Buying U.S. Foreclosures: A Risky Business

Posted on July 13, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

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

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

14 Things Every Canadian Buyer Should Know Before                              Taking the Plunge

Editor’s Comment:  

Canadians and other foreign investors are joining with U.S. investors in buying distressed residential real estate in the U.S. Practically by definition they have no idea about the risks they are taking. They are taking the “knowledge” from 15 years ago and applying it to a market that does not even remotely resemble the old market.

Canada weathered the storm caused by Wall Street antics by simply not playing. Canadian banks saw inherent risks and moral hazards that they wanted no part in playing. While the rest of the world laughed at Canada’s stuffiness, the banks, and its depositors are just fine thank you, although their economy is taking a hit due to a decline in demand for exports. So Canadians with Canadian money that is not debased are coming to America in droves to take advantage of the “oversold” prices of housing. They are buying these properties in droves and unwittingly making themselves part of a corrupt marketplace in which they could lose their money, their title, their property and their right to possession of that property because they bought it from someone who didn’t own it or because they assumed that the old mortgage had been paid off and properly satisfied. This article explains why investors show exercise great care to preserve the value and existence their investments.

1. With the Massachusetts Supreme Court having decided that foreclosure is only valid if the would-be forecloser owns both the note and the mortgage — a black letter law concept that has been in existence since before the American Revolution — the questions are evolving from issues relating to wrongful foreclosures to “what do we do about it, now that we know the foreclosures did not meet the basic elements of a foreclosure action under any analysis?”

2. Some decisions, like Hogan in Arizona appear to create a debatable issue. But read closely, the decision stands for the proposition that it is not necessary to possess the note in order to give the instruction to the Trustee on Deed of Trust to issue a Notice of Default and/or a Notice of sale. It does not state that anyone without proper credentials can present themselves as the creditor. So the auction, if it occurs, is strictly limited to cash bids, since the creditor has neither stepped forward nor made a claim as to the amounts due.

3. In a prescient note, the Hogan court simply states that the borrower neither denied the debt nor the security instrument or the note. If they do so, then the game is on, and the banks and servicers are “out of the money.” They are not creditors, they have only the most tenuous argument to present themselves as sub-servicers, and they have no authority to speak for the Master servicer or the investors from whom money was taken under false pretenses.

4. It is now apparent that this has not escaped attorneys or judges. If there is a denial of the obligation, note, mortgage (Deed of Trust), plus a denial of the default and the amount claimed as due from a party whom the borrower denies is the creditor, the case must move forward into discovery. A motion for summary judgment by the banks and sub-servicers will be routinely denied if it is met with an affidavit from the homeowner or borrower that contains these denials.  Now that borrowers and even homeowners who have already lost their property in foreclosure and eviction are overturning foreclosures, regaining title and possession of the property, the “new” buyer is left with only a claim for money from their title carrier and a potential claim against the bank or servicer that “sold” them the property.

5. The title companies have already decided this point. They will and they’re routinely writing exceptions into the title policy that actually puts the liability for indemnification on the buyer rather than the title company, if the claim arises out of illegal origination or illegal foreclosures.

6. The Bank will fight the Buyer on the warranty deed recitals until the investor gives up. But the main point, is that investment is US distressed property is buying a lawsuit UNLESS you file a quiet title action and it sticks. Remember, you are giving notice to John Does 1-10,000 through publication who probably don’t read your local paper that publishes legal notices.

7. These investor lenders have a legitimate beef. They gave up money and signed papers that assured them they were getting good loans within 90 days of the transaction in which the investor advanced the money to the investment banker. What they are getting is bad loans pitched over the fence years after the transaction.  In the foreclosures, especially the non-judicial foreclosures, there is no need or opportunity to give notice to the investors that this loan is NOW claimed to be part of the pool they think they own.

8. The investors now have a good reason to enter the picture and assert that they don’t want this bad loan, they didn’t buy it and it wasn’t transferred into the “pool” within 90 days of the investor’s closing with the investment banker. Thus they can argue without any real defense from the banks that the assignments are mere offers that the pools neither accepted nor could accept under the terms of the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement. But whether they make the claim or simply COULD make the claim, that is the essence of clouded title. And that is how you end up in a lawsuit you never imagined.

9. Add to that the assignment was fabricated, forged and fraudulently presented without any financial transaction backing it up, and the investor wins hands down.

10. Realtors are no help on this since all they want is property moving thus producing commissions. They like to point out that the deed in a short-sale is much better because it is the homeowner who actually signs the deed. And that is true. what they ignore is that the payoff of the old mortgage was taken by a stranger to the transaction who accepted the money and then issued an authorized release and satisfaction of the old mortgage lien when the buyer closes.

11. The banks and sub-services are starting up their own title companies or entering into confidential agreements with the title companies that incidentally were part owners of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) or the JPM entity they ran for a while when they saw the hand writing on the wall for MERS. But they are only creating the appearance of insurance protection with no intention of honoring the claim or fixing the title problem they reported to the buyer wasn’t there. Now the ttile companies say their title report is only a worksheet and you have no right to rely on it. There are about ten thousands cases in precedent that disagree with this ridiculous assertion.

12. The bottom line is that a buyer who does not negotiate the right provisions in the title policy (it CAN be done) is going to go through (1) euphoria about how brilliant he is to have picked up such a bargain (2) no title and/or (3) two or more mortgages that still encumber the property despite the supposed payoff and recording of release and satisfaction.

13. The final coup de grace is that the buyers who fail to heed these warnings wil find themselves bankrupt when it comes down to selling or refinancing the property or when they find themselves defending  a lawsuit from a former homeowner demanding that the foreclosure be overturned and possession restored. There are thousands of these cases and within the next 2 years there will be tens of thousands of these cases. Your title company is not likely to defend you unless you negotiate that and other terms into the your title policy.

14. BOTTOM LINE: Don’t close without an experienced real property attorney and if he or she is dismissive of these claims then they are just as ignorant as you are.  Move on to an attorney who does understand negotiation of the terms of deed and title policy and leave the paper pushers in the dust. If you want more help, write to me at neil@livingliesblog.com.

It was the absence of information that caused virtually everyone to misread the risks that were inherent in the mortgage meltdown period during which prices were artificially inflated.  The same absence of information is leading Canadians to misinterpret the market and assume risks that are not apparent to them.  It is only through competent professionals that they should complete any real estate transaction in the United States.  In this case competence includes special knowledge of the securitization of mortgages, the current status of corruption in our title system, and the ultimate risk of losing the entirety of their investment, the title they thought they had, and the right to possession of property which they thought had been properly purchased and protected with a title insurance policy.  Canadians would be unwise to accept the assertions of title companies who produce title reports and commitments for title insurance that merely perpetuate the corruption of title in America.  These same entities actually have ownership interests in the private system of recording established by the banks.  Virtually everyone in the marketplace has a conflict of interest that may ultimately dash the hopes on investors and potentially remove their nest egg meant for retirement.

BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

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

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

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 69 Comments »

TITLE COMPANIES AND AGENTS BRACE FOR WORST YEAR OF THEIR EXISTENCE

Posted on January 10, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

We all know the expression about the light at the end of the tunnel being an oncoming train. Title agents and title carriers are in the middle of a tunnel intersecting with other tunnels each with a light of an oncoming train. In a word, they don’t have nearly enough money to pay off all the claims since they issued multiple policies on the same crap. These title policies, overall, may total as much as $15 trillion or more.

They insured the homeowner, the “lender”, the aggregator of mortgage loans (who didn’t have them), the trust for the pool, the third party beneficiaries (investors) of the pool etc. “How do I owe thee, let me count the ways.” Their agents closed most of the 60 million transactions that were registered on MERS and many others as well.

Any title examiner who now looks at the title record, especially in view of the IBANEZ Massachusetts Supreme Court Decision, see also ibanez-decision-analyzed, cannot issue a commitment letter much less a policy without adding exceptions to the schedule that includes virtually all transactions relating to the mythical securitization infrastructure whose documents provided the blueprint for action, copied from the REMIC statute, part of the Internal Revenue Code. The fact that these parties never followed the blueprint or the law is almost besides the point.

These title companies were suckered in by the same tactics used with the rating agencies and reputation of the megabanks. The problem is that it is the job of the title company to know, regardless if someone is lying. And it stretches any reasonable belief system to think that these closing agents doing about 1 closing every 20-30 minutes, did not know that the money they were getting as escrow agent or closing agent wasn’t coming from the party disclosed as lender. So besides the “Should have known” criteria it is obvious that the title agents and presumably the title examiners, and therefor the title companies had ACTUAL knowledge of the fraud.

For over three years I have been saying that this boils down to a simple title problem and that a lawsuit to quiet title is the ultimate answer to the issue. The title record is completely corrupted with wild deeds. Just because they have title insurance doesn’t mean the title is good — quite the contrary it just means the title companies are liable for whatever happens after that. And so it is possible that the agents in the mythical securitization chain have another bonanza on their hands — getting paid yet again, for the fifth time, on the same transactions.

Meanwhile none of these payments get credited to the investor who is the creditor and lender, thus the obligation is not reduced by the payments, thus the borrower is held to owe more money than the lender actually lost.

Now the question is what do they do about people who want title policies on “new transactions.” If they issue the exception then they are admitting that the original policy was wrong, whether they wrote it or not. If they don’t, they are out of business because most homes are effected by this monstrous corruption of our title system.

FROM THE COMMENT SECTION:

see title-insurance-view-from-the-other-side

I will let you read the following journals to decide what you think about this mega Title Insurance Industry….

http://www.alta.org/publications/titlenews/10/2010.cfm

Here is another group that is critical of this former group…

http://www.nailta.org/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44994600/NAILTA-White-Paper-on-MERS-H-R-6460

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , | 29 Comments »

Wells Fargo, Option One, American Home Mortgage Relationship

Posted on March 30, 2010 by Neil Garfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 52 Comments »

Assignments to Non MERS Members Further Cloud Title

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Your case should first be summarized by your securitization expert who relies upon the expert opinions of others as to underwriting, appraisal, mortgage brokers etc. Then those other experts come in. After that, the forensic analyst and homeowner come in to fill in the facts upon which the experts relied.

But you build your case in reverse of the order of presentation, starting with the homeowner, then the forensic analyst, then the sub-experts, and finally the securitization expert.

From: Tony Brown

Editor’s Note: I have not bothered to edit the following comment because for those of you who are attending the forensic workshop I wanted you to see how information is often presented. Here is clear evidence of (a) why a forensic analyst is essential and (b) why you need a method of presentation that gives the Judge a clear picture of the true nature of a securitized transaction.

The other lesson to be gleaned is that forensic analysts should stick to facts and expert witnesses should stick to opinions. Lawyers should stick to argument. Any overlap will result in a brutal cross examination that will, quite rightfully, draw blood.

I’m planning a workshop whose working name is Motion Practice and Discovery for late in May. You see there is method to our madness here notwithstanding our critics.

Your case should first be summarized by your securitization expert who relies upon the expert opinions of others as to underwriting, appraisal, mortgage brokers etc. Then those other experts come in. After that, the forensic analyst and homeowner come in to fill in the facts upon which the experts relied.

But you build your case in reverse of the order of presentation, starting with the homeowner, then the forensic analyst, then the sub-experts, and finally the securitization expert.

Mers was named nominee on the mortgage and filed at the Register Of Deeds in Greenville SC, supposedly according to a lost note affidavit the original lender RBMG sold the note and according to MERS servicer ID the loan was transferred off of the MERS system and MIN# deactivated because of a sale to a non-mers member in 2002. NO ASSIGNMENT WAS RECORDED.Now the new owner EMC sold the loan to Bear Stearns which deposited into the Asset Backed Securities which did an assignment/sell to JP MORGAN CHASE as trustee. Now there has been a foreclosure started on the loan in March 2009 by The Bank OF New York Mellon as successor trustee for JP MORGAN CHASE who claims to be the real party in interest and hold the note. By way Of an assignment which was recorded at the ROD after the LIS-PENDENS and after the filing of complaint.Here is more fraud because the assignment was from MERS on behalf of the original lender RBMG which is defunct and has been since 2005 to the THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON. MERS has no authority to do an assignment because the loan was transferred from them in 2002 and Mers was Longer the mortgagee as nominee of record.Now are you with me( no chain of title) the BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON produced in discovery to me an allonge RBMG to EMC along with the lost note affidavit. EMC showed an allonge to JP MORGAN CHASE which skipped BEAR STEARNS. BEAR STEARNS was the depositor into the securities. First let start with the allonges: according to the UCC an allonge is only used when there is NO ROOM ON THE ORIGINAL NOTE FOR ENDORSEMENT and must be firmly attached as to become a part of the note. AN ALLONGE cannot be used to transfer interest and is invalid if there is room on the note for endorsements and is invalid it not attached. A lost note and two allonges that were not signed and not dated and even skipped BEAR STEARNS that deposited it into the securities is the purported chain of title , now let’s look at the prospectus:Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Inc · 424B5 · Bear Stearns Asset Backed Certificates Series 2003-2 · On 6/30/03 Document 1 of 1 · 424B5 · Prospectus . Assignment of the Mortgage Loans; Repurchase At the time of issuance of the certificates, the depositor will cause the mortgage loans, together with all principal and interest due with respect to such mortgage loans after the cut-off date to be sold to the trust. The mortgage loans in each of the mortgage loan groups will be identified in a schedule appearing as an exhibit to the pooling and servicing agreement with each mortgage loan group separately identified. Such schedule will include information as to the principal balance of each mortgage loan as of the cut-off date, as well as information including, among other things, the mortgage rate,the borrower’s monthly payment and the maturity date of each mortgage note. In addition, the depositor will deposit with Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as custodian and agent for the trustee, the following documents with respect to each mortgage loan: (a) except with respect to a MOM loan, the original mortgage note, endorsed without recourse in the following form: “Pay to the order of JPMorgan Chase Bank, as S-40——————————————————————————– trustee for certificate-holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-2 without recourse,” with all intervening endorsements, to the extent available, showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the seller or, if the original mortgage note is unavailable to the depositor, a photocopy thereof, if available, together with a lost note affidavit; (b) the original recorded mortgage or a photocopy thereof, and if the related mortgage loan is a MOM loan, noting the applicable mortgage identification number for that mortgage loan; (c) except with respect to a mortgage loan that is registered on the MERS(R) System, a duly executed assignment of the mortgage to “JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee for certificate-holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-2, without recourse;” in recordable form, as described in the pooling and servicing agreement; (d) originals or duplicates of all interim recorded assignments of such mortgage, if any and if available to the depositor; (e) the original or duplicate original lender’s title policy or, in the event such original title policy has not been received from the insurer, such original or duplicate original lender’s title policy shall be delivered within one year of the closing date or, in the event such original lender’s title policy is unavailable, a photocopy of such title policy or, in lieu thereof, a current lien search on the related property; and (f) the original or a copy of all available assumption, modification or substitution agreements, if any. In general, assignments of the mortgage loans provided to the custodian on behalf of the trustee will not be recorded in the appropriate public office for real property records, based upon an opinion of counsel to the effect that such recording is not required to protect the trustee’s interests in the mortgage loan against the claim of any subsequent transferee or any successor to or creditor of the depositor or the seller, or as to which the rating agencies advise that the omission to record therein will not affect their ratings of the offered certificates. In connection with the assignment of any mortgage loan that is registered on the MERS(R) System, the depositor will cause the MERS(R) System to indicate that those mortgage loans have been assigned by EMC to the depositor and by the depositor to the trustee by including (or deleting, in the case of repurchased mortgage loans) in the computer files (a) the code in the field which identifies the trustee and (b) the code in the field “Pool Field” which identifies the series of certificates issued. Neither the depositor nor the master servicer will alter these codes (except in the case of a repurchased mortgage loan). A “MOM loan” is any mortgage loan as to which, at origination, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acts as mortgagee, solely as nominee for the originator of that mortgage loan and its successors and assigns. S-41——————————————————————————– The custodian on behalf of the trustee will perform a limited review of the mortgage loan documents on or prior to the closing date or in the case of any document permitted to be delivered after the closing date, promptly after the custodian’s receipt of such documents and will hold such documents in trust for the benefit of the holders of the certificates. In addition, the seller will make representations and warranties in the pooling and servicing agreement as of the cut-off date in respect of the mortgage loans. The depositor will file the pooling and servicing agreement containing such representations and warranties with the Securities and Exchange Commission in a report on Form 8-K following the closing date. After the closing date, if any document is found to be missing or defective in any material respect, or if a representation or warranty with respect to any mortgage loan is breached and such breach materially and adversely affects the interests of the holders of the certificates in such mortgage loan, the custodian, on behalf of the trustee, is required to notify the seller in writing. If the seller cannot or does not cure such omission,defect or breach within 90 days of its receipt of notice from the custodian, the seller is required to repurchase the related mortgage loan from the trust fund at a price equal to 100% of the stated principal balance thereof as of the date of repurchase plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon at the mortgage rate to the first day of the month following the month of repurchase. In addition, if the obligation to repurchase the related mortgage loan results from a breach of the seller’s representations regarding predatory lending, the seller will be obligated to pay any resulting costs and damages incurred by the trust. Rather than repurchase the mortgage loan as provided above, the seller may remove such mortgage loan from the trust fund and substitute in its place another mortgage loan of like characteristics; however, such substitution is only permitted within two years after the closing date. With respect to any repurchase or substitution of a mortgage loan that is not in default or as to which a default is not imminent, the trustee must have received a satisfactory opinion of counsel that such repurchase or substitution will not cause the trust fund to lose the status of its REMIC.

I’m not a MOM loan the loan transferred off of MERS, Mers no longer tracked the assignments and let’s not forget I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION THE ORIGINAL NOTE STAMPED FULLY PAID AND SATISFIED NEGOTIATED TO ME FROM RBMG. The note is date stamped MARCH 2002 and has been in my possession since 2004 along with a letter from the RBMG stating the loan is fully paid and satisfied address to me which is the declaratory letter.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

How to Buy a Foreclosed House: It’s a business — it’s an opportunity— it’s a risk

Posted on December 5, 2009 by Neil Garfield

The way the media tells it, there are million of bargains out there that will be the house of your dreams and will make you rich. If it seems too good to be true, that would because it IS too good to be true. As a backdrop to this discussion remember that there are over 2 million homes that could be on the market but for the fact that the “owners” don’t want to flood the market. 2 million homes means there are too many homes for any foreseeable demand from buyers. That means that bargain prices are simply early predictors of where the market is heading. Those statistics, taken from over 500,000 homes reported and sampled, shows that the average “discount” is 15%-20%. In a normal market the discount would be real and relatively stable. In this market where we have 2 million homes already in the pipeline and around 3-4 million MORE homes coming it is not merely possible but rather likely that prices will continue to be depressed.

Add to that the credit crunch and the current environment where banks are reinstating underwriting standards where they verify the appraisal, verify your ability to pay, verify your history, verify other conditions affecting the value or future value of the home, and you have a seller’s glut with very little demand. Analysts from companies that maintain divisions employing economists now are estimating that it will take 6-12 years to clean up this mess. I think these estimates will change monthly until they give recognition to the fact that 10 years is about the best we could ever hope for, 30 years in about the worst case, and that the probable time will be something close to 20 years. That is 2 decades of confused downward price pressure, title errors, defects and defects, and figuring out how to undo the the chaos created by Wall Street.

That said, there are many reasons why you SHOULD buy a foreclosed home. First you SHOULD buy a home if you want to live in it — but beware that most people THINK they will live there a long time but frequently move within 3-5 years due to unforeseen circumstances. Financially, the likelihood that you will financially benefit from such circumstances is extremely low. Renting the same house or one just like it will probably cost no more than 60% of the monthly payment you would have even if you put 20% down payment. And you don’t get stuck trying to sell a house in a market that will basically be unchanged or worse than it is now.

Second you should buy a home on a short sale or otherwise, if you have capital and a good credit score and want to do something good. Let’s assume the house was originally bought for $450,000 and the buyer made a 20% down payment. So the buyer paid $90,000 PLUS all the improvements that are made, especially to a new developer tract house. So the sake of our example, the buyer now finds himself with a house that is currently “appraised” at $275,000. The “lender” refuses (actually lacks the authority because they are not really the lender) to modify the mortgage with a principal reduction, the terms are resetting so that the buyer’s payments are about to triple or have already done so. Assume they had no problem making the original teaser payments and could even pay more but not the absurd amounts called for under his current mortgage or deed of trust.

Let’s further assume the foreclosure has already taken place and the buyer is still in the home, awaiting eviction. With a little help from you and this post you get the homeowner to fight the eviction and start a confrontation where the homeowner is demanding discovery and is alleging a fraudulent foreclosure. Using average “discounts” you buy the house for $55,000 less than appraisal from the “bank” (actually a separate entity with dubious authority to have taken or retained title to the property since neither the forecloser nor the REO (Real Estate Owned) entity had one dime in funding the mortgage). So you have purchased the home for $220,000. Don’t get all excited. The original $450,000 price was false and even fraudulent. The next time that house sees $450,000 will be somewhere around the year 2040.

So now you make a down payment of 20% or $44,000. You have $44,000 into the deal plus whatever assistance you have the original buyer/homeowner. Your mortgage is $176,000. Using an amortization of 15 years fixed rate for 5%, your payments for principal, interest, taxes, utilities and insurance are probably going to be around $1250-$1350 per month. You give the original buyer/homeowner a lease requiring payments of $1600-$1700 per month plus a CPI (Consumer price index no less than 2% with no maximum) AND a pass through of increases in utilities, taxes etc. The lease is at least 5 years long. If you don’t have a homeowner willing to lease for 5 years, you are going to have trouble.

The lease is a net lease requiring the tenant to maintain the house. It renews automatically for additional terms of 5 years unless canceled with at no more than 9 months notice and no less than 6 months notice. Beginning with the end of the third year, the homeowners may have a two year option to buy the house at either the price you paid for the house, plus CPI or the current fair market value, whichever is higher. This option is good only in years 4 and 5.

You start negotiating with the “bank” or the REO with a demand for proof of title. See how-to-negotiate-a-modification

They will offer you indemnification, hold harmless and release. None of that means anything because most of them have either gone out of business or are about to go out of business. You ask “Who is the actual creditor here?” That will make them uncomfortable. You get rough and tough. And then you soften a little and use the procedure set forth below. Meanwhile the original buyer/homeowner starts threatening them because they obviously don’t have physical possession of the note or they have no rightful claim to ownership of it. The original buyer/homeowner makes demand and maybe even files suit demanding to know who the creditor is or was. This will soften up the game of the bank/REO.

Now let’s talk about how you are going to do this without being in the same mess that the banks, homeowners, title companies and others are in.

The attributes of a good solid purchase of a foreclosed home are:

  1. Warranty Deed
  2. Title Policy from large company without any exclusion relating to securitization of the prior owner’s loan. It would be best if the policy specifically mentioned securitization and stated affirmatively that there is no exception relating thereto.
  3. Friendly Quiet Title Action, in which the REO, the forecloser and all other known parties, at their expense bring a quiet title action naming the former buyer/homeowner and you, and naming John Does 1-1000 being the holder of mortgage backed securities who could have or who could claim an interest in the mortgage being extinguished by this deal. As long as the relief sought is ratification of the above deal and ordering the clerk of the County to remove the old mortgage and accept the new filings without any encumbrance other than your new mortgage and without any owner other than you.
  4. ONLY A FINAL JUDGMENT EXECUTED BY A JUDGE WILL GIVE YOU CLEAR TITLE. WAIT UNTIL THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS RUN. INCLUDE A PROVISION WHEREIN YOU CAN RESCIND IF SOMEONE MAKES A CLAIM THAT THIS TRANSACTION WAS A FRAUD ON THE COURT WHETHER IT HAS MERIT OR NOT. IF SUCH A CLAIM IS MADE THEN AT YOUR OPTION YOU BECOME THE SUCCESSOR TO THE “BANK”  AND REO AND OTHER FORECLOSURE OR TRUSTEE SERVICES OR, AAT YOUR OPTION YOU CAN RESCIND THE TRANSACTION RECEIVING BACK ALL MONEY RECEIVED BY THE SELLING PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION IN WHICH YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
  5. Indemnification from the forecloser
  6. Indemnification from the REO
  7. Hold Harmless from the Forecloser
  8. Hold Harmless from the REO
  9. General release from original buyer/homeowner
  10. Acknowledgment from your new lender that they were advised of the above and they agree that they will not make any claims against you for misrepresentation or misstatement based upon the securitization of the loan.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Foreclosure Offense: Notice to Title Agent and Carrier

Posted on September 18, 2008 by Neil Garfield

The title agent that performed your closing probably was aware that securitization of your loan was in process and therefore knew that the real parties in interest and the fees paid between undisclosed parties had not been disclosed to you and in fact were actively hidden, because you would have known that the nature of the transaction you thought you were doing (a mortgage loan) was in fact only part of a fraudulent scheme to issue unregulated securities under false pretenses. Now you are in a position to assert a claim against the title agent for malpractice, assuming the title agent was also the escrow agent, and a claim against the title carrier because they issued you a title policy and now you have a cloud on title. (if you paid for and received an owner’s policy).

If those assumptions are true then you should send the following letter addressed to the title agent and to the insurance company that issue your title insurance (For example, Chicago Title and Guaranty).

Re: Escrow settlement Number (NOTE: this can be found in your closing documents and if you can’t find it you can call the title agent and ask for the settlement number)
Names of Buyers:
Names of Sellers:
Date of Closing:
Address of property:
Title Policy Number:

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Dear Sirs or Madames:

Please be advised that we are the buyers in the above referenced transaction. At that closing it was represented to us that the name of the mortgage lender(s) was/were __________________. The loan closing(s) took place, and the deed was transferred. A policy of title insurance was issued to us as owners of the property, as referred above.

Subsequently, we have learned that the loan was not funded by the nominal lender(s) on the loan documents, that undisclosed third parties were involved and that undisclosed fees were paid to undisclosed third parties and to disclosed third parties in connection with our closing. In fact, we have learned that our signature on the promssory note was used without our knowledge or consent as a negotiable isntrument whose terms were altered without our knowledged or consent ultimately ending up in the hands of third parties that were not disclosed and owned by investors who were also undisclosed third parties. All of these facts were either within your knowledge or were accessible to you through due diligence.

The existence of various agreements, including assignment and assumption, pooling and service, credit default swaps, insurance, and cross collateralizaation agreements, casuses the allocation of the payments made on the notes to be contractually altered from the terms of the original note. Second, the nominal lender was, as you know, paid in full, plus paid a fee of 2.5% for posing as the real lender when in fact it was not the real lender. Thus the rescission rights are obscured and indefinitely extended. Through other correspondence we have communicated our declaration of rescission of the loan(s).

Based upon the equitable and legal interests of dozens, if not hundreds of third parties, in our mortgage and note, a cloud on title has existed since the moment of closing. Now we are seeking to modify the loan documents, but we need a new policy of title insurance or an addendum continuing the old policy. We have consulted counsel and we have arrived at the opinion that a cloud on our title exists becuase of the misbehavior and neglience of all parties at the closing. Under the terms of the policy, it is your obligation to clear the cloud and issue confirmation that the title to the property and the encumbrances are as represented at closing.

Demand is herewith made that you either cure the deficiency in title or pay to the undersigned all sums paid before, during and after closing pursuant to the flawed closing, includling the loan balance(s).

Sincerely

Signature of both borrowers

Filed under: CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Mortgage | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: