Challenging the “Free House” Myth

Unless you are banker stealing homes through the fraudulent abuse of the foreclosure process there is no free house.

It is not rationale nor legal for anyone to tell a homeowner that because he or she cannot identify the source of funds for their “loan” the creditor MUST be in the chain of the party making the claim. It isn’t the fault of the homeowner that the paperwork was used to cover up fraud or negligence.

But every time a homeowner wins they do not necessarily get a free house nor exoneration from the debt that is owed to SOMEBODY even if they don’t know who it is.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

The bar remains high and we all know it. The court is not going to hand down a decision for the “borrower” unless there is something plainly wrong about it. In order to be plainly wrong, we need some narrative that puts the court back on its heels and to directly challenge the notions that a victory for Flaherty means that he gets a free house. The banks have stepped up their “free house” mythology in light of the Supreme Court decision in Florida.

The challenge here is to to present the case in a manner that makes the “free house” myth irrelevant and to do it in a compelling presentation. While the easiest way of doing that would be to allege simply that this is a fraudulent scheme, we can’t prove that without adequate responses to discovery. But the Courts are allowing the banks to skate through without responding to discovery even when the allegations clearly make the scheme an issue.

This is why the banks file motions to strike OR simply argue that the homeowner’s pleadings don’t state a case or defense.

So we are left with the consequences of the scheme. But that leaves fertile ground for many approaches. The focus should be on procedural aspects and away from “winning” the case on motions. The object is to win the pending motion on the grounds that due process demands it. The trick here is to find a way to ask the judge “What if all this is an illusion?” without asking it in those words. That is an uphill climb.

We cannot ignore the fact that the bench is biased in favor of the banks. Their presumption that the homeowner received a loan and should be required to pay it back or lose his home permeates everything. The greater hurdle is that their presumption comes from an era when those things were axiomatically true before Wall Street started with this scheme. And now everything is being subjected to claims of “securitization.” Even cell phone payments. “Securitization” has been institutionalized based upon a false foundation, but in theory there is nothing wrong with it.

The money trail remains the primary path toward victory for the homeowner. But it is true that there are certain aspects of the money trail that are none of your business when defending the homeowner. The fact that the banks defrauded investors and stole their money is compelling proof, once established, that the trusts were never funded and thus never purchased the loans. It also suggests but does not prove where the money came from for the “loan closing.” It came from a dark pool formed by the banks and consisting of the stolen money.

Knowing that, rather than proving that, is key to establishing the narrative. And now there are instances in which the “new” REMIC Trust actually does pay for the paper even though the Seller never owned the debt and the paper was based upon a fictitious transaction in which the Payee on the note never loaned any money — leading to the conclusion that the debt was never merged into the note; but this also leads to the conclusion that the risk shifts to the maker of the note when the note is purchased for value, in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. The new Purchaser” who really paid consideration (assuming they REALLY paid) could conceivably be a holder in due course. The focus then shifts to showing that there was no good faith and that there was complete knowledge of the borrower’s defenses on the part of the purchaser.

Knowing that the parties making the claim have no legal basis for doing so and no monetary reason for doing so — because the source of funds were victims of fraud — allows the litigator to focus on the factual and legal consequences. But the art form required here is to do that without making it look like you are allowing the homeowner to slip away from the debt. Getting there means getting past preliminary motions and aggressively pursuing discovery (unless you think that the bank’s case is defective enough such that it would be better to wait until trial to defend).

False Claims by False Claimants

The “tender” discussion in or out of bankruptcy court is a non sequitur. Why would you “tender” money to a party whose claim is obviously false?

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
I recently had occasion to respond to an email regarding, as it turned out, understanding the way securitization actually worked, as opposed to what is shown on paper. The topic was “tender.” This is what I wrote:
Why would you “tender” money to a party whose claim is obviously false? This would be adding insult to injury. Your debt arose when you received the money or the benefit of someone paying money on your behalf. If you then execute a note to the party who gave you that money, directly or to a disclosed authorized agent, the debt is merged into the note, as it should be. That prevents double liability — one liability fro the debt and one liability arising from the note.

But if you executed a note in favor of a party who was NOT the source of funds and NOT authorized by the source of funds, then the execution of the note would be the creation of two liabilities — one on the debt, owed to the source of funds, and one on the note which if released, could end up being a negotiable instrument that, if paid for, would indeed create the second liability. (Even without being purchased we have seen millions of cases where the assertion of “holder” is mistakenly used to grant HDC status).

The claimants in your case can collect from you if their claim derives from a transaction in which money was delivered to you by the payee on the note or if the payee on the note was acting in a representative capacity for the source of funding.

But we already know that the payee was not acting in a representative capacity for the the actual source of funding — a group of investors whose identification is withheld from the Petitioner.

We know this because the investors bought certificates issued by a trust. The proceeds of sale of the trust-issued certificates were to have been paid to the issuing trust. If that had happened, then the trust would have paid for the acquisition (not the origination) of loans. And if that was what actually happened then the Trust would be a holder in due course not subject to the petitioner’s defenses.

None of the claimants assert status as holders in due course. Hence one of the elements of HDC status is missing since the only reasonable thing for the trust to have done would have been to assert HDC status and merely prove the purchase of the loans. The missing element is obviously the purchase for value since good faith is presumed and knowledge of borrower’s defenses is difficult to imagine, let alone prove.

Since HDC status is not asserted, the only logical conclusion is that the trust never did the only thing the trust was created to do — purchase loans. And the only reason that can be reasonably applied is that the Trust never made the purchase because it never received the money from the sale of the certificates. And that means that the trust never purchased existing loans as  per the requirements of the trust prospectus and PSA. That takes the Trust out of the mix entirely.

That leaves us with the investors money being used to originate mortgages without their consent or knowledge and contrary to the terms of the documents under which they agreed to fund the purchase of the trust certificates.

There is a complete absence of any paper trail linking the investors to the loans that were originated. All documentation was prepared and executed as if the Payee had loaned money to the Petitioner.

There are only two possibilities. Either the intermediaries who sold the trust issued certificates kept all the money or they kept part of it.

Given the fact that none of the assignments or endorsements were supported by any consideration, the only reasonable assumption is that there was no consideration because none was due — i.e., the transferor had no rights to the debt and the note and mortgage were NOT evidence of the debt.

It follows logically that there is no evidence of the debt other than the events that occurred at the falsely dubbed “loan closing.”

Those events give rise to a debt owed by Petitioner that is NOT the subject of the note and mortgage that were executed. Those instruments refer to a transaction that never existed. Petitioner was given money once, not twice.

The chain of paper offered by the claimants provides the rest of the answer to these highly complex obscure fictitious transactions. Ultimately the paper chain relied upon by the claimants leads up to a trust or party acting as though it were in the position of a REMIC trust.

It does not lead to the investors because we know that the investors’ money never went into the trust and that therefore the trust is a sham entity created solely on paper, without any physical existence or trust administrator in the form of a live person. In fact, upon inquiry, it is obvious that the Trust never had a bank account and never engaged in any business activity at all. The investors therefore have interests in an empty trust — which is all the documentation they have or could claim.

All of the claimants are in fact intermediaries posing as real parties in interest. When confronted they pivot from being servicers, or agents, or attorneys in fact or “holders.” It is a moving target until the question is posed: whose money was used in the origination or acquisition of the debt? Are those parties on any of the documentation? It was the investors’ money that was used. And no, the investors are not directly or indirectly on the paperwork relied upon by the claimants. And the claimants are not directly or indirectly representing the investors. The claimants are intermediaries whose only claim is that they represent the trust and perhaps the trust beneficiaries as it relates to the business of the trust, which is nothing.

Hence tender to the claimants for any reason would be to guarantee two liabilities for one transaction. Tender would pay the baseless claim of the claimants while allowing the real debt to go unpaid under circumstances where the investors, to whom the money is owed, did not give actual or apparent authority to these claimants. All current court events are being carried on without the knowledge of the investors, much less their intention to give authority to these claimants who were part of a larger fraudulent scheme.


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


see Article by Lane Powell PC Scott M. Edwards and Daniel A. Kittle

I hate to be petty but if you look back to my articles in 2007-2008 you will see that I predicted that ultimately, the way this was done in practice (as opposed to the way the Trusts were created in writing — as opposed to the way the trusts were conceived and codified under the Internal Revenue Code) — neither the beneficiaries nor the Trust have a secured interest in the property.

That means they have no interest in the mortgage and that means that neither the beneficiaries nor the Trust can foreclose because they have no right to foreclose on any mortgage or deed of trust. But the problem is that the beneficiaries are the people who are owed the money — unfortunately payable in a manner that differs in amount and method substantially different than the payment described in the note.

The court noted that its HomeStreet decision identified five statutory requirements for the deduction: (1) the taxpayer must be a “banking, loan, security, or other financial business;” (2) the amount deducted must be “derived from interest” received; (3) the amount deducted was received because of loan or investment; (4) “primarily secured” by a first mortgage or deed of trust; and (5) on “nontransient residential real property.” According to the court, there was no dispute that four of the five requirements were satisfied; the only issue was whether REMICs are “primarily secured” by the underlying mortgages.

On this issue, the court held that to satisfy the “primarily secured” by a mortgage or deed of trust requirement, the bank claiming the deduction must have “some recourse” against the collateral.  The court found that a REMIC investor has “no direct or indirect legal recourse” against the underlying mortgages.

I have no time to elaborate at the moment. But the argument raised by legal beagle Ron Ryan, Esq. in Tucson, Arizona turns out to be correct — 7 years later. The note and mortgage were fatally split; and the note itself was destroyed physically because its terms became irrelevant to the obligation owed to the real creditor. Hence it is impossible to be a holder in due course or a party entitled to enforce (HDC or PETE) on a mortgage loan that was either originated or “transferred” (always without consideration) within the context of a securitization scheme.

The Truth is Coming Out: More Questions About Loan Origination, Debt, Note, Mortgage and Foreclosure

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


Carol Molloy, Esq., one of our preferred attorneys is now taking on new cases for litigation support only. This means that if you have an attorney in the jurisdiction in which your property is located, then Carol can serve in a support role framing pleadings, motions and discovery and coaching the lawyer on what to do and say in court. Carol Molloy is licensed in Tennessee and Massachusetts where she has cases in both jurisdictions in which she is the lead attorney. As part of our team she gets support from myself and others. call our numbers above to get in touch with her.


Hat tip to our lead investigator Ken McLeod (Chandler, Az) who brought this case to my attention. It is from 2013.

see New York Department of Housing vs Deutsch

Mysteriously seemingly knowledgeable legislators passed statutes permitting government agencies to finance mortgage loans in amounts for more than the property is worth, to people who could not afford to pay, without the need to document things such as income, and then to allow the chopping up the [*7]loans into little pieces to sell to new investors, so that if a borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan, the lender would not have the ability to prove it actually owned the debt, let alone plead its name correctly. The spell cast was so widespread that courts find almost everyone involved in mortgage foreclosure litigation raising the “Sgt. Schultz Defense” of “I know nothing.”

Rather than assert its rights and perhaps obligations under the terms of the mortgage to maintain the property and its investment, respondent has asserted the Herman Melville “Bartleby the Scrivener Defense” of “I prefer not to” and relying on the word “may” in the document, has elected to do nothing in this regard. Because this loan appears to have been sold to investors, it may be asked, does not the respondent have a legal obligation to those investors to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the property such as collecting the rents and maintain the property as permitted in the mortgage documents?

It should be noted that in its cross-motion in this action Deutsche asserts that its correct name is “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2007-3, Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3” and not the name petitioner placed in the caption. Which deserves the response “you’ve got to be kidding.” Deutsche is not mentioned in the chain of title; it is listed in these HP proceedings with the same name as on the caption of the foreclosure action in which it is the plaintiff and which its counsel drafted; and its name is not in the body of foreclosure action pleadings. In the foreclosure proceeding Deutsche pleads that it “was and still is duly organized and existing under the laws of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” However, there is no reference to or pleading of the particular law of the USA under which it exists leaving the court to speculate whether it is some federal banking statute, or one that allows Volkswagens, BMW’s and Mercedes-Benz’s to be imported to the US or one that permitted German scientists to come to the US and develop our space program after World War II.

As more and more cases are revealed or published, the truth is emerging beyond a reasonable doubt about the origination of the loans, the actual debt (identifying creditor and debtor), the note, the mortgage and the inevitable attempt at foreclosure and forced sale (forfeiture) of property to entities who have nothing to do with any actual transaction involving the borrower. The New York court quoted above describes in colorful language the false nature of the entire scheme from beginning to end.

see bankers-who-commit-fraud-like-murderers-are-supposed-to-go-to-jail


The TRUTH of the matter, as we now know it includes but is not limited to the following:

  1. DONALD DUCK LOANS: NONEXISTENT Pretender Lenders: Hundreds of thousands of loan closings involved the false disclosure of a lender that did not legally or physically exist. The money from the loan obviously came from somewhere else and the use of the non-existent entity name was a scam to deflect attention from the real nature of the transaction. These are by definition “table-funded” loans and when used in a pattern of conduct constitutes not only violation of TILA but is dubbed “predatory per se” under Reg Z. Since the mortgage and note and settlement documents all referred to a nonexistent entity, you might just as well have signed the note payable to Donald Duck, who at least is better known than American Broker’s Conduit. Such mortgages are void because the party in whose favor they are drafted and signed does not exist. Such a mortgage should never be recorded and is subject to a quiet title action. The debt still arises by operation of law between the debtor (borrower) and the the creditor (unidentified lender) but it is not secured and the note is NOT presumptive evidence of the debt. THINK I’M WRONG? “SHOW ME A CASE!” WELL HERE IS ONE FOR STARTERS: 18th Judicial Circuit BOA v Nash VOID mortgage Void Note Reverse Judgement for Payments made to non-existent entity
  2. DEAD ENTITY LOANS: Existing Entity Sham Pretender Lender: Here the lender was alive or might still be alive but it is and probably always was broke, incapable of loaning money to anyone. Hundreds of thousands of loan closings involved the false disclosure of a lender that did not legally or physically make a loan to the borrower (debtor). The money from the loan obviously came from somewhere else and the use of the sham entity name was a scam to deflect attention from the real nature of the transaction. These are by definition “table-funded” loans and when used in a pattern of conduct constitutes not only violation of TILA but is dubbed “predatory per se” under Reg Z. Since the mortgage and note and settlement documents all referred to an entity that did not actually loan money to the borrower, (like The Money Source) such mortgages are void because the party in whose favor they are drafted and signed did not fulfill a black letter element of an enforceable contract — consideration. Such a mortgage should never be recorded and is subject to a quiet title action. The debt still arises by operation of law between the debtor (borrower) and the the creditor (unidentified lender) but it is not secured and the note is NOT presumptive evidence of the debt.
  3. BRAND NAME LOANS FROM BIG BANKS OR BIG ORIGINATORS: Here the loans were disguised as loans from the entity that could have loaned the money to the borrower — but didn’t. Millions of loan closings involved the false disclosure of a lender that did not legally or physically make a loan to the borrower (debtor). The money from the loan came from somewhere else and the use of the brand name entity (like Wells Fargo or Quicken Loans) name was a scam to deflect attention from the real nature of the transaction. These are by definition “table-funded” loans and when used in a pattern of conduct constitutes not only violation of TILA but is dubbed “predatory per se” under Reg Z. Since the mortgage and note and settlement documents all referred to an entity that did not actually loan money to the borrower, such mortgages are void because the party in whose favor they are drafted and signed did not fulfill a black letter element of an enforceable contract — consideration. Such a mortgage should never be recorded and is subject to a quiet title action. The debt still arises by operation of law between the debtor (borrower) and the the creditor (unidentified lender) but it is not secured and the note is NOT presumptive evidence of the debt.
  4. TRANSFER WITHOUT SALE: You can’t sell what you don’t own. And you can’t own the loan without paying for its origination or acquisition. Millions of foreclosures are predicated upon acquisition of the loan through a nonexistent purchase — but facially valid paperwork leads to the assumption or even presumption that the sale of the loan took place — i.e., delivery of the loan documents in exchange for payment received. These loans can be traced down to one of the three types of loans described above by asking the question “Why was there no payment.” In turn this inquiry can start from the question “Why is the Trust not named as a holder in due course?” The answer is that an HDC must acquire the loan for value and receive delivery. What the banks are doing is showing evidence of delivery and an “assignment” or “power of attorney” that has no basis in real life — the endorsement of the note or assignment of the mortgage was fabricated, robo-signed and is subject to perjury in court testimony. Using the Pooling and Servicing Agreement only shows that more fabricated paperwork was used to fool the court into thinking that there is a pool of loans which in most cases does not exist — a t least not in the REMIC Trust.
  5. VIOLATION OF THE TRUST DOCUMENT: Most trusts are governed by New York law. Some of them are governed by Delaware law and some invoke both jurisdictions (see Christiana Bank). The laws that MUST be applied to the REMIC Trusts declare that any action taken without express authority from the Trust instrument is VOID. The investors still have not been told that their money never went into the trust, but that is what happened. They have also not been told that the Trust issued mortgage bonds but never received the proceeds of sale of those bonds. And they have not been told that the Trust, being unfunded, never acquired the loans. And that is why there is no assertion of holder in due course status. Some courts have held that the PSA is irrelevant — but they are failing to realize that such a ruling by definition eliminates the foreclosure as a viable action; that is true because the only basis of authority to pursue foreclosure, collection or any other enforcement of the sham loan documents is in the PSA which is the Trust document.
  6. THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS WITHOUT ACCOUNTING: “Servicer” advances that are actually made by the servicer but pulled from an account controlled by the broker dealer who sold the mortgage bonds. These payments continue regardless of whether the borrower is paying or not. Banks fight this issue because it would require that the actual creditors be identified and given notice of proceedings that are being pursued contrary to the interests of the investors. Those payments negate any default between the debtor and the actual creditor who has been paid. They also reduce the amount due. The same holds true for proceeds of insurance, guarantees, loss sharing with the FDIC and proceeds of hedge products like credit default swaps. Legally it is clear that these payments satisfies the payments due from the borrower but gives rise to an unsecured volunteer payment recapture through a claim for unjust enrichment. That could lead to a money judgment, the filing of the judgment and the foreclosure of the judgment lien. But the banks don’t want to do that because they would definitely be required to show the money trail — something they are avoiding at all costs because it would unravel the entire fraudulent scheme of “securitization fail.” (Adam Levitin’s term).
  7. ESTOPPEL: Inducing people to go into default so that there can be more foreclosures: Millions of people called the servicer asking for a modification or workout that the servicer obviously had no right to entertain. The servicer customer representative gave the impression that the borrower was talking to the right person. And this trusted person then started practicing law without a license by advising that modifications could not be requested until the borrower was at least 90 days in arrears. All of this was a lie. HAMP and other programs do NOT require 90 day arrearage. The purpose was to get homeowners in so deep that they could never get out because the servicers are charged with the job of getting as many loans into foreclosure as possible. By telling the borrower to stop paying they were (a) telling them the right thing because the servicer actually had no right to collect the payment anyway and (b) they put the servicer in an estoppel position — you can’t tell a borrower to stop paying and then say THEY breached the “agreement”. Stopping payment was a the request or demand of the servicer. Further complicating the process was the intentional loss of submissions by borrowers; the purpose of these “losses” (like “lost notes” was to elongate the process and get the borrower deeper and deeper into the false arrearage claimed by the servicer.

The conclusion is obvious — complete strangers to the actual transaction (between the actual debtor and actual creditor) are using the names of other complete strangers to the transaction and faking documents regularly to close out serious liabilities totaling trillions of dollars for “faulty”, fraudulent loans, transfers and foreclosures. As pointed out in many previous articles here, this is often accomplished through an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in which the program requires violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA), the HAMP modification program etc. Logically it is easy to see why they allowed “foreclosures” to languish for 5-8 years — they are running the statute of limitations on TILA violations, rescission etc. But the common law right of rescission still exists as does a cause of action for nullification of the note and mortgage.

The essential truth in the bottom line is this: the paperwork generated at the loan closing is “faulty” and most often fabricated and the borrower is induced to execute documents that create a second liability to an entity who did nothing in exchange for the note and mortgage except get paid as a pretender lender — all in violation of disclosure requirements on Federal and state levels. This is and was a fraudulent scheme. Hence the “Clean hands” element of equitable relief in foreclosure as well as basic contract law prevent the right to enforce the mortgage, the note or the debt against the debtor/borrower by strangers to the transaction with the borrower.

No. Carolina Appeals Court Approves Dismissal of Foreclosure With Prejudice

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


see 13-450 N Carolina Appellate Decision on Holder, PETE, HDC and Owner of the Debt 2013 Decision

There are several interesting features to this appellate case, not the least of which is that it comes from North Carolina which has not been particularly friendly to borrowers. What is interesting is that the court was looking at the substance of the transaction and finding that the the bank was playing games and now wanted to play more. The trial court said no, and then the appellate court said no. The decision is one year old but was recently brought to my attention of a litigant who is confronting the “bank” that claims rights to collect, enforce and foreclose.

This was a case in which the foreclosing party never established any of the conditions under which it was (a) the owner of the debt, (b) the payee on the note or (c) the PETE — party entitled to enforce the note. The Court considered the situation and dismissed the foreclosure WITH PREJUDICE —a trial court decision that is highly unusual looking back 7 years but not so unusual looking back 12 months.

The appellate decision looks first where I said to look — the payee on the note. If the foreclosing party IS the payee on the note then it need not allege how it became the “holder” but it probably has some burden of proving the loan. We will see about that. SO if you are the Payee most of the case is presumed. The problem is that most courts having been applying that universally accepted presumption to cases in which the foreclosing party is NOT the payee on the note. And, as pointed out by this court, that is wrong.

The trial court correctly dismissed the case with prejudice because dismissal was mandatory and in the absence of any action by the bank, the dismissal must be with prejudice. The bank can’t come back later and assert a right to amend when they could have voluntarily dismissed, moved to amend, or taken some action that would put the issue of amendment before the court. As this court states, it is not up to the trial judge, sua sponte, to provide a path to amendment. Hence the same rules that have cooked borrowers for years because they admitted or waived defenses unintentionally now comes back and bite the bank.

And most importantly, when you look to the DEBT, it is the substance of the claim that counts not just the paperwork.

Neither the trial court nor the appellate court liked the fact that the affidavit submitted was so vague that it said nothing — particularly about the acquisition of the DEBT, and nothing about how it was a PETE. This simple statement in the body of the opinion, might represent a sea change in judicial attitude. After all, the point of commercial paper, negotiable instruments, foreclosures etc is that they are all about the same thing — MONEY. The laws (UCC etc) were never meant to facilitate theft from innocent parties (investors, borrowers etc.).

The bank argued that it should not have been dismissed with prejudice and that it should have been given an opportunity to amend, citing to laws, cases and rules that permit liberal amendment. But here the court turned the same indifference to consequences that has plagued borrowers and used it against the bank. You might call it blind justice in practice. The court found that the failure of the bank to do anything to protect its right to amend was sufficient to uphold the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice. The bank argued that this was an extreme remedy implying a windfall fro the borrower. But the appellate court said, quite correctly, how do we know that?

The court was clearly implying that a subsequent action by a real party in interest could theoretically be brought against the homeowner either on the debt, the note the mortgage or all of those. They clearly thought that the party who was bringing the action in this case was a sham party filing a sham action. And they obviously wanted to stop that practice.

It remains to be seen how many cases we will see that discuss the foreclosure the way this court did. I am hopeful and ever optimistic that the courts will follow the money trail and not allow shuffling of paper to replace actual transactions. Every time we enforce an APPARENT transaction we take the risk of ignoring the real transaction. Each time foreclosure judgments are entered raises the probability that a second debt is being created.

Banks Use Trial Modifications as a Pathway to Foreclosure — Neil Garfield Show 6 P.M. EDT Thursdays

Banks Use Modifications Against Homeowners

Click in or phone in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

It is bad enough that they outright lie to homeowners and tell them they MUST be 90 days behind in payments to get a modification. That isn’t true and it is a ruse to get the homeowner to stop paying and get into a default situation. But the reports from across the country show that the banks are using a variety of tricks and scams to dishonor modification agreements. First they say that just because they did the underwriting and approved the trial modification doesn’t mean that they are bound to make the modification permanent. Most courts disagree. If you make a deal with offer, acceptance and consideration, and one side performs (the homeowner made the trial payments) then the other side must perform (the Bank).

What is really happening is that the bank is converting the loan from a loan funded by investors to a loan NOT funded by the bank. They are steering people into “in house” loans. The hubris of these people is incredible. Why are the investors sitting on their hands? Do they STILL not get it?
Regardless of whether the modification is enforced or forced into foreclosure or converted to an in house loan, the investor loses with the stamp of approval from the court. And the borrower is now paying a party that already collected his loan principal several times over while the real lender is getting birdseed. The investors lose no matter how the case is decided. And the Courts are failing to realize that the fate of the money from a Pension Fund is being decided without any opportunity for the investors to have notice, much less be heard.
Why is this important? Because the banks converted one debt from the borrower into many debts — all secured by the same mortgage. It doesn’t work that way in real life — except now, when courts still refuse to educate themselves on the theory and reality of securitization of debt.
——————————-FROM RECENTSHOWHOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? — Introducing two upcomingCLE Seminars from the Garfield Continuum onVoir Dire of corporate representatives in foreclosure litigation. The first is atwo hour telephone conference devoted exclusively tovoir dire examination and the second is a full day on onlyvoir dire pluscross examination. The show is free. Topreregister for the mini seminar onvoir dire or the full seminar onvoir dire andcross examination (at a discount) call 954-495-9867.

  • Overview of Foreclosure Litigation in Florida and Other States
  • The need for copies of actual case law and even memoranda supporting your line of questioning
  • The Three Rules for Questioning
  • —– (1) Know why you want to inquire
  • —– (2) Listen to the Answer
  • —– (3) Follow up and comment
  • What to ask, and when to ask it
  • The difference between voir dire and cross examination
  • Getting traction with the presiding Judge
  • Developing your goals and strategies
  • Developing a narrative
  • Impeaching the witness before he or she gets started
  • Preparing your own witnesses for voir dire questions


IF YOU MISSED IT: Go to blog radio link and click on the Neil Garfield Show — past shows include—-

News abounds as we hear of purchases of loans and bonds. Some of these are repurchases. Some are in litigation, like $1.1 Billion worth in suit brought by Trustees against the broker dealer Merrill Lynch, which was purchased by Bank of America. What do these purchases mean for people in litigation. If the loan was repurchased or all the loan claims were settled, does the trust still exist? Did it ever exist? Was it ever funded? Did it ever own the loans? Why are lawyers unwilling to make representations that the Trust is a holder in due course? Wouldn’t that settle everything? And what is the significance of the $3 trillion in bonds purchased by the Federal Reserve, mostly mortgage backed bonds? This and more tonight with questions and answers:

Adding the list of questions I posted last week (see below), I put these questions ahead of all others:

  1. If the party on the note and mortgage is NOT REALLY the lender, why should they be allowed to have their name on the note or mortgage, why are those documents distributed instead of returned to the borrower because he signed in anticipation of receiving a loan from the party disclosed, as per Federal and state law. Hint: think of your loan as a used car. Where is the contract (offer, acceptance and consideration).
  2. If the party receiving an assignment from the false payee on the note does NOT pay for it, why are we treating the assignment as a cure for documents that were worthless in the first place. Hint: Paper Chase — the more paper you throw at a worthless transaction the more real it appears in the eyes of others.
  3. If the party receiving the assignment from the false payee has no relationship with the real lender, and neither does the false payee on the note, why are we allowing their successors to force people out of their homes on a debt the “bank” never owned? Hint: POLITICS: What is the position of the Federal reserve that has now purchased trillions of dollars of the “mortgage bonds” from banks who never owned the bonds that were issued by REMIC trusts that never received the proceeds of sale of the bonds.
  4. If the lenders (investors) are receiving payments from settlements with the institutions that created this mess, why is the balance owed by the borrower the same after the settlement, when the lender’s balance has been reduced? Hint: Arithmetic. John owes Sally 5 bananas. Hank gives Sally 3 bananas and says this is for John. How many bananas does John owe Sally now?
  5. And for extra credit: are the broker dealers who said they were brokering and underwriting the issuance of mortgage bonds from REMIC trusts guilty of anything when they don’t give the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to the Trusts that issued those bonds? What is the effect on the contractual relationship between the lenders and the borrowers? Hint: VANISHING MONEY replaced by volumes of paper — the same at both ends of the transaction, to wit: the borrower and the investor/lender.

1. What is a holder in due course? When can an HDC enforce a note even when there are problems with the original loan? What does it mean to be a purchaser for value, in good faith, without notice of borrower’s defenses?

2. What is a holder and how is that different from a holder with rights to enforce? What does it mean to be a holder subject to all the maker’s defenses including lack of consideration (i.e. no loan from the Payee).

3. What is a possessor of a note?

4. What is a bailee of a note?

5. If the note cannot be enforced, can the mortgage still be foreclosed? It seems that many people don’t know the answer to this question.

6. The question confronting us is FORECLOSURE (ENFORCEMENT) OF A MORTGAGE. If the status of a holder of a note is in Article III of the UCC, why are we even discussing “holder” when enforcement of mortgages is governed by Article IV of the UCC?

7. Does the question of “holder” or holder in due course or any of that even apply in the original loan transaction? Hint: NO.

8. Homework assignment: Google “Infinite rehypothecation”

For more information call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.


Loan Without Money

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.


If you went to the loan closing, signed the papers and then gave them to the closing agent and then the “lender” didn’t fund the loan, what would you do? If you ask an attorney he or she would probably demand the return of the closing papers. If the mortgage got recorded the attorney would threaten a variety of consequences unless the filing with the county recorder was nullified (because it can never be physically removed).

If you were then contacted by a mysterious stranger who said forget the loan papers, I’ll loan you the money, you might have accepted. This mysterious person sends the money to the closing agent who disperses it to the Seller of the property or pay off the prior mortgage etc.

Now imagine that the first “lender” ( the one who DIDN’T make the loan) has “assigned” the documents you executed to another party who also didn’t loan any money to you and who didn’t pay for the assignment because they knew full well that the loan papers were worthless. And the “lender” designated on the note and mortgage doesn’t ask for money because they know they didn’t loan a dime to you. But they gladly accept fees for “acting” as though they were the lender and renting their name out to be used as “lender.”

And finally imagine that the assignee of the worthless documentation you executed again assigns and endorses the note and mortgage to still another party, like a REMIC Trust. What did the REMIC Trust get? Nothing, right? Not so fast.

If this last transfer of the “loan” PAPERS (described as “documents” to make them sound more important) was purchased for value in good faith without knowledge of your defense that you never received the loan, you might still be liable on that note you executed even though you never received the loan. Yes you owe the holder in due course in addition to owing the money to the mystery stranger who wired the money to the closing agent. The Trust COULD enforce the loan or at least try to do so and it would be legal because they would be a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (HDC). An HDC can enforce free from borrower’s defenses. That is the risk of signing documents and letting them get out of your hands before you receive what you expected as part of the deal.

Why then is there no evidence or allegation by any forecloser in the securitization schemes that they have HDC status? I represented hundreds of banks, lenders, and associations in foreclosures. If anyone was holding the paper as an HDC that is what I would have said in the pleading and then I would have proven it. end of story. The borrower might have a lawsuit against the third parties who tricked him but the HDC still has a good chance of prevailing despite grievous violations of lending laws and procedures at closing — including lack of consideration (they didn’t fund the loan for which you executed the closing documents).

The ILLUSION of a loan closing has been created because both “loan” scenarios in fact occurred AT THE SAME TIME at most “loan” closings. Two different deals — one where you didn’t get the money and the other where you did. One where you signed the closing documents but didn’t get the loan and the other where you signed nothing and got the money from the loan.  In other words, you signed documents, you delivered them to the closing agent and they were delivered and recorded. But the “lender” didn’t give you any money. Ground zero for the confusion and illusion is the receipt of money by the closing agent fro the mysterious stranger instead of the party in whose favor you executed the note and mortgage.

And here is the good news. The banks know full well they can’t win if they allege they have HDC status or even that the Trust has HDC status. So they allege that they are “holders” or they allege they are “holders with rights to enforce.” More often than not they simply allege either that they are simply a “holder” or that they have the “rights to enforce.” They let the court make the rest of the assumptions and essentially treated as though the party foreclosing on you had HDC status. That is ground zero for judicial error.

The Trust never issued payment to the assignor of the loan because the assignor didn’t ask for any money except for fees in “acting” its part in the scheme. The assignments and endorsements, the more powers of attorney, the higher the stack of paper. And the higher the stack of paper the more it looks like the the loan MUST be valid and enforceable, that you did stop paying on it, and that therefore you MUST be in default.

Meanwhile the mysterious stranger is getting paid by the people who entered into an agreement — a pooling and servicing agreement — under which the investors get paid from the Trust, Trustee or Master Servicer that issued bonds to the mysterious stranger. The terms of payment are very different than the terms of your note but that doesn’t matter because they never loaned you money anyway. The real basis of the ability of the servicer and trustee to see to it that you receive your expected payment is the ability of these brokers, conduits and sham corporate entities and trusts to get their hands on your money, and the money of investors in the Trust.

Why did the mysterious stranger send money for you? Was it a gift? Of course not. But without documentation the mysterious has exactly one legal right — to demand payment at any time for the entire balance of the loan plus reasonable interest. No foreclosure, because there is no mortgage. No acceleration necessary because you already owe the entire amount. Your homestead property is NOT at risk in Florida and many other states, because the mysterious stranger has no mortgage recorded. And the full balance of the loan to the mysterious stranger is completely dischargeable in a chapter 7 bankruptcy or can be reduced substantially in a Chapter 13 or chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

Why did the mysterious stranger make the loan? Because the stranger was tricked by the same people who tricked you — under several layers of complicated relationships such that it is difficult to pin the blame on anyone. But this isn’t about blame. It is about money. Either they made a loan or they didn’t. And the answer is that nobody in their chain of “title” to the loan PAPERS ever paid one dime to loan you money or buy your loan. They are hiding that from both investors and you.

The mysterious stranger gave a broker money because he thought the broker was the intermediary between the mysterious stranger and a REMIC Trust that was issuing a semi-public offering of Mortgage Banked Securities (MBS). The stranger thinks he is an investor buying securities when in fact he has just opened the door for the broker to use his money in anyway the broker wanted, including lining the broker’s own pocket with the principal that should have loaned on good solid viable loans. The illusion is enhanced by the broker when the broker makes certain that the mysterious stranger is addressed as an “investor” or “trust beneficiary” of the REMIC trust.

The mysterious stranger who made the actual lender is tricked into believing that he has purchased a fractional ownership of thousands of mortgages including yours. That what the Prospectus and PSA seem to be saying. In reality the money that the mysterious stranger gave to the broker, stayed with the broker and that satisfied the feeding frenzy of sharks circulating around each dump of money from mysterious strangers.

“Bonuses” that were incomprehensible to the rest of the world were lavished upon the people who actually made this trick work. The  bonuses came from “profits” that were declared by the brokers from some incredibly lucky “trades” that never existed in which the Trust “bought” the loans at a price far higher than the principal balance of the loans, including yours.

AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE LOST, DESTROYED, FABRICATED LOAN AND TRANSFER DOCUMENTS. THE BANKS ARE CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF NEGLIGENCE THAT OVERRIDES THE TRUTH — IT WAS FRAUD. The only reason you would destroy a cash equivalent document is because you told someone it promised payment of $100, when in fact it promised only $60. The Banks can’t reveal the real money trail without revealing their vulnerability to criminal prosecution.

Of course the problem was that the broker didn’t loan you any money and either did the trust, the trustee, the servicer or any of the conduits or other intermediaries. And so none of them were entitled to have or do anything with the PAPER that had your signature on them — which contained one key term that they didn’t want anyone to see — the principal balance stated on the note.

If the mysterious stranger found out that for every dollar he paid the broker for a mortgage bond, only 60% was being used for loans, then the mysterious stranger would stop giving the broker money and would have demanded the return of all funds. But the mysterious strangers who in reality had given naked undocumented demand loans to homeowners had no idea that anything was wrong because the payments they were receiving were exactly what they expected.

So when the “borrower” is asked “did you get the loan.” His answer is “which one are you asking about?” Because no loan was ever made, directly or indirectly by the “lender” on the note and mortgage. Did you stop paying? Of course, why should I pay someone who I thought was my lender but isn’t.

All of that is the exact reason why the investor “mysterious stranger” lawsuits have all been settled for hundreds of billions of dollars. But in the end this is about the mysterious stranger and the lender designated on the note and mortgage. The fact that either way the mysterious stranger’s money was to be used for loans is not the point under our system of law. If anyone wants to enforce commercial paper based upon a loan that was never made, they lose if they are merely a “holder,” and “holder” status is all that the foreclosers have ever alleged. Their “right to enforce”comes from cyberspace rather than the owner of the loan. The owner of the loan, is in the final analysis a mysterious stranger to any of their PAPER.

The solution to our economic crisis that simply won;t end until this wrong is addressed is to stop rewarding bad behavior and let the mysterious strangers and the borrowers meet each other in the market place. Under threat of a demand loan due in full right now, nearly all homeowners would execute enforceable, clean notes and mortgages in favor of the mysterious strangers and then they could BOTH sue the intermediaries that corrupted the title and investments of the “mysterious strangers.”

Presented correctly by counsel for the homeowner, the men and women sitting on the bench will accept the truth as long as you exercise your rights to object to the use of presumptions instead of facts and demand your right to receive discovery that would disprove all the presumptions upon which the brokers and their nominees rely. Stop admitting things you know nothing about. Presume that there is a shady reason why the foreclosing party never asserts itself as an HDC. That is your clue to the truth.


Why Are Trusts Alleging Holder Status and Not Holder in Due Course?




In situations where the alleged REMIC Trust is the party initiating foreclosure, you will find in most instances that they are alleging that they are the holder. The fact that they are not alleging that they are the holder in due course raises some interesting questions. First, it is an admission that they did not pay for the loan for value in good faith and without notice of borrower’s defenses.

This in turn leads us to the PSA where you can see for yourself that only good loans properly underwritten can be included in the trust based upon the procedures for transfer and payment that are set forth or implied in the trust instrument (the PSA). Remember that the ONLY reason the party is appearing in court as the foreclosing entity is by virtue of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). Their ONLY authority, as a “holder with rights to enforce” derives from the trust instrument (PSA). So any argument that the PSA is irrelevant is nonsense — it should be an exhibit in court or else the foreclosure should be dismissed. If they want to argue to the contrary, they must reveal the creditor and reveal the alternative authority to enforce apart from the trust instrument. If it has anything to do with the trust or trust beneficiaries however, the document (Power of Attorney) derives its power from the trust instrument as well (PSA).

The way the Banks tell it, an assignment dated not only after the cutoff date, but after the alleged declared default of the loan forces investors to accept that which they specifically excluded in the  trust instrument (PSA) — a bad loan that violates the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code subject them to adverse tax consequences and economic losses that were NOT built into the deal. How can a state judge in Florida or any other state order or enter judgment that forces a bad loan on investors who specifically called fro a cutoff of any new loans in the pool years before the foreclosure? If the loan was already declared in default. how can the trust beneficiaries be forced to accept a bad loan?

At the very least these John Does must be given notice and since the servicer knows who they are (because they have been paying them) they should give notice to the investors that their rights may be significantly impacted by a court decision in which the servicer or trustee of the REMIC trust is taking a position adverse to the interests of the trust beneficiaries and in violation of the trust indenture.

Since the requirements of the PSA always provide for circumstances that are identical to the definition of a holder in due course, why is the allegation that they are just a holder? The answer is plain: in order to establish that they are a holder in due course their proof would be limited to the fact that they paid for the loan, in good faith and without knowledge of borrower’s defenses. That proof would insulate the trust and trust beneficiaries from borrower’s defenses by definition (see Article 3, UCC). The allegation of only being a holder, exposes the trust and trust beneficiaries to defenses that were intended to be barred by virtue of being holders in due course of each and every loan. Thus this too is an allegation contrary or adverse to the interests of the trust and the trust beneficiaries. Again without notice to the trust beneficiaries that the trustee or at least lawyers for the trustee are taking positions adverse to the interests of the investors and the trust.

What difference does it make? It makes a difference because of money which is after all what this case is supposed to be about. The investors’ money either went into the REMIC trust or it didn’t. If it did, then the trust is the right vehicle for the transaction although most PSA’s say the trust cannot bring the foreclosure action. But if it didn’t go into the REMIC trust account, and the trust was ignored in the origination and/or acquisition of the, loan then the borrower is even more entitled to know what payments the investors (f/k/a/ trust beneficiaries) have received. If there have been settlements, then how much of the original debt is left? If there were servicer payments, was there ever a default and how much of the original debt is left? If there were third party payments to the creditors then how much of the original debt is left?

What seems to be an elusive concept for judges, lawyers and even borrowers is that their debt was paid by someone else. That is what happens when you have fraudulent transactions and the perpetrators get caught. In this case, there was plenty of money available to private settle more than $1 Trillion in claims of fraud from investors and fines that are steadily increasing into the tens of billions of dollars. Because the intermediary banks had essentially stolen the identity of the lenders and the borrowers, they made claims and got paid as though they were the lenders. Now they are using the proceeds of what were disguised sales of the same loan multiple times to settle with investors and settle only with those borrowers who present a credible threat. In the end the banks are wiling to pay trillions because they got illegally trillions more.

The big question is when it will occur to enough enough judges, lawyers and borrowers that they are entitled to offset for those payments that were actually received or on behalf of the actual creditors. It isn’t a difficult computation. Thus the notice of default, the notice of the right to reinstatement, the end of month statements, and the acceleration letter all state the wrong amounts and are fatally defective. They are misrepresentations that are part of a string of misrepresentations starting with the lies told to the managers of stable managed funds who purchased, and kept on purchasing mortgage bonds issued by an apparent REMIC trust whose terms were being routinely ignored.

Thus it is not RELIEF that the borrower is asking, it is JUSTICE. The creditor is only entitled to get paid once on each debt. The creditors are the investors or trust beneficiaries. The demands made on borrowers for the last 7 years have actually been demands from the intermediaries for payment of fees, commissions and advances made or earned by them, according to their story. They are not claims on the mortgage loan, which was either paid down or paid off without disclosure to the borrower. Had the pay down or payoff been recorded and applied, virtually all of the loans that were improperly foreclosed by strangers to the original transaction (no privity) would have been avoided because the amount of the payment could have been dropped easily under HAMP. As stated repeatedly on these pages, this is not a gift of principal REDUCTION. It is justice applying a principal CORRECTION due to payment received — the ultimate defense under any lawsuit for financial damages.

For more information please call 954-495-9867.

%d bloggers like this: