HOW TO USE A SECURITIZATION SEARCH

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

WHY YOU NEED TO ATTEND OUR SEMINAR

WHAT IS A SECURITIZATION SEARCH?

Hopefully any securitization search will include all public records information that either name or describe your loan, and any information public or private that contains clues to what was done with your loan, who funded, it, and whether the receivables from your loan were mixed with receivables from other parties.

Remember: The fact that a document names or describes your loan does Not mean that the loan is in the pool or trust that is described. To the contrary, it appears as though no loans were actually transferred to a pool or trust unless and until one or more of the following had occurred:

  1. The loan account has been declared in default(remember that a declaration doesn’t make it so. Most borrowers accept the declaration as true because they know they have not made some payments. Those Borrowers don’t know or are ignoring the fact that many parties were promising to pay the obligation, and many of those promises preceded the application for loan, much less the loan closing).A securitization search will reveal the facts necessary to know or provide a reasonable basis for the belief that the loan payments continued to be made after the declaration of default (usually by the servicer) or that the trust or pool was dissolved and reconstituted under a different name and different documents.
  2. Foreclosure proceedings have begun either privately (non-judicial) or in the public records (judicial).
  3. The pretender lender has been ordered to either show the documentation or drop their foreclosure, and the Order was from a Judge of competent jurisdiction.

NOT ALL SECURITIZATION SEARCHES WILL PRECISELY NAME THE TRUST OR POOL: If the loan has traveled through Fannie, Freddie or Ginnae for a guarantee, it has been securitized but those entities, which are now essentially government agencies nationalized because of the mortgage crisis do not provide access to the secondary market information and even if you pay them, you will get very shallow data. Thus the analyst can see that the loan was definitely securitized or claimed as securitized, but he/she cannot report on the exact name of the pool or trust. The purpose of those entities is stated in their charter to be the facilitation of securitization of loans in the secondary market. The same is true for private deals which are not really private since they mostly involve public companies, but they are equally difficult to get a precise reading on the identity of a trust that or multiple trusts that could be claiming an ownership of the loan. It is behind this curtain that it was easiest fro the banks to change a few data points about the loans and sell them multiple times into multiple pools.

If the search does not produce the name of the pool trust, doesn’t that mean the search was useless and I lose (the bank wins)?

NO. The actual name of the trust or pool is irrelevant. What is important is that the loan is shown to be more likely than not claimed to be securitized. If the loan was claimed as securitized THAT MEANS you can shift the burden onto the pretender lender to prove its status and offer up real non-fabricated, unforged documents.It means that the receivable from your loan (your payments) was mixed with receivables and guarantees from other parties (other borrowers, insurers, counterparties etc.). It means that the promise to pay was changed from just your promise to a combination of promises from multiple people and entities, some of which were created solely for the purpose of serving as vehicles for the scheme of securitization. AND THAT MEANS the pretender creditor must sort it out— not you.

But that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem. Because on private deals, the pretender will come in as though there was no securitization when you know there was. So you need as much evidence as possible to show that the loan was probably securitized — so a Judge will believe that there is fire behind the smoke and not that you are just trying to use civil procedure and discovery to delay the proceedings.

Is it better to have the name of the trust or pool than not to have it?

Opinion is split on this. For obvious reasons it is better to have the goods when you are asserting something as a fact to the Judge. But most Judges now know there is an issue with securitization. I believe that even if you have the name of the trust, you should not use it until you are forced to do so. The reason is that as a practical and tactical matter the more evidence you present the more you own it.

By presenting evidence of the securitization of the loan, you are playing into the hands of the pretender. You are accepting the burden of pleading and proving a case that is in reality a simple denial of a case that has either never been filed (non-judicial) or which has been filed with unsupportable allegations. Under the theory that if you use it you own it, your strenuous efforts to show that the loan WAS securitized will bite you in the behind when you defend the case on the basis that the transfer was never made.

My opinion is that it is better to say that the evidence will show that the receivable was not treated in away that is consistent with the pretender’s allegation that they are the creditor, and that the lien was defective or was rendered ineffective by the conduct of the parties.

Then what is the value of the securitization search?

If you don’t use the securitization search in tandem with a loan specific title search and get a thorough analysis of the highlights in the broken chain of title and how those defects appeared, then you are not using the securitization properly. The point is not to show that the loan was securitized and that securitization is evil. The point is to show that the lien in the public records of the county in which the property was located is invalid, unenforceable or void. The title search will show the current status of title tot he property as it appears in the public records. The analysis of that title will show the weak points in the title, whether there are clouds on title, title defects, breaks in chain of title etc. The securitization analysis also takes the facts as we find them, and then explains how the tittle defects came into being.

The securitization report and analysis makes sense out of a situation that is totally  counter-intuitive. Why would a bank intentionally lose money on a loan? That is the question in the mind of the Judge. It makes no sense. And in fact, no bank would intentionally lose money on a loan. So what is happening here? The answer lies in securitization or the intent to create the appearance of securitization, to be more precise. Through securitization neither the loan originator nor any of the securitizing parties had any money in the deal, nor did they have any risk of loss.They had no risk of loss because they were not using their own money or credit. Each party in the securitizing scheme was a paid service provider; each was paid for the same service: to create the illusion of a normal mortgage loan transaction.

Thus the securitization report and analysis is essential element in the foundation of any case for damages or injunctive relief. It explains why a lender would go out of its way to inflate the appraisal on the property being used as collateral for the loan. Thus it lies at factual foundation of a claim for appraisal fraud. It explains why a lender would avoid the task of using underwriting standards developed over centuries to determine creditworthiness and viability of a loan. The originating lender was not in fact making a loan. In fact, in most instances it never handled the money for the funding of the loan even as a conduit. Thus the securitization report and analysis forms the factual foundation for the holy grail of mortgage litigation: Quiet Title.

IF THIS ARTICLE IS BEGINNING TO MAKE SENSE TO YOU, YOU ARE READY TO ATTEND OUR SEMINAR. THE NEXT ONE IS ON JUNE 25-26, 2011 AT THE SHERATON AIRPORT HOTEL, FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA.

GARFIELD CONTINUUM CLE SEMINAR (2 DAYS) IN FORT LAUDERDALE 6/25/6/26 EARLY BIRD

MEMBERS ONLY EARLY BIRD

COURSE MATERIALS ONLY NON-MEMBERS

MEMBERS ONLY COURSE MATERIALS ONLY

BECOME A MEMBER NOW! CLICK HERE

%d bloggers like this: