Statute of Limitations: Dade County — Deutsche Loses Foreclosure — Cited for 7 years of delays

For further information please call 954*495*9867 or 520-405-1688

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

see Deutsch Crashes on Statute of Limitations in Dade County

For many years judges have turned delays in foreclosures against borrowers usually making some comment about having lived for free without making payments. Those judges have ignored the fact that the delay was caused by the Plaintiff who initiated the foreclosure, who for their own reasons delayed, obfuscated and continually delayed the progress of the case that they were supposed to prosecute, since they filed the lawsuit. In this case, Deutsch lost based upon a statute of limitations that had run and based upon the fact that Deutsch was the reason for the delays.

The fact remains that in most cases, homeowners were urgently asking for modifications in which they would have paid for terms that were based upon economic and legal realities. Those homeowners, usually paying attorneys fees throughout the period of delays, were not getting any “free ride.” They were set to lose their down payment, cost of improvements and the costs of forensic audits and attorney fees. But the item to notice, as we have discussed before, is that where the adversaries are a bank or servicer on the plaintiff side and the condo or homeowners association on the other, the decisions are more likely to run against the bank.

So it behooves the attorneys for the associations as well as the homeowners to act in concert where the possibility exists for defeating the claims of a party like Deutsch who seems to lack ownership and lack authority to collect or enforce.

The case shows the “negative consequences that lenders can face if they go too far with their delay tactics in foreclosure cases,” condo association attorneys Nicholas and Steven Siegfried said in a statement.

Loan servicer American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. filed suit in January 2007, demanding accelerated payments for the full $1.44 million.

Ironically it was this move for upfront payments that would unravel the lender’s case and cost the bank the million-dollar property, because the condo association successfully argued the demand started a five-year clock for resolving the foreclosure.

BLOOMBERG: HOA V BOA: Homeowner Associations Step Up the Pressure on Banks

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

CLICK HERE TO RESERVE SEATING AT HAWAII WORKSHOP

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Homeowner Associations Wake Up to Collections and Profit!!

FORECLOSING ON THE BANK!!

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Becker and Poliakoff in South Florida is probably the largest law firm representing homeowner associations in the U.S. Once upon a time I was a competitor in Florida when I represented several hundred associations. It was Becker, Poliakoff and Streitfeld until Jeffrey Streitfeld went on the Bench to become a Circuit Judge — and I might add, one of the best.

Some time ago I predicted that homeowner associations would wake up to the realities:

  1. The banks have a strategy where they don’t officially take responsibility for the property until they are forced to do so. They do this because they don’t want to pay HOA dues, maintenance and special assessments. They also avoid taxes sometimes, but that is a different  ball of wax. 
  2. Associations are realizing that they have rights to collect on homes where the homeowners dues, maintenance payments and special assessments have not been paid while the bank is the de facto owner of the property. 
  3. In many cases, when confronted with an aggressive and knowledgeable law firm, long steeped in HOA matters, the bank simply folds, pays up and everyone goes on their way. But in other cases, the bank still drags their feet leading to both a solution and an opportunity for the association: FORECLOSURE ON THE BANK. And Becker and Poliakoff and other attorneys representing associations have caught onto the fact that there is money in those mountains of paper. 
  4. As shown below, foreclosing on the banks not only recovers money where the bank finally pays up, but actually results in the sheriffs sale of the property at a legitimate auction in which the association need only bid the amount of its lien. Some people don’t realize that the lien of the association for unpaid dues, maintenance or special assessments is a perfected lien, if filed properly, and subject tot he exact same foreclosure process as any mortgage.
  5. When the bank pays, they pay interest, costs of filing, and attorney fees, which is a big ouch.
  6. When they don’t pay, the association gets a declaration from the Judge that the property is owned de facto by the bank, and then enters a final judgment of foreclosure, which results in the sale.
  7. If the Association is the winning bidder, they get the house. So if the unpaid dues are $10,000, the association gets it. And if the house even in a down market is worth $80,000, the Association turns around, sells the property at an attractive distressed price, nets $70,000 which can do a lot to correct their budget and to wash out the unpaid assessments on that particular condo, town-home, coop or HOA dwelling unit. There are some wrinkles here, but I don’t want to give the banks any help.
  8. This is why I have suggested that distressed homeowners actually partner with the associations in the foreclosure of their own home. Under the right configuration of facts and documents and pleadings and judgment, the homeowner can strip the mortgages (which are probably invalid anyway) as an encumbrance on their residential dwelling unit. The homeowner can exercise a right of redemption after the foreclosure sale eliminated the non-creditor pretender lenders from the title chain, pay off the HOA balance, and start paying dues, maintenance and special assessments. I suspect that Becker and Poliakoff is headed exactly in that direction and I applaud them for it.

Homeowner Associations in Need of Cash Sue to Force Foreclosures

By John Gittelsohn – Aug 23, 2011 9:01 PM MT

Ben Solomon, an attorney with Association Law Group, left, and Jane Losson, a board member of the Vintage East Condominium Association, stand for a photograph in Miami Beach, Florida. Photographer: Mark Elias/Bloomberg

Ben Solomon, an attorney with Association Law Group stands for a photograph while Jane Losson, a board member of the Vintage East Condominium Association, talks on the phone in the kitchen of repossessed unit in Miami Beach, Florida. Photographer: Mark Elias/Bloomberg

Members of the Vintage East Condominium Association in Miami Beach got tired of waiting for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) to foreclose on unit 9, so they sued the bank in February to take control of the property.

In June, more than four years after the owner stopped making payments, a judge ruled that JPMorgan lost its claim to the $144,000 mortgage. The apartment is now on the market for $87,500, and the association may stave off insolvency with proceeds from the sale and a new owner who pays monthly dues, said Jane Losson, a board member at the complex. Four of the 11 other owners at the property are also behind on dues.

“I find it an outrage that the bank had decided to do nothing and the other owners got stuck,” Losson, who’s had her Vintage East condo since 2004, said in a telephone interview. “If we get this unit sold, we’ll have a little money.”

Financially troubled condo associations are taking banks to court as foreclosure delays enable delinquent homeowners to stay in their buildings for years, often without paying dues that keep boards running. The groups start by pressuring lenders to speed up home seizures and take over payment of the monthly fees. In extreme situations, like the Vintage East case, associations may force banks to give up rights to the property.

“The lenders are stalling foreclosures,” Ben Solomon, the Miami Beach attorney for the Vintage East association, said in a telephone interview. “Our complaints say the banks abandoned their interest and either need to accept responsibility for the title or walk away.”

‘Mortgage Terminator’

Solomon, whose Association Law Group represented homeowner boards in 16 Florida counties with 15,000 delinquent owners, also won what he calls “mortgage terminator” lawsuits in claims against Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup Inc. (C), Deutsche Bank AG (DB) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), according to court records.

About 60 million people, or one in five Americans, live in residences with condo or homeowner associations, according to the Community Associations Institute, a trade group in Falls Church, Virginia. States with some of the highest foreclosure rates — Florida, Nevada, California and Arizona — are also among those with the biggest share of populations in homeowner associations, said Frank Rathbun, spokesman for the 30,000- member trade group. The associations maintain residents’ common interests such as parking lots, roofs, landscaping and trash removal.

“About 50 percent of our members said the housing crisis and economic downturn have had a severe or serious impact on their association,” Rathbun said in a telephone interview.

Pushing Banks

About one in three Californians live in that state’s 45,000 condo and homeowner associations, said Kelly Richardson, an attorney who specializes in homeowner association law.

“Banks have been slow catching up to reality,” Richardson, with the firm of Richardson Harman Ober PC in Pasadena, said in a telephone interview. “When pushed, they’ll step up to the plate, but you have to push them.”

In Nevada — the state with the highest rate of foreclosure filings, according to RealtyTrac Inc. — delinquent homeowners owe associations about $150 million in back dues, said Steven Parker, president of Red Rock Financial Services, which collects debts for associations in Nevada and five other states.

“It’s probably at least $1 billion for the whole country,” Parker, whose company is a unit of FirstService Corp. (FSV), said in a telephone interview from Las Vegas. “Prior to foreclosure, we get almost nothing from banks. After the foreclosure, probably 30 percent of what we’re collecting is from banks.”

Drop in Foreclosures

U.S. foreclosure filings — notices of default, auction or seizure — fell to their lowest level in almost four years in July, as lenders and government agencies increased efforts to keep delinquent borrowers in their homes and paperwork delays slowed repossessions, RealtyTrac reported Aug. 11.

Filings have plunged for 10 straight months after state attorneys general began probing a practice known as “robo- signing,” in which lenders and servicers pushed through default documents without verifying their accuracy. The decline has been steepest in Florida and other so-called judicial states that require courts to approve foreclosures.

The bank delays have left homes in the delinquency process longer. U.S. homeowners facing foreclosure averaged 587 days without making a mortgage payment in June, up from 251 days in January 2008, according to Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS), a real estate information company in Jacksonville, Florida.

Florida Delinquencies

In Florida, where 14 percent of homes with a mortgage have a foreclosure notice, the average delinquent borrower hadn’t made a payment for 719 days, or almost two years, LPS data show.

As of June 30, 18.68 percent of home loans in Florida were more than three months delinquent or in foreclosure, the most of any state and more than double the U.S. average of 7.85 percent, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported this week.

“Florida’s numbers continue to drive national numbers,” Jay Brinkmann, chief economist of the Washington-based trade group, said at an Aug. 22 news conference.

Banks often hold off on a foreclosure as long as they can to avoid paying dues, property taxes and occupancy costs, said John Rickel, chief executive officer of Association Dues Assurance Corp., a St. Clair Shores, Michigan, company that collects fees for community associations in 20 states.

“We probably have 100 to 300 banks that we’re trying to collect from right at the moment,” Rickel said in a telephone interview. “We’re always 100 percent successful in collecting against banks because they do have the funds available.”

Limiting Collections

Associations’ rights vary based on state law. In Nevada, the groups have “super priority,” which means they can collect up to nine months of back dues plus costs when a residence sells, even after a foreclosure. In other states, such as Arizona, homeowner associations can sue to garnish wages of delinquent residents, even if they have lost the property.

Florida law limits homeowner associations from collecting more than 12 months of back dues or 1 percent of the outstanding mortgage, whichever is less, after a foreclosure. That cap often doesn’t apply to banks, said Frank Silcox, president of LM Funding LLC, a Tampa, Florida-based company that advances cash to condo associations in exchange for the lien rights on past- due accounts.

“Our attorneys look for a reason the foreclosing bank isn’t entitled to the minimum,” Silcox said in a telephone interview. “Nine out of 10 times, we get the bank to pay.”

In one Miami Beach condo case, LM Funding collected $52,000 — counting late fees, 18 percent interest and collection costs — instead of about $3,000 the bank would have paid under the state limit, he said.

$148,000 in Dues

About 40 percent of LM Funding’s collections come from banks, with the balance from individual homeowners and through short sales, when the lender agrees to sell a property for less than the mortgage balance, Silcox said.

Bonnie Jordan, manager of the Bermuda Dunes Condo Residence Association in Orlando, said LM Funding advanced her $150,000 and recovered an additional $148,000 in back dues, helping the 336-unit development pay its bills after owners of 115 units went into foreclosure.

“We had $375,000 in bad debt,” said Jordan, whose complex charges monthly fees of $250 to $357. “LM Funding is recouping every dime for us.”

While banks present a potentially lucrative source of delinquent dues, they’re also a challenging target because they use legal tactics to prolong the foreclosure process, said Ellen Hirsch de Haan, an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff PA in Clearwater, Florida, who represents homeowner associations.

Canceling Hearings

“The banks are setting and then canceling hearings before the final judgment is eventually entered,” she said in an e- mail, “then setting and canceling the sale date, then failing to record the certificate of title, thereby postponing the actual transfer of title to the bank for months, or even years.”

Bank of America, with 1.1 million mortgages at least 90 days delinquent, addresses non-performing loans as fast as possible while complying with the law, Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank, wrote in an e-mail. Bank of America loans in which borrowers were at least three months late were valued at $32.5 billion as of March 31, up from $26.97 billion a year earlier, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data compiled by Bloomberg.

“After exhausting all home-retention efforts, it is in the best interest of servicers and investors to move the foreclosure process along while abiding by Florida laws,” Bauwens said in the e-mail. “On average, homeowners are delinquent 18 months prior to a foreclosure sale. In judicial states like Florida, the process is longer.”

Bank Trustees

To compel banks to act, Solomon’s lawsuits start by suing the homeowner for unpaid dues as a way of seeking title to the property. Then he files a claim against the bank, contending the non-performing loan restricts the association’s right to sell the property because the mortgage is worth more than the home.

The bank defendant is usually a trustee for the loan that was sold into a mortgage-backed security, a legal structure that can leave the party responsible for a mortgage unclear.

Citigroup and Deutsche Bank declined to challenge lawsuits brought by Solomon because both banks were trustees, not the servicers of the delinquent loans, bank representatives said.

In March 2010, Citigroup lost a lawsuit over a Miami Beach condo with a $136,000 mortgage, according to court filings. Danielle Romero-Apsilos, a spokeswoman for the New York-based bank, declined to comment, saying Citigroup wasn’t the servicer.

Deutsche Bank

Deutsche Bank in September forfeited its right to a unit with a $149,300 mortgage to the Palm Aire Gardens Condominium Association Inc. in Pompano Beach, Florida.

“Litton Loan Servicing, the loan servicer for the loan, and not Deutsche Bank as trustee, was responsible for all foreclosure activity relating to the loan,” John Gallagher, a Deutsche Bank spokesman in New York, said in an e-mail.

Donna Marie Jendritza, a spokeswoman for Litton in Houston, declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing privacy restrictions. Litton, which Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is selling to Ocwen Financial Corp., wasn’t named in the complaint or other court documents.

“We sue whoever holds the mortgage,” Solomon said. “The bottom line is the bank had a loan and the mortgage got terminated.”

No Defense

Palm Aire Gardens also won title to a unit with a $184,410 mortgage after Wells Fargo failed to mount a defense because it no longer owned the loan, a transfer that wasn’t reflected in property records, said Tom Goyda, a spokesman. The bank would have defended the mortgage if it hadn’t sold the loan, he said.

The San Francisco-based bank had $9.6 billion in mortgages more than 90 days delinquent and $11.4 billion in non-performing mortgages on one- to four-family homes as of June 30, Goyda said.

JPMorgan, the lender in the Vintage East case, had $2.5 billion in second-quarter costs tied to faulty mortgages and foreclosures, it reported July 14.

“There have been so many flaws in mortgages that it’s been an unmitigated disaster,” Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said in a conference call that day. “We just really need to clean it up for the sake of everybody. And everybody is going to sue everybody else, and it’s going to go on for a long time.”

Vintage East

Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan in Chicago, declined to comment on the Vintage East lawsuit or other cases in which the bank lost properties to homeowner associations.

The bank’s mortgage at Vintage East was on a studio apartment with $24,000 in unpaid back dues, said Losson, the board member. Other residents of the Art Deco complex, built in 1937 two blocks from the beach, loaned the association money to pay for roof and building repairs and wrote personal checks to cover insurance payments, she said.

“We’re still in precarious condition, but we can see our way out now,” said Losson, who estimated the condo association was owed $60,000 in delinquent dues. “We went up against JPMorgan Chase and we won. It’s a good story. There’s a way out of the morass.”

To contact the reporter on this story: John Gittelsohn in Los Angeles at johngitt@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kara Wetzel at kwetzel@bloomberg.net.

PRIORITY OF LIENS: TWISTED TAIL OF TITLE FRAUD

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CASE LAW IN VARIOUS CASES REPORTED IN THIS BLOG SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE INSTITUTION CONFRONTS ANOTHER, THE APPARENTLY INFERIOR LIEN BECOMES EITHER SUPERIOR, OR THE ONLY LIEN. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS TAKE NOTE: YOUR LIEN MIGHT BE WORTH THE ENTIRE HOUSE IF YOU FILE FOR A DECLARATORY ACTION RAISING THE PRIORITY OF YOUR LIEN. HELOC AND SECOND MORTGAGE HOLDERS TAKE NOTE AS WELL. AND OF COURSE HOMEOWNERS OR THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE EX-HOMEOWNERS TAKE NOTE: YOU MIGHT STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A QUIET TITLE ACTION AND RECLAIM YOUR PROPERTY — ALLOWING ANY ACTUAL “LOSER” IN THE DEAL TO MAKE THEIR CLAIM BUT BARRING NOMINAL PARTIES FROM WINDFALL PROFITS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RISK OR INVESTMENT.

There is practically nobody left who doesn’t see that the “ownership” of the loan is a big red question mark. The question that is unresolved is whether that is relevant to questions of title and foreclosure sales. Here is the issue: In most cases the title record (the official title records books located in the property clerk’s office) show only one “party” to the note (a company identified as a lender) and one “party” to the security instrument — the mortgage or Deed of Trust — (a company identified as the mortgagee or beneficiary most frequently MERS or some other straw man or nominee).

So the first problem is that from the start, the ownership of the note and the ownership of the mortgage are split intentionally by the parties who engineered the “loan” closing. With the exception of a few states where the big banks lobbied for corrective legislation that probably is unenforceable or unconstitutional, it is not possible to enforce a mortgage that is not incident to a note. Each state has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code and its own property laws that make it impossible for one person to get the house and another to get a monetary judgment for the note —- both based upon the same obligation.

  • They must be the same person or there is no enforcement of the security instrument (i.e., no foreclosure). And in those states, the mortgage or deed of trust is not incident to the note unless they have a common “owner.” So even before we get to the issue of securitization of the receivable, we have a problem. There is basically no law that would allow foreclosure of a so-called mortgage or deed of trust in which the holder of the mortgage or deed of trust is different than the holder of the note.

Before we get to the securitization issue, there is one more factor that is covered by Reg Z and the Truth in Lending Act. It is whether the “loan” was table funded. A table funded loan is one in which the party identified as a lender was not the source of the money in the transaction. The prohibition and restriction against these transactions is meant to keep the consumer informed about the identity of the party with whom he/she is doing business and therefore able to decide whether in fact they want to do business with the party who is really funding the loan.

  • The title problem with a table-funded loan is obvious: the note is supposedly a description of the obligation that arises when the borrower accepts the benefits of the monetary advance from the source of funds. In a table funded loan, the note does NOT describe the real parties and therefore is not proper evidence of the obligation and thus cannot be used as a substitute for proof of the obligation.
  • Federal law and rules state that anyone who as a matter of practice is doing table-funded loans, is defined as a predatory lender.
  • This means that if someone wants to enforce the obligation, they must have more than the note to prove their case. This is precisely where the pretender lenders are finessing the courts — because before the antics of the last decade, there was no difference between the obligation and the note and everyone on both sides of even an adversary proceeding usually agreed that the original note was proper evidence of the obligation.
  • This also means that if someone wants to foreclose, they need something more than the note, because the note, as we have seen, is NOT the complete evidence of the obligation — there is another party involved who was undisclosed and who was the source of the funds. So the obligation was between the borrower and the source of the funds. But the borrower was not told or informed that the money being advanced was from another entity.
  • Ordinarily this would not present a major problem, but it still would require corrective action in order to clear title for  purposes of a satisfaction or release of the mortgage or deed of trust, refinance, sale, second mortgage, condominium association lien, homeowner association lien, HELOC, non-judicial sale or judicial sale. Without this corrective action ON RECORD at the county recorder’s office, the documents releasing or transferring title to the property would be fatally defective in that the real party who advanced the funds did not execute a release or satisfaction, leaving the borrower or the borrower’s successor with the exposure of yet another foreclosure or another claim on the original obligation. This defect is either suspect or apparent on its face when you see MERS involved or an “originating Lender” that is not a bank (and usually out of business now).

All of this mind-numbing analysis morphs from nitpicking to highly relevant when securitization enters the picture. Securitization as it was used in actual practice, i.e., real world reality, was simply a process by which the payments were split from the obligation, not the note and reframed as the basis for a third party obligation under the terms of a mortgage bond sold to third party investors. So the source of funding never receives the note or any of the borrower’s closing documents. He receives a mortgage bond in which there are multiple payors, obligors, and contingent liabilities only one of which is the borrower’s obligation to repay the obligation.

There are two primary defects in this process that are of high significance:

  1. In practice, the intermediaries used the documentation for securitization to multiply rather than split the obligation to pay amongst the various payors and co-obligors.
  • This means that for every dollar that was advanced for the benefit of the borrower, an obligation was ADDED to the receivable stream for each payor or co-obligor that was ADDED to the obligation to make payments under the mortgage bond. This is where the intermediaries began to make multiples of the money being funded rather than small basis points as was customary in the industry.
  • Through the use of highly sophisticated cloaked transactions, each dollar funded was multiplied as a nominal receivable which in turn was sold multiple times and insured multiple times in multiple ways.
  • Hence the the total evidence of the borrower’s obligation consists of the closing borrower documents PLUS the closing investor documents. The total accounting consists of the the servicing record of the borrower’s payments PLUS the distribution and tape record of reports and payments to the bond holders.
  • This totality of the evidence reveals that the borrower’s obligation resulted in multiple payments by multiple payors and co-obligors, some of whom made money participating in the sham scheme, and some of whom lost money in the scheme.
  • In most cases, one of the groups that lost money were the original investors who advanced money for their share of the flow of receivables described in the mortgage bond, which included, at all times, the receivables due from third party payors and co-obligors. Other losers were traders and institutions that were creating the appearance of an unregulated but phantom securities market in which profits and losses were apparently made on a daily basis, but which in fact were all accounting entries much like the Madoff scheme.
  • The current foreclosure scheme ignores these factors enabling intermediaries dubbed “pretender lenders” to profit from the confusion by pretending to be lenders when in fact they were never lenders of record and never lenders in the sense that they ever advanced any money. The intermediaries are filing false, fabricated and even forged or back-dated affidavits in the name of “Trustees” for trusts that do not exist or which have been dissolved or paid in whole or in part. The lender having been paid or settled as to the obligation under the mortgage bond thus releases any further claim. The intermediaries profit by pocketing the multiples of payments received, and the borrower suffers from the loss of a home or enforcement of a note that was never the evidence of the obligation.
  1. In practice, the actual source of funding — the party who advanced funds and who received a mortgage bond instead of the evidence of the borrower’s obligation —- NEVER held the note and was never intended to hold the note — and NEVER was the mortgagee or beneficiary and never was intended to be the mortgagee or beneficiary. Thus a declaratory action against the mortgagee or beneficiary of record should succeed in raising the priority of the interest of the plaintiff above that of the record holder of the security instrument, since the record holder has no obligation owed to it, and never was intended to be the recipient of funds nor to have the right or capacity to foreclose on the loan.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CASE LAW IN VARIOUS CASES REPORTED IN THIS BLOG SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE INSTITUTION CONFRONTS ANOTHER, THE APPARENTLY INFERIOR LIEN BECOMES EITHER SUPERIOR, OR THE ONLY LIEN. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS TAKE NOTE: YOUR LIEN MIGHT BE WORTH THE ENTIRE HOUSE IF YOU FILE FOR A DECLARATORY ACTION RAISING THE PRIORITY OF YOUR LIEN. HELOC AND SECOND MORTGAGE HOLDERS TAKE NOTE AS WELL. AND OF COURSE HOMEOWNERS OR THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE EX-HOMEOWNERS TAKE NOTE: YOU MIGHT STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A QUIET TITLE ACTION AND RECLAIM YOUR PROPERTY — ALLOWING ANY ACTUAL “LOSER” IN THE DEAL TO MAKE THEIR CLAIM BUT BARRING NOMINAL PARTIES FROM WINDFALL PROFITS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RISK OR INVESTMENT.

%d bloggers like this: