The Facts Behind Smoke and Mirrors

Nearly everyone is confused as to the identity of the real holder in due course, or the “creditor,” or the owner of the debt. Nearly everyone thinks that ultimate it is investors who purchased certificates.

In fact there is no holder in due course and there never will be in most instances. There was never any possibility for a holder in course claim because in most cases the origination of the loan took place in what is called a table funded loan, which is against public policy as a matter of law (as expressed in the Truth in Lending Act).

The creditor or owner of the debt is actually a party who was never disclosed in any of the dealings with borrowers and is not adequately disclosed in the secondary market or pretend underwritings and sales of certificates.

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

A Client just asked me if we should consider all the disclosed players as a single entity. Here is what I replied:

You could take that position but in reality they are all taking orders from a single entity that does not appear anywhere in the paper trail.

But it’s not like they are receiving orders on specific cases or events. They have standing orders to which they have agreed.

The party from whom they are receiving instructions is an investment bank who posed as an underwriter for the issuance and sale of bogus certificates from a nonexistent trust. The investment bank used money obtained under false pretenses from investors.

The investment bank might, under law, be considered a creditor — but it can’t assert that without opening itself up to a myriad of liabilities. In fact the investment will move heaven and Earth to avoid the revelation that the only financial transaction that means anything as a basis for foreclosure involves the investment bank and NOT any of the other disclosed parties with whom you are in litigation.

So in the end, the bottom line is that there is party who is willing to step up and claim status as creditor or owner of the debt — ever.

If you push this to the extreme in litigation you get some interesting results. Instead of being afraid that they will pop out a real creditor or owner of the debt, you should know that that in the end they will refuse to produce any such party.

And you will know that when they do assert or imply that this is the creditor you should look carefully at their wording and realize they are using a sham entity to cover up the fact that the investment bank who started it all is the real party in interest.

It is the investment banks’ unwillingness (for good reason) to be revealed as having anything to do with the loan, foreclosure or any other transactions that can be used as leverage if you push hard enough.

Discovery Changes and Broadens After Hawaii Supreme Court Decision

Based on questions that greeted me when I got to my desk this morning, here are just some of the thoughts that apply — a case review and analysis for each case being necessary to actually draft the right questions and to close any trap doors.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

NOTE: Procedural questions should be posed to local counsel who knows local discovery rules and court procedure. My answer is based upon general knowledge and not based upon any experience in litigating discovery issues in your state.
*
The effect of the new decision in the link above is most probably (a) a broadening of existing discovery requests (b) rehearings on recent decisions denying discovery and (c) an opportunity and a reason to ask the questions you really want to ask.
*
The first question is whether the questions you would ask now are already within the scope of the questions you have already asked. If so, generally speaking, there is nothing to do. In this scenario you could send a letter, I think, that clarifies your questions in view of the new Supreme Court ruling. The letter would specifically address certain issues that were raised in questions already asked and tells them the details you expect. This could be done in a supplemental request for discovery citing the new Supreme Court decision. Check with local counsel.
*
Second, and this is more likely, your case should be analyzed within the context of the new decision. It seems to me that the decision opens up some broader scope of discovery than had previously been submitted. Your opposition will fight this tooth and nail. Pointing to the Hawaii Supreme Court decision is not going to be enough even if the property is in Hawaii. You need to have a very clear narrative that explains why you are asking for the answers to questions and the production of documents and answers to request for admissions. Without a clear defense narrative your first Motion to Compel them to respond will likely fail. The general rule is that discovery, with certain exceptions, can be any request that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By “admissible” the meaning is evidence that is relevant and “probative” to the truth of the matter asserted. It isn’t relevant unless it ties into either the case against you or the defense narrative. Lack of clarity can be fatal.
*
The opposition is going to claim privilege, privacy, and proprietary information. You should force them to be more specific as to how the identification of the creditor is proprietary, or an invasion of privacy or some privilege. Tactically I would let them paint themselves into a corner, so you need someone who knows how to litigate. Once it is established that they can’t or won’t disclose the matters into which you have inquired, then the question becomes how they will prove authority from the creditor without identification of the creditor from whom all authority flows.
*
That could lead to a motion for summary judgment wherein you allege that they have failed and refused to make disclosure as to the most fundamental aspect of pleading a case. Since their authorization to initiate and maintain a foreclosure action must relate back to the authorization of the creditor (owner of the debt) and they now have not or will not identify that party(ies), the presumption of authority must be considered rebutted, thus requiring them to prove their case with facts and not with the benefit of legal presumptions.
*
Since they have admitted on record that they cannot prove they are acting on behalf of the creditor, it follows that they cannot prove authority to initiate or maintain a foreclosure action. Hence, the outcome is certain. They will not be able to prove standing although they might have made certain assertions or allegations that might pass for standing such that they can withstand a motion to dismiss or demurrer. The essential assertion of standing is either rebutted or barred from proof. Hence judgment should be entered for the homeowner.
*
Some of this might come out in a motion for sanctions which is virtually certain to come from you when they fail to properly respond to your requests for discovery. This is intricate litigation that should be handled by a local attorney.
*
Again don’t start a second front in the battle if you have already covered it in your previously submitted requests for discovery. I think you have asked most of the right questions, although now with this decision it becomes more refined.Among the questions I would ask in view of the new decision from the Supreme Court of Hawaii are the following presented only as narrative draft, subject to improvement by local counsel:
*
  1. Does the trust exist under the laws of any jurisdiction? If yes, describe the jurisdiction in which the trust is recognized as existing.
  2. Was the trust organized under the laws of any jurisdiction? If yes, when and where?
  3. Does the trust own the subject debt? If yes, please explain why the trust is not claimed as a holder in due course.
  4. Does the trust allow the beneficiaries an interest in the assets of the trust?
  5. Please describe the manner in which the certificate holders are beneficiaries of a trust.
  6. Does the named Trustee of the Trust have any rights or obligations to monitor trust assets?
  7. Does the named Trustee of the Trust engage in any activities in which it is administering the assets of the Trust.
  8. Describe the assets of the Trust.
  9. Please identify the Trustor or Settlor of the Trust.
  10. Please identify the date, place and parties involved in any transaction in which assets were entrusted to the named trustee for the benefit of named or described beneficiaries.
  11. Please identify the date, place and parties involved in any transaction in which assets were purchased by the Trust or in which a Trustor or Settlor purchased assets that were then entrusted to the named trustee of the Trust for the benefit of named or described beneficiaries.
  12. Is the named Trust a fictitious name being used by one or more other entities?
  13. Do the certificates contain provisions in which the holder of the certificate disclaims any right, title or interest to assets of the Trust or any right, title or interest to the subject loan? If yes, please describe the provision, in what document it is located, the date of the document, and where that document currently exists in the care, custody and/or control of the Trust or any party doing business as or on behalf of the named Trust.
  14. Please describe the owner of the debt, to wit: describe the party currently carrying a receivable on its books that includes the subject loan, wherein no other party is ultimately entitled to proceeds of payments, proceeds or recovery on the subject loan.
  15. Is it your contention that residential foreclosure is legally allowed without ownership of the underlying debt from the borrower? If so, describe the elements of a party who would be legally allowed to foreclose on a residential mortgage without ownership of the underlying debt.
  16. Does the Trust have a bank account in the name of the Trust?
  17. Does the Trust have a bank account in the name of the named Trustee as Trustee for the Trust.
  18. If the answer to either of the two preceding question is yes, please describe the account, its location and identify the signatories on said account.
  19. Please describe the retainer agreement between the named Trust and current counsel of record including all the parties thereto, the date(s) of execution and date that the agreement became effective, the names of the signatories, and their authority to execute the instrument.
  20. With respect to loans attributed to or allegedly owned by the Trust please describe the parties who make decisions, along with a description of their authority, with respect to the following relating to the subject loan:
    1. Whether to foreclose
    2. When to foreclose
    3. What documents are needed for foreclosure
    4. Applications for modification
    5. Terms of modification
    6. Terms for settlement of the debt

Hawaii Supreme Court: Yes to wrongful foreclosure counterclaim BEFORE foreclosure is completed and no to”plausible” pleading

Now that the courts are no longer in fear of precipitating an economic meltdown, it’s time to return to legal decisions instead of political decisions. The Hawaii Supreme Court has done just that in a common sense decision that sweeps aside most of the Wall Street arguments against allowing homeowners to raise the fraudulent foreclosure issue. The decision goes back decades in reaffirming the law and the intent of the rules of civil procedure.

The bottom line is that homeowners must be allowed an opportunity to prove their claim at the same time they are defending a foreclosure action. This levels the playing field and hopefully is a harbinger of future decisions from the high court in each of the states.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

see Landmark Hawaii Supreme Court Case

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GRISEL REYES-TOLEDO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

Remember that while this decision could be used as persuasive authority, it is not binding authority over the courts of any state other than Hawaii.

There are several parts to this decision each consistent with the others.

  1. On a motion to dismiss, plausibility of the allegations are now irrelevant. The homeowner must be given the opportunity to prove the allegations of the complaint. As the Court correctly points out, the plausibility test requires some consideration of some facts that have not been proven or disproven. Hence the plausibility test conflicts directly with the presumption, on a motion to dismiss, that all allegations are true. “Notice pleading” is the law in Hawaii and purportedly is so in many other states where plausibility tests are nonetheless applied. This opinion may go a long way to reversing that erroneous trend.
  2. Notice pleading requires only a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which the relief sought could be granted. But I would add that the rules about fraud and deceit are still in play, i.e., I don’t believe that any state, including Hawaii would allow a count sounding in fraud without giving some examples in the pleading of the misleading and/or deceitful way that the defendant(s) acted. This decision basically addresses violation of statute and similar kinds of actions.
  3. The implication of this decision is that the pleading should be short and that the homeowner must be given a fair chance to prove his/her allegations.
    1. I am quite certain that this Court would insist on allowing discovery to penetrate far more deeply that is currently generally allowed.
    2. The arguments that the actual transactions and the actual creditor’s identities are private, proprietary and remote was silly to begin with.
    3. This decision will be used by practitioners in Hawaii to demand access to records and to get it through court orders. This alone will result in a landslide of settled cases under seal of confidentiality — if lawyers for homeowners insist on such discovery.
  4. Further moving the ball forward, this Court decided emphatically that claims of wrongful foreclosure can be filed in a counterclaim against the parties involved with the  initiation of wrongful or illegal foreclosure proceedings. That means that contrary to California law and other states, the homeowner does not need to wait to file the claim.
    1. This is a two edged sword. It virtually mandates the filing of the wrongful foreclosure claim because the clock is probably ticking on the statute of limitations the moment the foreclosure is initiated by either judicial or nonjudicial means.
    2. The California doctrine has always been ridiculous and anti-consumer. By denying access to the courts for what is already known to be a wrongful foreclosure based upon false documentation they tie both hands behind the backs of attorneys representing homeowners in foreclosure cases.
    3. Knowing this, most lawyers are now declining representation of homeowners despite clear defects, lies and fabrication of documents relied upon by the lawyers supposedly representing a foreclosing party that many times does not even exist.
    4. Hence the doctrine that wrongful foreclosure claims ONLY arise after the foreclosure is complete produces an absurd result. Once the homeowner proves his/her claims they shouldn’t have lost their home, their life-style and their credit reputation, all based upon illegal acts that were known at the outset, the only remedy under that doctrine is money damages.
  5. The decision also addresses the very important issue of standing. Simply stated, if some party is designated as the foreclosing party, it is the duty of that party and the attorney representing that party to perform sufficient due diligence as to
    1. whether the entity exists,
    2. whether it has possession of the note,
    3. whether the note is endorsed to them by a party who owned the debt,
    4. whether the mortgage or deed of trust was assigned to them by a party that owned the mortgage and the debt, and
    5. whether the debt was in fact transferred from a party who owned the debt to the party claiming the right to foreclose.
  6. If they fail or refuse to perform that due diligence they are violating the law in Hawaii and most likely in dozens of other states. In Hawaii that alone gives rise to a cause of action for damages if damages can be proven, which in most cases is fairly easy. So they are liable for damages if they didn’t perform due diligence.
  7. If they did perform the due diligence and filed knowing that the threshold markers of legal standing are absent, it is malicious abuse of process, it is breach of statutory duties, and it is fraud because the filing of the the lawsuit is a representation that the due  diligence was completed and showed legal standing. And it is probably RICO.

Summary: While it is difficult to predict how and when other states will react to this opinion, it seems likely that this decision in the State of Hawaii will make jurists in other states very uncomfortable. The bias to rule for the alleged foreclosing party just received a blow to any rationality supporting that bias.

What should I pay my attorney?

Like all professions the practice of law mostly involves activities that the client never sees. And it is the quantity and quality of work by the attorney that is the largest factor in getting a good result.

The best result is having the foreclosure dismissed or vacated with findings of fact that make it virtually impossible for the foreclosing party to try again. To get that result you need experienced trial counsel who does all the work he/she thinks is necessary to achieve the goal. Those are at the top of winning food chain.

If you must pay less then you must lower your goal or buy a winning lottery ticket.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

See VIDEO TERA EXPLAINED AND VIDEO HOW TO USE TERA REPORT

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

There are some lawyers to whom I refer clients for representation.  Like me, they like to win — not merely justify a fee. They don’t consider “delaying the inevitable” to be a winning or even viable strategy, mainly because they don’t believe that foreclosure is inevitable. I consider their fees to be very reasonable.

On the issue of attorney fees, I have a story. When I first started practicing law I worked in the law office of what I then considered to be an “older” lawyer — i.e., a little more than 1/2 my present age. His wife was the bookkeeper. She was the one that had to argue with clients to pay the fees that were charged. Eventually people who were complaining or objecting said the obvious — that other lawyers charge less for the “same work” —  which was true. So she put up a sign in the waiting room that said the following:

“If you want nice fresh oats we can give them to you at a reasonable price. But if you are satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse, you can get them for a lot less.”

Moral of the story: It’s not the hourly rate you should be shopping for. And it’s not the length of time it takes to get there that counts. It’s the result. The only way to get legal representation is to pay for it. The question is cost of services vs cost of losing the home.

I hear many complaints from homeowners about how the lawyer didn’t do all the things that could have been done — discovery, motions, trial preparation etc. They are right in most cases that the lawyer did not do the work that now, in retrospect, the client would have liked. But in almost all cases, the problem was not with the lawyer; it was with the client who couldn’t pay or didn’t want to pay for the full work load.

To put numbers to this issue, if you are paying the equivalent of $100 per hour, don’t expect the lawyer to drop everything and concentrate for days on developing a defense narrative that the lawyer thinks he can “sell” to the trial court. If you are paying a few hundred dollars per month the result is the same. The lawyer owes you nothing except to provide the services you pay for.

If your retainer agreement calls for billing at $450+ per hour, you have every right to expect the full job to be done. Likewise if you are paying $2500+ per month, you can expect the full job to be done.

If you are paying $300 per month and expecting services worth $2500 per month you are mistaken. Those services will not be delivered which means that discovery, motions to compel, motions for summary judgment, depositions, trial preparation will either not get done at all or will be perfunctory.

I generally don’t litigate in court anymore. I serve as consultant, writer, researcher and expert witness on cases involving the securitization of debt. I have been actually licensed by government agencies and securities trade groups to do business literally on Wall Street in Manhattan and I did so. My hourly rate is $650 per hour for my time and $150 per hour for paralegal time. The fee is justified not only by our past successes but because we can actually accomplish more in less time and we win (not all the time). So while our customers are paying $650 per hour, in many cases it only takes an hour for me to do my work because I have so much experience with similar cases and fact patterns. Other less experienced lawyers either take much longer for the same job (thus increasing the cost of the project) or they might not take time to do what lawyers are really paid to do — think.

I am not engaging in a discussion about what our judicial system should look like. I am merely dealing with reality. In a capitalist economy where everything is measured in monetary value, everything happens because of money. It’s the fuel that pushes things along. Without the fuel, the horse simply lays down and takes a nap.

The Neil Garfield Radio Show LIVE at 6pm Eastern: Fighting the Trusts in Discovery with Patricia Rodriguez

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Get a Consult!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

FIGHTING THE TRUSTS IN DISCOVERY

Title is often changed for the sole purpose of overcoming a disputed forced sale conducted under a nonjudicial state’s foreclosure statutes.   A homeowner, fighting a wrongful foreclosure, should make a request for production  regarding the details of the sale upon which the bank relies on in its filing of the instant action and it’s “response” to the homeowner’s (defendants) inquiry.  The ‘lender’, or servicer, will typically contend that the homeowner’s requests are beyond the scope of discovery, especially in a nonjudicial action.
The homeowner can file a motion to compel the production of documents upon which the Plaintiff relies on to assert that its forced sale was valid, proper, and legal.  A lender will typically reference a Power of Attorney as its authority to bring the action and as proof that the sale was valid, –i.e., that it was conducted by a duly authorized substitute trustee, appointed by a beneficiary, that meets the definition of a beneficiary under the mortgage or deed of trust.
The validity of the referenced power of attorney and its reality of its existence are crucial for the alleged ‘lender’ to even bring the instant non-judicial action and respond, as a party, to discovery. If it does not exist or is not a current source of power granted by the creditor, then the bank’s reliance upon it is misplaced. However, the lender typically refuses to produce it for inspection.
A homeowner may then file a request to produce that which is asked for, inter alia, (1) the power of attorney, and (2) the alleged trust instrument that might be evidence of the existence or nonexistence of the trust for which the Lender/Trustee claims to be acting.   If there is no completed trust instrument for an existing entity that had been funded, then there is no trust, and therefore, there can be no trustee or servicer deriving their “powers” from a trust that does not exist.
The servicer or plaintiff will typically refuse to produce the Power of Attorney claiming that the homeowner/defendant is not entitled to such documents.  In its response, the servicer’s strategy is to rely entirely upon “legal presumptions” that it asserts arise by virtue of the existence of a forced sale in the property records. This avoids the issue of whether the forced sale was void, voidable or conducted under presumptions of fact that are in conflict with actual fact.
The servicer’s position is that because the sale occurred, the homeowner/defendant has no right to inquire about any information that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that the sale was or could be declared void or subject to being vacated.
This is circular reasoning and contrary to due process. If the sale was conducted in favor of a party who claimed to be a beneficiary, but was not a beneficiary under the deed of trust, then the appointment of the substitute trustee was void, as was the notice of default and the notice of sale, thus leading to the clear conclusion that the sale was void or subject to being vacated. Without the validity of the forced sale, no action for unlawful detainer arises.
This article is not legal advice, but for discussion purposes only.
Patricia Rodriguez, Attorney
If you need immediate assistance and are located in California, please call 626-888-5206.
To receive a free consultation, please fill out the contact form here.

The Rodriguez Law Firm is Located at:
1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120
Pasadena, CA 91105

Banks Fighting Subpoenas From FHFA Over Access to Loan Files

Whilst researching something else I ran across the following article first published in 2010. Upon reading it, it bears repeating.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

WHAT IF THE LOANS WERE NOT ACTUALLY SECURITIZED?

In a nutshell this is it. The Banks are fighting the subpoenas because if there is actually an audit of the “content” of the pools, they are screwed across the board.

My analysis of dozens of pools has led me to several counter-intuitive but unavoidable factual conclusions. I am certain the following is correct as to all residential securitized loans with very few (2-4%) exceptions:

  1. Most of the pools no longer exist.
  2. The MBS sold to investors and insured by AIG and the purchase and sale of credit default swaps were all premised on a general description of the content of the pool rather than a detailed description with the individual loans attached on a list.
  3. Each Prospectus if it carried any spreadsheet listing loans, contained a caveat that the attached list was by example only and not the real loans.
  4. Each distribution report contained a caveat that the parties who created it and the parties who delivered it did not guarantee either authenticity or reliability of the report. They even had specific admonitions regarding the content of the distribution report.
  5. NO LOAN ACTUALLY MADE IT INTO ANY POOL. The evidence is clear: nothing was done to assign, indorse or deliver the note to the investors directly or indirectly until a case went into litigation AND a hearing was scheduled. By that time the cutoff date had been breached and the loan was non-performing by their own allegation and therefore was not acceptable into the pool.
  6. AT ALL TIMES LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WAS MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER EVEN AFTER FORECLOSURE AND SALE. The actual creditor who submitted a credit bid was not the creditor. The sale is either void or voidable.
  7. AT ALL TIMES LEGAL TITLE TO THE LOAN WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ORIGINATING “LENDER”. Since there was no assignment, indorsement or delivery that could be recognized at law or in fact, the originating lender still owns the loan legally BUT….
  8. AT ALL TIMES THE OBLIGATION WAS BOTH CREATED AND EXTINGUISHED AT, OR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE CLOSING OF THE LOAN. Since the originating lender was in fact not the source of funds, and did not book the transaction as a loan on their balance sheet (in most cases), the naming of the originating lender as the Lender and payee on the note, both created a LEGAL obligation from the borrower to the Lender and at the same time, the LEGAL obligation was extinguished because the LEGAL Lender of record was paid in full plus exorbitant fees for pretending to be an actual lender.
  9. Since the Legal obligation was both created and extinguished contemporaneously with each other, any remaining obligation to any OTHER party became unsecured since the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust) refers only to the promissory note executed by the borrower.
  10. At the time of closing, the investor-lenders were the real parties in interest as lenders, but they were not disclosed nor were the fees of the various intermediaries who brought the investor-lender money and the borrower’s loan together.
  11. ALL INVESTOR-LENDERS RECEIVED THE EQUIVALENT OF A BOND — A PROMISE TO PAY ISSUED BY A PARTY OTHER THAN THE BORROWER, PREMISED UPON THE PAYMENT OR RECEIVABLES GENERATED FROM BORROWER PAYMENTS, CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS, CREDIT ENHANCEMENTS, AND THIRD PARTY INSURANCE.
  12. Nearly ALL investor-lenders have been paid sums of money to satisfy the promise to pay contained in the bond. These payments always exceeded the borrowers payments and in many cases paid the obligation in full WITHOUT SUBROGATION.
  13. NO LOAN IS IN ACTUAL DEFAULT OR DELINQUENCY. Since payments must first be applied to outstanding payments due, payments received by investor-lenders or their agents from third party sources are allocable to each individual loan and therefore cure the alleged default. A Borrower’s Non-payment is not a default since no payment is due.
  14. ALL NOTICES OF DEFAULT ARE DEFECTIVE: The amount stated, the creditor, and other material misstatements invalidate the effectiveness of such a notice.
  15. NO CREDIT BID AT AUCTION WAS MADE BY A CREDITOR. Hence the sale is void or voidable.
  16. ANY BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORROWER IS SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIONS FOR THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS.
  17. ANY BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORROWER IS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT THAT IS UNSECURED.
  18. ANY BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORROWER IS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE CLAIM FOR A LIEN TO REFLECT THE INTENTION OF THE INVESTOR-LENDER AND THE INTENTION OF THE BORROWER.  Both the investor-lender and the borrower intended to complete a loan transaction wherein the home was used to collateralize the amount due. The legal satisfaction of the originating lender is not a deduction from the equitable satisfaction of the investor-lender. THUS THE PARTIES SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ARE SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF PAYMENT AT CLOSING BUT THE INVESTOR-LENDERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT DEFENSE.
  19. The investor-lenders ALSO have a claim for damages against the investment banks and the string of intermediaries that caused loans to be originated that did not meet the description contained in the prospectus.
  20. Any claim by investor-lenders may be subject to legal and equitable defenses, offsets and counterclaims from the borrower.
  21. The current modification context in which the securitization intermediaries are involved in settlement of outstanding mortgages is allowing those intermediaries to make even more money at the expense of the investor-lenders.
  22. The failure of courts to recognize that they must apply the rule of law results not only in the foreclosure of the property, but the foreclosure of the borrower’s ability to negotiate a settlement with an undisclosed equitable creditor, or with the legal owner of the loan in the property records.

Loan File Issue Brought to Forefront By FHFA Subpoena
Posted on July 14, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
Wednesday, July 14, 2010

foreclosureblues.wordpress.com

Editor’s Note….Even  U.S. Government Agencies have difficulty getting
discovery, lol…This is another excellent post from attorney Isaac
Gradman, who has the blog here…http://subprimeshakeout.blogspot.com.
He has a real perspective on the legal aspect of the big picture, and
is willing to post publicly about it.  Although one may wonder how
these matters may effect them individually, my point is that every day
that goes by is another day working in favor of those who stick it out
and fight for what is right.

Loan File Issue Brought to Forefront By FHFA Subpoena

The battle being waged by bondholders over access to the loan files
underlying their investments was brought into the national spotlight
earlier this week, when the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the
regulator in charge of overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, issued
64 subpoenas seeking documents related to the mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) in which Freddie and Fannie had invested.
The FHFA
has been in charge of overseeing Freddie and Fannie since they were
placed into conservatorship in 2008.

Freddie and Fannie are two of the largest investors in privately
issued bonds–those secured by subprime and Alt-A loans that were often
originated by the mortgage arms of Wall St. firms and then packaged
and sold by those same firms to investors–and held nearly $255 billion
of these securities as of the end of May. The FHFA said Monday that it
is seeking to determine whether issuers of these so-called “private
label” MBS misled Freddie and Fannie into making the investments,
which have performed abysmally so far, and are expected to result in
another $46 billion in unrealized losses to the Government Sponsored
Entities (GSE).

Though the FHFA has not disclosed the targets of its subpoenas, the
top issuers of private label MBS include familiar names such as
Countrywide and Merrill Lynch (now part of BofA), Bear Stearns and
Washington Mutual (now part of JP Morgan Chase), Deutsche Bank and
Morgan Stanley. David Reilly of the Wall Street Journal has written an
article urging banks to come forward and disclose whether they have
received subpoenas from the FHFA, but I’m not holding my breath.

The FHFA issued a press release on Monday regarding the subpoenas
(available here). The statement I found most interesting in the
release discusses that, before and after conservatorship, the GSEs had
been attempting to acquire loan files to assess their rights and
determine whether there were misrepresentations and/or breaches of
representations and warranties by the issuers of the private label
MBS, but that, “difficulty in obtaining the loan documents has
presented a challenge to the [GSEs’] efforts. FHFA has therefore
issued these subpoenas for various loan files and transaction
documents pertaining to loans securing the [private label MBS] to
trustees and servicers controlling or holding that documentation.”

The FHFA’s Acting Director, Edward DeMarco, is then quoted as saying
““FHFA is taking this action consistent with our responsibilities as
Conservator of each Enterprise. By obtaining these documents we can
assess whether contractual violations or other breaches have taken
place leading to losses for the Enterprises and thus taxpayers. If so,
we will then make decisions regarding appropriate actions.” Sounds
like these subpoenas are just the precursor to additional legal
action.

The fact that servicers and trustees have been stonewalling even these

powerful agencies on loan files should come as no surprise based on

the legal battles private investors have had to wage thus far to force

banks to produce these documents. And yet, I’m still amazed by the

bald intransigence displayed by these financial institutions. After

all, they generally have clear contractual obligations requiring them

to give investors access to the files (which describe the very assets

backing the securities), not to mention the implicit discovery rights

these private institutions would have should the dispute wind up in

court, as it has in MBIA v. Countrywide and scores of other investor

suits.

At this point, it should be clear to everyone–servicers and investors
alike–that the loan files will have to be produced eventually, so the
only purpose I can fathom for the banks’ obduracy is delay. The loan
files should, as I’ve said in the past, reveal the depths of mortgage
originator depravity, demonstrating convincingly that the loans never
should have been issued in the first place. This, in turn, will force
banks to immediately reserve for potential losses associated with
buying back these defective mortgages. Perhaps banks are hoping that
they can ward off this inevitability long enough to spread their
losses out over several years, thereby weathering the storm caused (in
part) by their irresponsible lending practices. But certainly the
FHFA’s announcement will make that more difficult, as the FHFA’s
inherent authority to subpoena these documents (stemming from the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008) should compel disclosure
without the need for litigation, and potentially provide sufficient
evidence of repurchase obligations to compel the banks to reserve
right away. For more on this issue, see the fascinating recent guest
post by Manal Mehta on The Subprime Shakeout regarding the SEC’s
investigation into banks’ processes for allocating loss reserves.

Meanwhile, the investor lawsuits continue to rain down on banks, with
suits by the Charles Schwab Corp. against Merrill Lynch and UBS, by
the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund against Countrywide, and by
Cambridge Place Investment Management against Goldman Sachs, Citigroup
and dozens of other banks and brokerages being announced this week. If
the congealing investor syndicate was looking for political cover
before staging a full frontal attack on banks, this should provide
ample protection. Much more to follow on these and other developments
in the coming days…
Technorati Links • Save to del.icio.us • Digg This! • Stumble It!

Posted by Isaac Gradman at 3:46 PM

“Participants” in False Claims of Securitization

What do you think the average homeowner would have said if he was told “Look, the actual lender is someone else but we want you to name us as the lender.”

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/beware-the-lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-operating-as-a-secret-agent/

Bill Paatalo has uncovered another layer of onion skin revealing the emptiness of the claims of participants who say they were involved in either the lending of money to homeowners or involved in the transfer of the obligation to repay the alleged loan. As he points out, some refer to “participants” who are ill-defined and essentially unknown quantities. There are many such entities lurking behind the curtain. The one thing they have in common is that they are all making pornographic amounts of money that ultimately comes out of the pockets of investors who were deceived into buying, hedging or insuring bogus and worthless MBS.

The essential fact is that those mortgage backed securities are (a) not backed by anything (b) issued by an empty SPV (Trust) entity existing only on paper (c) completely unrelated to any actual transaction and (d) completely unrelated to the documentation that was fabricated and executed at the “loan” closing.

GASLIGHT: None of the “participants” are who they appear or claim. What is emerging is that in addition to playing musical chairs with actual entities, the banks have created musical terms to the multiple players who are in constant motion switching roles on paper. Several judges have either mused from the bench or confided their discomfort as to why the servicers keep changing and the ownership goes through so many iterations.

The good news is that this is leading to inconsistencies between their correspondence with the borrower, their pleading in court and their proof — often with last minute Powers of Attorney. It appears that all of them are sham conduits for the the ultimate sham entities — the underwriter (“Master Servicer”) of MBS issued by the empty trust and the Seller of those securities. Revealing those inconsistencies often leads to victory (successful defense) in court. And it often can lead to large cash awards for damages arising from violations of FDCPA, FCCPA, RESPA and common law doctrines like wrongful foreclosure — with aggravating circumstances permitting the award of punitive damages.

The reason for all of this chicanery is simple: the party who gave the homeowner money didn’t even know it was their money on the “closing” table. But the moral and legal view on this is that he who gave the money is owed the money in return (unless it is a gift). This is true regardless of what documents are drafted or even executed by homeowners whose signature was obtained by fraud in the inducement.

What do you think the average homeowner would have said if he was told “Look the actual lender is someone else but we want you to name us as the lender.” THAT is a cause of action for common law rescission and cancellation of the instrument — once the homeowner finds out that he made the “check” out to the wrong person. Since the designated “lender” gave no money of its own and assumed no risk of loss the homeowner cannot be required to give “back” what he or she never received from the fake lender.

Adam Levitin might be right in calling it “Securitization Fail” because the securitization never happened; but it assumes that the intent was to have securitization succeed. This is not the case. The entire business model of the banks, as confirmed by industry insiders, was to take the money out of the securitization chain that had been created on paper.  Actual securitization of debt in residential “transactions” was never intended to happen. It was always supposed to be an illusion to cover criminal and civil theft.

PRACTICE HINT: Assume none of the transactions that are represented, assumed or presumed ever happened. Aim your discovery, motions, trial objections and cross examination at that and you will have the best shot at hitting the bulls-eye. That is exactly how Patrick Giunta and I won our cases.

FASB on Sham Transactions

See AU Section 332 Auditing Derivative Instruments, hedging Activities and Investment in Securities.
 *
Every written instrument is by definition the memorialization of an event. Absent the event in the real world, the instrument is worthless at best and at worst fraudulent. This is derived from the my knowledge of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as enunciated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) supported by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).
 *
In any audit of bookkeeping and/or accounting records written instruments are the starting point for inquiry as to whether the documents represents a true and fair representation of an actual transaction. While the auditor may be aware of certain legal presumptions concerning the validity of a facially valid instrument, the auditor is tasked with testing all transactions including those that appear to possess the attributes of facial validity.
 *
Specifically the audit process for alleged transactions relating to derivative securities (mortgage backed bonds, for example) goes further than standard auditing confirmation under the rules recognized as nationwide and binding. In large part because of the admissions or quasi admissions in settlements with government regulators, attorneys general and investors, it has become obvious that transactions that are related to activity in the derivative marketplace are subject to special scrutiny. Auditors are required to test the following, among other things:
 *
  1. Occurrence. Transactions and events that have been recorded have occurred and pertain to the entity.
  2. Completeness. All transactions and events that should have been recorded have been recorded.
*
In the definition of the confirmation process required by auditors, it is clearly stated that a plan of confirmation is to be used. Facially valid documents are not excluded from the confirmation process. And as seen above, transactions relating to alleged securitization are subject to specific testing. The courts are out of their element in assessing the risk of fraudulent representation because the Courts’ inquiry generally starts and ends with the written instrument.
 *
The Auditor wants to know if the transaction memorialized in that instrument actually took place and wants to see evidence to that effect — i.e., the money trail as represented by cash flow, balance sheet and income statements as well as the general ledger (and supporting documents, bank statements and receipts) of the entity that claims to have been a party to a transaction and now claims an asset as a result.
 *
These sections are the beginning point for discovery and the foundation for objections when “business records” are proffered at trial as exceptions to the hearsay rule.
 *
The big question is whether the transactions that are represented in court as loans or assignments or endorsement are actually reflected on the general ledger, bookkeeping records and accounting records of the party who was supposedly involved in any of those transactions is proffering false testimony or fabricated documents into evidence.
 *
The answer is simple: based upon reliable sources the facts are that the big banks have produced a convoluted set records of loosely connected entities. One fact is clear: the acquisition of loans is generally not found in their records nor supported by any entry reflecting a financial transaction. The little originators and banks are generally buried after having gone out of business, but the ones that are left will show that most originated “loans” did not result in the flow of cash from the originator to the alleged borrower.
 *
My recommendation is that foreclosure defense attorneys employ the use of CPA’s who have specific auditing experience and knowledge. The testimony of these experts might be invaluable to the discovery process and lead the opposing side to soften their approach.

Preservation Letter and Discovery

In order for the “business records” to be accepted as an exception to hearsay, foundation is required. Part of foundation is an inquiry into whether these records are the complete records. If they are not the complete records then there is daylight created for the argument that the “business records” are objectionable based upon the fact that they are incomplete.

see sample-preservation-letter

Among the many abuses we see in court is that only partial records are available — even in discovery. One of the steps that could provide the foundation for establishing that the business records” are not complete and have never been complete is through the use of a preservation letter and then follow that up with discovery.

The above link shows, in some detail, as this process unfolds.

Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst for Livinglies says —

They are concealing documents they are required to produce, and have an affirmative duty to produce pursuant to (among others):
  • National Mortgage Settlement (servicer will send the evidence supporting the validity of the assignment to the homeowner)

  • CA. HBOR – servicer will ensure they have competent evidence supporting the substantial documents used to foreclose

  • Rule 9011 – attorney or party signing documents filed in bankruptcy court certifies that the documents and factual contentions are not used for an unlawful purpose (to harass, delay, etc.); that the documents and factual contentions are supported by law; that the documents and factual contentions are supported by evidence; that the attorney or person signing has made a reasonable inquiry before submitted the documents or factual contentions.

  • Rule 3001 requires proof of claims to include the writings if a claim is based on a writing, and if the writing is not available provide an explanation.  The failure to provide either is an omission of a material fact …

Who is the Creditor? NY Appellate Decision Might Provide the Knife to Cut Through the Bogus Claim of Privilege

The crux of this fight is that if the foreclosing parties are forced to identify the creditors they will only have two options, in my opinion: (a) commit perjury or (b) admit that they have no knowledge or access to the identity of the creditor

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see http://4closurefraud.org/2016/06/10/opinion-here-ny-court-says-bank-of-america-must-disclose-communications-with-countrywide-in-ambac-suit/

We have all seen it a million times — the “Trustees”, the “servicers” and their agents and attorneys all beg the question of identifying the names and contact information of the creditors in foreclosure actions. The reason is simple — in order to answer that question truthfully they would be required to admit that there is no party that could properly be defined as a creditor in relation to the homeowner.

They have successfully pushed the point beyond the point of return — they are alleging that the homeowner is a debtor but they refuse to identify a creditor; this means they are being allowed to treat the homeowner as a debtor while at the same time leaving the identity of the creditor unknown. The reason for this ambiguity is that the banks, from the beginning, were running a scheme that converted the money paid by investors for alleged “mortgage backed securities”; the conversion was simple — “let’s make their money our money.”

When inquiry is made to determine the identity of the creditor the only thing anyone gets is some gibberish about the documents PLUS the assertion that the information is private, proprietary and privileged.  The case in the above link is from an court of appeals in New York. But it could have profound persuasive effect on all foreclosure litigation.

Reciting the tension between liberal discovery and privilege, the court tackles the confusion in the lower courts. The court concludes that privilege is a very narrow shield in specific situations. It concludes that even the attorney-client privilege is a shield only between the client and the attorney and that adding a third party generally waives that privilege. The third party privilege is only extended in narrow circumstances where the parties are seeking a common goal. So in order to prevent the homeowner from getting the information on his alleged creditor, the foreclosing parties would need to show that there is a common goal between the creditor(s) and the debtor.

Their problem is that they can’t do that without showing, at least in camera, that the identity of the creditor is known and that somehow the beneficiaries of an empty trust have a common goal (hard to prove since the trust is empty contrary to the terms of the “investment”). Or, they might try to identify a creditor who is neither the trust nor the investors, which brings us back to perjury.

FDCPA Claims Upheld in 9th Circuit Class Action

The court held that the FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector – first or subsequent – to send a section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-
If anyone remembers the Grishom book “The Firm”, also in movies, you know that in the end the crooks were brought down by something they were never thinking about — mail fraud — a federal law that has teeth, even if it sounds dull. Mail fraud might actually apply to the millions of foreclosures that have taken place — even if key documents are sent through private mail delivery services. The end of month statements and other correspondence are definitely sent through US Mail. And as we are seeing, virtually everything they were sending consisted of multiple layers of misrepresentations that led to the detriment of the receiving homeowner. That’s mail fraud.
Like Mail Fraud, claims based on the FDCPA seem boring. But as many lawyers throughout the country are finding out, those claims have teeth. And I have seen multiple cases where FDCPA claims resulted in the settlement of the case on terms very favorable to the homeowner — provided the claim is properly brought and there are some favorable rulings on the initial motions.
Normally the banks settle any claim that looks like it would be upheld. That is why you don’t see many verdicts or judgments announcing fraudulent conduct by banks, servicers and “trustees.”And you don’t see the settlement either because they are all under seal of confidentiality. So for the casual observer, you might see a ruling here and there that favors the borrower, but you don’t see any judgments normally. Here the banks thought they had this one in the bag — because it was a class action and normally class actions are difficult if not impossible to prosecute.
It turns out that FDCPA is both a good cause of action for damages and a great discovery tool — to force the banks, servicers or anyone else that is a debt collector to respond within 5 days giving the basic information about the loan — like who is the actual creditor. Discovery is also much easier in FDCPA actions because it is forthrightly tied to the complaint.
This decision is more important than it might first appear. It removes any benefit of playing musical chairs with servicers, and other debt collectors. This is a core of bank strategy — to layer over all defects. This Federal Court of Appeals holds that it doesn’t matter how many layers you add — all debt collectors in the chain had the duty to respond.
.

Justia Opinion Summary

Hernandez v Williams, Zinman and Parham, PC No 14-15672 (9th Cir, 2016)

Plaintiff filed a putative class action, alleging that WZP violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(g)(a), by sending a debt collection letter that lacked the disclosures required by section 1692(g)(a) of the FDCPA. Applying well-established tools of statutory interpretation and construing the language in section 1692g(a) in light of the context and purpose of the FDCPA, the court held that the phrase “the initial communication” refers to the first communication sent by any debt collector, including collectors that contact the debtor after another collector already did. The court held that the FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector – first or subsequent – to send a section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. In this case, the district court erred in concluding that, because WZP was not the first debt collector to communicate with plaintiff about her debt, it had no obligation to comply with the statutory validation notice requirement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

Schedule A Consult Now!

NM and Fla Judges Express Doubt Over Whether Loans Ever Made it Into trust

Judges are thinking the unthinkable — that none of the trusts ever acquired anything and that the foreclosures were and are a sham.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

It isn’t “theory. It is facts, or rather the absence of facts.

As shown in the two articles by Jeff Barnes below, we are obviously reaching the tipping point. First, the presentation of a Trust instrument means nothing if there is no proof the trust was active — and in particular actually purchased the subject loan. And Second, Judges will deny all objections to discovery and will rule for the borrower if the Trust did not acquire the loan.

In ruling this way the two Judges — thousands of miles apart — are obviously recognizing that the long standing bank objection to borrowers’ defenses based upon lack of legal standing absolutely do not apply. It is not a matter of whether the borrower has “standing” to bring up the PSA, it is a matter of whether the trust was party to any real transaction with relation to the subject mortgage. The answer is no. And no amount of extra paper, powers of attorney, assignments, or endorsements can change that.

Judges are thinking the unthinkable — that none of the trusts ever acquired anything and that the foreclosures were and are a sham.

It is probably worth re-publishing this portion from a long article by Adam Levitin written shortly after the Ibanez decision was reached in Massachusetts. Note how he points out that the vast majority of PSAs that are offered as evidence are neither executed nor do they have a mortgage loan schedule that is “reviewable.” The real problem — and the reason why the SEC-filed PSA documents do not have any signatures and why there is no mortgage loan schedule is that there was no transaction in which the Trust acquired the loans. Virtually all assignments are backdated and virtually none of the assignments relate back to any ACTUAL transaction in which the Trust was involved. The banks have been winning on fumes generated by legal inapplicable presumptions. —

It seems to me that any trust with Massachusetts loans that doesn’t have a publicly filed, executed PSA with a reviewable loan schedule should be on a downgrade watch. Very few publicly filed PSAs are executed and even fewer have publicly filed loan schedules. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but somewhere off-line, but if I ran a rating agency, I’d want trustees to show me that they’ve got those papers on at least a sample of deals. Of course should and would are quite different–the ratings agencies, like the regulators, are refusing to take the securitization fail issue as seriously as they should (and I understand that it is a complex legal issue), but I think they ignore it at their (and our) peril

Schedule A Consult Now!

Excerpts from Barnes’ articles:

A Florida Circuit Judge has gone on the record requiring Wells Fargo, as the claimed “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust, to show that the mortgage loan which WF is attempting to enforce actually went into the PSA, and if not, the standing requirement has not been met and the case will fall on summary judgment. The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq.

The Judge specifically stated as follows:

“…but what I want plaintiff’s counsel to understand, that what you submitted to me with regards to the pooling and servicing agreement still does not have the actual mortgages that went into that pooling and servicing agreement…So at some point you’re going to have to show that this mortgage and note certainly went into that pooling and servicing agreement, which is what I have requested before. …  So I’m just asking you that before we get too far out, please make sure that’s there, or its going to be taken out on summary judgment. … In other words, if you’re a trustee for that pooling and servicing agreement, and the mortgage and note are not in that pooling and servicing agreement, you don’t have standing.”

This ruling not only directly confirms the proof requirements for standing in a securitization case, but supports the production of discovery on the issue as well.


DISCOVERY IS KEY.

The borrower thus requested 53 categories of documents from BAC, including securitization documents. BAC filed a Motion for Protective Order which claimed that public information on the SEC website was “confidential”; that the securitization-related discovery was “irrelevant”; and that it was essentially entitled to withhold discovery because it “has the original note” and has moved for summary judgment on the “relevant” issues.

The Court disagreed, denying BAC’s Motion in its entirety and commanding full responses to the borrower’s discovery request (including production of all responsive documents) within 30 days. The Court found BAC’s Motion to be “sparse”; not in compliance with New Mexico court rules as to discovery; and against New Mexico’s case law which provides for liberal discovery in foreclosure actions so that all of the issues are fully developed and a fair trial is had.

 

A New Mexico District Judge yesterday denied BAC Home Loan Servicing’s Motion for Protective Order which it filed in an attempt to avoid producing documentary discovery to a homeowner who BAC has sued for foreclosure. The loan was originated by New Mexico Bank and Trust, was sold to Countrywide, and thereafter allegedly “assigned” first to MERS and then by MERS to BAC.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

The Adam Levitin Article on Ibanez and Securitization fail:

Ibanez and Securitization Fail

posted by Adam Levitin

The Ibanez foreclosure decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has gotten a lot of attention since it came down on Friday. The case is, not surprisingly being taken to heart by both bulls and bears. While I don’t think Ibanez is a death blow to the securitization industry, at the very least it should make investors question the party line that’s been coming out of the American Securitization Forum. At the very least it shows that the ASF’s claims in its White Paper and Congressional testimony are wrong on some points, as I’ve argued elsewhere, including on this blog. I would argue that at the very least, Ibanez shows that there is previously undisclosed material risk in all private-label MBS.

The Ibanez case itself is actually very simple. The issue before the court was whether the two securitization trusts could prove a chain of title for the mortgages they were attempting to foreclose on.

There’s broad agreement that absent such a chain of title, they don’t have the right to foreclose–they’d have as much standing as I do relative to the homeowners. The trusts claimed three alternative bases for chain of title:

(1) that the mortgages were transferred via the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA)–basically a contract of sale of the mortgages

(2) that the mortgages were transferred via assignments in blank.

(3) that the mortgages follow the note and transferred via the transfers of the notes.

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that arguments #2 and #3 simply don’t work in Massachusetts. The reasoning here was heavily derived from Massachusetts being a title theory state, but I think a court in a lien theory state could easily reach the same result. It’s hard to predict if other states will adopt the SJC’s reasoning, but it is a unanimous verdict (with an even sharper concurrence) by one of the most highly regarded state courts in the country. The opinion is quite lucid and persuasive, particularly the point that if the wrong plaintiff is named is the foreclosure notice, the homeowner hasn’t received proper notice of the foreclosure.

Regarding #1, the SJC held that a PSA might suffice as a valid assignment of the mortgages, if the PSA is executed and contains a schedule that sufficiently identifies the mortgage in question, and if there is proof that the assignor in the PSA itself held the mortgage. (This last point is nothing more than the old rule of nemo dat–you can’t give what you don’t have. It shows that there has to be a complete chain of title going back to origination.)

On the facts, both mortgages in Ibanez failed these requirements. In one case, the PSA couldn’t even be located(!) and in the other, there was a non-executed copy and the purported loan schedule (not the actual schedule–see Marie McDonnell’s amicus brief to the SJC) didn’t sufficiently identify the loan. Moreover, there was no proof that the mortgage chain of title even got to the depositor (the assignor), without which the PSA is meaningless:

Even if there were an executed trust agreement with the required schedule, US Bank failed to furnish any evidence that the entity assigning the mortgage – Structured Asset Securities Corporation [the depositor] — ever held the mortgage to be assigned. The last assignment of the mortgage on record was from Rose Mortgage to Option One; nothing was submitted to the judge indicating that Option One ever assigned the mortgage to anyone before the foreclosure sale.

So Ibanez means that to foreclosure in Massachusetts, a securitization trust needs to prove:

(1) a complete and unbroken chain of title from origination to securitization trust
(2) an executed PSA
(3) a PSA loan schedule that unambiguously indicates that association of the defaulted mortgage loan with the PSA. Just having the ZIP code or city for the loan won’t suffice. (Lawyers: remember Raffles v. Wichelhaus, the Two Ships Peerless? This is also a Statute of Frauds issue–the banks lost on 1L contract issues!)

I don’t think this is a big victory for the securitization industry–I don’t know of anyone who argues that an executed PSA with sufficiently detailed schedules could not suffice to transfer a mortgage. That’s never been controversial. The real problem is that the schedules often can’t be found or aren’t sufficiently specific. In other words, deal design was fine, deal execution was terrible. Important point to note, however: the SJC did not say that an executed PSA plus valid schedules was sufficient for a transfer; the parties did not raise and the SJC did not address the question of whether there might be additional requirements, like those imposed by the PSA itself.

Now, the SJC did note that a “confirmatory assignment” could be valid, but (and this is s a HUGE but), it:

cannot confirm an assignment that was not validly made earlier or backdate an assignment being made for the first time. Where there is no prior valid assignment, a subsequent assignment by the mortgage holder to the note holder is not a confirmatory assignment because there is no earlier written assignment to confirm.”

In other words, a confirmatory assignment doesn’t get you anything unless you can show an original assignment. I’m afraid that the industry’s focus on the confirmatory assignment language just raises the possibility of fraudulent “confirmatory” assignments, much like the backdated assignments that emerged in the robosigning depositions.

So what does this mean? There’s still a valid mortgage and valid note. So in theory someone can enforce the mortgage and note. But no one can figure out who owns them. There were problems farther upstream in the chain of title in Ibanez (3 non-identical “true original copies” of the mortgage!) that the SJC declined to address because it wasn’t necessary for the outcome of the case. But even without those problems, I’m doubtful that these mortgages will ever be enforced. Actually going back and correcting the paperwork would be hard, neither the trustee nor the servicer has any incentive to do so, and it’s not clear that they can do so legally. Ibanez did not address any of the trust law issues revolving around securitization, but there might be problems assigning defaulted mortgages into REMIC trusts that specifically prohibit the acceptance of defaulted mortgages. Probably not worthwhile risking the REMIC status to try and fix bad paperwork (or at least that’s what I’d advise a trustee). I’m very curious to see how the trusts involved in this case account for the mortgages now.

The Street seemed heartened by a Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision that came out on FridayHarp v. JPM Chase. If they read the damn case, they wouldn’t put any stock in it.

In Harp, a pro se defendant took JPM all the way to the state supreme court. That alone should make investors nervous–there’s going to be a lot of delay from litigation. Harp also didn’t involve a securitized loan. But the critical difference between Harp and Ibanez is that Harp did not involve issues about the validity of chain of title. It was about the timing of the chain of title. Ibanez was about chain of title validity. In Harp JPM commenced a foreclosure and was subsequently assigned a loan. It then brought a summary judgment motion and prevailed. The Maine SJC stated that the foreclosure was improperly commenced, but it ruled for JPM on straightforward grounds: JPM had standing at the time it moved (and was granted) summary judgment. Given the procedural posture of the case, standing at the time of summary judgment, rather than at the commencement of the foreclosure was what mattered, and there was no prejudice to the defendant by the assignment occurring after the foreclosure action was brought, because the defendant had an opportunity to litigate against the real party in interest before judgment was rendered. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court also indicated that it might not be so charitable with improperly foreclosing lenders that were not in the future; JPM benefitted from the lack of clear law on the subject. In short, Harp says that if the title defects are cured before the foreclosure is completed, it’s ok. There’s a very limited cure possibility under Harp, which means that the law is basically what it was before: if you can’t show title, you can’t complete the foreclosure.

What about MERS?

The Ibanez mortgages didn’t involve MERS. MERS was created in part to fix the problem of unrecorded assignments gumming up foreclosures in the early 1990s (and also to avoid payment of local real estate recording fees). In theory, MERS should help, as it should provide a chain of title for the mortgages. Leaving aside the unresolved concerns about whether MERS recordings are valid and for what purposes, MERS only helps to the extent it’s accurate. And that’s a problem because MERS has lots of inaccuracies in the system. MERS does not always report the proper name of loan owners (e.g., “Bank of America,” instead of “Bank of America 2006-1 RMBS Trust”), and I’ve seen lots of cases where the info in the MERS system doesn’t remotely match with the name of either the servicer or the trust bringing the foreclosure. That might be because the mortgage was transferred out of the MERS system, but there’s still an outstanding record in the MERS system, which actually clouds the title. I’m guessing that on balance MERS should help on mortgage title issues, but it’s not a cure-all. And it is critical to note that MERS does nothing for chain of title issues involving notes.

Which brings me to a critical point: Ibanez and Harp involve mortgage chain of title issues, not note chain of title issues. There are plenty of problems with mortgage chain of title. But the note chain of title issues, which relate to trust law questions, are just as, if not more serious. We don’t have any legal rulings on the note chain of title issues. But even the rosiest reading of Ibanez cannot provide any comfort on note chain of title concerns.

So who loses here? In theory, these loans should be put-back to the seller. Will that happen? I’m skeptical. If not, that means that investors will be eating the loss. This case also means that foreclosures in MA (and probably elsewhere) will be harder, which means more delay, which again hurts investors because there will be more servicing advances to be repaid off the top. The servicer and the trustee aren’t necessarily getting off scot free, though. They might get hit with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act suits from the homeowners (plus anything else a creative lawyer can scrape together). And mortgage insurers might start using this case as an excuse for denying coverage. REO purchasers and title insurers should be feeling a little nervous now, although I doubt that anyone who bought REO before Ibanez will get tossed out of their house if they are living in it. Going forward, though, I don’t think there’s a such thing as a good faith purchaser of REO in MA.

You can’t believe everything you read. Some of the materials coming out of the financial services sector are simply wrong. Three examples:

(1) JPMorgan Chase put out an analyst report this morning claiming the Massachusetts has not adopted the UCC. This is sourced to calls with two law firms. I sure hope JPM didn’t pay for that advice and that it didn’t come from anyone I know. It’s flat out wrong. Massachusetts has adopted the uniform version of Revised Article 9 of the UCC and a non-uniform version of Revised Article 1 of the UCC, but it has adopted the relevant language in Revised Article 1. There’s not a material divergence in the UCC here.
(2) One of my favorite MBS analysts (whom I will not name), put out a report this morning that stated that Ibanez said assignments in blank are fine. Wrong. It said that they are not and never have been valid in Massachusetts:

[In the banks’] reply briefs they conceded that the assignments in blank did not constitute a lawful assignment of the mortgages. Their concession is appropriate. We have long held that a conveyance of real property, such as a mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is void; we do not regard an assignment of land in blank as giving legal title in land to the bearer of the assignment.”

A similar line is coming out of ASF. Courtesy of the American Banker:

Perplexingly, the American Securitization Forum issued a press release hailing the court’s ruling as upholding the validity of assignments in blank. A spokesman for the organization could not be reached to explain its interpretation.

ASF’s credibility seems to really be crumbling here. It’s one thing to disagree with the Massachusetts SJC. It’s another thing to persist in blatant misstatements of black letter law.

(3) Wells and US Bank, the trustees in the Ibanez case, immediately put out statements that they had no liability. Really? I’m not so sure. Trustees certainly have very broad exculpation and very narrow duties. But an inability to produce deal documents strikes me as such a critical error that it might not be covered. Do they really want to litigate a case where the facts make them look like such buffoons? Do they really want daylight shed on the details of their operations? Indeed, absent an executed PSA, I don’t think the trustees have any proof of exculpation. They might be acting, unwittingly, as common law trustees and thus general fiduciaries. I think they’ll settle quickly and quietly with any investors who sue.
Finally, what are the ratings agencies going to do?

It seems to me that any trust with Massachusetts loans that doesn’t have a publicly filed, executed PSA with a reviewable loan schedule should be on a downgrade watch. Very few publicly filed PSAs are executed and even fewer have publicly filed loan schedules. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but somewhere off-line, but if I ran a rating agency, I’d want trustees to show me that they’ve got those papers on at least a sample of deals. Of course should and would are quite different–the ratings agencies, like the regulators, are refusing to take the securitization fail issue as seriously as they should (and I understand that it is a complex legal issue), but I think they ignore it at their (and our) peril

 

Holder or PETE?

You can prove your point thus rebutting the legal presumptions that attach to facially valid paper by starting at the top of the paper trail, the bottom or anywhere in between. You won’t find a single transaction in which money exchanged hands. That means whoever transferred this “valuable” note received no payment. The transportation of a note that never should have been signed in the first place is almost irrelevant — except as to the issue of delivery which in turn goes to the issue of possession. Absent some purchase of the “loan”, such a PETE or holder may not enforce.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

See http://4closurefraud.org/2016/06/14/north-carolina-court-of-appeals-u-s-bank-n-a-v-pinkney-a-party-seeking-foreclosure-must-establish-holder-status-of-note/

Ever so slowly and carefully, with the dread of dismantling the entire financial system, the courts are looking more closely at what the banks and servicers are doing in foreclosures. In this case US Bank says in its foreclosure complaint that it is the holder of the note and then argued that it was either the holder or the possessor with rights to enforce. What’s the difference?

A possessor is someone who physically has possession of the original note. You might liken this to a courier who is entrusted with picking up the note from one place and carrying it to another place. The courier cannot, as some have claimed, enforce the note because it merely possesses the note. In order to be a possessor with rights to enforce (PETE) it must (1) have the actual original and not a mechanical reproduction of it, (2) plead that it is a PETE and (3) prove that it has the right to enforce.

Proving the right to enforce was simple before the current era. The creditor executes the necessary paperwork and comes into court if necessary to verify that it has given the possessor the right to enforce the note. What happens to the money after the possessor gets it and what happens to the Judgment (it could be assigned) afterwards is nobody’s business. But the banks have steadfastly insisted that they should not be required to produce or even identify the creditor. That falls under the legal theory of “NUTS.” But it has been allowed in millions of foreclosures so far. A party comes into court and says I am here to enforce this “original note” on behalf of someone, but I can’t tell you who that is because it’s private.

I’ve tried a few things in courtroom in my 40 years of doing this but if I had ever tried to do that I think most judges would have literally thrown a book at me.

We are expected to presume that since the possessor has the original note it MUST have the the authority to enforce it. And THAT is where the trial judges and many appellate court have it wrong. In fact those courts have complicated the matter further by treating the possessor as a holder in due course who paid value for the note in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. This in the old days would have been sufficient to cause enforcement to issue even if the borrower/maker had meritorious defenses against the payee.

The court in this case looked at the complaint for foreclosure and presumed nothing except what was in the pleading. The pleading said the Plaintiff was a holder. There was no mention of being a holder, much less a holder in due course. Since there was no argument about whether the Plaintiff was a holder nor any assertion that such proof existed, the trial judge dismissed it and the bank foolishly appealed revealing its soft underbelly.

A holder is distinguished from a PETE and distinguished from a holder in due course. The banks revel in the fact that they were able to misuse the status of “holder” thus accomplishing their goal of foreclosure where in yesteryear, they would have kicked out of court probably with sanctions.

A holder must not only have possession, but also have an endorsement from the prior owner of the debt and note where the endorsement actually identifies the party receiving physical possession of the note or endorsed in blank which means it payable to the “bearer” — i.e., possessor — of the note. Thus the facts to be proven are expanded: (1) possession of an actual original (prove delivery) and (2) endorsement by an authorized signatory on behalf of a new possessor either in blank or to the new possessor. The difference between PETE and holder is that the right to enforce is right on the note. But if the endorsement is robosigned, which is to say fabricated and forged by an unauthorized person sitting in the back of LPS or a law office, the endorsement is a nullity (it is void).

If there is no objection to the authenticity of the note (i.e., whether the note is the actual original) and no objection as to whether it was properly endorsed, then the only other question is whether the party for whom the endorsement was made was the actual owner of the debt and note. And there’s the rub again.

A party comes into court and says I have the original note right here and it has been endorsed in blank so I can enforce it. What the banks never say because they don’t like jail cells is that the person who executed the endorsement was authorized and did so on behalf of a party who did own the debt and note at the time of the endorsement. They don’t say that because it isn’t true. The endorser is either MERS or some other conduit or intermediary who never had any interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage. And when the borrower tries to drill down in discovery on the truth of whether the prior endorser/possessor actually had possession or actually had the right to enforce or actually owned the debt or note, the banks run to the presumptions as if they were at trial. The problem is that trial judges have been buying that strategy for 10 years. Thus the homeowner is hit with the idea that it doesn’t matter whether any of this is real, it is still happening.

This also is something banks assiduously avoid since they are essentially throwing layers of fictitious ownership at the Judge such that the Judge assumes that it is not credible to assume that all the signatures, endorsements and assignments are void when issued by so many upstanding members of the community. And THAT is why discovery is so important because unless you are extraordinarily gifted at cross examination, the “robo-witness” is not likely to blurt out that he has no idea what happened or who owns it. If you assume nothing and deny everything and you aggressively pursue discovery, you are much more likely to come out on top.

As long as you go down the rabbit hole that the banks have prepared for you, the focus will be on the paper trail which they have created, recreated, fabricated and forged. BUT if you pursue discovery along the money trail you will find that all of the paper was signed by parties who never had a penny in the deal and probably never received delivery of the “loan” documents. That means that whoever started off the paper trail was not party of the money trail — i.e., they were never involved in any actual transaction relating to the subject loan.

You can prove your point thus rebutting the legal presumptions that attach to facially valid paper by starting at the top of the paper trail, the bottom or anywhere in between. You won’t find a single transaction in which money exchanged hands. That means whoever transferred this “valuable” note received no payment. Hence there was no purchase of the debt or note or mortgage. The transportation of a note that never should have been signed in the first place is almost irrelevant — except as to the issue of delivery which in turn goes to the issue of possession. Absent some purchase of the “loan”, such a PETE or holder may not enforce. Who would do that unless they already knew that they were entitled to nothing except fees?

Schedule A Consult Now!

 

Discovery: Your BlackKnight in Shining Armor?

http://www.bkfs.com/RealEC/DivisionInformation/SettlementAgents/ClosingInsightSettlementAgents/Pages/default.aspx

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

Maybe it is time to drill down a little deeper into ways to obtain Discovery. The same company that brought us the DOCX line of “original” fabricated documents has created a software platform used by the mega banks to streamline closings. Closing Insight and its predecessors (I think Chase uses its own version of this platform) could provide information on the real facts of each “closing”. Discovery requests should be directed to access the information on the platform which is now owned and operated by LPS/BlackKnight.

 
Note that most loans over the mortgage meltdown period that are still in existence were refi’s and not original loans. Most lawyers and judges presume that the closing paid off the old loan. But this is often not the case. Since the party on the prior “mortgage” and “note” was simply a conduit, they would not have received a penny from the new closing with the “borrower.” The reason for this is simple: they never had a dime of their own money in the loan nor were they in a contractual relationship with anyone who did have money in the deal. Hence they would not have received any money since the source of both deals was a dynamic dark pool of money where “trust” money was commingled in a way that made it impossible or nearly impossible to trace any specific investor to any specific loan deal.

 
Add all that up and you get (1) a satisfaction of mortgage from a non-mortgagee and (2) no consideration for the signing of the loan documents and (3) withholding that information from the “borrower” who in fact borrowed no money from the “refinance” of his prior “loan.” This means to me that the loan documents should never have been signed or delivered much less recorded. It also means that the current loan documents (and possibly the previous loan documents) are VOID and thus subject to an action for a Quiet Title action.

 
None of this means that there is not some liability for repayment of the party(ies) who DID have money in the deal in which they could plead to get repayment of their money. But two things are true: (1) the statute of limitations has probably run on most of those liabilities and (2) the injured party would need to know they are injured. Since the borrower clearly does not know the identity of the injured party, the borrower cannot be said to be guilty of creating a situation where the debt is diminished or nullified. And since the injured party(ies) don’t even know they are injured, much less how or in relation to what deal, they are prevented from stepping forward to claim their due.

 
Once upon a time such schemes would be cleared up by courts very quickly. Back then they understood that foreclosure was a drastic remedy that should not be taken lightly. But today the erroneous presumption that the borrower received money (presumed even by the borrower) leads courts to bend and break laws, rules and regulations such that any claiming bank or servicer will win regardless of whether they are in fact a creditor and regardless of whether or not they have any actual authority to represent the other victims of this scheme — the investors.

 
PRACTICE NOTE: It is necessary to be very aggressive and very well prepared to argue for discovery on these closings. The Judge arrives with the assumption in mind that what happened back then is none of your business and already established. Potentially an affidavit from a forensic analyst or expert witness might assist in discovery litigation. The problem with waiting on the affidavit or declaration until trial is that the expert can only offer an opinion without corroboration. If discovery has been fought and won, the expert’s opinion will be nearly self-evident. If discovery has been fought and lost, it should provide very strong grounds for appeal.

Compelling Discovery that the Banks can’t Give You Without Admitting Wrongdoing

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-
see http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=849c901b-b26b-48aa-8983-bc718691a352
The thrust of litigation in foreclosure issues needs to be discovery. Discovery proceedings are the ONLY place where the scope of inquiry is beyond what is allowed in cross examination of the “corporate representative” of the servicer (usually there is no corporate representative of the REMIC Trust).
With the rules opened up, there is a huge opportunity to end cases far before the bank seeks in stretching out the time between alleged default and foreclosure sale. This article and the ruling within it deserves intense study.

With respect to the financial information, the court analyzed the motion to compel under the new proportionality standards set for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26: The party seeking discovery, to prevail on a motion to compel or resist a motion for protective order, may well need to make its own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, in opposition to the resisting party’s showing. ..

And the party seeking discovery is required to comply with Rule 26(b)(1)’s proportionality limits on discovery requests; is subject to Rule 26(g)(1)’s requirement to certify “that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry: … (B) with respect to a discovery request…, it is: (i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action”; and faces Rule 26(g)(3) sanctions “[i]f a certification violates this rule without substantial justification.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)(1)(B), 26(g)(3); see generally Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 475-77, 493¬95 (N.D. Tex. 2014).

New Federal Rules Create New Discovery Environment

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

 

Not much time for discussion although this probably be discussed on radio show.

The issue is that most judges in Federal State court were ruling on discovery (interrogatories, requests to produce, request for admissions etc) from the perceptual standpoint of whether the requested information would itself be admissible at trial. This was always wrong but judges, particularly in foreclosure litigation, made the error repeatedly. It is probably an excellent point on appeal when this has happened.

The new federal rules, disabuse the judges of their notions that they can do that in order to “speed things along.” The new rules assume correctly that if the discovery is allowed, then the relative positions of the parties will become clearer and more settlements or dismissals will occur. This is just like the Jesinoski decision that disabused judges of the notion that they could over-ride the express wording of the statute and make willy-nilly insertions of language and conditions in TILA rescission. This is important. The new rules have been effective since December 1, 2015.

The standards for discovery have long been litigated. These rules set forth the real standards and will heavily favor homeowners in Federal court and will probably produce a substantial effect on State court because most states already have a body of common law decisions that already say the same thing.

The one point I would make here is that it might be better, for effect, to submit a detailed memorandum in support of your discovery, with citations to case law. Once you do it in one case you pretty much have it for all cases. I would suggest citing to the Federal Rules as well state rules.

Bottom Line: This should make it easier to ask for the evidence of the money trail that supposedly is underlying all that paper the banks are using. My experience is that as soon as the order is entered telling them to open their books, even in a limited way, the case settles under seal of confidentiality. There are reports of some huge settlements that I cannot confirm under exactly those circumstances. Other cases, in which I was a consultant, I actually have the results of settlements but I can’t share them because the client signed a confidentiality agreement.

So try it out for yourself, lawyers, and see what happens. If, as we already know, we have a path to show that the money trail and the paper trail diverged, then we have fabricated false instruments being used in court and used for recording in county records. And the argument that the identity of the real creditor is “privileged” will be revealed as obfuscation of false and fraudulent facts being represented to the courts. Federal law requires this disclosure and the continued failure to give it represents a continuing failure to comply with TILA disclosure and could mean that the loans are still not consummated.

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

see http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d34b6e33-fae9-4568-9ccd-355150323775

*

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”

Chase Admits Violations of Consent Order

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

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

see http://dtc-systems.net/2015/03/jpmorgan-chase-admits-failure-comply-april-13-2011-independent-foreclosure-review-consent-order/#more-2157

see also 27_page_settlement2

We already knew that the servicers, banks and trustees were violating the settlements and consent orders that were entered against them for filing fraudulent papers in fraudulent foreclosures. Now the question is what to do about it.

With respect to the 2011 consent orders Chase admitted the wrongdoing and the settlement was supposed to compensate and give notice to borrowers who had been defrauded.

In the proposed settlement, Chase acknowledges that it filed in bankruptcy courts around the country more than 50,000 payment change notices that were improperly signed, under penalty of perjury, by persons who had not reviewed the accuracy of the notices.  More than 25,000 notices were signed in the names of former employees or of employees who had nothing to do with reviewing the accuracy of the filings.  The rest of the notices were signed by individuals employed by a third party vendor on matters unrelated to checking the accuracy of the filings.

The first question that SHOULD come to mind is WHY a multi trillion dollar bank would need or want to engage in such practices? After all they were committing perjury by their own admission. The second question is why borrowers who were hurt by this behavior have not used the admissions to win their foreclosure cases? And the third question is what is the effect of these admissions?

The answer lies in the lies. The plain truth is, based upon my direct knowledge in several cases, that Chase did not own the loans, the Trusts therefore could not have purchased the loans and that not only Chase was lying but so was US Bank when it was named in foreclosure actions as Trustee for a Trust that plainly did not purchase the loans nor was any of the paperwork showing a transfer authentic. The underlying transaction simply isn’t there and Chase (and other banks) successfully hoodwinked courts into applying legal presumptions that were plainly contrary to the facts.

I think the admission could be used as an argument that the banks are not entitled to the legal presumptions that normally apply because of the wrongful behavior that they have admitted. If they want to show that the Trust bought the loan then they must prove it and not just produce a self-serving piece of paper that says it happened. we know it didn’t happen. Why should the burden of proof fall on a homeowner with limited resources?

The bank, with virtually unlimited resources and exclusive access to all the information, should be able to show the transaction date, amount and proof of payment (wire transfer receipt, wire transfer instructions, canceled check etc.) for the loans that were allegedly acquired and/or conveyed by the assignor and the assignee. With obviously unclean hands, the banks should not be rewarded for their subterfuge. The bank should not be allowed to claim any presumptions, legal or otherwise, that are normally applied to documents or commercial paper. If they really have a case, let them prove it — or at least respond to discovery without objection on various spurious grounds.

When I represented banks if someone had said that we didn’t own the loan or never funded the loan I would have stopped them dead with proof of the actual movement of money and that would have ended the discussion. Instead we are splitting hairs in court with the banks saying they don’t want to produce actual proof. All they need, according to them, is some self-serving piece of fabricated paper with a forged signature containing perjurious statements and the court is bound to accept such paper and apply legal presumptions that what is written on the paper is true. They have the temerity to argue that when we all know that the paper is inherently untrustworthy and not credible, given their admissions and continuous behavior.

I think discovery directed at compliance with the settlements and consent orders ought to be pressed against the banks, on the grounds that they could not have fulfilled all conditions precedent because among the conditions precedent are the requirements set forth in the settlements and consent orders. At trial I think the argument should be made, using the settlements and consent orders as exhibits, with Judicial notice, that the banks are not entitled to the presumptions and that they must prove every fact they would otherwise have the court “presume” or “assume.”

Comments invited

see also Katie Porter on servicing

Ocwen: Investors and Borrowers Move toward Unity of Purpose!

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

Please consult an attorney who is licensed in your jurisdiction before acting upon anything you read on this blog.

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

Anyone following this blog knows that I have been saying that unity of investors and borrowers is the ultimate solution to the falsely dubbed “Foreclosure crisis” (a term that avoids Wall Street corruption). Many have asked what i have based that on and the answer was my own analysis and interviews with Wall Street insiders who have insisted on remaining anonymous. But it was only a matter of time where the creditors (investors who bought mortgage backed securities) came to realize that nobody acting in the capacity of underwriter, servicer or Master Servicer was acting in the best interests of the investors or the borrowers.

The only thing they have tentatively held back on is an outright allegation that their money was NOT used by the Trustee for the Trust and their money never made it into the Trust and that the loans never made it into the Trust. That too will come because when investors realize that homeowners are not going to walk away, investors as creditors will come to agreements to salvage far more of the debts created during the mortgage meltdown than the money salvaged by pushing cases to foreclosure instead of the centuries’ proven method of resolving troubled loans — workouts. Nearly all homeowners would execute a new clean mortgage and note in a heartbeat to give investors the benefits of a workout that reflects economic reality.

Practice hint: If you are dealing with Ocwen Discovery should include information about Altisource and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, investors, and borrowers as it relates to the subject loan.

Investors announced complaints against Ocwen for mishandling the initial money, the paperwork and the subsequent money and servicing on loans created and a acquired with their money. The investors, who are the actual creditors (albeit unsecured) are getting close to the point where they state outright what everyone already knows: there is no collateral for these loans and every disclosure statement involving nearly all the loans violated disclosure requirements under TILA, RESPA, and Federal and state regulations.
The fact that (1) the loan was not funded by the payee on the note and mortgagee on the mortgage and (2) that the money from creditors were never properly channeled through the REMIC trusts because the trusts never received the proceeds of sale of mortgage backed securities is getting closer and closer to the surface.
What was unthinkable and the subject of ridicule 8 years ago has become the REAL reality. The plain truth is that the Trust never owned the loans even as a pass through because they never had had the money to originate or acquire loans. That leaves an uncalculated unsecured debt that is being diminished every day that servicers continue to push foreclosure for the protection of the broker dealers who created worthless mortgage bonds which have been purchased by the Federal reserve under the guise of propping up the banks’ balance sheets.

“HOUSTON, January 23, 2015 – Today, the Holders of 25% Voting Rights in 119 Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Trusts (RMBS) with an original balance of more than $82 billion issued a Notice of Non-Performance (Notice) to BNY Mellon, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, US Bank, and Wells Fargo, as Trustees, Securities Administrators, and/or Master Servicers, regarding the material failures of Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen) as Servicer and/or Master Servicer, to comply with its covenants and agreements under governing Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs).”
  • Use of Trust funds to “pay” Ocwen’s required “borrower relief” obligations under a regulatory settlement, through implementation of modifications on Trust- owned mortgages that have shifted the costs of the settlement to the Trusts and enriched Ocwen unjustly;
  • Employing conflicted servicing practices that enriched Ocwen’s corporate affiliates, including Altisource and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, to the detriment of the Trusts, investors, and borrowers;
  • Engaging in imprudent and wholly improper loan modification, advancing, and advance recovery practices;
  • Failure to maintain adequate records,  communicate effectively with borrowers, or comply with applicable laws, including consumer protection and foreclosure laws; and,

 

  • Failure to account for and remit accurately to the Trusts cash flows from, and amounts realized on, Trust-owned mortgages.

As a result of the imprudent and improper servicing practices alleged in the Notice, the Holders further allege that their experts’ analyses demonstrate that Trusts serviced by Ocwen have performed materially worse than Trusts serviced by other servicers.  The Holders further allege that these claimed defaults and deficiencies in Ocwen’s performance have materially affected the rights of the Holders and constitute an ongoing Event of Default under the applicable PSAs.  The Holders intend to take further action to recover these losses and protect the Trusts’ assets and mortgages.

The Notice was issued on behalf of Holders in the following Ocwen-serviced RMBS: see link The fact that the investors — who by all accounts are the real parties in interest disavow the actions of Ocwen gives rise to an issue of fact as to whether Ocwen was or is operating under the scope of services supposedly to be performed by the servicer or Master Servicer.
I would argue that the fact that the apparent real creditors are stating that Ocwen is misbehaving with respect to adequate records means that they are not entitled to the presumption of a business records exception under the hearsay rule.
The fact that the creditors are saying that servicing practices damaged not only the investors but also borrowers gives rise to a factual issue which denies Ocwen the presumption of validity on any record including the original loan documents that have been shown in many cases to have been mechanically reproduced.
The fact that the creditors are alleging imprudent and wholly improper loan modification practices, servicer advances (which are not properly credited to the account of either the creditor or the borrower), and the recovery of advances means that the creditors are saying that Ocwen was acting on its own behalf instead of the creditors. This puts Ocwen in the position of being either outside the scope of its authority or more likely simply an interloper claiming to be a servicer for trusts that were never actually used to acquire or originate loans, this negating the effect of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  Hence the “servicer” for the trust is NOT the servicer for the subject loan because the loan never arrived in the trust portfolio.
The fact that the creditors admit against interest that Ocwen was pursuing practices and goals that violate laws and proper procedure means that no foreclosure can be supported by “clean hands.” The underlying theme here being that contrary to centuries of practice, instead of producing workouts in which the loan is saved and thus the investment of the creditors, Ocwen pursued foreclosure which was in its interest and not the creditors. The creditors are saying they don’t want the foreclosures but Ocwen did them anyway.
The fact that the creditors are saying they didn’t get the money that was supposed to go to them means that the money received from lost sharing with FDIC, guarantees, insurance, credit default swaps that should have paid off the creditors were not paid to them and would have reduced the damage to the creditors. By reducing the amount of damages to the creditors the borrower would have owed less, making the principal amounts claimed in foreclosures all wrong. The parties who paid such amounts either have or do not have separate unsecured actions against the borrower. In most cases they have no such claim because they explicitly waived it.
This is the first time investors have even partially aligned themselves with Borrowers. I hope it will lead to a stampede, because the salvation of investors and borrowers alike requires a pincer like attack on the intermediaries who have been pretending to be the principal parties in interest but who lacked the authority from the start and violated every fiduciary duty and contractual duty in dealing with creditors and borrowers. Peal the onion: the reason that their initial money is at stake is that these servicers are either acting as Master Servicers who are actually the underwriters and sellers of the mortgage backed securities,
I would argue that the fact that the apparent real creditors are stating the Ocwen is misbehaving with respect to adequate records means that they are not entitled to the presumption of a business records exception under the hearsay rule.
The fact that the creditors are saying that servicing practices damaged not only the investors but also borrowers gives rise to a factual issue which denies Ocwen the presumption of validity on any record including the original loan documents that have been shown in many cases to have been mechanically reproduced.
The fact that the creditors are alleging imprudent and wholly improper loan modification practices, servicer advances (which are not properly credited to the account of either the creditor or the borrower), and the recovery of advances means that the creditors are saying that Ocwen was acting on tis own behalf instead of the creditors. This puts Ocwen in the position of being either outside the scope of its authority or more likely simply an interloper claiming to be a servicer for trusts that were never actually used to acquire or originate loans, this negating the effect of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
The fact that the creditors admit against interest that Ocwen was pursuing practices and goals that violate laws and proper procedure means that no foreclosure can be supported by “clean hands.” The underlying theme here being that contrary to centuries of practice, instead of producing workouts in which the loan is saved and thus the investment of the creditors, Ocwen pursued foreclosure which was in its interest and not the creditors. The creditors are saying they don’t want the foreclosures but Ocwen did them anyway.
The fact that the creditors are saying they didn’t get the money that was supposed to go to them means that the money received from lost sharing with FDIC, guarantees, insurance, credit default swaps that should have paid off the creditors were not paid to them and would have reduced the damage to the creditors. By reducing the amount of damages to the creditors the borrower would have owed less, making the principals claimed in foreclosures all wrong. The parties who paid such amounts either have or do not have separate unsecured actions against eh borrower. In most cases they have no such claim because they explicitly waived it.
This is the first time investors have even partially aligned themselves with Borrowers. I hope it will lead to a stampede, because the salvation of investors and borrowers alike requires a pincer like attack on the intermediaries who have been pretending to be the principal parties in interest but who lacked the authority from the start and violated every fiduciary duty and contractual duty in dealing with creditors and borrowers.

MERS Assignments VOID

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

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

see http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/mers-auroraslammed.pdf
While there are a number of cases that discuss the role of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), this tells the story in the shortest amount of time. MERS was only a nominee to track the off-record claims from multiple parties participating in what we call the securitization of loans. It now appears that the securitization in most cases never took place but the banks and their affiliates are foreclosing in the name of REMIC trusts anyway, relying on “presumptions” to “prove” that the Trust actually purchased and took possession of the alleged loan. In every case I know of  where the homeowner was allowed to probe deeply into the issues of whether the Trust actually received the loan, it has either been determined that the Trust didn’t own the loan, or the case was settled before the court could announce that ruling.

Decided in April of last year, this case slams Aurora, who was and remains one of the worst offenders in the category of fraudulent foreclosures. The Court decided that since the basis of the claim was an assignment from MERS who had no interest int he debt, note or mortgage, there were no “successors.” This logic is irrefutable. And as regular readers know from reading this blog I believe the same logic applies to any other party who has no interest in the debt, note or mortgage — like an unfunded “originator” whose name appears on not only the Mortgage, like MERS, but also on the note.

Judges have trouble with that analysis because in their minds they think the homeowner is trying to get a free house. Even if that were true, it doesn’t change the correct application of law. But the opposite is true. The homeowner is trying to stop the foreclosing party from getting a free house and the homeowner is trying  to find his creditor. I actually had a judge yesterday rule that the source of funds, ownership and balance was essentially irrelevant. Discovery on nearly all issues was blocked by his ruling, leaving the trial to be a very short affair since the defenses have been eliminated by that Judge by express ruling.

The attorney representing the bank basically argued that the case was simple and that anything that happened prior to the alleged default was also irrelevant. The Judge agreed. So when a trial judge makes such rulings, he or she is basically narrowing the issue down to when we were just starting out in 2007 in what I call the dark ages. The trial becomes mostly clerical in which the only relevant issues are whether the homeowner received a loan and whether the homeowner stopped paying. All other issues are treated as irrelevant defenses, including the behavior of the “servicer” whose authority cannot be questioned (because of the presumption raised by an apparently facially valid instrument of virtually ANY sort).

The moral of the story is persistence and appeal. I believe that such rulings are reversible potentially even as interlocutory appeals as to affirmative defenses and discovery. If anyone files a lawsuit they should be required to answer all potential questions about that that lawsuit in good faith. That is what discovery is for. The strategy of moving to strike affirmative defenses is meant to cut off discovery to the point where no defenses can be raised or proven. And cutting off discovery is what the foreclosers need to do or they will face sanctions, charges of fraud, perjury and worse when the real facts are revealed.

Who Can Sign a Lost Note Affidavit? What Happens When It Is “Found?”

For further information and assistance, please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

——————————

Let’s start with the study that planted the seed of doubt as to the validity of the debt, note, mortgage and foreclosure and whether any of those “securitized debt” foreclosures should have been allowed to even get to first base. Katherine Ann Porter, when she was a professor in Iowa (2007) did a seminal study of “lost” documents and found that at least 40% of ALL notes were lost as a result of intentional destruction or negligence. You can find her study on this blog.

The issue with “lost notes” is actually simple. If the note is lost then the court and the borrower are entitled to an explanation of the the full story behind the loss of the note, why it was intentionally destroyed and whose negligence caused the loss of the note. And the reason is also simple. If the Court and the borrower are not fully satisfied that the whole story has been told, then neither one can determine whether the party claiming rights to collect or enforce the note actually has those rights.

This is the question posed to me by a knowledgeable person involved in the challenge to the validity of the debt, note, mortgage and foreclosure:

Who is finding the Note?  Can a servicer execute a Lost Note Affidavit as a holder?  Non holder in possession?

It took me a while to get to the obvious point of the above defense.  It is intended in the event that party A loses the Note and files a LNA [Lost Note Affidavit}, that the Issuer, does not have to pay party B even if he appears with a blank endorsed note, unless B can prove holder in due course (virtually impossible these days, esp in foreclosure cases).

This is critical.  The foreclosing party, through a series of mergers and successions, files a case as successor by merger to ABC.  Can’t locate note, so it files a LNA, stating ABC lost the Note.  Note is found, but the foreclosing party says, oops, was in a custodial file for which we were the servicer for XYZ.   While the foreclosing party has the note, it cannot unring the fact it got the Note from XYZ after ABC lost it.

Good questions. He understands that the requirements as expressly stated in the law (UCC, State law etc.) are quite stringent. You cannot re-establish a lost note with a copy of it unless you can prove that you had it and that you were the person entitled to enforce it (known as PETE). You also cannot re-establish the note unless you can prove that the note was lost or destroyed under circumstances where it is far more likely than not that the original won’t show up later in the hands of someone else claiming PETE status. So there should be a heavy burden placed on any party seeking to foreclose or even just to collect on a “lost note.” But courts have steamrolled over this obvious problem requiring something on the order of “probable cause” rather than actual proof. While there is some evidence the judiciary is turning the corner against the banks, the great majority of cases fly over these issues either because of presumptions by the bench or because the “borrower” fails to raise it — and fails to make appropriate motions in limine and raise objections in trial.

But the person who posed this question drills down deeper into the real factual issues. He wants to know details. We all know that it is easier to allege that you destroyed it accidentally or even intentionally than to allege the loss of the note. A witness from the party asserting PETE can say, truthfully or not, “I destroyed it.” Proving that he didn’t and that the copy is fabricated is very difficult for a homeowner with limited resources. If the allegation and the testimony is that the note was lost, we get into the question of what, when where, how and why. But in a lost note situation most states require some sort of indemnification from the party asserting PETE status or holder in due course status. That is also a problem. I remember rejecting the offer of indemnification from Taylor, Bean and Whitaker after I reviewed their financial statements. It was obvious they were going broke and they did. And the officers went to jail for criminal acts.

So the first question is exactly when was the “original” note last seen and by whom? In whose possession was it when it was allegedly lost? How was it lost? Who has direct personal information on the location of the original and the timing and method of loss? And what happens when the note is “found?” We know that original documents are being fabricated by advanced technology such that even the borrower doesn’t realize he is not being shown the original (that is why I suggest denying that they are the holder of the note, denying they are PETE, denying they are holder in due course etc.)

In the confusion of those issues, the homeowner usually fails to realize that this is just another lie. But in discovery, if you are awake to the issue, you can either learn the facts (or deal with the inevitable objections to discovery). And then the lawyer for the homeowner should graph out the allegations and testimony as best as possible. The questioner is dead right — if the party NOW claiming PETE status or HDC status received the “found” original note but received it from someone other than the party who “lost” it, there is no chain upon which the foreclosing party can rely. In simple language, what they are attempting to do is fly over the gap between when the note was lost and destroyed and the time that the current claimant took possession of the paper. And once again I say that the real proof is the real money trail. If the underlying transactions exist, then there will be some correspondence, agreements and a payment of money that will reveal the true transfer.

And again I say, that if you are attacking the paper you need to be extremely careful not to give the impression that the borrower is attempting to get out of a legitimate debt. The position is that there is no legitimate debt IN THIS CHAIN. The debt lies outside the chain. The true debt is owed to whoever supplied the money that was received at the loan closing, regardless of what paperwork was signed. Failure to prove the original loan transaction should be fatal to the action on the note or the mortgage (except if the foreclosing party can prove the status of a holder in due course). The fact that the paperwork was signed only creates a potential second liability that does not benefit the party whose money was used for the loan.

The foreclosure is a thinly disguised adventure in greed — where the perpetrators of the false foreclosure, use fabricated, robo-signed paper without ANY loan at the base of the paper trail and without any payments made by any of the parties for possession or enforcement of the paper. They are essentially stealing the house, the proceeds, and the money that was used to fund the “loan” all to the detriment of the real parties in interest, to wit: the investors who were tricked into directly lending the money to borrowers  and the homeowners who were tricked into signing paperwork that created a second liability for the same loan.

%d bloggers like this: