“Resecuritization”

the basic thrust of the defense is to point out what is absent rather than attack what is not absent.

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.
—————-
As predicted on my blog back in 2008, we are seeing new names of Trusts emerge in foreclosure cases — involving old loans that were declared in default years ago by parties asserting they represent the alleged servicer of either a named bank or servicer or an old trust. What happened? As our sources had revealed, the alleged trusts had nothing in them and were the source of extreme liability of the Master Servicer acting as underwriter to the investors and third parties who traded in securities based upon the representation that the Trust actually owned the debts of millions of homeowners.
 *
We have not seen the agreements, but we are told, and our analysis confirms, that the old trusts were “retired” and that new trusts, also empty, are now being used wherein the paperwork for the new “Trusts” is far more complete than what we have previously seen.
 *
As far as we have determined thus far the mechanics of the change of trust name are along the following lines:
 *
  1. There is probably a purchase and sale agreement between the old trust and the new trust. Like previous documentation there are no warranties of ownership but ownership of the debts is implied.
  2. Like the old Trusts, foreclosures are brought in the name of the new trusts, using US Bank or other major institution as the “Trustee.”
  3. Investors in the old trusts are given certificates in the new trust as settlement of claims brought by investors for malfeasance in the handling of their money — namely the origination of loans instead of the acquisition of loans and the granting of loans that were far lower in quality than agreed and far higher risks than allowed for stable managed funds.
  4. This “resecuritization” process is a sham just like the original old trust. But it follows the playbook the banks have been using for over a decade. By adding another level of paper to fabricated documents based upon nonexistent transactions, it promotes the illusion of valid transactions and valid documents.
  5. Like all other trusts and hybrid situations in which trusts were involved but not named, the entire scheme is based upon a simple premise. The banks have managed information and data such that there remains a false sense of security that they are still credible sources of information — despite all evidence to the contrary. The additional layer of documents then adds to the illusion because it is counterintuitive to believe that these high level complex documents represent transactions in the real world that don’t exist.
 *
Defense strategies remain the same, however. The issues in evidence laws and rules are foundation, and hearsay.The basic defects in the bank’s credibility must be revealed even if it does not get to the point where everything is revealed. The rent-a-name practice for appointment of trustees that have no obligations or duties continues. The “apparent authority” of the servicers is based upon a trust document of an entity in which there is no asset. But the website of US Bank and others suggest that they have business records — which in actuality do not exist. Hence, the basic thrust of the defense is to point out what is absent rather than attack what is not absent.
 *
This takes strict logical analysis by the attorney representing the homeowner — an exercise that in most cases cannot be accomplished by a pro se litigant. It may be beyond the confidence of the lawyer too, but there are many people in the country who provide services that assist with the logical analysis and factual analysis — including but not limited to the team at LivingLies and LendingLies. The analyst should be well-steeped in the three classes of securitization — concept, written documents and actual practice in order to come to conclusions that are not only correct but are likely to give traction in court.
 *
While tempting, attacking the existing documentation on the basis of authenticity or validity is a rabbit hole. The only parties that actually have the proof as to the fabrication of any one particular transaction are the parties with whom you are in litigation and the parties who created them and use them as sham conduits. They resist by all means available any attempt to provide access tot he real information and the real monetary transactions which look very different from the ones portrayed in court.
 *
By making an allegation you are now required to prove what you have said by evidence that the other side simply will not give up. This is not to say that there is no value in sending a QWR (Qualified Written Request), (DVL) Debt Validation Letter, or a complaint to the state AG or the CFPB. Much of the inconsistent statements come from those responses and can be used in court. And there is also considerable value in seeking discovery even if we know that in most cases, while it should be allowed, the judge will issue protective orders or sustain objections to requests seeking the identity of the owner of the debt.
 *
The value of those apparently futile endeavors can be that at trial the foreclosing party will almost certainly rely on legal presumptions that depend upon information contained in your discovery request.
 *
OBJECTIONS AT TRIAL: This requires research and analysis of potential objections and how they should be used. While a motion in limine before trial would seem to be the better practice, the real traction seems to come at trial when the homeowner raises objections and moves to exclude evidence that relies upon data contained in discovery they refused to answer and which the court ruled was irrelevant. It is of utmost importance, however, that in order to use the discovery exchanges, you must file a motion to compel and set it for hearing and get it heard. The risk of a motion in limine is that the court is more likely to deny it and then when raised at trial in an objection will regard your objection as a second bite an apple that has already been the subject of a dispositive ruling.
 *
Cross examination of the robo-witness should be aggressive and relentless pointing to the actual lack of knowledge of the witness about anything other than the script from which he was trained to testify.

Bankruptcy Lawyers: it starts in the schedules — admission of secured debt is deadly

I was traveling and re listening to an older lecture given by 2 Bankruptcy judges generally held in high esteem. The largest point was that naming a party as the creditor and checking the right boxes showing they are secured basically ends the discussion on the motion to lift stay and restricts your options to either filing an adversary lawsuit attached to the administrative bankruptcy petition or filing an action in state court which is where you will be if you don’t follow this same simple direction. If you file schedules attached to your petition for bankruptcy relief, as you are required to do, these are basically the same as sworn affidavits. They will be used against you in any contested hearing.

So the judge lifts the stay and then often mistakenly enters additional language in the order ending the issue of whom is the real lender. After all, that is who you were making the payments to, right, so they must be a creditor. And this is all about a mortgage foreclosure so they must, in addition to being a creditor, they must be a secured creditor. And if the collateral is worth less than the claim, there is not much else to talk about it is simple to these Judges because nobody has shown them differently and one of the Judges is retired now. By definition when the Bankruptcy Judge says in the order who is the creditor, he or she has gone beyond their jurisdiction and due process because there was no evidentiary hearing.

This all results from a combination of technology (garbage in, garbage out), inexperience with securitized mortgages, laziness and failure to do the research to determine what is the truth and what is not. If you are a bankruptcy practitioner who uses one of the desktop bankruptcy programs, then the questions, boxes, and fill-ins are intuitively placed in the schedule that your client swears to. No problem unless the schedules are wrong. And they are wrong where the debt runs from the Petitioner to the REMIC trust beneficiaries and is unsecured by any mortgage that the homeowner borrower petitioner ever signed or meant to sign.

The first point is that the amount if the debt is unknown and we now this for a fact because there are multiple offsets for Third party payment (like Servicer advances) that must be examined one by one. It could be zero, it could be there is money due to the borrower, it could be more or less what is being demanded by the Servicer or trustee. Another thing we know is that neither the Servicer or trustee is likely to know the amount of their claim. So send out a QWR to all addresses for the Servicer and the REMIC trustee.

If you get several different payment histories it is a fair bet they came off of different records, different systems and require the records custodian to authenticate each Servicer’ rendition, of beginning balance, ending balance and every transaction in between. The creditor who filed a proof of claim has the burden of showing a color able right to enforce the mortgage. That can only come from the pooling and servicing agreement. The parties to the PSA are the REMIC Trust, the REMIC Trust beneficiaries and the broker dealer who sold the bonds issued by the REMIC trust.

But if there is no trust or the REMIC trust never actually acquired the subject loan, then the appointed Servicer in the PSA draws no power from a PSA for a nonexistent or empty trust (at least empty of the subject loan.) it is not the Servicer by right, it has become the Servicer by its intervention into the contractual right between the borrower homeowner and the lender (the REMIC trust beneficiaries). The “apparent authority” of the Servicer will only take it so far.

And every transactions means that as a Servicer they were paying or passing on the borrower’s payments . Where are those records — missing. Does the corporate representative know about those payments? Who was the creditor paid. When did the payments from Servicer start and when did they stop — or are they still on-going right up to and including trial, foreclosure sale auction and final disposition of proceeds from an REO sale.

So from the perspective of the Petitioner he might have made payments to an entity that claimed to be the Servicer and those payments are due back not the bankruptcy estate. OOPS but that is what happens when a company arrogated unto itself the powers of a Servicer for loans that are claimed to be in a trust — where the trust doesn’t own the loan, note or mortgage (deed of trust). Thus the Servicer would be owed zero but you would show them in the unsecured column, unliquidated and disputed. This could have a substantial income on the amount of the claim, whether part or all of it is secured.

But no matter, if you fail to take a history from the client, get the closing documents, title and securitization report together with loan level analysis, you are going to do a disservice to your client. We provide litigation support and analysis to give you the data to make an informed decision, fight the POC, MLS, turnover of rents, etc. Then you might avoid the dreaded call of calling your insurance carrier who will probably tell you neither paid for nor received a tail on your claims made policy.

LAWYERS: Go to www.livingliesstore.com and start journey toward the light.

Livinglies Recalibrates Forensic and Litigation Support Services

Responding to specific requests from lawyers and homeowners, the livinglies store has changed its offering. Www.livingliesstore.com

You can still get the old Combo of just a title and securitization report, but we have added some levels and services to meet the demand for our services. Of course pricing has been adjusted to reflect the increased workload. Actual litigation support is provided throughout the country to any attorney by Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White (GGKW) with offices now in Broward County and Leon County. We will soon have offices in the Florida Panhandle and Dade County. I’ll be posting separately on each office and the attorneys we have selected to litigate in accordance with our requirements.

GGKW represents homeowners throughout the state of Florida. Do not ask us to provide the full range of litigation support if you are a pro se litigant, even if your case is in Florida. You would be asking us to provide services that might be the unauthorized or unethical practice of law in states where we are not licensed. It would also be a bad idea because you cannot expect an attorney from another state to know the laws of your state, how they are applied in your courts, and the differences between individual judges. Sometimes local rules are dispositive of cases. Florida homeowners can get some additional assistance from GGKW or the livinglies store, but there is no good substitute for an attorney who knows and can argue rules of procedure and laws of evidence as they relate to your case.

The first additional the Combo offering is the Qualified Written Request and Debt Validation Letters. These are rising in importance and an increasing number of lawyers are asking us to prepare these. We can’t send them out but we can prepare them for the signature of the homeowner. We ask more pointed questions about whether the originator actually loaned money to the homeowner — that is, whether there was any transaction between the homeowner and the party stated on the note and mortgage (or deed of trust). This has grown in importance because of the absence of a fundamental allegation by the pretender lenders — that someone in their chain of paper actually entered into an actual transaction (offer, acceptance, consideration and execution) with the alleged borrower. It appears in many cases that the actual funding of the loan was a stranger to the paperwork and that the parties on the paperwork are strangers to the actual transaction.

We also are offering affidavits and declarations from the auditors or experts, including myself, together with a consultation to answer questions on the methods used and the conclusions to be drawn. Where an attorney for the homeowner is available during the consult, the homeowner will hear suggestions on specific strategies and tactics for the battle in court.

We are also just now adding to the package, Freedom of Information requests to the FDIC, OTS, OCC and the Federal Reserve, where applicable. In all likelihood the request you make about the results of their investigations against the banks that led to the Consent Orders and any filings after those orders were entered will be met with some sort of stonewalling. After all, the investigator grilled by Senator Warren admitted to finding thousands of wrongful Foreclosures but refused to tell her or anyone else in Congress which mortgages were effected or the names of homeowners who were illegally thrown out of their homes. It is important to note that these investigations, like the San Francisco study, found serious defects in which the foreclosure should never have happened.

The the response to FOIA requests will undoubtedly require you to push the agency in court to make the disclosures. And interrogatories directed at compliance with the Consent Orders may reveal the actual findings and the names of homeowners who are living outside the homes they still should ow and possess.

We recommend that the other companies providing these services follow our lead. We believe it will lead to better results and a more comprehensible presentation in Court.

Of course I need to remind you that nothing in this article nor the services and products on the store are a substitute for a licensed attorney. You should take no action at all without consulting with a licensed attorney, hopefully one that is familiar with the issues of securitized loans. Most of these cases are being resolved on the basis of the the rules of civil procedure and the laws of evidence. This is above the head of most pro se litigants. Failure to at least consult with an attorney licensed interest state in which your property is located could well result in losing a case you could have otherwise won.

BANK AMNESTY AGAIN: Leaving Consumers to Fend (Litigate) for Themselves

“To someone who lost his house to mortgage servicer incompetence or malfeasance, that’s not restitution. It’s an insult. “The capped pool of cash payments is wholly inadequate in light of the scale of the harm,” says Alys Cohen, staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center.”   Adam Levin, abcnews.com

Editor’s Analysis: In case after case across the country it is readily apparent that there complete strangers making claims on mortgages, foreclosing, evicting and even collecting “Trial Payments” while they intend to do nothing other than Foreclose — because that is where the money is and because it is only through a foreclosure that they cap the losses and pass them onto investors despite having received large scale payments of insurance and other hedges.

The Banks have it their way despite the obvious unconscionable, illegal, immoral and unethical breach of trust between consumer and bank and between banks.

Whether it is the Chase WAMU deal, or the BOA countrywide deal, or the Indy-mac One West deal, the facts are in — we don’t need to theorize anymore — the banks are NOT the creditors, they cannot shows proof of loss, proof of payment or any financial transaction that would entitle them to enforce an invalid note or foreclose on an invalid, unperfected mortgage lien.

But the institutionalization of hypocrisy and deviant behavior on the part of the Banks has left us with “settlements” that settle nothing, leaving millions of homeowners who lost their homes to entities that received a windfall from the foreclosure process and the windfall from dual tracking “modification” reviews that were a pure sham designed only to get the homeowner in the deepest hole possible so that foreclosure would become inevitable.

At our members conference this Wednesday, we will talk about what is getting traction in the modification of mortgages and what is getting traction in the litigation of mortgage disputes.

The important thing to remember that is that the MONEY never came from ANY of the parties in the sham securitization chain starting with the originator. While there are exceptions — like World Savings — the truth defeats further claims regarding the Wachovia acquisition and then the Wells Fargo acquisition of Wachovia. Either the assignments were missing or they fabricated and forged.

If you ask yourself why they wouldn’t have had the assignments done all nice and proper which is the way the banking world works when BORROWERS must sign documents, you will feel uncomfortable with Wall Street explanations of volume causing the paperwork confusion. It was the exact same volume that produced millions of “originated” mortgages where the i’s were dotted and T’s were crossed —- that is, where the Borrower had to sign. The banks had no trouble then — it was only when the banks had to sign that there was a problem. Where the securitization participants had to sign was neither disclosed nor drafted nor executed.

The simple reason is that there was nothing to sign. There was no financial transaction where money exchanged hands which is why I am pounding on the point that the lawyers should be aiming at the money rather than the documentation. “For value received” means that value was paid or transferred. When you ask for the wire transfer receipt or cancelled check that shows payment and which would establish proof of loss, you are asking to see the transaction upon which the banks place all their reliance.

Their argument that they don’t need to show the actual transaction is a dodge to protect themselves from showing that the transactions in the bogus securitization scheme were all a sham. Your argument should be simple — they say they lost money and that the homeowners owes it. Let’s see the actual proof that they made the loan, lost the money and have not already been paid. The assignments are not accompanies by actual money exchanging hands which means that the assignment lacked consideration and was therefore an executory contract at best, pending payment.

Then you need to ask yourself why there was no consideration when you know that money was funded from somewhere for a loan to the “benefit” of your client (albeit based upon fraud in the execution and fraud in the inducement including appraisal fraud). YOU must tackle the basic issue in the mind of just about every judge — as long as the money was there at the “closing” of the loan, and the borrower signed the papers, and then defaulted on those promises, what difference does it make whether some OTHER papers were fabricated or even forged.

The fact remains, your client, in the eyes of the Judge, got the loan, agreed to the terms and then defaulted. In our world, when you default on a loan, judgment is entered, foreclosure is completed and eviction, if necessary proceeds. The banks have relied upon this perception for years which considerable success. The reason borrowers often lose in litigation is that they arguing about the wrong thing. As soon as they go after the documentation first they are going down a rabbit hole. It is a tacit admission that the loan was valid, the note is evidence of the loan and the mortgage secures the note. DENY and DISCOVER puts that front and center as an issue of fact in dispute.

By going after the money transactions and requiring proof of payment and proof of loss and asking for the accounting data that shows the loan receivable on the books of an entity, you are striking at the heart of the sham transaction.

If you ask me for a loan for $100 and I say “Sure, just sign this note,” and you go ahead and sign the note, what happens when I don’t give you the $100 loan. The answer, which has caused considerable confusion in the foreclosure defense world is that I can nonetheless sue you (on its face the note LOOKS like a negotiable instrument) , but I can’t win. Because if you deny that I ever completed the loan transaction by funding the loan to you, then I have to prove that I gave you the money. I can’t because I didn’t. My argument that you did receive a loan that day and therefore you owe me the money is a lie. You owe the money to whoever actually gave you the money.

At the closing of these loans originated by nominees with no power to touch the money and whose only source of income was fees, not interest on the loan, the borrower was fooled by the fact that the money showed up for the loan. It never occurred to the borrower to ask any questions since the paperwork, and all the disclosures required by law told him a story about the loan. The borrower could not possibly know that the story told by the documents, the documents he or she signed at closing were all a lie.

The Banks will take the position that everyone was authorized to make representations and act for everyone else — except when it comes to paying down the debts with money received from insurance and the proceeds of credit default swaps, federal bailouts etc. In THAT case the bank says it was not the agent of the investors and had no duty to either the investor or the borrower since the banks were the named insureds — made possible only because they purposefully put the name of a nominee on the note, a nominee on the mortgage (or even two nominees on the mortgage) so that the banks could open up a window of time during which they could claim ownership of the loans despite the fact that they had not funded one dime to originate or purchase any loan.

Thus if go for the money first and THEN show the the fabrication, forgery and perjury in documents, the case makes sense and can be presented to the court without giving one inch of admission that the loan, the note or mortgage were real, valid or enforceable. AND by sending a standard QWR and FDCPA letter, the banks have nowhere to hide. In litigation the motion becomes a petition to enforce the RESPA 6 inquiry and the FDCPA inquiry either through direct order or through discovery.

THEN you force the disclosure of the identity of the creditor who actually has a negative account balance on their books for the loan, directly or indirectly, and seek modification or settlement based upon the facts of the case. HAMP modification is impossible, settlement is impossible without first establishing who could submit a credit bid at auction or who could execute a valid satisfaction and release of the debt.

Latest Bank Amnesty Leaves Consumers Adrift

Fraud Is The Biggest Bubble In History
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/fraud-is-the-biggest-bubble-in-history/

9th Circuit Circular Logic: Medrano v Flagstar

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Note: If a Court wants to come to a certain conclusion, it will, regardless of how it must twist the law or facts. In this case, the Court found that a letter that challenges the terms of the loan or the current loan receivable is not a qualified written request under RESPA.

The reasoning of the court is that a challenge or question about the real balance and real creditor and real terms of the deal is not related to servicing of the loan and therefore the requirement of an answer to a QWR is not required.

The Court should reconsider its ruling. Servicing of a loan account assumes that there is a loan account that the presumed subservicer has received authorization to service. The borrower gets notice often from companies they never heard of but they assume that the servicing function is properly authorized.

The “servicer” is used too generally as a term, which is part of the problem. The fact that there is a Master Servicer with information on ALL the transactions affecting the alleged loan receivable from inception to the present is completely overlooked by most litigants, trial judges an appellate courts.

The “servicer” they refer to is actually the subservicer whose authority could only come from appointment by the Master Servicer. But the Master Servicer could only have such power to appoint the subservicer if the loan was properly “securitized” meaning the original loan was properly documented with the right payee and the lien rights alleged in the recorded mortgage existed.

If the party asserts itself as the “Servicer” it is asserting its appointment by the Master Servicer who also has other information on the money trial. It should be required to answer a QWR and based upon current law, should be required to answer on behalf of all parties including the Master Servicer and the “trustee” of the loan pool claiming rights to the loan. If there are problems with the transfer of the loan compounding problems with origination of the loan, the borrower has a right to know that and the QWR is the appropriate vehicle for that.

The servicer cannot perform its duties unless it has the or can produce the necessary information about the identity of the real creditor, the transactions by which that party became a creditor and proof of payment or funding of the original loan and proof of payment for the assignments of the loan, along with an explanation of why the “Trustee” for the pool was not named in the original transaction or in a recorded assignment immediately after the “closing” of the loan transaction.

The 9th Circuit, ignoring the realities of the industry has chosen to accept the conclusion that the “servicer” is only the subservicer and that information requested in a QWR can only be required from the subservicer without any duty to provide the data that corroborates the monthly statement of principal and interest due. The new rule from the Federal Consumer Financial Board stating that all parties are subject to the Federal lending laws underscores and codifies industry practice and common sense.

The Court is ignoring the reality that the lender is the investor (pension funds etc.) and the borrower is the homeowner, and that all others are intermediaries subject to TILA, RESPA, Reg Z etc. The servicer appointed by the Master Servicer is a subservicer who can only provide a snapshot of a small slice of the financial transactions related to the subject loan and the pool claiming to own the loan.

They are avoiding the clear premise of the single transaction doctrine. If the investors did not advance money there would have been no loan. If the borrower had not accepted a loan, there would have been no loan. That is the essence of the single transaction doctrine.

Now they are opening the door to breaking down single transactions into component parts that can change the contractual terms by which the lenders loaned money and the borrower borrowed money.

It is the same as if you wrote a check to a store for payment of a TV or groceries and the intermediary banks and the financial data processors suddenly claimed that they each were part of the transaction and there had ownership rights to the TV or groceries. It is absurd. But if the question is one of payment they are ALL required to show their records of the transaction. This includes in our case the investment banker who is the one directing all movements of money and documents.

If the Court leaves this decision in its current form it is challenging the law of unintended consequences where no transaction is safe from claims by third party intermediaries. Even if Flagstar had no authority to service the account, which is likely, they were acting with apparent authority and must be considered an intermediary servicer for purposes of RESPA and a QWR.

PRACTICE TIP: When writing a QWR be more explicit about the connections between your questions, your suspicion of error as to amount due, payments due etc. Show that the amount being used as a balance due is incorrect or might be incorrect based upon your findings of fact. Challenge the right of the “servicer” to be the servicer and ask them who appointed them to that position.

9th Circuit Medrano v Flagstar on Qualified Written Request

CA Trial Court Upholds Claims for Improper Assignment, Accounting, Unfair Practices

Editor’s Note: In an extremely well-written and well reasoned decision Federal District Court Judge M. James Lorenz denied the Motion to dismiss of US Bank on an alleged WAMU securitization that for the first time recognizes that the securitization scheme could be a sham, with no basis in fact.

Although the Plaintiff chose not to make allegations regarding false origination of loan documents, which I think is important, the rest of the decision breaks the illusion created by the banks and servicers through the use of documents that look good but do not meet the standards of proof required in a foreclosure.

  1. I would suggest that lawyers look at the claim and allegations that the origination documents were false and were procured by fraud.
  2. Since no such allegation was made, the court naturally assumed the loan was validly portrayed in the loan documents and that the note was evidence of the loan transaction, presuming that SBMC actually loaned the money to the Plaintiff, which does not appear to be the case.
  3. This Judge actually read everything and obvious questions in his mind led him to conclude that there were irregularities in the assignment process that could lead to a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for quiet title, accounting, unfair practices and other claims.
  4. The court recites the fact that the loan was sold to “currently unknown entity or entities.” This implicitly raises the question of whether the loan was in fact actually sold more than once, and if so, to whom, for how much, and raises the issues of whom Plaintiff was to direct her payments and whether the actual creditor was receiving the money that Plaintiff paid.  — a point hammered on, among others, at the Garfield Seminars coming up in Emeryville (San Francisco), 8/25 and Anaheim, 8/29-30. If you really want to understand what went on in the mortgage meltdown and the tactics and strategies that are getting traction in the courts, you are invited to attend. Anaheim has a 1/2 day seminar for homeowners. Call customer service 520-405-1688 to attend.
  5. For the first time, this Court uses the words (attempt to securitize” a loan as opposed to assuming it was done just based upon the paperwork and the presence of the the parties claiming rights through the assignments and securitization.
  6. AFTER the Notice of Sale was recorded, the Plaintiff sent a RESPA 6 Qualified Written request. The defendants used the time-honored defense that this was not a real QWR, but eh court disagreed, stating that the Plaintiff not only requested information but gave her reasons in some details for thinking that something might be wrong.
  7. Plaintiff did not specifically mention that the information requested should come from BOTH the subservicer claiming rights to service the loan and the Master Servicer claiming rights to administer the payments from all parties and the disbursements to those investor lenders that had contributed the money that was used to fund the loan. I would suggest that attorneys be aware of this distinction inasmuch as the subservicer only has a small snapshot of transactions solely between the borrower and the subservicer whereas the the information from the Master Servicer would require a complete set of records on all financial transactions and all documents relating to their claims regarding the loan.
  8. The court carefully applied the law on Motions to Dismiss instead of inserting the opinion of the Judge as to whether the Plaintiff would win stating that “material allegations, even if doubtful in fact, are assumed to be true,” which is another point we have been pounding on since 2007. The court went on to say that it was obligated to accept any claim that was “plausible on its face.”
  9. The primary claim of Plaintiffs was that the Defendants were “not her true creditors and as such have no legal, equitable, or pecuniary right in this debt obligation in the loan,’ which we presume to mean that the court was recognizing the distinction, for the first time, between the legal obligation to pay and the loan documents.
  10. Plaintiff contended that there was not a proper assignment to anyone because the assignment took place after the cutoff date in 2006 (assignment in 2010) and that the person executing the documents, was not a duly constituted authorized signor. The Judge’s decision weighed more heavily that allegation that the assignment was not properly made according to the “trust Document,” thus taking Defendants word for it that a trust was created and existing at the time of the assignment, but also saying in effect that they can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other. The assignment, after the Notice of Default, violated the terms of the trust document thus removing the authority of the trustee or the trust to accept it, which as any reasonable person would know, they wouldn’t want to accept — having been sold on the idea that they were buying performing loans. More on this can be read in “whose Lien Is It Anyway?, which I just published and is available on www.livinglies-store.com
  11. The Court states without any caveats that the failure to assign the loan in the manner and timing set forth in the “trust document” (presumably the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) that the note and Deed of trust are not part of the trust and that therefore the trustee had no basis for asserting ownership, much less the right to enforce.
  12. THEN this Judge uses simple logic and applies existing law: if the assignment was void, then the notices of default, sale, substitution of trustee and any foreclosure would have been totally void.
  13. I would add that lawyers should consider the allegation that none of the transfers were supported by any financial transaction or other consideration because consideration passed at origination from the investors directly tot he borrower, due to the defendants ignoring the provisions of the prospectus and PSA shown to the investor-lender. In discovery what you want is the identity of each entity that ever showed this loan is a loan receivable on any regular business or record or set of accounting forms. It might surprise you that NOBODY has the loan posted as loan receivable and as such, the argument can be made that NOBODY can submit a CREDIT BID at auction even if the auction was otherwise a valid auction.
  14. Next, the Court disagrees with the Defendants that they are not debt collectors and upholds the Plaintiff’s claim for violation of FDCPA. Since she explicitly alleges that US bank is a debt collector, and started collection efforts on 2010, the allegation that the one-year statute of limitation should be applied was rejected by the court. Thus Plaintiff’s claims for violations under FDCPA were upheld.
  15. Plaintiff also added a count under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) which prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17200 of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. The Court rejected defendants’ arguments that FDCPA did not apply since “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the UCL by collecting payments that they lacked the right to collect, and engaging in unlawful business practices by violating the FDCPA and RESPA.” And under the rules regarding motions to dismiss, her allegations must be taken as absolutely true unless the allegations are clearly frivolous or speculative on their face.
  16. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had created a cloud upon her title affecting her in numerous ways including her credit score, ability to refinance etc. Defendants countered that the allegation regarding a cloud on title was speculative. The Judge said this is not speculation, it is fact if other allegations are true regarding the false recording of unauthorized documents based upon an illegal or void assignment.
  17. And lastly, but very importantly, the Court recognizes for the first time, the right of a homeowner to demand an accounting if they can establish facts in their allegations that raise questions regarding the status of the loan, whether she was paying the right people and whether the true creditors were being paid. “Plaintiff alleges facts that allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Defendants may be liable for various misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Here are some significant quotes from the case. Naranjo v SBMC TILA- Accounting -Unfair practices- QWR- m/dismiss —

Judge Lorenzo Decision in Naranjo vs. SBMC Mortgage et al 7-24-12

No allegations regarding false origination of loan documents:

SBMC sold her loan to a currently unknown entity or entities. (FAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that these unknown entities and Defendants were involved in an attempt to securitize the loan into the WAMU Mortgage Pass-through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-AR4 Trust (“WAMU Trust”). (Id. ¶ 17.) However, these entities involved in the attempted securitization of the loan “failed to adhere to the requirements of the Trust Agreement

In August 2009, Plaintiff was hospitalized, resulting in unforeseen financial hardship. (FAC ¶ 25.) As a result, she defaulted on her loan. (See id. ¶ 26.)
On May 26, 2010, Defendants recorded an Assignment of Deed of Trust, which states that MERS assigned and transferred to U.S. Bank as trustee for the WAMU Trust under the DOT. (RJN Ex. B.) Colleen Irby executed the Assignment as Officer for MERS. (Id.) On the same day, Defendants also recorded a Substitution of Trustee, which states that the U.S. Bank as trustee, by JP Morgan, as attorney-in-fact substituted its rights under the DOT to the California Reconveyance Company (“CRC”). (RJN Ex. C.) Colleen Irby also executed the Substitution as Officer of “U.S. Bank, National Association as trustee for the WAMU Trust.” (Id.) And again, on the same day, CRC, as trustee, recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell. (RJN Ex. D.)
A Notice of Trustee’s sale was recorded, stating that the estimated unpaid balance on the note was $989,468.00 on July 1, 2011. (RJN Ex. E.)
On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff sent JPMorgan a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) letter in an effort to verify and validate her debt. (FAC ¶ 35 & Ex. C.) In the letter, she requested that JPMorgan provide, among other things, a true and correct copy of the original note and a complete life of the loan transactional history. (Id.) Although JPMorgan acknowledged the QWR within five days of receipt, Plaintiff alleges that it “failed to provide a substantive response.” (Id. ¶ 35.) Specifically, even though the QWR contained the borrow’s name, loan number, and property address, Plaintiff alleges that “JPMorgan’s substantive response concerned the same borrower, but instead supplied information regarding an entirely different loan and property.” (Id.)

The court must dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and construe them in light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sanai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). Material allegations, even if doubtful in fact, are assumed to be true. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the court need not “necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, the court does not need to accept any legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

the allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a `probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law either for lack of a cognizable legal theory or for insufficient facts under a cognizable theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff’s primary contention here is that Defendants “are not her true creditors and as such have no legal, equitable, or pecuniary right in this debt obligation” in the loan. (Pl.’s Opp’n 1:5-11.) She contends that her promissory note and DOT were never properly assigned to the WAMU Trust because the entities involved in the attempted transfer failed to adhere to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement and thus the note and DOT are not a part of the trust res. (FAC ¶¶ 17, 20.) Defendants moves to dismiss the FAC in its entirety with prejudice.

The vital allegation in this case is the assignment of the loan into the WAMU Trust was not completed by May 30, 2006 as required by the Trust Agreement. This allegation gives rise to a plausible inference that the subsequent assignment, substitution, and notice of default and election to sell may also be improper. Defendants wholly fail to address that issue. (See Defs.’ Mot. 3:16-6:2; Defs.’ Reply 2:13-4:4.) This reason alone is sufficient to deny Defendants’ motion with respect to this issue. [plus the fact that no financial transaction occurred]

Moving on, Defendants’ reliance on Gomes is misguided. In Gomes, the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff does not have a right to bring an action to determine a nominee’s authorization to proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure on behalf of a noteholder. 192 Cal. App. 4th at 1155. The nominee in Gomes was MERS. Id. at 1151. Here, Plaintiff is not seeking such a determination. The role of the nominee is not central to this action as it was in Gomes. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the transfer of rights to the WAMU Trust is improper, thus Defendants consequently lack the legal right to either collect on the debt or enforce the underlying security interest.

Plaintiff requests that the Court “make a finding and issue appropriate orders stating that none of the named Defendants . . . have any right or interest in Plaintiff’s Note, Deed of Trust, or the Property which authorizes them . . . to collect Plaintiff’s mortgage payments or enforce the terms of the Note or Deed of Trust in any manner whatsoever.” (FAC ¶ 50.) Defendant simplifies this as a request for “a determination of the ownership of [the] Note and Deed of Trust,” which they argue is “addressed in her other causes of action.” (Defs.’ Mot. 6:16-20.) The Court disagrees with Defendants. As discussed above and below, there is an actual controversy that is not superfluous. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief.

Defendants argue that they are not “debt collectors” within the meaning of the FDCPA. (Defs.’ Mot. 9:13-15.) That argument is predicated on the presumption that all of the legal rights attached to the loan were properly assigned. Plaintiff responds that Defendants are debt collectors because U.S. Bank’s principal purpose is to collect debt and it also attempted to collect payments. (Pl.’s Opp’n 19:23-27.) She explicitly alleges in the FAC that U.S. Bank has attempted to collect her debt obligation and that U.S. Bank is a debt collector. Consequently, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a claim under the FDCPA.
Defendants also argue that the FDCPA claim is time barred. (Defs.’ Mot. 7:18-27.) A FDCPA claim must be brought “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Defendants contend that the violation occurred when the allegedly false assignment occurred on May 26, 2010. (Defs.’ Mot. 7:22-27.) However, Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Bank violated the FDCPA when it attempted to enforce Plaintiff’s debt obligation and collect mortgage payments when it allegedly had no legal authority to do so. (FAC ¶ 72.) Defendants wholly overlook those allegations in the FAC. Thus, Defendants fail to show that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim is time barred.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s letter does not constitute a QWR because it requests a list of unsupported demands rather than specific particular errors or omissions in the account along with an explanation from the borrower why she believes an error exists. (Defs.’ Mot. 10:4-13.) However, the letter explains that it “concerns sales and transfers of mortgage servicing rights; deceptive and fraudulent servicing practices to enhance balance sheets; deceptive, abusive, and fraudulent accounting tricks and practices that may have also negatively affected any credit rating, mortgage account and/or the debt or payments that [Plaintiff] may be obligated to.” (FAC Ex. C.) The letter goes on to put JPMorgan on notice of
potential abuses of J.P. Morgan Chase or previous servicing companies or previous servicing companies [that] could have deceptively, wrongfully, unlawfully, and/or illegally: Increased the amounts of monthly payments; Increased the principal balance Ms. Naranjo owes; Increased the escrow payments; Increased the amounts applied and attributed toward interest on this account; Decreased the proper amounts applied and attributed toward the principal on this account; and/or[] Assessed, charged and/or collected fees, expenses and miscellaneous charges Ms. Naranjo is not legally obligated to pay under this mortgage, note and/or deed of trust.
(Id.) Based on the substance of letter, the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the letter is not a QWR.
California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. This cause of action is generally derivative of some other illegal conduct or fraud committed by a defendant. Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the UCL by collecting payments that they lacked the right to collect, and engaging in unlawful business practices by violating the FDCPA and RESPA.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding a cloud on her title does not constitute an allegation of loss of money or property, and even if Plaintiff were to lose her property, she cannot show it was a result of Defendants’ actions. (Defs.’ Mot. 12:22-13:4.) The Court disagrees. As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges damages resulting from Defendants’ collection of payments that they purportedly did not have the legal right to collect. These injuries are monetary, but also may result in the loss of Plaintiff’s property. Furthermore, these injuries are causally connected to Defendants’ conduct. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to pursue a UCL claim against Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owe a fiduciary duty in their capacities as creditor and mortgage servicer. (FAC ¶ 125.) She pursues this claim on the grounds that Defendants collected payments from her that they had no right to do. Defendants argue that various documents recorded in the Official Records of San Diego County from May 2010 show that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for accounting. (Defs.’ Mot. 16:1-3.) Defendants are mistaken. As discussed above, a fundamental issue in this action is whether Defendants’ rights were properly assigned in accordance with the Trust Agreement in 2006. Plaintiff alleges facts that allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Defendants may be liable for various misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Foreclosure Strategists: Meeting in Phx: Learn about QWRs

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

Contact: Darrell Blomberg  Darrell@ForeclosureStrategists.com  602-686-7355

Meeting: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 7pm to 9pm

Qualified Written Requests (QWRs)

10-day Owner / Assignee Requests

Payoff Demand Requests

The goal of this meeting is to assemble an effective set of requests that operate within the law and get us real answers from our loan servicers.  We will look at what the appropriate contents of the QWR should be.

Many people are blindly sending bloated letters demanding every possible bit of discovery.  A QWR loaded with arbitrary demands diminishes the effectiveness of your effort.  We will focus on key points to drafting a succinct, laser-focused QWR that gets you the results you want.

Well also be studying the key points for effective 10-day Owner / Assignee and Payoff Request Letters.

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Special guest speaker:  Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

We will be discussing among other things:

Arizona v Countrywide / Bank of America lawsuit

National Attorneys General Mortgage Settlement
                                                                              ($50M to the state budget?)

Attorney General Legislative Efforts (Vasquez?)

OCC Complaints notarizations and all that is associated with that.

Please send me your thoughts and questions you’d like to ask Tom Horne.  More details for this meeting will follow.

Arizona v Countrywide / Bank of America lawsuit
National Attorneys General Mortgage Settlement
Attorney General Legislative Efforts (Vasquez?)
OCC Complaints notarizations and all that is associated with that.

Please send me your thoughts and questions you’d like to ask Tom Horne.  More details for this meeting will follow.

We meet every week!

Every Tuesday: 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Come early for dinner and socialization. (Food service is also available during meeting.)
Macayo’s Restaurant, 602-264-6141, 4001 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85012. (east side of Central Ave just south of Indian School Rd.)
COST: $10… and whatever you want to spend on yourself for dinner, helpings are generous so bring an appetite.
Please Bring a Guest!
(NOTE: There is a $2.49 charge for the Happy Hour Buffet unless you at least order a soft drink.)

FACEBOOK PAGE FOR “FORECLOSURE STRATEGIST”

I have set up a Facebook page. (I can’t believe it but it is necessary.) The page can be viewed at www.Facebook.com, look for and “friend” “Foreclosure Strategist.”

I’ll do my best to keep it updated with all of our events.

Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.

MEETUP PAGE FOR FORECLOSURE STRATEGISTS:

I have set up a MeetUp page. The page can be viewed at www.MeetUp.com/ForeclosureStrategists. Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.

May your opportunities be bountiful and your possibilities unlimited.

“Emissary of Observation”

Darrell Blomberg

602-686-7355

Darrell@ForeclosureStrategists.com


Foreclosure Strategists: Meeting in Phx: Learn about QWRs

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

Contact: Darrell Blomberg  Darrell@ForeclosureStrategists.com  602-686-7355

Meeting: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 7pm to 9pm

Qualified Written Requests (QWRs)

10-day Owner / Assignee Requests

Payoff Demand Requests

The goal of this meeting is to build an effective set of requests that operate within the law get us real answers from our loan servicers.

We will be discussing recent updates to Qualified Written Requests laws.  We will look at what the appropriate contents of the QWR should be.

Many people are blindly sending bloated letters demanding every possible bit of discovery.  A QWR loaded with arbitrary demands diminishes the effectiveness of your effort.  We will focus on drafting a succinct, laser-focused QWR that gets you the results you want.

Well also be studying the key points for effective 10-day Owner / Assignee and Payoff Request Letters.

**** PLEASE SEND ME ANY QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUESTS (or 10-day assignee or payoff demand requests) THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO.  I WILL USE THESE AS A BASIS FOR THIS MEETING. ****

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Special guest speaker:  Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

We will be discussing among other things:

Arizona v Countrywide / Bank of America lawsuit
National Attorneys General Mortgage Settlement
Attorney General Legislative Efforts (Vasquez?)
OCC Complaints notarizations and all that is associated with that.

Please send me your thoughts and questions you’d like to ask Tom Horne.  More details for this meeting will follow.

We meet every week!

Every Tuesday: 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Come early for dinner and socialization. (Food service is also available during meeting.)
Macayo’s Restaurant, 602-264-6141, 4001 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85012. (east side of Central Ave just south of Indian School Rd.)
COST: $10… and whatever you want to spend on yourself for dinner, helpings are generous so bring an appetite.
Please Bring a Guest!
(NOTE: There is a $2.49 charge for the Happy Hour Buffet unless you at least order a soft drink.)

FACEBOOK PAGE FOR “FORECLOSURE STRATEGIST”

I have set up a Facebook page. (I can’t believe it but it is necessary.) The page can be viewed at www.Facebook.com, look for and “friend” “Foreclosure Strategist.”

I’ll do my best to keep it updated with all of our events.

Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.

MEETUP PAGE FOR FORECLOSURE STRATEGISTS:

I have set up a MeetUp page. The page can be viewed at www.MeetUp.com/ForeclosureStrategists. Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.

May your opportunities be bountiful and your possibilities unlimited.

“Emissary of Observation”

Darrell Blomberg

602-686-7355

Darrell@ForeclosureStrategists.com


What Are They Looking For In The Foreclosure Reviews?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Not sure if this is a new voice or just someone I missed. You should follow the blog entries of this author. The author strongly advises sending a Qualified Written Request before you send your request for a review. I agree with him or her. The more information you have, the more information you have requested, the harder it will be for them to wiggle out of the corner they have painted themselves into. Those homeowners who don’t bear down on these Banks and servicers will get the same treatment they always have —short shrift.

After you contact the Independent Foreclosure Review office, and request your Review package, you will respond to the questions and compile your documents.  Consumer watchdog propublica.org  has an indepth article on the upcoming foreclosure reviews.   To begin your review process, you will receive a Notice and a Request For Review.  Based on the questions posed, we get a glimpse of what information will be reviewed to determine whether you have suffered financial injury that is entitled to remediation.

What Is Remediation?

Defined as the action of remedying something, in essence it is making up for losses, or  putting you back to the position you were in before the wrongful act.  What your remedy will be will depend on your personal circumstances.  Generally, foreclosure cases will involve one of these fact situations:

  • If your property was wrongfully foreclosed on and it was sold to a third party who now owns the property your remedy will most likely be financial compensation.  It is unlikely that you will ever recover a property that was sold to a third party.
  • If your property was wrongfully foreclosed on and it was not sold to a third party, and it is still owned by the bank or trust, you may be able to negotiate a loan modification or other restructuring to recover the property.
  • If your property was not sold at foreclosure, but you have incurred unnecessary financial loss in making efforts to keep your home, your compensation could include all sums you expended in that effort.
  • If you were given a temporary loan modification and made payments according to the agreement and were foreclosed on, your compensation could include repayment of the temporary payments that you made with the understanding that you would receive a permanent modification.
  • If your loan account includes erroneous charges and fees, you should be able to recover those improper fees.

Obtaining the form

Calling the 800 number to obtain the form proved to be as enjoyable as the loan modification process.  The first employee didn’t know much, and was just an initial screener.  Apparently if you can’t identify a loan number and servicer to determine whether you fall into the two year eligible time frame, they will not send a package.  They try to encourage you to wait until you get a letter, which they claim will be sometime before December 31, 2011.  If you insist, they take your information and represent that a package will be out in 7-10 business day.  Waiting.  In the interim, here is a brief analysis of the form obtained by www.propublica.com

Request For Foreclosure Review–13 Questions

1.  After providing identifying information, you will be asked to confirm that your property was your primary residence.  No investment properties or commercial properties will be considered regardless of how many rules were broken in the foreclosure of those properties.

2.  Were you in bankruptcy when your foreclosure went forward?  If the answer to this question is yes, clearly the servicer violated state and federal bankruptcy law, but it is not indicated how the OCC will compensate you for this.   If you were in bankruptcy, the automatic stay prohibits the servicer from selling your property while you were under the protection of the bankruptcy laws.  If your property was sold in violation of bankruptcy laws, your compensation could be based on what your would recover for a violation of a bankruptcy stay in your state.

3.  Do you believe that the mortgage balance amount at the time of the foreclosure action was more than the amount you actually owed on the mortgage?  This question is intended to determine whether your servicer made errors in calculating your loan balance, and as a result of their mistake, you could not make the payments which led to a foreclosure.  It is unlikely that this question is seeking to compensate your for small errors that did not affect your ability to pay, i.e. a $14 property preservation charge that was inappropriate.

4.  Do you believe that the foreclosure action was pursued because your mortgage payments were inaccurately processed or applied?  Many homeowners have attempted to make mortgage payments that were not properly applied, or erroneously returned.  This is going to require an analysis of your loan history.

5.  Do you believe you were protected by an insurance policy issued by the servicer or an affiliate that would have made your payments in the event of unemployment, disability or illness, but did not do so?

6.  Did you attempt through the court to have the decision to foreclose on your home reversed?  It is unclear why the OCC is asking for this information.  Hopefully it is not to penalize you or to conclude that your foreclosure was in fact proper if a court held that it was.  Many homeowners did not have the assistance of competent counsel to fight foreclosure actions.

7.  Do you believe you provided all the necessary documents required to obtain payment assistance or a mortgage modification before the foreclosure action occurred?  This question is directed to those homeowners who were in loan modification hell–provided all documentation requested by servicers repeatedly and continuously followed up with servicers by phone and by mail only to be given false information.

8.  Was a deficiency judgment obtained against you for an amount that included money that you should have not been required to pay?

9.  Do you believe you were making on time monthly payments in the required dollar amount on your mortgage, or an approved loan modification, trial modification or payment plan, and yet the foreclosure action still occurred?

10.  Do you believe you were denied a modification when you were qualified under the applicable program rules?  This question is directed to those homeowners who believe that they were qualified for the HAMP program, and were wrongfully denied.  Often, servicers incompetently entered data into the NPV calculator and this resulted in improper denials of HAMP modifications.  In regard to servicer programs, it is more difficult to determine whether homeowners were wrongfully denied since their guidelines are not as public as the HAMP guidelines.

11.  Do you believe you paid fees or charges that you should have not been required to pay in addition to your normally scheduled principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payments?

12.  Did you or a co-borrower have your mortgage loan before active duty military service began?

13.  Describe any other way in which you believe you may have been financially injured as a result of the mortgage foreclosure process.  This is the category that permits you to make arguments pertaining to losses that are not included in questions 1-12.  This question needs to be throughly researched and documented.

BUYERS BEWARE

The information regarding the Foreclosure Review process has only been in the blogosphere for 3 days, and the scammer and lawyer wannabe websites are proliferating.  Everyone has an opinion, even if it is uninformed and misleading.  The non attorney bloggers typically vehemently disclose that they are not lawyers and proceed to interpret the law and  give legal advice either online or on the phone while denying that they are giving legal advice.  Don’t take legal advice from anyone who isn’t a lawyer that you have checked out on the state bar website.

In regard to the products being offered to help you with the foreclosure process, my suggestion is that you don’t buy anything from anyone selling unless is is a lawyer you are hiring to prepare your package for you.  Many are trying to sell reports–these reports alone are not helpful to your case.  Many individuals purchased forensic audits, securitzation audits, pre-prepared complaints, and expected that sending these reports to the servicer would shock and awe them into doing the right thing.  Unfortunately, the AG and the FTC have opined that forensic audits are scams.  I have had many clients contact me with reports that they have spend thousands of dollars on that are useless.  If I order these reports in conjunction with my handling of a client’s case, I order the review from authorities that I trust to give me the information we need.

New Workshop on Motion Practice and Discovery

why-you-should-attend-the-discovery-and-motion-practice-workshop

VISIT LIVINGLIES STORE FOR FREE VIDEOS AND OTHER RESOURCES

START WINNING CASES!!

May 23-24, 2010 2 days. 9am-5pm. Neil F Garfield. CLE credits pending but not promised. Register Now. Seating limited to 18. INCLUDES LUNCH AND EXTENSIVE MANUAL OF FORMS, NARRATIVE AND CASES. An in-depth look at securitized residential mortgages and deeds of trust. Latest cases on standing, nominees, splitting note from security instrument, bankruptcy strategies, expert declarations, forensic analysis reports.

Lawyers, paralegals, experts, forensic analysts will all benefit from this. This workshop includes monthly follow-up teleconferences and continuing on-going support with advance copies of articles, cases and analysis.

  1. STRATEGIC REVIEW: WHY THESE CASES ARE BEING WON AND LOST IN MOTION PRACTICE.
  2. SECURITIZATION REVIEW
  3. USE OF FORENSIC REPORTS AND EXPERT DECLARATIONS
  4. RAISING QUESTIONS OF FACT IN CREDIBLE MANNER
  5. SETTING UP AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
  6. FOLLOW THE MONEY
  7. OBLIGATION, NOTE, BOND, MORTGAGE, DEED OF TRUST ANALYSIS
  8. TILA, RESPA, QWR, DVL AND RESCISSION — WHY JUDGES DON’T LIKE TILA RESCISSION AND HOW TO OVERCOME THEIR RESISTANCE.
  9. NOTICE OF DEFAULT, TRUSTEE, STANDING, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST EXAMINED AND REVIEWED
  10. INVESTORS, REMICS, TRUSTS, TRUSTEES, BORROWERS, CREDITORS, DEBTORS, HOMEOWNERS
  11. FACT EVIDENCE ON MOTIONS
  12. FORENSIC EVIDENCE ON MOTION
  13. EXPERT EVIDENCE ON MOTION
  14. ORAL ARGUMENT
  15. WHAT TO FILE
  16. WHEN TO FILE
  17. EMERGENCY MOTIONS — MOTION TO LIFT STAY, MOTION TO DISMISS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
  18. DISCOVERY: INTERROGATORIES, WHAT TO ASK FOR, HOW TO ASK FOR IT AND HOW TO ENFORCE IT. REQUESTS TO PRODUCE. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS.
  19. FEDERAL PROCEDURE
  20. STATE PROCEDURE
  21. BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE
  22. ETHICS, BUSINESS PLANS, AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Regulation and Prosecution on Wall Street

In my opinion, the growing anger at Wall Street is giving Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon another chance at misdirection. They are using the current popular angst to steer the debate into whether derivatives and synthetic CDOs should be banned. In the end they will win that debate, and they should win it. What they should lose is their freedom in a judicial forum where they are prosecuted like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers, and where it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed criminal fraud and securities fraud.

The fact that we had a bad experience with derivatives is not a reason to ban them. The fact that they were abused and that people were cheated and that the entire financial system was undermined is another story.

There is nothing wrong with any transaction if the playing field is relatively level and if the imbalances are addressed by law and regulation. That is what the Truth in lending Act is all about and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act is meant to address.

When the big guys use their superior knowledge to trick consumers into deadly transactions, the big guys should pay the price. We have the SEC to take care of that on the other end protecting investors. Licensing laws and administrative sanctions against those licensed by state or federal agencies are well-equipped to step in and deal with these abuses. But they didn’t.

Complaints sent to the Federal Trade Commission, Office of Thrift Supervision and Office of the Controller of the Currency have gone unheeded even to this day. The only answer you get is similar to the answer we get from sending short or long Qualified Written requests or Debt Validation Letters — short shrift of legitimate complaints that by law are required to be investigated, verified (not just restated) and corrected.

The inconvenient truth is that our regulators were not employing the tools given to them. Everyone knew it. In part it was because of undue influence and in part it was because they were deferring to larger “smarter” institutions like the Federal Reserve. But the biggest reason the Federal and state agencies didn’t do their job is that we, as a society, bought into the non-regulation philosophy which has failed so spectacularly. We didn’t support appropriate funding, training and resources for these agencies. If we had done what we should have done — elect people who were committed to government protecting and serving the people — this mess would never have mushroomed to the point where Wall Street issued proprietary currency equal to 12 times times the amount of government currency — all in a span only 25 years.

The simple truth is that there was nothing inherently wrong about securitizing residential mortgages. In theory, spreading the risk out created much greater liquidity for small and large consumers of credit. What was wrong and remains wrong is that the use of these instruments was for an illegal purpose — to defraud investors and borrowers alike. And they did it in an illegal manner — by denying and withholding information essential to the decision-making on both sides of these transactions.

On one side you had a creditor who was willing to loan money for residential mortgages under terms and conditions that were “explained” in mind-numbing prospectuses and guaranteed by “insurance” that wasn’t really insurance and which was appraised by government licensed rating agencies who issued investment grade appraisals that were so wrong that it strains credibility to assume they didn’t know they were part of a larger criminal enterprise. This creditor lent money and received a bond, whose terms referenced other documents in the securitization chain that imposed conditions, co-obligors, and protections to the intermediaries that completely changed the loans that were signed by borrowers far, far away.

On the other side, you had borrowers, homeowners, who put their largest or only investment in the world at risk in a transaction that they could not understand because the information required to understand it was withheld. But even Alan Greenspan admitted he didn’t understand the transactions with the help of 100 PhD’s. These borrowers relied upon the sanctity of an underwriting process that no longer existed. Verification of property value, quality, affordability etc. were no longer in the mix.

These borrowers undertook an obligation to repay and signed a note that was evidence of the obligation but was payable to someone other than the party(ies) who loaned the money. That note was only a tiny part of the obligation to the creditor as evidenced by the mortgage backed bond they received.

The creditor was bilked out of a dollar and contrary to the expectations of the creditor, less than 2/3 of each dollar was actually used to fund mortgages. The creditor never actually received or even saw the note but ownership of the note was conveyed to the investor along with many other terms — terms that were entirely different from the note the borrower signed as to interest payments, principal, fees etc.

In between were the dozens of intermediaries who treated the documentation like a hot potato because nobody wanted to be stuck with it — knowing that misrepresentation and bad appraisals were the root of the instruments signed by creditors and debtors. These intermediaries kept possession of the note, kept the security instrument and kept the money and most of the insurance proceeds, received the federal bailout and now are proceeding to repackage the junk they already sold and through “resecuritization” are selling them again.

In my opinion there is nothing theoretically wrong with anything described above except for one thing — they lied. Fraud is fraud. If they had educated the creditors and debtors, if they had complied with local property and contract law, if they had been transparent disclosing everything much the same way as the prospectus in an IPO, then two things are true: (a) transactions that were completed would have been done because both sides knew the risks and were willing to take the loss and (b) transactions that were NOT completed (which would have been nearly all of them) would been rejected because the costs were too high, the risks were too high, and the consequences too dire.

But none of that happened because we allowed our regulators to be co-opted by the industries they were supposed to regulate. So tell your legislators and government agencies that you’ll allow them the resources to properly regulate and that you expect to hold them and the elected officials who put them there fully accountable.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It isn’t derivatives that are wrong it is the people who used them and the way they were used that is wrong. Killing derivatives would lead to stagnation of what once was our greatest asset — the engine of liquidity for access to capital that has kept our economy growing.


Keiser’s Forensic Analysis Workshop

You must remember the judiciary moves slowly is assimilating new facts or patterns in the marketplace. In order to break through a Judge’s preconception of the mortgage origination process, you need to have something that is clear in is presentation of facts, and obvious in its impact.

The reasons for having analysis performed by an independent third party is that it transforms empty argument into a question of fact. Anything that leads to a questions of fact gives you leverage in and out of court. In court, it allows you to credibly raise the issues so that discovery and an evidentiary hearing will allow your claims to be heard on the merits. No “audit” or analysis is PROOF or EVIDENCE unto itself. What it should do is give you something to hold in your had while talking to the Court, and which clearly contests the “facts” that the pretender lender is trying to have the Court assume (which is why objections, motion practice, discovery and evidentiary hearings are so important).

Lots of mistakes are being made on both sides of the mortgage crisis. Brad, in hosting this new forensic analysis workshop, seeks to help analysts avoid the usual pitfalls, recognize the issues that an expert or lawyer or homeowner may be required to present, and work toward providing the litigation support required to achieve a successful result.

There are a number of good workshops out there that can help forensic auditors, lawyers, experts and even lay people understand how to proceed when they wish to challenge some company that claims to be your lender or servicer. Max Gardner’s boot-camps are very good venues for understanding securitized loans, applying law and procedure to the challenge and coming out with good results. April Charney, who is giving a workshop soon in California is adding non-judicial states to the scope of her workshops for the first time. And Brad Keiser, who has been doing the survey workshops with me for a year and a half is now offering an important, even essential, workshop that drills down on forensic analysis of mortgages and foreclosure proceedings.

Brad, being a former banker himself with one of the nations largest banks, has performed virtually all of the research I use in connection with TILA, RESPA etc. A long-time friend, he has worked with me to bring LivingLies from two dimensional blog postings to three dimensional live presentations.

The output is what is important in any analysis of your mortgage or foreclosure situation. It doesn’t matter what work a company says they will do, even if they completed their engagement. The question is whether it is useful in producing an actual result. That is where the intersection of what is working in court and what is not comes into play. The issue here is knowing what you have, planning your strategy, and choosing the right procedures, lawyers, experts etc. in achieving a well-defined goal. Brad and I have carefully analyzed the forensic process and found a number of things that rise to the level of prime importance:

  1. Finding out whether there are patent violations of existing federal and state lending laws that can be identified for further action by the homeowner or their attorney. This among other things involves an examination of the Annual Percentage rate disclosed on the Good faith estimate, the timing of the good faith estimate, the presence of the traditional (but illegal) yield spread premium), affordability and other factors including discrepancies between the GFE and the HUD settlement statement. A key component of this part of the analysis often overlooked by “TILA Auditors” is an examination of the settlement transaction where the alleged loan was closed revealing discrepancies between the beneficiaries of the mortgage, the note, the title insurance, the mortgage insurance etc. and the use of “nominees” instead of naming the real parties in interest, which is evidence of a table-funded loan.
  2. Revealing the latent violations of lending laws and regulations caused by securitization of loans. Here is where the second and much larger yield spread premium appears and must be estimated by your expert or analyst using tables prepared by an expert. In addition. it reveals discrepancies in signatures, dates and parties in connection with fabricated or forged assignments used to justify the foreclosure by a party not named as lender or beneficiary.
  3. Determining whether there are refunds or rebates due back to the homeowner/borrower either from the original named lender or some other party in a securitization chain.
  4. Discovering facts that show a pattern of deceptive or predatory lending.
  5. Researching the loan to determine the record title chain, the probable securitization of your loan, and providing you with the right questions to ask as tot he identity of the creditor and demanding an accounting from the creditor, as opposed to simply a servicer that serves as a buffer between the debtor (homeowner) and the creditor (Investor owning mortgage backed securities).
  6. Providing adequate information and forms to the lawyer or client on sending out a Qualified Written Request, Debt Validation Letter or Demand Letter.
  7. Highlighting the most significant issues in your loan for the expert to use in preparing a declaration or the lawyer to use in filing a lawsuit, a petition for temporary injunction, or a bankruptcy petition.

As I have repeatedly stated on these pages, a TILA Audit is a start but it usually won’t produce the result of a modified loan that is acceptable tot he homeowner or the nullification of the obligation, note or mortgage.

Before securitization of mortgage loans, the process of examining loan transactions was fairly straight forward and fairly simple. With securitization the analysis requires a much higher level of sophistication that enables the lawyer or homeowner to present or proffer evidence of wrong-doing or improper procedures accounting or disclosure on the part of the securitization chain that produced your loan from the investment in mortgage backed bonds by investors.

Some stories don’t end well in this battle for justice — A Smiling Judge Refuses to Get it

WHY WE ARE PLANNING 2-3 DAY BOOT-CAMPS AND MANUALS FOR LAWYERS, BOOT-CAMPS FOR FORENSIC ANALYSTS, AND BOOT-CAMPS FOR LAYMEN. IT’S JUST NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAY WANT IT TO BE.

NOT EVERYTHING ENDS WELL. THE BATTLE IS ON. THIS JUDGE SAID THE ASSIGNMENT DOESN’T NEED TO BE RECORDED TO PROVE OWNERSHIP. HE’S TECHNICALLY RIGHT, BUT HIS CONCLUSION WAS WRONG. THIS IS WHY I KEEP SAYING THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET. The fact that an assignment is not recorded does not mean that it can’t be recorded — unless it is not executed in recordable form. If it isn’t executed in recordable form and it isn’t recorded then it violates the terms of the pooling and service agreement and the prospectus/indentures for the mortgage backed bond sold investors.

If the purported document violates the enabling documents then the assignment has not been accepted. If the assignment has not been accepted then there is no assignment. At best there is a conditional assignment which is clearly in violation of the the express terms of the enabling documents. The existence of the condition creates an issue of fact as to who really has the right to own, enforce and collect on the obligation, note and mortgage.

If there was no consideration for the “transfer? then there isn’t even an equitable argument for why the pretender lender should be allowed to foreclose. They have nothing to lose by the alleged default and obviously don’t even know if there is a default in the OBLIGATION that was FUNDED with ADVANCED MONEY by INVESTORS.

But you see, this Judge was already predisposed to not giving the “borrower” a free house. He/She needs to be coddled and led along the path of education so he/she understands that the “borrower” is actually an investor who purchased a financial loan product subject to terms and duties which were breached by all the people in the securitization chain. The “lender” is the investor who advanced the money and is not in court.

The pretender lender is using bluff and fraud to get their share of the great American pie at the homeowner’s expense, depriving the homeowner of the knowledge of the identity of the true lender, the ability to settle out of court with the true lender, the ability to comply with federal law in seeking modification, short-sale, refinance or even payoff because the pretender lender in Court in Florida doesn’t even have the right, power, authority or justification to execute a satisfaction of mortgage.

If they don’t have the power to execute a satisfaction of mortgage then how could they have the power to foreclose?

The problem with this case is that the homeowners should be aggressive but not to try to convince the Judge why he/she should get a free house. You must align yourself with the Judge’s basic sense of fairness and basic mistrust of legal maneuvering to get out of a legally owed debt. By focusing your aggression on discovery, enforcement of the QWR and/or DVL, asking for the name of the true lender and the production of documents and names, addresses and phone numbers of people who can testify under oath, you present the Judge with something he cannot or should not refuse and that any appellate court would reverse him on. You are asking for discovery to test the merits of the pretender lender’s allegation or position that they have the right to enforce the note, that they are the party to whom the obligation is owed, that they are a creditor in the sense that they advanced money which they will lose if they don’t get to enforce the note and obligation, and that therefore they are the beneficiary of the terms of the the mortgage that secures the alleged debt.

If you go into court spouting securitization theories it is very easy to say you haven’t convinced the Judge. If you go in demanding an evidentiary hearing based upon the rules of evidence and founded on common discovery and enforcement in obtaining relevant information about your loan, and seeking an accounting from those people, entities or parties that were participants in the securitization chain, then you are only asking for a COMPLETE accounting so that you discover what undisclosed fees were paid under TILA and RESPA, and the true identities of the people involved in your table-funded loan.

I’m sorry for your result Mr Fitzgerald, but perhaps with the aid of competent, licensed, local counsel you can move for rehearing, file a bankruptcy that will stay the proceedings, and/or appeal.

Author : L.Fitzgerald
Comment:
” Happy Thanksgiving …give thanks to all the Blessings you have……he said,

and don’t complaint of the things you don’t have..”

“I’ll be eating turkey with my ” kids ” tomorrow “…he happily remarked .

With a smile on his face ..this Orlando 9 th Judicial Circuit

Court .. Judge…denied my motion to vacate judgment , and

allowed my house to be sold on Jan. 2010.

We became a ” potential homelessness couple.”… .the day

before Thanksgiving..

He was very kind to a Wall Street Bankster [ plaintiff ]..he gave away my only home ….

During this hearing ..one of my main arguments ..

was the Plaintiff’s lack of recorded Assignments ..and chain of

Title .. [ The Bankster is not my original lender..].

The smiling Judge made this comment ..that shocked us …

” Florida law does not require Assignments to be recorded…

…to prove the Plaintiff’s ownership…!!.

What to Look For and Demand Through QWR or Discovery Part II

Dan Edstrom, you are great!

OK I found the loan level details for my deal. It shows my loan in foreclosure and my last payment in 6/2008 (which is accurate). What it doesn’t say (among other things) is what advances were made on the account. Very interesting. This report is generated monthly but they are only reporting the current month. It also shows which pool my loan is in (originally their were approx. 4 pools, now there are 2). This means I can use all of this information to possibly calculate the advances reported – except that two months before I missed my first payment they stopped reporting SUB-servicer advances. [Editor’s Note: Those who are computer savvy will recognize that these are field names, which is something that should be included in your demand and in your QWR. You will also wanat the record data and metadata that is attached to each record. ]

DIST_DATE
SERIES_NAME
LOAN_NUM
POOL_NUM
DEAL_NUM LTV_DISCLOSED_PCT CLTV_PCT CREDIT_SCORE_NBR BACK_END_DTI_PCT
JUNIOR_RATIO LOAN_DOC_TYPE_DSCR LOAN_PURPOSE_TYPE_DSCR OCCUPANCY_TYPE PROPERTY_TYPE_DSCR LIEN_PRIORITY_DSCR STANDALONE_IND SILENT_SECOND_IND PROPERTY_STATE CONFORMING_BAL_IND INT_RATE_TYPE_DSCR MARGIN_GROSS_PCT
PMT_1ST_DATE INT_CHG_FREQ_MTH_QTY INT_CHG_PRD_INCR_CEIL_RATE INT_LIFE_CEIL_RATE INT_LIFE_FLOOR_RATE INT_ONLY_TERM_MTH_QTY INT_CHG_1ST_MTH INT_CHG_FREQ_DSCR INT_CHG_MTH_DIFF_QTY MORTAGE_INSURANCE_PROVIDER MORTAGE_INSURANCE_TYPE_DSCR MATURITY_DATE
NOTE_DATE
PRIN_ORIG_BAL
SOLD_BAL
TERM_ORIG_MTH_QTY PREPMT_PENALTY_TERM_MTH_QTY BORROWER_RESIDUAL_INCOME_AMT RFC_GRADE_CODE PRODUCT_GROUP_FALLOUT_DSCR MI_TYPE_DSCR INDEX_TYPE_CODE INDEX_TYPE_DSCR MLY_CURTAILMENT_AMT MLY_DRAW_GROSS_AMT MLY_COUPON_NET_RATE MLY_COUPON_GROSS_RATE MLY_PRIN_UNPAID_BAL MLY_PRIN_SCHED_BAL LOAN_AGE MLY_TERM_REMAIN_MTH_QTY MLY_UTILIZATION_PCT MLY_DELQ_REPORT_METHOD MLY_LOAN_STATUS_CODE MLY_LOAN_STATUS_DSCR MLY_PREPMT_TYPE_DSCR MLY_PAID_TO_DATE

If anyone wants this file or any of the servicing reports so they can see the actual data shoot me an email.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

%d bloggers like this: