Insurers Pay Pretender Lenders and Then Pursue Homeowner for the “Loss”

Posted on January 26, 2015 by Neil Garfield

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

========================
see http://features.necir.org/pmi Insurers pay “losses” on mortgages and then pursue borrowers for recovery of payment

A big area of confusion in the foreclosure cases is the impact of insurance claims and payments with respect to insured mortgages and insured mortgage bonds. So let’s start with the fact that there are many types of insurance contracts that affect the balance to be proven in a foreclosure case. The simplest rule to follow which has been stated in a number of cases, is that if the party seeking foreclosure has already received payments ON THAT LOAN then the balance should be correspondingly reduced. But that reduction is between the pretender lender and the borrower. That doesn’t mean that whoever paid the money to the pretender lender can’t pursue the homeowner for the amount paid. But it does affect the foreclosure because the insurance or third party payment (FDIC loss sharing, for example or Fannie or Freddie buyout or guarantee) affects the claimed liability of the borrower.

If you ask the banks about these payments you get stonewalled. And depending upon the timing of the payment it might invalidate the claim of a default, a notice of default and notice of sale. It could also negate the right to foreclose — again depending upon the timing of the payment.

There have been only 2,000 cases in which the insurers have paid the pretender lender and then fled a lawsuit against the homeowner/borrower. They are claiming they paid for a loss incurred by the pretender lender and that the borrower was essentially unjustly enriched and also claiming subrogation (whatever rights the pretender lender had against the borrower goes to the party making the payment to the pretender lender). The problem here of course is that while only 2,000 cases have been field against borrowers by insurers, there are hundreds of thousands of payments received by the pretender lenders.

And the fact that the insurer paid does NOT mean (but will often be presumed anyway) that the loss was actually incurred by the pretender lender. It is one thing to mistakenly apply presumptions under the UCC in which the pretender lender gets to foreclose. It is quite another when the insurer is making a claim that it paid a loss on your mortgage. They must prove the loss. And that means they not only must prove that they paid the claim, but that the claim was real.

For that reason, I am suggesting to foreclosure defense lawyers that they include, in discovery, the insurers and other third parties who appear to have some connection to the subject loan. This might present an opportunity to determine whether any real loss was present and could open the door to argue the reality: that the foreclosing parties neither owned nor had any risk of loss on the subject loans and that they did not represent any owner or other party entitled to enforce.

The take away here is that in a huge number of cases there are or were third party payments that reduced the alleged loss of the creditor or alleged creditor AND depending upon when those payments were made if might have the effect of rendering a notice of default void or even a foreclosure judgment where the redemption rights of the homeowner were affected by an incorrect statement of the loss. In actions for deficiency, the insurers are essentially cherry picking cases in which they think the borrower can pay the alleged loss. It also might represent an overpayment. For example if the third party payment was on a GSE guaranteed loan, did the pretender lender submit claims for both the insurance payment AND the guarantee payment? Under the terms of the note, the borrower might well be entitled to disgorgement of the overpayment, especially if it totals more than the claimed balance due on the alleged loan.

Insurance on the mortgage bonds is the same but more complicated and harder to present in court. The mortgage bond derives its value from the loan. That is why it is called a derivative. In nearly all cases the payment received by the banks (supposedly on behalf of the investors) is received long before a default on any specific loans and there is NO SUBROGATION. The insurers cannot step into the shoes of the pretender lender under those contracts. The “loss” is a claimed reduction in value called a “credit event” that is declared by the Master Servicer in sole discretion. The payment might be all or less than all of the par value of the mortgage bond.

Whatever the amount, it reduces the alleged loss as between the homeowner and any party making a claim for foreclosure based upon an alleged loss incurred from their default. This is true because the balance due to the investors under the mortgage bond has been covered already by the “credit event” which includes many things other than default on any specific loans, so the payment might include a claimed loss from default on a specific group of loans and other factors. In any event, the investors’ books if they were available would show a lower balance due than what any servicer would show. And that would mean that the default notice might be incorrect especially in terms of the reinstatement amount in the paragraph 22 letter.

And because these insurance contracts provide for no subrogation (no claims can be brought by insurer against the homeowner) the reduction in the balance is a reduction of the balance due from the borrower; and THAT is because if the borrower paid the full amount due on the claims of the pretender lender there would be a windfall or “free ride” to the pretender lender (adding insult to injury).

Comments Welcome

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: deficiency, Fannie, FDIC loss sharing, Freddie Mac, guarantee, insurance, loss claims, mortgage bonds, mortgage payments, paragraph 22, SUBROGATION, third party payments | 30 Comments »

Is Donald Duck Your Lender?

Posted on March 14, 2014 by Neil Garfield

I was asked a question a few days ago that runs to the heart of the problem for the banks in enforcing false claims for foreclosure and false claims of losses that should really allocated to the investors so that the investor would get the benefits of those loss mitigation payments. This is the guts of the complaints by insurers, investors, guarantors et al against the investment banks — that there was fraud, not breach of contract, because the investment bank never intended to follow the plan of securitization set forth in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement. The question asked of me only reached the issue of whether borrowers could claim credit for third party payments to the creditor. But the answer, as you will see, branches much further out than the scope of the question.

If you look at Steinberger in Arizona and recent case decisions in other jurisdictions you will see that if third party payments are received by the creditor, they must be taken into account — meaning the account receivable on their books is reduced by the amount of the payment received. If the account receivable is reduced then it is axiomatic that the account payable from the borrower is correspondingly reduced. Each debt must be taken on its own terms. So if the reduction was caused by a payment from a third party, it is possible that the third party might have a claim against the borrower for having made the payment — but that doesn’t change the fact that the payment was made and received and that the debt to the trust or trust beneficiaries has been reduced or even eliminated.

The Court rejected the argument that the borrower was not an intended third party beneficiary in favor of finding that the creditor could only be paid once on the debt. I am finding that most trial judges agree that if loss-sharing payments were made, including servicer advances (which actually come from the broker dealer to cover up the poor condition of the portfolio), the account is reduced as to that creditor. The court further went on to agree that the “servicer” or whoever made the payment might have an action for unjust enrichment against the borrower — but that is a not a cause of action that is part of the foreclosure or the mortgage. The payment, whether considered volunteer or otherwise, is credited to the account receivable of the creditor and the borrower’s liability is corresponding reduced. In the case of servicer payments, if the creditor’s account is showing the account current because it received the payment that was due, then the creditor cannot claim a default.

A new “loan” is created when a volunteer or contractual payment is received by the creditor trust or trust beneficiaries. This loan arises by operation of law because it is presumed that the payment was not a gift. Thus the party who made that payment probably has a cause of action against the borrower for unjust enrichment, or perhaps contribution, but that claim is decidedly unsecured by a mortgage or deed of trust.

You have to think about the whole default thing the way the actual events played out. The creditor is the trust or the group of trust beneficiaries. They are owed payments as per the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreements. If those payments are current there is no default on the books of creditor. If the balance has been reduced by loss- sharing or insurance payment, the balance due and the accrued interest are correspondingly reduced. And THAT means the notice of default and notice of sale and acceleration are all wrong in terms of the figures they are using. The insurmountable problem that is slowly being recognized by the courts is that the default, from the perspective of the creditor trust or trust beneficiaries is a default under a contract between the trust beneficiaries and the trust.

This is the essential legal problem that the broker dealers (investment banks) caused when they interposed themselves as owners instead of what they were supposed to be — intermediaries, depositories, and agents of the investors (trust beneficiaries). The default of the borrower is irrelevant to whether the trust beneficiaries have suffered a loss due to default in payment from the trust. The borrower never promised that he or she or they would make payment to the trust or the trust beneficiaries — and that is the fundamental flaw in the actual mortgage process that prevailed for more than a dozen years. There would be no flaw if the investment banks had not committed fraud and instead of protecting investors, they diverted the money, ownership of the note and ownership of the mortgage or deed of trust to their own controlled vehicles. If the plan had been followed, the trusts and trust beneficiaries would have direct rights to collect from borrowers and foreclose on their property.

If the investment banks had not intended to divert the money, income, notes and mortgages or deeds of trust from the creditor trust or trust beneficiaries, then there would have no allegations of fraud from the investors, insurers and government guarantee agencies.

If the investment banks had done what was represented in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreements, then the borrower would have known that the loan was being originated for or on behalf of the trust or beneficiaries and so would the rest of the world have known that. The note and mortgage would have shown, at origination, that the loan was payable to the trust and the mortgage or deed of trust was for the benefit of the trust or trust beneficiaries, as required by TILA and all the compensation earned by people associated with the origination of the loan would have had to have been disclosed (or returned to the borrower for failure to disclose). That would have connected the source of the loan — the trust or trust beneficiaries — to the receipt of the funds (the homeowner borrowers).

Instead, the investment banks hit on a nominee strawman plan where the disclosures were not made and where they could claim that (1) the investment bank was the owner of the debt and (2) the note and mortgage or deed of trust were executed for the benefit of a nominee strawman for the investment bank, who then claimed an insurable interest as owner of the debt. As owner of the debt, the investment banks received loss sharing payments from the FDIC. As agents for the investors those payments should have been applied to the balance owed the investors with a corresponding reduction in the balance due from the borrower —- if the payments were actually made and received and were not hypothetical or speculative. The investment banks did the same thing with the bonds, collecting payments from insurers, counterparties to credit default swaps, and guarantees from government sponsored entities.

When I say nominee or strawman I do not merely mean MERS which would have been entirely unnecessary unless the investment banks had intended to defraud the investors. What I am saying is that even the “lender” for whom MERS was the “nominee” falls into the same trapdoor. That lender was also merely a nominee which means that, as I said 7 years ago, they might just as well have made out the note and mortgage to Donald Duck, a fictitious character.

Since no actual lender was named in the note and mortgage and the terms of repayment were actually far different than what was stated on the borrower’s promissory note (i.e., the terms of the mortgage bond were the ONLY terms applicable to the plan of repayment to the creditor investors), the loan contract (or quasi loan contract, depending upon which jurisdiction you are in) was never completed. Hence the mortgage and note should never have been accepted into the file by the closing agent, much less recorded.

For litigation support to law firms or direct representation

Call 520-405-1688 for West Coast and 954-495-9867 for East Coast AND 850-765-1236 for Northern Florida

For Securitization Risk Analysis Report (for Buyers and Lenders) call 954-495-9867.

SEE http://WWW.LIVINGLIESSTORE.COM

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Purchase Memberships, Books, Services from our Online Store Customer Service West Coast 520-405-1688 East Coast 954-495-9867 GET HELP!!!

Filed under: AMGAR, CASES, CORRUPTION, escrow agent, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Neil Garfield Show, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: and deed of trust, Donald Duck, investment banks, investors, loss mitigation, loss sharing, Mortgage, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, promissory note, Prospectus, third party payments | 61 Comments »

Arizona Appeals Court Reverses Direction: Dismissal of Borrower’s Claims Reversed

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Neil Garfield

JOIN US TONIGHT AT 6PM Eastern time on The Neil Garfield Show. We will discuss this decision and other important developments affecting consumers, borrowers and banks.

Congratulations to Attorney Barbara J. Forde!!

HIGHLIGHTS: Steinberger v Hon. McVey/OneWest

Discharge of Debt — money that OneWest received from FDIC to pay off loss on loan discharges the debt. If it is true that the FDIC has already reimbursed OneWest for all or part of [the borrower’s] default, OneWest may not be entitled to recover that amount from [the borrower}. This corroborates what we have been writing in this blog regarding third-party payments and the existence of co-obligors. To the extent that third party payments have been received by the creditor this court is saying that nobody can collect those same payments (on the same debt) from the borrower.

Unconscionability: Procedural and Substantive: Unfair surprise and fairness, respectively, are the main elements. This opinion raises the possibility of bringing claims that might have been barred by the TILA Statute of Limitations. Pleading requirements are strict. But if you read the decision you can tell that there is room for borrowers to oppose enforcement of contracts that produced sticker shock and other unfair surprises.

Quiet title: This Court concluded that you can’t quiet title based upon the weakness of someone else’s claim. You must allege your right to title and that the parties served have no claim.

Negligence Per Se: Opening a whole new area for litigation this Court concluded that negligence and negligence per se, were valid causes of action for damages and other relief in connection with the handling of modification and other requests.

Negligent Performance of an Undertaking: This court concluded that the borrower has a cause of action is the lender or the lenders agents or representatives Lord her into defaulting on her loan with the prospect of a loan modification and then negligently administered her application for the modification, causing her to fall so far behind on her payments that it was no longer possible to reinstate her original loan. Borrower must allege that she never obtained a loan modification and that the bank’s conduct ultimately led to the foreclosure on her home.

Good Samaritan Doctrine: Lender may be held liable under the Good Samaritan Doctrine when a lender or its agent or representative induces a borrower to default on his or her loan by promising a loan modification if he or she defaults. If the borrower in reliance on the promise to modify the loan subsequently defaults on the loan and the lender fails to process the loan modification or due to the lender or agent or representative’s negligence the borrower is not granted a loan modification and the lender subsequently forecloses on the borrower’s property. Note: this is in Arizona decision and is subject to review by the Arizona Supreme Court. It is not dispositive as to all actions in Arizona and can only be used as persuasive authority in other states or federal court.

Cause of action to avoid a trustee’s sale: The Hogan decision was considered governing but as we pointed out when the decision was made, the Arizona Supreme Court went out of its way to say that the borrower never alleged that the trustee lacked the authority to conduct a trustee sale and therefore its decision did not address this issue. This court points that out and upheld the borrowers cause of action to avoid a trustee sale based upon the claim that the trustee did not have the authority to conduct a sale of the property. The reasoning behind this decision may well apply in judicial states as well.

This decision needs to be analyzed carefully. I have only just received it. In the coming days I will provide additional analysis.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: Arizona Appeals, Barbara J Forde, Cause of action to avoid a trustee's sale, credit default swaps, discharge of debt, Good Samaritan Doctrine, insurance, Negligent Performance of an Undertaking, Servicer advances, Steinberger v Hon.McVey/OneWest, third party payments, Unconscionability: Procedural and Substantive | 47 Comments »

ATTENTION LAWYERS: ARE SERVICER ADVANCES ARGUABLY A NOVATION

Posted on January 2, 2014 by Neil Garfield

Where “servicer” advances to the trust beneficiaries are present, it explains the rush to foreclosure completely. It is not until the foreclosure is complete that the payor of the “servicer” advances can stop paying. Thus the obfuscation in the discovery process by servicers in foreclosure litigation is also completely explained. Further this would open the eyes of Judges to the fact that there may be other co-obligors that were involved (insurers, credit default swap counterparties etc.). Thus while the creditor is completely satisfied and has experienced no default, the servicer is claiming a default in order to protect the interest of the servicer and broker-dealer (investment bank). It is a lie. — Neil F Garfield, http://www.livinglies.me

This is not for layman. This is directed at lawyers. Any pro se litigant who tries doing something with this is likely to be jumping off a legal cliff so don’t do it without consultation with a lawyer. If you ARE a lawyer, you might find this very enlightening and helpful in developing a strategy to WIN rather than delay the “inevitable.”

I was thinking about this problem when the servicer advances are paid. Such advances are in an amount that satisfies the creditor. If the creditor is named as the real party in interest in a foreclosure, there is an inherent contradiction on the face of the situation. Someone other than the creditor is alleging a default when the creditor will tell you they are just fine — they have received all scheduled payments. Even though it is most likely that the money came from the broker-dealer I was thinking that this might be a novation or a failed attempt at novation. A definition of novation is shown below. Here’s my thinking:

1. the receipt of payment by the trust beneficiaries satisfies in full the payment they were to receive under the contract between them and the REMIC trust.

2. if the foreclosure action is brought by the trust or the trust beneficiaries, directly or indirectly, they can’t say that they have actually experienced a default, since they have payment in full.

3. Some entity is initiating the foreclosure action and some representative capacity on behalf of of the trust or the trust beneficiaries as the creditor. If the borrower has ceased making payments and no other payments are received by the trust or the trust beneficiaries relating to the subject loan then it is arguably true that the borrower has defaulted and the lender has experienced the default.

4. But in those cases where the borrower has ceased making payments but full payment has been sent and accepted by the lender as identified in the foreclosure action, does not seem possible for a declaration of default by that lender to be valid or even true.

5. But it is equally true that the borrower has ceased making payments under an alleged contract, which the foreclosing party is alleging as a default relating to the lender that has been identified as such in the subject action.

6. In actuality the servicer advances have probably been paid by the broker-dealer out of a fund that was permitted to be formed out of the investment dollars advanced by the investors for the purchase of the mortgage bonds. Presumably this fund would exist in a trust account maintained by the trustee for the asset-backed trust. In actuality it appears as though these funds were kept by the broker dealer. The prospectus specifically states that the investors can be repaid out of this fund which consists of the investment dollars advanced by the investors.
7. But these nonstop servicer advances are designated as payments by the servicer.

8. And it is stated in the pooling and servicing agreement that the nonstop servicer advances may not be recovered from the servicer nor anyone else.

9. That means that the money received by the trust beneficiaries is simply a payment of the obligation of the trust under the original agreement by which the trust beneficiaries advanced money as investors purchasing the mortgage bonds.

10. In other settings such payments would be in accordance with agreements in which subrogation of the payor occurs or in which the claim is purchased. Here we have a different problem. At no point here is the entire claim subject to any claim of subrogation or purchase. It is only the payments that have been made that is the subject of the dispute. That opens the door to potential claims of multiple creditors each of whom can show that they have attained the status of a creditor by virtue of actual value or consideration paid.

11. But regardless of who makes payments to the trust beneficiaries or why they made such payments, the trust beneficiaries are under no obligation to return the payments. Hence the trust beneficiaries have experienced no default and the alleged mortgage bond avoids the declaration of a credit event that would decrease the value of the bond. That keeps the investors happy and the broker dealer out of hot water (note the hundreds of claims totaling around $200 billion thus far in settlements because the broker dealer didn’t do many of the things they were supposed to do to protect the investors). NOTE ALSO: The payment and acceptance of the regularly scheduled payments to the trust beneficiaries would cure any default in all events.

12. But the entity that has initiated the foreclosure action is still going to argue that the borrower has breached the terms of the note and has failed to make the regularly scheduled payments and that therefore the borrower is in default. But they cannot say that the borrower defaulted in its obligation to the creditor since the creditor is already satisfied.

13. Even where we have successfully established that the origination of the loan occurred with the funds of the investor and not the named payee on the note or the named mortgagee on the mortgage, a debt still exists to the investors for the amount that is not paid by anyone. This debt would arise by operation of law since the borrower accepted the money and the investor lenders are the source of that money.

14. So the first issue that arises out of this complex series of transactions and a complex chain of documents (that appear to reflect transactions that never occurred), is whether the creator of this scheme unintentionally opened the door to allow a borrower to stop making payments and require the servicer or broker-dealer to continue making nonstop servicer advances the satisfying the obligation to the so-called secured creditor alleged in the initiation of the foreclosure action. If the obligation is indefinite as to duration, this might have a substantial impact on the amount due, the amount demanded and whether the original notice of default was fatally defective in stating the amount required for reinstatement and even claiming the default.

15. I therefore come to the second issue which is that in such cases a second obligation arises when the first one has been satisfied by the payment from a third-party. The second obligation is clearly not secured unless a partial assignment of the mortgage and note has been executed and recorded to protect the servicer or broker-dealer or whoever made the payments to the trust beneficiaries under the nonstop servicer advances. This clearly did not occur. And if it did occur it would be void under the terms of the trust instrument, i.e., the pooling and servicing agreement.

16. The only lawsuits I can imagine filed by the party who made such payments to the trust beneficiaries are causes of action against the homeowner (not to be called a “borrower” anymore) for contribution or unjust enrichment. And as I say, there could be no claims that the debt is secured since the security instrument is pledged to the trust beneficiaries and executed in favor of a third party that is different from the party that made the nonstop servicer advances to the trust beneficiaries.

17. I am therefore wondering whether or not novation should be alleged in order to highlight the fact that the second obligation has been created. Some sort of equitable novation would also allow the Judge to satisfy himself or herself that he or she is not encouraging people to borrow money and not pay it back while at the same time punishing those who created the mad scheme and thus lost the rights set forth in the security agreement (mortgage, deed of trust etc.). Based on the definition below, it might be that the novation could not have occurred without the signature of the borrower. But the argument in favor of characterizing the transactions as a novation might be helpful in highlighting the fact that with the undisputed creditors satisfied, that no default has occurred, and that any purported default has been waived or cured, and that we know that a new liability has been created by operation of law in favor of the party that made the payments.

18. And that brings me to my last point. I would like to see what party it is that claims to have made the non-stop servicer payments. If the payments came from a reserve pool created out of the investment dollars funded by the investors, it would be difficult to argue that the borrower has become unjustly enriched at the expense of the broker-dealer. The circular logic created in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement would obviously not be construed against the borrower who was denied access to the information that would have disclosed the existence of these complex documents and complex transactions, despite federal and state law to the contrary. (TILA and RESPA, Reg Z etc.)

COMMENTS are invited.

————

FROM WIKIPEDIA —

In contract law and business law, novation is the act of either:

replacing an obligation to perform with a new obligation; or

adding an obligation to perform; or

replacing a party to an agreement with a new party.

In contrast to an assignment, which is valid so long as the obligee (person receiving the benefit of the bargain) is given notice, a novation is valid only with the consent of all parties to the original agreement: the obligee must consent to the replacement of the original obligor with the new obligor.^[1] A contract transferred by the novation process transfers all duties and obligations from the original obligor to the new obligor.

For example, if there exists a contract where Dan will give a TV to Alex, and another contract where Alex will give a TV to Becky, then, it is possible to novate both contracts and replace them with a single contract wherein Dan agrees to give a TV to Becky. Contrary to assignment, novation requires the consent of all parties. Consideration is still required for the new contract, but it is usually assumed to be the discharge of the former contract.

Another classic example is where Company A enters a contract with Company B and a novation is included to ensure that if Company B sells, merges or transfers the core of their business to another company, the new company assumes the obligations and liabilities that Company B has with Company A under the contract. So in terms of the contract, a purchaser, merging party or transferee of Company B steps into the shoes of Company B with respect to its obligations to Company A. Alternatively, a “novation agreement” may be signed after the original contract^[2] in the event of such a change. This is common in contracts with governmental entities; an example being under the United States Anti-Assignment Act, the governmental entity that originally issued the contract must agree to such a transfer or it is automatically invalid by law.

The criteria for novation comprise the obligee’s acceptance of the new obligor, the new obligor’s acceptance of the liability, and the old obligor’s acceptance of the new contract as full performance of the old contract. Novation is not a unilateral contract mechanism, hence allows room for negotiation on the new T&Cs under the new circumstances. Thus, ‘acceptance of the new contract as full performance of the old contract’ may be read in conjunction to the phenomenon of ‘mutual agreement of the T&Cs.^[1]

Application in financial markets

Novation is also used in futures and options trading to describe a special situation where the central clearing house interposes itself between buyers and sellers as a legal counter party, i.e., the clearing house becomes buyer to every seller and vice versa. This obviates the need for ascertaining credit-worthiness of each counter party and the only credit risk that the participants face is the risk of the clearing house defaulting. In this context, novation is considered a form of risk management.

The term is also used in markets that lack a centralized clearing system, such as swap trading and certain over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, where “novation” refers to the process where one party to a contract may assign its role to another, who is described as “stepping into” the contract. This is analogous to selling a futures contract.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, originator, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: bond defaults, contract law, non stop servicer advances, note defaults, novation, RESPA, second liability, third party payments, TILA | 62 Comments »

Why Third Party Payments Are So Important to Defending Foreclosure Cases

Posted on December 20, 2013 by Neil Garfield

I keep getting inundated with creative arguments about the documentation, which is exactly the rabbit hole that the Banks want you to go down. It is a trap.

Technical attacks on documentation are not going to win the day because in the end, it is public policy for negotiable instruments to be safe bets in the marketplace. You are not going to get excused from payment without payment or bankruptcy orders.

But payment includes all payments received by the creditor and that is not just servicer advances. It includes insurance and other third party co-obligors who paid the broker dealers. They claim the insurance and other trading profits do not inure the benefit of the investors. But established law shows that by issuing the mortgage bonds in nominee “street name” they are at all times acting as agent for the investors. And all money from sales, insurance, credit default swaps etc must be credited first to the investor which means the creditor is satisfied up to the amount of money actually received by the creditor or by any authorized agent of the creditor even if the agent disclaims the principal agent relationship.

Basic accounting rules require that if a deduction is made from the account receivable there must be a corresponding deduction in the account payable. If it were otherwise only payments received from the borrower could be credited to the account even if the borrower’s Aunt Alice specifically stated that this was to be credited to the borrower’s account. The problem for the Trust, amongst others, is that the law makes no distinction between “Aunt Alice” and any other payor who advances a payment for express purpose of satisfying an account receivable that derives its value from the debt of a person on whose behalf the payment is received and accepted.

The argument about the so-called windfall to the borrower drops to the ground with a thud when the court is presented with parties who have unclean hands, who defrauded the investors in the first instance and who are defrauding the investors now even as they try to enforce the documentation that was an illegal diversion of title from the investors. Giving THEM the right to collect yet again or to foreclose on property and be named as the creditor to the detriment of the investors, is merely using the court to continue the fraud and theft.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: account payable, account receivable, co-obligors in securitized loan transactions, defective documentation, Servicer advances, third party payments | 7 Comments »

Insurance, Credit Default Swaps, Guarantees: Third Party Payments Mitigate Damages to “Lender”

Posted on March 28, 2013 by Neil Garfield

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.

The selection of an attorney is an important decision and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Analysis: The topic of conversation (argument) in court is changing to an inquiry of what is the real transaction, who were the parties and did they pay anything that gives them the right to claim they suffered financial damages as a result of the “breach” by the borrower. And the corollary to that is what constitutes mitigation of those damages.

If the mortgage bond derives its value solely from underlying mortgage loans, then the risk of loss derives solely from those same underlying mortgages. And if those losses are mitigated through third party payments, then the benefit should flow to both the investors who were the source of funds and the borrowers balance must be correspondingly and proportionately adjusted. Otherwise the creditor ends up in a position better than if the debtor had paid off the debt.

If your Aunt Sally pays off your mortgage loan and the bank sues you anyway claiming they didn’t get any payment from YOU, the case will be a loser for the bank and a clear winner for you because of the defense of PAYMENT. The rules regarding damages and mitigation of damages boil down to this — the alleged injured party should not be placed in a position where he/she/it is better off than if the contract (promissory) note had been fully performed.

If the “creditor” is the investor lender, and the only way the borrower received the money was through intermediaries, then those intermediaries are not entitled to claim part of the money that the investor advanced, nor part of the money that was intended for the “creditor” to offset a financial loss. Those intermediaries are agents. And the transaction, while involving numerous intermediaries and their affiliates, is a single contemporaneous transaction between the investor lender and the homeowner borrower.

This is the essence of the “Single transaction doctrine” and the “step transaction doctrine.” What the banks have been successful at doing, thus far, is to focus the court’s attention on the individual steps of the transaction in which a borrower eventually received money or value in exchange for his promise to pay (promissory note) and the collateral he used to guarantee payment (mortgage or deed of trust). This is evasive logic. As soon as you have penetrated the fog with the single transaction rule where the investor lenders are identified as the creditor and the homeowner borrower is identified as the debtor, the argument of the would-be forecloser collapses under its own weight.

Having established a straight line between the investor lenders and the homeowner borrowers, and identified all the other parties as intermediary agents of the the real parties in interest, the case for damages become much clearer. The intermediary agents cannot foreclose or enforce the debt except for the benefit of an identified creditor which we know is the group of investor lenders whose money was used to fund the tier 2 yield spread premium, other dubious fees and profits, and then applied to funding loans by wire transfer to closing agents.

The intermediaries cannot claim the house because they are not part of that transaction as a real party in interest. They may have duties to each other as it relates to handling of the money as it passes through various conduits, but their principal duty is to make sure the transaction between the creditor and debtor is completed.

The intermediaries who supported the sale of fake mortgage bonds from an empty REMIC trust cannot claim the benefits of insurance, guarantees or the proceeds of hedge contracts like credit default swaps. For the first time since the mess began, judges are starting to ask whether the payments from the third parties has relevance to the debt of the borrower. To use the example above, are the third parties who made the payments the equivalent of Aunt Sally or are they somehow going to be allowed to claim those proceeds themselves?

The difference is huge. If the third parties who made those payments are the equivalent of Aunt Sally, then the mortgage is paid off to the extent that actual cash payments were received by the intermediary agents. Aunt Sally might have a claim against the borrower or it might have been a gift, but in all events the original basis for the transaction has been reduced or eliminated by the receipt of those payments.

If Aunt Sally sues the borrower, it would be for contribution or restitution, unsecured, unless Aunt sally actually bought the loan and received an assignment along with a receipt for her funds. If there was another basis on which Aunt Sally made the payment besides a gift, then the money should still be credited to the benefit of the investor lenders who have received what they thought was a bond payable but in reality was still the note payable.

In no event are the intermediary agents to receive those loss mitigation payments when they had no loss. And to the extent that payments were received, they should be used to reduce the receivable of the investor lender and of course that would reduce the payable owed from the homeowner borrower to the investor lender. To do otherwise would be to allow the “creditor” to end up in a much better position than if the homeowner had simply paid off the loan as per the promissory note or faked mortgage bond.

None of this takes away from the fact that the REMIC trust was not source the funds used to pay for the mortgage origination or transfer. That goes to the issue of the perfection of the mortgage lien and not to the issue of how much is owed.

Now Judges are starting to ask the right question: what authority exists for application of the third party payments to mitigate damages? If such authority exists and the would-be foreclosures used a false formula to determine the principal balance due, and the interest payable on that false balance then the notice of delinquency, notice of default, and foreclosure proceedings, including the sale and redemption period would all be incorrect and probably void because they demanded too much from the borrower after having received the third party payments.

If such authority does not exist, then the windfall to the banks will continue unabated — they get the fees and tier 2 yield spread premium profits upfront, they get the payment servicing fees, they get to sell the loan multiple times without any credit to the investor lender, but most of all they get the loss mitigation payments from insurance, hedge, guarantee and bailouts for a third party loss — the investor lenders. This is highly inequitable. The party with the loss gets nothing while a party who already has made a profit on the transaction, makes more profit.

If we start with the proposition that the creditor should not be better off than if the contract had been performed, and we recognize that the intermediary investment bank, master servicer, trustee of the empty REMIC trust, subservicer, aggregator, and others did in fact receive money to mitigate the loss on those certificates and thus on the loans supposedly backing the mortgage bonds, then the only equitable and sensible conclusion would be to credit or allocate those payments to the investor lender up to the amount they advanced.

With the creditor satisfied or partially satisfied the mortgage loan, regardless of whether it is secured or not, is also satisfied or partially satisfied.

So the question is whether mitigation payments are part of the transaction between the investor lender and the homeowners borrower. While this specific application of insurance payments etc has never been addressed we find plenty of support in the case law, statutes and even the notes and bonds themselves that show that such third party mitigation payments are part of the transaction and the expectancy of the investor lender and therefore will affect the borrower’s balance owed on the debt, regardless of whether it is secured or unsecured.

Starting with the DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES, we can assume that if there is such a duty, and there is, then successfully doing so must be applicable to the loan or contract and is so treated in awarding damages without abridgement. Keep in mind that the third party contract for mitigation payments actually refer to the borrowers. Those contracts expressly waive any right of the payor of the mitigation loss coverage to go after the homeowner borrower.

To allow all these undisclosed parties to receive compensation arising out of the initial loan transaction and not owe it to someone is absurd. TILA says they owe all the money they made to the borrower. Contract law says the payments should first be applied to the investor lender and then as a natural consequence, the amount owed to the lender is reduced and so is the amount due from the homeowner borrower.

See the following:

Pricing and Mitigation of Counterparty Credit Exposures, Agostino Capponi. Purdue University – School of Industrial Engineering. January 31, 2013. Handbook of Systemic Risk, edited by J.-P. Fouque and J.Langsam. Cambridge University Press, 2012

“We analyze the market price of counterparty risk and develop an arbitrage-free pricing valuation framework, inclusive of collateral mitigation. We show that the adjustment is given by the sum of option payoff terms, depending on the netted exposure, i.e. the difference between the on-default exposure and the pre-default collateral account. We specialize our analysis to Interest Rates Swaps (IRS) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) as underlying portfolio, and perform a numerical study to illustrate the impact of default correlation, collateral margining frequency, and collateral re-hypothecation on the resulting adjustment. We also discuss problems of current research interest in the counterparty risk community.” pdf4article631

Whether this language makes sense to you or not, it is English and it does say something clearly — it is all about risk. And the risk of the investor lender was to have protected by Triple A rating, insurance, and credit default swaps, as well as guarantees and provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement, for the REMIC trust. Now here is the tricky part — the banks must not be allowed to say on the one hand that the securitization documents are real even if there was no money trail or consideration to support them on the one hand then say that they are not real for purposes of receiving loss mitigation payments, which they want to keep even if it leaves the real creditor with a net loss.

To put it simply — either the parties to the underwriting of the bond to investors and the loan to homeowners were part of the the transaction (loan from investor to homeowner) or they were not. I fail to see any logic or support that they were not.

And the simple rule of measure of how these parties fit together is found under the single transaction doctrine. If the step transaction under scrutiny would not have occurred but for the principal transaction alleged, then it is a single transaction.

The banks would argue they were trading in credit default swaps and other exotic securities regardless of what lender fit with which borrower. But that is defeated by the fact that it was the banks who sold to mortgage bonds, it was the banks who set up the Master Servicer, it was the banks who purchased the insurance and credit default swaps and it was the underwriting investment bank that promised that insurance and credit default swaps would be used to counter the risk. And it is inescapable that the only risk applicable to the principal transaction between investor lender and homeowner borrower was the risk of non payment by the borrower. These third party payments represent the proceeds of protection from that risk.

Would the insurers have entered into the contract without the underlying loans? No. Would the counterparties have entered into the contract without the underlying loans? No.

So the answer, Judge is that it is an inescapable conclusion that third party loss mitigation payments must be applied, by definition, to the loss. The loss was suffered not by the banks but by the investors whose money they took. The loss mitigation payments must then be applied against the risk of loss on the money advanced by those investors. And the benefit of that payment or allocation is that the real creditor is satisfied and the real borrower receives some benefit from those payments in the way of a reduction of the his payable to the investor.

It is either as I have outlined above or the money — all of it — goes to the borrower, to the exclusion of the investor under the requirements of TILA and RESPA. While the shadow banking system is said to be over $1.2 quadrillion, we must apply the same standards to ourselves and our cases as we do to the opposing side. Only actual payments received by the participants in the overall obscured investor lender transaction with the homeowner borrower.

Hence discovery must include those third parties and review of their contracts for the court to determine the applicability of third party payments that were actually received in relation to either the subject loan, the subject mortgage bond, or the subject REMIC pool claiming ownership of the subject loan.

The inequality between the rich and not-so-rich comes not from policy but bad arithmetic.

As the subprime mortgage market fell apart in late 2007 and early 2008, many financial products, particularly mortgage-backed securities, were downgraded. The price of credit default swaps on these products increased. Pursuant to their collateral agreements, many protection buyers were able to insist on additional collateral protection. In some cases, the collateral demanded represented a significant portion of the counterparty’s assets. Unsurprisingly, counterparties have carefully evaluated, and in some cases challenged, protection buyers’ right to such additional collateral amounts. This tension has generated several recent lawsuits:

• CDO Plus Master Fund Ltd. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 07-11078 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007) (dispute over demand for collateral on $10,000,000 protection on collateralized debt obligations).

• VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 08 1563 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2008) (same).

• UBS AG v. Paramax Capital Int’l, No. 07604233 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 26, 2007) (dispute over demand for $33 million additional capital from hedge fund for protection on collateralized debt obligations).

Given that the collateral disputes erupting in the courts so far likely represent only a small fraction of the stressed counterparties, and given recent developments, an increase in counterparty bankruptcy appears probable.

http://www.capdale.com/credit-default-swaps-the-bankrupt-counterparty-entering-the-undiscovered-country

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: abridgment, collateral, credit default swaps, duty to mitigate, expectancy, guarnatees, insurance, investment banker, loans, mitigation of damages, mortgage bond, mortgages, promissory note, REMIC, third party payments | 79 Comments »

DATA IRREFUTABLE: PRINCIPAL CORRECTION (REDUCTION) IS THE ONLY WAY OUT

Posted on November 5, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S COMMENT: We’ve been saying here for 4 years that ultimately the ONLY way out of the economic crisis is to use real data and skip the ideology, blame and politics. Nocera, pouring over data accumulated by intensive analysis, states that the data proves this point and more. What we need are economic policies that are based upon reality. Since housing is the leader in any recovery for dozens of reasons — from direct jobs and commerce to psychological (confidence) — the ever-increasing bubble in housing inventories flooding the market and driving down prices must be popped.

The principal driver of new defaults is the futility of paying on a loan for property that will never be worth the amount of the loan — i.e., underwater property. The foreclosure crash is causing the number of housing units waiting for a market to buy them to increase at a rate that few would have predicted because of their closely held belief that the mortgages were, in the end, valid debts. Whether true or not, the only tool available to stem the tide and fix the problem is to change the amount due from borrowers.

Last night, Beau Biden, Attorney general of Delaware who sued MERS last week, cast doubt on that assumption along with other suits by other attorney Generals, the principal regulators of banks and many lawmakers. In Biden’s words, the recording system in this country was “privatized” and with that went any possibility of a reliable method for tracing title. Biden, son of Joe Biden, VP, states that at least 25% of all foreclosures occur with the wrong party initiating the foreclosure. He predicted that without correcting the problems created by the Banks we will be “talking about the same problems in 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.”

The real facts are leading inexorably to the question of whether some, many or even all of the loans claimed to be securitized — mortgage, credit cards, student, auto and other consumer loans — were ever perfected and specifically whether the paperwork matches up with the deal and the obligations of the parties (according to law) at the time the loan transaction was consummated. If we do what is right for the country the problem is fixed. If we do what the Banks want, we stay with the problem indefinitely with no prospects for recovery.

Analysts, economists and finance experts are now arriving at the same conclusion — along with the only tool available to stop the foreclosure crash. In order to fix the economy we need to fix what ails it — principally housing. In order to fix housing, as prices continue into their death spiral, we must stop the glut of “defaults” and foreclosures. If we don’t do it now, we are condemning future generations to a world of hurt. It isn’t about ideology, it’s about survival.

It no longer matters what rationale is advanced to correct principal balances claimed as due — we just need to do it. But a key factor that Nocera and Goodman miss is that the balances claimed are not the balances due. The balances have been reduced by actual payments received by the creditors and their agents and then hidden and booked as Bank assets or Bank profits, cheating both the investors and the borrowers.

In fact, we have repeatedly seen in the distribution reports for investors, the same loan that is declared in “default” has the payments made by the servicer under separate contracts never revealed to the borrower and obscured to the investor. While foreclosure on the “default” proceeds, the creditor continues to get paid on a loan reported as “performing.” Hence the default was declared without any factual basis. And the foreclosures were processed based upon a defective assumption of delinquency and default from the servicer’s perspective — but not from the creditor’s perspective.

While complex, this is not beyond the understanding of bankruptcy and probate courts that tend to take a close look at the loan’s status as perfected lien, priority of liens etc. The payment by the servicer decreases the principal amount due from the borrower and cures or eliminates the default because the creditor has been paid. Since the creditor has been paid it can no longer claim the balance that was due before receiving the servicer’s payment. The same holds true for other payments received by the creditor or its agents on insurance, credit default swaps and other contracts without rights of subrogation.

These third party payments do not decrease the overall obligation of the borrower but they change the character of the obligation. No longer secured by the note and mortgage (if they were ever valid or perfected) these third parties have unsecured claims in the same amount as the amount of the reduction of the payments and principal alleged as due.

Just applying normal rules of accounting and law, part of the borrower’s obligation changes from secured to unsecured, with the secured portion decreased by the same amount that the unsecured portion is increased.

More importantly, the parties change from the creditor who advanced the money to fund the loan to a third party who has covered that obligation. Hence, a principal correction (or reduction, if you must call it that) with the investor-lender may not be nearly as great as the current estimates of 30%-50%.

In fact, in some cases, the investor lender may be entitled to money from the Banks received from third parties but remain hidden in an exotic accounting system, for which the auditing firms may have exposure for liability. The principal in such cases would need not be “reduced” or ‘corrected” by fiat, in such cases, it would be reduced by arithmetic. The result is the same for the homeowner — a much lower amount due reflecting true values that should have been reflected in the initial transaction but were hidden by an appraisal process that was corrupt.

This is why the OCC Review process MUST take into account an accounting for all money received and disbursed in relation to both the loan and the pool claiming ownership of the loan — because regardless of whether the loan ever legally reached the pool, the money DID reach the pool.

By sticking to the facts and applying arithmetic and simple established law, the number of people who consider themselves underwater will change from millions to perhaps a small fraction of that amount, if any. The impending new defaults would be eliminated and the foreclosures that did or are taking place can be corrected, while avoiding future foreclosures. The number of homes on the market or headed to market would vanish, this allowing free market conditions to allow prices to go wherever the market deems fit between arms length buyers and sellers.

To Fix Housing, See the Data

By JOE NOCERA

In Miami recently, I met up with Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director of Amherst Securities. I’d been trying to meet her ever since I’d read an article that she had written in March entitled “The Case for Principal Reductions.” But our schedules never seemed to mesh. So when I noticed that we were both going to be at a conference in Miami, I wangled a breakfast appointment. It was one of the more illuminating breakfasts I’ve had in a while.

The idea of helping struggling homeowners by writing down some principal on their mortgages — as opposed to reducing the interest or reconfiguring the terms to lower the monthly payments — is much in the air right now. Banks loathe the idea of principal reduction; they fear that people who are current on their mortgages will start defaulting just to get their principal reduced. They also don’t want the hit to their balance sheets.

But the states’ attorneys general who sued over the robo-signing scandal have made principal reduction the central plank of the settlement they are close to completing. The settlement will force the big banks to begin a sustained program of principal reduction, and will heavily penalize banks that don’t comply. From what I hear, the goal of the states is to prove to the banks that principal reduction will not cause the sky to fall — and is, ultimately, less damaging to bank profits than foreclosures.

Housing activists love principal reduction because they tend to see it as a just solution to an unjust situation — it’s a way of making the banks pay a real price for their sins during the subprime madness while allowing people to keep their homes. Conservatives, on the other hand, hate principal reduction. They believe that borrowers who made poor decisions by taking out mortgages they could never afford have to take responsibility for those decisions. If that means foreclosure, so be it.

Enter Laurie Goodman. One of the country’s foremost authorities on mortgage-backed securities, she is also one of the most data-driven people I’ve ever met; at breakfast, she was constantly pointing me to one chart or another that backed up her claims. “She’s not into politics,” says my friend, and her client, Daniel Alpert of Westwood Capital. “She is using data to tell us the truth.”

Her truth begins with a shocking calculation: of the 55 million mortgages in America, more than 10 million are reasonably likely to default. That is a staggering number — and it is, in large part, because so many homes are worth so much less than the mortgage the homeowners are holding. That is, they’re underwater.

Her second calculation is that the supply of housing is going to drastically outstrip demand for the foreseeable future; she estimates that the glut of unneeded homes could get as high as 6.2 million over the next six years. The primary reason for this, she says, is that household formation has been very low in recent years, presumably because of the grim economy. (Young adults are living with their parents instead of moving into their own homes, etc.) What’s more, nearly 20 percent of current homeowners no longer qualify for a mortgage, as lending standards have tightened.

The implication is almost too awful to contemplate. As Goodman put it in testimony she recently gave before Congress, the supply/demand imbalance means that housing prices “are likely to decline further. This may recreate the housing death spiral — as lower housing prices mean more borrowers become underwater.” Which makes them more likely to default, which lowers prices further, and on and on.

The only way to stop the death spiral is through principal reduction. The reason is simple: “The data show that principal modifications work better” than other kinds of modifications, she says. Interest rate reductions can lower monthly payments, but the home remains just as underwater as it was before the modification. And the extent to which a home is underwater is the single best indicator of whether the homeowner will default. The only way to change the imbalance between the size of the mortgage and the value of the home is to reduce principal.

Will widespread principal reduction cause homeowners to purposely default on their mortgages? Goodman has some ideas about how to reduce that likelihood, but she is also realistic: “A borrower will make a decision to default if it is in his or her best interest.”

One wishes that the country could make economic decisions that are in its best interest, decisions that use Laurie Goodman’s data-driven approach instead of being motivated by ideology. Goodman’s case for principal reduction is powerful precisely because it is not about just or unjust, or who’s to blame and who’s at fault.

It is about cold, hard economics. Three years after the bursting of the subprime bubble, principal reduction isn’t just a nice-sounding way to help homeowners. It is our only hope of finally ending the housing crisis.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: Amherst Securities, bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, Daniel Alpert, defaults, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, housing prices, investor recovery, Laurie Goodman, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, OCC REVIEW, PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS, principal reduction, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, The Case for Principal Reductions., third party payments, TILA audit, trustee, underwater, WEISBAND | 43 Comments »

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

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Neil Garfield

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

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, interest rates, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee | Tagged: accounting, balance sheet, discovery, failure, income statement, Investor, ledger, lenders, mortgage backed securities, mortgage lenders, pools, Raja, securitization chain, Soliman, third party payments, writedown | 20 Comments »

Re-Orienting the Parties to Clarify Who is the Real Plaintiff

Posted on June 11, 2010 by Neil Garfield

The procedural motion missed by most lawyers is re-orienting the parties. Just because you are initially the plaintiff doesn’t mean you should stay that way. Once it is determined that the party seeking affirmative relief is seeking to sell your personal residence and that all you are doing is defending, they must become the plaintiff and file a lawsuit against you which you have an opportunity to defend. A Judge who refuses to see that procedural point is in my opinion committing clear reversible error.

If the would-be forecloser could not establish standing and/or could not prove their case in a judicial foreclosure action, there is no doubt in my mind that the ELECTION to use the power of sale is UNAVAILABLE to them. They must show the court that they have a prima face case and the homeowners must present a defense. But that can only be done if the parties are allowed to conduct discovery. Otherwise the proceedings are a sham, and the Judge is committing error by giving the would-be forecloser the benefit of the doubt (which means that the Judge is creating an improper presumption at law).

If the Judge says otherwise, then he/she is putting the burden on the homeowner. But the result is the same. Any contest by the would-be forecloser should be considered under the same rules as a motion to dismiss, which means that all allegations made by the homeowner are taken as true for purposes of the preliminary motions.

Some people have experienced the victory of a default final judgment for quiet title only to have it reversed on some technical grounds. While this certainly isn’t the best case scenario, don’t let the fight go out of you and don’t let your lawyer talk you into accepting defeat. Reversal of the default doesn’t mean anyone won or lost. It just means that instead of getting the ultimate victory by default, you are going to fight for it. The cards are even more stacked in your favor with the court decisions reported over the last 6 months and especially over the last two weeks. See recent blog entries and articles.

All that has happened is that instead of a default you will fight the fight. People don’t think you can get the house for free. Their thinking is based upon the fact that there IS an obligation that WAS created.

The question now is whether the Judge will act properly and require THEM to have the burden of proof to plead and prove a case in foreclosure. THEY are the party seeking affirmative relief so they should have the burden of pleading and proving a case. Your case is a simple denial of default, denial of their right to foreclose and a counterclaim with several counts for damages and of course a count for Quiet Title. As a guideline I offer the following which your lawyer can use as he/she sees fit.

The fact that you brought the claim doesn’t mean you have to plead and prove their case. Your case is simple: they did a fraudulent and wrongful foreclosure because you told them you denied the claim and their right to pursue it. That means they should have proceeded judicially which of course they don’t want to do because they can’t make allegations they know are not true (the note is NOT payable to them, the recorded documentation prior to sale doesn’t show them as the creditor etc.).

I don’t remember if MERS was involved in your deal but if it was the law is getting pretty well settled that MERS possesses nothing, is just a straw man for an undisclosed creditor (table funded predatory loan under TILA) and therefore can neither assign nor make any claim against the obligation, note or mortgage.

Things are getting much better. Follow the blog — in the last two weeks alone there have been decisions, some from appellate courts, that run in your favor. There is even one from California. So if they want to plead a case now in foreclosure they must first show that they actually contacted you and tried to work it out. Your answer is the same as before. I assume you sent a qualified written request. Under the NC appellate decision it is pretty obvious that you do have a right of action for enforcement of RESPA. They can’t just say ANYONE contacted you they must show the creditor contacted you directly or through an authorized representative which means they must produce ALL the documentation showing the transfers of the note, the PSA the assignment and assumption agreement etc.

They can’t produce an assignment dated after the cutoff date in the PSA. They can’t produce an assignment for a non-performing loan. Both are barred by the PSA. So there may have been an OFFER of assignment but there was no authority to accept it and no reasonable person would do so knowing the loan was already in default. And they must show that the loan either was or was not replaced by cash or a substitute loan in the pool, with your loan reverting back to the original assignor. Your loan probably is vested in the original assignor who was the loan aggregator. If it’s in the pool it is owned by the investors, collectively. There is no trust nor any assets in the trust since the ownership of the loans were actually conveyed when the investors bought the mortgage backed securities. They don’t want you going near the investors because when you compare notes, the investors are going to realize that the investment banker did not invest all the money that the investor gave the investment banker — they kept about a third of it for themselves which is ANOTHER undisclosed yield spread premium entitling you to damages, interest and probably treble damages.

The point of all this is that it is an undeniable duty for you to receive disclosure of the identity of the creditor, proof thereof, and a full accounting for all receipts and disbursements by the creditor and not just by the servicer who does not track third party payments through insurance, credit default swaps and other credit enhancements. It’s in federal and state statutes, federal regulations, state regulations and common law.

The question is not just what YOU paid but what ANYONE paid on your account. And even if those payments were fraudulently received and kept by the investment banker and even if the loan never made it through proper assignment, indorsement, and delivery, those payments still should have been allocated to your account, according to your note first to any past due payments (i.e., no default automatically, then to fees and then to the borrower). That is a simple breach of contract action under the terms of the note.

Again they don’t want to let you near those issues in discovery or otherwise because the fraud of the intermediaries would be instantly exposed. So while you have no automatic right to getting your house free and clear, that is often the result because they would rather lose the case than let you have the information required to prove or disprove their case in foreclosure. The bottom line is that you don’t want to let them or have the judge let them (Take an immediate interlocutory appeal if necessary) use the power of sale which is already frowned upon by the courts and use it as an end run around the requirements of due process, to wit: if you think you have a claim you must plead and prove it and give the opposition an opportunity to defend.

The procedural motion missed by most lawyers is re-orienting the parties. Just because you are initially the plaintiff doesn’t mean you should stay that way. Once it is determined that the party seeking affirmative relief is seeking to sell your personal residence and that all you are doing is defending, they must become the plaintiff and file a lawsuit against you which you have an opportunity to defend. A Judge who refuses to see that procedural point is in my opinion committing clear reversible error.

The worst case scenario if everything is done PROPERLY is that you get the full accounting, you are not in default (unless there really were no third party payments which is extremely unlikely) and they must negotiate new terms based upon all the money that is owed back to you, which might just exceed the current principal due on the loan — especially once you get rid of the fabricated fees and costs they attach to the account (see Countrywide settlement with FTC on the blog).

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, trustee, workshop | Tagged: accounting, assignment, Assignment and ASsumption Agreement, BURDEN OF PROOF, civil procedure, cut-off date, default, delivery, discovery, due process, fraud, indorsement, party seeking affirmative relief, Pleading, PSA, re-orienting the parties, third party payments, TILA, transfer, yield spread premium | 13 Comments »

Another Strategy to Own Your Loan: Allocation of Third Party Payments to Your Loan Account

Posted on May 24, 2010 by Neil Garfield

I’m told by some industry insiders that you can buy a piece of our loan for pennies on the dollar, much the same as NPR did when they wanted to track the money and documents through the securitization structure. That’s a good goal because it will give you “inside information” on what the pretender lenders SAY happened to your loan.

But it doesn’t give you the real facts and events because the paperwork was prepared, executed and delivered long before the loans were originated. If a Judge thinks that you are nit-picking and that the issues you raise are issues between creditors, it is because he mistakenly presumes that the transaction started with the origination of the loan. In fact, the transaction commenced BEFORE the origination of the loan with the execution of the securitization documents, without which nobody would have any loans and nobody would have made any money.

By re-orienting the Judge to the point that the documentation for the origination of the loan was WITHIN THE CONTEXT, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS, you will (a) be telling the truth and (b) bringing the case closer to a result that are seeking — that without the pretender lender PROVING its case in a judicial proceeding, the election of non-judicial sale is unavailable.

One way to have the goods before your opposition has them is to buy, through a broker, a mortgage backed security that is based on a pool of assets and tranches, one of which is your own loan.

As an MBS owner you have every right to demand information about the rest of the owners and the status of the pool. One of the dirty little secrets is that a lot of pools have been closed out and dissolved which means that the party claiming to be the “trustee” for the SPV pool is claiming powers to represent an entity that no longer exists with investors who no longer are holders of MBS.

You can even ask whether any of the parties in the securitization chain or their agents, servants, employees, underwriters, affiliates ever received third party payments on “toxic” mortgages or mortgage backed securities or pools of assets in which a high percentage consists of loans that are non-performing, or on the representation that the receiver (usually the investment banking house or some subsidiary or affiliate).

As a holder of the mortgage backed securities you ask why the distribution reports did not include an allocation third party insurance, counterpart y or Federal money to your pool of assets and why the there was no allocation to individual loans in that pool. You can ask why they did not allocate those third party payments to the loans that were non-performing, which might include yours.

You can also ask whether such allocation to the pool and then to the individual loans in the pool and then to the nonperforming loans, has been applied to the obligation owed to the you as an investor. You should ask whether these third party payments are applied to the balance owed to you as an MBS owner, or whether it should be applied to payments that have been reduced or missed. And finally you should ask whether the third party payments would, if properly applied, make your payments, as an MBS owner, current or if they would still be behind. If behind, then how much behind and where did the rest of the money go? If ahead, then there is no longer any default to you as MBS owner.

Remember that the answer you are going to get (after stone-walling) is going to be a total of all such payments, since they never made any allocation. So your central question is how much did they get in third party payments and when. It is then up to you to decide on the proper with the help of an accountant familiar with generally accepted accounting principles.

You the take the report of your accountant, your expert, and your forensic analyst and attach it to a pleading in which you “intervene” as the “real creditor” and state that the loan (a) was never in default because the MBS holders got their money that was due including a profit and/or (b) that the default was not in the amount as represented and that you, as creditor, would like to work out an arrangements with the debtor (you) in which you will (a) disclose the identity of the other creditors (b) disclose the true balance of the obligation after the above allocation (c) remove the predatory aspects of the loan, including the loss from appraisal fraud and (d) arrive at a thirty year fixed payment starting thirty days after the second closing at market rates for top tier debtors on the newly disclosed principal balance reduced by all relevant factors.

It’s all about transparency, truth ,justice and the American way.

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: accountant, allocation to the pool, appraisal fraud, default, expert, forensic analyst, generally accepted accounting principles, individual loans in the pool, MBS holders, SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS, third party payments, true balance of the obligation | 37 Comments »

SECURITIZATION If They Did It Right

Posted on May 17, 2010 by Neil Garfield

SECURITIZATION If They Did It Right

Sometimes it IS easier to prove a negative than a positive. Your opposition has far more facts than you do and in due process, should be required to prove them up into a prima facie case using real evidence from competent witnesses, with real documents that nobody played with before initiating foreclosure.

So let’s take a look at how all this WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, because most judges, even today are seeing the transaction through this lens.

A homeowner or prospective homeowner would apply for refinancing or a purchase money first, second or Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC).
Loan Closing and Disclosures
Details of the loan and loan closing, good faith estimate and closing statement are provided in some form to both the borrower and the investors who acknowledge receipt and acceptance in binding form. Presumably this would be done through the offices of the manager, agent or “Trustee” of the Special Purpose Vehicle, the name of which and contact information was disclosed to the borrower prior to closing and is confirmed at closing.
Assignment of Loan into Pool, acknowledged by Borrower. Intermediaries and Investors disclosed to borrower/debtor. The lender is identified as the group of investors who have provided funding for the loan.
Investors’ representative(s) identified and disclosed, with contact information.
During the life of the loan, Borrower receives same statement as investor — receipts and disbursements allocable to the loan are allocated and applied to payments and loan balance. If third party payments are received for any reason by any of the intermediaries, who are all disclosed, the amount of the receipt and the method of allocation to the borrower’s loan is disclosed.
If the Borrower falls delinquent, the Investors either decide as a group or through their representative, manager, agent or named Trustee whether to offer a workout or to foreclose. A modification or settlement would be negotiated with parties known to Borrower at closing or successors in interest which would have been disclosed immediately upon execution of closing documents between the investors, or part of them, and the successor(s).
Any change in ownership of the loan would be a change in beneficiary and a change of Payee under the note, which would be the same party. Such change would be recorded in accordance with State Law. The change would not, under these circumstances leave the Borrower in doubt as to the amount of the obligation and whether the obligation was or should be affected by the third party transactions. If the third party transaction is intended contemporaneously with the closing with the Borrower, even if the third party is not identified, this fact would also be disclosed to the Borrower and the Investors.
Insurance, credit default swaps, and other credit enhancements are identified and disclosed to the Borrower — pursuant to contractual provisions executed between the Investors as a Group or individually; provided however, the insurer or third party payor would have rights of subrogation in which upon payment under the referenced contract, they have acquired the interests of the insured parties, in order to mitigate their losses, a fact which was identified and disclosed to the borrower at the closing with the borrower.
In this transparent series of transactions that are part and parcel of a single transaction consisting of many steps, the Borrower having accepted all the terms and conditions of the approval of the loan and the securitization of the loan, achieves no greater standing or defense in the event of default. The only exception would be malfeasance or misfeasance by the participants in the securitization chain wherein, disclosed or not, the loan, or part of it, was satisfied by direct or indirect payment to a representative with apparent authority over the loan and to act in the interests of the investor as an agent. If the loan was sold multiple times, neither the Borrowers liability nor the Initial investors’ asset would be effected. Any dispute would NOT include the Borrower whose obligation would be unaffected UNLESS the intermediaries receiving multiple payments for sale of the same loan or percentage interests in the same loan pool were allowed to retain the proceeds of said sale, inasmuch as this would mean that the liability of the borrower would either (a) be diminished by the excess payments or (b) spread out to investors that were not disclosed at the Borrower’s Loan Closing.
In the event that the matter is referred to a foreclosure proceeding, the action (whether private non-judicial sale or public lawsuit in foreclosure) would be brought on behalf of the named investors, through their authorized representative, with a complete statement of accounting and exhibits showing the entire securitization structure and the balance due on the Borrower’s obligation, including any third party payments, whether those were allocated to payments, interest or principal, and what balance of the obligation exists. Also named as foreclosers would be those party who acceded to a subrogated interest in the Borrower’s loan in whole or in part.
Since a judicial allocation would be required to determine the relative interests and priority of interests of the investors, successors and subrogated parties, it is probably not possible to initiate a non-judicial sale unless there existed an agreement between all of the parties as to those matters. Such an agreement would specifically describe the distribution of proceeds of sale, which party was entitled to enter a credit bid, and what would be done with the property if the bid resulted in a Trustee Certificate being issued giving title to the party that initiated the foreclosure.
If the creditor parties were able to satisfy all the prerequisites of a non-judicial foreclosure sale and the sale took place under non-judicial circumstances, the Borrower would lose the right of redemption and the Creditor would lose the right to pursue any delinquency or deficiency resulting from the sale of the home.
If the Borrower was the defendant or re-oriented as the defendant in a foreclosure lawsuit, then the borrower’s right to redemption would be retained, if State Law permits same, and the Creditor would, if State Law permits it, be allowed to pursue a deficiency judgment against the Borrower. The allegation for suing for damages to cover a deficiency would include the fact that the sale price was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The prima facie case of the Plaintiff Creditor in those circumstances would require evidence from an appraiser or other credible resource that is admitted by the Court as competent testimony and evidence of the fair market value and the sales price. Submission of a written affidavit or document is sufficient to support the allegation, not insufficient to satisfy the requirements of establishment of a prima facie case. A competent witness with personal knowledge and recollection is required to establish the foundation of any document. Business records do not include records regularly prepared after the loan goes into default, if those records are offered to prove facts that relate to events prior to the default. SUCH RECORDS ARE ONLY ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE (WITH FOUNDATION FROM A COMPETENT WITNESS) FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR EVENTS THAT OCCURRED AFTER DEFAULT.

Filed under: foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: business records, CLOSING WITH BORROWER, CLOSING WITH INVESTORS, CLOSING WITH SECURITIZATION PARTICIPANTS, evidence, prima facie case, securitization, SUBROGATION, SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, third party payments | 11 Comments »

Discovery Issues Revealed: PRINCIPAL REDUCTION IS A RIGHT NOT A GIFT – CA Class Action V BOA on TARP funds

Posted on April 19, 2010 by Neil Garfield

REGISTER NOW FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE WORKSHOP MAY 23-24

PRINCIPAL REDUCTION IS A RIGHT NOT A GIFT. IF THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THIRD PARTIES, THEN THE OBLIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN REDUCED. THE ONLY FUNCTION REMAINING IS TO DO THE ACCOUNTING.

”

There should be no doubt in your mind now that virtually none of the foreclosures processed, initiated or threatened so far have been anything other than wrong. The payments from third parties clearly reduced the principal due, might be allocable to payments that were due (thus eliminating even the delinquency status) and thus eviscerates the amount demanded by the notice of delinquency or notice of default.

Thus in addition to the fact that the wrong party is pursuing foreclosure, they are seeking to enforce an obligation that does not exist.”

Editor’s Note: This is what we cover in the upcoming workshop. Connect the dots. Recent events point out, perhaps better than I have so far, why you should press your demands for discovery. In particular identification of the creditor, the recipients of third party payments, and accounting for ALL financial transactions that refer to or are allocable to a specific pool in which your specific loan is claimed to have been pledged or transferred for sale to investors in pieces.

This lawsuit seeks to force BOA to allocate TARP funds to the pools that were referenced when TARP funds were paid. In turn, they want the money allocated to individual loans in those pools on a pro rata basis. It is simple. You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end too.

The loans were packaged into pools that were then “processed” into multiple SPV pools, shares of which were sold to investors. Those shares “derived” their value from the loans. TARP paid 100 cents on the dollar for those shares. Thus the TARP payments were received based upon an allocation that “derived” its value from the loans. The only possible conclusion is to allocate the funds to the loans.

But that is only part of the story. TARP, TALF and other deals on a list that included insurance, and credit default swaps (synthetic derivatives) also made such payments. Those should also be allocated to the loans. Instead, BOA wants to keep the payments without applying the payments to the loans. In simple terms they their TARP and then still be able to keep eating, even though the “cake” has been paid off (consumed) by third party payments.

Now that the Goldman Sachs SEC lawsuit has been revealed, I can point out that there are other undisclosed fees, profits, and advances made that are being retained by the intermediaries in the securitization and servicing chains that should also be allocated to the loans, some of which are ALSO (as previously mentioned in recent articles posted here) subject to claims from the SEC on behalf of the investors who went “long” (i.e., who advanced money and bought these derivative shares) based upon outright lies, deception and an interstate and intercontinental scheme of fraud.

In plain language, the significance of this accounting is that if you get it, you will have proof beyond any doubt that the notice of default and notice of sale, the foreclosure suit and the demands from the servicer were all at best premature and more likely fraudulent in that they KNEW they had received payments that had paid all or part of the borrower’s obligation and which should have been allocated to the benefit of the homeowner.

There should be no doubt in your mind now that virtually none of the foreclosures processed, initiated or threatened so far have been anything other than wrong. The payments from third parties clearly reduced the principal due, might be allocable to payments that were due (thus eliminating even the delinquency status) and thus eviscerates the amount demanded by the notice of delinquency or notice of default.

Thus in addition to the fact that the wrong party is pursuing foreclosure, they are seeking to enforce an obligation that does not exist. This is a breach of the terms of the obligation as well as the pooling and service agreement.

INVESTORS TAKE NOTE: IF THE FUNDS HAD BEEN PROPERLY ALLOCATED THE LOANS WOULD STILL BE CLASSIFIED AS PERFORMING AND THE VALUE OF YOUR INVESTMENT WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN REPORTED BY THE INVESTMENT BANK. YOU TOOK A LOSS WHILE THE INVESTMENT BANK TOOK THE MONEY. THE FORECLOSURES THAT FURTHER REDUCED THE VALUE OF THE COLLATERAL WERE ILLUSORY SCHEMES CONCOCTED TO DEFLECT YOUR ATTENTION FROM THE FLOW OF FUNDS. THUS YOU TOO WERE SCREWED OVER MULTIPLE TIMES. JOINING WITH THE BORROWERS, YOU CAN RECOVER MORE OF YOUR INVESTMENT AND THEY CAN RECOVER THEIR EQUITY OR AT LEAST THE RIGHTS TO THEIR HOME.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM, sal danna <saldanna@gmail.com> wrote:

California homeowners file class action suit against Bank of America for withholding TARP funds

Thu, 2010-04-08 11:43 — NationalMortgag…

California homeowners have filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America claiming the lending giant is intentionally withholding government funds intended to save homeowners from foreclosure, announced the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The case, filed in United States District Court in Northern California, claims that Bank of America systematically slows or thwarts California homeowners’ access to Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds by ignoring homeowners’ requests to make reasonable mortgage adjustments or other alternative solutions that would prevent homes from being foreclosed.

“We intend to show that Bank of America is acting contrary to the intent and spirit of the TARP program, and is doing so out of financial self interest,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Bank of America accepted $25 billion in government bailout money financed by taxpayer dollars earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. One in eight mortgages in the United State is currently in foreclosure or default. Bank of America, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is obligated to offer alternatives to foreclosure and permanently reduce mortgage payments for eligible borrowers struck by financial hardship but, according to the lawsuits, hasn’t lived up to its obligation.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Bank of America services more than one million mortgages that qualify for financial relief, but have granted only 12,761 of them permanent modification. Furthermore, California has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation for 2009 with 632,573 properties currently pending foreclosure, according to the California lawsuit.

“We contend that Bank of America has made an affirmative decision to slow the loan modification process for reasons that are solely in the bank’s financial interests,” Berman said.

The complaints note that part of Bank of America’s income is based on loans it services for other investors, fees that will drop as loan modifications are approved. The complaints also note that Bank of America would need to repurchase loans it services but has sold to other investors before it could make modifications, a cumbersome process. According to the TARP regulations, banks must gather information from the homeowner, and offer a revised three-month payment plan for the borrower. If the homeowner makes all three payments under the trial plan, and provides the necessary documentation, the lender must offer a permanent modification.

Named plaintiffs and California residents Suzanne and Greg Bayramian were forced to foreclose their home after several failed attempts to make new arrangements with Bank of America that would reduce their monthly loan payments. According to the California complaint, Bank of America deferred Bayramian’s mortgage payments for three months but failed to tell them that they would not qualify for a loan modification until 12 consecutive payments. Months later, Bank of America came back to the Bayramian family and said would arrange for a loan modification under the TARP home loan program but never followed through. The bank also refused to cooperate to a short-sale agreement saying they would go after Bayramian for the outstanding amount.

“Bank of America came up with every excuse to defer the Bayramian family from a home loan modification which forced them into foreclosure,” said Berman. “And we know from our investigation this isn’t an isolated incident.”

The lawsuits charge that Bank of America intentionally postpones homeowners’ requests to modify mortgages, depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from foreclosure. The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits provided by taxpayer dollars financing TARP-funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans.

For more information, visit www.hbsslaw.com.

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, workshop | Tagged: accounting, allocation of payments, and advances, Bank of America, CALIFORNIA, creditor, delinquency status, discovery, foreclosure suit, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, INVESTORS TAKE NOTE, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, Obligation, payments, pool, principal reduction, profits, sale to investors, SEC, SPV pools, Steve Berman, TARP, TARP regulations, third party payments, undisclosed fees | 1 Comment »

Profits Surge as Declared Losses Vanish: Are the defaults real?

Posted on April 10, 2010 by Neil Garfield

And THAT is why you are entitled to compel discovery, compel answers to your QWR, DVL and other requests. If the losses were not real, if the pools were marked down solely on the say-so of the financial institutions that created them, if the default rate was really much lower than the declared defaults, if AMBAC, AIG and others made payments on those pools, and if the investors, as the creditors in the loan transactions received payments directly or indirectly (through their agents) then some part of those payments were allocatable and should be allocated to your loan. Thus all loans in the pool should be credited pro rata with the amounts received from third party payments. Homeowner obligations declared in default would then be either premature or incorrectly stated in the amount due. Other loans that were not delinquent should have had the principal reduced — none of which was accounted for because the intermediary pretender lenders kept the money for themselves.

Editor’s Note: Ambac’s Profit Surge is the result of illusory losses that are now being recaptured. The “game” was to declare huge losses, take in taxpayer dollars and then gradually filter the money back into the company thus creating guaranteed earnings rising steadily and thus providing an increase in the price-earnings ratio. The investment houses are doing the same thing. They made trillions of dollars is cash profits, declared trillions in paper losses and scared the public and government into giving them money to prevent the collapse of the financial system.

Since trust and confidence in the system is the foundation, it didn’t matter whether they were telling the truth as long as most people believed the lie. The taxpayer bailout was necessary as a symbolic gesture to assure the world that there was always backing by the U.S. Federal government.

The question for these institutions is whether the defaults in home loans were declared prematurely (or falsely) or even caused by policies designed to give credence to the big lie and to provide them with yet another source of windfall profits by picking up homes that are sold in foreclosure at a fraction of the original loan amount. As stated in numerous articles before on this blog, the ONLY people who actually lost money are the investors who advanced the real money into a pool that was used to fund mortgage closings (and also used to fund absurd profits on fees, yield spread premiums etc.) and the homeowners who advanced their homes as collateral on loan products that were sold to them under false pretenses. Both the mortgage backed securities and the loans were sham financial transactions.

And THAT is why you are entitled to compel discovery, compel answers to your QWR, DVL and other requests. If the losses were not real, if the pools were marked down solely on the say-so of the financial institutions that created them, if the default rate was really much lower than the declared defaults, if AMBAC, AIG and others made payments on those pools, and if the investors, as the creditors in the loan transactions received payments directly or indirectly (through their agents) then some part of those payments were allocatable and should be allocated to your loan. Thus all loans in the pool should be credited pro rata with the amounts received from third party payments. Homeowner obligations declared in default would then be either premature or incorrectly stated in the amount due. Other loans that were not delinquent should have had the principal reduced — none of which was accounted for because the intermediary pretender lenders kept the money for themselves.

By Alistair Barr & John Spence, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Ambac Financial Group Inc. shares surged 71% on heavy volume Friday, after the bond insurer said it swung to a fourth-quarter net profit.

Ambac (ABK 1.10, +0.46, +71.47%) said late Thursday that quarterly net income was $558.1 million, or $1.93 a share. That compares with a net loss of $2.34 billion or $8.14 a share in the same period a year earlier.

The improvement was mainly driven by a $472 million tax benefit, the company said, as well as by lower expenses from losses in its main financial-guarantee business.

Total net loss and loss expenses were $385.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2009, down from $916.4 million in the final quarter of 2008, Ambac reported.

Ambac, one of the world’s largest bond insurers, has been hit hard by losses from mortgage-related guarantees it sold during the housing-market boom of the last decade. When the real-estate market collapsed, Ambac was left paying big claims on those guarantees.

Last month, the regulator of Ambac’s main bond-insurance subsidiary, Wisconsin’s Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, seized a big chunk of its business to protect hundreds of billions of dollars in guarantees on municipal bonds. See Read about Ambac “amputation.”

Ambac also has been settling some of its obligations at large discounts, partly because counterparties worry that the bond insurer is too financially precarious to pay anywhere near 100 cents on the dollar on its guarantees.

“The transfer of structured finance obligations to the state regulator and the subsequent payment at a discounted rate is a de-facto default,” said Egan-Jones Ratings, a rating agency that’s paid by investors rather than issuers, on Friday. “However, credit quality of the remaining corpus is enhanced.”

Egan-Jones affirmed its rating on Ambac at BB+, but noted this rating only applies to the business units that aren’t seized by the Wisconsin regulator.

Shares of Ambac dropped after the seizure was announced, and recently traded near 50 cents. The company’s stock traded close to $100 before the financial crisis.

On Friday, the stock surged 71% to close at $1.10 as almost 200 million shares changed hands. The average weekly trading volume is 72 million shares, according to FactSet data.

Still, Jim Ryan, an equity analyst at Morningstar, said Ambac’s quarterly results weren’t as strong as suggested by the company’s reported net income of $1.93 a share.

“For all the favorable accounting benefits, the fact remains that Ambac has not written any new business in more than a year and continues to exist in runoff mode,” Ryan wrote in a note to investors on Friday.

When analyzing insurers in “runoff,” investors should try to work out whether there are enough reserves to settle claims on existing policies, Ryan explained.

Ambac’s qualified statutory capital fell almost 70% in 2009 while total claims paying resources dropped 20% for the year, he noted.

“With little improvement in the housing market (Ambac’s primary source of claims) and the potential for a double dip in housing prices on the horizon, which could contribute to the growing inventory of potential foreclosures, we think the future remains opaque, to say the least,” Ryan wrote.

Alistair Barr is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco. John Spence is a reporter for MarketWatch in Boston.

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: accounting, Alistair Barr, AMbac, default, HERS, illusory losses, John Spence, MarketWatch, mortgage backed securities, pretender lenders, price-earnings ratio, principal reduction, sham financial transactions, third party payments | 11 Comments »

A Thought About Bankruptcy Petitions: Creditor ID

Posted on March 16, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Upon finding that a portion of those payments should be applied to the subject loan, the declaration of default would be invalid because it would either be wrong inasmuch that the third party payments would at least be prepayments of future monthly payments, or wrong because the third party payments reflected an inaccurate accounting of the principal due.

OK let’s be clear that I don’t know bankruptcy well enough to even have an opinion, but I do have an idea and I would like this post forwarded to bankruptcy attorneys to get their reaction.

Here is the proposition: A Petitioner files for bankruptcy where one of the issues is a securitized loan. My idea is that the schedules NOT show the any of the known parties as creditors, because they are not. Especially if you have an expert opinion that describes the creditors as being unnamed but readily identifiable investors if the servicer will respond properly to the Qualified Written Request.

Upon reflection I don’t see why we would name the pretender lenders as creditors at all. I would leave them off the list of creditors (on any new cases filed) because they are not creditors. Maybe file amended schedules removing them. I would disclose the non-judicial foreclosure attempt wherever you can do that of course. Show the house as an asset with undetermined value. Wouldn’t that force them into being proactive? They would have to say “Hey! We are creditors secured by this property.” That would force the burden of proof onto them even as to standing, wouldn’t it?

Can someone who is not a creditor on the schedules file a proof of claim? What happens if you deny the claim and deny they are creditors? Do THEY have to file the adversary? Your position would be that you have this Expert Declaration that identifies the creditors, at least by description, and these would-be foreclosers don’t meet the description. So you disclosed the fact that they were claiming a default but you deny they are even creditors, much less secured.

It would seem that this would force them into proving to a bankruptcy court that they actually have authority which in turn would require them to produce all the documents granting them that authority. It also seems to me that they would have to come up with a full accounting for all payments from all parties, including from credit default swaps, insurance and Federal bailouts.

In the course of the proceedings, your allegation would be that they did in fact receive third party payments as has been widely reported by the press. They would probably answer something like those payments are irrelevant.

Your response to their assertion is to ask the court, who decides whether third party payments are relevant or not — the court or the creditor? The court would most likely order them to disclose all such third party payments along with documentation thereon so that the court could determine whether the payments should be applied to the pools in which the subject mortgage loan is Located” (assuming the assignments are valid), and then in turn determine what percentage of the payment should be allocated to the subject loan.

Upon finding that a portion of those payments should be applied to the subject loan, the declaration of default would be invalid because it would either be wrong inasmuch that the third party payments would at least be prepayments of future monthly payments, or wrong because the third party payments reflected an inaccurate accounting of the principal due.

Comments?

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: accounting, adversary, bankruptcy, credit default swaps, creditor, Federal Bailout, foreclosure, insurance, schedules, secured claims, securitized mortgage, third party payments, unsecured creditors | 32 Comments »

Sample Interrogatories

Posted on March 11, 2010 by Neil Garfield

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION – ESSEX VICINAGE

——————————————————————X Civil Action

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Of

Argent Securities, Inc. Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-PW1

Docket Number: XXX

REQUEST FOR

INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

XXX; John Doe,

Husband Of XXX XXX Avenue

Rosedale, NY 11422

Defendant(s)/Pro Se ——————————————————————X

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY: INTERROGATORIES

i). Defendant, XXX, serves these interrogatories on Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as authorized by Case Management Order dated September 30, 2009, and by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company must serve an answer to each interrogatory separately and fully, in writing and under oath within 30 days after service to: XXX, XXX Ave., Rosedale, NY 11422.

INSTRUCTIONS

ii). These requests for interrogatories are directed toward all information known or available to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company – not its lawyer, Ralph F. Casale, Esq. – including information contained in the records and documents in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s custody or control or available to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company upon reasonable inquiry.

iii). Each request for interrogatory is to be deemed a continuing one. If, after serving an answer, you obtain or become aware of any further information pertaining to that request, you are requested to serve a supplemental answer setting forth such information.

iv). As to every request for interrogatory which an authorized officer of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company fails to answer in whole or in part, the subject matter of that request will be deemed confessed and stipulated as fact to the Court.

v). Kindly attach additional sheets as required identifying the Interrogatory being answered. You have a continuing obligation to update the information in these Interrogatories as you acquire new information. If no such update is provided in a reasonable period of time that you acquired such information, it may be excluded at trial or hearing.

DEFINITIONS

vi). “You” and “your” include Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and any and all persons acting for or in concert with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

vii). “Document” is synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) and includes computer records in any format. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. The term “document” also includes any “tangible things” as that term is used in Rule 34(a).

viii). Parties. The term “plaintiff” or “defendant”, as well as a party’s full or abbreviated name or a pronoun referring to a party, means the party and, where applicable, (his/her/its) agents, representatives, officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent, subsidiaries, or affiliates.

ix). Identify (person). When referring to a person, “identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person’s full name, present or last known address, telephone number, and when referring to a natural person, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in compliance with this paragraph, only the name of that person needs to be listed in response to later discovery requesting the identification of that person.

x). Identify (document). When referring to a document, “identify” means to give, to the extent known, the following information: (a) the type of document; (b) the general subject matter of the document; (c) the date of the document; (d) the authors, address, and recipients of the document; (e) the location of the document; (f) the identity of the person who has custody of the document; and (g) whether the document has been destroyed, and if so, (i) the date of its destruction, (ii) the reason for its destruction, and (iii) the identity of the person who destroyed it.

xi). Relating. The term “relating” means concerning, referring, describing, evidencing, or constituting, directly or indirectly.

xii). Any. The term “any” should be understood in either its most or its least inclusive sense as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all reasons that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope.

REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

1. Please identify each person who answer these interrogatories and each person (attach pages if necessary) who assisted, including attorneys, accountants, employees of third party entities, or any other person consulted, however briefly, on the content of any answer to these interrogatories.

ANSWER:

2. For each of the above persons please state whether they have personal knowledge regarding the subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

3. Please state the date of the first contact between Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and the borrower in the subject loan transaction, the name, address and telephone number of the person(s) in your company who was/were involved in that contact.

ANSWER:

4. Please identify every potential party to this lawsuit.

ANSWER:

5. Please identify the person(s) involved in the underwriting of the subject loan. “Underwriting” refers to any person who made representations, evaluations or appraisals of value of the home, value of the security instruments, and ability of the borrower to pay.

ANSWER:

6. Please identify any person(s) who had any contact with any third party regarding the securitization, sale, transfer, assignment, hypothecation or any document or agreement, oral, written or otherwise, that would effect the funding, closing, or the receipt of money from a third party in a transaction that referred to the subject loan.

ANSWER:

7. Please identify any person(s) known or believed by anyone at Deutsche Bank National Trust Company who had received physical possession of the note and allonges, the mortgage, or any document (including but not limited to assignment, endorsement, allonges, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Trust Agreement, letters or email or faxes of transmittals including attachments) that refers to or incorporates terms regarding the securitization, sale, transfer, assignment, hypothecation or any document or agreement, oral, written or otherwise, that would effect the funding, or the receipt of money from a third party in a transaction, and whether such money was allocated to principal, interest or other obligation related to the subject loan.

ANSWER:

8. Please identify all persons known or believed by anyone in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or any affiliate to have participated in the securitization of the subject loan including but not limited to mortgage aggregators, mortgage brokers, financial institutions, Structured Investment Vehicles, Special Purpose Vehicles, Trustees, Managers of derivative securities, managers of the company that issued an Asset-backed security, Underwriters, Rating Agency, Credit Enhancement Provider.

ANSWER:

9. Please identify the person(s) or entities that are entitled, directly or indirectly to the stream of revenue from the borrower in the subject loan.

ANSWER:

10 Please identify the person(s) in custody of any document that identifies the loan servicer(s) in the subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

11. Please identify any person(s) in custody of any document which refers to any instruction or authority to enforce the note or mortgage in the subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

12. Other than people identified above, identify any and all persons who have or had personal knowledge of the subject loan transaction, underwriting of the subject loan transaction, securitization, sale, transfer, assignment or hypothecation of the subject loan transaction, or the decision to enforce the note or mortgage in the subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

13. Please state address, phone number, and employment history for the past 3 years of Tamara Price, Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, “designated as the Assignor” of the mortgage loan to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Assignment of Mortgage recorded in Essex County Register’s Office on June 25, 2008).

ANSWER:

14. Please state the date on which Argent Mortgage Company, LLC (originator) sold the mortgage loan to Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Seller and Master Servicer).

ANSWER:

15. Please state the date on which Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Seller and Master Servicer) sold the mortgage loan to Argent Securities, Inc. (Depositor).

ANSWER:

16. Did Argent Mortgage Company, LLC (originator) or previous servicers of this account receive any compensation, fee, commission, payment, rebate or other financial considerations from Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Seller and Master Servicer) or any affiliate or from the trust funds, for handling, processing, originating or administering this loan?

ANSWER:

17. If yes, please describe and itemize each and every form of compensation, fee, commission, payment, rebate or other financial consideration paid to Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, the originator or previous servicers of this account by Ameriquest or any affiliate, or from the trust fund.

ANSWER:

18. Please identify any party, person or entity known or suspected by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or any of your officers, employees, independent contractors or other agents, or servants of your company who might possess or claim rights under the subject loan or mortgage and/or note.

ANSWER:

19. Please identify the custodian of the records that would show all entries regarding the flow of funds for the subject loan transaction prior to and after closing of the loan. (Flow of funds, means any record of money received, any record of money paid out and any bookkeeping or accounting entry, general ledger and accounting treatment of the subject loan transaction at your company or any affiliate including but not limited to whether the subject loan transaction was ever entered into any category on the balance sheet at any time or times, whether any reserve for default was ever entered on the balance sheet, and whether any entry, report or calculation was made regarding the effect of this loan transaction on the capital reserve requirements of your company or any affiliate.)

ANSWER:

20. Please identify the auditor and/or accountant of your financial statements or tax returns.

ANSWER:

21. Please identify any attorney with whom you consulted or who rendered an opinion regarding the subject loan transaction or any pattern of securitization that may have effected the subject loan transaction directly or indirectly.

ANSWER:

22. Please identify any person who served as an officer or director with Deutsche Bank National Company or Argent Mortgage Company LLC commencing with 6 months prior to closing of the subject loan transaction through the present. (This interrogatory is limited only to those people who had knowledge, responsibility, or otherwise made or received reports regarding information that included the subject loan transaction, and/or the process by which solicitation, underwriting and closing of residential mortgage loans, or the securitization, sale, transfer or assignment or hypothecation of residential mortgage loans to third parties.)

ANSWER:

23. Did any investor/certificate holder approve or authorize foreclosure proceedings on XXX’s property?

ANSWER:

24. Please identify the person(s) involved or having knowledge of any insurance policy or product, plan or instrument describing over-collateralization, cross-collateralization or guarantee or other instrument hedging the risk of default as to any person or entity acting as an issuer of any securities or certificates. (Such instrument(s) relate to the composition of a pool, tranche or other aggregation of assets that was created, included or referred to the subject loan and the pool or aggregation was transmitted, transferred, assigned, pledged or hypothecated to any entity or buyer. A person who “transmitted, transferred, assigned, pledged or hypothecated” refers to any person who suggested, approved, received or accepted the composition of the pool or aggregation made or confirmed representations, evaluations or appraisals of value of the home, value of the security instruments, ability of the borrower to pay.)

ANSWER:

25. Please identify the person(s) involved or having knowledge of any credit default swap or other instrument hedging the risk of default as to any person or entity acting as an issuer of any securities or certificates. (Such instrument(s) relate to the composition of a pool, tranche or other aggregation of assets that was created, included or referred to the subject loan.)

ANSWER:

Submitted by: XXX

XXX Ave

Rosedale, NY 11422

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, I, XXX certify that on this 29th day of the month of October, 2009.

1. A true copy of the 10-page Request for Interrogatories was served on The New Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division – Essex Vincinage, at 212 Wasington Street, Eighth Floor, Newark, New Jersey.

2. A copy of the foregoing was mailed on October 28, 2009 to

Dated: Queens New York

This _________ day of ___________ 2009 XXX

XXX Ave

Rosedale, NY 11422

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: ability to pay, accounting records, Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Appraisal, Argent Mortgage company, Assignment and ASsumption Agreement, certificate holder, Depositor, Deutsch Bank, disocvery, Essex County, forensic analysis, FRCP 34(a), interrogatories, Master Servicer, National Trust Company, originator, pooling, PSA, receipt of money, Servicing, Tamara Price, third party payments, underwriting | 12 Comments »

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYERS

Posted on January 31, 2010 by Neil Garfield

See Judge Long’s Decision – Make sure you shepardize 384283_Ibanez Larace motion to vacate memorandum Oct2009Misc 384283 and Misc 3867551

when a foreclosure is noticed and conducted for one party
by another, the name of the principal must be disclosed in the notice.

the plaintiffs themselves recognized that they needed assignments in recordable form explicitly to them (not in blank) prior to their initiation of the mortgage foreclosure process, that the plaintiffs’ “authorized agent” argument fails both on its facts and as a matter of law

Editor’s Note: We’ve reported on this case before. And as a caution, there is report that the case was overturned on appeal but I don’t see it. Either way, the reasoning of the case is extremely persuasive and the only basis for reversal would be on procedural grounds, not substance.

Here is the essence of the pretender lender tactic. Their argument is basically that they have the right to foreclose whether or not they are the real party in interest, whether or not they are the holder in due course and especially whether or not they are the creditor in the “loan” transaction with the homeowner(s).

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYERS: If you engage the “enemy” on their terms you will most likely lose. After all they created a narration that they think they can win. So YOUR strategy should be to change the narrative to YOUR points that can win.

In this case, it was simple. The Judge simply saw that the creditor was not involved in the foreclosure process and that the sale was therefore invalid. Implicitly the Judge was protecting both the real creditor and the homeowner from financial double (or multiple jeopardy).

So the Judge helped out the homeowner here by giving the homeowner the correct narrative. to wit: even if the party seeking to initiate the collection on the note or the foreclosure of the mortgage is an authorized agent (by virtue of possession or holding the note, etc.) the principal MUST BE DISCLOSED. How else can the court or the homeowner or the principal know the matter is subject to disposition through sale or judgment?

In a recent case in Arizona a pro se litigant finally penetrated the fog of Chauncery (see Dickens, BLEAK HOUSE), and the Judge who denied all homeowner motions before the weekend, finally got it and asked the attorney for the pretender lender what was going on (in another case in Ohio the Judge said “what are you trying to pull here?”).

Those cases are now proceeding through discovery (which we all know will never be completed) in which the identity of the creditor and a full accounting of ALL money transacted in connection with the subject loan is fully disclosed.

While there are cases we are tracking in which the homeowner is being bounced on his/her rear end, the tide is turning. The fact that there was federal bailout money and insurance proceeds paid in connection with these loans, is extremely relevant to the amount due and the identity of the current creditor.

This in turn is extremely relevant to the homeowner and the “lender” complying with federal mandate for modifications or state mandate for mediation. If the creditor is unknown how can the court or anyone else know that the “agent” is authorized?

At first the Judge’s knee jerk reaction is “What are you talking about, who else would make payments on this loan.?” But upon hearing the answer that the U.S. Treasury (TARP, TALF etc.), Federal reserve, and counter-parties in credit default swap insurance have made billions of dollars in payments and have not thus far accounted for their use of the money, the Judge may not believe you will succeed in your case but he will agree that you have a right to inquire. And THAT is all you need. because once you make the inquiry, the pretender lender will be on the defensive from that point on, disclosing itself as an impostor and a fabricator.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: accounting, agent, ARIZONA, authorized agent, creditor, disclosure, discovery, financial double jeopardy, foreclosure defense, HOLDER, holder in due course, Ibanez, Judge Long, Larace, Massachusetts, mediation, modification, Ohio, pretender lender, principal, right to inquire, rules of engagement, third party payments, vacate | 5 Comments »

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Pages

Spread the word

Like this:

Call 520-405-1688 for West Coast and 954-495-9867 for East Coast AND 850-765-1236 for Northern Florida

For Securitization Risk Analysis Report (for Buyers and Lenders) call 954-495-9867.

SEE http://WWW.LIVINGLIESSTORE.COM

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Purchase Memberships, Books, Services from our Online Store Customer Service West Coast 520-405-1688 East Coast 954-495-9867 GET HELP!!!

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Application in financial markets

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

To Fix Housing, See the Data

By JOE NOCERA

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

SECURITIZATION If They Did It Right

Spread the word

Like this:

California homeowners file class action suit against Bank of America for withholding TARP funds

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Living Lies Services

Follow LivingLies Blog

Recent Posts

1 Links to Related External Sites

CALCULATORS

economics

foreclosure defense

Glossaries

Help Yourself

Landmark Cases

Law Review Articles and Studies

Living Lies Services