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

Posted on October 6, 2016 by Neil Garfield

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

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

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

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

About That Chase-WAMU Deal

Posted on November 10, 2015 by Neil Garfield

Imagine my surprise when I recently went to the FDIC website, clicked on FOIA at the bottom of the page, then went to Reading Room and looked again at the Chase-WAMU-FDIC-US Trustee Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Having previously read and studied it I was attempting to direct someone to the language that showed that no loans were purchased from WAMU basically because there were no loans in WAMU’s inventory. Staring me in the face was an entirely different document bearing the same date as the one that I had previously seen. Anyone who has an explanation of this is invited to write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

In the interim between my first reading of the agreement and now, I had several conversations including the FDIC receiver who was appointed to “resolve” the WAMU bankruptcy. The receiver (Schoppe) told me that no loans had been purchased or listed as part of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. He also told me that an assignment did not exist and that no other document from the Trustee in the WAMU bankruptcy or the FDIC receiver existed showing the purchase of any loan. And he told me that the effective consideration paid by Chase was less than zero because Chase received around $2 billion in tax refunds due WAMU, which more than offset the purchase price. In fact, in the version I previously read, the consideration was stated as “Zero.”

With that in hand I disseminated information and used it in court to show that Chase had not in fact purchased loans but had instead purchased servicing rights. As the plot thickened, it turned out that those servicing rights were granted by Pooling and Servicing Agreements for REMIC Trusts that never acquired any loans. With no loans in the trust, the PSA grant of servicing rights was meaningless.

And if you look at the statements from Chase to their shareholders and press releases there is no evidence they acquired the loans. Nonetheless tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, lost their homes on the presumption that Chase was in fact the creditor. They were threading a nonexistent needle with nonexistent facts. And in litigation it became apparent that this was the case because they tried to introduce “Powers of Attorney” in lieu of the PSA to support their contention that SPS was now the servicer of most of those loans. But they didn’t quite make out their case when it came to determining whether the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action was ever a creditor. So they lost. But for every one they lost, less astute judges were granting them foreclosures by the thousands.

And if you look at articles like the one in the link below you will see that while it looks like they are talking about loans they are actually talking about securities from “securitizations” that do not exist — i.e., the loans were never acquired by the REMIC Trusts.

And THAT leaves us with the question of where did the alleged loans go? The trust doesn’t have it, the certificate holders in the empty trust don’t have it and neither does Chase. Judges have been inclined to simply say that all this complexity is irrelevant, in an attempt to clear their docket. But they have done both the borrowers and the investors a disservice. And they did the government a big disservice. My answer to the question I pose is that the loans didn’t go anywhere because, in the legal sense, they never got started in the first place. (No consummation). If the party who funded the “loan” was not present in the documents or by proxy, then the party who funded the loan is not “in privity” (i.e., part of the loan contract) with the borrower. And since the party whose name appears on the loan documents was neither a lender or a creditor of the borrower, they were merely the “holder” of the document subject to borrower’s defenses to the “transaction” — namely no consideration.

And THAT my friends is the reason for all the fabricated, forged, back-dated and “found” documents and notes. The banks had to invent what the courts wanted to see.

So the overall answer is that Chase is neither a creditor nor the authorized servicer of anyone because nobody actually “owns” the loan. Pension funds and other investors clearly have a right of action against the Investment banks that sold them bogus mortgage backed securities that were neither securities nor mortgage backed. And those investors might have some action in equity against borrowers, but not a right of enforcement of the mortgage which never should have been recorded in the first place. Of course that probably will never happen because the investment bank pocketed the money that was supposed to go into the REMIC Trusts. Huge groups of investors in multiple “REMIC Trusts” had their money commingled by the investment bank who now has no way of figuring out whose money is in what “loan.” Thus there is no loan contract, and there could never be standing by anyone other than either a true creditor, which does not appear to exist, or a holder in due course, which cannot exist.

The reason why the banks are doing everything to resist proof of payment is that there was no payment anywhere in their chain. In a word, there was nobody to pay because nobody in their chain had anything to sell. Hence there were no purchases and there were no sales, making the assignments and endorsements fraudulent documents. If they had evidence of a purchase they would claim to be holder in due course which enables the holder to enforce against the party who signed the note and mortgage regardless of any defenses the borrower might have had against the “lender” or the “successors.”

And THAT, my friends, is why nobody from Wall Street is filing a lawsuit to vacate rescissions that might be years past the three year limitations. They have no standing — i.e., they don’t have a credible party who can claim to be a creditor and they can’t use the note and mortgage because they are void by operation of law. It is the absence of such lawsuits that corroborates what I am saying. In a flash they could easily vacate the rescission if they could only show that they had any right to be in court by reference to real transactions instead of the fake ones they are using in foreclosures.

The correction for this is simple to say: create new servicers that have full authority to interact with the defrauded investors and the hapless borrowers who were pawns in the securitization scam that was eventually dubbed “Securitization Fail” by Adam Levitin.

Just look at the following article and see how Chase twisted itself and the government into a mental pretzel:

see http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/jpm-wamu/

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , | 34 Comments »

HERS: FDIC- IndyMac -Onewest – IMB Holding Co Documents and Details

Posted on May 1, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Failed Bank Information

Information for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., and IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena,

  1. Introduction
  2. Press Release
  3. Acquiring Financial Institution
  4. Question and Answer Sheet
  5. Banking Services
  6. Loan Customers
  7. Unclaimed Deposits
  8. Possible Claims Against The Failed Institution
  9. Priority of Claims
  10. Dividend Information
  11. Brokered Deposits (Institutional Brokers)
  12. Agreements
  13. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Contact Information
    JavaScript is disabled or blocked. Alternatively, you may navigate to www2.fdic.gov/drrip/cs/index.asp and search for the contacts.
  14. Balance Sheet Summary

I.  IntroductionOn March 19, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) completed the sale of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California, to OneWest Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California.  OneWest Bank, FSB is a newly formed  federal savings bank organized by IMB HoldCo LLC.  All deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB have been transferred to OneWest Bank, FSB.On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, CA was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the FDIC was named Conservator.  All non-brokered insured deposit accounts and substantially all of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. have been transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Federal Bank), Pasadena, CA “assuming institution”) a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.  No advance notice is given to the public when a financial institution is closed.

The FDIC has assembled useful information regarding your relationship with this institution.  Besides a checking account, you may have Certificates of Deposit, a car loan, a business checking account, a commercial loan, a Social Security direct deposit, and other relationships with the institution.  The FDIC has compiled the following information which should answer many of your questions. Back to top

II.  Press Release The FDIC has issued the following press releases (PR-56-2008, PR-42-2009) about the institution’s closure.  If you represent a media outlet and would like information about the closure, in California, please contact David Barr with the Office of Public Affairs at 202-898-6992, in Washington D.C. please contact Andrew Gray at 202-898-7192. Back to top

III.  Acquiring Financial InstitutionOn March 19, 2009, all deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB were transferred to OneWest Bank, FSB, (OneWest Bank) Pasadena, California.On July 11, 2008, all non-brokered insured deposit accounts were transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Federal Bank), Pasadena, CA (“assuming institution”) a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.  The OTS appointed the FDIC conservator of IndyMac Federal Bank.  All insured deposit accounts will be available as usual during regular business hours starting July 14, 2008.

Principal and interest on insured accounts, through July 11, 2008, are fully insured by the FDIC, up to the insurance limit of $100,000.  You will receive full payment for your insured account.  Certain entitlements and different types of accounts can be insured for more than the $100,000 limit.  IRA funds are insured separately from other types of accounts, up to a $250,000 limit.

All accounts that exceed the $100,000 insurance limit, and/or all accounts that appear to be related and exceed this limit, are reviewed by the FDIC to determine their ownership and insurance coverage.  If you think you might have uninsured deposits you should call the FDIC Call Center to arrange for a telephone interview with  a Claims Agent at 866-806-5919. The Claim Agent may direct you to download and submit a particular form that will assist in expediting the processing of your claim.

List of Affidavits, Declarations, and Forms available for download

Please return the forms to the FDIC by FAX (facsimile) or mail at the number or address listed for the failed institution.

If it is determined that you have uninsured funds, the FDIC will generate and mail to you a Receiver Certificate.  This certificate entitles you to share proportionately in any funds recovered through the disposal of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.  This means that you will eventually recover some of your uninsured funds.  The FDIC declared a 50% advance dividend for uninsured deposits.To find out more about FDIC Deposit Insurance:

Checks that were drawn on IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. will be honored up to your available balance or the insured amount.  You may withdraw funds from any transferred account without an early withdrawal penalty until you enter into a new deposit agreement with IndyMac Federal Bank.  A hold may be in place on deposits accounts due to delinquent loans where the depositor is the borrower or guarantor.  Additionally, any account pledged as collateral for a loan will be held. Back to top

V.  Banking ServicesOn March 19, 2009 there was no break in services.As of July 14, 2008 you may continue to use the services to which you previously had access, such as, online service, safe deposit boxes, night deposit boxes, wire services, etc.

Your checks will be processed as usual.  All outstanding checks will be paid against your available insured balance(s) as if no change had occurred.  IndyMac Federal Bank will contact you soon regarding any changes in the terms of your account.  If you have a problem with a merchant refusing to accept your check, please contact IndyMac Federal Bank, Customer Service Department, at 800-998-2900.  An account representative will clear up any confusion about the validity of your checks.

All interest accrued through Friday, will be paid at your same rate.  IndyMac Federal Bank will be reviewing rates and will provide further information soon.  You will be notified of any changes.

Your automatic direct deposit(s) and/or automatic withdrawal(s) will be transferred automatically to IndyMac Federal Bank.  If you have any questions or special requests, you may contact a representative of your assuming institution at 800-998-2900. Back to top

VI.  Loan Customers If you had a loan with IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., you should continue to make your payments as usual.  The terms of your loan will not change under the terms of the loan contract because they are contractually agreed to your promissory note with the failed institution.  Checks should be made payable as usual and sent to the same address until further notice.For all questions regarding new loans and the lending policies of IndyMac Federal Bank, please contact 800-998-2900 or visit the IndyMac Federal Bank website at www.IndyMac.com. Back to top

VII.  Unclaimed Deposits Please note that any deposits that have not been claimed within 18 months of the failure of Indymac Bank was sent to the FDIC by One West Bank. If the FDIC is unable to locate the deposit customer, the unclaimed funds will eventually be escheated to the state or according to Federal Law (12 U.S.C., 1822(e)).

FDIC Unclaimed Deposits
1-877-875-4821 Option #2
Hours of Operation – Pacific Standard Time
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Back to top

VIII.  Possible Claims Against the Failed InstitutionDetermination of Insufficient Assets To Satisfy Claims Against Financial Institution in Receivership

SUMMARY: The FDIC, by its Board of Directors, has determined that insufficient assets exist in the receivership of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California and the receivership of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California to make any distribution to general unsecured claims, and therefore such claims will recover nothing and have no value.

DATES: The Board made its determination on November 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions regarding this notice, contact Thomas P. Bolt, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562–2046 or tbolt@fdic.gov; Shane Kiernan, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (703) 562–2632 or skiernan@fdic.gov,

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
3501 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22226

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California (‘‘IndyMac Bank’’) (FIN # 10007) was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) was appointed as its receiver. In complying with its statutory duty to resolve the institution in the method that is least costly to the deposit insurance fund (see 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)), the FDIC effected a pass-through receivership. Accordingly, the FDIC organized IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California (‘‘IndyMac Federal’’), a new federal savings bank for which the FDIC was appointed as conservator. IndyMac Bank’s assets were transferred to IndyMac Federal under an agreement whereby the amount (if any) realized from the final resolution of IndyMac Federal after payment in full of IndyMac Federal’s obligations was to be paid to the IndyMac Bank receivership. On March 19, 2009, IndyMac Federal was placed in receivership and substantially all of its assets were sold. The amount realized from the resolution of IndyMac Federal is insufficient to pay all of its liabilities, and therefore there will be no amount to pay to the IndyMac Bank receivership.Section 11(d)(11)(A) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A), sets forth the order of priority for distribution of amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution to pay claims. Under the statutory order of priority, administrative expenses and deposit liabilities must be paid in full before any distribution may be made to general unsecured creditors or any lower priority claims. The FDIC has determined that the assets of IndyMac Bank are insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and therefore, such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value. The FDIC has also determined that the assets of IndyMac Federal are insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and therefore, such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value. //

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 18, 2009 / Notices 59541

FAQ re IndyMac “No Value” Determination Back to top

IX.  Priority of ClaimsIn accordance with Federal law, allowed claims will be paid, after administrative expenses, in the following order of priority:

  1. Depositors
  2. General Unsecured Creditors
  3. Subordinated Debt
  4. Stockholders

Back to top

X.  Dividend Information When IndyMac was placed into Conservatorship in July of 2008, the FDIC calculated that the ultimate resolution of IndyMac would result in a recovery of approximately 50% of the uninsured deposits of IndyMac. Based upon that estimate, an advance dividend in that amount was paid to the uninsured depositors at that time. The announced sale of IndyMac to IMB Management Holdings is consistent with the original estimate and no additional dividend will be paid as a consequence of this sale.While no dividends for the uninsured depositors are anticipated at this time, the FDIC will continue to periodically re-assess the financial condition of the receivership to determine if there is additional cash for dividend distributions.

Dividend History on IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
JavaScript is disabled or blocked. Alternatively, you may navigate to
www2.fdic.gov/DIVWEB/Dividendindex.asp and search for the dividends. Dividend Information on Failed Financial Institutions Back to top

XI.  Brokered Deposits The FDIC offers a reference guide to deposit brokers acting as agents for their investor clientele.  This site outlines the FDIC’s policies and procedures that must be followed by deposit brokers when filing for pass-through insurance coverage on custodial accounts deposited in a failed FDIC Insured Institution.Deposit Broker Processing Guide

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: