Beware of Financial Rescue Scams Including Modifications

The offer of modification is actually inviting you to formally join the securitization process without getting paid for it.

I write often about the illegality of the Wall Street schemes that have defrauded investors and homeowners out of their money and investments. But there is also another aspect to this.

The coming Tidal Wave of evictions and foreclosures is going to produce a tidal wave of scams that deprive homeowners and tenants of what little income or assets they have left.

Some of the scams are very close to legitimate business propositions. There is nothing wrong with a risk sharing agreement in which an investor gives consideration to the homeowner in exchange for petitioner patient in the title will proceeds arising from the sale or refinancing from the house. And the consideration could be funding the defense of the property – or even making an offer to pay off the balance as demanded, provided the claimant show proof of payment which in turn would show proof of ownership of the underlying debt.

There are plenty of legitimate business propositions that could be profitable and successful for both the homeowner and the investor/rescuer. In some of them, homeowners might be required to pay rent to the investor. There is nothing illegal about that.

But mostly, homeowners are going to be approached by disreputable people who are simply out to make a buck and neither intend any beneficial outcome for the homeowner nor do they have any credentials, training or education which they could employ for the benefit of the homeowner.

As I have previously written on these pages, the form in which the scams are presented varies because, like the banks, they use labels to hide what they are really doing. But the substance is always the same.

Since the goal is money, and they probably know they need to hit and run, they going to demand money in one form or another to be transferred from the homeowner to the “rescuer” sooner rather than later.

In addition, they may ask for quitclaim deed, the execution of which is detrimental to the interests of the homeowner. By the execution of a quitclaim deed, the homeowner might lose standing to challenge the investment banks when they seek to administer, collect or enforce the homeowner transaction that gave rise to the appearance of a “loan” transaction.

So if someone asked for money or deed upfront, the proposal is probably part of a scam. An excellent way of determining whether the proposal is part of the scam is to simply read and hear what they are promising. In order to close the deal scam artist will promise things or results that will never be delivered.

Any qualified professional will tell you that when you are entering into a dispute, if anyone promises or guarantees a specific result, they are lying to you. So if someone guarantees you a result, the proposal is probably part of a scam.

In addition remember that if it seems too good to be true, then it is not true and it is not good. Scammers will tell you what you want to hear and you will want to believe it because it is what you want to hear.

So as a yardstick to measure such proposals consider this blog. I will tell you that current law forbids enforcement of your debt, note or mortgage. But I also tell you that (a) in order to defend you must enter the process of litigation and administrative contests and (b) the odds are stacked against you because judges have it in their mind they are saving the financial system form collapse. While I say that a majority of the people who follow my advice win their cases or achieve a successful result, that also means that in a substantial minority of cases, people lose and are forced to leave their homes after spending money on the defense. I can guarantee that current law means that homeowners SHOULD win but I can’t guarantee that they WILL win.

MODIFICATION IS A SCAM

Lastly, one of the scams that will be proposed to you is an offer of modification from what appears to be the “servicer” of your “loan”. In most cases this is offering you ice in the winter. You should consult an accountant or other financial expert to determine the value of the offer of modification. But more than that you need to realize that the offer of modification is actually inviting you to formally join the securitization process.

Modifications actually formalize the illegal practices conducted by the investment banks. Since they have retired the actual loan accounts, there are no actual creditors who can legally make a claim.

The banks have been getting away with designating parties to act as though they were creditors even though they are not. They know this is a very weak spot in their strategy. So they offer agreements that are entitled “modifications” which do virtually nothing to change the terms and conditions of the loan, although some incentives might be offered to reduce the homeowner to sign the agreement.

The real purpose of the agreement is to get the homeowner to agree that the use of the designee, like the company pretending to be the “servicer”, is perfectly acceptable to the homeowner. In so doing, the homeowner has essentially waived all potential defenses that could arise under the Uniform Commercial Code or under common law. The requirement that claimant must have financial injury in order to bring a claim will also have been waived unintentionally by the homeowner, who will then be sued or coerced into making payments that are not due. This also sets the stage for the declaration of default by a non-creditor which can then be enforced by the contract of “modification”.

It is obvious that the proposal for modification is coming from someone who has no authority or powers to propose or enter into any agreement that affects your homeowner transaction (“loan”) in any way. Yet for purely practical reasons it may well be in your interest to agree. Depending upon your financial circumstances and your appetite for risk you might want the entire ordeal to simply end and modification might be an effective way out of it.

But remember though you do have some bargaining control that is not apparent. And although the agreement is not actually a legally binding instrument for a variety of reasons it no doubt will be treated as binding by the courts and will be codified into legitimacy by the coming resets of state legislatures.

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.

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

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice work if you can get it.

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

see US Bank LSF9 v Verhagen 7-20-20

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some important quotes from the above cited article:

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

 

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

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

========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

Here is my reply:

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

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

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

*

I have written extensively on the result of this analysis.

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

Does the REMIC Trust Exist?

In all jurisdictions, even if the trust has some assets, and therefore legal existence as a legal person, if the asset in question has not been entrusted to the trustee on behalf of beneficiaries, the existence of the trust is completely irrelevant. And all claims arising from the supposed existence of the trust are also irrelevant and lack Foundation.

I agree that the existence of the Trust might be a subject for debate.

However, the fact that a trust exists on paper does not mean that it exists relative to any loan or debt or note or mortgage.

In fact, the fact that it exists on paper does not mean that it exists at all in many states.

In those jurisdictions in which a trust is drafted on paper and recognized as a business entity, the trust is considered inchoate, which means sleeping. The failure to recognize this fact has led to the failure of many family trusts and the payment of high taxes.

In all jurisdictions a trust that does not have any assets, liabilities, income, expenses or business is not treated as a legal entity.

In all jurisdictions, even if the trust has some assets, and therefore legal existence as a legal person, if the asset in question has not been entrusted to the trustee on behalf of beneficiaries, the existence of the trust is completely irrelevant. And all claims arising from the supposed existence of the trust are also irrelevant and lack Foundation.

*
An asset cannot be entrusted to the trust or trustee unless title to the asset has been conveyed to the trustee to hold in trust according to the terms of the trust agreement. And there can be no conveyance from someone who doesn’t own the asset. The only way you get to own a debt is payment of consideration to someone who paid consideration for the asset. That is the law and it is not up for debate.
*
It is the payment of consideration that determines ownership of an asset or debt or note or mortgage. 
*
Note that the PSA  often cited as the trust agreement often is not the trust agreement and that even if it says it is the trust agreement there is another instrument in which the named trustee acknowledges that its purpose is to receive bare legal title to security instruments and notes on behalf of the investment bank who often also serves as Master servicer. I have never seen such a conveyance to the trust or trustee from anyone who owned the debt note or mortgage.
*
And without conveying the debt, there can be no conveyance of the mortgage. therefore all assignments (without a concurrent sale and purchase of the debt from someone who owned it) avoid.
*
But if you don’t raise this issue you might waive it. and by waiving it you are giving a windfall to the participants in a business venture that has the title of a foreclosure action. That business venture os for profit and has nothing to do with recovering losses from an unpaid loan or debt.

*
This is important because when the Foreclosure Mills pursue foreclosure they have only one witness. The witness is a robo witness who is employed as an employee or independent contractor of a self-proclaimed servicer. the witness provides testimony that the records introduced by the servicer are the records for the trust.
*
This testimony is either direct testimony or it raises the inference or presumption that the records are the records of the trust, because the servicer is supposedly working for the trust. But if the trust has nothing to do with the “loan,” then the servicer is working for an entity that has no legal relationship with the debt note or mortgage.
*
That is the point at which the defense and raised a motion to strike, once it has been established that this fact pattern is the only one before the court. Assuming defense Counsel has raised the appropriate objections along the way, the record submitted by the self-proclaimed servicer should be stricken from the record as not being the records of a creditor. The case collapses because no evidence is legally before the court.
*
Even if the servicer was actually collecting payments or actually doing anything, which is clearly debatable since most of these activities are probably actually conducted by Black Knight, the appearance of the servicer would not be the appearance of the Creditor, who is therefore not the named claimant or plaintiff.
*
The servicer becomes a witness at best and not a very credible one. If discovery has been conducted properly, the defense can clearly raise the inference that the servicer has an interest in the outcome of the litigation. This means that the attempt to get the servicer’s records into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule can be defeated. This is especially true if the servicer is not actually processing any business transactions. This dovetails with the evidence that the lockbox system is actually controlled by Black Knight.
*
And THAT is important because it undercuts the claim of a “boarding process” which in most cases has never existed. It is only through the fictitious boarding process that the records of prior self–proclaimed servicers are able to come into evidence. The truth is that all of those records are mere projections and estimates and the foreclosure mills depend upon the failure of the homeowner and their counsel to actually compute whether the records are even true.
*
One last comment is that one of the big failures in foreclosure defense is the failure to question who is receiving payments from the self-proclaimed servicer. An inquiry into this subject would reveal that the servicer is not receiving any payments and is not making any payments to anyone else. This would undercut the foundation for the inference or presumption that the self-proclaimed servicer is actually performing servicer functions.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

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

From the Horse’s Mouth: WAMU Originated “Loans” Are not Assets of Chase or Even Any trust If the Sale was to a “Depositor”

Many thanks to Bill Paatalo for bringing this to my attention.

This article brings to the forefront a central issue that Wall Street cannot escape unless we let them: in the context of securitization, the paper transfers to the “depositor” is not a sale even if it is treated as a sale by the “Seller.” That means that the homeowner transactions that were falsely labeled as loans were never securitized. In other words, the whole thing is a lie. A LivingLie, which is why I named named this blog as such.

==

I would suggest that practitioners take note of this. As many judges have specifically declared in their finding of facts, the “sale” to the   “depositor” in a securitization scheme is a sale to a legal entity.

Take special note that the filings with the SEC admit that the issue of whether and when any sale has actually taken place is subject to “argument.” That is a peculiar statement when you’re dealing with paperwork that “memorializes” the sale of trillions of dollars worth of transactions.

This means that when feeders like Long Beach Mortgage originated homeowner transactions on behalf of WAMU, the most likely cash flow (i.e. real transactions) included a fee paid to Long Beach to act as Lender (so everyone else could avoid lender liability for violations of lending laws). It also means that WAMU was only the servicer. And it means that the homeowner transacted was actually funded by a third party (investment bank) — and what THAT means is that no actual sale ever took place of any debt, note or mortgage. 

And THAT brings to the central issue — on what basis can a non-creditor appoint a designee or nominee to collect on a debt that they don’t own?

And without a sale to the trustee of the REMIC “trust” it is the Depositor who owns the homeowner obligation. That means under black letter law that neither the trustee nor the trust can be named as claimant or beneficiary or plaintiff in a foreclosure proceeding because they are not a creditor.

see WaMu’s securitized mortgages were “legally isolated” and out of the reach of the FDIC’s Receivership. Hence, “Nemo dat quod non habet” (One cannot give what one does not have).

“For transactions in which WMB is a mortgage loan seller, investors should consider the following:
WMB sells mortgage loans to the depositor. WMB is a federal savings association, and its deposits are insured by the FDIC. If certain events occur relating to WMB’s financial condition or the propriety of its actions, the FDIC may be appointed as conservator or receiver for WMB.

WMB will treat its transfer of mortgage loans to the depositor as a sale. Arguments may be made, however, that the transfer of the mortgage loans constitutes only the grant of a security interest under applicable law.
Nevertheless, the FDIC has issued a regulation surrendering certain rights to reclaim, recover, or recharacterize a financial institution’s transfer of financial assets such as the mortgage loans if:
the transfer involved a securitization of the financial assets and meets specified conditions for treatment as a sale under relevant accounting principles;
the financial institution received adequate consideration for the transfer;
the parties intended that the transfer constitute a sale for accounting purposes; and
the financial assets were not transferred fraudulently, in contemplation of the financial institution’s insolvency, or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the financial institution or its creditors.
WMB’s transfer of the mortgage loans will be intended to satisfy all of these conditions.
If a condition required under the FDIC’s regulation were found not to have been met, however, the FDIC could seek to reclaim, recover, or recharacterize WMB’s transfer of the related mortgage loans. The FDIC may not be subject to an express time limit in deciding whether to take these actions, and a delay by the FDIC in making a decision could result in delays or reductions in distributions on the certificates. If the FDIC were successful in any of these actions, moreover, holders of the certificates may not be entitled under applicable law to the full amount of their damages.
Even if the conditions set forth in the regulation were satisfied and the FDIC did not reclaim, recover, or recharacterize WMB’s transfer of the related mortgage loans, distributions to holders of the certificates could be delayed or reduced if WMB entered conservatorship or receivership.
The FDIC may be able to obtain a stay of any action by the trust, the trustee, the servicer, or any holder of certificates to enforce any obligations of WMB under any transaction document or to collect any amount owing by WMB under any transaction document. The FDIC also may require that its claims process be followed before payments
For transactions in which WMMSC is a mortgage loan seller, investors should consider the following:
WMMSC sells mortgage loans to the depositor. WMMSC will represent and warrant in the mortgage loan sale agreement that the transfer of the mortgage loans to the depositor is an absolute sale, so that the depositor is the sole owner of each mortgage loan. WMMSC is eligible to be the debtor in a bankruptcy case. If WMMSC were to become a debtor in a bankruptcy case, and a party in interest (including WMMSC itself) were to take the position that the transfer of the mortgage loans to the depositor is not a sale, but rather should be recharacterized as the grant of a security interest in the mortgage loans to secure a borrowing of WMMSC, delays in distributions on the certificates could result. If a court were to adopt such a position, then delays or reductions in distributions on the certificates could result.
  WMMSC and the depositor have taken steps to minimize the risk that in the event WMMSC were to become the debtor in a bankruptcy case, a court would order that the assets and liabilities of the depositor be substantively consolidated with those of WMMSC. The depositor is a separate special purpose corporation.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

HELOC Securitization Analysis — Why Are There Two “wet ink” Signatures? What Rights Does MERS Possess?

“a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it”

“because MERS was never the lawful holder or assignee of the notes described and identified in the consolidation agreement, the corrected assignment of mortgage is a nullity, and MERS was without authority to assign the power to foreclose to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to show that it had standing to foreclose.”

The writer of this article shall remain anonymous. He sent me the following. I concur with his analysis:

I came across your June 17th post about the mortgage exec that double-pledged some notes.  This is a subject I’ve been looking into for a while, thanks to Nye Lavalle’s writings – damn him for sending me down that rabbit-hole.  You might also look at:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-comptroller-mortgage-lender-charged-bank-fraud-and-wire-fraud and the incitement at https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1017921/download

As I came to realize that this isn’t a one-off scam…  I got to thinking about why do all closings require two wet-ink originals?  Not only for “sum certain” mortgages but for HELOC’s too.  So, I darned my tinfoil hat and let my mind wander into the conspiracy abyss.  I’ve always been uncomfortable with the double-document signing at closings.

As I carefully nit-pick through my own documents, I can’t help noticing that, often is the case that the County recording uses one set of the wet-inks, while the bank uses the other.  Is this just a matter of convenience, whereby the closing title/abstract company sends one set to the county clerk and the other to the lender, for its MERS recording.  Of course, the counties don’t record notes, only mortgages, so that’s a bit of a chink in the armor there.

Then I realized that the Clerk set isn’t indorsed because that process comes later (albeit not much later, actually depending on the county’s back-log it could be sooner than later) – OK, no big deal – BUT WAIT – it’s not like they wait to get the recorded set back and then indorse it – no – they just indorse the other set.  So, the secondary-market set is not the recorded set.  Hmmm, Ok, a bit nefarious, but is it a non-starter for foreclosure –  probably not.

But then I realized that my HELOC had the same slipperiness.  In HELOC foreclosures (at least mine with Citibank), the bank presents the endorsed HELOC (HELOC-CEMA because it’s NY) as its prima facie evidence for standing, swearing that it’s the “indorsed note”; while sometimes also swearing that it’s not securitized it never left the bank’s hands (holding), which in-and-of itself is curious, because if it never transferred, then why is it indorsed?

TIME OUT:  No Neil, I didn’t make a spelling mistake (indorsed vs endorsed), but I am messing with you, because so are the banks.  Of course, you know (but your readers probably don’t, and many judges probably miss the subtlety too).  “Endorse” means accredit by bestowing recognition; whereas “Indorse” means to sign a negotiable instrument for transfer as per the UCC.  Sadly, many dictionaries, especially software and web-based lexicons make these two words synonymous, which they are not.  Some lexicons don’t sanction“indorse” as a correct spelling, which it is, but as a different word, not just an alternate British/American spelling choice.

OK, back to the bank’s slip & slide of portending that they are presenting an indorsed note.  Nope, a revolving line of credit agreement (HELOC or Reverse mortgage) is not a note.  It’s not a “sum certain” so it can’t be a note, because a “note” is a negotiable instrument (as per article 3 — but even article 9 provides the same definition albet enables transfer by assignment because it may not be indorsed, hence non-negotiable).

This lack of “sum certainty” restricting “note” status was adjudicated in NY Appellate 2nd Dept. in 2018 (i.e. it’s not a note)

But it’s rarely cited – probably best, since most lawyers would mess-up the citing and blow it for those of us who know how to use it – i.e. hand judges opportunities to make bad precedential decisions.

An observing-eye reminds us that a note is a one-sided promise, whereas an agreement is a two-sided contract (signed and countersigned – regardless of adhesion); thus, not really assignable, carte blanche, it requires a blessing by both parties but that step never transpires – imagine that…

Anywho: This is just the jumping-off point, the next part is the fun stuff.

So, the bank provides affidavits and exhibitions swearing (a/k/a perjuring) up-and-down that the indorsed note is right there in front of the judge.  Sure, it may look like a HELOC agreement, but the plaintiff’s attorney assures the judge, it’s a note – pointing to the prima facie doc – look right there, there’s the indorsement, so it must be a note – Right?  WRONG!  i.e. your long-standing argument about “presumption”.

Well, first of all, we (you and I) believe that the HELOC was securitized, so they don’t, or shouldn’t really, have a copy of the document anyway.  But we haven’t really dug much deeper, because we believe it’s impossible to get anywhere  with the dastardly banks in discovery.  So, I did some digging…. albeit without the help of formal discovery.

HELOCs (revolving lines of credit) can’t be securitized, because securitizations require fixed assets for valuations, and a revolving line of credit isn’t a fixed asset, it can’t be valued “sum certain” from its “four corners.”  But wait, that’s ridiculous, because we all know that HELOCS, Reverse mortgages, Credit Cards, etc. ARE securitized; perhaps not as RMBSs but rather as ABSs or other permutations.  So, what the hell am I talking about, saying they can’t, it’s impossible, bla bla bla…

You guessed it, there’s a work-around; and it’s documented.  The bank (the originator) transfers the HELOCs to a flimflam trust.  To do this they “endorse” the Agreement in-blank, which looks exactly like an “indorsement-in-blank” but the endorsement is an accreditation, not a negotiation.  Now the trustee (a/k/a “the Issuer”) does his sorting and stacking of the pool and – and this is the magic part – then, he (or she) makes notes against the HELOCs.  Yes, of course, it’s a legal fiction, and they have a name for it,  – “HELOC-backed notes” and it is those notes (the HELOC-backed notes) that are securitized.

The originator (who is often the servicer) retains the HELOC agreement & mortgage (a/k/a “lien”) since it is supposedly the “PETE”, but is it?  Is it really?  Does it matter?  Well, not until the servicer has the enviable task of foreclosure of a HELOC that has been pledged elsewhere, likely to an ABS that’s vaporized into the secondary market either-zone.  Hence, the foreclosing bank has nowhere to send the proceeds from the foreclosure – oh well – that’s a shame.

There’s more, but I sense you’re getting bored.  HELOC-backed notes – interesting.  Think about the Article 9 maxim “the mortgage follows the note;” A maxim laid down over a-hundred years ago by Justice Noah Swayne (Appointed to SCOTUS by Abraham Lincoln – a republican – LOL)

“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident.  An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”  Carpenter v. Longan (USA 1872)

Words that still carry-the-day in such recent stare decisis cases as Bank of NY v. Silverberg (NY 2nd Dept. 2011).

Ironically, this HELOC-backed note means that the note follows the mortgage(a/k/a HELOC Agreement, with a mortgage nested inside it).

“The issue presented on this appeal is whether a party has standing to commence a foreclosure action when that party’s assignor — in this case, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS) — was listed in the underlying mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording, but was never the actual holder or assignee of the underlying notes. We answer this question in the negative.

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)”

because MERS was never the lawful holder or assignee of the notes described and identified in the consolidation agreement, the corrected assignment of mortgage is a nullity, and MERS was without authority to assign the power to foreclose to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to show that it had standing to foreclose.

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“ “a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it” ( Merritt v Bartholick36 NY 44, 45 [1867]; see Carpenter v Longan83 US 271, 274 [an assignment of the mortgage without the note is a nullity]; US Bank N.A. v Madero80 AD3d 751, 752US Bank, N.A. v Collymore68 AD3d at 754Kluge v Fugazy145 AD2d 537, 538 [plaintiff, the assignee of a mortgage without the underlying note, could not bring a foreclosure action]; Flyer v Sullivan284 App Div 697, 698 [mortgagee’s assignment of the mortgage lien, without assignment of the debt, is a nullity]; Beak v Walts266 App Div 900). A “mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation” ( FGB Realty Advisors v Parisi265 AD2d 297, 298). Consequently, the foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt ( id.; see 1 Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 12.05 [1] [a] [1991]).”)

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 281-82 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“as “nominee,” MERS’s authority was limited to only those powers which were specifically conferred to it and authorized by the lender ( see Black’s Law Dictionary 1076 [8th ed 2004] [defining a nominee as “(a) person designated to act in place of another, (usually) in a very limited way”]). Hence, although the consolidation agreement gave MERS the right to assign the mortgages themselves, it did not specifically give MERS the right to assign the underlying notes, and the assignment of the notes was thus beyond MERS’s authority as nominee or agent of the lendersee Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum85 AD3d 95, 108 [2d Dept 2011]; HSBC Bank USA v Squitieri29 Misc 3d 1225[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52000[U]; LNV Corp. v Madison Real Estate, LLC2010 NY Slip Op 33376[U]; LPP Mtge. Ltd. v Sabine Props., LLC2010 NY Slip Op 32367[U]; Bank of N.Y. v Mulligan, 28 Misc 3d 1226[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51509[U]; OneWest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton29 Misc 3d 1021Bank of N.Y. v Alderazi28 Misc 3d 376, 379-380 [the “party who claims to be the agent of another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence”]; HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Yeasmin27 Misc 3d 1227[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50927[U]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Vasquez24 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51814[U]; Bank of NY. v Trezza14 Misc 3d 1201[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52367[U]; LaSalle Bank Nat’l. Assn. v Lamy12 Misc 3d 1191[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51534[U]; In re Agard, 444 BR 231; but see US Bank N.A. u Flynn, 27 Misc 3d 802).”)

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“”Mortgage lenders and other entities, known as MERS members, subscribe to the MERS system and pay annual fees for the electronic processing and tracking of ownership and transfers of mortgages. Members contractually agree to appoint MERS to act as their common agent on all mortgages they register in the MERS system” ( Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine8 NY3d at 96 [footnotes omitted]).”)

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 278-79 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“This leaves borrowers and the local county or municipal recording offices unaware of the identity of the true owner of the note, and extinguishes a source of revenue to the localities. According to MERS, any loan registered in its system is “inoculated against future assignments because MERS remains the mortgagee no matter how many times servicing is traded.” Moreover, MERS does not lend money, does not receive payments on promissory notes, and does not service loans by collecting loan payments.”)

Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279-80 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief ( see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore68 AD3d 752, 753Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo42 AD3d at 242). In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced ( seeU.S. Bank, NA. v Collymore68 AD3d at 753Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress68 AD3d 709, 709Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione69 AD3d 204, 207-208Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley41 AD3d 674, 674Federal Nat’l. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone303 AD2d 546, 546-547First Trust Nat’l. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414).”)

What is Real in “Securitization”?

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

Regulatory Capture and Monopoly of Residential Lending by Wall Street

It is simply not true and has not been true for 20 years that lending is subject to free market forces or that lenders are subject to regulation. 

all of this has resulted from extraordinary illegal Market Control which has resulted in the complete inability of small financial institutions to compete with lending practices sponsored by investment banks on Wall Street.

As a result consumers are negatively affected. Contrary to the requirements of law they do not have the right to choose the party with whom they are dealing, they do not have the protections of the truth in Lending Act, and they are lured into a dangerous transaction in which the counterparties have an incentive merely to bring a transaction into existence and label it as a loan.

When it comes to regulation, it is the legislature that deems who is worthy of regulating and on what terms. The legislature then enacts into law those terms and creates the agency or enforcement mechanism.
*
Regulatory Capture occurs when persons and companies whom the legislature has deemed worthy of regulating have control over the agency or enforcement mechanisms. This happens all the time when the regulators are persons formerly, currently or intended to be employed by the companies that they are supposed to regulate.
*
I am sure, now that it has been pointed out, that there has been in a concerted strategy of regulatory capture that has negatively impacted the legal profession and therefore chilled access to the courts and to counsel. This has enabled a monopoly that has so constrained free market forces as to make them virtually irrelevant. It is simply not true and has not been true for 20 years that lending is subject to free market forces or that lenders are subject to regulation.
*
Even the most uninformed lay person knows by now that the Wall Street banks screwed the market and the marketplace. True, they don’t understand how it was done. But they know it happened, which is why I have counseled persons running for public office to run against the banks, because right now, almost everyone hates the Wall Street securities firms that call themselves “investment banks.”  But very little is being done to counter their illegal impact on free markets, consumer rights, and the hallmark of any capitalist economic system — competition.
*
This has shown up in regulation and discipline of lawyers. Lawyers who advance false claims in court go with both impunity and immunity. Lawyers who defend homeowners from those false claims almost always find themselves the target some investigation, complaint discipline, sanctions or judgements from Bar associations, the FTC or the attorney general of some state.
*
The result is entirely predictable. Most trial lawyers won’t take on cases involving foreclosure defense because they fear for their livelihood. Consumers are the ones who suffer the most because they can’t find a lawyer to take their case. So they try to appear pro se and they lose because only lawyers know how to navigate the judicial system. It’s a perfect storm for the Wall Street firms.
 *
I am also sure that all of this has resulted from extraordinary illegal Market Control which has resulted in the complete inability of small financial institutions to compete with lending practices sponsored by investment banks on Wall Street.
*
Homeowner transactions sponsored by Wall Street do not rely upon profits from the transactions with homeowners. They rely entirely upon profits from false claims arising out of securitization Cycles. so it is literally possible and often happens that the marketing and other expenses associated with generating transactions with homeowners are much higher than any cash flow that could be considered Revenue. This makes it possible to offer incentives and lower interest rates for the sole purpose of initiating another securitization cycle, which is the source of all actual profit.
*
As a result consumers are negatively affected. Contrary to the requirements of law they do not have the right to choose the party with whom they are dealing, they do not have the protections of the truth in Lending Act, and they are lured into a dangerous transaction in which the counterparties have an incentive merely to bring a transaction into existence and label it as a loan.
*
Those counterparties also have an incentive to see the transactions fail, since they have knowingly created obligations based upon false appraisals and false assessments of viability. In doing that they have guaranteed themselves additional profit simply by insuring the certificates that are indexed on the performance of the homeowner transactions. And they further profit from false claims leading to forced sale of property for profit rather than restitution for an unpaid obligation.
*
Thus this monopolistic control causes homeowners to enter into transactions that they think are loans but instead are investments into securitization schemes. The terms and incentives for conduct are far different than the reasonable expectation of any reasonable consumer borrower. 
*
The other class negatively impacted by this strong arm behavior is the U.S. class of approximately 7,000 community banks, credit unions and savings and loan associations that would otherwise be able to compete for loan business but can’t because they are presented with a bad choice: either they serve merely as sham conduits to feed securitization or their loan business virtually fails. In turn this negatively impacts their ability to cross market for depository business and other bank services. 
My point is that just like 100 + years ago when the big trusts were considered impregnable, they were brought down with a thud by claims that they had ruined the free markets with both economic control and asymmetry of information. Regulatory capture was of course a perk that enabled them to write and make laws that made their ruinous behavior totally legal — until the courts and Congress said it wasn’t legal.

Plaintiffs present this evidence as a prototypical example of “regulatory capture,” a term coined by public choice economists to indicate when members of a regulated occupation also dominate the regulatory and law-making process in their field. Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason University School of Law, a leading scholar in law and economics, testified that the limitations on funeral home ownership in Maryland are consistent with the principles of regulatory capture. He stated that in his opinion the Morticians Act appears to be:

an effort to create governmentally imposed barriers to entry in the funeral home industry and thereby to transfer wealth to a discrete, well-organized interest group at the expense of consumers of funeral home services and the public at large. The result of this regulation is reduced competition in the provision of funeral home services and higher prices and reduced choice in funeral home products and services for consumers.

Brown v. Hovatter, 516 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (D. Md. 2007)

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

FREE REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

FREE REVIEW:

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