How to Challenge The Credibility of Documents Offered to Support Foreclosure

Legal presumptions are not meant to be used as a means for achieving an illegal or unjust result. But they do exactly that when apparently facially valid documents are left unchallenged.

A successful challenge to the credibility of the source of documents initially filed in foreclosure will end the case in favor of the homeowner. the reason is simple: with legal presumptions operating in favor of the foreclosure mill they have no case to offer or prove.

If you start at the beginning and challenge the narrative immediately it can and should lead to excellent results for homeowners under siege by profiteers seeking to force the sale of the subject property.

The plain truth is that all documents from securitization schemes seeking to foreclose are false. But at first glance they appear to be facially valid, which only raises legal presumptions if the deems the document to come from a credible source. This is true in all jurisdictions.

It’s high time for lawyers and pro se litigants to challenge the presentation of initial documents as coming from a source that (1) has a stake in the outcome and is therefore biased and (2) not credible based upon administrative findings in all 50 states in which the documents were not merely found to be defective but also untrue.

In all cases based upon securitization schemes, not even the named Plaintiff knows who owns the debt, note or mortgage. Ask anyone. Even in appellate proceedings the foreclosure mills had to admit they had no idea about the identity or existence of a creditor.

In other cases, attorneys were forced to admit that they never had any contract or or even CONTACT with their “client.” Cases whose style beings with the words “US Bank. Deutsche Bank, or Bank of New York Mellon” are sham cases with sham clients. The lawyer is neither instructed by nor paid by the bank nor is to processing the foreclosure on behalf of either the bank or any trust.

The same lack of knowledge is true for the foreclosure mill who operates under the protection of litigation immunity, the servicer who is receiving instructions from an investment bank posing as Master Servicer, a trustee who has no knowledge or administrative powers over the loan, a trust that has never been party to negotiation or sale of the debt or note or mortgage.

see RobosigningAdministrativeOrder

In all 50 states you have administrative orders in the courts, and administrative findings by the Departments of Justice and Attorneys general and even county clerks that point out with specificity the fact that the documents used by foreclosure mills were faked. That is fact, not opinion.

In hundreds of cases including some where I was lead counsel, there are specific recorded findings from trial judges as to how the foreclosure was faked.

It should not be that hard for lawyers to argue to the court that given the amount of work done (thousands of man hours) investigating the mortgage lending and foreclosure practices, some credence should be given to the now universal view that the documents were faked.

There can be no dispute that the documents all come from parties who have a unique and essential interest in the outcome of the foreclosure claim — i.e., preservation of revenue and achievement of additional revenue arising from the proceeds of a forced sale, none of which will be directed to anyone who paid value for the debt, note or mortgage.

The indicia of credibility and reliability are simply not there. And the indicia of lack of credibility and reliability are all there. Legal presumptions therefore are not legally available. 

It is not a big leap to also argue that the documents contained data that was also also untrue because in every case where the documents were faked, there was no follow up of actual evidence or proof of the claim.

It never happened that the investment banks said “ok, just to make everyone feel better here is the actual proof that the loan was owned by XYZ Corp, who suffered an actual (rather than hypothetical) financial loss arising from nonpayment of the debt. So the foreclosure although based upon false documentation did not produce an unjust result.”

That didn’t happen because there was no such evidence. In every case the foreclosure resulted in a windfall profit to all the participants in the foreclosure.

Remember you are simply challenging the presumption, thus allowing the claimant to prove its claim without the presumption. that is exactly  what the rules require. The fact that you defeat a presumption and that the claimant’s attorneys are forced to actually prove the truth of the matters asserted on the documents is not a stand alone reason for entry of judgment in favor of the homeowner.

THIS IS NOT A PUNISHMENT WHERE THE CLAIMANT IS DEPRIVED OF ITS CLAIM BECAUSE IT DID  SOMETHING ILLEGAL. IF THEY CAN STILL PROVE THE CLAIM, THEY WIN.

If indeed the homeowner does owe money to the claimant and they are both parties to a loan  agreement that the homeowner has breached then the claimant is entitled to foreclosure.

Legal presumptions are not meant to be used as a means for achieving an illegal or unjust result. But they do exactly that when apparently facially valid documents are left unchallenged.

In virtually all cases, such documents are not even facially valid, once you examine the contents and the signature block. Look at it. Study it. And then create your defense narrative. 

These cases are winnable because they should be won by homeowners not because of some technical argument.

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. IN FACT, STATISTICS SHOW THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FAIL TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE PROPERLY. EVEN THOSE THAT PRESENT THE DEFENSES PROPERLY LOSE, AT LEAST AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AT LEAST 1/3 OF THE TIME. IN ADDITION IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. 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.

Wait! Somebody must have paid something right?

How do you know what was paid by whom and when and what terms applied? The whole point here is that money was paid by investors who did not receive ownership to the debt, note or mortgage. Nor did they assign any equitable right to the debt, note or mortgage. Since the value was paid by a party who never received ownership, no “successor” would have any reason to pay value for ownership nor did they do so.
*
And before you decide to shift gears, the investment bank took in money from investors as a commercial deposit — i.e. a  third party loan — as part of purchase of promissory note (certificate) to make payments to the buyers. While that COULD have resulted in the vinestment bank becoming the owner of the debt, note and mortgage on loans granted to borrowers, it didn’t. Like the investors who bought certificates, they paid for it but not in exchange for ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
Not one note or mortgage was made payable to the investment bank and not one “Loan” transaction was funded directly by the investment bank who channeled funds through several existing legal business entities. This was done to evade liability for lending law violations and as Chase found out you can’t have it both ways. You either were the lender or you were not. You either “succeeded” to the position of the predecessor or you didn’t.
*
The media gets it wrong because they cannot conceive of a scheme that simply isn’t allowed under existing law and if it was allowed there would be changes in all affiliated laws as well — this giving investors the real scoop on what was being done with their money and the borrowers the real scoop on how much revenue was being generated from the origination or acquisition of their loan. In the current custom and practice of securitization of residential debt, the certificates and possibly the promissory notes would be regulated as securities.
*
The key change in the law that is needed for securitization to be allowed as practiced and for title to be cleared is the designation of a non-owner who didn’t pay value for the debt to be the creditor. This is a massive paradigm shift, but one which is probably needed. But right now the ONLY way we can acquire a debt is through payment of value for it in exchange for rights of ownership of the debt.
*
That is precisely where the media, attempting to report on the facts, gets it wrong. they simply cannot conceive of a scenario where all this paperwork would be flying around and that such instruments would be meaningless, without value and legal nullities — except for erroneous legal presumptions arising from the erroneous conclusions that the instruments have facial validity. So you see court decisions and article referring to sales that never occurred. They also report loans that never occurred.
*
And so we have a huge body of law allowing foreclosure rewarding people and business entities who receive the proceeds of forced sale as revenue instead of payment on a debt they never owned or paid for. And that is required change in the law that is needed. Upon revision of all relevant statutes, once a business entity is “designated” as creditor all efforts by anyone else must stop as to collection, processing, administering, or enforcement of any debt, note or mortgage. The game of musical chairs played by investments banks, servicers, “trustees” etc. must stop if we are to make sense out of any of this.
*
In most cases loans were originated from non capitalized brokers or sellers of loan products, not lenders or were creditors. This information is withheld from borrowers contrary to the requirements of Federal and state disclosure requirements to consumer borrowers.
*
Also withheld from borrowers is the fact that their signature, name, reputation and home is being used as part of a securitization scheme in which the loan labeling is misleading because neither the originator nor even the “warehouse lender” has any risk of loss. The entire transaction is different from what the borrower thought and different from what the borrower had a right to think as per common law, Federal and state lending statutes.
*
Borrowers are not required to understand that the “loan” is no longer part of the system in which money supply increases (because that already happened when investors purchased certificates from investment banks).  But under current law lender s ARE required to know that and do know that and they further know that their incentive is to get the signature of a consumer for fees not interest income.
*
The entire burden of viability of any consumer loan is not on the borrower (Caveat emptor) but on the lender who knows better. That is the law. AND the law presumes that the risk of loss is a self-regulating market force that forces lenders to make good loans. But what happens when there is no such risk? The transaction is changed and the transaction is no longer within the boundaries of the existing lending laws.
*
In short, such transactions are either not legal or carry heavy penalties for violations. If banks avoid such liabilities by intentional concealment of the true facts and thus produce catastrophic anomalies in the marketplace (see 2008) displacing tens of millions of people from their homes, why should those homeowners bear the full burden of such a catastrophe? Both policy and law agree on this. They shouldn’t.
*
The counterpart in what was labeled as a loan agreement was in actuality a vendor to the investment banking industry who didn’t receive interest as revenue for making a loan and who had no risk of loss. It was a scheme where all participants received fees, commissions, bonuses trading profits and other compensation arising from the origination of the transaction intentionally mislabeled as a loan in which the mislabeled “lender” was seen as seeking interest income on principal when in fact the interest payments and even the payments on principal were completely irrelevant to the originators and the “warehouse” lenders.
*
“Successors” under current law are merely designees not successors because they have not contributed any money toward payment of value for the debt — a basic black letter requirement under current law.
*
All of this is very counterintuitive and it is meant to be. The more complicated the banks make it the more everyone relies on the banks to tell them what these paper instruments mean and what events are memorialized in those paper instruments. But the plain fact is that there are no events memorialized in the paper instruments. There were no transactions. Why would anyone pay value for a debt that is not owned by the “seller?”
*

Bank of New York Mellon faces a reckoning from residential foreclosure cases in New York that date back to the subprime mortgage crisis.

The sooner everyone realizes that these foreclosures are merely schemes to generate revenue the closer we will come to justice. The fact that is that anyone who has paid value for the debt is getting paid pursuant to a third party agreement that has very little relationship with the performance or non performance of the borrower. Investors either get paid even if the borrower is not performing or they don’t get paid even if the borrower is performing.

In their efforts to assure the sanctity of contract, judges are routinely delivering revenue — not payment of a debt — to the perpetrators of an illegal scheme labeled by  lawyers as a foreclosure but which is not a foreclosure because foreclosures ONLY serve as remedies for restitution of an unpaid debt. It is not the fault of borrowers that this anomaly as appeared, which incidentally is the mask for multiple sources of revenue greatly exceeding the loan itself.

As usual investment banks having the greatest access to the microphones have convinced most people that this is a question of whether or not homeowners should get a free house. This distracts attention from the fact that they are getting free money based on claims for debts they don’t own.

see https://therealdeal.com/2020/01/16/bny-mellon-faces-suit-over-foreclosures-from-the-housing-crash/

From the article

The bank — along with its debt-collector partners Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and law firm McCabe, Weisberg & Conway — are accused by a class-action lawsuit of systematically trying to foreclose on mortgages after the state’s six-year statute of limitations had passed.

Mark Anderson, an attorney at the Queens-based law firm Shiryak, Bowman, Anderson, Gill and Kadochnikov, which filed the case, said his firm noticed an uptick in foreclosure cases initially filed in the wake of the subprime crisis more than a decade ago and now being revived, despite the statute of limitations expiring.

“I have over 500 cases that are dealing with this issue — and that’s just my firm,” said Anderson. He believes thousands of homeowners could qualify to be part of the suit if it gets class-action status.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in November. The defendants are accused of resurrecting foreclosure actions that have expired and, in doing so, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prevents debt collectors from using false and deceptive representations.

Anderson said his firm filed the suit now because of recent federal court rulings that he believes are favorable to holding to foreclosure firms, servicers and banks liable for violations of the act.

The law awards consumers statutory damages of $1,000 per violation, attorneys’ fees and — in some cases — damages for proven emotional or physical harm.

PennyMac Laundromat: Is anything real there?

PennyMac appears to be a vehicle of “cleaning” fatal title deficiencies to the debt, note and/or mortgage on loans. It operates on behalf of CitiMortgage and multiple other entities on loans where the selection of a claimant is essentially random.

The basic playbook of the banks is to insert a real business entity with no actual connection or transaction involving payment of value for the debt, note or mortgage and fabricating documents to imply that such transactions exist. My investigation and that of others reveals that PennyMac is one such sham conduit, in order to create documents that give rise to the legal presumptions that are available when a document appears to be facially valid.

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

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
PennyMac is generally used as a vehicle to launder bad title and pursue foreclosures on behalf of entities that have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. Generally speaking all of the documents that purport to involve PennyMac and its predecessors are fabricated and false. They are false because they falsely imply the existence of financial transactions in which value was paid for the debt.
*
All residential home loans are about money and nothing else. The banks seek to distract you and the courts from looking at the money and instead, direct you into looking to documents. If I produced a document that looked facially valid, a judge might accept it as valid and true even though the matter asserted in the document is actually untrue. So for example if I were to produce a “facially valid” document saying I am your father, it wouldn’t be true but it would still be taken as true until you rebut the presumption arising from the “facially valid document.
*
So the first step is really examining a document to determine whether it is facially valid. There are times, strategies and tactics where it might be wise to direct the court’s attention to this issue by simply filing a motion that disputes the facial validity of a particular pleading oir document and asks for an evidentiary hearing on the subject. Some judges grant such motions because a ruling from such a proceeding might propel the case to an early end.
*
A facially valid means what is says. If the document recites all the elements required by statute and it is properly signed (and notarized if so required), the document is facially valid and the legal presumptions are available to the proponent of such a document or pleading.
*
So the court takes as true all assertions on the face of the document. A document is not facially valid if it is impossible to determine what is asserted as factually true.
*
A reference to an external document that is not attached or even identified frequently results in a dispute over the facial validity of the document which may require an evidentiary hearing on the validity and authenticity of the document. But if the opposing party fails to raise such an objection the document will be accepted as facially valid and then the factual assertions contained or implied by the document will generally be taken as true.
*
The debt lies at the root of the loan, the servicing, the collection, and the enforcement of the loan. Without the debt, there is no authority. Without the debt the action is not a foreclosure even though the lawyers label it as a foreclosure. The lawsuit or notice of sale is merely a device to generate revenue which is expressly void against public policy and law.
*
The problem is that the banks developed a scheme by which investors paid for the debt and never received ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. This means that third parties receive borrower payments, insurance payments, bailout payments and proceeds of foreclosure sales — something which is not allowed under current law, nor should it be allowed.
*
None of these third parties ever turn over such money to the investors who paid for value but did not pay value in exchange for ownership of the debt. As a result, any document implying the transfer of the debt through payment of value is substantively invalid because no such transaction ever occurred in the real world.
*
There is no reason for a “successor” to pay a “predecessor” if neither of them owned the debt. The only way you get to own a debt is by paying for it with real value which means money. When you ask for a description of such transactions you will be met with a variety of obscure objections whereas if they had it, they would gleefully reveal it. Neither the note nor the mortgage (or deed of trust) can be actually fully separated from the debt because the obligation to make payment on the debt is all that those documents are about.
*
I’m not saying the debt doesn’t exist. I’m saying based upon review and analysis of documents, there is nobody in the chain of title relied upon by your opposition who has ever participated in a transaction in which value was paid for the debt. Ownership of the debt can only be accomplished, based upon my research, by payment of value for the debt. See Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions including your own.
*
Payment of value for the debt is a condition precedent to enforcement of the debt. This is both common sense and statutory law. If “servicing”, administration, collection or enforcement of the debt is performed on behalf of a claimant that does not own the debt, then the condition precedent is not met. Such actions are illegal and any documents that are created to support such illegal actions are void.
*
If the “servicer” or holder of a limited power of attorney, as in many cases, is not the legally authorized representative of a party who possesses ownership of the debt (i.e., they paid for it) then their actions are illegal, unauthorized and probably fraudulent. In a foreclosure the court must know (not hope) that the proceeds of the foreclosure sale will go to a party or group of parties who paid value in exchange for ownership of the debt. If the court does not know that, it isn’t a foreclosure, which is a remedy exclusively designed to provide restitution of an unpaid debt. 
*
The issue confronting you is that the documents, at first blush, appear to be facially valid. But the reference to an unidentified unattached external document like a Power of Attorney in lieu of an actual servicing agreement reciting the authority of the parties, makes such documents facially invalid but still subject to proof. Upon proving authority as I have outlined above, the document could be deemed valid, if the proffering party proves the line of succession that starts with an owner of the debt. In virtually all “securitization” cases I don’t think any such line of succession exists.

Investors Were Not Injured By Non Payment from Homeowners. They Were Injured by Non Payment from Investment Banks

The trap door is thinking that investors were hurt by borrowers failing to make payments when in fact they were injured by brokerage companies not paying them regardless of how much money was being received and created. This trap door inevitably leads one into thinking that the money proceeds from a forced sale of property in foreclosure are being paid to investors. That is just not true.

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

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
NOTE WE ARE STILL EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL ISSUES BETWEEN OUR STORE AND ONE OF OUR PAYPAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO THE LENDINGLIES.COM STORE. IF YOU ENCOUNTER DIFFICULTIES COMPLETING YOUR ORDERS PLEASE EMAIL US AT NEILFGARFIELD@HOTMAIL.COM OR MAKE PAYMENT THROUGH PAYPAL AT OUR OTHER PAYPAL ACCOUNT GTCHONORS.LLBLOG@GMAIL.COM
========================

Exchange between me and fairly knowledgeable client:

Client: “But if investors put up the money then they would be the injured party if borrowers don’t pay, or at least if things were normal.”

From me:

Incorrect. Investors were injured by  the failure of brokerage firms to make payments to them that were purely optional. Investors were not injured by failure of borrowers to pay their mortgage payments as defined in the promissory note.

At the option of the investment bank, the investors who paid value for the certificates issued by the investment bank, continue to receive payments. Those payments come from a reserve pool of money funded entirely by the investors initial purchase of certificates (but they are labeled “Servicer advances”).

You are falling through the trap door that the banks and their lawyers have created. Investors did not put up money to purchase your loan or acquire it or originate your loan. They had no legal part in that unless a judge were to enter an order stating that while the form of the transaction says they had nothing to do with your loan, the investors were nonetheless substantively the “lenders.” The banks and the investors would argue against that since it would make investors liable for lending and servicing violations.

You are presuming something that the banks want you to presume. The truth is that the investors were told that they would be paid by the brokerage firm that set up the plan of what they called “securitization.”

The promise received by investors was from the brokerage firm not the borrower. The money on deposit with the brokerage firm was used to originate or acquire loans as a cost of doing business, to wit: the business of issuing and trading in derivative securities to which neither the investors nor “borrowers” were parties and therefore received no compensation despite the fact that without them none of those trades could have taken place.

The promise (certificate or mortgage bond) was issued in the name of a “trust” that at best was inchoate” under law (i.e., “sleeping”). The trust name was merely a business name under which the brokerage firm was doing business. The promise was not secured by any interest in the debt, note or mortgage on any loan. In fact, at the time of investment there were no loans in any portfolio that were the subject of the investment. There was a promise to aggregate such a portfolio and the list of loans attached to the prospectus is subject to the disclaimer that it is not the real list but rather an example of the kind of data the investors will see when the offering of certificates is complete.

The certificates themselves do not convey and right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage on any loan. The investors merely hold an unsecured promise to pay where the promissor is the brokerage firm (Investment bank) and the amount of payments to be received by investors are indexed on the data for an aggregate of loans; but such payments are entirely dependent upon the sole discretion of the investment bank (Brokerage firm) and the performance of the index — i.e., the performance of borrowers.

Investors thus receive money as long as the investment bank wants them to receive money regardless of actual performance of loans. The non performance of borrowers represents an excuse for the investment bank to stop paying the entire amount of their promise, if the managers of the investment bank so choose.

But since the investment bank (brokerage firm) was using money deposited on account the net result is that the investors paid value for the origination or acquisition of the debt but never got to own it under current law.

And the investment bank briefly became the “owner” of the debt without having actually paid for it, and then created a “sale” at its trading desk in which the loans were “sold” to the “trust” at an enormous premium (second tier yield spread premium) from the amount that was actually loaned to borrowers at much higher interest rates than the amount demanded by the investors. 

Bottom Line: Under current law in all jurisdictions nobody qualifies as the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it because those two functions were split by the investment bank.

The value was paid by investors who did not receive ownership of the debt. The ownership of the debt as in the hands of the brokerage firm that started the securitization scheme and then transferred to itself using the name of the fictional trust. Hence the brokerage firm, directly or indirectly continued to “own” the debt without having actually paid for it. This is legally impossible under current law.

Under current law, nobody can claim to own or enforce a debt without having paid value for it. A transfer of rights to a mortgage is a legal nullity unless there is a concurrent payment of value for the debt. The only possible claimant in a court of equity is the investment bank, but they continue to hide behind multiple layers of sham conduits who actually have no contractual or other relationship with the investment bank. All such “securitized” loans are therefore orphans under current law where the debt, note and mortgage cannot be legally enforced.

The only way they have been enforced has the acceptance by the courts of erroneous presumptions that effectively reconstitute the debt, note and mortgage out of the prior transactions that split it all up. This produced the opportunity for profits that were far in excess of the loan itself which was viewed by the investment bank as simply a cost of doing business rather than an actual loan. Besides violating current law under the Uniform Commercial Code it also violates public policy as explicitly enunciated under the Federal Truth in Lending Act and public policy stated in various state laws prohibiting deceptive lending and servicing practices.

Those excessive profits should, in my opinion, be the subject of reallocation that includes the investors and borrowers without whom those profits could not exist. These are the actions for disgorgement and recoupment to which I have referred elsewhere on this blog. But in order to have real teeth I believe it is necessary to join the investment banks who had a role in the claimed “securitization.”

In affirmative defenses you can name a third party but you must express the defense as something for which the actual named claimant is vicariously accountable. Otherwise you need to file a counterclaim, the downside of which is that many such claims are barred by the statute of limitations whereas affirmative defenses are not usually subject to the statute of limitations.

The reason you can’t get a straight answer to discovery is that ownership and payment have been split between two entirely different parties. Yet current law demands that the enforcing party be (a) the owner of the debt, note and mortgage and (b) the party who paid value for the loan. In most situations involving claims of securitization that requirement cannot and is not meant to be fulfilled.

Clearly  changes in the law are required to allow for securitizations as practiced. But in order to do that the laws regarding disclosures to investors and borrowers must get far more specific and rigorous so that freer market forces can apply. With transparency market corrections for excessive or even unconscionable transactions are possible — allowing both borrowers and investors to bargain for a share of the bounty created by securitization arising from the investment of investors and borrowers.

Current law supports disgorgement of such profits because they were not disclosed. But current law fails to identify such “trading profits” as arising from the the actual transaction with investors, on one hand, and the borrowers on the other hand. This might be accomplished in the courts.

But a far better alternative is to level the playing field with clearly worded statutes that prevent what had been merely intermediaries from draining of money and other value from the only two real parties in interest as defined by both the single transaction doctrine and the step transaction doctrine.

Post Judgment Assignments Continue to Baffle Homeowners and Foreclosure Defense Lawyers

Charles Koppa in San Diego was the first person  to point out to me that the activities after even a nonjudicial sale told the real story about the what was going on. That was back in 2008. Lately I have been getting questions relating to post-sale or post judgment activities.

There is a doctrine that says that upon judgment in a judicial state or upon sale in a nonjudicial state, the mortgage or deed of trust is merged into the judgment or sale respectively.

The most recent questions I have received suggest that perhaps the debt, note and mortgage or deed of trust is extinguished by the judgment or sale. They are not. Merger is different from invalidation or extinguishment. And vacating a judgment or sale merely restores the parties back to where they were before the judgment or sale.

But sloppy orders from the bench sometimes creates doubt or uncertainty as to the rights and duties of the parties.

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

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

Here is the answer to a recent question posed by a reader:

The law does not prevent someone from executing an assignment of mortgage. The question is whether such an assignment has any effect, and if so, what is that effect?

*
 This question appears to be coming up with increasing frequency and I am ignorant of the reasons why this is suddenly rearing its head.
*
First I will say that any attempt to position yourself such that the judgment eliminated the note and mortgage and therefore you are exempt from writ of possession or liability on the debt is a false position and would undermine your credibility in court, in my opinion. If the Judgment is vacated it merely returns the parties to the position they were in before the judgment was entered. Neither the mortgage nor note nor debt have been extinguished in such circumstances.
*
Second the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure has the effect of replacing the rights under the mortgage and note with rights arising from entry of the final judgment. In plain language this means that once Judgment is entered, the forced sale of the property may be scheduled and conducted and a new deed upon such sale has the effect of transferring title from the homeowner to the successful bidder at auction.
*
The successful bidder can be and often is the party named as the claimant in the foreclosure action. Instead of bidding with cash, the bid is normally a “credit bid” which means that the claimant in the successful foreclosure case uses the money award in the final judgment in place of cash.
*
Many different legal presumptions arise from each step of the foreclosure process.
*
There can be an “assignment” after foreclosure judgment has been entered but it is not technically an assignment of mortgage which is generally treated as merged into the final judgment of foreclosure. A document that purports to be an assignment of mortgage post-judgment would probably be ineffective to assign the mortgage which no longer legally exists, even though it remains in the title record. It would also be ineffective to assign the debt unless a court chose to treat the assignment as an assignment of rights under the final judgment of foreclosure.
*
The law does not prevent someone from executing an assignment of rights under the final judgment. But like all documents it must be both facially and actually valid. If it is facially valid then it is the burden of the homeowner to show that it actually had no validity. It has no validity if there was no completion of the transaction as required by law. By “the transaction” I mean the transaction implied by the assignment. No reasonable person would give up rights to a mortgage worth hundreds of thousands of dollars without payment.
*
As with most documents arising from claims of “securitized” loans there is no actual transaction in which money exchanged hands because the original consideration came from a third party outside of the entire chain of title. This the only party entitled to receive payment, under current law, would be the last party to pay value.
*

While I am not aware of any specific case law that deals with assignment of bidding rights or any other post judgment assignments, it seems likely that such an assignment would be required to meet the same test as an assignment of mortgage, to wit: that the assignment is a legal nullity (i.e., it never happened, it has no legal effect) unless there was a concurrent financial transaction in which value was paid for the debt.

This is definitely the requirement under current law in all U.S. jurisdictions. While the courts have twisted their interpretations beyond all recognition to make it seem like the requirement of payment of value has been satisfied, this can only be done through legal presumptions.

And the legal presumptions can be rebutted.

The key strategy for revealing the falsity of the presumption is discovery where the homeowner borrower asks the simple questions about the dates and parties to transaction in which value was paid for the debt, note or mortgage.

Generally speaking you will never see answer to such questions because if they did answer they would be admitting that nobody in the chain of title ever paid value as required by law. And generally speaking there are very few occasions where the court won’t order them to answer it. And generally speaking there are very few occasions where they don’t violate the court order which opens the door to inferences and presumptions in favor of the homeowner’s defensive position.

Answering the Shell Game

Most of the questions I get come from lawyers and homeowners who are totally confused by the array of names of companies that appear, disappeared and replaced by lawyers operating under instructions from command central — a group of lawyers who oversee the foreclosures of loans claimed to be securitized. They are the ones who give the orders to “servicers” and “foreclosure mills.”

The goal is to force the sale of homes and obtain the proceeds of sale for the benefit and account of a stockbroker who initiated a scheme of “securitization.”

Everything that happens in correspondence, statements and enforcement actions is specifically designed to make lawyers, homeowners and judges think that is not the case. Everything is designed to create the false impression that the parties involved have every legal right to originate, process and enforce residential loans when in fact no such authority exists.

The foreclosure process is just one step in many that results in unconscionable profits, fees and commissions distributed to a multitude of players whose livelihood depends upon successfully duping the courts into allowing foreclosure despite the fact that the money from the forced sale will never be paid to the investors who paid for the debt.

One such question came in from a reader regarding BONY Mellon as trustee of a supposedly REMIC trust. As with all things in the era of securitization fail (see Adam Levitin) even that is false. An entity that does not serve as a pass through vehicle for payment of principal and interest on residential loans is not a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit — so it isn’t a REMIC. A name that includes the word “trust” in it without a trust agreement in which something is entrusted to the “trustee” is not a trust.

So BONY Mellon is simply renting its name out for use by stockbrokers who call themselves “investment banks” in order to create the illusion of an institutional loan when nothing could be further from the truth. With only a few exceptions the same statement applies to all entities named as “trustees” of “REMIC” “trusts”.

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

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

Here is my reply to the reader:

They are playing a shell game and that is  what you should say:

  • None of the BONY Mellon entities ever owned or paid for the debt, note or mortgage.
  • None of the BONY Mellon entities ever served as trustee for the benefit of certificate holders
  • None of the certificate holders ever received a conveyance of ownership in the debt, note or mortgage. The assignment is always void (see below).
  • None of the certificate holders hold any equitable interest in the debt, note or mortgage because they expressly waived any such interest.
  • None of the BONY Mellon entities ever received your loan to hold in trust for anyone.
  • The assignment of bare naked title without the debt is a legal nullity. The trust agreement says that BONY holds bare naked legal title for the investment bank, but it does not have legal title because the debt was not also transferred.
  • The appearance and disappearance of technical legal entities occurs for the sole purpose of creating the illusion of business transactions that never occurred.
  • None of the BONY Mellon entities will ever receive the proceeds of a forced sale of property in this case.
  • None of the BONY Mellon entities have ever received the proceeds of forced sale of any property related to the subject “trust” or trust name.

To Appeal or Not To Appeal — What was the Question?

Making a mistake is not appealable unto itself. You must show that the error caused an improper decision. And by “improper” I mean that there is no way under existing law that the decision was based upon the law or, if you wish to pursue a still higher standard of review, that the law as applied violates constitutional protections.

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

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

So the judge is quite certain that she has no sympathy for your position. Nonetheless, if you plan to appeal, and the rules of Court permit it, it may be to your advantage to file a motion for rehearing which focuses in on one or two points that could be right for appeal. This focuses the attention of the clerk for the appellate judge who orders the case to be put in one pile (affirmed) or another (review). That one decision — usually made by a clerk — either gives air to your appeal or kills it.

Remember that an appeal is solely directed at the question of whether or not there was any basis upon which the trial court could have entered the final judgement. it is not a retrial of the case. It is an entirely different inquiry looking for “fundamental error.” As long as the court record has anything in it that supports the ultimate decision it is extremely likely that the judgement, even if disliked, will be affirmed.

FAST FACTS: 1 in 6 appeals are successful to any degree. Of those more than half are in criminal cases where the stakes are perceived as much higher than civil cases. That means that less than 1 in 12 civil appeals will accomplish anything. And of the ones that accomplish something only a fraction are actually reversed with judgment for the losing side in the trial court.

*
The fact that nobody else would have decided the case that way is not a basis for appeal. Bias is not a basis for appeal either unless the record clearly shows that the judge had a direct interest in the outcome of the case.
*
An appeal is about whether anyone sitting as Judge could have decided the case as written in the findings of fact and law. That is different from the case at the trial level, which is about who should win. Appeals are about who could win. If the party who won at trial is party who could win under existing law, the decision will almost always be affirmed.

*
The question in your case is whether or not the trial court appropriately applied legal presumptions to arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff actually owns the loan, and was therefore an injured party, and was therefore entitled to foreclosure. The first such question focuses on whether there were any legal presumptions to be applied, and if so, for whose benefit they should be applied.
*
The presence of facially valid documents definitely triggers the court discretion on whether to apply legal presumptions of fact. So the remaining questions relate to whether or not there are fatal inconsistencies in the facially valid documents or whether evidence is in the court record that requires rejection of the legal presumption of fact. A rejection of the legal presumption of fact means that the party relying on such presumptions must actually introduce evidence of the facts that had previously been presumed.
*
If argued well in trial court, the judge can be educated as to the effect of legal presumptions and might slow the inevitable outcome once the presumptions are applied.
*
As Dean Wigmore has explained, ” the peculiar effect of a presumption “of law” (that is, the real presumption) is merely to invoke a rule of compelling the (trier of Fact) to reach a conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the opponent. If the opponent offer evidence to the contrary (sufficient to satisfy the judge’s requirement of some evidence), the presumption disappears as a rule of law, and the case is in the (factfinder’s) hands free from any rule.” As more poetically the explanation has been put, “(p)resumtions… may be looked on as the bats of the law, flitting in the twilight, but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts.”
*
In the absence of either legally permissible presumptions or real evidence, the plaintiff fails on the proof, to wit: it fails to satisfy the requirements for a prima facie case.
*
So the question here needs to focus on the Essential Elements of the Prima facie case. And the essential element above all others is whether the case has produced a judgement that will be used to satisfy a just debt owed to a party who paid value for it.
*
While there are plenty of good strong legal and logical arguments to challenge the existence of the debt, I know of no instance In which court has been the least bit receptive to that narrative. It leaves open the unanswered question about what happened to the debt and does that absolve the borrower of all liability to pay anything.
*
You don’t need to prove where the money is going. You only need to raise sufficient questions about the evidence such that the legal presumptions should have been discarded.
*
In your case, with the legal presumptions discarded, the Plaintiff would have had to introduce credible evidence that it was the owner of the debt in order to establish ownership of the mortgage, which in turn is needed to prove authority to foreclose. The Plaintiff is allowed to rely completely on legal presumptions if the case is based on facially valid documents — although a complete absence of actual evidence is frequently the excuse for an appellate court to question and then reverse the trial court’s decision.
*
In your case the reliance on legal presumptions has led to an attenuated conclusion of fact that could be challenged on appeal. As per the Court’s finding of fact, the mortgage was transferred several times. At one point it was transferred to U.S. Bank as trustee for a trust and then, after that transferred to Bank of America.
*
An instrument purporting to transfer a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of the debt is a legal nullity in all U.S. jurisdictions. The transfer of a debt occurs ONLY upon satisfaction of one condition — that value has been paid  by the transferee to the transferor who had in turn paid value for the debt. That is universally true. It requires proof of payment OR it requires sufficient evidence to raise the presumption that payment was made.
*
In your case the Judge has expressly ruled that value was paid. Since there was no evidence of any proof of payment there can only be one possible explanation for such a finding — i.e., that the court was relying upon presumptions of fact arising from facially valid documents.
*
Transfer of the debt is presumed when the original note is transferred because it is presumed that the original note is evidence of the debt and should be accorded the effect of title to the debt. Since promissory notes are cash-equivalent instruments, there is no rational reason why a note would be transferred without payment; hence payment is presumed.
*
This presumption is defeated only if the court record demonstrates that there either was no financial transaction in which the debt was acquired or where the record raises sufficient questions such that the presumption should not have been applied. This is exactly where the courts frequently commit error but not necessarily reversible error.
*
In most loans that were ever subject to claims of securitization, the origination of the loan took place between an “originator” and the borrower, not the actual lender and the borrower. In plain language that means that the since the originator had never paid any value for the debt, they never owned it and therefore the mortgage naming the originator was void, which in turn means that any assignments of the void mortgage were also void.
*
This precisely why the Truth in Lending Act says that table funded (third party funded) loans are against public policy. But the Truth in Lending Act does not expressly state that such loans are void, meaning that acting in a representative capacity at a loan closing without the knowledge of the borrower is frowned upon but not explicitly outlawed.
*
So we must accept the idea that somehow the mortgage is valid but that does not address the question of who can enforce it or transfer it. The answer to that question in all jurisdictions is that it is only the party who has suffered a financial injury resulting from nonpayment. That is both a constitutional and statutory requirement.
*
In order to suffer financial injury from non payment you must have paid value for the loan. Payment of value is established upon proof of payment or a presumption that such payment was made.
*
The problem in your case is that the Judge presumed that such payment was made not just because she thinks she was allowed to do so, but because she actually believes it. She is assuming that even if there were “technical” irregularities or mistakes, that the foreclosure will result in payment to the party (ies) who paid value for the debt. And the problem with that, as we all know or at least suspect, is that she is wrong.
*
The money will go to players who were angling for revenue and the parties who actually advanced the money for the origination or acquisition of the loan are long gone. They won’t see one cent from the sale of the home.
*
The problem for you is therefore whether the judge was rightfully exercising her authority, jurisdiction and discretion to use legal presumptions in lieu of legal proof by proof of payment. You can’t introduce new evidence on appeal. So you must rely entirely upon what is in the court record or absent from it. And it is not enough to be correct; you must be convincing to a panel of judges who at best don’t care whether you win or lose. 

While We Were Sleeping: Remote Online Notarization is Becoming a Reality in Florida effective 1/1/2020

see https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/danger-will-robinson-the-new-frontier-of-remote-online-notarization-and-electronic-wills/

I knew this was planned. But frankly I didn’t pay close attention. When the initial plans for electronic signatures were announced 10 years ago, we collectively convinced President Obama that the law as written made it too easy to fabricate documents and then have them be declared facially valid — thus raising legal presumptions about the document and its contents.

Under the new law in Florida and I presume in other states, notarization of documents for recording in county records can be accomplished electronically. The banks have lobbied hard for this and have done a lot of PR to pave the way for this law as reflecting “progress.”

The problem is that this greases the slippery slope on which the banks unleash a torrent of fabricated documents creating legal presumptions of fictitious facts — leaving homeowners to defend nonsensical allegations without the benefit of requiring the claimant to prove actual facts for its prima facie case.

Dean Wigmore — the man whose name is equated with the law of evidence — said that legal presumptions were like bats that fly around and then disappear in the light of actual facts. For nearly 20 years homeowners have been fighting bats in the belfry.

Those that persisted and had the money to contest illegal foreclosures mostly won simply because the legal presumptions were rebutted, leaving the foreclosure mill with no actual facts to present because there were not actual facts that favored their position. None of the foreclosures in which a supposedly REMIC trust was involved ever involved any party who had paid value for the debt as required by state statutes adopting Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code making it a condition precedent to filing a foreclosure.

The assumption or presumption has always been that the named Plaintiff existed, and that it must have paid value for the debt. But they never did.

Most homeowners (96%+) were required to walk away because they lacked the resources of time, money and energy to contest the forced sale of their homestead by actors in a fraudulent scheme for revenue instead of any actor would could obtain restitution of an unpaid debt through a real foreclosure.

The simple answer is that the investors were the only ones who paid value but they never got title to the debt, note, or mortgage. This created a vacuum in which the investment bank pretended to own the debt and then act through surrogates to claim foreclosure without turning over the proceeds of foreclosure to the investors. It was a plain fraudulent revenue scheme.

The Florida legislature has now made it far easier for the banks to continue making money on actions that are simply labelled as foreclosures. This act enables the foreclosure mills and document fabricators to not only speed up the notarization process but also create a gap in accountability for errors, omissions and fraudulent content. It’s all happening online.

Judges are going to be required to treat notarization as presumptively valid when in fact the notary was a robo notary and the online process is fully automated behind the scenes. Thus the Florida legislature has continued and expedited the current process by which investment banks, acting through conduits or surrogates, sell the house, take the money and run. Not a penny is returned to investors who bought “certificates”.

Update on MERS

Just assume that everything is a fiction and none of it is real. Then set out to create the inference against the use of key legal presumptions necessary for the foreclosure mill to establish a prima facie case. Those presumptions lead to conclusions that are contrary to facts in the real world.

The answer is always the same. MERS is a data storage  company that has no ownership of the data, or any documents that contain references to data, events, payments, assets or liabilities. The MERS database in intentionally unsecured — anyone can get access with a login and password which are easy to obtain.

The first reason for the looseness of data entry, maintenance and reporting is that the only real purpose for MERS is foreclosure. It is not used by anyone for any other purpose.  The second reason for the looseness of data handling is that even its members and users know that it is not admissible in court. As far as I know, nobody has ever tried to foreclose using data from MERS.

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

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
MERS. it is merely a naked nominee. In some states it is banned. The holder of a mortgage or the holder of a beneficial interest in a deed of trust is required to be the owner of the debt, which is somebody who has paid value for the debt. Check state law.
*
But the assignment from MERS has more problems than that. MERS is basically an agent. The principal is defined as the party who has been labeled as the “lender.”
*
The designation of MERS usually includes “its successors and assigns.”
*
That is the place where the Foreclosure Mills and the banks try to stuff in third parties who have no connection with the loan. Since MERS is merely a naked nominee, the only party that could issue instructions to MERS is the “lender” or its successors and assigns.
*
Why would they do that? Revenue! The foreclosure process in most instances is a revenue scheme and has no relation to any plan, scheme or process by which the result is restitution for an unpaid debt.
*
In most cases, by  the time the foreclosure process is started, the “lender” is dead and nobody has acquired its assets, liabilities or  business. There is no successor. So there have been many cases in which a judge has decided that a document supposedly executed on behalf of MERS by someone on behalf of a company that is labeled as “attorney in fact” is void in the absence of foundation testimony or documents showing that the interest of the “lender” has actually been transferred by way of payment to a transferee.
*
MERS is not a servicer and MERS is not the owner of the debt. It has bare naked legal title to mortgages.
*
There are no successors in interest or assigns with respect to either MERS or the “lender.” Since MERS does not possess and even disclaims any financial interest in the debt, note or mortgage, it may not execute any document of transfer except on behalf of the “lender” on the mortgage deed or deed of trust, or on behalf of a genuine successor to the “lender,” the document signed on behalf of MERS must be void, and not voidable.
*
This is where many attorneys and pro se litigants miss the mark. they fail to parse the words and thus fail to recognize the Achilles heel in any chain of title which is dependent upon the transfer of any interest in any mortgage by or on behalf of MERS.
*
The label of “authorized signer” is a lie on many levels. The signer has no corporate resolution from the Board of Directors, appointment by an actual officer with administrative duties at MERS, nor any employment by MERSas employee or as independent contractor. The person who signs is not paid by MERS.
*
The person who signs is the employee of one of three entities — (a) the foreclosure mill (see David Stern), (b) the party claiming to be an authorized servicer of an entity who also does not own the debt or (c) an outside vendor who specializes in fabricating documents to “clear up” (read that as falsify) the title chain.
*
In most cases there is no power of attorney executed by any employee, officer or director of MERS. But even in the rare instances where such a document has actually been properly executed and dated, the Power of Attorney cannot create any right, title or interest to any debt, note or mortgage.
*
You need to keep their feet to the fire. If you don’t successfully attack such issues the presumption will prevail — i.e., that the chain of title is perfect. If you do attack those issues the presumptions fail and in addition to MERS being naked so is the foreclosure mill and the claimed labeled servicer.
*
As always you will do well if you presume the entire foreclosure is a fake process in which the foreclosure process is weaponized to obtain revenue instead of restitution for an unpaid debt. Just assume that everything is a fiction and none of it is real. Then set out to create the inference against the use of key legal presumptions necessary for the foreclosure mill to establish a prima facie case. Those presumptions lead to conclusions that are contrary to facts in the real world.

Patrick Giunta Esq. Scores Another Homeowner Win in South Florida v US Bank Trustee LSF9 Master Participation Trust: William Paatalo, Expert Testifies

Foreclosure volume has declined  but that doesn’t reduce the number of cases that are deficient and even fraudulent.

As more senior Judges have more time to review the evidence, the legal presumptions sought by foreclosure mills and come to conclusions about the facts, they  are increasingly suspicious about the claimant, the claim and the failure of proof of real facts.

Kudos again to trial lawyer Patrick Giunta, Esq. with offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Trial was held on October 7, 2019. This is the third time we have covered a win by Giunta.

Final Judgment for Defendant Case #50-2017-CA-012236, 10/8/19

Circuit Court West Palm Beach, Florida

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:

  1.  Plaintiff failed to prove it had standing to enforce the note.
  2.  On Count I, Mortgage Foreclosure, and Count II Re-establishment of Lost Note, Plaintiff US Bank as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust take nothing by this action and the Defendants …. shall go hence without day.

Game set and match. The Judge here obviously sought to prevent the foreclosure mill from bringing another action.

Some judges upon finding that standing was lacking follow precedent and dismiss without prejudice enabling the foreclosure mill to try again. But more judges are taking great pains to examine the evidence and are coming to the legal conclusion that the Plaintiff’s proof failed.

Upon a factual finding of failure to prove a prima facie case, the court then enters Final Judgment, which for all purposes between that claimant and that borrower is a final determination on the merits.  Any future attempts to foreclose by US Bank or the LSF9 Master Participation Trust are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel and the Rooker Feldman Doctrine if it applies.

If any attempt is made to bring another foreclosure action in the name of another entity, trust, LLC or corporation, they would also likely be barred without pleading and proving real facts that show that the Plaintiff is the owner of the debt and paid value for it and the previous parties had executed assignments and other documents without any right,  justification or excuse and without notice to the new claimant. That isn’t going to happen.

Giunta doesn’t take a lot of these cases but when he is engaged he tends to win. He understands securitization and relates it back to the failure to prove a prima facie case. He avoids trying to prove or even accepting the burden of proving who actually paid value for the debt, if anyone.

He employed Bill Paatalo in this case whose testimony underscored the deficiencies in the allegations, the documents, and the proof. Paatalo appeared as an expert fact witness.

 

 

The Solution to Defective Securitization of Mortgage Debt: The Bare Legal Truth About Securitization of Mortgage Debt

The basic truth is that current law cannot accommodate securitization of mortgage debt as it has been practiced. In short, what they (the investment banks) did was illegal. It could be reformed. But until the required legal steps are taken that address all stakeholders virtually all foreclosures ever conducted were at best problematic and at worst the product of a fraudulent scheme employing illegal tactics, false documents and false arguments of law and fact.

Without specifically saying so the courts have treated the situation as though the correction has already occurred. It hasn’t.

It is through no fault of the borrower that the investors put up money without acquiring the debt. That doesn’t mean they were not the ones who paid value for the debt. Therefore the only conceivable party, in equity, who should be able to enforce the mortgage is the investors but they cannot because they contractually barred from doing so. 

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

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
I think it is worth noting that securitization of loans was never completed in most scenarios. Value was paid by the Investors who, contrary to popular belief, never received ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
  1. Cash flow was promised by the investment banker doing business as an alleged Trust, but the investors who were the recipients of that promise had no recourse to the mortgages (or the notes and underlying debts) and hence no recourse to enforce them.
  2. The alleged Trust never acquired the debt. Neither the trust nor any trustor or settlor ever entered into a transaction in which value was paid for the debt as required under Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It should be emphasized the this is not a guideline. It is statutory law in all U.S. jurisdictions. People get confused by court rulings in which ownership of the debt was presumed. Those decisions are not running contrary to Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code. To the contrary, those decisions seek to conform to that statutory requirement and the common law Doctrine that any reported transfer of the mortgage without transfer of ownership of the debt is a legal nullity. In short they avoid the issue by presuming compliance — contrary to the actual facts. 
  3. Under Article 3 of The Uniform Commercial Code it is possible that the trust acquired the note but under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code the trust could not have acquired the mortgage, unless the transferor had sold the debt to the trust or the transferor was a party to the trust and had paid value for the debt. This is black-letter law.
  4. Endorsement of the note is of questionable legality since the endorser did not own the debt. In addition, the endorser had no legal right to claim a representative capacity for the investors who had paid value for the promise of the Investment Bank  (ie, they did not pay value for the debt). 
  5. I think that the only way an endorsement could be valid is if the endorser owned the debt or has legal authority to represent the owners of the debt who had paid value for the debt. I don’t believe that such a party exists.
  6. The only party who had barely legal title to the debt, the investment banker, had sold all or part of the cash flow from the mortgage loans for amounts in excess of the amount due on the debts. The remaining attributes of the debt or indirectly sold by financial instruments whose value was derived from the value of the derivative certificates issued in the name of the trust.
  7. There is no one party who has legal ownership of the debt and who has paid value for it. The brokerage of the note was merely a process of laundering title and rights to the debt to create the illusion that someone had both. The actual owner of the debt is a collection of legal entities that are not in privity with each other. That Gap was intentional and that is what enabled the Investment Bank to effectively sell the same loan an average of 12 times — for its own benefit.
  8. A Court of equity needs to allocate those sales proceeds. The implied contract with borrowers required disclosure of all compensation arising from the loan transaction. The implied contract with investors was the same. Both would have bargained for a piece of the pie that was generated by the investment bank. Neither one could do that because the large accrual of  heretofore impossible profits and compensation was both unknown and actively concealed from any reporting by investment banks.
  9. It is through no fault of the borrower that the investors put up money without acquiring the debt.
  10. The only way to bridge this problem is by somebody pleading Reformation or some other Equitable remedy in which the liability on the note or the liability on the debt is canceled.
    1. Anything less than that leaves the borrower with an additional prospective liability on either the debt or the note.
    2. But for the court to consider such a remedy in a court of equity it must restructure the relationship between the Investors and either the debt or the note and mortgage.
    3. And in turn it must then restructure the relationship between the party claiming a representative capacity to enforce the mortgage and the investors.
    4. In short, the investors must be declared to be the owner of the debt and the owner of the mortgage who has paid value for the debt.
    5. Only after a court order is entered to that effect may the investors then enforce the mortgage.
    6. The only way the Investors could enforce the mortgage would be if they were each named as the claimant and the investor(s) were receiving the proceeds of foreclosure sale to reduce or eliminate the debt.
    7. They could act through a collective entity, such as a trustee under a trust agreement in which the trustee was directly representing the investors. In that event the named trust in the Foreclosure action could be ratified and come into full legal existence as the legal claimant.
    8. Until then virtually all foreclosures naming a trust as claimant or naming “certificate holders” as unnamed claimants are fatally defective requiring dismissal with prejudice.
  11. However, this restructuring could interfere with the other derivative products sold on the basis of the performance of the certificates. The proceeds of such sales went to the Investment Bank and Affiliates who assisted in the selling of the additional derivative products.
  12. I repeat that none of this was caused by borrowers or investors or even known to be in existence.
  13. And the problem would not exist but for the persistence of the investment banks in maximizing Revenue at the expense and detriment of both investors and Borrowers.
  14. The problem with my solution is that much of the revenue collected by the investment Banks would accrue to the benefit of the investors.
  15. So the court would need to claw back a substantial amount of the revenue collected by the Investment Bank in each securitization scheme and then allocate the proceeds as to principal and interest on the underlying debt. Hence principal balances on the debt and the accrual of interest could be affected by the restructuring.

Ocwen Stock Is Riskier Than Investors Know

the truth is there for anyone who wants to see it, which means that the entire prospect for Ocwen is that of an actor with only one foot on the edge of a cliff.

This article represents the analysis and opinion of the writer. Take no action with consulting a legal and financial adviser. 

The common stock of Ocwen Loan Servicing is traded actively. The company is backed by the largest banks in the world and its reported income is generally rising. BUT Ocwen has also been positioned by its backers (Goldman, BofA, Citi, etc.) to be thrown under the bus if the going gets rough.

The stock is currently valued based upon the presumption of economic viability because all the mortgages claimed to be servicing are generating revenue and Ocwen is receiving revenue and making a profit.

But another scenario is emerging from the shadows even if it appears unlikely. The number and percentage of homeowner successes in foreclosure is increasing. Those successes are all based upon one single fact, whether explicitly stated in court findings or not — that the named creditor on whose behalf Ocwen says it is collecting was not the owner of the debt. Hence Ocwen’s claims, notices, and testimony are not based upon its relationship with such named creditors or claimants.

If it is further revealed that Ocwen was in fact acting at the behest of an investment bank rather than a trustee of a named REMIC trust, the result could be catastrophic for both Ocwen and the investment bank. That scenario occurs if the investment bank was giving instructions on loan administration and foreclosure while it had no financial interest in the underlying debt.

That would mean that Ocwen never had any nexus to the debt owner. And that in turn would mean that Ocwen, in many and perhaps most cases, does not have any right to administer or service the loan “portfolio” it claims to be managing. And it would mean that all “modification” applications were improperly directed and processed. It could also mean that Ocwen is being paid to pretend it possesses such rights.

Ocwen could be the target of even more lawsuits alleging fraud and other intentional torts. On a more granular level the absence of any agency relationship with an identified creditor who owned the debt by reason of having paid for it would disqualify an Ocwen representative from testifying as the robowitness and would fail the exception test to hearsay objections as to their records, since they would not be records of either the named claimant nor of the actual owner of the debt.

If the facts are revealed and finally accepted by American courts, most foreclosures would grind to a halt. American law requires that paper title and actual payment of value for the debt must be combined into one party before any foreclosure action is filed. Under the weird securitization scheme adopted by the major investment banks no such party exists. The whole point of what they were doing was to sell parts of the debt for amounts vastly exceeding the market value of the actual debt.

By using Ocwen as the front for enforcing foreclosure actions, Ocwen is primed to be the one thrown under the bus wherein the inevitable finger pointing from investment banks will be directed at Ocwen and other servicing entities like it. Acting without authority and knowingly contributing to windfall illicit gains from foreclosures also places Ocwen at risk for actions by Attorneys General of all 50 states and several regulatory authorities.

The combined administrative and legal risks vastly exceeds the market valuation of the entire company. If and when these facts are finally accepted in the courts, Ocwen would be forced into bankruptcy and would most likely file under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 as a liquidation in bankruptcy. Either way, the outlook for  the valuation of Ocwen shares would be bleak at best.

If somehow the investment banks are either able to maintain the ruse or continue the current governmental attitude of wink and nod, none of those scenarios are applicable. But the truth is there for anyone who wants to see it, which means that the entire prospect for Ocwen is that of an actor with only one foot on the edge of a cliff.

Rescission and Burden of Proof

There are winners and losers in every courtroom. When dealing with TILA Rescission under 15 USC §1635 you must go the extra mile in not merely showing the court why you should win, but also revealing that the opposition is not actually losing anything. The same logic applies to every foreclosure where securitization is either obvious or lurking in the background.

The bottom line is that no payment of value has ever been paid or retained as a financial interest in the debt by the named claimant nor anyone in privity with the named claimant. Once you can show the court the possibility or probability that the foreclosure is simply a ruse to generate revenue then it is easier for the court to side with you. Once you show the court that your opposition refuses to disclose simple basic questions about ownership of the debt then you have the upper hand. Use it or lose it.

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

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

Another analysis just completed for a client: The situation is that the homeowner sent a notice of rescission under the TILA REscission Statute 15 U.S.C. §1635 within days of having “consummated” the loan agreement. By statute that notice of rescission canceled the loan agreement and substituted in place of the loan agreement a statutory scheme for repayment of the debt which is NOT void. The notice of rescission only voids the written note and mortgage, it does not void the debt. The free house argument is pure myth.

The client goes on to ask how we can prove when the transactions occurred and who were the parties to those transactions and when they occurred. The answer is that you will never prove that. But you can raise an inference that the claimant is not the owner of the debt who has paid and retains value in the debt such that a successful foreclosure will not be used for restitution of an unpaid debt.

By undermining the presumptions arising from possession of facially valid and recorded documents you eliminate the ability of your opposition to use legal presumptions and thus require them to prove their case without those presumptions. The simple truth is that generally speaking they can never prove a case without legal presumptions. Once the presumptions are gone there is no case.

Here is my response:

It sounds like you are on solid ground. But as you probably know trial judges and even appellate judges and justices bend over backwards to either ignore or rule against the notice of rescission and its effect. For a long time, the bench has rebelled against the Truth in Lending Act generally. They rebelled against TILA rescission viscerally. Despite the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski both the trial and lower appellate courts are unanimous in opposition to following the dictates of the statute and following the rule of law enunciated by SCOTUS.

You must be extremely aggressive and confrontative in standing your ground.
*
As for the “free house”  argument the answer is simple. There is no free house. unless you are seeking to quiet title, which I think is an unproductive strategy if you not on solid ground with TILA Rescission. You are only seeking to eliminate the current people from attempting to enforce the mortgage, collect on the note or enforce the note. The last point might be your weakest point (without rescission). Enforcement of the note under Article 3 of The Uniform Commercial Code is much more liberal the enforcement of the security instrument under Article 9.
*
It is actually possible that they could get a judgement on the note for monetary damages but not a judgment on the mortgage (without rescission in play). They can only get a judgment on the mortgage if the claimant has paid value for the debt. of course all of this should be irrelevant in view of the rescission which completely nullifies the note and mortgage.
Education of the court is extremely important. There is no free house in rescission. The obligation to repay remains the same. That obligation is not secured by the mortgage which has been rendered void nor is it payable pursuant to the terms of the promissory note which was also rendered void by the rescission. the obligation under contract (loan agreement)is simply replaced buy a statutory obligation to repay the debt.
They had ample opportunity to comply with the statute and get repaid. They didn’t. That is no fault of the homeowner.
*
If they want repayment of the debt they might be able to still get it. If they produce a claimant who has paid value for the debt and had no notice of the rescission and who regarded your current claimants as unlawful intervenors, the same as you, then it is possible but the court might allow the actual owner of the debt to comply with the statute and seek repayment of the debt.
*
At least that is what you will argue. You probably know that no such person exists. The ownership of the debt has been split from the party who paid value for it. So they probably don’t have anyone who qualifies.
*
As for your last question about discovering the actual dates on which the debt was purchased pursuant to Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as a condition precedent to enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust), the answer is that neither the debt nor the note were ever purchased for value. The whole point is that they’re saying that these transactions occurred when in fact they did not.
*

The only transaction that actually took place in which money exchanged hands is the one in which the certificates were sold to the investors. It might be successfully argued that the Investment Bank had paid the value for the debt so that is another possibility. If that argument succeeds then for a brief moment in time the Investment Bank was both the owner of the debt and the party who had paid value for it. But then it subsequently sold all attributes of the debt to the investors. the investors did not acquire any right title or interest directly in the subject debt, note or mortgage the only correct legal analysis would be that the Investment Bank retained bare naked title to the debt but had divested itself of any Financial interest in the debt. That divestiture generally occurred within 30 days from the date of funding the origination or acquisition of the loan.

*

So if you are looking for the dates of transactions in which money exchanged hands in exchange for ownership of the note you are not going to find them. but strategically you want to engage in exactly that investigation as you have indicated. there’s no need to hire a private investigator who will never have access to the money Trail starting with the investors in the Investment Bank. So your investigation would be limited to aggressive discovery. Your goal in discovery is to reveal the fact that they refuse to answer basic questions about the identity of the party who currently owns the debt by reason of having paid for it as required by article 9 section 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state statute.

*
This requires properly worded Discovery demands and aggressive efforts to compel Discovery, followed by motions for sanctions and probably a motion in limine.
*
Since you have a notice of rescission within the 3-year time period, what you are actually revealing is that your opposition has no legal standing. Their claims to have legal standing are entirely dependent upon the loan agreement which has been cancelled by your notice of rescission. Unless they can now also state that they are the owners of the debt by reason of having paid for it, they are not a creditor or a lender. therefore they have no legal standing to challenge legal sufficiency of the notice of rescission nor any standing to seek collection on the debt. And they certainly have no legal standing to enforce the note and mortgage which have been rendered void according to 15 USC 1635.
*
Their problem now is that their only claim now arises from the TILA rescission statute — and all such claims are barred by the statute of limitations on claims arising from the Truth in Lending Act. That time has long since expired.

*

It appears that no judge is going to like this argument even if it is completely logical and valid according to all generally accepted standards for legal analysis.

*
So you’re going to have to address the elephant in the living room. The fact remains that if you are successful, as you should be, you will end up with a windfall gain. The judge knows that and denying it will only undermine your credibility. The Counterpoint is that if your opposition does not own the debt by virtue of having paid for it pursuant to the requirements of statute then their attempt at foreclosure is really an attempt to generate Revenue. If the Foreclosure is not going to provide money for restitution of an unpaid debt it can’t be anything else other than Revenue.
*
In order to drill that point home you are going to need to argue, contrary to the judge’s bias, that not only is the current claimant not the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it, but that the current claimant is not an authorized representative of any party who paid for the debt by reason of having paid for it and that the proceeds of foreclosure, if allowed, will never be used to pay down the debt. Again the only way you’re going to accomplish this is through very aggressive Discovery and motions.
*
Don’t attempt to prove the dates of transactions, the data for which is within the sole care custody and control of your opposition, and can be easily manipulated, if you only focus only on the paperwork.
*
Don’t accept that burden of proof. The only way your opposition has gotten this far is because of legal presumptions arising from that claimed possession of the original note. you need to research those legal presumptions. Generally speaking the legal presumption of fact must include the conclusion that the claimant is the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it. Possession of the note is considered the same as title to the debt, The presumption arises therefore that possession of the note is ownership of the debt and the further presumption is that ownership of the debt is not likely to have been transferred without payment of value.

Legal presumptions are subject to rebuttal. the way to rebut the presumption is not by proving a particular fact but raising an inference that destroys the presumption. And the way to do that is by asking questions about payment to value for the debt (not just a note on mortgage) and pointing to the refusal of your opposition to give you an answer and to produce documents corroborating their answer.

After the appropriate motions, you will be able to legally require an inference that they are not the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it and that they don’t represent anyone who does own the debt by reason of having paid for it. Once the presumption is rebutted, the burden of proof falls back onto your opposition. and because they violated the rules of discovery, your motion should demand that they be prohibited from introducing evidence to the contrary of your inference that they don’t own the debt by reason of having paid for it and they don’t represent anyone who owns the debt and who paid for it.

Don’t Admit Anything About the Servicers Either — It’s All a Lie

Want to know why this site is called LivingLies? Read on

Homeowners often challenged the authority of the named claimant while skipping over the actual party who is supporting the claim — the alleged servicer.

You might also want to challenge or at least question their authority to be a servicer. The fact that someone appointed them to be a servicer does not make them a servicer.

Calling themselves a “servicer” does not constitute authority to administer or even meddle in your loan account. As you will see below the entire purpose of subservicers is to create the illusion of a “Business records” exception to the hearsay rule without which the loan could not be enforced. The truth here is stranger than fiction. But it opens the door to understanding how to engage the enemy in trial combat.

That “payment history” is inadmissible hearsay because it was not created by the actual owner of the record at or near the time of a transaction and the actual input of data is neither secure mor even known as to author or source. Likewise escrow and insurance payment functions are not authorized unless the party is an actual servicer. The fact that a homeowner reasonably believed and relied upon representations of servicing authority is a basis for disgorgement — not an admission that the party collecting money or imposing fees and insurance premiums was authorized to do so.

PRACTICE NOTE: However, in order to do this effectively you must be very aggressive in the discovery stage of litigation. (1) ASK QUESTIONS, (2) MOVE TO COMPEL, (3) MOVE FOR SANCTIONS, (4) RENEW MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, (5) MOTION IN LIMINE AND (6) TIMELY OBJECTION AT TRIAL.

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

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
*
To be a “servicer” the company must received the appointment to administer the loan account from someone who is authorized to make the appointment. A power of attorney is only sufficient if the grantor is the owner of the debt — or had been given authority to make such appointment from the owner of the debt.
*
A person who is authorized to make the appointment is either the owner of the debt by virtue of having paid for the debt or an authorized representative of the owner of the debt by virtue of having paid for the debt. This is a key point that is frequently overlooked. By accepting the entity as a servicer, you are impliedly admitting that they have authorization and that a true creditor is in the chain upon which your opposition is placing reliance. In short, you are admitting to a false statement of facts that will undermine your defense narrative.
*
If the servicer is really authorized to act as such then your attempt to defeat foreclosure most likely fails because the case is about a real debt owed to a real owner of the debt.
*
The fact that they allege that they maintain records may be a true or false representation. But whether it is true or false, it does not mean that they had authorization to maintain those records or to take any other action in connection with the administration of the loan. Of course we know now that any such records are composed of both accurate and fabricated data.
*
We also know that the data is kept in a central repository much the same as MERS is used as a central repository for title.
*
The representations in your case about and intensive audit and boarding process most likely consist of fabricated documents and perjury. There was no audit and there was no boarding process. The data in most cases, and this probably applies to your case, was originated and maintained and manipulated at Black Knight formerly known as Lender Processing Systems.
*
Contrary to the requirements of law, the central repository does not ever handle any money or payments or disbursements and therefore does not create “business records” that could be used as an exception to the hearsay rule. The same thing applies MERS. These central repositories of data do not have any actual role in real life in connection with any financial transaction. Their purpose is the fabrication of data to support various purposes of their members.
*
All of this is very counterintuitive and difficult to wrap one’s mind around. but there is a reason for all of this subterfuge.
*
From a legal, accounting and finance perspective the debt was actually destroyed in the process of securitization. This was an intentional act to avoid potential risk of laws and liability. But for purposes of enforcement, the banks had to maintain the illusion of the existence of the debt. Since they had already destroyed the debt they had to fabricate evidence of its existence. This was done by the fabrication of documents, recording false utterances in title records, perjury in court and disingenuous argument in court.
*
The banks had to maintain the illusion of the existence of the debt because that is what is required under our current system of statutory laws. In all 50 states and U.S. territories, along with centuries of common law, it is a condition precedent to the enforcement of a foreclosure that the party claiming the remedy of foreclosure must be the owner of the debt by reason of having paid value for it.
*
The logic behind that is irrefutable. Foreclosure is an equitable remedy for restitution of an unpaid debt. It is the most severe remedy under civil law. Therefore, unlike a promissory note which only results in the rendition of a judgment for money damages, the Foreclosure must be for the sole purpose of paying down the debt. No exceptions.
*
The problem we constantly face in the courtroom is that there is an assumption that there is a party present in the courtroom who is seeking restitution for an unpaid debt, when in fact that party, along with others, is seeking revenue on its own behalf and on behalf of other participants.
*
The problem we face in court is that we must overcome the presumption that there was an actual legal claim on behalf of an actual legal claimant. Anything else must be viewed through the prism of skepticism about a borrower attempting to escape a debt. The nuance here is that the end result might indeed be let the borrower escapes the debt. But that is not because of anything that the borrower has done. In fact, the end result could be a remedy devised in court or by Statute in which the debt is reconstituted for purposes of enforcement, but for the benefit of the only parties who actually advance money and connection with that debt.
*
More importantly is that nonpayment of the debt does not directly result in any financial loss to any party. The loss is really the loss of an expectation of further profit after having generated revenue equal to 12 times the principal amount of the loan.
*
While there are many people who would argue to the contrary, they are arguing against faithful execution of our existing laws. There simply is no logic, common sense or legal analysis that supports using foreclosure processes as a means to obtain Revenue at the expense of both the borrower and the investor. And despite all appearances to the contrary, carefully created by the banks, that is exactly what  is happening.

Jurisdictional Defense —- Certificate Holders vs Trust

Litigators often miss the point that the foreclosure is brought on behalf of certificate holders who have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage — and there is no assertion, allegation or exhibit that says otherwise.

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

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

Here is an excerpt from one of my recent drafts on this subject:

*

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: the complaint attempts to state a cause of action on behalf of the certificate holders of an apparent trust, although the trust is not identified as to the jurisdiction in which it was created or the jurisdiction in which it operates.
*
Even assuming that such a trust exists and that it issued certificates, there is no allegation or attachment of an exhibit demonstrating that the certificates contain a conveyance enabling the holder of the certificate to enforce the alleged debt, note or mortgage upon which the complaint relies. In fact, independent investigation shows the exact opposite.
*
Nor is there any allegation that any money is due to the certificate holders or any allegation that the certificate holders possess the promissory note or have the right to enforce either the promissory note or the mortgage. Even if the indenture for the certificates were produced before this court, it would only show a contract for payment from a party other than the homeowner in this action. Accordingly, no justiciable controversy has been presented to the court. In the absence of an amendment curing the above defects, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*
STANDING:
  1. As to Bank of New York Mellon there is no allegation or attachment to the complaint that alleges or demonstrates an agency relationship between Bank of New York Mellon and the certificate holders, on whose behalf the complaint is allegedly filed. If Bank of New York Mellon is the trustee of an existing trust and the trust is alleged to own the debt note and mortgage along with the rights to enforce, then the agency or representative capacity of Bank of New York Mellon is with the trust, and not with the certificate holders. Based upon the allegations of the complaint and independent research defendant asserts that there is no representative capacity between Bank of New York Mellon and the certificate holders.
  2. As to the alleged trust which has not been properly identified there is no allegation that the action is brought on behalf of the trust; but the implied allegation is that the trust is the plaintiff. The complaint states that the action is brought on behalf of the certificate holders who merely hold securities or instruments apparently issued in the name of the alleged trust. There is no allegation or exhibit attached to the complaint that would support any implication that Bank of New York Mellon possesses a power of attorney for the certificate holders or the trust. In fact, in litigation between Bank of New York Mellon and investors who have purchased such certificates, Bank of New York Mellon has denied any duty owed to the certificate holders.
  3. As to the certificate holders, there is no allegation or exhibit demonstrating that the certificate holders have any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage nor any right to enforce the debt, note or mortgage. Based upon independent research, the certificate holders do not possess any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage nor any right to enforce. In fact, in Tax Court litigation the certificate holders are deemed to be holding an unsecured obligation, to wit: a promise to pay issued in the name of a trust which may simply be the fictitious name of an investment bank. There is no contractual relationship between the defendant and the certificate holders. Further, no such relationship has been alleged or implied by the complaint or anything contained in the attachments to the complaint.
  4. As to the certificate holders, they are neither named nor identified. Yet the complaint states that the lawsuit is based upon a claim for restitution to the certificate holders. The reference to the trust may be identification of the certificates but not the certificate holders. In fact, based upon independent investigation, the holders of such certificates never received any payments from the borrower nor from any servicer who collected payments from the borrower nor from the proceeds of any foreclosure. In the case at bar. the complaint is framed to obscure the fact that the forced sale of the property will not be used to satisfy the debt, note or mortgage in whole or in part.
  5. As to any of the parties listed in the complaint as being a plaintiff or part of the plaintiff there is no allegation or exhibit demonstrating that any of them paid value for the debt, or received a conveyance of an interest in the debt, note or mortgage from a party who has paid value for the debt as required by article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state law, which states that a condition precedent to the enforcement of a mortgage is the payment of value for the debt. Hence regardless of who is identified as being the actual plaintiff none of the parties listed can demonstrate financial injury arising from nonpayment or any other act by the defendant.
  6. In the absence of any amendment to cure the above defects, the entire complaint and exhibits must be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of a plaintiff who has legal standing to bring a claim against the defendant.
The only thing I would add to the existing second affirmative defense is the affirmative statement that based upon independent investigation, such signatures were neither authorized nor proper, to wit: they consist of forgeries or the product of robosigned in which the signature of a person is affixed without knowledge of the contents of the instrument to which it is affixed.
*
In my opinion, the specificity that I have employed in the above comments not only provides a basis for dismissal, but also the foundation to support Discovery requests that might otherwise be denied, to wit: who, if anyone, ever paid money for the debt?

Consent Order Contains Admission of False Affidavits and False Chains of Title

A lot of student loan debt ends up being claimed by “Trusts” that are exactly like REMIC trusts except they are not about residential mortgages. And as I have previously pointed out on these pages, the enforcement of those debts has gone through the same process of removing the risk of loss from those who made the loan and the creation of a scheme where it is perhaps impossible to find or identify any creditor who owns the debt by reason of having paid for it (as opposed to “owning the debt” by reason of having the promissory note or a copy of it).

As a side note, to the extent that debtors are prevented from discharging such debt because of government guarantees, I argue that such exclusion is inapplicable. Students should be able to discharge most student debt in bankruptcy. The risk has already been eliminated if the loans are subject to claims in securitization. The purpose of the guarantee has thus been eliminated.

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

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

Hat tip to summer chic

In this case, the CFPB filed suit essentially asserting its own administrative findings that mirror the defenses of homeowners in foreclosure, to wit: that the affidavits filed are false, and they are falsely signed and notarized, containing false information about title to the loan and false information about the business records.

What is interesting about this case is that the parties are submitting a consent order which includes as those findings of the court in paragraph 4 of the proposed consent order which states as follows:

See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_national-collegiate-student-loan-trusts_proposed-consent-judgment.pdf

4. Since at least November 1, 2012, in order to collect on defaulted private student loans, Defendants’ Servicers filed Collections Lawsuits on behalf of Defendants in state courts across the country. In support of these lawsuits, Subservicers on behalf of Defendants executed and filed affidavits that falsely claimed personal knowledge of the account records and the consumer’s debt, and in many cases, personal knowledge of the chain of assignments establishing ownership of the loans.In addition, Defendants’ Servicers on behalf of Defendants filed more than 2,000 debt collections lawsuits without the documentation necessary to prove Trust ownership of the loans or on debt that was time-barred. Finally, notaries for Defendants’ Servicers notarized over 25,000 affidavits even though they did not witness the affiants’ signatures.[e.s.]

PRACTICE NOTE: HOW TO USE THIS INFORMATION. Sometimes I erroneously assume that people know what to do with this type of information. So let’s be clear.

  • This information means that servicers, subservicers and lawyers claims regarding chain of title, business records, and their use of affidavits or even testimony is not entitled to the same presumption of credibility that might otherwise apply.
  • That means that the presumptions on the use of business records are not entitled to a presumption of credibility and that additional foundation testimony must be offered in order to assure the court that what is contained in the document is authorized, properly signed, properly notarized and most importantly accurate.
  • The entire case against debtors in these situations is entirely dependent upon the use of legal presumptions  that can be rebutted. Rebuttal of presumptions takes place under two general categories.
  • The first is that that the presumed fact can be shown to be untrue.
  • The second ius that the process of presumption should not apply because the proponent of the document clearly has a stake in the outcome of litigation and has a history of falsifying such documents.
  • Once you rebut the presumption, the case against the debot (homeowner, student) is gone.
  • The opposition has no evidence of proof of payment for the debt, and this has no foundation for claiming authority of the servicer, trustee or even the lawyer.
  • Such authority must come from the owner of a debt who has paid value for it.

Dan Edstrom senior forensic loan examiner writes the following:

This is similar to what is in the foreclosure review consent orders (from US Bank Consent Order dated April 13, 2011):
(2) In connection with certain foreclosures of loans in its residential mortgage servicing portfolio, the Bank:​
(a)​ filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts affidavits executed by its employees making various assertions, such as the amount of the principal and interest due or the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records;
(b) filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts, or in local land records offices, numerous affidavits that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;​
(c)​ failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and​
(d)​ failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.​
(3)​ By reason of the conduct set forth above, the Bank engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices.
And what about this quote from the student loan consent order:
In addition, Defendants’ Servicers on behalf of Defendants filed more than 2,000 debt collections​ lawsuits without the documentation necessary to prove Trust ownership of​ the loans or on debt that was time-barred.
So wait a minute. They allege the debt cannot be discharged in BKR, but (alleged) student loan debt that hasn’t been paid on in years – isn’t it time barred?  How does collection action work after decades where they took affirmative debt collection steps after the debt was time barred?  In the instance I am thinking about, a dentist was BARRED from taking patients with some type of federally covered insurance and this forced them out of their occupation.  The student loan debt hadn’t been paid in 2 or 3 decades (in California).
So in a related case (time-barred debt) in BKR in CA, a debtor filed a lawsuit against a creditor for filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt. He lost, the court ruled that if the proof of claim was not objected to (with the relevant objection being that the debt was time-barred), the debtor waived the affirmative defense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep the Envelopes! Attention Forensic Auditors! How to Show They Are Lying About Everything

The devil is in the details and it is in the details that actions don’t add up if one party is faking their status. 

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

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

Hat tip to Summer Chic

I have long described the practice of sending out correspondence and notices from, say for example PennyMac, from an address that has never been PennyMac. Summer Chic discovered with some snooping that the letter she received from “PennyMac” was sent from a Bank of America location. Bank of America claims no connection with PennyMac. In many such scenarios Bank of America claims no connection with the loan.

Of course that might very well be true. Because in the securitization game the real records are kept at the investment bank (who at least WAS the real party in interest when the loan was originated or acquired)  and a central repository from which documents, notices and other instruments are created, signed, sent and filed. In most cases this central repository is Black Knight, which is the new name of Lender Processing Systems, (LPS) who had a subsidiary or division called DOCX.

This is why the claims of a “Boarding process” are pure fiction, because the records are always kept in the same place and never move.

DOCX you might remember is the place where most of not all document fabrications took place including signatures that were forged or robosigned. Fabrication as you know means that they were creating documents that did not previously exist. Those documents did not exist for only one reason, to wit: there was no transaction  to document so the document was never prepared until it was necessary to fake it for the purposes of foreclosures.

Incredibly Black Knight is now used as a trusted source of information about mortgages and foreclosures despite being the central entity (operating through third party contractors) from which false documents are created and used in foreclosures.

It was necessary to fake it because under the law, it isn’t enough to allege or assert that a borrower failed to pay. Failure to pay is only a breach as to the owner of the debt who is entitled to receive the payment because he/she/it paid money for the debt and the rights to enforce. But no such payment ever occurred. If there is no rebach there is no claim.

So in order to cover-up the illusions created by fabrications of documents, it was necessary to fake the sending, filing and serving of process of documents. While this was accomplished in some corrupt courts (one right here in Florida), ordinarily it was accomplished by sending the notices not from the central repository, Black Knight, which would make it obvious that it was all coming from one place, but from different locations around the country — hundreds of them.

So in our example, PennyMac agrees to let Black Knight use its name for notices, and Bank of America agrees to have the notice sent from one of its thousands of locations. In reality the notice came from Black Knight and neither PennyMac nor Bank of America know what is contained in the notice, nor do they care.

In court, as I have repeatedly said, it is unwise to try and allege and prove all of that, because you will never get access to the real records of Black Knight, Pennymac or Bank of America. If you could you would would have one big class action lawsuit against all three of those entities. It is well hidden under agreements that might never see the light of day.

BUT, you can use discovery and cross examination to gradually educate a reluctant judge so that he/she gets increasingly uncomfortable with what they are hearing. By using discovery effectively you could even bar the introduction of certain evidence and legal presumptions because you never received an acceptable response to your requests for discovery.

The questions are quite simple: using the envelope as evidence (after proper foundation testimony or as a exhibit for ID to be later admitted into evidence) you elicit the fact that either the entity does not maintain any address at that location and never did or that the witness doesn’t know and that the employer refuses to answer.

You are asking the question “Who sent this notice?” knowing full well it wasn’t the witness or his employer or anyone else in the chain of title. If the witness slips and answers truthfully (which happens occasionally) that it was Black Knight then you’re off to the races with questions about what Black Knight is doing sending out notices on a loan with which they supposedly have no connection and on whose behalf the notices were actually sent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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