. If you don’t grab the attention of the reader (clerk) immediately your appeal will be thrown onto the pile of cases that will be affirmed.
*
Appellate courts do not try cases — a fundamental fact that is often forgotten by lawyers and unknown to pro se litigants. Even if every judge on the panel thinks they would have decided the case differently they will probably affirm the trial judge’s decision. The principle working here is finality. The courts exist to create finality to disputes, for better or for worse. All decisions are viewed and reviewed in the context of preserving finality. The appellate court will only reverse a decision that is fundamentally wrong on the law. It will almost never reverse a decision that was wrong on the facts.
*
Most cases in which an appellate decision results in reversal are set up at trial. That means careful trial preparation such that a resistant judge is boxed into a corner and the issues for appeal are plain and simple. If your contested issue involves the judge’s discretion the trial court decision will be affirmed practically every time.
*
That said well crafted appeals that are presented with credibility and persuasion can still be filed with at least some prospect for success. Sloppy work will tank even the best case on appeal. Citations to the actual record on appeal are required — not arguing evidence that did not get into the court record (unless exclusion of evidence is the basis of the appeal). In foreclosure cases this is rare because the borrower lacks the evidence to “prove” a case.
*
The foreclosure case is about whether the party seeking the remedy of foreclosure was entitled to do so. Hence the issue in foreclosure cases is more often about the admission of evidence than the exclusion of evidence. Anyone can dash off a brief and “justify” a fee. Only lawyers well versed in the subject and the law surrounding the subject have any chance of producing an effective brief. The brief must be well-written with proper language, punctuation, grammar and context. It must be logical and persuasive. 

How to Use Reports and Affidavits in Foreclosure Litigation: Required Reading for Forensic Audit Seminar Next Friday

Reports and affidavits are helpful but not always useful as evidence. It seems that many people think an affidavit from me will be the magic bullet in their case. It could be but only with proper presentation and following the rules of civil procedure and the laws of evidence.

This is required reading for people attending the forensic audit seminar next Friday. In the end I am seeking your reports to conform to the style and content of what I present at the seminar, in this article and other articles appearing on this blog. The end result for homeowner and their attorneys is to file reports and affidavits that are not only admitted into evidence but also given great weight by the trier of fact.

In plain language I would like to outsource the preparation of the forensic reports on the facts and limit my involvement to what I do best: present the facts with opinion corroborated by those facts. That means learning which facts are likely to give the homeowner’s lawyer some traction and which facts are just surplus accusations that can never be proven in a foreclosure case.

Because in a foreclosure case, the issue is not whether the players are bad players, evil or even thieves. The issue is whether the players can successfully present a case in which it appears that they have satisfied the conditions precedent and the elements of a prima facie case for enforcement of the mortgage through foreclosure.

The answer to that is either yes or no. And walking into any courtroom the presumption, at the very beginning, is that the answer is yes. Our job is turn that around and persuade through logic and facts that the presumption of the existence of the elements for a prima facie case for foreclosure are missing. And while out burden of proof is only a predominance of the evidence, in practice, for homeowners, that translates as something more than “more likely than not.” Where the answer is close, the court will always lean toward the party seeking foreclosure.

=======================================

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

*

An affidavit is a sworn statement. It is not evidence unless a judge admits it as evidence. And it get no weight as evidence unless the trier of fact (the judge in most foreclosure cases) decides to give it weight. The judge won’t allow it or give it weight if it is merely opinions that are not persuasively presented by reference to specific facts or absence of facts. So while my affidavit may be helpful, it is not the opinion that counts nearly as much as the credibility and persuasiveness of the affidavit or report. There is also confusion as to how and when to use forensic reports or affidavits from me. So let me put it this way.

*
In what I call the case analysis, we ordinarily perform vigorous investigation and analysis and then sum up what we have found in the context of what we think might be the best issues on which you could get traction in court.
*
Sometimes we render an opinion and conclusions based upon a forensic report done by others, which we prefer to do. We then issue a report that can be formatted into the form of an affidavit. The issue being addressed in this article is for forensic examiners, homeowners and their lawyers.  An affidavit is frequently requested from me under the mistaken belief that possession of such an affidavit will be crushing blow to the lawyers seeking to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust on behalf of a party who does not ordinarily qualify as a claimant.
*
The simple truth is that the affidavit, no matter how strong or how great does nothing by itself. The issue is how and when the affidavit is used and under what circumstances — e.g. will the homeowner seek to have it introduced as fact or opinion. And will my testimony be used to pride adequate foundation for the affidavit to be introduced as evidence in a court proceeding.
*
So frequently the affidavit homeowners are seeking is “limited scope.” That code for “on the cheap.” I don’t issue reports or affidavits that I don’t think I can defend easily in court under cross examination.  But even if the scope is limited to one question, to wit: in my opinion is US bank a real party in interest, as you know I have already answered that in the articles I have published, although such articles are not necessarily applicable to any one specific case. The answer was “NO.”
*
And you say you want that answer in affidavit form. This is where consultation with local counsel is critical. There are several different ways the affidavit can be phrased and I have some doubts as to whether the answer, in the form of an affidavit, is going to help you. If you don’t know how and when to use the affidavit it won’t do you any good.
*
But I concede that it might do some good inasmuch as sometimes the affidavit is accepted in court in connection with a motion for summary judgment. In all other circumstances the affidavit is not admitted into evidence unless I am retained to appear in court or at deposition in lieu of live testimony in which I give live testimony providing the foundation for the admission of the affidavit into evidence.
*
The admission of opinion evidence is restricted based upon the court’s acceptance of my credentials, experience, education, training etc. To date no court in any state has rejected me as an expert who could give an opinion on the securitization of residential debt.
*
But in all cases where my affidavit or testimony was accepted it wasn’t the opinion that was given weight, it was my report on the facts, revealing an absence of necessary elements to the claim for enforcement of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
Opinion evidence is not admissible without a court approval or order. If it is opposed there is a hearing on whether to allow opinion evidence and if so whether it will be allowed from me.
*
So an affidavit that for a lay person or their lawyer could be helpful to shore up confidence in the attorney’s presentation of the defense, but not much more. It would look something like this.
Based upon the chain of title revealed in the forensic report and my examination of the actual documents recorded, together with my education, knowledge, my proprietary database, and my experience in the securitization of businesses and assets including debt, it is my firm opinion that US Bank never purchased the debt of the homeowner nor did US Bank ever receive ownership of the debt from any person who had paid value for the debt. 

*

Third party claims of possession of the homeowner’s promissory note are attenuated in terms of credibility and lack foundation as to whether such possession by third parties would be possession by US Bank. But such claims are nevertheless taken as true for purposes of this opinion.
 
Based upon Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) there are two deficiencies in the claim of U.S. Bank to enforce the security instrument (mortgage), to wit: 
a) it does not and never has complied with the condition precedent in the UCC that it paid value and therefore has a direct financial stake in the come of a forced sale through foreclosure (i.e., the sale will not produce money proceeds that are paid to US Bank either in a representative capacity nor on its own behalf and
*
b) US Bank does not possess any claim for restitution because it has suffered no loss. Nor is US Bank expecting the receipt of any funds regardless of whether or not the homeowner makes a payment. While foreclosures have been concluded in the name used as claimant in this case, the proceeds of sale of foreclosed property has never been received or deposited by US Bank or on behalf of U.S. Bank.
*
The claim to enforce the mortgage like all civil claims must present a legal person that is possessed of a claim for restitution of a legal debt owed to the claimant based upon a duty of the opposing party owed to the claimant that was breached by the opposing party that produced real legally recognized injury to the claimant.
*
Failure to own the debt is therefore failure to present a legally recognizable claim to enforce the security instrument. Such failure is generally regarded in case decisions to be construed as a lack of jurisdiction by the trial court to consider any controversy where the real parties in interest are not present in person or by proxy.
*
In this case, neither of these conditions is met. The implied trust (and/or US bank as “trustee”), if it/they has any legal existence, has never entered into any financial transaction in which the debt was sold for value or transferred by a person who had paid value. This eliminates compliance with the UCC condition precedent to enforcement and eliminates judicial standing for US Bank to even bring a claim inasmuch as it lacks a legally recognized claim for anything against the homeowner in the case at bar. 

*
The affiant concedes that there is confusion in case decisions on this subject in which possession of the original note gives rise to the presumption of a right to enforce it. While it is doubtful that US Bank ever acquired possession of the original note much less rights to enforce the note, even assuming those conditions were met, that would only raise a presumption of title to the debt and the right to enforce it. But that presumption is factually and completely rebutted by the absence of any claim, transaction or instrument indicating that on any certain day the debt was sold to US Bank.
*
In fact, my specific knowledge regarding the securitization of debt is that an investment bank (brokerage firm) funded the origination or acquisition of the debt and retained ownership of the debt for usually less than 30 days. Hence no transaction in which the debt was sold could have taken place without the participation of the investment bank who advanced the funds. No such transaction ever occurred between the investment bank and US Bank.

Hence the subject debt was never sold or entrusted to US Bank. Hence possession of the note, at most, entitles the possessor to enforce the note, albeit not as a holder in due course since no value was paid. Such enforcement would be under Article 3 of the UCC and not under Article 9 relating to enforcement of secured transactions. 
*
My conclusion is that none of the parties named in connection with the claim against the homeowner have legal standing nor have any of them satisfied the condition precedent to enforcement of the mortgage through foreclosure.

In answer to the specific question posed by the homeowner’s attorney as to the status of US Bank in connection with this loan agreement, US Bank is not a real party in interest with any actual financial stake or risk of loss relating to the loan agreement nor was its purpose ever to serve as an actual trustee for a legal trustee of an actual trust that had any actual financial stake or risk of loss relating to the subject loan agreement.

Although certificates were sold in the name of the trust by the investment bank and other derivative contracts were sold based upon the value of the certificates, none of those contracts transfers any right, title or financial interest, nor any right to enforce, the subject debt, note and mortgage.

Hence any representations that US Bank is serving as authorized representative or trustee on behalf of the holders of such certificates or contracts is not relevant, since none of them have the right to enforce nor any ownership of the debt, even if they did receive the risk of  loss associated with the actual debt. 

So here is where local counsel comes into the picture. Depending upon how he or she wants to present your defense, is the above what they want, or do they want something more, less or different? Are you getting involved in pleading, discovery, preparation for a hearing or trial?

Because my credentials give me credibility and status, and because I would rather review forensic reports than prepare them, I am giving the free forensic law seminar on August 2 which is sold out. It is my hope that the business plans of forensic examiners will be enhanced by associations with established experts like myself in which affidavits are filed not by the examiners whose credentials nearly always in doubt but rather under the signature of someone whose credentials are not in doubt.

California Decision for Borrower Post Sale in Eviction Proceeding

BIG HAT TIP TO STEPHEN LOPEZ, ESQUIRE FOR THIS SAN DIEGO WIN!!

This is the latest of a string of decisions from trial judges who took the time to carefully analyze the law and then facts. In this case the issue was whether the Plaintiff in a lawsuit for Unlawful Detainer could be awarded Summary Judgment simply because the sale had been recorded.

This decision, following the law in all jurisdictions, says that recording the sale is interesting but not dispositive. If the actual sale was void because ti was conducted in favor of a party who was not a true beneficiary under the deed of trust, then the sale itself is void.

This judge quote approvingly from otheor case decisions words to the effect that any other decision would produce the absurd result of allowing completely disinterested parties to issue instructions to sell the property and then claim possession of homestead property.

Despite the long line of “bad results” published, this case shows that a case properly presented, properly argued and based upon sound legal reasoning has a good chance of gaining traction even after the foreclosure has been allowed to proceed. That means you need to prepare and be certain as to your facts and that you don’t ask the court to presume facts in your favor.

We don’t know how this case will  be decided at trial, if there is one. In all probability this case, like thousands of others like it, will most likely be buried by settlement with the homeowner and payment to the homeowner for executing a confidentiality agreement.

For those who bother to actually read the decision it looks like I wrote it. I didn’t. My point is that what I have provided in my articles is not theory. It is fact based upon established law and the real facts of most foreclosure cases. The assignments are void.

If the Plaintiff in this Unlawful Detainer case is unable to prove at trial that it is the owner of the debt it will lose because owning the debt is the key component or element of being a beneficiary under a deed of trust and a key component or element of a valid credit bid.

See 2019.07.15 – Minute order for MSJ

=======================================

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

Key quotes from this decision:

“To establish that he is a proper plaintiff, one who has purchased property at a trustee’s sale and seeks to evict the occupant in possession must show that he acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter “duly perfected” his title.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1161 a, subdiv. 3.) (Id.))[California]”

“[W]here the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee’s sale, he or she ‘need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by the purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title.”‘ (Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado, (2013) 224 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, citing, Old Nat’/ Fin. Servs. V. Seibert (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 460, 465, 239 Cal.Rptr. 728.) “The statute” with which a post-foreclosure plaintiff must prove compliance is Civ. Code, § 2924. (Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado, supra, citing Seidell v. Anglo-California Trusts Co. (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 913, 920, 132 P.2d 12.)

The term ‘duly’ implies that all of those elements necessary to a valid sale exist, else there would not be a sale at all.” (Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado, supra at 9-10, citing Kessler v. Bridge (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 837, 841, 327 P .2d 241 [internal citations omitted].) This holding by the court in Preciado makes clear that in Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a post-foreclosure trustee sale cases, a focus on the sale itself (rather than simply the recorded title documentation) is part of the analysis of determining  whether the title was “duly perfected.”

subsequent buyer must also prove that the trustee sale was conducted in accordance with Civ. Code, § 2924 and that title has been duly perfected. (Stephens, Parlain & Cunningham v. Hollis, supra, at p. 242.)

[l]f the borrower defaults on the loan, only the current beneficiary may direct the trustee to undertake the nonjudicial foreclosure process. “[O]nly the ‘true owner’ or ‘beneficial holder’ of a Deed of Trust can bring to completion a nonjudicial foreclosure under California law.” (Barrioneuveo v Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D.Cal.2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 964, 972.” (Id. at pp. 927-928.) Where the nonjudicial post-foreclosure trustee sale is not property initiated, ” … a borrower may base a wrongful foreclosure claim on allegations that the foreclosing party acted without authority because the assignment by which it purportedly became beneficiary under the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void.” (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 851-852.)

“A void contract is without legal effect. (Rest.2d Contracts,§ 7, com. A.) “It binds no one and is a mere nullity.” (Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1362, 233 Cal.Rptr. 923.) “Such a contract has no existence whatever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither action nor inaction of a party to it can validate it …. ” (Colby v. Title Ins. And Trust Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 632, 644, 117 P. 913.) “If a purported assignment necessary to the chain by which the foreclosing entity claims that power is absolutely void, meaning of no legal force or effect whatsoever, [internal citations omitted] the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority by pursuing a trustee’s sale, and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 855-856; citing Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., at pp. 973-974.

it would be an “‘odd result indeed’ were a court to conclude a homeowner had no recourse where anyone, even a stranger to the debt, had declared a default and ordered a trustee’s sale.”

“[w]hen a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed because he or she has lost her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. If not for the void assignment, the incorrect entity would not have pursued a wrongful foreclosure. Therefore, the void assignment is the cause-in-fact of the homeowner’s injury and all he or she is required to allege on the element of prejudice.” (Id. at pp. 555-556.) “A contrary rule would lead to a legally untenable situation – i.e., that anyone can foreclose on a homeowner because someone has the right to foreclose. ‘And since lenders can avoid the court system entirely through nonjudicial foreclosures, there would be no court oversight whatsoever.”‘

The Truth about US Bank

Lawyers and pro se litigants continue to ignore the basics when mounting a challenge to foreclosures in which US Bank is asserted to be a trustee of a name that is then treated as though it was trust or REMIC Trust. If you look closely, the name is word salad, containing references or names to several named entities and other categories of entities.
*
 A typical presentation asserts no presence of US Bank in its individual capacity, so the institutional implication is false. It is appearing strictly in a representative capacity and an court award of costs against the “claimant” would not, according to US Bank, attach liability to US Bank but to rather whoever was being represented by US Bank “as trustee.” On that we have word salad presenting many options such as
  1. US Bank, as trustee
  2. as successor to Bank of America, as trustee
  3. as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, as trustee
  4. for the holders of certificates entitled
  5. XYZ Corp.
  6. Mortgage pass through Certificates series 200x-a1

If anyone can tell me  from that description who would be liable for costs I applaud them. But I can tell you who would pay the costs regardless of actual legal liability. It would be a company claiming to be an authorized servicer who in fact is getting the money from the investment bank through conduits.

The issue of what if anything was transferred between LaSalle Bank and Bank of AMerica and thus what if anything was transferred between Bank of America and US Bank has actually not been litigated.

My answer is that LaSalle Bank had no duties as trustee, was subjected to the impact of three mergers — ABN AMRO, Citi and Bank of America — and that a trustee only exists for a legally existing trust in which the subject matter (Loan) was entrusted to the trustee for administration of the active affairs of the “trust.” With none of those elements present, nothing could have been transferred.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
As to U.S. Bank, Deutsch, BONY etc. there are two categories that must be considered. If US Bank is named in a Pooling and Servicing agreement then the reasons for its non existence (or more specifically lack of legal presence in court or any other foreclosure proceeding) in fact and at law remain as previously stated in prior articles —- but exclude one central issue that has not been litigated.
*
If US Bank has been asserted as successor to another alleged trustee then all sorts of other issues pop up. The main one that has not been litigated is whether the position of trustee can be transferred or sold like a commodity without consent of the beneficiaries or some other authorized party.
*
In truth the only real “beneficiary” would be the investment bank — if only the trust legally existed. And in truth the investment bank indemnified US Bank from liability in exchange for the use of the US Bank name to create the illusion of institutional involvement.
*
And in truth the only real party in interest is the investment bank, and if the trust actually existed the investment bank would be the only real beneficiary in an arrangement in which the trust name is used as a shield or sham conduit to hold bare naked legal title to paper that fabricates the illusion of debt ownership, much like MERS.
*
And of course the whole use of the term “successor” is constantly used to distract lawyers, judges and homeowners from the fact that the previous party had no interest or right to administer, own, or enforce the subject debt, note or mortgage — unless they are able to produce authorization from the investment bank.
*
But the investment banks have been loath to even hint that they could or would issues such authorization because that would be an admission that they were or are the real party in interest — an admission which probably would subject them to many levels of liability for fraud and statutory violations.
*
It may well be that the pursuit of court costs and discovery available to do that might be the achilles heel of this house of imaginary cards. It would reveal the absence of any party to pay them, which would reveal the absence of a claimant, which would reveal the absence of a claim which would reveal the absence of a client, which would reveal false representations by the foreclosure mill.

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

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

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

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

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

Veira v PennyMac and JPM Chase 4th DCA Finds What Everyone has Known all along — that PennyMac never has standing and Chase, most of the time, doesn’t have standing

Another case showing shifting attitudes toward illegal foreclosures. At the trial level there have been many such decisions, some with an expanded finding of fact showing that the foreclosure was a sham. On appeal, the courts were always looking for ways to sustain the foreclosure; they still do that but more and more appellate courts are starting to understand that there is no party who has standing in most instances — especially a creditor who actually paid value for the debt.

Note how they instruct that judgment must be entered for the borrowers — not dismissal.

And the other thing is that PennyMac is generally a sham in foreclosures. It doesn’t own the debt, it doesn’t own the mortgage, it doesn’t own the note and it probably doesn’t even own the servicing rights.

The big issue continues to be missed. Pleading is different from proof. Asserting standing may meet the requirements of pleading. Proving standing is all about whether the party claiming to be the creditor is the owner of the debt who has paid value for the loan. The presumption arises if the claimant has possession of the original note (if it really is an original and not a fabrication).

The presumption can be rebutted by simply showing that the indorsement was a sham and the assignment of mortgage was sham because there was no transaction in real life in which either party received or paid any money or other value for the loan. Article (§203 UCC prohibits enforcement of the mortgage under those circumstances.

It is black letter law in all jurisdictions that an assignment of mortgage without an actual transfer (purchase and sale of the debt) is a nullity precisely because all jurisdictions have adopted Article 9 §203 UCC.

“However, although the statute makes clear that an assignee has the “same means and remedies the mortgagee may lawfully have,” we have previously held that “[t]he mortgage follows the assignment of the promissory note, but an assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee.” Tilus v. AS Michai LLC, 161 So.3d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So.3d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) );”[e.s.]

see VIEIRA v. PENNYMAC CORP | FindLaw

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

Interesting quotes for foreclosure defense lawyers. As usual with PennyMac, the search was on for the “lost” note, which we all know was destroyed contemporaneously with closing.

The allonge was undated and contained a signature by a JP Morgan representative, but no signature by a Chase Bank representative. The JP Morgan witness could not say when the allonge was executed or when it was imaged into any system.

we perceive the critical issue to be whether sufficient proof was presented at trial to show that Chase Bank transferred the note to JP Morgan, the original plaintiff, prior to suit being filed.

 

Through the JP Morgan witness, PennyMac also introduced into evidence the assignment of mortgage from JP Morgan to PennyMac.

Because it was substituted as plaintiff after suit was filed, PennyMac had to prove at trial that JP Morgan had standing when the initial complaint was filed, as well as its own standing when the final judgment was entered. Lamb v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 174 So.3d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Throughout the proceedings below, the note was lost. Thus, PennyMac had to prove standing and the right to enforce the note, using section 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 673.3091(1)(a), requires in part that “[t]he person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.” (emphasis added).

Standing may be established by possession of the note specially indorsed to the plaintiff or indorsed in blank. Peoples v. Sami II Tr. 2006–AR6, 178 So.3d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); § 673.2031(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.”); § 673.2031(2), Fla. Stat. (“Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument ,including any right as a holder in due course ”).A plaintiff may also prove standing “through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer.” Stone, 115 So.3d at 413 (quoting BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean–Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ). That is because “if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor ” § 673.2031(3), Fla. Stat.

there are problems with PennyMac’s “multi-tiered evidence” arguments. First, it is unclear in what way Chase Bank and JP Morgan are “related entities.” No evidence was presented that JP Morgan and Chase Bank merged or that Chase Bank was completely bought out by JP Morgan. As we have made clear in the past, separate corporate entities, even parent and subsidiary entities, are legally distinct entities. See Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So.3d 251, 251–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are separate and distinct legal entities and a parent corporation cannot exercise the rights of the subsidiary corporation); see also Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So.3d 726, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (noting a conflict of allegations between affidavits and the complaint where the affidavits alleged PennyMac Loan Services, LLC was the servicer and the complaint alleged PennyMac Corp. was the servicer). There was no explicit testimony or other evidence that Chase Bank sold or equitably transferred the note to JP Morgan.

The major stumbling block is that the allonge was signed by a representative of JP Morgan, and there is no signature on the document by Chase Bank. Section 673.2041, Florida Statutes (2017), clearly requires a signature by the current note holder to constitute an indorsement and transfer of the note to another payee or bearer. § 673.2041, Fla. Stat. (“The term ‘indorsement’ means a signature for the purpose of negotiating the instrument [or] restricting payment of the instrument.”). We have previously said, “[t]o transfer a note, there must be an indorsement, which itself must be ‘on [the] instrument’ or on ‘a paper affixed to the instrument.’ ” Jelic v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 178 So.3d 523, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)(second alteration in original) (emphasis added)(quoting § 673.2041(1), Fla. Stat.).

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
Words actually matter — in the world of of American Justice, under law, without words, nothing matters.
*
So it is especially important to presume nothing and actually read words without making any assumptions. Much of what we see in the language of what is presented as a conveyance is essentially the same as a quitclaim deed in which there is no warranty of title and which simply grants any interest that the grantor MIGHT have. It is this type of wording that the banks use to weaponize the justice system against homeowners.
*
There is no warranty of title and there is no specific grant of ownership in an assignment of mortgage that merely says the assignor/grantor conveys “all beneficial interest under a certain mortgage.” Banks want courts to assume that means the note and the debt as well. But that specific wording is double-speak.
*
It says it is granting rights to the mortgage; but the rest of wording  is making reference only to what is stated in the mortgage, which is not the note, the debt or any other rights. So in effect it is saying it is granting title to the mortgage and then saying the same thing again, without adding anything. That is the essence of double speak.
*
In the Cannela Case Judge Marx saw the attempt to mislead the court and dealt with it:

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

9th Circuit Inches Toward Decision of “America’s Wholesale Lender”

The issue is jurisdiction. Lawyers filed papers for AWL but AWL was dissolved as a corporation. The lawyers countered with the allegation, on appeal, that AWL was a fictitious name for Countrywide without specifying the location of CW. Hence no diversity of jurisdiction could be supported by the allegations in the notice for removal.

The claim of diversity was not supported by either facts or allegations establishing diversity. This is the common practice of foreclosure mills and their defenders. They simply make a claim and leave it as “implied” that the grounds exist. Attack that, and you can win.

So the issue before the 9th Circuit was whether the Federal District Court had jurisdiction to enter a dismissal of the claims for wrongful foreclosure. That in turn depended upon whether the case had been properly removed from state court by AWL. If it hadn’t been properly removed then the District Judge had no jurisdiction to enter any order other than the ministerial act of remand to the state court.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals approached the subject gingerly. Since AWL didn’t exist and there was no viable supporting allegation that it was the fictitious name of Countrywide the answer was obvious. AWL could not remove because it didn’t exist.

The hidden story is (a) the number of times AWL was named by lawyers as the foreclosing party with no reference to CW or anyone else claiming to use AWL as a fictitious name and (b) the number  of entities claiming that AWL was a fictitious name for them.

The real question is why should lawyers enjoy immunity from litigation under “litigation Privilege” when they file not for an actual legal entity  but for a group of vendors who all stand to benefit from the foreclosure? If there is no client why should lawyers be immunized?

see Martinez v AWL Remand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

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

 

Cal. 3d DCA: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — You Can Cancel the Assignment, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale and Reverse the Sale.

This decision “Not for publication” takes one more step toward unravelling the false claims of securitization that resulted in millions of fake foreclosures over at least 15 years. The pure nonsense being peddled by Wall Street investment banks still remains as the underlying basis for assumptions and presumptions that are contrary to fact and contrary to legal and equitable principles.

But the window is now open to include the investment banks as defendants in complaints for damages and disgorgement, because as this decision reveals, the courts may not be willing to take a giant leap of faith that someone must be the lender and that “someone” is part of the chain of players who are pursuing foreclosure. Without that leap of faith, without that bias, their “doctrine” is left dangling in the wind.

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

See http://lawzilla.com/blog/rainn-gauna-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank/

YES it does stand for the proposition that at least this court says that cancellation of instruments is the one cause of action that in fact does exist because the assignment was from an assignor that had no interest in the debt. I think that it is important to make it clear that the words “no beneficial interest” means “no ownership of the debt.” But the use of the words “no beneficial interest” implies the validity of the deed of trust by which the property was encumbered in favor of a “lender” (or its agent “MERS”) who was a sales agent and not a lender and from whom the borrower received no funds.

*
This twisted concept seems to be saying to the judicial world that we know that table funded loans occur but we are not going to invalidate the enforcement of contracts lacking in consideration because there must be someone in the mix who did provide consideration and who was in some kind of relationship with the sales agent. Hecne the courts are thinking that they are following substance over form and thus preventing a windfall to borrowers. Instead they are stepping over the facts.
*
The money came from an investment bank and yes the investment bank knew that the “originator” would be named as lender. The purpose of this arrangement was to shield the investment bank from liability for violations of lending laws of which we all know there were many spanning the categories of appraisal fraud, avoidance of underwriting risk (without which nobody could be considered a lender), to concealment instead of disclosure of terms, compensation etc.
*
You can’t pick up one end of the stick without  picking up the other. If we are going to accept the notion that in foreclosure cases we are going to treat a contract as enforceable even though it lacked consideration and nobody else that is named in the chain has ever paid value, then the assumption is that an unnamed party who actually did pay value, is the real party in interest. That is the investment bank. And THAT can ONLY mean that the investment bank was present in underwriting and granting the loan through its naked nominee, the sales agent or “originator.”
*

If that is so then the liability for lending violations MUST attach to the investment bank. And if that is so then at least in judicial states, by alleging those lending violations through the affirmative defense of recoupment, the foreclosure can be mitigated or defeated entirely. In nonjudicial states one would need to allege active concealment preventing the borrower from knowing the real party in interest with whom he was dealing.

*

This could be the end of nonjudicial foreclosures at least as to LBMT-WAMU-Chase. It should be treated as such. If I had time, I could literally write a book about this decision as it is so instructive as to pleading requirements and common mistakes made by trial and appellate courts like for example, assuming that a legal default exists when nobody who owned the debt declared such a default or even said that payment was delinquent in some way.

*
It also shows the lengths that many courts will go to avoid “fraud.” While they will accept the notion that something was wrongful and that the defendants knew it was wrongful, contrary to fact and law, they refuse so see it as fraud. A quick look at any FTC action will reveal that such restrictions do not apply if the same allegations come from a governmental agency.
*

The case is also instructive in that it repeats a very common scenario regarding the origination and progression of the loan. This court and other courts will eventually face the day when their assertions come full circle: for now, they are saying that just because there was no consideration between then named lender and the borrower doesn’t mean there was no enforceable contract.

*

Yes it does mean that in every context other than foreclosure litigation. But because of the rules in UCC Article 3 the maker of a note takes a risk when they execute the promissory note without having received any consideration because the note represents, under law, the right to enforce it, which if it is acquired for value might mean the enforcement would be free from borrower”s defenses. That liability does not create an enforceable loan contract. Even common sense dictates that for a loan contract to be enforceable there must be a loan between the parties to the contract.

*

PRACTICE NOTE: All that said, this case only stands for the proposition that a complaint is sufficient when it pleads that the party on whose behalf an assignment was made had no ownership in the debt. The proof of the pudding will be at trial. How will you prove this basic proposition. The answer is that you have taken the first step which is that you put the matter in issue. The second step is discovery. And the third step, if it ever gets to that, is establishing at trial that the supposed beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage deed had not satisfied its burden of proof showing an ownership interest in the underlying debt.”

*

The opposition to that narrative will be what it has always been. That possession of the “original” note raises the legal presumption that the named beneficiary under the deed of trust in fact was the legal beneficiary under the deed of trust. Possession of the note, they will argue equals ownership of the debt. If the judge accepts that proposition, the burden of proof will then fall on the borrower to rebut that presumption — a leap that most judges have already demonstrated they don’t want to make. So the persuasiveness of then presentation including an unrelenting march toward revelation of the truth is the only thing that carries the day.

*

The banks know that what they’re doing is wrong. But history shows that they can get away with it except with the apparently rare homeowner who aggressively and relentlessly defends the foreclosure.

Stop Feeling Guilty — Be A Warrior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UCC: The Internet is no substitute for law school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Sense Prevails: SCOTUS Broadens Primary Liability for Fraudulent Schemes

For quite some time, the courts have struggled with the concept of primary liability for a lying liar and secondary liability for a liar who passes on the lie knowing that it was a lie. Scotus, in the Lorenzo decision has now said that is a distinction without a difference.

It is not a secondary issue of aiding and abetting, it is a primary issue where the agent, employee, officer or representative of the liar is equally liable for the dissemination of a lie if they know it is a lie.

BUT you still need to prove intent to lie along with the other elements of fraud. A lie is not actionable if the recipient knew it was untrue or should have known or did not rely upon it. If the lie is not material then it is presumed to belie upon which nobody relied.

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

see https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/supreme-court-adopts-broad-interpretation-of-primary-liability-in-sec-antifraud-case

See Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission

The interesting part of this decision is that it is parallel to false securitization claims where various lawyers, servicers and others say things that are lies to mislead the recipient of such information into thinking that the trust has assets that everyone who knows, knows that the trust doesn’t have those assets (i.e., loans).

Justice Breyer writes:

Petitioner Francis Lorenzo, while the director of investment banking at an SEC-registered brokerage firm, sent two e-mails to prospective investors. The content of those e-mails, which Lorenzo’s boss supplied, described a potential investment in a company with “confirmed assets” of $10 million. In fact, Lorenzo knew that the company had recently disclosed that its total assets were worth less than $400,000.

Some quotes from an article (see link above) on this highly important decision:

In a decision beneficial to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that those persons who disseminate statements containing material misrepresentations or omissions are primarily liable for such misstatements even if they did not directly make them.Private securities litigants will likely rely on Lorenzo v. SEC to assert claims against secondary actors—including bankers, lawyers, and accountants—who disseminate statements made by others that they allegedly know are materially misleading, and the Commission is now clear to charge such persons as primary violators without demonstrating that the person who actually made the statement also violated federal securities laws.
*
the Court endorsed the SEC’s approach to scheme liability against those who distribute materially misleading statements with scienter, regardless of whether they are actually the maker of the statements. By holding that a nonmaker can still violate Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, it is expected that private securities litigants will rely on Lorenzo to assert claims against secondary actors who, with scienter, disseminate alleged misstatements made by others. Lorenzo may also further embolden the Commission to allege primary violations against “gatekeepers” and others who did not make the alleged misstatements, but are nonetheless alleged to have been involved in their dissemination.
*
At the request of his supervisor, Lorenzo, an investment banker, sent two emails that he did not draft to prospective investors. Lorenzo’s supervisor provided the content of the two emails, which Lorenzo merely copy and pasted into his own emails. Lorenzo then transmitted the emails and included his signature block with a note that he could be contacted with any questions, but also stated in each email that he had sent it at the request of his supervisor. Although Lorenzo did not draft the content of the emails, the Commission found he acted with intent to defraud because he knew some of the content was false or misleading when he sent them.
*
Before Lorenzo, the Janus and Central Bank decisions seemed to impose strict limits on claims brought by private plaintiffs. The Supreme Court’s new decision affirms that those who disseminate misstatements can commit a primary violation of Rule 10b-5, rather than just a secondary aiding and abetting violation, for which there is no private right of action. Accordingly, Lorenzo may curtail the effect of Janus and Central Bank, and could be interpreted to mean that a secondary actor (e.g., banker, lawyer, accountant) may, under similar facts, be held primarily liable under a scheme liability theory.[19]
*
It will therefore be left to lower courts to determine how far Lorenzo—which on its face appears to limit primary liability to “those who disseminate false statements with intent to defraud”—will stretch primary liability in private actions, if at all. Indeed, plaintiffs will still be required to plead with particularity that the “nonmaker” had such an intent.

If you think foreclosures are a thing of the past, think again

In order to maintain the illusion of legality and an orderly marketplace the banks and their servicers must continue to push foreclosures even if it means going after people who are not actually withholding payments. The legacy of the mortgage meltdown and the brainless government policies that let the banks get away with what they had done, is that the crime not only continues but is being repeated with each new claimed securitization or “resecuritization” of residential loans.

As I predicted in 2006, the  tidal wave of foreclosures was in fact unprecedented, underestimated and continues to this day. With a starting point of around 2002, foreclosures attributed to the mortgage meltdown have continued unabated for 17 years. I said it would 20-30 years and I am sticking with that, although new evidence suggests it will go on much longer. So far more than 40 million people have been displaced from their homes and their lives.

Google Buffalo and New Jersey, for example and see whether they think foreclosures are a thing of the past. They don’t. And the people in Buffalo are echoing sentiments across the nation where the economy seems better, unemployment is down, wages are supposedly increasing but foreclosures are also increasing.

And let’s not forget that back in the early and mid 2000’s foreclosures did not mention trustees or trusts. In fact when the subject was raised by homeowners it was vehemently denied in courts cross the country. The denials were that the trusts even existed. This was not from some homeowner or local lawyer. This was from the banks and their attorneys. It turns out they were telling the truth then.

The trusts didn’t exist and there were no trustees. But in the upside down world of foreclosure here we are with most foreclosures filed in the name of a nonexistent implied trust on behalf of a “trustee” with no trustee powers, obligations or duties to administer any assets much less loans in foreclosure.

In order to understand this you must throw out any ideas of a rational market driven by fundamental economics and accept the fact that the banks  and their servicers continue to be engaged in the largest economic crime in human history. Their objective is foreclosure because that accomplishes two goals: first, it rubber stamps prior illegal practices and theft of borrowers’ identities for purposes of trading profits and second, it gives them a free house and free money.

If they lose a foreclosure case nobody suffers a financial loss. If they win, which they do most of the time (except where homeowners aggressively defend) they get a free house and the proceeds of sale are distributed to the players who are laughing, pardon the pun, all the way to the bank. Investors get ZERO.

As for modifications, look closely. The creditor is being changed along with the principal interest and payments. It might just be a new loan, except for the fact the new “lender” is a servicer like Ocwen who has not advanced any money for the purchase or acquisition the loan. But that’s OK because neither did the lender or the claimant. Modification is a PR stunt to make it look like the banks are doing something for borrowers when in fact they are stealing or reassigning the loan to a totally different party from anyone who previously appeared in the chain of title.

Modification allows the banks to claim that the loan is performing — thus maintaining the false foundation supporting trades and profits amounting to dozens of times the amount of the loan. Watch what happens when you ask for acknowledgement from the named Plaintiff in judicial states or the named beneficiary in nonjudicial states. You won’t get it. If US Bank was really a trustee then acknowledging a settlement on its behalf would not be a problem. As it stands, that is off the table.

The mega banks, with unlimited deep pockets derived from their massive economic crimes, began a campaign of whack-a-mole to create the impression that foreclosures were on the decline and the crisis is over. Their complex plan involves decreasing the number of filed foreclosures where the numbers are climbing and increasing the filed foreclosures where they have allowed the numbers to sink. Add that to their planted articles in Newspapers and Magazines around the country and it all adds up to the impression that foreclosures derived from claimed securitized loans are declining.

Not so fast. There were over 600,000 reported foreclosures last year and the numbers are rising this year. Most of them involve false claims of securitization where the named claimant is simply appointed to pretend to be the injured party. It isn’t and in many cases a close look at the “name” of the claimant reveals that no legal person or entity is actually named.

US Bank is often named but not really present. It says it is not appearing on its own behalf but as Trustee. The trust is not specifically named but is implied without the custom and practice of naming the jurisdiction in which the trust was organized or the jurisdiction in which it maintains a business. That’s because there is no trust and there is no business and US Bank owns no debt, note or mortgage in any capacity. The certificates are held by investors who acknowledge that they have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. So who is the claimant? Close inspection reveals that nobody is named.

In fact, those foreclosures proceed often without contest because homeowners mistakenly believe they are in default. In equity, if the facts were allowed in as evidence, the homeowner would be entitled to a share of the bounty that was a windfall to the investment bank and its affiliates by trading on the borrower’s signature. A “free house” only partially compensates the homeowner for the illegal noncensual trading on his name with the intent of screwing him/her later.

Upon liquidation of the property the proceeds of sale are deposited not by an owner of the debt, but by one of the players who just added insult to injury to both the borrower and the original investors who paid real money but failed to get an interest in the fabricated closing documents — i.e., the note and mortgage.

The Banks have succeeded in getting everyone to think about how unfair it is that homeowners would even think of pursuing a “free house”. By doing that they distract from the fact that the homeowners and the investors who put up the origination or acquisition money are both excluded from the huge profits generated by trading on the signature of borrowers and the money of investors who do not get to share in the bounty, which is often 20-40 times the amount of the loan.

The courts don’t want to hear about esoteric arguments about the securitization process. Judges assume that somewhere in the complex moving parts of the securitization scheme there is an owner of the debt who will get compensated as a result of the homeowner’s refusal or failure to make monthly payments of interest and principal. That assumption is untrue.

This is revealed when the money from the sale of property is traced. If you trace the check you will be mislead. Regardless of where the check is mailed, the check is actually cashed by a servicer who deposits it to the account of an investment bank who has already received many times the amount of the loan principal. That money is neither credited to the account of the borrower nor reported, much less distributed to investors who bought certificates (wrongly named “mortgage bonds”).

Neither the investors who bought the original uncertificated certificates nor the investors who purchased contracts based upon the apparent value of the certificates ever see a penny of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale.

In order to maintain the illusion of legality and an orderly marketplace the banks and their servicers must continue to push foreclosures even if it means going after people who are not actually withholding payments. The legacy of the mortgage meltdown and the brainless government policies that let the banks get away with what they had done, is that the crime not only continues but is being repeated with each new claimed securitization or “resecuritization” of residential loans.

When the economy contracts, as it always does, the number of foreclosures will shoot up like a thermometer held over a steam radiator. And instead of actually looking for facts people will presume them. And that will lead to more tragedy and more inequality of income, wealth and opportunity in a country that should be all about a level playing field. This is not the marketplace doing its work. It is the perversion of the marketplace caused by outsized and unchecked power of the banks.

My solution is predicated on the idea that everyone is to blame for this. Everyone involved should share in losses and gains from this illicit scheme. Foreclosures should come to a virtual halt. Current servicers should be barred from any connection with these loan accounts. Risk and loss should be shared based upon an equitable formula. And securitization should be allowed to continue as long as securitization is actually happening — so long as the investors and borrowers are aware that they are the only two principals on opposite sides of a complex transaction in which trading profits are likely as part of the disclosed compensation of the intermediaries in the loans originated or acquired.

Disclosure allows the borrowers and the investors to bargain for better deals — to share in the bounty. And if there is no such bounty with full disclosure it will then be because market forces have decided that there should not be any such rewards.

How to Think About MERS

If you are going to challenge a foreclosure or sue for wrongful foreclosure and fraud, you need to know what you are doing and know what your opposition has been doing. You also must know what to do about it because knowing is not enough. You need to convince a judge who starts from a bias of upholding “contract” because that is what judges are supposed to do in our system.

Bottom Line: You must convince the judge that the claimant has not satisfied its burden of establishing an enforceable contract between itself and the borrower. And in the case of foreclosure the claimant must satisfy the condition precedent of ownership of the debt. That condition is often “met” solely by legal presumption arising from documentation that is proffered without any meaningful objection and without any impeachment of foundation witnesses.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
Think about MERS as your next door neighbor. He lets anyone come into his house and play with his computer. You simply are required to pay him a fee every month and he gives you a key, and the login and password to get into his computer.
*
So you go in and prepare a report from his computer saying that your loan is all paid up and a release and satisfaction is being filed. Just to be on the safe side you show that the mortgage was transferred to a party that has not made any claim for collection, further confusing the issue of ownership of the debt or mortgage.
*
Then you go to court and introduce the report as proof that the mortgage is satisfied. The report says is from John  Smith, your neighbor who is in the business of keeping mortgage records. You don’t show a canceled check or wire transfer receipt because there is no canceled check or wire transfer receipt; you just introduce the report that you created from your own data for your own purposes and published it with the sole purpose of showing it in court.
*
You bring in your neighbor who testifies that these records are kept in the ordinary course of his business and that the entries were made at or near the time of a transaction. (Notice he doesn’t say the entries were made at or near the time of THE transaction).
*
The court accepts the document that you prepared on your neighbor’s computer as evidence that the loan was entirely paid off and that a satisfaction of mortgage should have been issued. Notice that the evidence is not that YOU paid it off but rather that is was just paid off.
*
The response from your opposition would be that they want to see proof that you paid it off. But you have already introduced the report as your neighbor’s report (an independent third party) and the court accepted it as a business record of your neighbor. The court record now has “conclusive” evidence that the the loan was paid off. Further inquiry is not required and you shouldn’t be required to answer such a silly question that invades your private financial information.
*
Judgment is entered in your favor and the opposing party is taxed with costs and fees if you had an attorney. Further the court declares the mortgage satisfied and that the final order of the court should be recorded in the public records. Maybe the court orders the party you named in the report as being the new mortgagee to file a satisfaction of mortgage.
*
That is how MERS works. It’s simple reason for being in existence is not just to avoid recording fees but to act as a substitute for proof of an actual transaction. MERS is the neighbor of the banks and servicers. It gives them the key, the login and the password. After that they are on their own as to what data is entered into MERS and what reports are issued from MERS and what is in each report issued under the name of MERS.
*
So if someone is attempting to rely on a MERS report they are relying on a fiction of their own making. This is somewhat like uploading a fake trust document to SEC.gov and then citing to it as worthy of judicial notice or using it as a government filing. It isn’t. It’s just a fiction of their own making. And it never has the mortgage loan schedule attached which means the trust document is incomplete, subject to some later addition/revision that might or might not have been accepted by someone was authorized to accept it.
*
Objections to the MERS report must be about foundation. Discovery and investigation is key to knowing the facts as they apply to your case. Writing and presenting the defense narrative in motions and pleadings is the other key. Here is what you should be thinking about:
  • Establish that nobody employed by MERS entered any data or produced any report.
  • Ask the players for the identity of the individuals who entered data.
  • If they give you the name, question the individual.
  • Ask for the identity of individuals who produced reports.
  • If they give you the name, question the individual.
All this will make opposing counsel very uncomfortable as you are zeroing in on the nub of a fraudulent scheme. The lawyers will start feeling the heat as they approach suborning perjury. The banks will feel the heat because it threatens to expose the reality that nearly all claimed securitizations of residential loans were faked. That is the key to a successful (and confidential) settlement — the value of your case as threat to their  entire scheme or parts of it.
*
Spoiler alert: in most cases counsel will abandon the MERS report and use some other fabricated document instead. But you can use inconsistencies between their previous and current position to reveal that there are gaps that cannot be filled by legal presumptions.
*
In order to start defending you must know things. But in order to get traction in court you need to convince the judge. Badly drafted pleadings undermine credibility. That is why you need professional assistance.
*
The person drafting your defense narrative and the drafting your motions, discovery, and pleadings must know what needs to be said in order for the court to take the defense narrative seriously. And what needs to be said often sounds tame or irrelevant to lay people who want the judge to know that the opposition is a bunch of liars and thieves. Really good legal writers know that such conclusions are best left to the judge, after a process in which he/she gets thoroughly disgusted and exasperated with the lawyers, the servicer and the bank pretending to be a trustee of a dubious trust. 

Beware of Magic Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

%d bloggers like this: