The payment history is not the loan receivable account by definition and it is never presented as such. Failure to recognize this obscure fact often results in failure. But those who do understand it, raise their chances of a successful defense from unlikely to very likely.
A lawyer (Scott Stafne) shared with me a case that he is apparently working on. This case is interesting because the lawyer for the homeowner has filed the final round of motions in the discovery cycle, which is a Motion in Limine — i.e., a motion to limit testimony from the sole robowitness expected to testify at trial. The basis of the motion is that the witness has no knowledge as to the past “servicers” and therefore cannot testify to any balance due.
But the courts have stretched themselves out on a limb to allow the foreclosure mills to introduce evidence that would never be permitted in any criminal trial and would only be permitted in civil trials if there was a proffer of corroborating evidence that would round out the obvious gaps in the testimony of the witness and the completeness of the exhibit.
BULLETIN: The payment history is not the loan receivable account by definition and it is never presented as such. The testimony in court nearly always skips the calculation of prior credits and debits (like disbursements to creditors) on the books of the servicer and the corresponding accounting entry on the books of a creditor. that is because there is no loan account receivable on the books of any party named as a creditor. And if it is not the loan account receivable, the Payment history is not evidence of the balance due as shown on the books of the creditor.
*
The lawyers who say they are representing Chase Bank probably have never spoken with or communicated with anyone at Chase. But they are right in their argument. The current rules concerning business records create a loophole that the banks have been charging through since the inception of false claims of securitization of debt (“Loans’).
*
What is interesting is that the case is now potentially set up to raise an objection, to wit: While the “witness” need not verify the records of previous parties regarding the “loan account”, it is the loan account that must be produced and not just a report on payments. The loan account would have a record of all credits and debits including disbursements to creditors if any. In the absence of a custodian testifying and proffering a copy of the loan account receivable — from the books and records of the creditor — (or the original accounting ledger) the balance cannot be known by the court.
*
Like virtually all transactions with homeowners, this case presents a “private label” case founded on the securitization of the “loan.” At this point, very little money exchanges hands in any transaction with homeowners because the applicants for loans are steered to a common securitization infrastructure. This leads to reports of funding without any money actually exchanging hands assuming there is a prior mortgage.
*
My point is this: the nature of securitization requires that the apparent loan account receivable be extinguished. This event generally occurs contemporaneously with the “closing” of the transaction.
*
The securitization plan calls for the sale of securities that are NOT tied to ownership of any debt, note or mortgage and are not backed by any debt, note or mortgage.
*
By freeing the sale of securities from the necessity of issuing securities representing shares of debts or pools of debt, the investment banks are able to sell multiple iterations of securities and secure a large yield spread premium that arbitrages the difference between the sales proceeds of securities and the transaction cost with homeowners, each time.
*
By steering homeowners toward a common base securitization infrastructure, the cash paid out at the “closing” with the homeowner is vastly reduced, thus increasing the amount of the yield spread premium to nearly 100% of the amount of the fictitious transaction with the homeowner.
*
The homeowners only know that the mortgage lien and note from one “transaction” were “satisfied.” They have no access to information that would inform them that each successive transaction creates a new tree of securitization representing nearly 100% profit for each successive round of sales of securities — this provides them with an average of 1200% return on each stated transaction with homeowners, wherein such transactions are repeated as many as 4-5 times.
*
None of these receipts are credited to any loan account receivable on the accounting ledger of any person or business entity. The credits do not appear because there is no record of a loan account receivable and nobody at any of the companies or entities brought forward in foreclosure has any access to such information.
*
Hence, the success of objections in court to the effect that the “Payment History” is not the loan account receivable that reveals the balance due, combined with the absence of any documents or person verifying that the company named as servicer is acting on behalf of a bank or business entity that claims to own the underlying obligation, frequently results in the objection sustained.
*
And even with a continuance, the lawyer for the claimant cannot produce the loan account receivable because it does not exist. Accordingly, the lawyer cannot argue any actual or imminent financial damage caused by the behavior of the homeowner. And that fact undermines the authority of the court to even hear the case.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE
Click
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!
CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield usually within 24 hours. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE TO ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR Plus or higher)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO REVIEW AND ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
-
But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
-
Yes you DO need a lawyer.
-
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.
Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure mill, investment banking, jurisdiction, legal standing, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions | Tagged: discovery and evidence foreclosure litigations, motion for sanctions, MOtion in Oilmine, MOTION TO COMPEL | 3 Comments »