How to Beat the Shell Game

The bottom line is that the foreclosures are a sham. The proceeds of the foreclosure never go into a REMIC Trust because there is neither a REMIC election nor a Trust, much less any entity that outright owns the debt, note or mortgage. In order to win, you must know that the securitization players use sham conduits and fictitious names at will, leaving an ever widening gap between the real and the unreal. It’s the gap that enables so many homeowners to win.

Without getting too metaphysical about it, I am reminded by what Ghandi said when he won India’s independence against all perceived odds. He said that in the end truth always wins out. Always. Of course he didn’t say when that happens.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

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

===========================

I recently received an email from someone dealing with “Shellpoint” servicing. I thought it might be beneficial for everyone to see my response, to which I have added some edits.

Shellpoint is an apt name. It is a Shell company organized to deflect inquiries and claims from the real actors. The “point” is how they stab homeowners. Modifications are pointless in most cases, designed to place the homeowner in a hopeless economic situation in which they cannot avoid foreclosure.

Mods are intentionally convoluted and virtually nothing is happening on their side except the process of asking for more documentation when you have already sent or they already have it. Some mods are “granted” but only after they have raked the homeowner over the coals and they offer ice in the inter, along with their outright theft of the debt from the actual legal or equitable owner.

The new lender, effectively, is the so-called servicer who in turn has a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the underwriters of so-called mortgage bonds or certificates. They are not bonds and they are not actual certificates. While those underwriters do business in the  fictitious name described as a REMIC trust when dealing with homeowners, they do not use the fictitious name when they create the illusion of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

CWABS is Countrywide. CW was an aggregator only in the loosest sense of the word. Most believe that CW acquired the loans and then was the seller to REMIC Trusts. The entire scheme was a sham. CW did not acquire any loans and was therefore not the seller of the debt, note or mortgage. The REMIC Trust was legally nonexistent and /or had no transaction conducted in its name in which the Trustee of the so-called REMIC Trust was entrusted with your loan to manage on behalf of beneficiaries who also were nonexistent.

The investors who purchased certificates issued in the name of the fake trust are not beneficiaries. The Trustee has absolutely no power to even inquire as to the affairs of the Trust much less actively manage them. Read the PSA — all the way through.

Although there are a few exceptions the investors disclaim any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage. If they were beneficiaries they would have rights to the loans and rights regarding the management of those loans.  The named Trustee would have fiduciary duty to the investors regarding those loans. In truth the underwriter of the certificates was actually the issuer acting under the name of the nonexistent trust which was neither the direct nor indirect owner of any assets, much less loans. And the Trustee is merely a rent-a-name to make it look like a serious financial institution was at the head of this scheme.

Companies like Shellpoint claim their power is derived from the nonexistent trust that does not own the debt, note or mortgage and which will not receive the proceeds of foreclosure.

If their powers and rights are said to derive from the existence of the Trust, then they have no power. They have no right to collect anything or enforce anything unless a specific owner of the debt, note and mortgage is (a) identified and (b) the owner gives specific rights and direction to an agent (servicer) to conduct business in the name of the owner or for the benefit of the owner of the debt, note and mortgage.

Proving this to a judge who is at best skeptical of such claims is essentially impossible. That is because the defense narrative would require digging deep into the books and records of the trust (there are none) and deep into the records of the previous and current servicers to determine where they sent money that they collected from homeowners supposedly pursuant to the terms of a promissory note. The current state of such narratives is that they are deemed not credible or “not proven” even though they are true. And accordingly the attempts at such discovery and investigation are thwarted by the court sustaining objections to such discovery.

Those objections are lodged by lawyers who claim that they represent the named claimant. That is also a misrepresentation in many cases because the claimant they have named does not exist and has no direct or indirect power or rights over the debt, note mor mortgage. Since the claimant does not exist, that should be the end of the matter. But once again rebuttable presumptions come to the rescue of the lawyers of nonexistent clients. And once again those presumptions are not rebuttable without getting proof from sources who simply will never comply even if ordered by a court.

But just to be clear, this is a possible basis for suing the lawyers who filed such claims either knowingly or by failing to conduct basic due diligence. Any normal lawyer would not knowingly take directions from a third party in which they were to file suit or start a nonjudicial foreclosure on behalf of a nonexistent entity that neither exists nor has any interest in the subject matter of litigation. So later when you file suit for wrongful foreclosure, abuse of process, RICO or whatever you decide are proper grounds and causes of action, consider the foreclosure litigation to be  a vehicle for laying the groundwork for actions in fraud, misrepresentation and negligence.

So the lawyers who win these cases enter the courtroom knowing that the defense narrative is true but they do not assert it as a claim they must prove.  They are adept at keeping the burden of proof away from their client homeowner. The winning lawyers basically follow the track of keeping the burden of proof on the claimant who seeks foreclosure. The lawyers know that the the claimant simply will not and cannot answer certain questions that can be used to undermine the legal presumptions on which the entire claim is based, contrary to the actual facts. The winning defense lawyers are the ones who use timely objections and good cross examination (i.e., constant follow-up). In the end the witness or the document will collapse under its own weight.

 

Terms of Art: Assignment or Endorsement?

Lawyers, judges and homeowners are using different terms interchangeably thus muddying up the argument or ruling. An assignment refers to a mortgage whereas an   endorsement (“indorsement” in legalese) refers to a note. The rules regarding enforcement of a mortgage are different than the enforcement of a note.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORMWITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

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

===========================

I want to point out the difference between assignment and endorsement. Because judges often defer to bank lawyers to explain the law, there is some confusion there. Often the point is that there was no valid purported assignment of the mortgage and there was no valid endorsement of the note. The argument has great significance particularly in view of the use of sham conduints at the initial “closing,” where the disclosed “ledner” is a misrepresentation, thus preventing the doctrine of merger in which the debt is merged with the note.
*
By law, notes are not assigned. They are endorsed if a transfer occurs. Like a check the endorsement must be on the face of the instrument (like the back of the check), or if there is no room because of prior endorsements then an allonge must be permanently affixed to the note containing the endorsement. A separate paper is not an allonge, by definition.
*
Keep in mind that the note is not the debt and the debt is not the note. The note can be (a) evidence of the debt or (b) merged with the debt (to prevent double liability only if the payee on the note is the same as the lender. The only exception to this is if the payee was acting as a disclosed agent for the lender. The debt exists regardless of whether there is paperwork. The note might exist but it might be invalid depending upon whether it memorializes a real transaction between the parties on the note.
*
In practice in the typical “closing” the borrower signs the note and mortgage before he receives the alleged loan. Neither one should be released, much less recorded, by the closing agent unless and until the borrower receives the funds or money is actually paid on the borrower’s behalf by the Payee on the note. When it comes to purported transfer of these residential “loans,” low level employees are not given powers over tens of millions of dollars worth of loans in banking custom and practice.
*
The biggest point I wish to make here is that the assignor and assignee of a mortgage must exist legally and actually. Similarly the endorser and endorsee of a note must exist. An apparently valid assignment or endorsement to a party who did not purchase the debt can result in two things: (a) the assignment of mortgage is not valid because it failed to transfer the debt and/or (b) the failure of the assignment to transfer the debt may be fairly construed as failing to place the subject loan in trust. Without the trust owning the debt (as evidenced by a real transaction in which the debt was purchased from a party who owned the debt), the trust does not exist as to the subject loan nor does it exist at all if that was the practice with respect to all alleged loans for which there was a transfer on paper that did not memorialize real life events.
*
Three endorsements:
Dated special endorsement to a particular party. This will be treated a presumptively valid. But the presumption can be rebutted — if the endorser (“indorser” in legalese) did not own the note or otherwise have the right to act as agent for a party who did own the note. This is the point of our TERA — to expose the fact that the paper is self generated and self serving and fabricated by revealing the one simple fact that the party who executed the endorsement was an actual or fictitious individual who was probably a robo-signor on behalf of an entity that did not own the note nor have the power to assign.
*
Undated special endorsement to a particular party. If it is undated, it is probably fabricated because custom and practice in the industry does not treat mortgage loans the same as they treat checks. When dealing with high ticket items a special endorsement that is dated would (a) ordinarily accompany an assignment of mortgage (often abandoned by the foreclosing party) and (b) MUST be accompanied by acquisition for value — i.e., purchase of the debt. Ordinarily there would also be correspondence and written agreements concerning the sale of the note and mortgage. Those are issues for discovery.
*
Dated or undated blank endorsement — bearer paper. As stated above, big ticket items usually are not generally transferred by blank endorsements, assuming the paper is actually “negotiable.” Hence if it is bearer paper (no person identified as the endorsee) this is likely a fabricated, backdated document, if it is dated, or just a blanket self serving document that consists of a misrepresentation to the court. Note that most provisions in a PSA (Pooling and Servicing Agreement, also referred to as the “trust instrument”) state specifically that (a) the “trust” is organized to be a REMIC vehicle which means there is a 90 day window in which they can acquire loans (the cutoff period) and (b) the assignments must be in recordable form and (c) the endorsements must be valid. Otherwise, the apparent transfer cannot be accepted by the Trust under REMIC rules (see Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S. Code § 860D – REMIC defined), under the powers of the Trustee (virtually nonexistent in most REMIC Trusts), and under New York Law which almost always invoked as the  State in which the Trust is organized. New York Law states that any act that contravenes the powers expressed in the Trust instrument are void, not voidable. So a transfer after the cutoff date is void, as it would ruin the REMIC status under the IRC and violate the specific provisions of the Trust designed to invoke the REMIC rules.

Wells Fargo, Ocwen and Fake REMIC Trust Crash on Standing

What is surprising about this case is that there was any appeal. The trial court had no choice but to dismiss the foreclosure claim.

  1. A copy of the note without an indorsement was attached to the complaint. This leads to the presumption that the indorsement was attached after the complaint was filed. Standing must be proven to ex isa at the time the suit was filed.
  2. The robo-witness could have testified as to the date the indorsement was affixed but he said he didn’t know.
  3. The robo-witness was unable to testify that the default letter had been sent.
  4. It didn’t help that the foreclosure case had been brought before by two different parties and then dismissed.
  5. Attorneys attempted to admit into evidence an unsigned Pooling and Servicing Agreement that could not be authenticated and was merely “a copy of a printout obtained from the SEC website”. This is an example of how court’s are rejecting the SEC website as a government document subject to judicial notice or even introduction into evidence without competent testimony providing the foundation for introducing the PSA for a fake trust.
Let us analyze your case and give you ammunition for the court battle: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see Wells Fargo, as trustee v Madl

Note that the style of the case shows that Wells Fargo was never the Plaintiff. The purported or implied trust was the named Plaintiff. But as Wells Fargo explained in its own article, the Trust is not the Plaintiff and neither are the certificate holders the Plaintiff because their certificates most often expressly state that the holder of the certificate does NOT have any right, title or interest in the “underlying” loans.

In fact if you read it carefully you will see that no trust is actually named or mentioned. AND the failure of the “trust instrument” (the PSA) shows that the trust was never created and never existed. An unsigned, incomplete document downloaded from a site (SEC.gov) that anyone can access to upload documents is not evidence.

STANDING: Fla. 4th DCA Rules PSA Hearsay and Therefore Not Admissible — Case Dismissed

The Pooling and Servicing Agreement MIGHT be self-authenticating under F.S. 90.902 but still inadmissible as hearsay. Thus the PSA is NOT a substitute for evidence of an actual transfer of the loan to a purported REMIC trust.

PLUS: PRESUMPTION OF STANDING DOES NOT APPLY IF THE NOTE AT TRIAL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NOTE ATTACHED TO THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. “The note attached to the complaint was not in the same condition as the original produced at trial.”

NO PRESUMPTION: “where the copy [attached to the complaint] differs from the original, the copy could have been made at a significantly earlier time and does not carry the same inference of possession at the filing of the complaint.”

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
See Fla 4th DCA Case PSA Hearsay and Diffferent Note
Friedle v BONY as successor in interest to JPM Chase, as Trustee
“the PSA purportedly establishes a trust of pooled mortgages.[e.s.].. [this] particular mortgage  was not referenced in the documents filed with the SEC … [the Plaintiff] did not present sufficient evidence through its witness to admit this unsigned document [e.s.] as its business record. While the witness testified that a mortgage loan schedule, which listed the subject mortgage, was part of the Bank’s business records, the mortgage loan schedule itself does not purport to show that the actual loan was physically transferred.” [e.s.]
*
Here we have a court openly questioning whether claims of securitization are real or false. But they limit their opinion to the specific defects that arise from fatally defective evidence. And THAT is the way to win — i.e., to successfully defend an attempt at foreclosure.
*
Those who follow my work here know that I have long said that the Trusts are empty and that the use of the name of the Trust is a fraud upon the court, since the Trust does not exist and the Trustee has no apparent or actual authority over any loans. If the Trustee has not received a particular loan to hold in trust, there is no trust — at least not as to that particular loan.
*
You may also recall that I have repeatedly said starting in 2007, that there is no evidence that the notes exist after the alleged loan closings. As Katherine Ann Porter found when she did her study at the University of Iowa, the original notes were destroyed. Hence it has been my opinion that the “original” notes had to be fabricated and forged. Porter is the same Katie Porter who is now running for Congress in California. She wants to hold the banks accountable for their fraud.
*
Interestingly enough the trial judge in this case was the same Senior Judge (Kathleen Ireland) as in a case I won with Patrick Giunta back in 2014 in which she said on record that the evidence was not real and dismissed the foreclosure case in that instance. Here she received the PSA as a self authenticating document. While I think that point is arguable, this case turns on the hearsay objection timely made by counsel for the homeowner. The point that has been missed and is missed across the country is that just because a document is authenticated — by any means — does not mean it is admissible into evidence. It is not admissible in evidence if it is excluded by other rules of evidence.
*
The words on the PSA introduced at trial were plainly hearsay — just as the words in any document are hearsay. Apparently, as I have seen in other cases, the document as also unsigned. The words on the PSA are not admissible unless there is a qualifying exception to the hearsay rule. As such the appellate court ruled that the PSA had to be excluded from evidence. Since the Plaintiff was attempting to foreclose based upon authority granted in the PSA, Plaintiff was left standing naked in the wind because for purposes of this case, there was no PSA and therefore no authority.
*
Plaintiff tried to make a case for the business records exclusion. But that cornered them.

In this case, the foreclosing bank’s witness could not testify that the Bank had possession of the note prior to filing the complaint. The Bank conceded that it presented no testimony that its present servicer or its prior servicer had possession of the note at the inception of the foreclosure action.

And at trial, Plaintiff attempted to prove possession by introduction of the PSA. Without possession there is no legal standing.

The Bank did not present sufficient evidence through its witness to admit this unsigned document as its business record.

*

And there is the problem. The “servicer” (who also derives its purported authority ultimately from the PSA) cannot claim that the PSA is part of its business records without opening a door that the banks want to avoid. Even if the “servicer” had a copy of the PSA it could not state that this was a business record of the servicer nor that it was a copy of the original. If they did say that, then they would be opening the door for discovery, so far denied in most instances, into who gave the “servicer” the copy and why. it would also open up discovery into the business records of the trust, which would reveal a “hologram of an empty paper bag” as I put it 10 years ago.

*

No PSA, no trust, = no plaintiff or beneficiary. Note that the testimony from the robo-witness employed by the subservicer scrupulously avoids saying that the “business records” are the records of the Plaintiff. That is implied but never stated because they are not business records of the Plaintiff Trust. That trust has no business, no assets and no existence as to any loan. The trust has no business records. That implication  should be attacked in cross examination. The foreclosing party will attempt to use circular reasoning to defeat your attack. But in the end they are relying upon the PSA which must be excluded from evidence.

*

Lastly, this decision corroborates another thing I have been saying for years — that even minor changes on the face of an original instrument must be explained and reconciled. There is nothing wrong with putting annotations on the face of a note but you do so at your own risk. Whatever you have written or stamped on the note is an alteration. That doesn’t invalidate the note; but in order for the note to be received in evidence as proving the debt, the markings or alterations must be explained and reconciled by a witness with personal knowledge. None of the robo-witnesses have sufficient knowledge (or room in their memorized script) to explain all the markings.

*

The mistake made by trial lawyers for homeowners is the failure to make a timely objection. The appellate court specifically addresses this in a footnote as it reconciles this opinion which is vastly different from its other opinions:

1 We have held in past cases that the PSA together with a mortgage loan schedule are sufficient to prove standing, but in those cases the witness offering the evidence appears to have been able to testify to the relationship of the various documents and their workings, or that the documents were admitted into evidence without objection. See, e.g., Boulous v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n., 210 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

*

The court is pointing defense lawyers in the right direction without actually giving legal advice. They are saying that had cross examination been more proficient and a timely objection made they would have ruled this before. That may or may not be true. But the point is that they have now issued this ruling and it is law in the 4th DCA of Florida.

PRACTICE NOTE: I think the objections in this case could have been any or all of the following:
  1. OBJECTION! From the face-off the document there are no identifying stamps or marks that could be used to authenticate the PSA. Hence the document is not self-authenticating.
  2. OBJECTION! The document is unsigned, Hence the document is irrelevant.
  3. OBJECTION! The unsigned copy of a document is not the best evidence of the PSA as a trust instrument, if indeed one exists. 
  4. OBJECTION! Lack of foundation. If the Plaintiff is attempting to use the document anyway, counsel must elicit testimony and documents that provide an alternate foundation for admission of the PSA and an alternate foundation for authority that, so far, they claim arises from the PSA that cannot be admitted into evidence.
  5. OBJECTION! Hearsay! The document is and contains hearsay. There is no foundation for any exception to hearsay.

If the objection(s) is sustained, this should be followed by a Motion to Strike the testimony of the witness and all documents introduced as evidence except for his name and address. If you don’t do this your objection is sustained but the offending testimony and documents stay in the court record.

US Bank Business: Rent-A-Name, Trustee

IF THE SERVICER IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH US BANK “IN ANY WAY” THEN EITHER US BANK HAS NO TRUST DUTIES OR THE SERVICER HAS NO SERVICING AUTHORITY

BOTTOM LINE: A trust without a trustee holding fiduciary duties and actual powers over trust assets is no trust at all. This signals corroboration for what is now well known in the public domain: the REMIC trustee has no powers or duties because there is no trust and there are no trust assets.

See below for why I am re-publishing this article.

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.
—————-

Until now I knew about a letter sent out by US Bank until the TBTF banks in control of the mortgage mess realized that this was a dangerous letter. It provides proof and corroboration and opportunities for further corroboration that US Bank is a fictitious trustee even when named in a PSA/Trust.

I can’t give you a copy of the actual letter as that contains private information. But I now physically have in my possession of the wild card letter sent out by US Bank filled with factual misstatement, legal absurdities, fraud, and admissions against interest that show clearly that the  entire “securitization” game is but a rotating cloud of existing and non-existing entities blinking in and out such that finding the those in charge becomes impossible to detect.

The text in blue are direct unedited quotes from the letter answering a homeowner, in 2013, who was trying to figure out who is in charge. This is a short letter and the quotes essentially make up virtually the entire letter. They are not taken out of context. The rest are my comment and opinions.

NOTE: [FORECLOSURE BY PARTY CLAIMING TO BE THE CREDITOR OR HOLDER OR OWNER WITHOUT MENTION OF TRUST;]Where the Master Servicer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the Master Servicer names itself as Plaintiff (i.e., the foreclosing party) you may not realize that you are dealing with a securitization plan that went bad or was reconstituted, but either way the Master Servicer never funded (i. e., was the source) any loans within this class of loans that were falsely represented to be subject to claims of securitization. The goal is the same because internally the Master Servicer is attempting to seal the illegal record with a legal act or judgment and is attempting to get its hands on mislabeled “servicer advances.”

Here are the quotes (in blue0 from the letter with commentary (in black):

  • I have researched your mortgage and have determined that
    • Since he disclaims any authority or responsibility for the trust assets, what “research” did he perform?
    • Where did he get his information from when the authority and responsibility for the loans rests with a third party?
    • US Bank clearly could not have business records unless the Master Servicer was reporting to the NAMED Trustee. But we know that isn’t happening because the PSA expressly prevents the beneficiaries or the trustee from getting any information about the trust assets or in even seeking such information. 
    • This letter is clearly a carefully worded document to give false impressions.
    • Upon reading the PSAs it is obvious that neither the Trustee nor the beneficiaries have any permitted access to know how the money or assets is being managed
    • This opens the door to moral hazard: i.e., that the sole source of information is coming from third parties and thus neither the beneficiaries nor the putative “borrowers” have any information disclosed about who is actually performing which task. 
    • This could be concealment fraud in which the direct victims are the investors and the indirect victims are the homeowners.
  • US Bank is merely the Trustee for the pool of mortgages in which your loans sits.
    • “Merely the Trustee” is non descriptive language that essentially disclaims any actual authority or duties. It is apparently conceding that it is “merely” named as Trustee but the actual duties and authority rests elsewhere.
  • The Trustee does not have the authority to make any decisions regarding your mortgage loans.
    • So we have a Trustee with no powers over mortgage loans even if the “loans” were in a pool in which ownership was ascribed to the Trust. Again the statement does not specifically disclaim any DUTIES. 
  • The servicer is the party to the trust that has the authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding individual mortgage loans in the trust. It is the Servicer who has taken all action regarding your property.
    • “all action” would include the origination of the loan if the investors’ money was being used to originate loans rather than buying existing loans.
    • This statement concedes that it is the servicer (actually the Master servicer) that has all power and all responsibility for administration of the trust assets. 
    • In short he is probably conceding that while US Bank is NAMED as Trustee, the ROLE of Trustee is being performed by the Master Servicer, without any information or feedback to the named Trustee as a check on whether a fiduciary duty has been created between the Master Servicer and the trust or the Master Servicer and the trust beneficiaries. 
    • Hence the actual authority and duties with respect to the trust assets lies with the Master Servicer who hires subservicers to do whatever work is required, mainly enforcement of the note and mortgage, regardless of whether the loan ever made it into the Trust. 
    • It follows that the sole discretion of the Master Servicer creates an opportunity for the Master Servicer to gain illicit profits by handling or mishandling originations, foreclosures and liquidations of property. Taking fictitious servicer advances into account it is readily apparent that the sole basis for foreclosure instead of workouts is to “recover” money for which the Master Servicer never had a claim for recovery. 
      • Reporting in actuality is nonexistent except for the reports of “borrower payments” which are massaged through multiple subservicers each performing a “boarding process” in which in actuality they merely input new data into the subservicer system and claim it came from the old subservicer.
      • This “boarding process” is a charade as we have seen in the majority of cases where the knowledge and history of the payments and alleged delinquency or default has been challenged. In nearly all cases despite the initial representation from the robo-witness, it becomes increasingly apparent that neither the witness nor his company, the subservicer, have any original data nor have they performed any reviews to determine if the data is accurate.
      • In fact, upon inquiry it is readily apparent now that the “records” are created, kept and maintained by LPS/BlackKnight who merely assigns “ownership” of the records from one assigned subservicer to the next. LPS fabricates whatever data is necessary to allow an appointed “Plaintiff” to foreclose, including the fabrication adnfoqgery of documents.
        • This is why the parties to the 50 state settlement do not perform the reviews required under the settlement and under the Dodd-Frank law: they have no records to review. 
    • in this case the current subservicer is SLS — Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
  • While US Bank understands and wishes to assist you with this matter, the servicer is the only party with the authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding your mortgage and they are not affiliated with US Bank in any way.
    • Hence he concedes that the duties of a trustee (who by definition is accepting fiduciary responsibilities to the trust entity and the trust beneficiaries) is being performed by a third party, with absolute power and sole discretion, who has no affiliation with US Bank.
      • This concedes that US Bank is not a trustee even though it is named as Trustee in some trusts and otherwise “acquired the trust business” from Bank of America and others. 
        • A Trustee without powers or duties is no trustee. Disclaimer of fiduciary duties denotes non acceptance of being the Trustee of the Trust.
        • Acquiring the trust business is a euphemism for the continuation of the musical chair business that is well known in subservicers. 
        • Being the trustee is NOT a marketable commodity without amendment to the Trust document. Hence if a Trustee is named and has no power or duties, and which then “sells” its “trust business” to US Bank the “transfer” trust responsibility is void but damnum absque injuria. 
        • No action for breach of fiduciary exists because nobody assumed the fiduciary duty that must be the basis of any position of “trustee” of any trust.
  • BOTTOM LINE: A trust without a trustee holding fiduciary duties and actual powers over trust assets is no trust at all. This signals corroboration for what is now well known in the public domain: the REMIC trustee has no powers or duties because there is no trust and there are no trust assets. 

============================

Update: An identical letter (see below) has been sent to me from various sources all ostensibly from US Bank. My opinion is that

  • The letter is not from US Bank
  • US Bank Corporate Trust Services has nothing on the alleged loans
  • No business records are kept by US Bank in connection with alleged loans subject to alleged claims of securitization
  • The letter was not sent out by Bank of America either although one might surmise that. It was sent by LPS/Black Night
  • The letter is pure fabrication and forgery.
  • The cutting and pasting was done by persons who have no relationship with even the false claims of the banks
  • Goldade has no trust duties in connection with the alleged loan
  • And of course the alleged loan is not in the trust, making claims by or behalf of the “trustee” or the “Servicer” completely without merit or foundation.

Here is an example of one of the letters that I used for analysis : Note that the “:,F4” indicates that the signature was pasted not executed by a real person with a pen. You can examine your own letters like this by highlighting the letter contents and then pasting to text edit rather than Word or any other program that corrects and substitutes the command rather than just printing it. The “errors” in grammar and formatting occur in text edit.

The meta data from the letter shows the following, and I have the rest of it as well.

/Type /Metadata
/Subtype /XML
/Length 673
>>
stream
<?xpacket begin=”” id=”W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d”?><x:xmpmeta x:xmptk=”NitroPro 9.5″ xmlns:x=”adobe:ns:meta/”><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=”http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#”><rdf:Description rdf:about=”” xmlns:dc=”http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/” xmlns:pdf=”http://ns.adobe.com/pdf/1.3/” xmlns:pdfaExtension=”http://www.aiim.org/pdfa/ns/extension/” xmlns:pdfaProperty=”http://www.aiim.org/pdfa/ns/property#” xmlns:pdfaSchema=”http://www.aiim.org/pdfa/ns/schema#” xmlns:pdfaid=”http://www.aiim.org/pdfa/ns/id/” xmlns:xmp=”http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/”><xmp:ModifyDate>2016-11-04T18:28:42-07:00</xmp:ModifyDate>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
<?xpacket end=”w”?>
endstream
endobj
xref

Note the reference to Nitro Pro 9.5 --- 
which is a program that allows one to edit pdf files
 and then print them out 
as though the new pdf was simply a printout 
of a pre-existing document.  
Here is how the letter appears in text edit:
I am writing in response to your Debt Elimination Scheme and complaint on the subject property sent to U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”). On behalf of U.S. Bank, I am happy to assist you with this matter to the extent I am able to provide information.
I have researched your mortgage and have determined that U.S. Bank is merely the trustee for the Trust that owns yourmortgageandnote. PleasenotetheTrustistheownerofyourmortgageandnote,notthetrustee. Theservicer is the party to the Trust that has the authority and responsibility to make decisions and take action regarding individual mortgage loans in the Trust. The trustee has no authority or responsibility to review and or approve or disapprove of these decisions and actions. It is the servicer who has taken all action regarding your property, and has the information you have requested.
As we stated in our response of July 27, 2016 you must work with Bank of America as the servicer of your loan, to have your request addressed. I have forwarded your correspondence to Bank of America and they have responded and stated you may utilize the following email – litigation.intake@bankofamerica.com.
While U.S. Bank understands and wishes to assist you with this matter, the servicer is the only party with the authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding this mortgage and they are not affiliated with U.S. Bank in anyw ay.
Please work with Bank of America to address your concerns using the information provided to you in this letter, so they may assist you in a more timely and efficient manner.

Sincerely  :,f4

Kevin Goldade Corporate Trust Services 60 Livingston Ave
St Paul, MN 55107
cc Bank of America
  •  IF THE SERVICER IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH US BANK “IN ANY WAY” THEN EITHER US BANK HAS NO TRUST DUTIES OR THE SERVICER HAS NO SERVICING AUTHORITY

 

Uniform Trust Code (UTC)

Hat tip to David Belanger

see utc_final_rev2010

see also utc-itc

Readers and analysts should refer to this as very persuasive authority and if enacted by the State legislature, it is the law. But this is not the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC applies in all cases where paper instruments are involved and transfers of that paper are involved — although you wouldn’t know it looking at many case decisions that essentially ignore the UCC and apply common law contract law and interpretation. This approach was knocked down by the Jesinoski decision on rescission — the courts are meant to enforce the law and are not authorized to make the law. The courts may interpret the law only if they find a specific provision that is ambiguous.

The UTC is different. It applies only where the trust itself is ambiguous or fails to address an issue. The Pooling and Servicing Agreements of the alleged “REMIC Trusts” purport to be the trust agreement; those agreements are ambiguous, opaque, and contain conflicting provisions and are nearly always missing key provisions like the actual acquisition of loans in exchange for payment by the trust.

Banks are counting on lawyers and pro se litigants to either not read the statutory laws or other persuasive and authoritative materials or not understand them. The reason why the banks have been so successful at prosecuting fraudulent foreclosures is that they made the false securitization scheme so complex that government and lawyers and judges look to the authors of these documents to tell them what it means — i.e., they are asking the banks to explain their fraudulent documents. The only way to counter that is to drill down on specific provisions and show that the “explanation” offered by the banks is simply compounding the initial lie — i.e., that the REMIC Trusts actually purchased the loans. They didn’t.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

About Those PSA Signatures

What is apparent is that the trusts never came into legal existence both because they were never funded and because they were in many cases never signed. Failure to execute and failure to fund the trust reduces the “trust” to a pile of ashes.

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

—————-
From one case in which I am consulting, this is my response to the inquiring lawyer:

I can find no evidence that there is a Trust ever created or operational by the name of “RMAC REMIC Trust Series 2009-9”. In my honest opinion I don’t think there ever was such a trust. I think that papers were drawn up for the trust but never executed. Since the trusts are phantoms anyway, this was consistent with the facts. The use of the trust as a Plaintiff in a court action is a fraud upon the court and the Defendants. The fact that the trust does not exist deprives the court of any jurisdiction. We’ll see when you get the alleged PSA, which even if physically hand-signed probably represents another example of robo-signing, fabrication, back-dating and forgery.

I think it will not show signatures — and remember digital or electronic signatures are not acceptable unless they meet the terms of legislative approval. Keep in mind that the Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS) was BY DEFINITION  created long after the cutoff date. I say it is by definition because every Prospectus I have ever read states that the MLS attached to the PSA at the time of investment is NOT the real MLS, and that it is there by way of example only. The disclosure is that the actual loan schedule will be filled in “later.”

 

see https://livinglies.me/2015/11/30/standing-is-not-a-multiple-choice-question/

also see DigitalSignatures

References are from Wikipedia, but verified

DIGITAL AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES

On digital signatures, they are supposed to be from a provable source that cannot be disavowed. And they are supposed to have electronic characteristics making the digital signature provable such that one would have confidence at least as high as a handwritten signature.

Merely typing a name does nothing. it is neither a digital nor electronic signature. Lawyers frequently make the mistake of looking at a document with /s/ John  Smith and assuming that it qualifies as digital or electronic signature. It does not.

We lawyers think that because we do it all the time. What we are forgetting is that our signature is coming through a trusted source and already has been vetted when we signed up for digital filing and further is backed up by court rules and Bar rules that would reign terror on a lawyer who attempted to disavow the signature.

A digital signature is a mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital message or documents. A valid digital signature gives a recipient reason to believe that the message was created by a known sender, that the sender cannot deny having sent the message (authentication and non-repudiation), and that the message was not altered in transit (integrity).

Digital signatures are a standard element of most cryptographic protocol suites, and are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, contract management software, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering.

Electronic signatures are different but only by degree and focus:

An electronic signature is intended to provide a secure and accurate identification method for the signatory to provide a seamless transaction. Definitions of electronic signatures vary depending on the applicable jurisdiction. A common denominator in most countries is the level of an advanced electronic signature requiring that:

  1. The signatory can be uniquely identified and linked to the signature
  2. The signatory must have sole control of the private key that was used to create the electronic signature
  3. The signature must be capable of identifying if its accompanying data has been tampered with after the message was signed
  4. In the event that the accompanying data has been changed, the signature must be invalidated[6]

Electronic signatures may be created with increasing levels of security, with each having its own set of requirements and means of creation on various levels that prove the validity of the signature. To provide an even stronger probative value than the above described advanced electronic signature, some countries like the European Union or Switzerland introduced the qualified electronic signature. It is difficult to challenge the authorship of a statement signed with a qualified electronic signature – the statement is non-reputable.[7] Technically, a qualified electronic signature is implemented through an advanced electronic signature that utilizes a digital certificate, which has been encrypted through a security signature-creating device [8] and which has been authenticated by a qualified trust service provider.[9]

PLEADING:

Comes Now Defendants and Move to Dismiss the instant action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and as grounds therefor say as follows:

  1. The named plaintiff in this action does not exist.
  2. After extensive investigation and inquiry, neither Defendants nor undersigned counsel nor forensic experts can find any evidence that the alleged trust ever existed, much less conducted business.
  3. There is no evidence that the alleged trustee ever ACTUALLY conducted any business in the name of the trust, much less a purchase of loans, much less the purchase of the subject loan.
  4. There is no evidence that the Trust exists nor any evidence that the Trust’s name has ever been used except in the context of (1) “foreclosure” which has, in the opinion, of forensic experts, merely a cloak for the continuing theft of investor money and assets to the detriment of both the real parties in interest and the Defendants and (2) the sale of bonds to investors falsely presented as having been issued by the “trust”, the proceeds of which “sale” was never received by the trust.
  5. Upon due diligence before filing such a lawsuit causing the forfeiture of homestead property, counsel knew or should have known that the Trust never existed nor has any business ever been conducted in the name of the Trust except the sale of bonds allegedly issued by the Trust and the use of the name of the trust to sue in foreclosure.
  6. As for the sale of the bonds allegedly issued by the Trust there is no evidence that the Trust ever issued said bonds and there is (a) no evidence the Trust received any funds ever from the sale of bonds or any other source and (b) having no assets, money or bank account, there is no possible evidence that the Trust acquired any assets, business or even incurred any liabilities.
  7. Wells Fargo, individually and not as Trustee, has engaged in a widespread pattern of behavior of presenting itself as Trustee of non existent Trusts and should be sanctioned to prevent it or anyone else in the banking industry from engaging in such conduct.

WHEREFORE Defendants pray this Honorable Court will dismiss the instant complaint with prejudice, award attorneys fees, costs and sanctions against opposing counsel and Wells Fargo individually and not as Trustee of a nonexistent Trust for falsely presenting itself as the Trustee of a Trust it knew or should have known had no existence.

===================

SCHEDULE CONSULT!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

NM and Fla Judges Express Doubt Over Whether Loans Ever Made it Into trust

Judges are thinking the unthinkable — that none of the trusts ever acquired anything and that the foreclosures were and are a sham.

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

—————-

It isn’t “theory. It is facts, or rather the absence of facts.

As shown in the two articles by Jeff Barnes below, we are obviously reaching the tipping point. First, the presentation of a Trust instrument means nothing if there is no proof the trust was active — and in particular actually purchased the subject loan. And Second, Judges will deny all objections to discovery and will rule for the borrower if the Trust did not acquire the loan.

In ruling this way the two Judges — thousands of miles apart — are obviously recognizing that the long standing bank objection to borrowers’ defenses based upon lack of legal standing absolutely do not apply. It is not a matter of whether the borrower has “standing” to bring up the PSA, it is a matter of whether the trust was party to any real transaction with relation to the subject mortgage. The answer is no. And no amount of extra paper, powers of attorney, assignments, or endorsements can change that.

Judges are thinking the unthinkable — that none of the trusts ever acquired anything and that the foreclosures were and are a sham.

It is probably worth re-publishing this portion from a long article by Adam Levitin written shortly after the Ibanez decision was reached in Massachusetts. Note how he points out that the vast majority of PSAs that are offered as evidence are neither executed nor do they have a mortgage loan schedule that is “reviewable.” The real problem — and the reason why the SEC-filed PSA documents do not have any signatures and why there is no mortgage loan schedule is that there was no transaction in which the Trust acquired the loans. Virtually all assignments are backdated and virtually none of the assignments relate back to any ACTUAL transaction in which the Trust was involved. The banks have been winning on fumes generated by legal inapplicable presumptions. —

It seems to me that any trust with Massachusetts loans that doesn’t have a publicly filed, executed PSA with a reviewable loan schedule should be on a downgrade watch. Very few publicly filed PSAs are executed and even fewer have publicly filed loan schedules. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but somewhere off-line, but if I ran a rating agency, I’d want trustees to show me that they’ve got those papers on at least a sample of deals. Of course should and would are quite different–the ratings agencies, like the regulators, are refusing to take the securitization fail issue as seriously as they should (and I understand that it is a complex legal issue), but I think they ignore it at their (and our) peril

Schedule A Consult Now!

Excerpts from Barnes’ articles:

A Florida Circuit Judge has gone on the record requiring Wells Fargo, as the claimed “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust, to show that the mortgage loan which WF is attempting to enforce actually went into the PSA, and if not, the standing requirement has not been met and the case will fall on summary judgment. The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq.

The Judge specifically stated as follows:

“…but what I want plaintiff’s counsel to understand, that what you submitted to me with regards to the pooling and servicing agreement still does not have the actual mortgages that went into that pooling and servicing agreement…So at some point you’re going to have to show that this mortgage and note certainly went into that pooling and servicing agreement, which is what I have requested before. …  So I’m just asking you that before we get too far out, please make sure that’s there, or its going to be taken out on summary judgment. … In other words, if you’re a trustee for that pooling and servicing agreement, and the mortgage and note are not in that pooling and servicing agreement, you don’t have standing.”

This ruling not only directly confirms the proof requirements for standing in a securitization case, but supports the production of discovery on the issue as well.


DISCOVERY IS KEY.

The borrower thus requested 53 categories of documents from BAC, including securitization documents. BAC filed a Motion for Protective Order which claimed that public information on the SEC website was “confidential”; that the securitization-related discovery was “irrelevant”; and that it was essentially entitled to withhold discovery because it “has the original note” and has moved for summary judgment on the “relevant” issues.

The Court disagreed, denying BAC’s Motion in its entirety and commanding full responses to the borrower’s discovery request (including production of all responsive documents) within 30 days. The Court found BAC’s Motion to be “sparse”; not in compliance with New Mexico court rules as to discovery; and against New Mexico’s case law which provides for liberal discovery in foreclosure actions so that all of the issues are fully developed and a fair trial is had.

 

A New Mexico District Judge yesterday denied BAC Home Loan Servicing’s Motion for Protective Order which it filed in an attempt to avoid producing documentary discovery to a homeowner who BAC has sued for foreclosure. The loan was originated by New Mexico Bank and Trust, was sold to Countrywide, and thereafter allegedly “assigned” first to MERS and then by MERS to BAC.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

The Adam Levitin Article on Ibanez and Securitization fail:

Ibanez and Securitization Fail

posted by Adam Levitin

The Ibanez foreclosure decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has gotten a lot of attention since it came down on Friday. The case is, not surprisingly being taken to heart by both bulls and bears. While I don’t think Ibanez is a death blow to the securitization industry, at the very least it should make investors question the party line that’s been coming out of the American Securitization Forum. At the very least it shows that the ASF’s claims in its White Paper and Congressional testimony are wrong on some points, as I’ve argued elsewhere, including on this blog. I would argue that at the very least, Ibanez shows that there is previously undisclosed material risk in all private-label MBS.

The Ibanez case itself is actually very simple. The issue before the court was whether the two securitization trusts could prove a chain of title for the mortgages they were attempting to foreclose on.

There’s broad agreement that absent such a chain of title, they don’t have the right to foreclose–they’d have as much standing as I do relative to the homeowners. The trusts claimed three alternative bases for chain of title:

(1) that the mortgages were transferred via the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA)–basically a contract of sale of the mortgages

(2) that the mortgages were transferred via assignments in blank.

(3) that the mortgages follow the note and transferred via the transfers of the notes.

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that arguments #2 and #3 simply don’t work in Massachusetts. The reasoning here was heavily derived from Massachusetts being a title theory state, but I think a court in a lien theory state could easily reach the same result. It’s hard to predict if other states will adopt the SJC’s reasoning, but it is a unanimous verdict (with an even sharper concurrence) by one of the most highly regarded state courts in the country. The opinion is quite lucid and persuasive, particularly the point that if the wrong plaintiff is named is the foreclosure notice, the homeowner hasn’t received proper notice of the foreclosure.

Regarding #1, the SJC held that a PSA might suffice as a valid assignment of the mortgages, if the PSA is executed and contains a schedule that sufficiently identifies the mortgage in question, and if there is proof that the assignor in the PSA itself held the mortgage. (This last point is nothing more than the old rule of nemo dat–you can’t give what you don’t have. It shows that there has to be a complete chain of title going back to origination.)

On the facts, both mortgages in Ibanez failed these requirements. In one case, the PSA couldn’t even be located(!) and in the other, there was a non-executed copy and the purported loan schedule (not the actual schedule–see Marie McDonnell’s amicus brief to the SJC) didn’t sufficiently identify the loan. Moreover, there was no proof that the mortgage chain of title even got to the depositor (the assignor), without which the PSA is meaningless:

Even if there were an executed trust agreement with the required schedule, US Bank failed to furnish any evidence that the entity assigning the mortgage – Structured Asset Securities Corporation [the depositor] — ever held the mortgage to be assigned. The last assignment of the mortgage on record was from Rose Mortgage to Option One; nothing was submitted to the judge indicating that Option One ever assigned the mortgage to anyone before the foreclosure sale.

So Ibanez means that to foreclosure in Massachusetts, a securitization trust needs to prove:

(1) a complete and unbroken chain of title from origination to securitization trust
(2) an executed PSA
(3) a PSA loan schedule that unambiguously indicates that association of the defaulted mortgage loan with the PSA. Just having the ZIP code or city for the loan won’t suffice. (Lawyers: remember Raffles v. Wichelhaus, the Two Ships Peerless? This is also a Statute of Frauds issue–the banks lost on 1L contract issues!)

I don’t think this is a big victory for the securitization industry–I don’t know of anyone who argues that an executed PSA with sufficiently detailed schedules could not suffice to transfer a mortgage. That’s never been controversial. The real problem is that the schedules often can’t be found or aren’t sufficiently specific. In other words, deal design was fine, deal execution was terrible. Important point to note, however: the SJC did not say that an executed PSA plus valid schedules was sufficient for a transfer; the parties did not raise and the SJC did not address the question of whether there might be additional requirements, like those imposed by the PSA itself.

Now, the SJC did note that a “confirmatory assignment” could be valid, but (and this is s a HUGE but), it:

cannot confirm an assignment that was not validly made earlier or backdate an assignment being made for the first time. Where there is no prior valid assignment, a subsequent assignment by the mortgage holder to the note holder is not a confirmatory assignment because there is no earlier written assignment to confirm.”

In other words, a confirmatory assignment doesn’t get you anything unless you can show an original assignment. I’m afraid that the industry’s focus on the confirmatory assignment language just raises the possibility of fraudulent “confirmatory” assignments, much like the backdated assignments that emerged in the robosigning depositions.

So what does this mean? There’s still a valid mortgage and valid note. So in theory someone can enforce the mortgage and note. But no one can figure out who owns them. There were problems farther upstream in the chain of title in Ibanez (3 non-identical “true original copies” of the mortgage!) that the SJC declined to address because it wasn’t necessary for the outcome of the case. But even without those problems, I’m doubtful that these mortgages will ever be enforced. Actually going back and correcting the paperwork would be hard, neither the trustee nor the servicer has any incentive to do so, and it’s not clear that they can do so legally. Ibanez did not address any of the trust law issues revolving around securitization, but there might be problems assigning defaulted mortgages into REMIC trusts that specifically prohibit the acceptance of defaulted mortgages. Probably not worthwhile risking the REMIC status to try and fix bad paperwork (or at least that’s what I’d advise a trustee). I’m very curious to see how the trusts involved in this case account for the mortgages now.

The Street seemed heartened by a Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision that came out on FridayHarp v. JPM Chase. If they read the damn case, they wouldn’t put any stock in it.

In Harp, a pro se defendant took JPM all the way to the state supreme court. That alone should make investors nervous–there’s going to be a lot of delay from litigation. Harp also didn’t involve a securitized loan. But the critical difference between Harp and Ibanez is that Harp did not involve issues about the validity of chain of title. It was about the timing of the chain of title. Ibanez was about chain of title validity. In Harp JPM commenced a foreclosure and was subsequently assigned a loan. It then brought a summary judgment motion and prevailed. The Maine SJC stated that the foreclosure was improperly commenced, but it ruled for JPM on straightforward grounds: JPM had standing at the time it moved (and was granted) summary judgment. Given the procedural posture of the case, standing at the time of summary judgment, rather than at the commencement of the foreclosure was what mattered, and there was no prejudice to the defendant by the assignment occurring after the foreclosure action was brought, because the defendant had an opportunity to litigate against the real party in interest before judgment was rendered. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court also indicated that it might not be so charitable with improperly foreclosing lenders that were not in the future; JPM benefitted from the lack of clear law on the subject. In short, Harp says that if the title defects are cured before the foreclosure is completed, it’s ok. There’s a very limited cure possibility under Harp, which means that the law is basically what it was before: if you can’t show title, you can’t complete the foreclosure.

What about MERS?

The Ibanez mortgages didn’t involve MERS. MERS was created in part to fix the problem of unrecorded assignments gumming up foreclosures in the early 1990s (and also to avoid payment of local real estate recording fees). In theory, MERS should help, as it should provide a chain of title for the mortgages. Leaving aside the unresolved concerns about whether MERS recordings are valid and for what purposes, MERS only helps to the extent it’s accurate. And that’s a problem because MERS has lots of inaccuracies in the system. MERS does not always report the proper name of loan owners (e.g., “Bank of America,” instead of “Bank of America 2006-1 RMBS Trust”), and I’ve seen lots of cases where the info in the MERS system doesn’t remotely match with the name of either the servicer or the trust bringing the foreclosure. That might be because the mortgage was transferred out of the MERS system, but there’s still an outstanding record in the MERS system, which actually clouds the title. I’m guessing that on balance MERS should help on mortgage title issues, but it’s not a cure-all. And it is critical to note that MERS does nothing for chain of title issues involving notes.

Which brings me to a critical point: Ibanez and Harp involve mortgage chain of title issues, not note chain of title issues. There are plenty of problems with mortgage chain of title. But the note chain of title issues, which relate to trust law questions, are just as, if not more serious. We don’t have any legal rulings on the note chain of title issues. But even the rosiest reading of Ibanez cannot provide any comfort on note chain of title concerns.

So who loses here? In theory, these loans should be put-back to the seller. Will that happen? I’m skeptical. If not, that means that investors will be eating the loss. This case also means that foreclosures in MA (and probably elsewhere) will be harder, which means more delay, which again hurts investors because there will be more servicing advances to be repaid off the top. The servicer and the trustee aren’t necessarily getting off scot free, though. They might get hit with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act suits from the homeowners (plus anything else a creative lawyer can scrape together). And mortgage insurers might start using this case as an excuse for denying coverage. REO purchasers and title insurers should be feeling a little nervous now, although I doubt that anyone who bought REO before Ibanez will get tossed out of their house if they are living in it. Going forward, though, I don’t think there’s a such thing as a good faith purchaser of REO in MA.

You can’t believe everything you read. Some of the materials coming out of the financial services sector are simply wrong. Three examples:

(1) JPMorgan Chase put out an analyst report this morning claiming the Massachusetts has not adopted the UCC. This is sourced to calls with two law firms. I sure hope JPM didn’t pay for that advice and that it didn’t come from anyone I know. It’s flat out wrong. Massachusetts has adopted the uniform version of Revised Article 9 of the UCC and a non-uniform version of Revised Article 1 of the UCC, but it has adopted the relevant language in Revised Article 1. There’s not a material divergence in the UCC here.
(2) One of my favorite MBS analysts (whom I will not name), put out a report this morning that stated that Ibanez said assignments in blank are fine. Wrong. It said that they are not and never have been valid in Massachusetts:

[In the banks’] reply briefs they conceded that the assignments in blank did not constitute a lawful assignment of the mortgages. Their concession is appropriate. We have long held that a conveyance of real property, such as a mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is void; we do not regard an assignment of land in blank as giving legal title in land to the bearer of the assignment.”

A similar line is coming out of ASF. Courtesy of the American Banker:

Perplexingly, the American Securitization Forum issued a press release hailing the court’s ruling as upholding the validity of assignments in blank. A spokesman for the organization could not be reached to explain its interpretation.

ASF’s credibility seems to really be crumbling here. It’s one thing to disagree with the Massachusetts SJC. It’s another thing to persist in blatant misstatements of black letter law.

(3) Wells and US Bank, the trustees in the Ibanez case, immediately put out statements that they had no liability. Really? I’m not so sure. Trustees certainly have very broad exculpation and very narrow duties. But an inability to produce deal documents strikes me as such a critical error that it might not be covered. Do they really want to litigate a case where the facts make them look like such buffoons? Do they really want daylight shed on the details of their operations? Indeed, absent an executed PSA, I don’t think the trustees have any proof of exculpation. They might be acting, unwittingly, as common law trustees and thus general fiduciaries. I think they’ll settle quickly and quietly with any investors who sue.
Finally, what are the ratings agencies going to do?

It seems to me that any trust with Massachusetts loans that doesn’t have a publicly filed, executed PSA with a reviewable loan schedule should be on a downgrade watch. Very few publicly filed PSAs are executed and even fewer have publicly filed loan schedules. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but somewhere off-line, but if I ran a rating agency, I’d want trustees to show me that they’ve got those papers on at least a sample of deals. Of course should and would are quite different–the ratings agencies, like the regulators, are refusing to take the securitization fail issue as seriously as they should (and I understand that it is a complex legal issue), but I think they ignore it at their (and our) peril

 

One Step Closer:It’s Impossible to Tie Any Investors to Any Loan

The current talking points used by the Banks is that somehow the Trust can enforce the alleged loan even though it is the “investors” who own the loan. But that can only be true if the Trust owns the loan which it doesn’t. And naming the “investors” as the creditor does nothing to clarify the situation — especially when the “investors” cannot be identified.

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

—————-

see http://4closurefraud.org/2016/06/07/unsealed-doj-confirms-holders-of-securitized-loans-cannot-be-traced/

I know of a case pending now where US Bank allegedly sued as Trustee of what appears to be named Trust. In Court the corporate representative of the servicer admitted that the creditor was a group of investors that he declined to name. I knew that meant two things: (1) neither he nor anyone else knew which investor was tied to the subject loan and (2) the “Plaintiff” Trust had never acquired the loan and therefore had no business being in court.

The article in the above link demonstrates that not even the FBI could figure out the identity of the investors. And as we have seen across the country whenever the homeowner asks for discovery of the identity of the creditor it is met with multiple objections and claims that the information about the identity of the debtor’s credit is proprietary. This is an absurd claim and it seeks to have the court rubber stamp a blatant violation of Federal and State lending laws which require the disclosure of the identity of the “lender.”

The only thing the article gets wrong is the statement that the loans were sold into a trust. That is obviously false. If the investors are the creditors, then their money was used to fund the origination or acquisition of the loan — without the Trust. Otherwise the Trust would be the creditor. And if the Trust is not the owner of the loan as specified by the Prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement, then it follows that it has no status at all, which means that neither the Trustee nor the servicer have any authority to manage, service or otherwise enforce the alleged loan. The entire strategy of asserting the Trust is a holder of the note is thus unhinged when it is confronted with reality. The whole “standing” argument revolves around this point — that no loan actually made it into any Trust. Many cases have been won by borrowers on that point without the extra step of saying that the creditor is completely unknown.

So the upshot is that there is no known, presumed or identified creditor. Although that seems implausible and counter-intuitive, it is nonetheless true. That doesn’t mean that theoretically there couldn’t be an unsecured claim from the investors to collect from the homeowner under a theory of unjust enrichment, but it does mean that the investors are neither named on the note and mortgage nor are they the current owners of any paper instruments that purport to be evidence of the “debt” — i.e., the note and mortgage. If they are not the current owners of the “debt” originated at closing nor the owners of the paper instruments signed at the alleged closing, then there is no evidence of any contract or privity between the investors and the Trustee or servicer at all. The PSA was ignored which means the entity of the Trust was ignored.  And THAT means lack of standing and lack of any ability to cure it.

Which brings me to one of my earliest articles for this Blog that announced “You Don’t Owe the Money.” Using the step transaction doctrine and single transaction doctrines arising mostly out of tax courts, it was plain as day to me back in 2007 and 2008 that there was no “debt.” And until someone stepped up with an equitable unsecured claim against the homeowner, there wasn’t even a liability. But nobody ever steps up. The banks tell us that is because the whole securitization scheme is to prevent and even prohibit the investors from even making an inquiry into any specific “loans.”

But the real reason is simple and basic — the Trusts were ignored, which means that investor money was deposited with investment banks under false pretenses — the falsehood being that the investors were buying into a specific Trust (which never received any proceeds of sale of the Trust securities) with a specific Mortgage Loan Schedule. The Mortgage Loan Schedule was therefore a complete illusion as an attachment to the Trust because the Trust never had the money to pay for the “pool” of loans. That is why the Mortgage Loan Schedule shows up mainly in litigation in order to confuse the Judge into thinking that somehow it is “facially valid” instead of being the self-serving fabrication of a stranger to the transaction who is engaged in stealing the loans after they already stole the money from investors.

In fact, the “pool” was an ever widening dark dynamic pool of money in which all the money of all investors was commingled with all the other investors of all the alleged Trusts. As I have previously stated the result can be compared to taking an apple, an orange and a banana and setting a food processor on Puree. At the end of that simple process it is impossible for the chef to produce the original apple, orange or banana.

If securitization was real, the banks could have easily done two things that would have completely knocked out any borrower defenses except payment. The first was to show the money chain and the second would be produce the proof that the Trust owned the debt, not the investors. The current talking points used by the Banks is that somehow the Trust can enforce the alleged loan even though it is the “investors” who own the loan. But that can only be true if the Trust owns the loan which it doesn’t. And naming the “investors” as the creditor does nothing to clarify the situation — especially when the “investors” cannot be identified.

As it stands now, the investors continue to allow the banks to act like they are really intermediaries, stealing both the money and the loans that should have been executed in favor of the investors and even allowing claims for collecting “servicer advances” that were not advances (they were return of investor capital) and never came from the servicer. It was and remains a classic PONZI scheme that government is too scared to do anything about and investors are too ignorant of the false securitization (or unwilling to admit human error in failing to do due diligence on the securitization package).

Schedule A Consult Now!

The Mortgage Loan Schedule: Ascension of a False Self-Serving Document

At no time were the Trusts anything but figments of the imagination of investment banks.

As an exhibit to the alleged Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Mortgage Loan Schedule” appears to have legitimacy. Peel off one layer and it is an obvious fraud upon the court.

The only reason the banks don’t allege holder in due course status is because nobody in their chain ever paid anything. The transactions referred to by the assignment or endorsement or any other document never happened — but they are  wrongly presumed to be true.

================================

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

Our Services: https://livinglies.me/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

—————-

I’m seeing more and more cases where once again the goal post keeps moving, in order to keep the court and foreclosure defense counsel off balance. Now it is the attachment of a “Mortgage Loan Schedule” [MLS] to the PSA. As an exhibit to the alleged Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the “Mortgage Loan Schedule” appears to have legitimacy. Peel off one layer and it is an obvious fraud upon the court.

Here is my thought. The MLS supposedly attached to the PSA never has any proof as to when it was attached. It has the same problem as the undated endorsement on the note only worse. It is not a facially valid document of transfer. It relies, derivatively on the PSA that was created long before an MLS existed even if they were telling the truth (which they are not — the trusts are empty).

The securitization process is described in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement along with the parties who are involved in the purchase, Sale and ownership of the alleged loans that were “purchased” by the Trust. But there was no purchase. If there was a purchase the bank would assert status as a holder in due course, prove the payment and the borrower would have no defenses against the Trust, even if there were terrible violations of the lending laws.

First you create the trust and then after you have sold the MBS to investors you are supposed turn over the proceeds of the sale of mortgage backed securities (MBS) to the Trustee for the Trust. This never happened in any of the thousands of Trusts I have reviewed. But assuming for a moment that the proceeds of sale of MBS were turned over to the Trust or Trustee THEN there is a transaction in which the Trust purchases the loan.

The MLS, if it was real, would be attached to assignments of mortgages and bulk endorsements — not attached to the PSA. The MLS as an exhibit to the PSA is an exercise in fiction. Adhering strictly to the wording in the PSA and established law from the Internal Revenue Code for REMIC Trusts, and New York State law which is the place of origination of the common law trusts, you would THEN sell the loan to the trust through the mechanism in the PSA. Hence the MLS cannot by any stretch of the imagination have existed at the time the Trust was created because the condition precedent to acquiring the loans is getting the money to buy them.

The MLS is a self serving document that is not proven as a business record of any entity nor is there any testimony that says that this is in the business records of the Trust (or any of the Trust entities) because the Trust doesn’t have any business records (or even a bank account for that matter).

They can rely all they want on business records for payment processing but the servicer has nothing to do with the original transaction in which they SAY that there was a purchase of the loans on the schedule. The servicer has no knowledge about the putative transaction in which the loans were purchased.

And we keep coming back to the same point that is inescapable. If a party pays for the negotiable instrument (assuming it qualifies as a negotiable instrument) then THAT purchasing party becomes a holder in due course, unless they were acting in bad faith or knew of the borrower’s defenses. It is a deep stretch to say that the Trustee knew of the borrower’s defenses or even of the existence of the “closing.”By alleging and proving the purchase by an innocent third party in the marketplace, there would be no defenses to the enforcement of the note nor of the mortgage. There would be no foreclosure defenses with very few exceptions.

There is no rational business or legal reason for NOT asserting that the Trust is a holder in due course because the risk of loss, if an innocent third party pays for the paper, shifts to the maker (i.e., the homeowner, who is left to sue the parties who committed the violations of lending laws etc.). The only reason the banks don’t allege holder in due course status is because nobody in their chain ever paid anything. There were no transactions in which the loans were purchased because they were already funded using investor money in a manner inconsistent with the prospectus, the PSA and state and federal law.

Hence the absence of a claim for holder in due course status corroborates my factual findings that none of the trusts were funded, none of the proceeds of sale of MBS was ever turned over to the trusts, none of the trusts bought anything because the Trust had no assets, or even a bank account, and none of the Trusts were operating entities even during the cutoff period. At no time were the Trusts anything but figments of the imagination of investment banks. Their existence or nonexistence was 100% controlled by the investment bank who in reality was offering false certificates to investors issued by entities that were known to be worthless.

Hence the bogus claim that the MLS is an attachment to the PSA, that it is part of the PSA, that the Trust owns anything, much less loans. The MLS is just another vehicle by which banks are intentionally confusing the courts. But nothing can change the fact that none of the paper they produce in court refers to anything other than a fictional transaction.

So the next question people keep asking me is “OK, so who is the creditor.” The answer is that there is no “creditor,” and yes I know how crazy that sounds. There exists a claim by the people or entities whose money was used to grant what appeared to be real residential mortgage loans. But there was no loan. Because there was no lender. And there was no loan contract, so there is nothing to be enforced except in equity for unjust enrichment. If the investment banks had played fair, the Trusts would have been holders in due course and the investors would have been safe.

But the investors are stuck in cyberspace without any knowledge of their claims, in most instances. The fund managers who figured it out got fat settlements from the investment banks. The proper claimant is a group of investors whose money was diverted into a dynamic commingled dark pool instead of the money going to the REMIC Trusts.

These investors have claims against the investment banks at law, and they have claims in equity against homeowners who received the benefit of the investors’ money but no claim to the note or mortgage. And the investors would do well for themselves and the homeowners (who are wrongly described as “borrowers”) if they started up their own servicing operations instead of relying upon servicers who have no interest in preserving the value of the “asset” — i.e., the claim against homeowners for recovery of their investment dollars that were misused by the investment banks. An educated investor is the path out of this farce.

 

Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS: Transfers to Trusts Are Void, not Voidable

In observance of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, my office will be closed Wednesday, September 23. The following article was scheduled in advance:

=======================================

See Anh N. Tran, et al. v. Bank of New York SCOTUS Certiorari_SRCH

READ THE ENTIRE BRIEF SLOWLY AND STUDY IT.

I think we have another case here where the pen of Justice Scalia (if they grant the writ and hear the case) will be dripping with sarcasm , just like we saw in Jesinoski. The New York Law says that the “transfer” to the REMIC Trust is void if it violates the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The problem for the banks is that they MUST rely on the PSA in order to give standing to their trustee and servicer. If the trust does not have the loan, then the trustee has no authority over the loan and neither does the servicer. SO the Banks are trying to use the PSA and then Bar the borrower from inquiring as to its terms and provisions.

This isn’t an academic exercise. The Trusts are now known to have existed only on paper and not even registered in any state or anywhere else. They never had a bank account, they never received the money from the offering and sale of the trust’s certificates, they never had any money, they never had any liabilities, they never had any assets, and they they were never operated as a business in any sense of the word. Thus the Trust COULD NOT have acquired the loans because it never had the money to do so. And the paper transfers to the trust, all of which occurred in reality far beyond the date of the cutoff period would be void and mean nothing.

This is not a problem caused by the borrowers. It is a problem intentionally created by the banks so that behind curtains they could take or steal the money of investors, covering their tracks by making it appear that there was a transaction when there was none. The fundamental question presented to the courts is whether we are going to allow nonexistent parties to exercise rights in court with respect to nonexistent transactions.

The courts, once again, read into a perfectly clear and unambiguous statute and converted the word “void” to “voidable.” This is an impermissible “interpretation” of statute because it changes the law rather than clarifying it.

I recommend the brief because it appears to be complete, and it is the best (better than mine) brief on the subject of why the trusts do not have “prudential standing” which is a jurisdictional threshold question. It is clear to me that an entity created only on paper and never used for business activity, except for the purpose of foreclosure on a loan it does not own, is not an entity that should be given any right to appear in court.

One thing is clear: this brief should be used by all attorneys drafting memorandums of law on the subject of “Borrowers cannot invoke the provisions of the PSA because they are not third party beneficiaries.” If they were not third party beneficiaries then what assurance would the borrowers or the investors have that the certificate holders would receive the money promised to them? What assurance would the borrower have that a manufactured default would be declared despite the fact that the real creditors have been paid, or that a manufactured default would arise simply because the servicer and trustee refused to pay the creditors?

Is the PSA Relevant If It Shows the Assignment is Void?

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

=======================

see Yvanova2014-Opening brief

The short answer is YES. If a party initiates foreclosure proceedings based upon ownership of the loan, note and mortgage by a REMIC Trust, that ownership is based upon the express provisions of a trust instrument. And that trust instrument is the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). If that instrument is created under the laws of the State of New York, New York law expressly states that anything that violates the trust provisions is void.

So if US Bank, for example, says it brings the foreclosure by virtue of US Bank being the Trustee for a named Trust, then right there is an item for discovery —- is US bank really the trustee? Does the trust own the loan? If the answer is no, then there should be no foreclosure. Nothing could be more relevant.

So the theory that the borrower owes the money to SOMEONE, is not a very good precedent. It leaves the door open for anyone to demand payment on an account owned by someone else. Normal application of law would say that if the borrower paid the wrong party, then the debt is still owed. And if the borrower wants to use his wrongful payment to the wrong party, then he must show authority or apparent authority of the third party who wrongfully collected his payment — in which case the collection was not really wrongful.

Thus the rulings from the bench that the borrower has no right to challenge the assignment or the foreclosure on the basis of a violation of the enabling documents (PSA and Prospectus) are wrong. And just as I said regarding rescission, eventually there will be appellate decisions that overturn all the erroneous orders entered in connection with the the use of the PSA, relied upon by the foreclosing party, which essentially allow one party (allegedly for the benefit of the Trust) to use the PSA to their advantage establishing the right of the Trustee and the ownership of the debt, and then disallowing any inquiry or challenge into those assertions.

Add to this that the no Trust representative shows up at trial, ordinarily, and you have the reality revealed. These foreclosures are in actuality for the benefit of intermediaries and not for the benefit of the Trust or the holders of Trust certificates.

This is brilliantly argued in a brief drafted by Richard L Antognini, dated 11/18/14. Read it in full using the link above. If you still have doubts as to whether the borrower can use the PSA against the forecloser, then you are operating under the wrong legal presumptions.

Hypocrisy of Bank Arguments — Borrowers Bound by PSA But Can’t Challenge it

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

====================

Suburb Brief Filed in California — Arguments to be used in any state

see Replybriefasfiled3-19-2015

Lawyers are getting better and better at confronting the specious arguments of the banks. The time is nearing when we realize as a nation that the foreclosure crisis was a sham — a fraudulent scheme to benefit the banks and the executives who run them.

Amongst many compelling arguments in this Brief filed in California is the hypocrisy of the bank arguments about whether the borrower can challenge the right to foreclose and even the validity of the mortgage based upon the PSA. Their idea is that the borrower can’t challenge the validity of the note and mortgage based upon the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Their reason is very attractive to Judges at first because their reason is that the borrower could not possibly be able to enforce a document or agreement to which the borrower was not a party.

This brief tears that arguments into pieces better than anything I have done on these pages. The writer cites the fact that the same bank making the argument that the borrower has no rights to challenge based upon the provisions of the PSA is, in the same case, trying to argue that the borrower is bound by the provisions of the PSA. That by all accounts makes the borrower a party who has obligations under the PSA and therefore a party who has rights to challenge those obligations. The banks want to pick up one of the stick without picking up the other. It can’t be done.

Hence the violation of the PSA in the origination or acquisition of a loan must inevitably lead to a burden of proof that those transactions actually took place in the chain relied upon by the banks; it also must also inevitably lead to the conclusion that the borrower must be allowed to challenge the existence of non-existent transactions presumed by fabricated documents that were never actually used — BECAUSE the bank is saying that the “Trust” took ownership of the loan by virtue of the the terms of the PSA.  Otherwise US Bank as Trustee for whoever, has no standing in court.

I consider this argument incontrovertible.

Ocwen: Investors and Borrowers Move toward Unity of Purpose!

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

Please consult an attorney who is licensed in your jurisdiction before acting upon anything you read on this blog.

==================================

Anyone following this blog knows that I have been saying that unity of investors and borrowers is the ultimate solution to the falsely dubbed “Foreclosure crisis” (a term that avoids Wall Street corruption). Many have asked what i have based that on and the answer was my own analysis and interviews with Wall Street insiders who have insisted on remaining anonymous. But it was only a matter of time where the creditors (investors who bought mortgage backed securities) came to realize that nobody acting in the capacity of underwriter, servicer or Master Servicer was acting in the best interests of the investors or the borrowers.

The only thing they have tentatively held back on is an outright allegation that their money was NOT used by the Trustee for the Trust and their money never made it into the Trust and that the loans never made it into the Trust. That too will come because when investors realize that homeowners are not going to walk away, investors as creditors will come to agreements to salvage far more of the debts created during the mortgage meltdown than the money salvaged by pushing cases to foreclosure instead of the centuries’ proven method of resolving troubled loans — workouts. Nearly all homeowners would execute a new clean mortgage and note in a heartbeat to give investors the benefits of a workout that reflects economic reality.

Practice hint: If you are dealing with Ocwen Discovery should include information about Altisource and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, investors, and borrowers as it relates to the subject loan.

Investors announced complaints against Ocwen for mishandling the initial money, the paperwork and the subsequent money and servicing on loans created and a acquired with their money. The investors, who are the actual creditors (albeit unsecured) are getting close to the point where they state outright what everyone already knows: there is no collateral for these loans and every disclosure statement involving nearly all the loans violated disclosure requirements under TILA, RESPA, and Federal and state regulations.
The fact that (1) the loan was not funded by the payee on the note and mortgagee on the mortgage and (2) that the money from creditors were never properly channeled through the REMIC trusts because the trusts never received the proceeds of sale of mortgage backed securities is getting closer and closer to the surface.
What was unthinkable and the subject of ridicule 8 years ago has become the REAL reality. The plain truth is that the Trust never owned the loans even as a pass through because they never had had the money to originate or acquire loans. That leaves an uncalculated unsecured debt that is being diminished every day that servicers continue to push foreclosure for the protection of the broker dealers who created worthless mortgage bonds which have been purchased by the Federal reserve under the guise of propping up the banks’ balance sheets.

“HOUSTON, January 23, 2015 – Today, the Holders of 25% Voting Rights in 119 Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Trusts (RMBS) with an original balance of more than $82 billion issued a Notice of Non-Performance (Notice) to BNY Mellon, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, US Bank, and Wells Fargo, as Trustees, Securities Administrators, and/or Master Servicers, regarding the material failures of Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen) as Servicer and/or Master Servicer, to comply with its covenants and agreements under governing Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs).”
  • Use of Trust funds to “pay” Ocwen’s required “borrower relief” obligations under a regulatory settlement, through implementation of modifications on Trust- owned mortgages that have shifted the costs of the settlement to the Trusts and enriched Ocwen unjustly;
  • Employing conflicted servicing practices that enriched Ocwen’s corporate affiliates, including Altisource and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, to the detriment of the Trusts, investors, and borrowers;
  • Engaging in imprudent and wholly improper loan modification, advancing, and advance recovery practices;
  • Failure to maintain adequate records,  communicate effectively with borrowers, or comply with applicable laws, including consumer protection and foreclosure laws; and,

 

  • Failure to account for and remit accurately to the Trusts cash flows from, and amounts realized on, Trust-owned mortgages.

As a result of the imprudent and improper servicing practices alleged in the Notice, the Holders further allege that their experts’ analyses demonstrate that Trusts serviced by Ocwen have performed materially worse than Trusts serviced by other servicers.  The Holders further allege that these claimed defaults and deficiencies in Ocwen’s performance have materially affected the rights of the Holders and constitute an ongoing Event of Default under the applicable PSAs.  The Holders intend to take further action to recover these losses and protect the Trusts’ assets and mortgages.

The Notice was issued on behalf of Holders in the following Ocwen-serviced RMBS: see link The fact that the investors — who by all accounts are the real parties in interest disavow the actions of Ocwen gives rise to an issue of fact as to whether Ocwen was or is operating under the scope of services supposedly to be performed by the servicer or Master Servicer.
I would argue that the fact that the apparent real creditors are stating that Ocwen is misbehaving with respect to adequate records means that they are not entitled to the presumption of a business records exception under the hearsay rule.
The fact that the creditors are saying that servicing practices damaged not only the investors but also borrowers gives rise to a factual issue which denies Ocwen the presumption of validity on any record including the original loan documents that have been shown in many cases to have been mechanically reproduced.
The fact that the creditors are alleging imprudent and wholly improper loan modification practices, servicer advances (which are not properly credited to the account of either the creditor or the borrower), and the recovery of advances means that the creditors are saying that Ocwen was acting on its own behalf instead of the creditors. This puts Ocwen in the position of being either outside the scope of its authority or more likely simply an interloper claiming to be a servicer for trusts that were never actually used to acquire or originate loans, this negating the effect of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  Hence the “servicer” for the trust is NOT the servicer for the subject loan because the loan never arrived in the trust portfolio.
The fact that the creditors admit against interest that Ocwen was pursuing practices and goals that violate laws and proper procedure means that no foreclosure can be supported by “clean hands.” The underlying theme here being that contrary to centuries of practice, instead of producing workouts in which the loan is saved and thus the investment of the creditors, Ocwen pursued foreclosure which was in its interest and not the creditors. The creditors are saying they don’t want the foreclosures but Ocwen did them anyway.
The fact that the creditors are saying they didn’t get the money that was supposed to go to them means that the money received from lost sharing with FDIC, guarantees, insurance, credit default swaps that should have paid off the creditors were not paid to them and would have reduced the damage to the creditors. By reducing the amount of damages to the creditors the borrower would have owed less, making the principal amounts claimed in foreclosures all wrong. The parties who paid such amounts either have or do not have separate unsecured actions against the borrower. In most cases they have no such claim because they explicitly waived it.
This is the first time investors have even partially aligned themselves with Borrowers. I hope it will lead to a stampede, because the salvation of investors and borrowers alike requires a pincer like attack on the intermediaries who have been pretending to be the principal parties in interest but who lacked the authority from the start and violated every fiduciary duty and contractual duty in dealing with creditors and borrowers. Peal the onion: the reason that their initial money is at stake is that these servicers are either acting as Master Servicers who are actually the underwriters and sellers of the mortgage backed securities,
I would argue that the fact that the apparent real creditors are stating the Ocwen is misbehaving with respect to adequate records means that they are not entitled to the presumption of a business records exception under the hearsay rule.
The fact that the creditors are saying that servicing practices damaged not only the investors but also borrowers gives rise to a factual issue which denies Ocwen the presumption of validity on any record including the original loan documents that have been shown in many cases to have been mechanically reproduced.
The fact that the creditors are alleging imprudent and wholly improper loan modification practices, servicer advances (which are not properly credited to the account of either the creditor or the borrower), and the recovery of advances means that the creditors are saying that Ocwen was acting on tis own behalf instead of the creditors. This puts Ocwen in the position of being either outside the scope of its authority or more likely simply an interloper claiming to be a servicer for trusts that were never actually used to acquire or originate loans, this negating the effect of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
The fact that the creditors admit against interest that Ocwen was pursuing practices and goals that violate laws and proper procedure means that no foreclosure can be supported by “clean hands.” The underlying theme here being that contrary to centuries of practice, instead of producing workouts in which the loan is saved and thus the investment of the creditors, Ocwen pursued foreclosure which was in its interest and not the creditors. The creditors are saying they don’t want the foreclosures but Ocwen did them anyway.
The fact that the creditors are saying they didn’t get the money that was supposed to go to them means that the money received from lost sharing with FDIC, guarantees, insurance, credit default swaps that should have paid off the creditors were not paid to them and would have reduced the damage to the creditors. By reducing the amount of damages to the creditors the borrower would have owed less, making the principals claimed in foreclosures all wrong. The parties who paid such amounts either have or do not have separate unsecured actions against eh borrower. In most cases they have no such claim because they explicitly waived it.
This is the first time investors have even partially aligned themselves with Borrowers. I hope it will lead to a stampede, because the salvation of investors and borrowers alike requires a pincer like attack on the intermediaries who have been pretending to be the principal parties in interest but who lacked the authority from the start and violated every fiduciary duty and contractual duty in dealing with creditors and borrowers.

Modification Minefields as Foreclosures Resume Upward Volume

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

Listen to Neil Garfield Show on Thursday February 26, 2015 at 6pm EDT., and each Thursday

===============================

see http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/02/02/new-foreclosure-procedures-put-to-test-as-number-of-cases-climbs-in-nj/

New Jersey now has an upsurge of Foreclosure activity. It is on track to become first in the nation in the number of foreclosures. What is clear is that the level of foreclosure activity is being carefully managed to avoid attention in the media. Right now, foreclosure articles and the infamous acts of the banks in pursuing foreclosures is staying off Page 1 and usually not  anywhere in newspapers and other media outlets online and and in distributed media. The pattern is obvious. After one area becomes saturated with foreclosures, the banks switch off the flow and then move to another geographical area. This effectively manages the news. And it keeps foreclosures from becoming a hot political issue despite the fact that millions of Americans are being displaced by illegal foreclosures based upon invalid mortgage documents and the complete absence of any real creditor in the mix.

As foreclosures rise, the number of attempts at modification also rise. This is a game used by “servicers” to assure what appears to be an inescapable default because their marching orders are to get the foreclosure sales, not to resolve the issue. The investment banks need foreclosures; they don’t need the money and they don’t need the house —- as the hundreds of thousands of zombie foreclosures attest where the bank forecloses and abandons property where the borrower could and would have continued paying.

The problem with modifications is the same as the problem with foreclosures. It constitutes another layer of mortgage fraud perpetrated by the Wall Street banks, who are now facing increasingly successful challenges to their attempts to complete the cycle of fraud with a foreclosure.

The “servicer” whom nearly everyone takes for granted as having some authority to move forward is in actuality just as much a stranger to the transaction as the alleged Trust or “Holder”. The so-called servicer alleged authority depends upon powers conferred on it by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement of an unfunded Trust that never completed its mission to originate or acquire loans. If the REMIC trust doesn’t own the loans, the servicer claiming authority from the PSA is claiming vapor. If the Trust doesn’t own the loan then the PSA is irrelevant and the powers conferred in the PSA are pure vapor.

This brings us full circle to where we were in 2007-2008 when it was the banks themselves that claimed that there were no trusts and that there was no securitization. They were, as it turns out, telling the truth. The Trusts were drafted but never funded, never used as conduits and never engaged in ANY transaction in which the Trust had funded the origination or acquisition of loans. So anyone claiming authority from the trust was claiming authority from a fictional character — like Donald Duck.

Complicating matters further is the issue of who owns the loan when there is a claim by Freddie or Fannie. Both of them say they “have” the mortgage online when they neither “have it” nor “own it.” Fannie and Freddie were one of two things in this mess: (1) guarantors, which means they have no interest until after a creditor liquidates the property and claims an actual money loss and Fannie and Freddie actually pays off the loss or (2) Master trustee (and probably guarantor as well) for a REMIC Trust that probably has no greater value than the unfunded REMIC Trusts that are unused conduits.

Further complicating the issue with the former Government Sponsored Entities (Fannie and Freddie) is the fact that many banks have been forced to buy back or pay damages for violating underwriting standards and other types of fraud.

So how do you get or sign a modification with a servicer that has no authority and represents a Trust that has no interest in the loan? The answer is that there is no legal way to do it — BUT there is a way that would allow a legal fiction to be created if a Court issued an order approving the modification and declaring the rights of the parties. The order would say that XYZ is the servicer and ABC is the creditor or owner of the loan and that the homeowner is the borrower and that the modification agreement is approved. If proper notice (including publication) is given it would have the same effect as a foreclosure and would eliminate all questions of title. Without that, you will have continuing title problems. You should also request that the “Servicer” or “Trustee” arrange for a “Guarantee of Title” from a title company.

For the tricks and craziness of what is happening in modifications and the issues presented in New Jersey and other states click the link above.

Bondholders Clash With Ocwen Over Bad Servicing

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

==========================

see http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/ocwen-and-bondholders-clash-over-mortgage-services/?_r=0

And if you are in the mood to drill into Ocwen’s Business, see http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1513161/000119312513024292/d474092dex991.htm

Every once in a while you get a peek at what is really happening behind the scenes. The view from here is startling sometimes even to me. Here we have theater of the absurd. Ocwen is accusing the bondholders of forcing Ocwen to foreclose rather than modify or settle claims regarding the bogus mortgages and the bondholders are accusing Ocwen of bad servicing practices.

Absurdity #1: Bondholders don’t have any say about when or how the mortgages or notes are enforced and don’t know whether the debts followed the notes or mortgages. So Ocwen’s claim is blatantly false in its attempt to point the finger elsewhere. But this is done with probable tacit agreement of all parties concerned.

Absurdity #2: The bond holders still have not figured out or they are ignoring the fact that the loans never made it into the trusts and thus their position as bondholders has nothing whatever to do with the loans.

Absurdity #3: This may have been leaked intentionally to give support to the illusion that the notes and mortgages were valid, not bogus. It’s the Kansas City shuffle — look right while everything falls left.

Absurdity #4: Ocwen is not the Master Servicer — ever. The Master Servicer is the underwriter or some entity controlled by the underwriter of the mortgage bonds. It is the underwriter/Master Servicer who calls the shots, not Ocwen, and the bondholders know that. So why are they accusing Ocwen of something?

Absurdity #5: Ocwen’s position as servicer is governed by the trust document — pooling and servicing agreement for a trust that never actually purchased or received or accepted delivery of the debt, note or mortgage. Thus Ocwen’s authority is derived from an instrument that has no relevance to the loans. If the loans never made it into the trusts, then the PSA has no bearing on the alleged loans. Hence Ocwen is a volunteer with at best apparent authority but no real authority. This is why you are seeing courts order disgorgement of all money paid by the borrower — i.e., forcing the servicer to pay all money received from borrower back to the borrower.

Absurdity #6: The Emperor (the investors) has no clothes. [see one of earliest pieces 7 years ago). Like the old fable, the investors are sitting out there buck naked.  Their claim is against the underwriter who never funded the trust in the IPO offering of the mortgage bonds. Other than that they have nothing in the way of a claim, much less a secured claim, in the loans made to the borrowers — even though it was their money that funded the origination and/or acquisition of loans. Since the federal and state disclosure laws were violated as a pattern of conduct, the loans were predatory per se (REG Z), even though the investors neither knew about the loans nor consented to them. Their best claim is against the underwriters/master servicers; but they probably have a partial claim against the borrowers for unjust enrichment, but it would not be a secured claim that could be foreclosed.

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

see http://www.salon.com/2014/12/02/big_banks_broke_america_why_nows_the_time_to_break_our_national_addiction/

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.

Who Are the Creditors?

For litigation support (to attorneys only) and expert witness consultation, referrals to attorneys please call 954-495-9867 or 520 405-1688.

Since the distributions are made to the alleged trust beneficiaries by the alleged servicers, it is clear that both the conduct and the documents establish the investors as the creditors. The payments are not made into a trust account and the Trustee is neither the payor of the distributions nor is the Trustee in any way authorized or accountable for the distributions. The trust is merely a temporary conduit with no business purpose other than the purchase or origination of loans. In order to prevent the distributions of principal from being treated as ordinary income to the Trust, the REMIC statute allows the Trust to do its business for a period of 90 days after which business operations are effectively closed.

The business is supposed to be financed through the “IPO” sale of mortgage bonds that also convey an undivided interest in the “business” which is the trust. The business consists of purchasing or originating loans within the 90 day window. 90 days is not a lot of time to acquire $2 billion in loans. So it needs to be set up before the start date which is the filing of the required papers with the IRS and SEC and regulatory authorities. This business is not a licensed bank or lender. It has no source of funds other than the IPO issuance of the bonds. Thus the business consists simply of using the proceeds of the IPO for buying or originating loans. Since the Trust and the investors are protected from poor or illegal lending practices, the Trust never directly originates loans. Otherwise the Trust would appear on the original note and mortgage and disclosure documents.

Yet as I have discussed in recent weeks, the money from the “trust beneficiaries” (actually just investors) WAS used to originate loans despite documents and agreements to the contrary. In those documents the investor money was contractually intended to be used to buy mortgage bonds issued by the REMIC Trust. Since the Trusts are NOT claiming to be holders in due course or the owners of the debt, it may be presumed that the Trusts did NOT purchase the loans. And the only reason for them doing that would be that the Trusts did not have the money to buy loans which in turn means that the broker dealers who “sold” mortgage bonds misdirected the money from investors from the Trust to origination and acquisition of loans that ultimately ended up under the control of the broker dealer (investment bank) instead of the Trust.

The problem is that the banks that were originating or buying loans for the Trust didn’t want the risk of the loans and frankly didn’t have the money to fund the purchase or origination of what turned out to be more than 80 million loans. So they used the investor money directly instead of waiting for it to be processed through the trust.

The distribution payments came from the Servicer directly to the investors and not through the Trust, which is not allowed to conduct business after the 90 day cutoff. It was only a small leap to ignore the trust at the beginning — I.e. During the business period (90 days). On paper they pretended that the Trust was involved in the origination and acquisition of loans. But in fact the Trust entities were completely ignored. This is what Adam Levitin called “securitization fail.” Others call it fraud, pure and simple, and that any further action enforcing the documents that refer to fictitious transactions is an attempt at making the courts an instrument for furthering the fraud and protecting the perpetrator from liability, civil and criminal.

And that brings us to the subject of servicer advances. Several people  have commented that the “servicer” who advanced the funds has a right to recover the amounts advanced. If that is true, they ask, then isn’t the “recovery” of those advances a debit to the creditors (investors)? And doesn’t that mean that the claimed default exists? Why should the borrower get the benefit of those advances when the borrower stops paying?

These are great questions. Here is my explanation for why I keep insisting that the default does not exist.

First let’s look at the actual facts and logistics. The servicer is making distribution payments to the investors despite the fact that the borrower has stopped paying on the alleged loan. So on its face, the investors are not experiencing a default and they are not agreeing to pay back the servicer.

The servicer is empowered by vague wording in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to stop paying the advances when in its sole discretion it determines that the amounts are not recoverable. But it doesn’t say recoverable from whom. It is clear they have no right of action against the creditor/investors. And they have no right to foreclosure proceeds unless there is a foreclosure sale and liquidation of the property to a third party purchaser for value. This means that in the absence of a foreclosure the creditors are happy because they have been paid and the borrower is happy because he isn’t making payments, but the servicer is “loaning” the payments to the borrower without any contracts, agreements or any documents bearing the signature of the borrower. The upshot is that the foreclosure is then in substance an action by the servicer against the borrower claiming to be secured by a mortgage but which in fact is SUPPOSEDLY owned by the Trust or Trust beneficiaries (depending upon which appellate decision or trial court decision you look at).

But these questions are academic because the investors are not the owners of the loan documents. They are the owners of the debt because their money was used directly, not through the Trust, to acquire the debt, without benefit of acquiring the note and mortgage. This can be seen in the stone wall we all hit when we ask for the documents in discovery that would show that the transaction occurred as stated on the note and mortgage or assignment or endorsement.

Thus the amount received by the investors from the “servicers” was in fact not received under contract, because the parties all ignored the existence of the trust entity. It was a voluntary payment received from an inter-meddler who lacked any power or authorization to service or process the loan, the loan payments, or the distributions to investors except by conduct. Ignoring the Trust entity has its consequences. You cannot pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other.

So the claim of the “servicer” is in actuality an action in equity or at law for recovery AGAINST THE BORROWER WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION OF ANY KIND BEARING THE BORROWER’S SIGNATURE. That is because the loans were originated as table funded loans which are “predatory per se” according to Reg Z. Speaking with any mortgage originator they will eventually either refuse to answer or tell you outright that the purpose of the table funded loan was to conceal from the borrower the parties with whom the borrower was actually doing business.

The only reason the “servicer” is claiming and getting the proceeds from foreclosure sales is that the real creditors and the Trust that issued Bonds (but didn’t get paid for them) is that the investors and the Trust are not informed. And according to the contract (PSA, Prospectus etc.) that they don’t know has been ignored, neither the investors nor the Trust or Trustee is allowed to make inquiry. They basically must take what they get and shut up. But they didn’t shut up when they got an inkling of what happened. They sued for FRAUD, not just breach of contract. And they received huge payoffs in settlements (at least some of them did) which were NOT allocated against the amount due to those investors and therefore did not reduce the amount due from the borrower.

Thus the argument about recovery is wrong because there really is no such claim against the investors. There is the possibility of a claim against the borrower for unjust enrichment or similar action, but that is a separate action that arose when the payment was made and was not subject to any agreement that was signed by the borrower. It is a different claim that is not secured by the mortgage or note, even if the  loan documents were valid.

Lastly I should state why I have put the “servicer”in quotes. They are not the servicer if they derive their “authority” from the PSA. They could only be the “servicer” if the Trust acquired the loans. In that case they PSA would affect the servicing of the actual loan. But if the money did not come from the Trust in any manner, shape or form, then the Trust entity has been ignored. Accordingly they are neither the servicer nor do they have any powers, rights, claims or obligations under the PSA.

But the other reason comes from my sources on Wall Street. The service did not and could not have made the “servicer advances.” Another bit of smoke and mirrors from this whole false securitization scheme. The “servicer advances” were advances made by the broker dealer who “sold” (in a false sale) mortgage bonds. The brokers advanced money to an account in which the servicer had access to make distributions along with a distribution report. The distribution reports clearly disclaim any authenticity of the figures used, the status of the loans, the trust or the portfolio of loans (non-existent) as a whole. More smoke and mirrors. So contrary to popular belief the servicer advances were not made by the servicers except as a conduit.

Think about it. Why would you offer to keep the books on a thousand loans and agree to make payments even if the borrowers didn’t pay? There is no reasonable fee for loan processing or payment processing that would compensate the servicer for making those advances. There is no rational business reason for the advance. The reason they agreed to issue the distribution report along with money that was actually under the control of the broker dealer is that they were being given an opportunity, like sharks in a feeding frenzy, to participate in the liquidation proceeds after foreclosure — but only if the loan actually went into foreclosure, which is why most loan modifications are ignored or fail.

Who had a reason to advance money to the creditors even if there was no payment by the borrower? The broker dealer, who wanted to pacify the investors who thought they owned bonds issued by a REMIC Trust that they thought had paid for and owned the loans as holder in due course on their behalf. But it wasn’t just pacification. It was marketing and sales. As long as investors thought the investments were paying off as expected, they would buy more bonds. In the end that is what all this was about — selling more and more bonds, skimming a chunk out of the money advanced by investors — and then setting up loans that had to fail, and if by some reason they didn’t they made sure that the tranche that reportedly owned the loan also was liable for defaults in toxic waste mortgages “approved” for consumers who had no idea what they were signing.

So how do you prove this happened in one particular loan and one particular trust and one particular servicer etc.? You don’t. You announce your theory of the case and demand discovery in which you have wide latitude in what questions you can ask and what documents you can demand — much wider than what will be allowed as areas of inquiry in trial. It is obvious and compelling that asked for proof of the underlying authority, underlying transaction or anything else that is real, your opposition can’t come up with it. Their case falls apart because they don’t own or control the debt, the loan or any of the loan documents.

The Logic of Wall Street “Securitization:” The transaction that never existed

For more information on foreclosure offense and 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.

The logic of Wall Street schemes is simple: Create the trusts but don’t use them. Lie to everyone and assure everyone that Trusts were used to “securitize” loans. The strategy is so successful and the lie is so big and has been going on for so long, that most people believe it.

You see it in the decisions of the appellate courts who render opinions like the recent 3rd district in California which expresses the premise that the borrower was loaned money by the originator. Once you start with THAT premise, the outcome is no surprise. But start with reverse premise — that the borrower was NOT loaned money BY THE ORIGINATOR and you end up with a very different result.

We could assume that Wall Street is reckless in lending money. They can afford to be reckless because they are using investor money. And, so the story goes, the boys on Wall Street got a little wild with loans that they would never have approved for themselves.

Without risk of any loss, Wall Street investment banks make money regardless of whether the loan succeeds or goes into default.

But Wall Street is not content with earning fees. The basic credo is a question: “How can we make YOUR money OUR money.” And they have successfully devised and followed that goal for many years. As one insider told me in an interview that must remain anonymous, “It is like a magic trick. You create a trust and everyone is looking at the trust and everyone is looking at transactions affecting the trust, when in fact all the action is occurring off record, off the books and away from scrutiny by investors, trustees, rating agencies, insurers, borrowers, and of course, the courts.” 

So the question becomes “what happens to investor money after it is received by the investment bank?” If the money passes from the bank account of the managed fund (pension) fund to the bank account of the investment bank that sold bonds issued by a Trust then the Trust would receive the money. It didn’t.

The Trust would then issue funds for the origination or acquisition of loans. In return it would get the loan documents and they would be placed with the Depositor or Depository — pretty much the way ordinary loans are done. It didn’t. Instead we had millions of loan documents lost or destroyed and then re-created for litigation purposes. Why would an entire industry have engaged in that behavior? Was it really a “volume” problem where there was too much paper or was it something more sinister?

The problem is that the investment bank that acts as broker in selling the bonds is in control of the loans and investments of the Trusts. Since the fees of the investment bank are based on the existence of transactions in which the Trust issues money in exchange for investment certificates, the Wall Street bank is incentivized to make that Trust money move regardless of the quality of the investment. And since the Trust has no say in the actual underwriting decision to originate or acquire the loan, the investment bank is the only one in charge. That leaves the fox guarding the hen house.

But that doesn’t satisfy Wall Street either. They realized that they can create “proprietary profits” for the investment banks by creating a yield spread premium. A yield spread premium is the difference in value between two different loans to the same party for the same transaction — one is the honest one and the other is fictitious.

At closing the borrower is steered into the fictitious one which is far more risky and expensive than the one the borrower is actually qualified to receive.

At the investor level the “trust” is ordered to take loans that are far less valuable than they appear. This means that the Trust buys the investment bonds or shares that the investment bank has created with nobody checking the quality or ownership of the investment. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement contains provisions that effectively bars the Trustee or the investors from knowing or even inquiring about these transactions. Look at any PSA and you will see it.

The bottom line is that the worse the loan terms for the borrower and the more likely it is that the loan will fail, the lower the value of the loan. But if it is sold as though it was an ordinary conventional loan at 5%, then the price, charged for a crappy loan is much higher than its true value. Same scenario as the inflated appraisals of real property and homes. 

So the investment bank inserts itself as the Seller of the loan to the trust. At their proprietary trading desk the investment bank sells its ownership interest in the loan to the trust for the higher “value” because the investment bank is making the decisions on what loans the trust will buy. Meanwhile they have created loans that are worth far less and even have principal due on the “notes” that is far less than what the trust is forced to “pay.”

Checking with informed sources, it is evident that those proprietary transactions were fictitious and allowed the investment banks to report huge “profits” while everyone else was losing their shirts trading bonds, equities and anything else. The transaction at the proprietary trading desk of the investment bank was fictitious because the trust did not issue any payment to the investment bank, who never formally owned the loan in the first place.

You don’t see investment banks anywhere in the chain of title whether you review public records or even MERS. So you have the investment bank selling a loan they don’t own to a trust that never paid for it. The entire transaction is recorded but does not exist.

In the case of a 15% $300,000 loan to a “borrower”, it is “SOLD” as a 5% conventional loan giving the investment bank a reason to declare that it made a profit on a “proprietary trade.” How much profit? Figure it out — on the back of a napkin you can see how the investment banks “sold” the $300,000 loan but “received” $900,000 from the Trust leaving the investors with an instant $600,000 loss and the probability of losing the rest of the $300,000 as well. This is exactly opposite to the provisions of the Prospectus and PSA.

Upon examination, my sources tell me, the money to cover that declared “trading” profit does exist at the investment bank. That is because the investment bank took the money from investors, never funded the trust, and pocketed the $600,000 in advance of the “proprietary trade, which they could cause to be recorded and reported at any time, since the investment bank was in total control.

Enter moral hazard.

The only incentive that the investment bank to stay honest is to report good results so the managed funds buy more bonds. But that does not protect investors. The investment bank creates a classic PONZI scheme in which it uses investor money to make the monthly payments on the bonds or shares and reports that “all is well.” The report disclaims reliability, credibility and authenticity. Wells Fargo has an especially strong disclaimer on the distribution report to investors. The disclaimers were ignored as “boiler plate” by fund managers who made the investment on behalf of the their pensioners or mutual fund shareholders.

All the fund managers needed to know was that they were getting paid — but they did not realize that a significant part of the payment came from their own investment dollars advanced to the investment bank, as broker for the purchase of trust bonds or shares.

So the investment bank makes much less money on good investments for the trust than on really bad investments. In fact they have the  incentive to make certain the loan fails. Not only do they get the yield spread premium described above, the investment bank, is trading on inside information in which only the investment bank knows the truth. It places bets against the viability of the loan and bets further against the value of the mortgage bonds, and buys contracts for insurance, betting that the value of the bond will fall in a “credit event” without the necessity of an actual default.

SO IF THE INVESTMENT BANK DID NOT GIVE THE TRUST THE MONEY FROM INVESTORS, WHERE DID THE INVESTORS’ MONEY GO?

That is the trillion dollar question. And THIS is where the Courts have it completely wrong. Either we are a nation of laws or a nation governed by the financial industry. The banks bet on themselves, and so far, they were right to do so.

The money given to the investment banks was spread out over a long list of intermediaries owned or controlled by the investment bank. AND then SOME of it was spread out funding loans to borrowers. But the investment bank obviously could not name itself on the note and mortgage. That would have revealed that the tax advantages of a REMIC trust were nonexistent because the trust was not involved in the transaction.

So an elaborate, complicated, circuitous route was chosen for the “approval” of loans for origination or acquisition. First you have a nominee, which is often MERS plus a “lender” who was also a nominee even though they were called lender. The “lender” was subject to an assignment and assumption agreement that prohibited the “lender” from exercising any control over the closing on the loan that was being “originated.” In short, they were being paid to pretend to be a lender — hence the term pretender lender. 

The closing agent, whose fee depends upon actually closing, and the mortgage broker, whose fee depends upon actually closing, and the title company, whose fee depends upon the actual closing, have no interest in protecting the borrower from what is about to transpire.

The closing agent gets money from any one of a variety of sources OTHER THAN THE “LENDER.” The closing agent applies those funds to the closing as though the “Lender” made the loan. As stated by one mortgage document specialist for a large “originator”, “We knew that table funded loans were predatory and illegal, but we didn’t take that seriously. And the borrowers didn’t know who the lender was — that was the point. We used table funded loans to conceal the actual lender.”

Those funds came from the investors, although the money did not come through the trust. It came from the investment bank which was acting in the capacity, as they tell it, as a depository bank — which is why the Federal government allowed them to become commercial banks able to act as depositories. And every effort was made to prevent any evidence as to whose money was actually involved in the loan. Since it was the investor money that was used to originate or acquire the loan, it should have been the investors who were named as owner of the loan and recorded as such in the public records.

If you look at the PSA, it requires funding of the trust, of course. But it also requires that its acquisition of loans contain all the elements of a holder in due course, thus barring any claims from borrowers about irregularities at the closing, violations of state and federal law, etc. In summary the only defenses a borrower could raise against a holder in due course is that they paid or that they never signed the note. So a person who pays money in good faith without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses is pretty well protected. In litigation with borrowers, borrowers would be told they must sue the intermediaries that caused the problems with their loans.

The fact that no foreclosure of a loan subject to “claims of securitization” alleges HDC (holder in due course) status is very substantial corroboration that the Trust did not pay for the loan in good faith without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses.

The banks have been betting on a lot of things and winning every bet. In court they are betting that they will be treated as holders in due course and not as simply holders either with or without any right to enforce where they might be required to prove the actual loan of money from the originator, or the payment of money for an assignment and endorsement. And THAT is why the appellate court is assuming that the loan actually occurred — you, know, the loan that is underlying the execution of the note and mortgage, because the borrower didn’t know the truth.

The factual problem is that the presumptions and assumptions relied upon by the courts are in direct conflict with the real facts. The legal problem is that starting with the original loan, many cases, and always with the assignment of loan, is that somewhere in the chain (and probably at more than one point in the “chain”) there is no underlying transaction for the paper upon which the bankers rely in foreclosure.

Some OTHER transaction occurred, which is why the note is evidence of a loan that does not exist between the “lender” and the “borrower” and why the assignment is evidence of a transaction that does not exist between the assignor and assignee. The mistake being made is basic law: the courts are confusing “evidence” of a transaction with the transaction itself. In so doing they are escalating the status of the forecloser from a mere holder to a holder in due course without any actual claim or allegation of HDC status. Once that is done, the borrower is doomed.

The doom should fall on the investment bank and all the intermediaries that participated in this scheme. They left the investors with no coverage — the investors money was used in ways that were expressly prohibited by the offering, the PSA, and even the rules governing investments by stable managed funds whose risk is required to be extremely low in any investment. The investors are the involuntary lenders with no note and no mortgage.

The good news is that nearly all borrowers would be happy to execute a note and mortgage to investors who actually funded their loan or even a trust that was identified by the investors to represent them. The terms would be based upon current economic reality and would thus mitigate the damages to both the investor lenders and the borrowers. The balance, as we have already seen, lies in lawsuits for damages against the investment banks and their intermediaries demanding refunds, damages and even punitive damages. Those lawsuits are being brought by investors, borrowers, insurers, and guarantors and in some cases by counterparties to credit default swaps.

Without the execution of a real note and real mortgage, the foreclosures are fatally defective. So the bad news is that as long as the courts assume and then presume and then enter judgment for the foreclosing party, the Judge is inadvertently sealing a greater loss applied against the investor lender, removing the tax advantages of a REMIC trust, and creating another bar to liability and accountability of the investment bank who effectively has been lying and cheating its way through the system — using legal “presumptions” that are directly contrary to the facts.

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

THEY ARE ADMITTING THEY DIDN’T PAY FOR THE LOAN

THIS CORROBORATES THE ALLEGATION THAT THE TRUST WAS UNFUNDED

IF THE TRUST WAS UNFUNDED IT COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED OR ACQUIRED THE LOAN

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: