FHA Loan Sales Good News and Bad News

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

 

Editor’s Comment:

With the Federal reserve and FHA and soon other agencies selling off their loans it is true that the homeowners will be getting calls inviting them to accept new mortgages at much lower rates and principal owed. But the reason is that the Banks have figured out is that if you can just get a signature from the homeowner who is getting screwed in foreclosure, the Bank’s potential liability for all their illegal activities is greatly diminished.

 

And the fact that the signature of the homeowner does absolutely nothing to clear up title in most cases. The payoff on the old loan was inevitably to a party picked at random from the list of participants in the securitization chains that were created on paper and then totally ignored. When the homeowner gouges to sell or refi his home in a few years, we will have another crisis on our hands because the title won’t be clear by any conventional standards of title analysis.

 

So this “opportunity” is much like the settlements that suddenly appear when the Master Servicer (not the sub-servicer with whom the borrower has transacted business) is ordered to open up its books. The fact is that they used Master Servicer or investment banking escrow accounts where the money from all investors was intermingled in a superFund account where the Wall Street banks kept the money on a tight leash and once again, as they do every 20-30 years or so, totally screw up the paperwork. The difference is that this time the paperwork was screwed up not only between themselves but with the consumers and government agencies.

 

This time, internal sources are telling me independently of one another, that the securitization chain was and is a paper tiger.  There never was  and is not currently anyting in the pools or trusts. In fact, the only thing on paper going into the trusts are bad loans already declared in default and they are going in years after the cutoff date allowed by law and the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement and prospectus. Pension funds are getting a shorter end of the stick than the homeowners, if that is possible. They bought and advanced funds for good loans and all they are getting in return are bad loans that never did conform to the restrictions in the PSA.

 

It isn’t just a technical matter that there was no acceptance of the offer of the assignment. That is a given. who would want a loan that was already declared in default unless they had some other way of satisfying the loan balance in some other way through a co-obligor — like a sub-servicer whose sole action to recover from the homeowner is through a cause of action called “contribution.” That obligation is clearly NOT secured. That action arises out of a contract between the lender and the sub-servicer. There is no contract, note or mortgage between the sub-servicer and the borrower.

 

The question remains in these sales is “what are they really selling.” What is it that the agency “acquired?” What warranties are they giving on the sale of the loans? From whom did they acquire the loans and what due diligence was performed besides taking the bank’s word for it that they owned the loan? Here is the truth: with the REMICs totally disregarded by CDO managers and all the money being in a co-mingled Superfund account it is virtually impossible to determine the indentity of the the “partners” in the loan from the SuperFund because it is impossible to determine the relative amounts of money advanced by pension funds and other investors at the moment the funding took place. What we DO know is that the the loans were sold forward but the loans that were sold forward were based upon paperwork that recited transactions that didn’t exist and never did and never would (thus making the forward sale a civil or criminal fraud). We do know that the claims of ownership from the banks and servicers were at best claims of conveience without substance. So what did the agencies buy and why did they not do their due diligence? Why are we doing the investigation that the FHA and Federal Reserve shold be doing? Why is the burden on the homeowner to discover facts that are readily available to the agencies and law enforcement? When will homeowners stop getting screwed?

 

If none of the elements of a perfected mortgage lien are present, why are we pretending they are there? If removing the illegal mortgage lien and leaving the parties to fight it out or settle the amounts due would revive the economy, why are we not doing that?

 

Why are we substituting new rules of evidence and civil procedure that are created by each judge for the long-standing laws, rules and procedures developed over hundreds of years of common law? How long will we let banks run the system?


BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED

COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS

Still Pretending the Servicers Are Legitimate

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

I keep waiting for someone to notice. We all know that the foreclosures were defective. We all know that in many cases independent auditors found that strangers to the transaction submitted credit bids that were accepted by the auctioneer, and that in the non-judicial states where substitutions of trustees are always used to replace an independent trustee with one owned or controlled by the “new creditor” the “credit bid” is accepted by the creditor’s agent even if the trustee has notice from the borrower that neither the substitution of trustee nor the foreclosure are valid, that the borrower denies the debt, denies the default and denies the right of the “new creditor” to do anything.

In the old days when we followed the law, the trustee would have only one option: file an interpleader lawsuit in court claiming two stakeholders and that the trustee is not a stakeholder and should be reimbursed for fees and costs. Today instead of an interpleader, it is a foreclosure because the “creditor” is holding all the cards.

So why is anyone surprised that modifications are rejected when in the past the debtor and borrower always worked things out because foreclosure was not as good as a work-out?

Why do the deeds found to be lacking in consideration with false credit bids still remain on the books? Why hasn’t the homeowner been notified that he still owns the property and has the right to possession?

And why are we so sure that the original mortgage has any more validity than the false documents to support fraudulent foreclosures? Is it because the borrower’s signature is on it? OK. If we are going to look at the borrower’s signature then why do we not look at the rest of the document and the facts alleged to have occurred in those documents. The note says that the payee is the lender. We all know that isn’t true. The mortgage says the property is collateral for payment to the payee on the note. What first year law student would fail to spot that if the note recited a loan transaction that never occurred, then the mortgage securing the payments on the false transaction is no better than the note?

So if the original transaction was defective and the servicer derives its status or power from the origination documents, then who is the servicer and why is he standing in your living room demanding payment and declaring you in default?

If any reader of this blog somehow convinced another reader of the blog to sign a note and mortgage, would the note and mortgage be valid without any actual financial transaction. No. In fact, the attempt to collect on the note where I didn’t make the loan might be considered fraud or even grand theft. And rightfully so. I am told that in some states the Judges say it is the absence of anyone else making an effort to collect on the note that proves the standing of the party seeking to enforce it. Really?

This sounds like a business plan. A lends B money. B signs papers indicating the loan came from C and C gets the mortgage. B is delinquent by a month and having lost his job he abandons the property. D comes in and seeks to enforce the mortgage and note and nobody else is around. The title record is still clear of any foreclosure activity. D says he has an assignment and produces a false forged assignment. Nobody else shows up. THAT is because the parties in the securitization chain are using MERS instead of the public record title registry so they didn’t get any notice. D gets the foreclosure after substituting trustees in a non-judicial state or doing absolutely nothing in a judicial state. The property is auctioned and D submits a credit bid which is accepted by the auctioneer. The clerk or trustee issues D a deed upon foreclosure and D immediately transfers the property to XYZ corporation that he formed the day before. XYZ sells the property to E for $300,000. E pays D $60,000 down payment and gets a mortgage from ABC Lending Corp. for the other $240,000. ABC Lending Corp. sells the note and mortgage into the secondary market where it is sliced and diced into parcels that are allocated into one or more REMIC special purpose vehicles.

Now B comes back and finds out that he was never foreclosed on by his lender. C wakes up and says they never released the mortgage. D took the money and ran, never to be heard from again. The investors in the REMIC trusts are told they bought an invalid mortgage or one in which the mortgage has second priority instead of first priority. E, who bought the property with $60,000 of his own money is now at risk, and when he looks at his title policy and makes a claim he is directed to the schedules of exclusions and exceptions that specifically cover this event. So no title carrier is going to pay. In fact, the title company might concede that B still owns the property and that C has the first mortgage on it, but that leaves E with two mortgages instead of one. The two mortgages together total around $500,000, a price that E’s property will never reach in 20 years. Sound familiar?

Welcome to USA property law as it was summarily ignored, changed and enforced for the past 10 years? Why? Especially when it turns out that the investment broker that sold the mortgage bonds of the REMIC knew about the whole story all along. Why are we letting this happen?


Recording and Auctions: AZ Maricopa County Recorder Meets with Homeowners

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Phoenix, May 23, 2012: Last night we had the pleasure of meeting with Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, after having met with Tom Horne, AZ Attorney General and Ken Bennett, the AZ Secretary of State on issues relating to mortgages, robo-signing, notary fraud, etc.  Many thanks again to Darrell Blomberg whose persistence and gentle demeanor produced these people at a meeting downtown. See upcoming events for Darrell on the Events tab above.

The meeting was video recorded and plenty of people were taking notes. Purcell described the administrative process of challenging documents. By submitting a complaint apparently in any form, if you identify the offending document with particularity and state your grounds, again with particularity, the Recorder’s office is duty bound to review it and make a determination as to whether the document should be “corrected” by an instrument prepared by her office that is attached to the document.

If your complaint refers to deficiencies on the face of the document, the recorder’s office ought to take action. One of the problems here is that the office handles electronic recording via contracts who sign a Memorandum of Understanding with her office and become “trusted submitters.” Title companies, law offices, and banks are among the trusted sources. It appears to me that the mere submission of these documents in electronic form gives rise to the presumption that they are valid even if the notarization is plainly wrong and defective.

If the recording office refuses to review the document, a lawsuit in mandamus would apply to force the recorder to do their job. If they refer matters to the County Attorney’s office, the County Attorney should NOT be permitted to claim attorney client privilege to block the right of the person submitting the document or objection from know the basis of the denial. You have 10 years to challenge a document in terms of notary acknowledgement which means that you can go back to May 24, 2002, as of today.

One thing that readers should keep in mind is that invalidating the notarization does not, in itself, invalidate the documents. Arizona is a race-notice state though which means the first one to the courthouse wins the race. So if you successfully invalidate the notarization then that effectively removes the offending document as a recorded document to be considered in the chain of title. Any OTHER document recorded that was based upon the recording of the offending document would therefore NOT be appropriately received and recorded by the recording office.

So a Substitution of Trustee that was both robo-signed and improperly notarized could theoretically be corrected and then recorded. But between the time that the recorder’s correction is filed (indicating that the document did not meet the standards for recording) and the time of the new amended or corrected document, properly signed and notarized is recorded, there could be OTHER instruments recorded that would make things difficult for a would-be foreclosure by a pretender lender.

The interesting “ringer” here is that the person who signed the original document may no longer be able to sign it because they are unavailable, unemployed, or unwilling to again participate in robosigning. And the notary is going to be very careful about the attestation, making sure they are only attesting to the validity of the signature and not to the power of the person signing it.

It seems that there is an unwritten policy (we are trying to get the Manual through Darrell’s efforts) whereby filings from homeowners who can never file electronically, are reviewed for content. If they in any way interfere with the ability of the pretender lender to foreclose they are sent up to the the County Attorney’s office who invariably states that this is a non-consensual lien even if the word lien doesn’t appear on the document. I asked Ms. Purcell how many documents were rejected if they were filed by trusted submitters. I stated that I doubted if even one in the last month could be cited and that the same answer would apply going back years.

So the county recorder’s office is rejecting submissions by homeowners but not rejecting submissions from banks and certain large law firms and title companies (which she said reduced in number from hundreds to a handful).

What the pretenders are worried about of course, is that anything in the title chain that impairs the quality of title conveyed or to be covered by title insurance would be severely compromised by anything that appears in the title record BEFORE they took any action.

If a document upon which they were relying, through lying, is then discounted by the recording office to be NOT regarded as recorded then any correction after the document filed by the homeowner or anyone else might force them into court to get rid of the impediment. That would essentially convert the non-judicial foreclosure to a judicial foreclosure in which the pretenders would need to plead and prove facts that they neither know or have any evidence to support, most witnesses now being long since fired in downsizing.

The other major thing that Ms Purcell stated was that as to MERS, she was against it from the beginning, she thought there was no need for it, and that it would lead to breaks in the chain of title which in her opinion did happen. When asked she said she had no idea how these breaks could be corrected. She did state that she thought that many “mistakes” occurred in the MERS system, implying that such mistakes would not have occurred if the parties had used the normal public recording system for assignments etc.

And of course you know that this piece of video, while it supports the position taken on this blog for the last 5 years, avoids the subject of why the MERS system was created in the first place. We don’t need to speculate on that anymore.

We know that the MERS system was used as a cloak for multiple sales and assignments of the same loan. The party picked as a “designated hitter” was inserted by persons with access to the system through a virtually non-existence security system in which an individual appointed themselves as the authorized signor for MERS or some member of MERS. We know that these people had no authorized written  instructions from any person in MERS nor in the members organization to execute documents and that if they wanted to, they could just as easily designated any member or any person or any business entity to be the “holder” or “investor.”

The purpose of MERS was to put a grand glaze over the fact that the monetary transactions were actually off the grid of the claimed securitization. The single transaction was between the investor lenders whose money was kept in a trust-like account and then sued to fund mortgages with the homeowner borrower. At not time was that money ever in the chain of securitization.

The monetary transaction is both undocumented and unsecured. At no time was any transaction, including the original note and mortgage (or deed of trust) reciting true facts relating to the loan by the payee of the note or the secured party under the mortgage or deed of trust. And at no time was the payee or secured holder under the mortgage or deed of trust ever expecting to receive any money (other than fees for pretending to be the “bank”) nor did they ever receive any money. At no time did MERS or any of its members handle, disburse or otherwise act even as a conduit for the funding of the loan.

Hence the mortgage or deed of trust secured an obligation to the payee on the note who was not expecting to receive any money nor did they receive any money. The immediate substitution of servicer for the originator to receive money shows that in nearly every securitization case. Any checks or money accidentally sent to the originator under the borrower’s mistaken impression that the originator was the lender (because of fraudulent misrepresentations) were immediately turned over to another party.

The actual party who made the loan was a large group of institutional investors (pension funds etc.) whose money had been illegally pooled into a PONZI scheme and covered over by an entirely fake and fraudulent securitization chain. In my opinion putting the burden of proof on the borrower to defend against a case that has not been alleged, but which should be (or dismissed) is unfair and a denial of due process.

In my opinion you stand a much greater chance of attacking the mortgage rather than the obligation, whether or not it is stated on the note. Admitting the liability is not the same as admitting the note represents the deal that the borrower agreed to. Counsel should object immediately, when the pretender lender through counsel states that the note is or contains a representation of the deal reached by the borrower and the lender. Counsel should state that borrower denies the recitations in the note but admits the existence of an obligation to a lender whose identity was and remains concealed by the pretender in the foreclosure action. The matter is and should be put at issue. If the Judge rules against you, after you deny the validity of the note and the enforceability and validity of the note and mortgage, then he or she is committing reversible error even if the borrower would or probably would lose in the end as the Judge would seem to predict.

Trial is the only way to find out. If the pretenders really can prove the money is owed to them, let them prove it. If that money is theirs, let them prove it. If there is nobody else who would receive that money as the real creditor, let the pretender be subject to discovery. And they MUST prove it because the statute ONLY allows the actual creditor to submit a “credit bid” at auction in lieu of cash. Any auction in which both the identity of the creditor and the amount due was not established was and remains in my opinion subject to attack with a motion to strike the deed on foreclosure (probably on many grounds) based upon failure of consideration, and anyone who bids on the property with actual cash, should be considered the winner of the auction.

DON’T Leave Your Money on the Table

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

The number of people passing up the administrative review process is appallingly low, considering the fact that many if not most homeowners are leaving money on the table — money that should rightfully be paid to them from wrongful foreclosure activity (from robo-signing to outright fraud by having non-creditors take title and possession).

The reason is simple: nobody understands the process including lawyers who have been notoriously deficient in their knowledge of administrative procedures, preferring to stick with the more common judicial context of the courtroom in which many lawyers have demonstrated an appalling lack of skill and preparation, resulting in huge losses to their clients.

The fact is, administrative procedures are easier than court procedures especially where you have mandates like this one. The forms of complaints and evidence are much more informal. It is much harder for the offending party to escape on a procedural technicality without the cause having been heard on the merits. 

The banks were betting on two thngs when they agreed to this review process — that people wouldn’t use it and that even if they used it they would fail to state the obvious: that the money wasn’t due or in default, that it was paid and that only a complete accounting from all parties in the securitization chain could determine whether the original debt was (a) ever secured and (b) still existence. They knew and understood that most people would assume the claim was valid because they knew that the loan was funded and that they had executed papers that called for payments that were not made by the borrower.

But what if the claim isn’t valid? What if the loan was funded entirely outside the papers they signed at closing? What if the payments were not due? What if the payments were not due to this creditor? And what if the payments actually were made on the account and the supposed creditor doesn’t exist any more? Why are you assuming that the paperwork at closing was any more real than the fraudulent paperwork they submitted during foreclosure?

People tend to think that if money exchanged hands that the new creditor would simply slip on the shoes of a secured creditor. Not so. If the secured debt is paid and not purchased then the new debt is unsecured even if the old was secured. But I repeat here that in my opinion the original debt was probably not secured which is to say there was no valid mortgage, note and could be no valid foreclosure without a valid mortgage and default.

Wrongful foreclosure activity includes by definition wrongful auctions and results. Here are some probable pointers about that part of the foreclosure process that were wrongful:

1. Use the fraudulent, forged robosigned documents as corroboration to your case, not the point of the case itself.

2. Deny that the debt was due, that there was any default, that the party iniating the foreclosure was the creditor, that the party iniating the foreclosure had no right to represent the creditor and didn’t represnet the creditor, etc.

3. State that the subsitution of trustee was an unauthorized document if you are in a nonjudicial state.

4. State that the substituted trustee, even if the substitution of trustee was deemed properly executed, named trustees that were not qualified to serve in that they were controlled or owned entities of the new stranger showing up on the scene as a purported “creditor.”

5. State that even if the state deemed that the right to intiate a foreclosure existed with obscure rights to enforce, the pretender lender failed to establish that it was either the lender or the creditor when it submitted the credit bid.

6. State that the credit bid was unsupported by consideration.

7. State that you still own the property legally.

8. State that if the only bid was a credit bid and the credit bid was invalid, accepted perhaps because the auctioneer was a controlled or paid or owned party of the pretender lender, then there was no bid and the house is still yours with full rights of possession.

9. The deed issued from the sale is a nullity known by both the auctioneer and the party submitting the “credit bid.”

10. Demand to see all proof submitted by the other side and all demands for proof by the agency, and whether the agency independently investigated the allegations you made. 

 If you lose, appeal to the lowest possible court with jurisdiction.

Many Eligible Borrowers Passing up Foreclosure Reviews

By Julie Schmit

Months after the first invitations were mailed, only a small percentage of eligible borrowers have accepted a chance to have their foreclosure cases checked for errors and maybe win restitution.

By April 30, fewer than 165,000 people had applied to have their foreclosures checked for mistakes — about 4% of the 4.1 million who received letters about the free reviews late last year, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The reviews were agreed to by 14 major mortgage servicers and federal banking regulators in a settlement last year over alleged foreclosure abuses.

So few people have responded that another mailing to almost 4 million households will go out in early June, reminding them of the July 31 deadline to request a review, OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard says.

If errors occurred, restitution could run from several hundred dollars to more than $100,000.

The reviews are separate from the $25 billion mortgage-servicing settlement that state and federal officials reached this year.

Anyone who requests a review will get one if they meet certain criteria. Mortgages had to be in the foreclosure process in 2009 or 2010, on a primary residence, and serviced by one of the 14 servicers or their affiliates, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank and Wells Fargo.

More information is at independentforeclosurereview.com.

Even though letters went to more than 4 million households, consumer advocates say follow-up advertising has been ineffective, leading to the low response rate.

Many consumers have also grown wary of foreclosure scams and government foreclosure programs, says Deborah Goldberg of the National Fair Housing Alliance.

“The effort is being made” to reach people, says Paul Leonard, the mortgage servicers’ representative at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group. “It’s hard to say why people aren’t responding.”

With this settlement, foreclosure cases will be reviewed one by one by consultants hired by the servicers but monitored by regulators.

With the $25 billion mortgage settlement, borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure will be eligible for payouts from a $1.5 billion fund.

That could mean 750,000 borrowers getting about $2,000 each, federal officials have said.

For more information on that, go to nationalmortgagesettlement.com.

Az Statute on Mortgage Fraud Not Enforced (except against homeowners)

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

With a statute like this on the books in Arizona and elsewhere, it is difficult to see why the Chief Law Enforcement of each state, the Attorney General, has not brought claims and prosecutions against all those entities and people up and down the fraudulent securitization chain that brought us the mortgage meltdown, foreclosures of more than 5 million people, suicides, evictions and claims of profits based upon the fact that the free house went to the pretender lender.

Practically every act described in this statute was committed by the investment banks and all their affiliates and partners from the seller of the bogus mortgage bond (sold forward, which means that the loans did not yet exist) all the way down to the people at the closing table with the homeowner borrower.

I’d like to see a script from attorneys who confront the free house concept head on. The San Francisco study and other studies clearly show that many if not most foreclosures resulted in a “sale” of property without any cash offered by the buyer who submitted a credit bid when they had not established themselves as creditors nor had they established the amount due. And we now know that they failed to establish themselves as creditors because they neither loaned the money nor purchased the loan in any transaction in which they parted with money. So the consideration for the sale was not present or if you want to put it in legalese that would effect those states that allow review of the adequacy of consideration at the auction.

I’d like to see a lawyer go to court and say “Judge, you already know it would be wrong for my client to get a free house. I am here to agree with you and state further that whether you rule for the borrower or this pretender lender here, you are going to give a free house to somebody.

“Because this party initiated a foreclosure proceeding without being the creditor, without spending a dime on the loan or purchase of the loan, and without any right to represent the multitude of people and entities that should be paid on this loan. This pretender, this stranger to this transaction stands in the way of a mediated settlement or HAMP modification in which the borrower is more than happy to do a traditional workout based upon the economic realities.

“And they they maintain themselves as obstacles to mediation or modification because they have too much to hide about the origination of this loan.

“All I seek is that you recognize that we deny the loan on which this party is pursuing its claims, we deny the default and we deny the balance. That puts the matter at issue in which there are relevant and material facts that are in dispute.

“I say to you that as a Judge you are here to call balls and strikes and that your ruling can only be that with issues in dispute, the case must proceed.”

“The pretender should be required to state its claim with a complaint, attach the relevant documents and the homeowner should be able to respond to the complaint and confront the witnesses and documents being used. And that means the pretender here must be subject to the requirements of the rules of civil procedure that include discovery.

“Experience shows that there have been no trials on the evidence in all the foreclosures ever brought during this period and that the moment a judge rules on discovery in favor of the borrower, the pretender offers settlement. Why do you think that is?”

“If they had a good reason to foreclose and they had the authority to allege the required the elements of foreclosure and they had the proof to back it up they would and should be more than willing to put a stop to all these motions and petitions from borrowers. But they don’t allow any case to go to trial. They are winning on procedure because of the assumption that the legitimate debt is unpaid and that the borrower owes it to the party making the claim even if there never was transaction with the pretender in which the borrower was a party, directly or indirectly.”

“Neither the non-judicial powers of sale statutes nor the rules of civil procedure based upon constitutional requirements of due process can be used to thwart a claim that has merit or raises issues that have merit. You should not allow the statute and rules to be applied in a manner in which a stranger to the transaction who could not even plead a case in good faith would win a foreclosed house at auction without court review and a hearing on the merits.”

Residential mortgage fraud; classification; definitions in Arizona

Section 1. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:
13-2320.

A. A PERSON COMMITS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FRAUD IF, WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD, THE PERSON DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

  1. KNOWINGLY MAKES ANY DELIBERATE MISSTATEMENT, MISREPRESENTATION OR MATERIAL OMISSION DURING THE MORTGAGE LENDING PROCESS THAT IS RELIED ON BY A MORTGAGE LENDER, BORROWER OR OTHER PARTY TO THE MORTGAGE LENDING PROCESS.
  2. KNOWINGLY USES OR FACILITATES THE USE OF ANY DELIBERATE MISSTATEMENT, MISREPRESENTATION OR MATERIAL OMISSION DURING THE MORTGAGE LENDING PROCESS THAT IS RELIED ON BY A MORTGAGE LENDER, BORROWER OR OTHER PARTY TO THE MORTGAGE LENDING PROCESS.
  3. RECEIVES ANY PROCEEDS OR OTHER MONIES IN CONNECTION WITH A RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN THAT THE PERSON KNOWS RESULTED FROM A VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 1 OR 2 OF THIS SUBSECTION.
  4. FILES OR CAUSES TO BE FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ANY COUNTY OF THIS STATE ANY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN DOCUMENT THAT THE PERSON KNOWS TO CONTAIN A DELIBERATE MISSTATEMENT, MISREPRESENTATION OR MATERIAL OMISSION.

Those convicted of one count of mortgage fraud face punishment in accordance with a Class 4 felony.  Anyone convicted of engaging in a pattern of mortgage fraud could be convicted of a Class 2 felony


Another Ruse: Realtors Gleeful over Equator Short Sale Platform

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

Banks have adopted a technology platform to process short sale applications. It is called Equator, presumably to imply that it equates one thing with another, and produces a result that either gives a pass or fail to the application. In theory it is a good thing for those people who want to save their homes, save their credit (up to a point) and move on. In practice it essentially licenses the real estate broker to take control over the negotiations and police the transactions so that the new “network” rules are not violated. This reminds me of VISA and MasterCard who control the payment processing business with the illusion of being a quasi governmental agency. Nothing could be further from the truth, but bankers react to net work threats as though the IRS was after them.

Equator is meant as another layer of illusion to the title problem that realtors and title companies are trying to cover up. The short sale is getting be the most popular form of real estate sale because it is a form of principal reduction where there is some face-saving by the banks and the borrowers. The problem is that while short sales are a legitimate form of workout,  they leave the elephant in the living room undisturbed — short sales approved by banks and servicers who have neither the authority nor the interest in the loan to even be involved except as an agent of Equator but NOT as an agent of the lenders,  if they even exist anymore.

So using the shortsale they get the signature of the borrower as seller which gives them a layer of protection if they are the bank or servicer approving the short-sale. But it fails to cure the title defect, especially in millions of transactions in which Nominees (like MERS and dummy originators) are in the chain of title. 

The true owner of the obligation is a group of investor lenders who appear to have only one thing in common— they all gave money to an investment bank or an affiliate of an investment bank, where it was divided up and put into various accounts, some of which were used to fund mortgages and others were used to pay fees and profits to the investment bank on the closing of the “deal” with the investor lenders. As far as the county recorder is concerned, those deposits and splits are nonexistent. 

The investor lenders were then told that their money was pooled in a “Trust” when no such entity ever existed or was registered to do business and no attempt was made to fund the trust. An unfunded trust is not a trust. This, the investor lenders were told was a REMIC entity.  While a REMIC could have been established it never happened  in the the real world because the only communications between participants in the securitization chain consisted of a spreadsheet describing “closed loans.” Such communications did not include transfer, assignment or even transmittal or delivery of the closing papers with the borrower. Thus as far as the county recorder’s office is concerned, they still knew nothing. Now in the shortsales, they want a stranger the transaction to take the money and run — with no requirement that they establish themselves as creditors and no credible documentation that they are the owner of the loan.

This is another end run around the requirements of basic law in property transactions. They are doing it because our government officials are letting them do it, thus implicitly ratifying the right to foreclose and submit a credit bid without any requirement of proof or even offer of proof.

It gets worse. So we have BOA agreeing to accept dollars in satisfaction of a loan that they have no record of owning. The shortsale seller might still be liable to someone if the banks and servicers continue to have their way with creating false chains of ownership. But the real tragedy is that the shortsale seller is probably getting the shaft on a false premise — I.e, that the mortgage or deed of trust had any validity to begin with. 

The shortsale Buyer is most probably buying a lawsuit along with the house. At some point, the huge gaps in the chain of title are going to cause lawyers in increasing numbers to object to title and demand that it be fixed or that the client be adequately covered by insurance arising from securitizatioin claims. Thus when the shortsale Buyer becomes a seller, that is when the problems will first start to surface.

Realtors understand this analysis whereas buyers from Canada and other places do not understand it. But realtors see shortsales as the salvation to their diminished incomes. Thus most realtors are incentivized to misrepresent the risk factors and the title issues in favor of controlling the buyer and the seller into accepting pre-established criteria published by the members of Equator. It is securitization all over again, it is MERS all over again, it is a further corruption of our title system and it is avoiding the main issue — making the victims of this fraud whole even if it takes every penny the banks have. Realtors who ignore this can expect that they and their insurance carriers will be part of the gang of targeted deep pockets when lawyers smell the blood on the floor and go after the perpetrators.

Latest Changes to The Bank of America Short Sale Process

by Melissa Zavala

When processing short sales, it’s important to know about how each of the lending institutions handles loss mitigation and paperwork processing. If you have done a few short sales in Equator with different lenders, you may see what while your same Equator account is used for all your short sales at all the lending institutions, each of the servicers uses the platforms in a different manner.

Using the Equator system

When processing short sales, it’s important to know about how each of the lending institutions handles loss mitigation and paperwork processing. Many folks already know that Equator is the online platform used by 5 major lenders (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Nationstar, GMAC, and Service One). If you have done a few short sales in Equator with different lenders, you may see what while your same Equator account is used for all your short sales at all the lending institutions, each of the servicers uses the platforms in a different manner.

And, my hat goes off to Bank of America for really raising the bar when it comes to short sale processing online. And, believe me, after processing short sales with Bank of America in 2007, this change is much appreciated.

New Bank of America Short Sale Process

Effective April 13, 2012, Bank of America made a few major changes that may make our short sale processing times more efficient.  The goal of these changes is to make short sale processing through Equator (the Internet-based platform) at Bank of America so efficient that short sale approval can be received in less than one month.

First off, Bank of America now requires their new third party authorization for all short sales being processed through the Equator system. Additionally, the folks at Bank of America will be working to improve task flow for short sales in Equator by making some minor changes to the process.

According to the Bank of America website,

Now you are required to upload five documents (which you can obtain at www.bankofamerica.com/realestateagent) for short sales initiated with an offer:

  • Purchase Contract including Buyer’s Acknowledgment and Disclosure
  • HUD-1
  • IRS Form 4506-T
  • Bank of America Short Sale Addendum
  • Bank of America Third-Party Authorization Form

And, now, you will have only 5 days to submit a backup offer if your buyer has flown the coop.

The last change is a curious one, especially for short sale listing agents, since it often takes awhile to find a new buyer after you learn that the current buyer has changed his or her mind.

Short sale listings agents should be familiar with these changes in order to assure that they are providing their client with the most efficient short sale experience possible.


Everything Built on Myth Eventually Fails

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

The good news is that the myth of Jamie Dimon’s infallaibility is at least called into question. Perhaps better news is that, as pointed out by Simon Johnson’s article below, the mega banks are not only Too Big to Fail, they are Too Big to Manage, which leads to the question, of why it has taken this long for Congress and the Obama administration to conclude that these Banks are Too Big to Regulate. So the answer, now introduced by Senator Brown, is to make the banks smaller and  put caps on them as to what they can and cannot do with their risk management.

But the real question that will come to fore is whether lawmakers in Dimon’s pocket will start feeling a bit squeamish about doing whatever Dimon asks. He is now becoming a political and financial liability. The $2.3 billion loss (and still counting) that has been reported seems to be traced to the improper trading in credit default swaps, an old enemy of ours from the mortgage battle that continues to rage throughout the land.  The problem is that the JPM people came to believe in their own myth which is sometimes referred to as sucking on your own exhaust. They obviously felt that their “risk management” was impregnable because in the end Jamie would save the day.

This time, Jamie can’t turn to investors to dump the loss on, thus drying up liquidity all over the world. This time he can’t go to government for a bailout, and this time the traction to bring the mega banks under control is getting larger. The last vote received only 33 votes from the Senate floor, indicating that Dimon and the wall Street lobby had control of 2/3 of the senate. So let ius bask in the possibility that this is the the beginning of the end for the mega banks, whose balance sheets, business practices and public announcements have all been based upon lies and half truths.

This time the regulators are being forced by public opinion to actually peak under the hood and see what is going on there. And what they will find is that the assets booked on the balance sheet of Dimon’s monolith are largely fictitious. This time the regulators must look at what assets were presented to the Federal Reserve window in exchange for interest free loans. The narrative is shifting from the “free house” myth to the reality of free money. And that will lead to the question of who is the creditor in each of the transactions in which a mortgage loan is said to exist.

Those mortgage loans are thought to exist because of a number of incorrect presumptions. One of them is that the obligation remains unpaid and is secured. Neither is true. Some loans might still have a balance due but even they have had their balances reduced by the receipt of insurance proceeds and the payoff from credit default swaps and other credit enhancements, not to speak of the taxpayer bailout.

This money was diverted from investor lenders who were entitled to that money because their contracts and the representations inducing them to purchase bogus mortgage bonds, stated that the investment was investment grade (Triple A) and because they thought they were insured several times over. It is true that the insurance was several layers thick and it is equally true that the insurance payoff covered most if not all the balances of all the mortgages that were funded between 1996 and the present. The investor lenders should have received at least enough of that money to make them whole — i.e., all principal and interest as promissed.

Instead the Banks did the unthinkable and that is what is about to come to light. They kept the money for themselves and then claimed the loss of investors on the toxic loans and tranches that were created in pools of money and mortgages — pools that in fact never came into existence, leaving the investors with a loose partnership with other investors, no manager, and no accounting. Every creditor is entitled to payment in full — ONCE, not multiple times unless they have separate contracts (bets) with parties other than the borrower. In this case, with the money received by the investment banks diverted from the investors, the creditors thought they had a loss when in fact they had a claim against deep pocket mega banks to receive their share of the proceeds of insurance, CDS payoffs and taxpayer bailouts.

What the banks were banking on was the stupidity of government regulators and the stupidity of the American public. But it wasn’t stupidity. it was ignorance of the intentional flipping of mortgage lending onto its head, resulting in loan portfolios whose main characteristic was that they would fail. And fail they did because the investment banks “declared” through the Master servicer that they had failed regardless of whether people were making payments on their mortgage loans or not. But the only parties with an actual receivable wherein they were expecting to be paid in real money were the investor lenders.

Had the investor lenders received the money that was taken by their agents, they would have been required to reduce the balances due from borrowers. Any other position would negate their claim to status as a REMIC. But the banks and servicers take the position that there exists an entitlement to get paid in full on the loan AND to take the house because the payment didn’t come from the borrower.

This reduction in the balance owed from borrowers would in and of itself have resulted in the equivalent of “principal reduction” which in many cases was to zero and quite possibly resulting in a claim against the participants in the securitization chain for all of the ill-gotten gains. remember that the Truth In Lending Law states unequivocally that the undisclosed profits and compensation of ANYONE involved in the origination of the loan must be paid, with interest to the borrower. Crazy you say? Is it any crazier than the banks getting $15 million for a $300,000 loan. Somebody needs to win here and I see no reason why it should be the megabanks who created, incited, encouraged and covered up outright fraud on investor lenders and homeowner borrowers.

Making Banks Small Enough And Simple Enough To Fail

By Simon Johnson

Almost exactly two years ago, at the height of the Senate debate on financial reform, a serious attempt was made to impose a binding size constraint on our largest banks. That effort – sometimes referred to as the Brown-Kaufman amendment – received the support of 33 senators and failed on the floor of the Senate. (Here is some of my Economix coverage from the time.)

On Wednesday, Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, introduced the Safe, Accountable, Fair and Efficient Banking Act, or SAFE, which would force the largest four banks in the country to shrink. (Details of this proposal, similar in name to the original Brown-Kaufman plan, are in this briefing memo for a Senate banking subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, available through Politico; see also these press release materials).

His proposal, while not likely to immediately become law, is garnering support from across the political spectrum – and more support than essentially the same ideas received two years ago.  This week’s debacle at JP Morgan only strengthens the case for this kind of legislative action in the near future.

The proposition is simple: Too-big-to-fail banks should be made smaller, and preferably small enough to fail without causing global panic. This idea had been gathering momentum since the fall of 2008 and, while the Brown-Kaufman amendment originated on the Democratic side, support was beginning to appear across the aisle. But big banks and the Treasury Department both opposed it, parliamentary maneuvers ensured there was little real debate. (For a compelling account of how the financial lobby works, both in general and in this instance, look for an upcoming book by Jeff Connaughton, former chief of staff to former Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware.)

The issue has not gone away. And while the financial sector has pushed back with some success against various components of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, the idea of breaking up very large banks has gained momentum.

In particular, informed sentiment has shifted against continuing to allow very large banks to operate in their current highly leveraged form, with a great deal of debt and very little equity.  There is increasing recognition of the massive and unfair costs that these structures impose on the rest of the economy.  The implicit subsidies provided to “too big to fail” companies allow them to boost compensation over the cycle by hundreds of millions of dollars.  But the costs imposed on the rest of us are in the trillions of dollars.  This is a monstrously unfair and inefficient system – and sensible public figures are increasingly pointing this out (including Jamie Dimon, however inadvertently).

American Banker, a leading trade publication, recently posted a slide show, “Who Wants to Break Up the Big Banks?” Its gallery included people from across the political spectrum, with a great deal of financial sector and public policy experience, along with quotations that appear to support either Senator Brown’s approach or a similar shift in philosophy with regard to big banks in the United States. (The slide show is available only to subscribers.)

According to American Banker, we now have in the “break up the banks” corner (in order of appearance in that feature): Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Sheila Bair, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Tom Hoenig, a board member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City; Jon Huntsman, former Republican presidential candidate and former governor of Utah; Senator Brown; Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont; and Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America. (I am also on the American Banker list).

Anat Admati of Stanford and her colleagues have led the push for much higher capital requirements – emphasizing the particular dangers around allowing our largest banks to operate in their current highly leveraged fashion. This position has also been gaining support in the policy and media mainstream, most recently in the form of a powerful Bloomberg View editorial.

(You can follow her work and related discussion on this Web site; on twitter she is @anatadmati.)

Senator Brown’s legislation reflects also the idea that banks should fund themselves more with equity and less with debt. Professor Admati and I submitted a letter of support, together with 11 colleagues whose expertise spans almost all dimensions of how the financial sector really operates.

We particularly stress the appeal of having a binding “leverage ratio” for the largest banks. This would require them to have at least 10 percent equity relative to their total assets, using a simple measure of assets not adjusted for any of the complicated “risk weights” that banks can game.

We also agree with the SAFE Banking Act that to limit the risk and potential cost to taxpayers, caps on the size of an individual bank’s liabilities relative to the economy can also serve a useful role (and the same kind of rule should apply to non-bank financial institutions).

Under the proposed law, no bank-holding company could have more than $1.3 trillion in total liabilities (i.e., that would be the maximum size). This would affect our largest banks, which are $2 trillion or more in total size, but in no way undermine their global competitiveness. This is a moderate and entirely reasonable proposal.

No one is suggesting that making JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo smaller would be sufficient to ensure financial stability.

But this idea continues to gain traction, as a measure complementary to further strengthening and simplifying capital requirements and generally in support of other efforts to make it easier to handle the failure of financial institutions.

Watch for the SAFE Banking Act to gain further support over time.

MERS, POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, ACCOUNTING….GREAT , NOW WHAT?

SUBMITTED BY M SOLIMAN

EDITOR’S NOTE: Soliman brings out some interesting and important issues in his dialogue with Raja.

  • The gist of what he is saying about sales accounting runs to the core of how you disprove the allegations of your opposition. In a nutshell and somewhat oversimplified: If they were the lender then their balance sheet should show it. If they are not the lender then it shows up on their income statement. Now of course companies don’t report individual loans on their financial statements, so you need to force discovery and ask for the ledger entries that were made at the time of the origination of the loan.
  • If you put it another way the accounting and bookkeeping amounts to an admission of the real facts of the case. If they refuse to give you the ledger entries, then you are entitled to a presumption that they would have shown that they were not acting as a lender, holder, or holder in due course. If they show it to you, then it will either show the admission or you should inquire about who prepared the response to your discovery request and go after them on examination at deposition.
  • Once you show that they were not a lender, holder or holder in due course because their own accounting shows they simply booked the transaction as a fee for acting as a conduit, broker or finder, you have accomplished several things: one is that they have no standing, two is that they are not a real party in interest, three is that they lied at closing and all the way up the securitization chain, and four is that you focus the court’s attention on who actually advanced the money for the loan and who stands to suffer a loss, if there is one.
  • But it doesn’t end there. Your discovery net should be thrown out over the investment banking firm that underwrote the mortgage backed security, and anyone else who might have received third party insurance payments or any other payments (credit default swaps, bailout etc.) on account of the failure of the pool in which your loan is claimed to be an “asset.”
  • Remember that it is my opinion that many of these pools don’t actually have the loans that are advertised to be in there. They never completed or perfected the transfer of the obligation and the reason they didn’t was precisely because they wanted to snatch the third party payments away from the investors.
  • But those people were agents of the investors and any payment they received on account of loss through default or write-down should be credited and paid to the investor.
  • Why should you care what the investor received? Because those are payments that should have been booked by the investors as repayment of their investment. In turn, the percentage part of the pool that your loan represents should be credited proportionately by the credit and payment to the investor.
  • Those payments, according to your note should be allocated first to payments due and outstanding (which probably eliminates any default), second to fees outstanding attributable to the borrower (not the investor) and third to the borrower which normally would be done as a credit against principal, which would reduce the amount of principal outstanding and thus reduce the number of people who think they are under water and are not.

———————————————————————–

MERS, POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, ACCOUNTING….GREAT , NOW WHAT?

I am really loving this upon closer inspection Raja! The issues of simple accounting rules violations appear narrow, yet the example you cite here could mean A DIFFERENCE AND SWAY IN ADVANTAGE.

Many more cases can potentially address broader issues of pleading sufficiency with repsect to securities and accounting rules violations prohibiting foreclosures.

Sale accounting is the alternative to debt or financing arrangements which is what the lender seeks to avoid in this economic downturn. Both approaches to accounting are clearly described and determinable by GAAP. In sales accounting there is no foreclsure. In debt for GAAP accounting your entitled to foreclose.

Its when you mix the two you r going to have problems. Big problems.

Pleading sufficiency is (by this layperson) the need for addressing a subject matter in light of the incurable defects in proper jurisdiction. The subject can be convoluted and difficult, I realize that.

Where the matter is heard should allow ample time to amend as a plaintiff. This is given to the fact the lender can move quicklly and seek dismissal.

The question is how far must a consumer plaintiff reach to allege that serverity of the claims, based on adverse event information, as in foreclosure.

This is significant in order to establish that the lender or a lender defendants’ alleged failure to disclose information. Therein will the court find the claim to be sufficently material.

In possession hearings the civil courts have granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and in actions brought against the consumer. The courts are often times granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that these complaints fail to adequately suffice or address the judicial fundamental element of materiality.

I can tell you the accounting rules omissions from the commencement of the loan origination through a foreclosure is one continual material breach. Counsel is lost to go to court without pleading this fact.

The next question is will the pleading adequately allege the significance of the vast number of consumer homeowner complaints. One would think yes considering the lower court level is so backlogged and a t a time when budget cuts require one less day of operations.

These lower courts however are hearing post foreclosure matters of possession. there is the further possibility that the higher Court in deciding matters while failing to see any scienter. Its what my law cohorts often refer to as accountability for their actions. That is what the “Fill in the Dots” letter tells me at first glance.

I believe it’s only in a rare case or two that a securities matter is heard in the Ninth Circuit. Recently however, there the conclusion was in fact that scienter allegations raised by the opposition were sufficient based on plaintiff’s allegations that the “high level executives …would know the company was being sued in a product liability action,” and in line with the many, customer complaints (I assume that were communicated to the company’s directors…)

The FASB is where the counterproductive rule changes always seem to take place and where lobbyist and other pro life and pro bank enthusiasts seem to spend their days. No need to fret however as gain on sale accounting is specific and requires the lender to have SOLD your loan in order to securitize it as part of a larger bulk pool.

The document I am reading, submitted by Raja tells me something is very concerning to the “lender parties” that they believe is downstream and headed their way. I’ll try and analyze each line item for you as to what it says and what they really are trying to do. I think for now though its value is for determining the letter as an admission of “we screwed up!”

M.Soliman

ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT AND STATUS OF THE ASSIGNMENT

OK so you feel a little lost. That is because most of us are jumping in at the end of a long series of events and documents.

The most important point for you to make in order to jar the Judge’s thinking is that the closing with the borrower took place in the middle of the chain of securitization and within the context of the securitization documents executed without the borrower, before the borrower existed even as a prospective customer for the loan product.

Those documents provide the context in which loans will be offered, approved, assigned, accepted, replaced, returned, insured etc. Thus the key documents that creates the securitization structure for the creation and pooling of loans precede the offering of a loan product to the borrower. The closing documents of the borrower are in the middle of the securitization chain not at the beginning. The assignment is near the end of the securitization chain in practice, contrary to the usual conditions and prohibitions contained in the original enabling documents that created the securitization structure and process.

NOTE: Do not make any assumptions that your loan was securitized. Even if it was securitized it is entirely possible, if not probable, that the “assignment” is barred by a cutoff date in the securitization documents, or that the assignment was not executed with the form and content required by the securitization documents. Thus even if there is an assignment, you should not assume that it was or could be accepted. It is highly possible if your loan appears to be securitized, or even if there is a “Trustee” under an alleged securitization structure that a party making a claim on an assignment is unaware of the absence of acceptance or even that there is no authority for the Trustee to accept the assignment.You can be certain that if the other party is unaware of these defects, that the Judge is equally unaware.

The key to understanding this evolving process is that the Judge is looking at your transaction as the beginning point. That is simply flat wrong and you need to make that point as clearly as you can.

The beginning was the creation of the securitization structure.

  • The first transactions that occurred was the sale of securities to unsuspecting investors.
  • The second transaction that occurred was that the investor money was put into an account at an investment banking firm.
  • The third transaction was that the investment banker divided the money between fees for itself and then distributing the funds to aggregators or a Depository Institution.
  • The fourth transaction was the closing with the borrower. The loan was funded with the money from the investor but because of the disparity between the interest payable to the investor and the interest payable by the borrower, a yield spread was created, adding huge sums to what the investment banker took as fees without disclosure to the ivnestors or the borrowers.
  • The fifth was the assignment AND ACCEPTANCE of the loan (See below) into between 1 and 3 asset pools, each bearing distinctive language describing the pool such that they appeared to be different assets than already presumed to exist in the first pool.
  • The sixth was the receipt of insurance or counter-party payments on behalf of the pool pursuant to the documents creating the securitization structure.
  • The seventh was the resecuritization of the pooled assets between one and three times.
  • The eighth was the federal bailout payments and receipts allocable to the balances owed on the loans that were claimed to be part of the pool.
  • The ninth are the foreclosures by parties who never handled any money who allegedly represent investors who no longer have any interest in the loan.

Through the creation of multiple entities that never existed before securitization of mortgage loans, the intermediaries are able to support the illusion that they never received payment from outside parties on the obligations owed from borrowers.

Most loans are assigned only after they are delinquent or even after foreclosure has been ordered. By definition, the documents creating the securitized pool usually prohibit such an assignment from being accepted into the pool. Therefore, although an assignment was executed, it is entirely possible that it accomplished nothing of legal consequence.

Also, even if the loan was ever in a securitized pool of assets, no assumptions should be made regarding the CURRENT STATUS of the “assigned” loan. Most documents that create the securitization structure, require the assignor to take back a non-performing loan and replace it with either cash or a comparable performing loan. Therefore, it is at the very least a question of fact as to whether the loan is still in the pool whether the assignment was effective or not.

I think the fundamental issue that we have been weak on presenting is ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT and STATUS OF THE ASSIGNMENT. The pretender lenders have been successful thus far in directing the court’s attention to the note, Deed of Trust (Mortgage) and the assignment and away from the facts dealing with the obligation itself and the securitization. The error is in allowing the opposition and the Court to focus its attention on the creation of the obligation and the assignment of the note. In an ABCDE chain, this is the equivalent of looking at B and D and ignoring A,C and E.

Securitization involves many documents. In broad brush, it involves the

  • Closing documents between loan originators, servicers, Special Purpose Vehicles, aggregators, etc. including the pooling and services agreement, the assignment and assumption agreement, the Master Services Agreement  [if separate], none of which includes the borrower as party or references any specific debtor or borrower because the debtor is unknown when the securitization structure is created
  • pre-application documents before the borrower was even a prospect,
  • the pre-closing documents and effect of documents that are not referenced at closing
  • the closing documents with the borrower
  • the assignment(s)
  • the conditions imposed on the assignment (conditional assignment because the assignment was pursuant to the pre-application and pre-closing documents)
  • and post closing documents involving third party payments and resecuritization of the loan or resecuritization involving additional insurance, credit enhancements, federal bailouts etc.

It should be argued aggressively that the opposing party needs to prove its case and not have the benefit of the Court assuming that a prima facie case exists. The putative creditor in each case at bar is claiming their standing by virtue of an assignment. But that assignment only exists by virtue of a larger structure of securitization in which the documents describe the conditions under which such an assignment is acceptable and further conditions if the loans ceases to perform. Provisions requiring insurance, credit default swaps, credit enhancements, and others add co-obligors to the borrower’s transaction which takes place not at the beginning of the chain, but rather in the middle of the chain.

Discovery Tips from Abby

Discovery Tips – A summary and reminder!!

In the discovery for each link in the securitization chain there must be: a note, a purchase and sale agreement; a transfer receipt; a delivery receipt; a bond if the notes are endorsed in blank; a receipt of funds for the purchase of the note; and a disbursement of funds for the acquisition of the note.

In the very simple RMBS model, there has to be transfers from the originator to the sponsor, from the sponsor to the depositor, from the depositor to the Trustee of the Trust, and from the Trustee to the Master Document Custodian for the Trust. The MDC would have all of the documents referred to above.

Wells Fargo, Option One, American Home Mortgage Relationship

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. appears in many ways including as servicer (America Servicing Company), Trustee (although it does not appear to be qualified as a “Trust Company”), as claimed beneficiary, as Payee on the note, as beneficiary under the title policy, as beneficiary under the property and liability insurance, and it may have in actuality acted as a mortgage broker without getting licensed as such.

In most securitized loan situations, Wells Fargo appears with the word “BANK” used, but it acted neither as a commercial nor investment bank in the deal. Sometimes it acted as a commercial bank meaning it processed a deposit and withdrawal, sometimes (rarely, perhaps 3-4% of the time) it did act as a lender, and sometimes it acted as a securities underwriter or co-underwriter of asset backed securities.

It might also be designated as “Depositor” which in most cases means that it performed no function, received no money, disbursed no money and neither received, stored, handled or transmitted any documentation despite third party documentation to the contrary.

In short, despite the sue of the word “BANK”, it was not acting as a bank in any sense of the word within the securitization chain. However, it is the use of the word “BANK” which connotes credibility to their role in the transaction despite the fact that they are not, and never were a creditor. The obligation arose when the funds were advanced for the benefit of the homeowner. But the pool from which those funds were advanced came from investors who purchased certificates of asset backed securities. Those investors are the creditors because they received a certificate containing three promises: (1) repayment of principal non-recourse based upon the payments by obligors under the terms of notes and mortgages in the pool (2) payment of interest under the same conditions and (3) the conveyance of a percentage ownership in the pool, which means that collectively 100% of the ivnestors own 100% of the the entire pool of loans. This means that the “Trust” does NOT own the pool nor the loans in the pool. It means that the “Trust” is merely an operating agreement through which the ivnestors may act collectively under certain conditions.  The evidence of the transaction is the note and the mortgage or deed of trust is incident to the transaction. But if you are following the money you look to the obligation. In most  transactions in which a residential loan was securitized, Wells Fargo did not work under the scope of its bank charter. However it goes to great lengths to pretend that it is acting under the scope of its bank charter when it pursues foreclosure.

Wells Fargo will often allege that it is the holder of the note. It frequently finesses the holder in due course confrontation by this allegation because of the presumption arising out of its allegation that it is the holder. In fact, the obligation of the homeowner is not ever due to Wells Fargo in a securitized residential note and mortgage or deed of trust. The allegation of “holder” is disingenuous at the least. Wells Fargo is not and never was the creditor although ti will claim, upon challenge, to be acting within the scope and course of its agency authority; however it will fight to the death to avoid producing the agency agreement by which it claims authority. remember to read the indenture or prospectus or pooling and service agreement all the way to the end because these documents are created to give an appearance of propriety but they do not actually support the authority claimed by Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo often claims to be Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6 Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-6, c/o American Home Mortgage, 4600 Regent Blvd., Suite 200, P.O. Box 631730, Irving, Texas 75063-1730. Both Option One and American Home Mortgage were usually fronts (sham) entities that were used to originate loans using predatory, fraudulent and otherwise illegal loan practices in violation of TILA, RICO and deceptive lending practices. ALL THREE ENTITIES — WELLS FARGO, OPTION ONE AND AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE JOINT ENTERPRISE ABUSING THEIR BUSINESS LICENSES AND CHARTERS IN MOST CASES.

WELLS FARGO-OPTION ONE-AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE IS OFTEN REPRESENTED BY LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS, more specifically Susana E. Lykins. They list their address as P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, Oh 45201-5480, Telephone 513-241-3100, Fax 513-241-4094. Their actual street address is 120 East Fourth Street, Suite 800 Cincinnati, OH 45202. Documents purporting to be assignments within the securitization chain may in fact be executed by clerical staff or attorneys from that firm using that address. If you are curious, then pick out the name of the party who executed your suspicious document and ask to speak with them after you call the above number.

Ms. Lykins also shows possibly as attorney for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as well as Robert B. Blackwell, at 620-624 N. Main street, Lima, Ohio 45801, 419-228-2091, Fax 419-229-3786. He also claims an office at 2855 Elm Street, Lima, Ohio 45805

Kathy Smith swears she is “assistant secretary” for American Home Mortgage as servicing agent for Wells Fargo Bank. Yet Wells shows its own address as c/o American Home Mortgage. No regulatory filing for Wells Fargo acknowledges that address. Ms. Smith swears that Wells Fargo, Trustee is the holder of the note even though she professes not to work for them. Kathy Smith’s signature is notarized by Linda Bayless, Notary Public, State of Florida commission# DD615990, expiring November 19, 2010. This would indicate that despite the subject property being in Ohio, Kathy Smith, who presumably works in Texas, had her signature notarized in Florida or that the Florida Notary exceeded her license if she was in Texas or Ohio or wherever Kathy Smith was when she allegedly executed the instrument.

Liability of Participants in Securitization Chain

The reason for this requirement of transparency and the cutting edge of claiming or clawing back the illicit profits is simple: in a true fair and free market, the lender would know his risk and the borrower would understand the terms. Both would be on alert if unusual fees, profits and kickbacks were known to be present and would seek other arrangements. So TILA is really meant to protect both the borrower (primarily) and any would be investor advancing the real money.Here is a project for someone out there and a rich topic for forensic analysis for those who are not timid about securitization. I know Brad is planning to address this in the forensic workshop along with other speakers (including me). Research the AIG liabilities, who is making claims and who is getting paid. As I have stated numerous times on these pages, the hapless investors advanced money under the mistaken notion that their risk was insured. They were not mistaken about the presence of insurance and hedge products, but they were easily misled as to who received the benefit of the insurance — middlemen (investment bankers included) who sold them the mortgage backed securities. And they were easily misled into thinking that their money was being used to fund mortgages. Much of the money investors advanced went to pay fees, profits and premiums for insurance that paid off handsomely to the investment banker or some other party in the securitization chain.

You might ask “what difference does this make to the homeowner/ borrower?” The answer lies in TILA and other lending laws, rules and regulations. Long ago laws were enacted to protect homeowners from unseen unscrupulous and unregulated lenders posing through sham relationships with shell corporations or through financial institutions that would be paid a fee to pose as the lender. The transactions were called “table-funded” because of the image of an unknown lender reaching around the “lender” at closing and putting the money on the table for the homeowner to borrow.

Reg Z and other interpretations of TILA have made it clear that any pattern of conduct involving table-funded loans is by definition presumed to be predatory. And to stop this practice of hiding undisclosed parties and undisclosed fees, the law provides for payment to the borrower of all such undisclosed fees, profits, kickbacks etc. that were associated with the loan transaction but not revealed to the borrower. And there are provisions for receiving treble damages, interest, and attorney fees.

So now we get to the point. The payment of proceeds to any party in the securitization chain on contracts or policies paid for from the proceeds of the loan transaction would therefore be due to the borrower.

If another party gets and tries to keep the money (or title or property) they are, in the eyes of the law, usually held to be holding such money in constructive trust for the beneficiary (the homeowner borrower). Obviously the amount of that payment must be calculated by some professional with the information at hand as to the amount paid to participants in the securitization chain where your loan was used as the basis (along with many others) for the entire transaction.

But never lose sight of the fact that the basic transaction was simply a loan from the investor to the homeowner. None of the investment bankers, servicers, aggregators, trustees etc were parties in interest to your transaction with the investor. Thus none of them has the right or power to retain any proceeds, property, title, fees, profits, kickbacks or anything else unless it was disclosed to you and you agreed to it.

The reason for this requirement of transparency and the cutting edge of claiming or clawing back the illicit profits is simple: in a true fair and free market, the lender would know his risk and the borrower would understand the terms. Both would be on alert if unusual fees, profits and kickbacks were known to be present and would seek other arrangements. So TILA is really meant to protect both the borrower (primarily) and any would be investor advancing the real money. The glitch here is that I think the investors have claims against the same money paid to Goldman et al and that a court determination needs to be made as to how to allocate those proceeds. One thing is sure — the answer must not and cannot be that it is the intermediaries who never had any risk in the game and who were getting paid every time the money or “asset” was presumed to move, whether that was actual or just an illusion.

February 27, 2010

A.I.G. Posts Loss of $11 Billion on Higher Claims

The American International Group said on Friday that it lost about $11 billion last year, surprising analysts and showing the long-term risks inherent in the types of large, complex insurance coverage that the company once pioneered.

To increase its reserves to pay future claims, the company set aside $2.7 billion on a pretax basis, accounting for a big portion of its loss. This indicates that A.I.G. is experiencing significantly larger claims than it expected when it sold the insurance, most of it more than seven years ago, long before its government rescue in late 2008.

Fitch Ratings responded by putting the company’s property and casualty subsidiaries on a negative watch for their financial strength ratings. Financial strength ratings are indicators of an insurer’s ability to pay claims, and are separate from credit ratings.

Shares of A.I.G. fell nearly 10 percent Friday, or $2.74, to close at $24.77.

Officials of A.I.G. said claims were growing faster than reserves in just two lines of insurance and emphasized that it still had ample resources over all to pay claims.

A.I.G.’s chief executive, Robert H. Benmosche, said in a statement that despite the losses, “Our team has made great progress during the year in executing our strategic restructuring plan.” The plan involves shrinking the sprawling company to a more manageable size, and generating money to repay the federal government.

As a bright spot, Mr. Benmosche cited a rebound in the annuities sold by its life insurance companies.

The insurer’s 2009 result was just a small fraction of the record-breaking loss of $100 billion that it reported for 2008, when its large derivatives portfolio nearly toppled the company, leading to the government bailout.

Much of last year’s loss came from a fourth-quarter charge taken to reflect a restructuring of its bailout — a one-time charge that A.I.G. has been warning about for months. As part of a debt-for-equity swap with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the company removed part of its Fed loan as an asset on its balance sheet, producing a pretax charge of $5.2 billion. That charge was not connected with the company’s core insurance operations.

But the increase in reserves shifts attention to the insurance business. When insurance companies find that the reserves that they have set aside to pay future claims are inadequate, they take money from earnings to add to their reserves.

A.I.G. said it was advised to do so by its own actuaries and outside consultants after a thorough year-end review. The step seemed to vindicate, at least in part, a study last November by the Sanford C. Bernstein & Company research firm, which found a big shortfall in A.I.G.’s reserves for its property and casualty businesses.

Those businesses have been renamed Chartis and are expected to be the backbone of the company after its revamping. The company said the additional reserves were all for Chartis.

The Bernstein analyst, Todd R. Bault, had predicted that A.I.G. would have to “take some kind of a reserve charge” before it could offer shares of Chartis to investors, as it has said it would do to help raise money to pay back the government. He said the shortfall appeared to be in lines of insurance where claims develop slowly, over many years, like workers’ compensation.

Two lines of business accounted for about 90 percent of the addition to reserves, according to Robert S. Schimek, Chartis’s chief financial officer. They are excess workers’ compensation and excess casualty insurance.

When a company writes excess insurance, it offers to stand behind a primary insurer, and pay claims if something so serious happens that the primary insurance is exhausted. Such events are notoriously hard to predict, and Mr. Schimek called it “among the most complex lines of business to reserve for.”

Mr. Schimek said that the company significantly reduced selling excess workers’ compensation in the early 2000s. But the claims from business already on its books will take years to reveal their true cost, he said.

The company’s best estimate of the reserves needed for all property and casualty business is now about $63 billion, he said.

The addition to the reserves and the restructuring of its federal rescue package caused A.I.G.’s fourth-quarter results to be well off those earlier in the year, when the company had even swung to quarterly profits. For the fourth quarter, A.I.G. lost $8.87 billion, or $65.71 a share. That compared with a loss of $61.66 billion, or $459 a share, in the period a year earlier. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had forecast a loss of just under $4 a share.

In his statement, Mr. Benmosche said his team was “increasingly confident” over the long term and the sale of its other businesses was still on track.

A.I.G. plans to sell shares in its biggest international life insurance company, the American International Assurance Company, on the Hong Kong stock exchange this year. It has also been negotiating the sale of another international life insurance company, known as Alico, to MetLife. The talks have proceeded slowly because of questions about a possible tax liability and who would pay it, according to people briefed on the negotiations.

The first $25 billion in proceeds from those sales will be directed to repay the New York Fed.

Head in the Sand: 4 Big Mortgage Backers Swim in Ocean of Debt

 Editor’s Note: Nobody wants to hear it. The housing market is dragging the government and the economic future of this country down the drain. For decades the FDIC has followed a model of dismantling failed banks by letting healthy banks take over the assets. Despite the calls from Sheila Bair at FDIC, we are clearly avoiding the model that works. We have 7,000 banks and credit unions that could easily absorb the accounts of the banks that have failed but are “too big to fail.” We have at least 50 million recorded documents that are defective in the chain of title of American homes. By all normal indicators, housing prices may still have another 20% drop.

The profits and bonuses announced by Wall Street confirm my prediction over a year ago that the losses were fictional and that the real profits were stashed off shore and in other esoteric vehicles waiting to be released in continual bursts of apparent “recovery.” You might as well allow a bank robber open a new bank next door with the money stolen from the first bank. Now we have the nose-dive of the main mortgage backers who insured mortgages and who insured each other and who let the investment banks play in the insurance playground.

The truth is that all the players in the securitization chain made a lot of money that was unreported, untaxed and illegal. It amounts to many trillions of dollars representing all the alleged financial problems of the American government and the U.S. Economy. The money still exists (insofar as money ever exists).

The truth is that like any balance sheet you can boil it down to a single collective entry: debit American homeowners $13 trillion, credit Wall Street investment banks with $13 trillion. Change the accounting rules and allow the so-called “off balance sheet” trades and positions and poof! You have $13 trillion in “losses” on the books while the profits are still happy and healthy off-shore. Where does the $13 trillion come from? The U.S. Taxpayer. Who benefits? The Wall Street investment banks who get to keep the profits, go after the property, and keep most of the government assistance that was too complicated to report, but which amounts to far more than the TARP money.

Who lost? Virtually every American homeowner and every taxpayer. How does it get corrected? Simple: return all “assets” to their real value and disregard the distortion caused by Wall Street. They are calling that principal reduction. It isn’t. It is merely a return to normalcy. Give the homeowners back their equity, their stake in the American dream and the economy will recover, albeit slowly (we do have other problems).

Avoid that remedy and we will have decades of misery, social chaos, and even governmental changes. Without taking ruthless inventory of the truth and returning wealth from whence it was stolen, the government is without value, except to the perpetrators who continue to scare the regulators and buy the legislators with their myths of why they are more important than the millions of homeowners who are losing their homes, their lives, and their futures to the greed of a few lucky people who have the ear of government.

NY Times
December 17, 2009

4 Big Mortgage Backers Swim in Ocean of Debt

Even as the biggest banks repay their government debt in what is being heralded as a successful rescue program, four troubled giants of the financial world remain on government life support.

These companies, the American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GMAC, are not only unable to repay the government, they are in need of continuing infusions that make them look increasingly like long-term wards of the state.

And the total risk they pose to the taxpayer far exceeds that of the big banks. Fannie and Freddie, in the final days of the year, are even said to be negotiating with the Treasury about greatly expanding the money available to them.

Though the four are not in all the same businesses, they were caught in one of the same traps: They sold mortgage guarantees — in some cases to each other. Now when homeowners default, as they are doing in record numbers, these companies are covering the losses. Essentially, taxpayer money to these companies is being used partly to protect banks and other investors who own the mortgages.

Like the big banks, these four companies would no doubt prefer to be free of government assistance, which comes with pay and other restrictions on their executives. But they appear at risk of getting onto a debt merry-go-round, where they have to draw new money from the government just to keep up with their existing government debts.

Fannie Mae recently warned, for example, that it could not pay the dividends it owes the Treasury, so “future dividend payments will be effectively funded with equity drawn from the Treasury.”

All the companies have recently drawn new government money or are in talks to do so:

¶Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy and resell mortgages, have used $112 billion — including $15 billion for Fannie in November — of a total $400 billion pledge from the Treasury. Now, according to people close to the talks, officials are discussing the possibility of increasing that commitment, possibly to $400 billion for each company, by year-end, after which the Treasury would need Congressional approval to extend it. Company and government officials declined to comment.

¶GMAC, which finances auto sales, already has $13.4 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and has been in talks with the Treasury about getting up to $5.6 billion more, because a government “stress test” showed it was still too weak.

¶A.I.G., the insurance conglomerate, recently drew $2 billion from a special $30 billion government facility, which was created in the spring after a $40 billion infusion proved inadequate.

Those capital commitments from the Treasury do not capture the full scale of government assistance to the companies. The government has also bought mortgage-backed securities and guaranteed corporate bonds, while the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has made an emergency loan.

Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, welcomed the repayment plans by Citigroup and Wells Fargo this week. Although Citi later ran into difficulty with the share sale to raise money for the repayment, Mr. Geithner said the actions meant that taxpayers were “now on track to reduce TARP bank investments by more than 75 percent.” That means that of the $245 billion awarded to banks, more than $185 billion is either recovered or about to be.

But that is just a fraction of the money that the four troubled debtors have received or may still get. Together, they have been offered nearly $600 billion, and that lifeline could climb to nearly $1 trillion if the commitment to Fannie and Freddie is doubled, as some predict. What’s more, the companies seem short on persuasive strategies for extricating themselves from the government’s embrace.

A spokeswoman for GMAC pointed out that the company had made all its scheduled dividend payments to the Treasury, as had Freddie Mac. While Fannie Mae has said it will have trouble paying its dividends, A.I.G. does not have to pay dividends.

A spokeswoman for A.I.G. said that the insurance company was committed to repaying taxpayers, but repayment would depend on market conditions. A Freddie Mac spokesman said that the company was dependent on continued support from the Treasury to stay solvent. A.I.G.’s latest request for money offers an example of why it needs more government aid to pay its debts. The company has a big aircraft leasing unit, International Lease Finance Corporation, which is considered a valuable asset but not a core part of its business.

Ever since the company announced in 2008 that it would dismantle itself and sell subsidiaries to pay back the government, analysts have expected International Lease to be sold.

But there is a big catch. A.I.G. does not own International Lease outright. A big block of the unit’s stock is actually held by an insurance subsidiary, which uses the shares to secure its promises to pay claims. If A.I.G. sold International Lease and gave the proceeds to the Fed to pay down debt, it would strip too much money out of the insurer, making it insolvent.

So A.I.G. used part of the $2 billion that it recently received from the Treasury to buy back the International Lease shares. That way, when a buyer finally appears, A.I.G. can sell the leasing business and pay the Fed.

“The irony is, for the government to recoup its value, it has to keep its support behind A.I.G.,” said a former company executive, who requested anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “The thing is a total Catch-22.”

A.I.G. said it also recently used some money from the Treasury to restructure its mortgage-guaranty business — something GMAC, Fannie and Freddie are struggling to do as well.

All four of the companies had businesses that provided mortgage guarantees. When defaults began soaring in 2007, they all suffered big losses. In some cases, they have insured each other; in other cases, banks or investors have to be paid.

Although GMAC’s main business is financing auto sales, its executives have said its biggest problem is containing the troubles in its mortgage business, known as Residential Capital. “What we want to do, to the best we’re able to, is draw a box around it and say that it is contained,” Michael Carpenter, the new chief executive, told a trade publication in November.

For its mortgage guarantee unit, A.I.G. used some Treasury money to reinsure $7 billion of obligations through a Vermont subsidiary. The terms call for the unit, United Guaranty of Greensboro, N.C., to pay the claims that it can afford and send the rest to the Vermont affiliate.

Little is known about the Vermont unit because the state does not require that type of company to file annual reports. If the Vermont company needs additional money, it presumably could turn to A.I.G., which can draw more from the Treasury.

Amy Schoenfeld contributed reporting and analysis.

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…!!.

%d bloggers like this: