GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS NEGOTIATING (SELL-OUT!) WITH BANKS AND TAKING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SELL-OUT!

EDITOR’S COMMENT: WHAT ARE THEY NEGOTIATING ABOUT AND WITH WHOM ARE THEY NEGOTIATING? This is theater in the most absurd. Our government is negotiating with the very people who have demonstrated that they must fabricate and forge documents in order to establish their authority to do anything. Even in hostage negotiations we don’t give as much as we are giving to the servicers. They have no authority.

By definition they don’t own the obligation which means the obligation of the borrower is not owed to them. They are not the authorized agent of the real owner of the obligation until the real owner is identified and says they give authority to the agent to negotiate on their behalf.

Those documents don’t exist because those facts don’t exist. The investors are not going to give the servicers anything. If they were going to do that it would have happened en masse and avoided lots of paperwork problems for the banks. If it were not for political contributions, thousands of people would be headed for jail cells.

Instead we are negotiating away the future of America — for what? All homeowners are affected by these negotiations because when the so called honest Joe Homeowner goes to sell his home he is going to be hopping mad that not only can’t he deliver marketable title, he now has nobody to sue because the government sold him out. AND he still can’t sell his house because there is no way to clear up title.

These negotiations are a farce because down the road, they will be meaningless except that they will have added time to the already corrupted title registries across the country.

Mortgage servicers spend millions on political contributions

Banks under scrutiny as housing crisis festers

Posted Aug 8, 2011, 2:55 pm

Michael Hudson & Aaron Mehta Center for Public Integrity

As the financial markets roil, one of the critical factors weighing down the U.S. economy is the flood of home foreclosures. Thursday’s crash underscores how difficult it will be for the economy to make significant strides while the housing market is still in tatters.

The pace of the housing market recovery may depend in part on the outcome of intense negotiations underway among state and federal authorities and the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers.

Government officials are negotiating with the firms — Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. — over allegations of widespread abuses in the foreclosure process. State attorneys general around the country have been investigating evidence that the big banks used falsified documentation to process foreclosures.

Four of the five companies under scrutiny—Bank of America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo and Citigroup — are major donors for state and federal political campaigns. Between them, they have donated at least $8 million since the start of 2009 to candidates, party committees and other political action committees, according to an iWatch News analysis of campaign finance data.

(Ally Financial hasn’t given money during that period to campaigns under its current name or is previous name, General Motors Acceptance Corp., or GMAC).

The fate of foreclosure negotiations could go a long way toward determining where the housing market will go in the next few years.

Normally, the housing market plays a leading role in any economic recovery. But that hasn’t been the case in the aftermath of the U.S. financial crisis of 2008.

“It’s has been a negative factor in this recovery — or lack of recovery,” housing economist and consultant Michael Carliner said.

Generally, when interest rates go down, that spurs the mortgage and housing markets and helps move the economy in the right direction. But that hasn’t happened this time around, said Carliner, a former economist for the National Association of Home Builders. “We have lowest mortgage rates since the early 1950s and it’s not doing anything,” he said.

Interest rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgages averaged 4.39 percent for the week ending Aug. 4, according to a survey by mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

What’s holding back the housing market, Carliner said, is a glut of available homes for sale, due in part to overbuilding during the housing boom and to continuing foreclosure woes. An “excess inventory” of perhaps 2 million homes is making it hard for the housing market to get going again, he said.

The inventory of foreclosures continues to grow. In June, one out of every 583 housing units in the United States received a foreclosure notice, according to data provider Realty Trac. The numbers are even worse in the hardest hit markets, where housing prices climbed the fastest during the housing boom and fell the most when the housing crash came. In Nevada, one out of every 114 housing units was the subject of a foreclosure filing in June.

Investigations and negotiations over allegations of fraudulent foreclosure practices by big banks have helped slow down the foreclosure process, making it harder for the market to work through defaults and readjust, Carliner said.

He would like to see a deal between government officials and mortgage servicers that would pave the way to swifter foreclosures that would help put the foreclosure problem in the past. “If people haven’t paid their mortgages in two years, they shouldn’t be able to keep their house,” Carliner said.

Not everyone agrees.

Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, a consumer attorneys group, argues that any national settlement should be about keeping people in their homes. He wants a settlement that would require banks to reduce the amount of mortgage debt held by distressed homeowners.

Reducing their payments and overall debts would help keep them in their homes and reduce the number of foreclosures, he said. It would also provide a measure of justice, he said, for homeowners who were defrauded via bait-and-switch salesmanship, falsified documentation and other predatory tactics that were common during the mortgage frenzy of the past decade.

Rheingold acknowledges, though, that extracting large concessions from big banks will be a “tough slog.”

Concerned about keeping quality reporting alive in Tucson?
A metro area of nearly 1 million deserves a vital & sustainable source of news that’s independent and locally run.
The banks have high-powered legal talent and lobbyists on their side, and four of the top five mortgage services have given generously to state and federal political campaigns, according to an iWatch News analysis of election data provided by the subscription-only CQMoneyLine. 

  • Since the start of 2009, Bank of America has donated at least $3.2 million to candidates, party committees and other PACs. Among the top recipients was Rep. Jeb Hensarling (at least $17,500), a Texas Republican who is vice chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Another Texan Republican, Randy Neugebauer , received at least $16,000 from the financial giant. Neugebauer also serves on the Financial Services Committee, and chairs the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  • JPMorgan Chase has donated over $ 2.8 million to candidates, party committees and other PACs since the start of 2009. The firm has made donations to the Republican Governors Association (at least $50,000), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (at least $45,000) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (at least $45,000), the Democratic Governors Association (at least $25,000) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (at least $15,000). The firm also donated at least $15,000 to the Blue Dog PAC, the fundraising arm of the Blue Dog Democrats who were vital to financial corporations when the Democrats controlled the House.
  • and ranking member on the financial services committee’s Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  • Wells Fargo gave over $1 million to candidates, party committees and other PACs since the start of 2009. Wells Fargo has given at least $45,000 each to the NRCC and NRSC and at least $30,000 each to the DSCC and DCCC. It also donated at least $17,000 to Rep. Ed Royce , a California Republican who serves on the Financial Services committee. Another top recipient was Democrat Carolyn Maloney of New York, the vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee
  • Citigroup has given $850,000 to candidates, party committees and other PACs since the start of 2009. Among its top individual recipients is Democrat Gregory Meeks of New York. Meeks, who sits on the House Committee on Financial Services, has received at least $10,000 from Citi. Another is Ohio Republican Rep. Pat Tiberi (at least $15,000), a member of the powerful Ways and Means committee. Tiberi is currently the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue, which has jurisdiction over federal tax policy.

Related stories

More by Michael Hudson

MERS, POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, ACCOUNTING….GREAT , NOW WHAT?

SUBMITTED BY M SOLIMAN

EDITOR’S NOTE: Soliman brings out some interesting and important issues in his dialogue with Raja.

  • The gist of what he is saying about sales accounting runs to the core of how you disprove the allegations of your opposition. In a nutshell and somewhat oversimplified: If they were the lender then their balance sheet should show it. If they are not the lender then it shows up on their income statement. Now of course companies don’t report individual loans on their financial statements, so you need to force discovery and ask for the ledger entries that were made at the time of the origination of the loan.
  • If you put it another way the accounting and bookkeeping amounts to an admission of the real facts of the case. If they refuse to give you the ledger entries, then you are entitled to a presumption that they would have shown that they were not acting as a lender, holder, or holder in due course. If they show it to you, then it will either show the admission or you should inquire about who prepared the response to your discovery request and go after them on examination at deposition.
  • Once you show that they were not a lender, holder or holder in due course because their own accounting shows they simply booked the transaction as a fee for acting as a conduit, broker or finder, you have accomplished several things: one is that they have no standing, two is that they are not a real party in interest, three is that they lied at closing and all the way up the securitization chain, and four is that you focus the court’s attention on who actually advanced the money for the loan and who stands to suffer a loss, if there is one.
  • But it doesn’t end there. Your discovery net should be thrown out over the investment banking firm that underwrote the mortgage backed security, and anyone else who might have received third party insurance payments or any other payments (credit default swaps, bailout etc.) on account of the failure of the pool in which your loan is claimed to be an “asset.”
  • Remember that it is my opinion that many of these pools don’t actually have the loans that are advertised to be in there. They never completed or perfected the transfer of the obligation and the reason they didn’t was precisely because they wanted to snatch the third party payments away from the investors.
  • But those people were agents of the investors and any payment they received on account of loss through default or write-down should be credited and paid to the investor.
  • Why should you care what the investor received? Because those are payments that should have been booked by the investors as repayment of their investment. In turn, the percentage part of the pool that your loan represents should be credited proportionately by the credit and payment to the investor.
  • Those payments, according to your note should be allocated first to payments due and outstanding (which probably eliminates any default), second to fees outstanding attributable to the borrower (not the investor) and third to the borrower which normally would be done as a credit against principal, which would reduce the amount of principal outstanding and thus reduce the number of people who think they are under water and are not.

———————————————————————–

MERS, POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, ACCOUNTING….GREAT , NOW WHAT?

I am really loving this upon closer inspection Raja! The issues of simple accounting rules violations appear narrow, yet the example you cite here could mean A DIFFERENCE AND SWAY IN ADVANTAGE.

Many more cases can potentially address broader issues of pleading sufficiency with repsect to securities and accounting rules violations prohibiting foreclosures.

Sale accounting is the alternative to debt or financing arrangements which is what the lender seeks to avoid in this economic downturn. Both approaches to accounting are clearly described and determinable by GAAP. In sales accounting there is no foreclsure. In debt for GAAP accounting your entitled to foreclose.

Its when you mix the two you r going to have problems. Big problems.

Pleading sufficiency is (by this layperson) the need for addressing a subject matter in light of the incurable defects in proper jurisdiction. The subject can be convoluted and difficult, I realize that.

Where the matter is heard should allow ample time to amend as a plaintiff. This is given to the fact the lender can move quicklly and seek dismissal.

The question is how far must a consumer plaintiff reach to allege that serverity of the claims, based on adverse event information, as in foreclosure.

This is significant in order to establish that the lender or a lender defendants’ alleged failure to disclose information. Therein will the court find the claim to be sufficently material.

In possession hearings the civil courts have granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and in actions brought against the consumer. The courts are often times granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that these complaints fail to adequately suffice or address the judicial fundamental element of materiality.

I can tell you the accounting rules omissions from the commencement of the loan origination through a foreclosure is one continual material breach. Counsel is lost to go to court without pleading this fact.

The next question is will the pleading adequately allege the significance of the vast number of consumer homeowner complaints. One would think yes considering the lower court level is so backlogged and a t a time when budget cuts require one less day of operations.

These lower courts however are hearing post foreclosure matters of possession. there is the further possibility that the higher Court in deciding matters while failing to see any scienter. Its what my law cohorts often refer to as accountability for their actions. That is what the “Fill in the Dots” letter tells me at first glance.

I believe it’s only in a rare case or two that a securities matter is heard in the Ninth Circuit. Recently however, there the conclusion was in fact that scienter allegations raised by the opposition were sufficient based on plaintiff’s allegations that the “high level executives …would know the company was being sued in a product liability action,” and in line with the many, customer complaints (I assume that were communicated to the company’s directors…)

The FASB is where the counterproductive rule changes always seem to take place and where lobbyist and other pro life and pro bank enthusiasts seem to spend their days. No need to fret however as gain on sale accounting is specific and requires the lender to have SOLD your loan in order to securitize it as part of a larger bulk pool.

The document I am reading, submitted by Raja tells me something is very concerning to the “lender parties” that they believe is downstream and headed their way. I’ll try and analyze each line item for you as to what it says and what they really are trying to do. I think for now though its value is for determining the letter as an admission of “we screwed up!”

M.Soliman

How to Negotiate a Modification

See how-to-negotiate-a-short-sale

See Michael Moore — Modifications

See Template-Lawsuit-STOP-foreclosure-TILA-Mortgage-Fraud-predatory-lending-Set-Aside-Illegal-Trustee-Sale-Civil-Rico-Etc Includes QUIET TITLE and MOST FEDERAL STATUTES — CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT

See how-to-buy-a-foreclosed-house-its-a-business-its-an-opportunity-its-a-risk

My statements here relate to general information and not legal advice. Generally we are of the opinion that the loan modification programs are a farce. First they end up in foreclosure in 6-7 months — more than 50-60% of the time. Then you have the problem that you signed new papers that will at least attempt to waive the rights and defenses you have now. A trial program is a trial program — it is not permanent. It is usually a smokescreen for the “lenders” (actually pretender lenders) to appear to comply with the federal mandate and thus collect the bonus from the Federal government for entering into a modification agreement. And let’s not forget that the entities with whom you would enter into this “new” agreement probably have no rights, ownership or authority over your mortgage — they are only pretending. Their game plan is that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain because they never advanced any money on the funding of your mortgage.

So the very first thing you want to do is ask for proof of real documents that can be reviewed by a forensic analyst which will demonstrate they have the power to change the terms, and assuming they can’t produce that, their agreement that any deal you enter into with them will be taken to court in a Quiet Title Action in which they will allow you to get a judgment that says you own the house free and clear except for whatever the new deal is with the new lender. The New Lender is necessary because the REAL Lender is quite gone and possibly unidentifiable.

Any failure to agree to such terms is a clear signal you are wasting your time and they are jockeying you into default, which is the only way they collect insurance on your mortgage through the credit default swaps purchased on the pool containing your mortgage. They actually make money if you default because they were allowed to buy insurance many times over on the same debt. So on your $300,000 mortgage they might actually receive (no joke) $9 million if you default. That means they have far more incentive to trick you into default than to REALLY modify your mortgage terms. and THAT means you need to be careful about what they are REALLY doing — a modification or deception. If it’s deception don’t fall into self deception and wish it weren’t so. Go after them with whatever you can. The law is on your side as to title, terms and predatory and fraudulent loan practices.

Your strategy is simple: (1) present a credible threat and (2) demonstrate that you have knowledgeable people (forensic analyst, expert witness, lawyer).

Your tactics are equally simple: (1) Present an expert declaration or affidavit that raises issues of fact regarding the representations of counsel or the pleadings of your opposition, (2) Pursue expedited discovery (ask for things that they should have had before they started the foreclosure process — a full accounting from the real creditor/lender, documentation showing chain of title/possession, documentation regarding the money that exchanged hands from the bond investor all the way down the securitization chain to the homeowner) and (3) ask for an evidentiary hearing on the factual issues.

It would probably be a good idea if you went through a local licensed attorney who really knows this stuff — like a graduate of Max Gardner’s seminars or a graduate of the Garfield Continuum. This attorney can create some credible threats like the fact that youa re claiming, under TILA, your right to undisclosed fees on your mortgage, including the SECOND yield spread premium paid in the securitization chain when the pool aggregator sold the “assets” to the SPV pool that sold bonds to investors — investors who were the the sole source of cash advanced to make this nightmare come true. Picking the right lawyer is critical. Anyone who has not studied securitization, anyone who has not been working hard in the area of foreclosure defense AND offense, should not be used because they simply don’t know enough to achieve a satisfactory result.

My rule of thumb is that I don’t like any modification unless it has the following attributes:

1. Forgiveness of all late fees, late payments etc. No tacking on fees, payments, interest or anything else to the end of the loan.
2. Removal of all negative comments from your credit rating.
3. Reduction of the principal due on your obligation in the form of a new note or an amendment executed by all relevant parties. The amount of the reduction should be no less than 30%, probably no more than 75% and should average across the board something like 40%-60%. So if your mortgage was $300,000 your reduction should be between $90,000 (leaving you with a $210,000 obligation) and $225,000 (leaving you with a $75,000 obligation).
a. How do you know what to ask for? First step is on the appraisal. Had you known that the appraisal used in your deal was unsustainable, you probably would have taken a different attitude toward the deal and would have insisted on other terms. Assuming you had a zero-down mortgage loan(s) [i.e., including 1st and 2nd mortgage] then you probably, on average have spent some $15,000-$20,000 in household improvements that cannot be recouped, but which were also spent based upon the apparent value of the house.
b. So you look at the current appraisal and let’s say in your community the actual sales prices of homes closest to you are down by 50% from what they were in 2007 or when you went to the “closing” on your loan.
(1) Write down the purchase price of your home or the original appraisal when you closed the “loan.”
(2) Deduct the Decline in Appraised Value, which in our example is a decline of 50%. If you had a zero down payment loan, this would translate as the original amount of the note minus the 50% $150,000-$160,000) reduction in value. This leaves $140,000-$150,000.
(3) Deduct the $15,000-$20,000 you spent on household improvements. This leaves $120,000 to $135,000.
(4) Deduct your attorney’s fees which will probably be around $15,000, hopefully on contingency at least in part. This leaves $105,000 to $120,000.
(5) Deduct any other related expenses such as the cost of a forensic audit (which INCLUDES TILA, RESPA, Securities, Title, Appraisal, Chain of Possession, and other factors like fabrication and forgery) that should cost around $2500, and any expense incurred retaining an expert to prepare and execute an expert declaration or expert affidavit that should cost around $1000-$1500. [Caution a declaration from someone who has no idea what is in the document, or who has very little exposure to discovery, depositions, court testimony etc. could be less than worthless. Your credibility will be diminished unless you pick the right forensic analyst and the right expert]. This leaves a balance of $101,000 to $116,000.
(6) If you did make a down payment or cash payments for “non-standard” options then you should deduct that too. So if you made a 20% down payment ($60,000, in our example) that would be a deduction too so you can recover that loss which resulted from the false appraisal and false presentation of the appraisal by the “lender” who was paid undisclosed fees to lie to you. In our example here I am going to assume you have a zero down payment. But if we used the example in this paragraph there would be an additional $60,000 deduction that could reduce your initial demand for modification to a principal reduction of $40,000.
(7) So your opening demand should be a note with a principal balance of $101,000 with a settlement probably no higher than $150,000. I would recommend a 15 year fixed rate mortgage because you will be done with it a lot sooner and convert you from debt to wealth. But a mortgage of up to 40 years is acceptable in order to keep your payments to a minimum if that is a critical issue.
4. Interest rate of 3%-4% FIXED.
5. Judge’s execution of final judgment ratifying the deal and quieting title against he world except for you as the owner of the property and the new lender who might have a new note and a new mortgage or who might just walk away completely when you present these terms. There are tens of thousands of homes in a grey area where they have not made a payment in years, the “lender” has not foreclosed, or the “lender” initiated foreclosure and then abandoned it. These people should be filing quiet title actions of their own and finish the job of getting the home free and clear from an encumbrance procured by fraud.

If you want to “up the stakes” then add the damages and rebates recoverable for TILA violations for predatory lending, undisclosed fees etc. That will ordinarily take you into negative territory where the “lender” owes you money and not vica versa. In that case your lawyer woudl write a demand letter for damages instead of an offer of modification. The other thing here is the typical demand for your current financial information. My position would be that this modification or settlement is not based upon NEED but rather, it is based upon LENDER LIABILITY. And if they are asking for proof of your financial condition on a SISA (stated income, stated asset) or NINJA (No Income, No Job, NO Assets) loan then the mere request for financial information is a request for modification. That triggers your unconditional right to ask “who are you and why are you the entity that is attempting to modify or settle this claim?”

By the way the “rule of thumb” came from the old common law doctrine that one could beat his wife and children with a stick no greater in diameter than the size of your thumb. In this case don’t let my use of the “rule of thumb” restrain you from using a bigger stick.

Neil F. Garfield, Esq.
ngarfield@msn.com

Foreclosure Strategy: Beware those Short Sales — they might be the beginning rather than the end of legal problems.

The government’s role in this mess has been abdicated to people running agendas that are based on narrow self-interest. One could argue that if the Federal Reserve window was swung open for investment banks to borrow at Fed Funds rates using worthless securities based upon assets (residential real estate), that the same window should be open to the homeowners. But that is not necessary either.

Other than private loan situations and a few other rare exceptions, nearly 100% of all loans “secured” by residential real property were securitized, which means that these loans, false from in their inception, went on a journey to never never land where securities, also false from inception, were sold to investors to fund the transaction. Both sides were based upon fraud involving intentional representations of facts known to be false and upon which the victims at both ends relied most notably the false appraisal of the real estate value and the false appraisal of the ABS or CMO sold to an investor.

If authority is claimed but not real, then the nominal “lender” can execute a satisfaction of mortgage, an agreement to forgo deficiency, and allow the short payment — all to zero effect because the nominal “lender” lacked any right to execute any of those documents. Thus the lender, the “borrower” etc. could have their legal position virtually unchanged by the transaction, but the new buyer has a very substantial change of position, as does the new buyer’s lender both of whom might be taking title or recording a mortgage(s) subject to a mortgage that has not actually been been satisfied. This will produce trouble for title companies and closings.It might also produce claims of fraud against the nominal “lender” by new plaintiffs— the new buyer of the property and the new mortgage lender.

The same logic would also require the conclusion that a “lender” or other buyer who takes title to a residence at a foreclosure sale has received nothing in the way of marketable title and even if the argument is made that the mortgage and note were not extinguished, the “lender” takes title subject to claims of multiple third parties

Either the title company will state an exception in the title policy which basically will mean that the buyer is not insured if a third party enters the picture later, or that the new lender for the new buyer, doesn’t have a mortgage at all because the new mortgage lender did not get the signature of the new buyer.

IN THE BEGINNING (when the first buyer/”borrower” bought the property): We have a buyer, a seller (or developer), and a nominal mortgage lender. The “selling forward” (presale of the loan to a third party before closing) by the nominal “lender” negated the validity of the loan closing but not the real estate closing. So the buyer received good title to the property (all other things being equal) and the seller got paid. Since there was no valid mortgage transaction, rescission becomes unnecessary. However fact patterns may vary, as do state laws, so that rescission is probably a good idea as an alternative position to take.

The funding by an undisclosed third party means that the party posing as the lender at the loan closing was by definition part of a deceptive scheme. The statutes help us with that because of the disclosure requirements coming from Federal and state laws. Failure to disclose the real lender is in itself a fatal defect in teh transaction. Hence the New York Judge who ordered that the mortgage be removed from the county records, leaving the homeowner with title, free and clear of the mortgage encumbrance. Going further, he also invalidated all transfers of any interest in the mortgage because the mortgage and note had never really existed.

But even if the mortgage had come into existence, and even if the theory that this was in reality part of an elaborate scheme to trick people into creating negotiable instruments and to trick other people into buying them as “asset backed securities” the loan was paid in full and the mortgage satisfied or extinguished contemporaneously with the original loan transaction. Whether the third party paid the nominal “lender” before or after closing, the note had been paid in full. In order to “purchase” a negotiable instrument and security instrument (mortgage) involving real estate, the transaction would need to be recorded. This is arguably true even in the “notice” states (what’s left of them).

Thus the payment of money by the third party to the nominal lender can only be interpreted as payment (satisfaction) of the note. This is why the allegation that the payments are in default from the “borrower” should be denied. No payments are required, under the terms of the note itself, if the note has been prepaid — whether the prepayment was from the borrower, his mother, or a mortgage aggregator. The affirmative defense of payment obviously is supported by the same logic.

And the filing of a claim to quiet title by the homeowners serving the nominal lander as a defendant/respondent, and John Does 1-100 as people or entities who might claim an interest in the note, will most likely be successful. The “lender” must disclaim any interest in the note. The servicer of the mortgage must admit (and it should be alleged) that they have been receiving payments from the “borrower”, instructions from “lender” and making payments to some third party, none of which should have been demanded, accepted or processed.

The failure to deliver the note or the failure to be able to account for the note in a situation where the intention of a series of parties in a chain of transactions was to transfer the rights or interests in the original “loan” transaction ALWAYS indicates the potential for a third party claim against any one of the parties in the chain at a later time despite adjudication of rights between any two or three of them.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here is an article from one of our contributors

Welcome to Wall Street’s Masquerade Ball (every American was invited)

Securities Disguised as Residential Mortgages – and Why Short-Sales Don’t Work among Other Things

Let’s back into this so you can really understand why the reality of what has happened to nearly every American and every homeowner is so bad, the cause of most of our economic problems right now, and yes, most-likely fraudulent.

You lose your job, your job is outsourced to China, you are in a car accident, substantially injured, life happens,etc. All of a sudden, you can’t pay your monthly mortgage payment, along with other debts. You call the financial institution that you send your mortgage payments to. Oh, by the way, this institution is different than who actually lent you the money at closing – and this “servicer” of the loan has maybe changed twice or more since you closed on the loan.

So, you can’t make your payment. The “servicer” now starts calling you almost daily “harrassing” you to “pay up or else.” You indulge them in your perfectly legitimate and understandable situation and, yes, it falls on deaf ears. They tell you something like, “Miss, if you are having a hardship, we will mail you out a hardship package, please fill it out completely and include all the items requested and send back to us. We will see what we can do for you.

So you do just that, you spend about 3 hours of your precious time, diligently filling everything out and collecting all those “necessary” documents. You send it in. Hear nothing back for like 6 weeks. So you call, wait on hold for 40 minutes and finally get someone who barely speaks English… But it sure as hell is frustrating trying to communicate with someone who obviously doesn’t speak your language, not to mention that, in the back of your head, you wonder “how safe it is to be revealing your social security number and all sorts of sensitive, personal information to someone you’re sure is somewhere halfway around the globe and 10 hours ahead/behind us in time. Anyway, sorry for the rant again… back to the real story.

So, you finally get someone on the line and ask them if they received your fax of all the documents you most diligently put together and faxed to them at their request. You faxed everything in 6 weeks ago and haven’t heard a thing! The person politely tells you that for some reason, they have no record of receiving anything from you and “are you sure that you sent it to the right number?” – Now you’re head turns about 3 shades of red as your carotid artery starts to bulge and you consider popping a Nitro pill to stave off a sure-fire myocardial infarction. But that’s beside the point.

Anyway, back to the real story. So, you send it again, wait another 3 weeks, call again and, “MIRACLE!” They got it, thank God, now we can at least get a solution to our current challenges…right.  The foreigner on the other end politely tells you that it will be a few weeks before the “committee” can review it and come up with a decision on your “situation.” (You feel like telling them to go stick it but refrain since “good, polite Americans” don’t do that sort of thing). Son of a gun… I just went off on a quick rant again. Sorry.

Anyway, back to the real story. So, 4 weeks go by and you hear nothing. You think, “What the heck?” Does this company have their heads so far up their rear ends that they can’t even return a call and respond to my really dire “situation?” Then you remember that you were talking to some person who didn’t really care and by now, they might have taken your Social Security Number, borrowed another $100,000 (on your credit) to go shopping at their country’s version of Best Buy and they’re probably watching the CNN “Mortgage Meltdown” coverage on some 100 inch Big Screen Plasma on a brand new leather couch with a Universal Remote Control that even God would be jealous of. Shoot. Sorry for the rant right there.

Anyway, back to the real story… So, you call again, wait another 25 min. on hold and finally get someone on the line. You explain the whole nightmare and they tell you that “yes, we did receive your package and yes, it did come back from the committee, and “could you please wait for a supervisor?” – and yes, the wait on hold charade starts again… but I know, you can’t relate.

Anyway… supervisor comes on the phone like 10 minutes later and tells you that “unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do for you at this time. But if you’d like, you can go to our website and get the “I can’t make a friggin payment because I’m really out of a job” hardship form, fill it out and fax it in, we’ll see what we can do for you.”

Another rant and rave. Sorry. But really folks, this is the madness that everyday, hard-working AMERICANS are going through with their mortgage loans and the crazy lender/servicers can barely answer the phones much less speak intelligibly with a real solution or option!!!!

So, here’s the real story and WHY all those forms, short-sale efforts and all that work to modify your loan won’t do a bit of good. The company you’re calling is just the SERVICER! They don’t own your mortgage OR your note. They have no substantial right to do anything with the note/debt. The mortgage is still recorded in the name of the FIRST mortgage company that gave you the money at closing AND the note (the real evidence of the debt) was sold BEFORE you ever made a payment INTO a Securitization Trust which then SOLD that POOL of NOTES as a Security to 100’s or 1000’s of Investors ALL OVER THE COTTON-PICKIN’ WORLD.

So, the moral of the story is “THE SERVICER CAN’T MAKE A DECISION ON YOUR LOAN BECAUSE YOU REALLY GOT INTO A COMPLEX SECURITIZED INSTRUMENT SCHEME WHEN YOU SIGNED ALL THOSE CLOSING DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY THAT SAME DAMN SERVICER CAN’T APPROVE ANY REMEDY FOR ANY HARD-WORKING AMERICAN IN A REAL JAM!”

Want a little context to what I’m saying? Read below for some good ol’ fashioned 3rd party verification. Then, call me and we’ll try to help you a bit. I speak Indian, Chinese and Pig Latin by the way – just in case it’s needed to help you out on your loan.JK.

%d bloggers like this: