Documents You Might Not Have Asked For Could be Key to Case

Posted on October 6, 2016 by Neil Garfield

One of the interesting things that nobody is talking about yet is the fact that the “business records” are either not complete or the foreclosing party is producing documents that serve its purpose when it knows that it holds documents that would negate the very proposition they are proffering in court.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

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

One of the interesting things that nobody is talking about yet is the fact that the “business records” are either not complete or the foreclosing party is producing documents that serve its purpose when it knows that it holds documents that would negate the very proposition they are proffering in court. Certainly a void assignment fills that bill.

*

Business records that are incomplete are objectionable because they are not complete. It undermines the trustworthiness of the party proffering the use of those so-called business records. It requires much more foundation to admit partial business records. Or at least it should require it. But judges are not likely to be very receptive UNLESS you asked for these documents in discovery. That could tip the other way for you, of course, because you are tipping your hat on your trial strategy. But this might be an opportunity to bar the use of their business records altogether.
*
So here is something more important, I think. NOBODY ever sells a mortgage loan with just an assignment. Not now, not ever. People are saying that these loans are sold without documentation and that IS the way it looks sometimes. But we all know that the banks are masters of illusion.
*
They have previously entered into purchase and assumption agreements that provide for the “purchaser” to underwrite a loan before it is made and THEN the “purchaser” will “purchase it” in some scenarios, but in most scenarios there is no purchase because there was no loan from the “assignor” to the maker of the instrument.If there were no purchase and assumption agreements many household name originators wouldn’t exist. Sometimes actual banks served in the role of originators. It is all the same. None of them were on the hook for the risk of loss and THAT is the true test of a real party in interest. Bank regulators were either asleep or paid off to look the other way when they looked at the purchase and sale agreements which were a covenant to violate federal and state lending laws.

*

The “purchaser” is really a conduit for investor funds that have been laundered six times before they got to the closing table. But regardless of how many items it is laundered it still comes down to the same thing — the Payee on the note never made the loan. Someone else did, using money from an unidentified and perhaps unidentifiable group of investors/victims.

*

The only REAL reasons why a bank would not demand all the actions, documents, representations and warranties (warrants) is that it already knows what you are getting and you have already performed the due diligence in another transaction cycle. These are things that could be pursued in discovery, but you must assume that what I am saying is true if you are going to fight for them. And you must commit to being very aggressive in fighting for them.

*

The banks will say “we complied” when they give you nothing. You should have an expert affidavit that says the banking industry doesn’t work that way. They always perform due diligence unless they control the entire transaction cycle — in which case they still have documents to give you showing they controlled the transaction cycle.

*

Here is the normal track for the sale of a mortgage loan:

Take this quote from one of many websites that “assist” in the sale of mortgage loans:

“If you’re like us, you can’t really start your due diligence until you reference your MLSA (Mortgage Loan Sale Agreement) and check over to see what representations (reps) and warrants are contractually included or not. It’s a given that you must know your note seller as this is absolutely a relationship based business. Remember that collateral comes post closing, so you can’t just trust everyone without some sort of verification. Sure you can have safeguards like a Bailee letter, exceptions reports, Power of Attorney’s (so you can create your own assignments and allonges as opposed to waiting for the note seller to create them), and even escrow accounts, but at the end of the day know who you’re dealing with. It’s also important to know the cure periods and terms with any buyback scenarios or missing collateral. Back in 2007 contracts looked much different than today when there were plenty of reps and warranties. Today it’s mostly buyer beware with few reps and warranties at all. If you are ever in need of document retrieval, I highly recommend trying Orion Financial.”

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Another Sham: The Sudden Rise of Powers of Attorney in Foreclosure Cases

Posted on March 24, 2016 by Neil Garfield

The entire foreclosure mess has been predicated upon one huge false premise — that by fabricating reams of paper, each one tied to the other or apparently tied to others, rights are suddenly created where none existed. This has never been the law but it suddenly has become the underpinning of most decisions in favor of banks and servicers who are strangers to the transactions upon which they are making claims.

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

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

—————-
Just want to point out that the reason why they are using a Power of Attorney (POA) instead of a servicing agreement is that the servicing rights are retained by the Master Servicer and sometimes even the subservicer. While the POA might appear to grant full authority it is missing the servicing functions including accounting for borrower payments and payments to the “investor(s)”. Especially when you add the element of entries made at or near the time of the transaction. This is another reason why homeowners who are alleged borrowers should be able to look at those transactions and see if the “business record” is correct. Once again we come back to discovery as the essential time to bring this up.

All of this makes it impossible for the latest entity to legally receive an application for modification. When you scratch the surface and actually ask the question the answer is always the same — that the “corporate representative” of the latest entity in the game of musical chairs can neither offer nor accept any modification and in fact is there purely for the purpose of getting the foreclosure judgment and forced sale of the property — an event that puts a judges order and a court clerk’s certificate on top what is in actuality a pile of empty, worthless paper.
The inability and/or unwillingness of the Plaintiff or its newest “attorney in fact” to show the actual money trail and actual deposits and disbursements, is a key factor in showing that other documents upon which the  banks and servicing are relying (using legal presumptions to fake their way through the process) are now suspect and thus not deserving of the application of the legal presumptions that ordinarily would apply to facially valid or recorded documents.
Remember the newest entity supplying records is NOT the Plaintiff. Judges tend to treat them as though they w ere the Plaintiff. This element of distraction by the lawyers for the banks and servicers has served them well. The Judge treats the newest entity as the Plaintiff when in fact they are not alleged to be holder, owner or have any interest or authority at all. And for good measure let’s not forget that the newest entity has no authority and possesses no “business records” (as an exception tot he hearsay rules of evidence) if it claims authority from an entity that has no power to give such authority. The entire foreclosure mess has been predicated upon one huge false premise — that by fabricating reams of paper, each one tied to the other or apparently tied to others, rights are suddenly created where none existed. This has never been the law but it suddenly has become the underpinning of most decisions in favor of banks and servicers who are strangers to the transactions upon which they are making claims.
The bottom line is that the party charged with enforcement is not a servicer but rather an enforcer. As an enforcer and since they do not have all the rights, obligations etc of a Master Servicer or subservicer, can their business records still be admissible? If they are only the enforcer and they are relying upon their stringent audit of the business records, that sounds more like a fact witness or even an expert witness than a party who has actual authority to service the loan.

The issue becomes split. The new entity that is not a servicer and therefore not charged with servicing duties, should not be able to claim that it has authority to bring the action in the name of another entity. The servicer clearly could but the attorney in fact is really a material witness whose sole function is to testify about the business records. The assumption is made that as the successor to prior alleged servicers, they can claim a chain of custody. But a company that in actuality is there for e the sole purpose of getting “business” records” into evidence is a fact witness who deserves no more presumptive credibility than any other witness.

The “servicer” claim by way of a POA is therefore a sham.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

Most Mortgage Closings Were Sham Closings

Posted on September 16, 2013 by Neil Garfield

“Powers of attorney are fraught with problems. Title attorneys and title insurance companies are reluctant to accept them, and will insist on making sure that the proper form and correct language is included in the document. You should not use the forms that can be obtained free of charge (or even for a fee) on the internet. If you need to provide a power of attorney for your real estate transaction, get the proper form from the settlement attorney that will be handling the closing.” Benny L Kass, realtytimes.com see link below

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services. Get advice from attorneys licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. We do provide litigation support — but only for licensed attorneys.
See LivingLies Store: Reports and Analysis

Editor’s Analysis: Consider this. You walk in off the street and apply for a loan. The Bank confirms the loan and a closing date and place is set up — usually at a closing agent or title agent (who is also a closing agent). But your friend shows up and wants the loan and says he is willing to sign the papers. What do you think the Bank would do? What do you think the closing agent would do? It’s obvious. The closing is cancelled and the loan never happens.

But suppose your friend has a friend in the bank and that person is in charge of preparing the papers for closing. The friendly bank person switches out the name of the borrower from you to your friend. The closing agent collects the money from the bank and gives your friend the loan. When the loan goes into default the bank finds that it loaned the money to the wrong person. Having no rights against you they are limited to pursuing your friend who by now is long gone. Unless they prove you had something to do with it, they have nothing on you.

Next, assume your friend goes to the closing for you and he has a power of attorney from you, saying you are out of town or whatever excuse he can think of. The closing agent will most likely not accept the power of attorney unless told to do so by the Bank. The Bank will most likely refuse because powers of attorney are subject to cancellation by death or disability.

If your friend adds that he is your successor because you died and he is the personal representative of your estate, there are even more problems and fewer chances that the bank will accept the successor argument or the power of attorney. The assumption would be that something screwy is going on and the Bank wants no part of it. Suppose the power of attorney is a forgery? What if you are not really dead?

But in the modern era of foreclosures the very same succession and powers of attorney are accepted without question FROM the same banks who would turn it down if it were offered TO them. THIS is why you need forensic auditors to give you a report on where the weaknesses are in the chain of title and the money trail. The best way to determine if an assignment is actually valid is to look at the consideration. Who paid how much to whom? And that is the heart of aggressive discovery. The Banks don’t want to get into that because they would be shown to be strangers to the transaction and that the assignment or transfer never actually occurred.

When you went to your loan closing or your client went to their loan closing, there was an assumption that was not true in most cases —- that the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage was giving the borrower a loan of money. But they didn’t. The money came from investors rather directly through the investment bank that acted as a depository for the funds until they withdrawn for their own fees or to fund mortgages like yours. The party that SHOULD have been on the documents was the actual lender — i.e., the investor or a group of investors in a REMIC trust if indeed the trust was ever funded, which we are finding is increasingly unlikely.

Now the Banks are saying that just because they had their own reasons not to write the right parties and terms on the loan in violation of their duties to the investors, that the Bank is entitled to foreclose! AND if you look closely you see all the succession language and powers of attorney, endorsements, and mergers, all of which lack consideration for any transfer of any loan because the loan was funded from the beginning by the investors who were forced out of the room.

In Court when the judge enters a final judgment of foreclosure or allows the sale to proceed the Judge is unintentionally stripping the investors of their security rights and stripping the investors of any claim for payment against the borrower — which was the ONLY reason they advanced money in the first place. This in turn gives the borrower nobody to talk to to find out the real balance of the account receivable, or to address issues of modification.

If the Judiciary wants to see this bulge of foreclosure cases go away, then enforce the mortgages the same you did when there was no securitization. They will vanish in a flash.

 

Powers of Attorney: A Potential For Fraud
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20130828-powersofattorney.htm

 

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , | 95 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: