Brilliant Analysis of Securitization Sleight of Hand

Posted on April 8, 2020 by Neil Garfield

A person with whom I am well acquainted and who prefers to remain in the background just sent the following email to me, Bill Paatalo and Charles Marshall.

Thanks to the Virus, I had some free time to catch-up on Neil’s blogs and radio shows; as such, I just listened to your piece with Charles on the Christiana Trust counter-suit.  One thing that took me by surprise is that Rushmore is seemingly linked to that trust (or phantom trust).

While you may recall, one of my cases (my principal mortgage) that began with GreenPoint, then supposedly was taken-over by Capital One, was passed to Rushmore upon Cap-One exiting the mortgage business, but then oddly got repositioned with Carrington.  I discovered that Carrington was the principal player of Christiana Trust and its nesting of it, into Wilmington.  However, that trust tomfoolery now has been superseded by the Stanwich Trust bag of snakes.

Hence, Stanwich is nested into Wilmington.  It seems to me that the real player is Carrington.  I discovered that Stanwich has lots of offshoots, i.e. a list of trusts (A, B, C, etc.) registered in Delaware, but also other entity permutations of “Stanwich” (https://whalewisdom.com/filer/stanwich-mortgage-acquisition-company-llc).

If you prowl around SEC docs, you’ll notice that the signatory of Stanwich Acquisition is Andrew M Taffet.  Mr. Taffet also happens to be the Chief Investment Officer & Head of Asset Management at Carrington Capital Management (i.e. LINKEDIN).

After looking in a bunch of dusty corners, I suspect that my mortgage, originated by GreenPoint in 2005 (then a wholly owned subsidiary of North Fork Bancorp) was likely securitized (I’m thinking either Lehmann or Bear, but could have taken another or other routes).  Since CapOne retained the image datafile, they had access to an image of the Note which they then reconstituted and indorsed the falsified/forged note and presented it as prima facie evidence of ownership.  But piecing together my conjecture, it gets worse…

When CapOne decided to jettison all of these dubious notes and claims in 2018, they handed the box of bullshit to Carrington who poses as the new servicer, saying that Wilmington is the Owner.  But not really Wilmington per se.  “Wilmington as Trustee of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A”. This is a bit of sleight of hand.  Wilmington “as” Trustee “of”.  For this charade let’s turn to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. “of the People, by the people and for the people” – three distinct prepositions (Of, By & For).  Wilmington claims in its moniker to be “of” Stanwich, not “for” Stanwich.  Example if Tom Brady plays some tag football with me and my buddies in the park, he is still Tom Brady “of” the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, but he is not playing with us “for” the Buccaneers – a subtle but profound difference.

Digging deeper, I found that Cap-One seems to own shares/units in Stanwich Acquisition Securities, which causes me to think that there was no money changing hands, CapOne simply exchanged fraudulent mortgages for shares  After all, the (CapOne) had no skin in the game anyway.

The GreenPoint saga is equally as convoluted.  I know that you know that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. “surrendered” is California operation back in 2004.   But this tale is very circuitous and dubious.  Without belaboring the details.  GreenPoint Bank evolved in to GreenPonit Financial, with GreenPoint Bank and GreenPoint Mortgage as subs in or around 1998.  Notwithstanding, there was another Corporation registered in NY (Credit Suisse Asset Management, Inc.)  Somehow, in 1999 coinciding with GreenPoint merging with Headlands Mtg of California and folding in a couple of other acquisitions, the company took on the moniker GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc nearly simultaneously with Credit Suisse Asset Management Inc. changing its name to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.  This also coincided with t a shell company set up in Delaware of the same name.  it’s quite a labyrinth of which I ‘ve unraveled some but not all.

Anyway, I though the Stanwich/Christiana trust thing might be of interest to you, Charles and Neil.  As you likely know, Cristiana Trust is a division of Wilmington Savings Fund… https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/11/02/1173772/0/en/WSFS-Announces-Formation-of-Christiana-Trust-Company-of-Delaware.html  Anyway, I suspect that the trust game Cristian and Stanwich, are just part of the game to cross state lines for the mortgages being claimed to be in the trust.  However, Delaware statutory trusts (DST), which exist to facilitate 1031 exchanges and REITs, are there to use Wilmington as a disguise to file foreclosure suits across state lines.  But in truth, a DST is likened to a corporation not a traditional trust, and if Wilmington is acting “as” trustee “of” a trust, then the underlying trust has no personal jurisdiction to cross state lines to sue.

Hope you find this interesting,

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

ALLSTATE FILES SUIT LAYING OUT ALL THE ALLEGATIONS YOU NEED

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

REQUIRED READING

2.24.2011 Chase -Allstate-Complaint

JUST LOOKING AT THE TABLE OF CONTENT WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

NATURE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
PARTIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ……………………………………………………………………………………….16
BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
A.    THE MECHANICS OF MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION …………………………………….17
B.    SECURITIZATION OF MORTGAGE LOANS: THE TRADITIONAL MODEL ……..19
C.    THE SYSTEMIC VIOLATION OF UNDERWRITING AND APPRAISAL STANDARDS IN THE MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION INDUSTRY …………………..21
D.    DEFENDANTS WERE AN INTEGRATED VERTICAL OPERATION CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF THE SECURITIZATION PROCESS…………..24
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants……………………………………………………………………..24 (2)

WaMu Defendants ………………………………………………………………………….26 (3)

Bear Stearns Defendants ………………………………………………………………….27
E.    DEFENDANTS’ OFFERING MATERIALS…………………………………………………………..29 (1)

The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….29 (2)

The WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………30 (3)

The Long-Beach Offering………………………………………………………………..32 (4)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………32
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………..34
I.    THE OFFERING MATERIALS CONTAINED UNTRUE STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACT AND OMISSIONS ABOUT THE MORTGAGE ORIGINATORS’ UNDERWRITING STANDARDS AND PRACTICES, AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MORTGAGE LOAN POOLS ……………..34
A.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards And Practices …………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards And Practices………………………………………………35
i
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards and Practices……………………………………………………………………35
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards and Practices……………………………………………….36
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards and Practices……………………………………………….39
B.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner-Occupancy Statistics …………40
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner- Occupancy Statistics ……………………………………………………………………….40
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner Occupancy Statistics ……………………………………………………………………….41
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner Occupancy Statistics ……………………………………………………………………….41
C.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Loan-to-Value and Combined Loan-to-Value Ratios…………………………………………………………………………………42
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding LTV and CLTV Ratios………………………………………………………………………………….42
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding LTV and CLTV Ratios ……………………………………………………………………………………………42
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding LTV and CLTV Ratios………………………………………………………………………………….43
D.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to-Income Ratios …………………44
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to- Income Ratios ………………………………………………………………………………..44
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to-Income Ratios ……………………………………………………………………………………………44
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to- Income Ratios ………………………………………………………………………………..45
E.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings……………………………..46
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings ………………………………………………………………………………………….46
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings………..47 ii
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings ………………………………………………………………………………………….48
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings ………………………………………………………………………………………….48
F.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements……………………49
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..49
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..50
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..50
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..51
G.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions………………51
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions …………………………………………………………………51
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions ……………………………………………………………………………………..52
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions …………………………………………………………………53
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions …………………………………………………………………53
H.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….53
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans ……………………………………………………………………..54
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans ……………………………………………………………………..54
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans …………………………………………………….55
I.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Full-Documentation Loans……………55
iii
J.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Adverse Selection of Mortgage Loans ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….56
K.    Defendants’ Failure to Disclose the Negative Results of Due Diligence …………..57
II.    ALL OF DEFENDANTS’ REPRESENTATIONS WERE UNTRUE AND MISLEADING BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORED THEIR OWN UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES ……………………………………………………58
A.    Evidence Demonstrates Defendants’ Underwriting Abandonment: High Default Rates And Plummeting Credit Ratings ……………………………………………..59
B.    Statistical Evidence of Faulty Underwriting: Borrowers Did Not Actually Occupy The Mortgaged Properties As Represented……………………………………….62
(1)    The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….64 (2)

The WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………64 (3)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………65
C.    Statistical Evidence of Faulty Underwriting: The Loan-to-Value Ratios In The Offering Materials Were Inaccurate ………………………………………………………65
(1)    The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….66 (2)    T

he WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………68 (3)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………71
D.    Other Statistical Evidence Demonstrates That The Problems In Defendants’ Loans Were Tied To Underwriting Guideline Abandonment………..72
E.    Evidence Demonstrates That Credit Ratings Were A Garbage-In, Garbage-Out Process …………………………………………………………………………………75
F.    Evidence From Defendants’ Own Documents And Former Employees Demonstrates That The Representations In Defendants’ Offering Materials Were False ……………………………………………………………………………………………….76
(1)    The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….76 (2)

The WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………80 (3)

The Long Beach Offerings……………………………………………………………….87 (4)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………92
iv
G.    Evidence From Defendants’ Third-Party Due Diligence Firm Demonstrates That Defendants Were Originating Defective Loans………………….94
H.    Evidence Of Other Investigations Demonstrates The Falsity Of Defendants’ Representations ………………………………………………………………………97
(1)    The WaMu and Long Beach Offerings………………………………………………97
(2)    The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………99
III.    DEFENDANTS’ REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING UNAFFILIATED ORIGINATORS’ UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES WERE ALSO FALSE ……………102
A.    Countrywide ……………………………………………………………………………………………104
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning Countrywide’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..104
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue And Misleading………………………..105 B.

GreenPoint ……………………………………………………………………………………………..109
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning GreenPoint’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..109
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue And Misleading………………………..111 C.    PHH……………………………………………………………………………………………………….115
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning PHH’s Underwriting Practices ………………………………………………………………………………………115
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue And Misleading………………………..116 D.

Option One……………………………………………………………………………………………..118
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning Option One’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..118
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue and Misleading:………………………..120 E.    Fremont ………………………………………………………………………………………………….122
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning Fremont’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..122
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue and Misleading…………………………124 IV.

THE DEFENDANTS KNEW THEIR REPRESENTATIONS WERE FALSE ………….126
v
A.    The Statistical Evidence Is Itself Persuasive Evidence Defendants Knew Or Recklessly Disregarded The Falsity Of Their Representations………………….126
B.    Evidence From Third Party Due Diligence Firms Demonstrates That Defendants Knew Defective Loans Were Being Securitized …………………………127
C.    Evidence Of Defendants’ Influence Over The Appraisal Process Demonstrates That Defendants Knew The Appraisals Were Falsely Inflated …………………………………………………………………………………………………..130
D.    Evidence Of Internal Documents And Former Employee Testimony Demonstrates That Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False ……….131
(1) (2) (3) (4)
JPMorgan Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False…………131 WaMu Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False ……………..133 Long Beach Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False………138 Bear Stearns Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False ……..140
V.    ALLSTATE’S DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE AND DAMAGES ……………………………144

VI.    TOLLING OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 CLAIMS …………………………………..146

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………………149

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………….150

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION………………………………………………………………………………………..152

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………….155

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………………157

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ………………………………………………………………………………………………..157

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED………………………………………………………………………………………….158

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 73 Comments »

More Investors Are Suing Chase: Cheer them on!

Posted on June 12, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Submitted by Beth Findsen, Esq. in Scottsdale, Az

Investors-suing-Chase-includes-list-of-mortgage-backed-securities-various-originators-like-New-Century-WAMU-Wells-Fargo-ResMae-Greenpoint-Coun

One of the many things I find interesting in this lawsuit is that FINALLY the pretender lenders are at least being referred to as originators and not banks, lenders or any of the other things that had most people believing.

Here too investors sue the rating agencies, Moody’s, S&P, Fitch paving the way for borrowers to make virtually the same allegations against the appraisers and the pretender lender who hired the appraiser.

The only thing left for the investors is to realize that the only way they are actually going to mitigate losses is by creating an entity that negotiates modifications directly with borrowers. Otherwise these intermediaries in the securitization chain are going to continue cleaning their clocks.


Here are some morsels you too might find interesting

7. The true facts that were misstated in or omitted from the Offering Documents
include:
(1) The Originators systematically disregarded their stated underwriting
standards when issuing loans to borrowers;
(2) The underlying mortgages were based on appraisals that overstated the
value of the underlying properties and understated the loan-to-value ratios
of the Mortgage Loans;
(3) The Certificates’ credit enhancement features were insufficient to protect
Certificate holders from losses because the underwriting deficiencies
rendered the Mortgage Loans far less valuable than disclosed and the
credit enhancement features were primarily the product of the Rating
Agencies’ outdated models. As such, the level of credit enhancement
necessary for the Certificates’ risk to correspond to the pre-determined
credit ratings was far less than necessary; and
(4) The Rating Agencies employed outdated assumptions, relaxed ratings
criteria, and relied on inaccurate loan information when rating the
Certificates. S&P’s models had not been materially updated since 1999
and Moody’s models had not been materially updated since 2002. These
outdated models failed to account for the drastic changes in the type of
loans backing the Certificates and the Originators’ systemic disregard for their underwriting standards. Furthermore, the Rating Agencies had conflicts of interest when rating the Certificates.
8. As a result, Lead Plaintiff and the Class purchased Certificates that were backed by collateral (i.e., the Mortgage Loans) that was much less valuable and which posed greater risk of default than represented, were not of the “best quality” and were not equivalent to other investments with the same credit ratings. Contrary to representations in the Offering Documents, the Certificates exposed purchasers to increased risk with respect to delinquencies, foreclosures and other forms of default on the Mortgage Loans.

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, trustee, workshop | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

%d