Update on MERS

Posted on October 16, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Just assume that everything is a fiction and none of it is real. Then set out to create the inference against the use of key legal presumptions necessary for the foreclosure mill to establish a prima facie case. Those presumptions lead to conclusions that are contrary to facts in the real world.

The answer is always the same. MERS is a data storage  company that has no ownership of the data, or any documents that contain references to data, events, payments, assets or liabilities. The MERS database in intentionally unsecured — anyone can get access with a login and password which are easy to obtain.

The first reason for the looseness of data entry, maintenance and reporting is that the only real purpose for MERS is foreclosure. It is not used by anyone for any other purpose.  The second reason for the looseness of data handling is that even its members and users know that it is not admissible in court. As far as I know, nobody has ever tried to foreclose using data from MERS.

=====================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
MERS. it is merely a naked nominee. In some states it is banned. The holder of a mortgage or the holder of a beneficial interest in a deed of trust is required to be the owner of the debt, which is somebody who has paid value for the debt. Check state law.
*
But the assignment from MERS has more problems than that. MERS is basically an agent. The principal is defined as the party who has been labeled as the “lender.”
*
The designation of MERS usually includes “its successors and assigns.”
*
That is the place where the Foreclosure Mills and the banks try to stuff in third parties who have no connection with the loan. Since MERS is merely a naked nominee, the only party that could issue instructions to MERS is the “lender” or its successors and assigns.
*
Why would they do that? Revenue! The foreclosure process in most instances is a revenue scheme and has no relation to any plan, scheme or process by which the result is restitution for an unpaid debt.
*
In most cases, by  the time the foreclosure process is started, the “lender” is dead and nobody has acquired its assets, liabilities or  business. There is no successor. So there have been many cases in which a judge has decided that a document supposedly executed on behalf of MERS by someone on behalf of a company that is labeled as “attorney in fact” is void in the absence of foundation testimony or documents showing that the interest of the “lender” has actually been transferred by way of payment to a transferee.
*
MERS is not a servicer and MERS is not the owner of the debt. It has bare naked legal title to mortgages.
*
There are no successors in interest or assigns with respect to either MERS or the “lender.” Since MERS does not possess and even disclaims any financial interest in the debt, note or mortgage, it may not execute any document of transfer except on behalf of the “lender” on the mortgage deed or deed of trust, or on behalf of a genuine successor to the “lender,” the document signed on behalf of MERS must be void, and not voidable.
*
This is where many attorneys and pro se litigants miss the mark. they fail to parse the words and thus fail to recognize the Achilles heel in any chain of title which is dependent upon the transfer of any interest in any mortgage by or on behalf of MERS.
*
The label of “authorized signer” is a lie on many levels. The signer has no corporate resolution from the Board of Directors, appointment by an actual officer with administrative duties at MERS, nor any employment by MERSas employee or as independent contractor. The person who signs is not paid by MERS.
*
The person who signs is the employee of one of three entities — (a) the foreclosure mill (see David Stern), (b) the party claiming to be an authorized servicer of an entity who also does not own the debt or (c) an outside vendor who specializes in fabricating documents to “clear up” (read that as falsify) the title chain.
*
In most cases there is no power of attorney executed by any employee, officer or director of MERS. But even in the rare instances where such a document has actually been properly executed and dated, the Power of Attorney cannot create any right, title or interest to any debt, note or mortgage.
*
You need to keep their feet to the fire. If you don’t successfully attack such issues the presumption will prevail — i.e., that the chain of title is perfect. If you do attack those issues the presumptions fail and in addition to MERS being naked so is the foreclosure mill and the claimed labeled servicer.
*
As always you will do well if you presume the entire foreclosure is a fake process in which the foreclosure process is weaponized to obtain revenue instead of restitution for an unpaid debt. Just assume that everything is a fiction and none of it is real. Then set out to create the inference against the use of key legal presumptions necessary for the foreclosure mill to establish a prima facie case. Those presumptions lead to conclusions that are contrary to facts in the real world.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, prima facie case, sham transactions, STATUTES | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

SCOTUS Revives Qui Tam Actions

Posted on May 22, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Until this decision I had assumed that Qui Tam actions were essentially dead in relation to the mortgage meltdown. Now I don’t think so.

The question presented is whether actions brought by a private person acting as a relator on behalf of a government entity can bring claims for damages under the False Claims Act. Such actions are barred by the statute of limitations, which requires a violation to be brought within six years of the violation or three years “after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances.”[3] 

In a unanimous decision the Court held that the tolling period applies to private relator actions. This does not by any stretch of the imagination create a slam dunk. Relators must have special knowledge of the false claim and the damage caused to the government. It will still be necessary to argue in an uphill battle that the true facts of the securitization scheme are only now unfolding as more evidence appears that the parties claiming foreclosure are neither seeking nor receiving the benefit of sale proceeds on foreclosed property.

Some claims might relate back to the origination of mortgages and some relate to the trading of paper creating the illusion of ownership of loans. Still others may relate to the effect on local and State government (as long as the Federal government was involved in covering their expenses) in the bailout presumably for losses incurred as a result of default on mortgage loans in which there was no loss to the party who received the bailout, nor did such bailout proceeds ever find the investors who actually funded the origination or acquisition of loans.

And remember that a relator needs to prove special knowledge that is arguably unique. The statute was meant to cover whistleblowers from within an agency or commercial enterprise but is broader than that. The courts tend to restrict the use of Qui Tam actions when brought by a relator who is not an “insider.”

See https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-recognizes-longer-statute-limitations-qui-tam-plaintiffs-false-claims

See Review of False Claims Act 18-315_1b8e

See Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt

I also find some relevance in the decision penned by J. Thomas writing for the court as it applies to TILA Rescission, FDCPA claims, RESPA claims and other claims based upon statute:

Because a single use of a statutory phrase generally must have a fixed meaning, see Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 143, interpretations that would “attribute different meanings to the same phrase” should be avoided, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. 320, 329. Here, the clear text of the statute controls. Cochise’s reliance on Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U. S. 409, is misplaced. Nothing in Graham County supports giving the phrase “civil action under section 3730” in §3731(b) two different meanings depending on whether the Government intervenes. While the Graham County Court sought “a construction that avoids . . . counterintuitive results,” there the text “admit of two plausible interpretations.” Id., at 421, 419, n. 2. Here, Cochise points to no other plausible interpretation of the text, so the “ ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438, 462. Pp. 4–8. (e.s.)

Point of reference:

I still believe that local governments are using up their time or might be time barred on a legitimate claim that was never pursued — that the trading of loans and certificates were transactions relating to property interests within the State or County and that income or revenue was due to the government and was never paid. A levy of the amount due followed by a lien and then followed by a foreclosure on the mortgages would likely result in either revenue to the government or government ownership of the mortgages which could be subject to negotiations with the homeowners wherein the principal balance is vastly reduced and the government receives all of the revenue to which it is entitled. This produces both a fiscal stimulus to the State economy and much needed revenue to the state at a cost of virtually zero.

In Arizona, where this strategy was first explored it was determined by state finance officials in coordination with the relevant chairpersons of select committees in the State House and Senate and the governor’s office that the entire state deficit of $3 Billion could have been covered. Intervention by political figures who answered to the banks intervened and thus prevented the deployment of this strategy.

I alone developed the idea and introduced it a the request of the then chairman of the House Judiciary committee. We worked hard on it for 6 months. Intervention by political figures who answered to the banks intervened and thus prevented the deployment of this strategy. It still might work.

See also

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/809786/White+Collar+Crime+Fraud/False+Claims+Act+Statute+of+Limitations+Relators+Now+Get+Up+to+10+Years+to+File+Suit

The Court also held that the relator’s knowledge does not trigger the limitations period. The statute refers to knowledge of “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances[.]” Had the Court interpreted this provision to include relators, fears of protracted tolling by relators would largely dissipate because the qui tam action would have to be filed within three years of the relator’s knowledge or six-years of the violation, whichever is later. The Court rejected this approach, finding the express reference to “the” government official excludes private citizen relators. The Court held it is the government’s knowledge that triggers the limitations period.

The Court, however, left unanswered the question of which government official’s knowledge triggers the limitations period. The government argued in its briefs and at oral argument that such official is the Attorney General or delegate. As we have noted in prior posts (see Holland & Knight’s Government Contracts Blog, “ Self-Disclosure and the FCA Statute of Limitations: Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States v. ex. rel. Billy Joe Hunt,” March 27, 2019), there is a broader question as to whether knowledge by governmental actors outside of DOJ, including knowledge trigged by self-disclosure, should start the limitations period. The Court did not rule on this question, though its decision hints at an interpretation that includes only the Attorney General. If true, DOJ becomes the sole repository for disclosures that trigger the limitations period. That is, unless defendants can argue that DOJ “should have known” of the violation when investigative bodies such as the Office of Inspector General or the FBI have actual knowledge of the violation … more on this latter issue is sure to come.

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CASES, Fabrication of documents, Fannie MAe, FDIC, foreclosure, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, sham transactions | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Stop Referring to Defaults as Something Real

Posted on March 11, 2019 by Neil Garfield
Referring to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, completely undermines your argument that they have no  right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure. 

…when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from you as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale.

Questions to the servicer about how, when and where they made payments to Deutsch, or Deutsch as Trustee, or any trust, or any group of investors holding certificates will reveal their absence from the money trail. No such payments exist nor will they ever exist.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
I take issue with the practice of referring to “the default.” When someone refuses or stops paying another person that does not automatically mean that a default exists. A default only exists if the the payment was due to a specifically identified party and they didn’t get it. Failure to pay a servicer is not a default. Failure to pay a servicer who is sending your payments to a creditor IS a default.
Since the fundamental defense for borrowers that wins cases is that the claimant has no right to be in court, it seems wrong to refer to”the default.” It should be “the claimed default.”
If your refusal to make payment was in fact a default as to Deutsch as Trustee of a real trust or as authorized representative of the certificate holders (they never make that clear), then all of your arguments come off as technical arguments to get out of a legitimate debt. You will lose.
On the other hand if your position (i.e., your denial and affirmative defenses) is that Deutsch is not a party on its own behalf and that it is being named by attorneys as being in a representative capacity for (a) a trust that does not exist or (b) for holder of certificates that do not convey title to the debt, note or mortgage and are specifically disclaimed, then you have a coherent narrative for your defense.
And if you further that argument by asserting that Deutsch has never received any payments and does not receive the proceeds of foreclosure on its own behalf nor as trustee for any trust or group of investors and will not receive those proceeds in this case then you push the knife in deeper.
So if Deutsch is not appearing on its own behalf and the parties that the lawyers say it is representing either don’t exist or are not identified, then the action is actually being filed in the name of Deutsch but for and on behalf of some other unidentified party who may or may not have any right to payment.
What is certain is that Deutsch is being represented as the owner of the loan when it is not.  The owner of a loan receives payments. Deutsch never receives payment from anyone and the investors never receive payment from the borrowers. If they did the servicer would have records of that. 
So when you refer to the default, you should refer to it as a false claim of default because at no time was Deutsch or any trust or any group of investors ever receiving payments from the homeowner as borrower. Nor did they have any contractual right to expect such payments from you as borrower. So Deutsch didn’t suffer any default and neither did the investors who own certificates that are not ownership interests in the debt, note or mortgage. And Deutsch won’t get any proceeds if the property is subjected to a foreclosure sale. 
If Deutsch didn’t suffer any default it could not legally declare one. If the declaration of default was void, then there is no default declared. In fact, there is no default until a  creditor steps forward and says I own the debt that I paid for and I suffered a default here. But there is no such party/creditor because the investment bank who funded the origination or acquisition of the loan has long since sold its interest in the loan multiple times.
Thus when lawyers or as servicer or both sent notices of delinquency or default they did so knowing that the party on whose behalf they said they were sending those notices had not suffered any delinquency or default.
When homeowners refer to the default as real, but with an explanation of how it is subject to rationalization or argument, they completely undermine their argument that they have no  right to be in court, to collect, to issue notices or initiate foreclosure. 
And remember that the sole reason for foreclosures in which REMIC claims are present is not repayment, because that has occurred already. The sole reason is to maintain the illusion of securitization which is the cover for a PONZI scheme. The banks are seeking to protect “profits” they already have collected not to obtain repayment. That is why a “Master Servicer” is allowed to collect the proceeds of a foreclosure sale rather than anyone owning the debt.
Also remember that while it might be that investors could be construed as beneficiaries of a trust, if it existed, they actually are merely holders of uncertificated certificates in which they disclaim any interest in the debt, note or mortgage.  Hence  they have no claim, direct or indirect, against any individual borrower. 

PRACTICE NOTE: Don’t assert anything you cannot prove. Leave the burden of proof on the lawyers who have named an alleged claimant who they say or imply possesses a claim. Deny everything and force them to prove everything. Discovery should be aimed at revealing the gaps not facts that will prove some assertion about securitization in general. Judges don’t want to hear that.
Appropriate questions to ask in one form or another are as follows:
  1. Who is the Claimant/Plaintiff/Beneficiary?
  2. Who will receive the proceeds of foreclosure sale?
  3. Before the default, who received the proceeds of payment from the subject borrower? [They will  fight this tooth and nail]
  4. Did the trustee ever receive payments from the borrower?
  5. Does the trustee in this alleged trust have any contractual right to receive borrower payments?
  6. Do holders of certificates receive payments from the borrower through a servicer?

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Investor, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Why Fabrications? Why Forgeries?

Posted on February 11, 2019 by Neil Garfield

In an increasing number of foreclosure cases, homeowners are going head to head with the lawyers who file claims on behalf of entities on the basis of fabricated and/or forged instruments that in many cases were also recorded in county records. Lawyers like Dan Khwaja in Illinois are getting clearer and clearer about it. They hire experts who understand exactly how the notes are mechanically created and the endorsements are not real signatures.

The key question is why would the notes have been fabricated and forged when there actually was a closing and a note was actually signed? We’re talking about the financial industry whose reputation depends upon safeguarding all signed documents. If they didn’t safeguard the documents and instead destroyed them or “lost” them, why was that allowed to happen?

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

So we have a case in Illinois where lawyers filed a judicial foreclosure on behalf of Bank of New York/Mellon (BONY) as trustee (i.e. representative of) “holders” of certificates. The lawyers attach a copy of a note and indorsements. Khwaja hired an expert who found quite definitively that the note and the endorsements were all fabricated (forged). Khwaja has filed a motion for summary judgment.

Here is my analysis:

*
The lawyers who filed the claim have a serious problem. If they cannot convince the judge that they have no need to respond they are dead in the water. They must either pay someone to commit perjury or seek to amend with an actual original note. In view of prior studies that show that most (or at least half) of all notes were “lost or destroyed” immediately following the “closing” combined with your expert on hand, coming up with the original note is not an option.
*
And that brings us to the question of “why?” If there really was a closing at which the borrower signed documents, why do they need fabricated documents? To me, the answer is simple. In order to sell the same loan multiple times they needed to convert from actual to imaged documents. The actual one had to disappear. And the handful of megabanks who had a virtual monopoly on tens of millions of mortgage transactions made it “custom and practice” to use images rather than actual documents. [This practice has spilled over to property sale contracts where neither party gets an original].
*
And we have the additional issue which is presented by the foreclosure complaint. It says that BONY appears on behalf of the holders of certificates. The simple question is “so what?”
*
Being holders of certificates means nothing. It leaves out any assertion that the holders of the certificates are owners of the certificates, or anything that might identify those “holders”. So the proceeds of foreclosure could then go to whoever was chosen by the parties actually pulling the strings.
*
They are asking the court to fill in the blanks. They want the court to draw an inference without ever stating the fact to be inferred, to wit: the holders of the certificates are owners of the certificates who are therefore owners of the debt, note and mortgage. There simply is no such allegation nor any exhibit indicating that is true. The reason is that it is not true.
*
So who is really the Plaintiff? Supposedly not BONY who is appearing in a representative capacity.
*
If “sanctions” were applied against the “Plaintiff” BONY would claim it is not the actual party and that the unidentified “holders” of certificates are the proper party or perhaps an implied trust.
*
So then is it the certificate holders, represented by BONY? But they don’t have any right, title or interest to the subject debt, note or mortgage. The prospectus and certificate indentures make that abundantly clear in most cases.
*
Examining what happens after a foreclosure is “successful” provides clues. Neither BONY nor any certificate holder ever receives the actual money from the proceeds of the purported sale of the property.
*
So who does?
*
As the one party with actual control over the loan receivable, the investment bank that created the “securitization” scheme is the only party that comes close to being an actual creditor. But here is their problem: that loan receivable has been sold multiple times. This not only leaves them with no claim to the debt, but a surplus of funds over and above the amount due on what was the loan receivable. It’s basic accounting and bookkeeping. And if that were not true the banks would not be doing it.
*
So in the real world it is the investment bank that gets the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. But they do it as the “Master Servicer” of an implied (and nonexistent) trust. The money simply disappears.
*
In order to get away with selling the debt multiple times they had to make each sale a non recourse sale. And they did that. So the buyers of the debt, note and mortgage had no actual legal title to the debt, note and mortgage and no recourse to the borrower to collect on the unpaid debt.
*
THAT leaves NOBODY as owner of a debt that has probably been extinguished and reveals the paper issued to buyers/investors as essentially the issuance of cash equivalent instruments (also known as currency). And THAT is the reason the banks, after  two decades of this nonsense, have yet to come to court and simply say “here is proof of our funding of the origination or purchase of the debt, note and mortgage.”
*
If they did, they would be admitting to lying in millions of foreclosure cases over at least a 15 year period of time. Their scheme effectively concentrated the risk of loss on investors and borrowers while literally retaining all the benefits of supposed loan transactions for the sole benefit of the intermediaries, who then leveraged loans multiple times.
*
This translates as follows: the money taken from investors is an unsecured liability of the investment bank. To be sure that has a value — but not a value derived from loans to homeowners. THAT value was taken by the investment bank who cashed in on it already.
*
Note: For certain second tier investment bankers there were transition periods in which they were at actual risk. Examples include Lehman and Bear Stearns. But the top tier was able to sell forward on the certificates and never commit a single dime of their own money into the securitization scheme even in transition. But by pointing to Lehman and Bear Stearns they were able to convince policy makers that they were in the same position. This produced the “bailout” which was essentially the payment of even more money for losses that did not exist.
*
In an odd twist of irony, Wells Fargo was the only party (2009) that admitted to no loss but was forced to take bailout money so that other “less fortunate” parties would not be singled out as weak institutions.
*
In truth the AIG bailout and similar bailouts were merely payments of extra profits to Goldman Sachs and some other players, leaving investors and borrowers stranded with nearly worthless investments and collapsed markets for both homes, whose prices had been inflated by over 100% over value, and a nonexistent market for the bogus certificates that the Fed chose to revive by its purchasing program of “mortgage bonds” that were neither bonds nor backed by mortgages.
*
Despite the complexity of all this, on a certain level most people understand that the banks caused the misery of the meltdown and profited from it.  They also understand that it is still happening. The failure of government to deal appropriately with the existential threat posed by the megabanks clearly played into and perhaps caused the social unrest around the world in the form of “populist” movements. And until governments deal with this issue head-on, people will be looking for political candidates who show that they are willing to take a wrecking ball to the banks and anyone who is protecting them.
*
In the meanwhile, an increasing number of homeowners (again) are walking away from homes in the mistaken belief that they have an unpaid debt to the party named as the claimant against them.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

TPS — Third Party Strangers in Mortgage Cases

Posted on October 24, 2018 by Neil Garfield

I’m sharing the wording I use in my TERA and Case Analysis reports now. I think the benefit of this wording is that it fills in the blank on who is the real creditor (owner of the debt). Hopefully it answers the following informal question lurking in the context of mortgage litigation: “If the parties claiming enforcement rights are not the owners or representatives of the owners then who is?”

Those who have that question in mind are asking the wrong party when they pose it to the homeowner as if the homeowner had an obligation to present a credible narrative of what actually happened to their loan. And the strategy of the foreclosure mills is to keep the questions directed at homeowners instead of themselves so that their prima facie case is presumed and never proven.

Just to be clear — and to avoid confusion sewn by foreclosure mill lawyers — the owner of the debt would have the following characteristics:

  • Paid value for the debt

  • Expecting payment arising from the debt itself (i.e., in accounting terms the subject debt is carried as an asset that falls under the category of a receivable, in this case a loan receivable.

  • Unencumbered authority to transact any business affecting the subject debt .

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

Here is the current wording I use in my analysis and reports:

Standards and customary practices in commercial banking, lending, investment banking and auditing require, at a minimum, a reference to the date and parties to a transaction so that the data can be confirmed. This is also required in courts of law under the category of “foundation.” No such references are made in the entire paper chain relied upon by the current claimant. The wording of each document appears to side-step the issue of an actual financial transaction and skips to memorializing the proffered transaction. 

Our conclusion is that the payee on the note is almost certainly part of a failed securitization scheme. It follows then that the alleged loan transaction is a table-funded loan, and described as both against public policy and predatory under REG Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Act. We consider it certain that all actual funds came from a third party stranger (TPS) in a transaction predating the loan itself and/or predating the erroneously implied purchase of the loan or both. Hence in this case the TPS is the party who paid value for the debt and is therefore the owner of the debt. 

Standards and customary practices in commercial banking, lending, investment banking and auditing require, at a minimum, a reference to the TPS and any successors to TPS with sufficient descriptive certainty to confirm the authority of those persons or entities claiming ownership, rights to enforce, or rights to service the subject loan on behalf of the TPS or its successors, if any.

In the absence of any reference or proof of payment, payment is not presumed under generally accepted accounting principles as published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The failure to reference actual monetary payment causes a rebuttable presumption in auditing that there is an absence of an actual monetary payment and therefore that the documents memorializing a transaction are fabricated, entitled to no legal presumption of authenticity or validity.

An alternative explanation is that the documents were not fabricated but prepared in anticipation of an actual transaction that failed to occur. Either way the conclusion is the same, i.e., that the documents refer to a nonexistent transaction and should be discarded.

The normal and reasonable presumption is that the “predecessor” would only have transferred a valuable ownership interest in the subject debt upon payment of money or the equivalent; the lack of payment creates a presumption that there was nothing upon which a claim for payment could be made. Therefore the transfer of a promissory note as “title” to the debt from a party who had no right, title or interest in the debt conveys nothing, and a transfer of a mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust would also convey nothing.

Presumptions are intended ONLY as a convenience — not to alter a result. If they would alter the result then they should be discarded. If there are two different results — one based upon legal presumptions and the other based on facts both the auditor and the court should discard the presumptions and go with the facts. 

The only thing I would add is that the title confusion and the convoluted schematics of failed securitization are not the result or fault of any action undertaken by homeowners —- ever. The burden of proving a prima facie case is and always has been on the party making the claim or initiating action for relief through foreclosure of a security interest. In our system of justice that is black letter bedrock of all legal matters in dispute.

Such a party has not proven a prima facie case if the entire body of evidence is based upon various presumptions — unless the homeowner fails to object. The objection does not change the homeowner’s burden of proof; it changes the would-be forecloser’s burden of proof. Upon timely and reasonable objection the presumptions falls away and the foreclosure mill must actually prove the facts they previously sought to be presumed. Theoretically there is no prejudice to the foreclosure mill; but we all know that most foreclosures would fail if actual proof was required.

As for the cataclysmic end of the financial system feared by judges, lawyers and regulators, blind justice requires that the chips fall where the evidence points. Anything less allows the system to punish homeowners for the errors and misdeeds of the banks.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Tonight! The Neil Garfield Show with Illinois Attorney Dan Khwaja — LOPEZ Case

Posted on June 14, 2018 by Neil Garfield

US Bank v Lopez

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

It is always a pleasure to speak with an attorney who is an ardent advocate for consumers. And it is good to know they are out there even though everyone is complaining about not finding an attorney. Dan wins cases and motions because he fights every step of the way — but like every good litigator he thinks about the case before he writes or says anything.

Here the note was sent for endorsement AFTER suit was filed. Truth is stronger than fiction. In the Lopez case an Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial judge and dismissed the foreclosure. Then the same court reversed its own decision en banc and affirmed the foreclosure. Now Khwaja is taking it to the Illinois Supreme Court. He has the law and the rules on his side. You can see what he filed here: US Bank, Trustee v Lopez.

Included in the above link is what was filed with the attached appendix and relevant documents. It has the first complaint and note, second complaint and note, the affidavit of Robert Rappe Jr admitting the note was sent for endorsement after the foreclosure was filed. The first and second opinions. Everything is here that you need to look at if you want to review it.

At issue now is whether the rules mean anything or if the rules promulgated by the Illinois Supreme Court can be ignored. This of course has been the continuing cry of homeowners who were seeking workouts and modifications only to be inexorably drawn into foreclosure. In a word, the access of borrowers to their creditors has always been continually blocked during the modern era that involves false claims of securitization.

The fact pattern involves the familiar US Bank as Trustee for a presumed Trust. The parties continue to refer to the Plaintiff as “US Bank” which of course is not the case. The named Trust is the Plaintiff — if it exists. If it doesn’t exist then there is no Plaintiff notwithstanding the size of US Bank. Since the style of cases is a  shorthand “US Bank” becomes shorthand for US Bank, as trustee for the XYZ Trust.

Guest Information:

Daniel Khwaja, Esq.
Attorney at Law
ph (312)-933-4015 

Filed under: appeals, BURDEN OF PROOF, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, standing, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Paralegal Training — Entity Research

Posted on May 13, 2018 by Neil Garfield

Producing a USEFUL report that can identify gaps, inconsistencies and deficiencies in the primary documents used for foreclosure is a complex task. It must be thorough and it must be correct and free from “opinions” that the writer is not qualified to present. Opinions ruin credibility under they come from a qualified expert with credentials, education, training and experience in cases other than your own.

This article is devoted to one tiny step in the process of forensic research and investigation. A properly trained paralegal is far more likely to get it right than a pro se litigant and even most lawyers.

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released.

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase audio seminar now — Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===================================

STARTING POINT: An entity has been identified in a document that is in the chain of title as recorded in the public records in the county where the property is located.
  1. You must report on the status of that entity.
  2. Did that entity exist at the time the document was supposedly executed?
  3. Is that entity actually a part of the chain of title or is it merely referenced? Or is it not clear, because of the way the signature block was constructed?
  4. Does that entity exist now?
  5. What is the history of that entity?
  6. Has that entity been involved in alleged robo-signing in other cases — check with top 400 robosigners.
  7. Based upon the documents and facts you have obtained, is there any indication as to whether that entity has a financial interest in the debt, the note or the mortgage? [They are different. In order to foreclose the foreclosing party must own all three].
Where to start? Start on your own. Become proficient in Google searches.
Step by Step: Example XYZ Savings Bank, FSB. First look in search index on LIVINGLIES BLOG. 
  1. Google: “Who is XYZ Savings Bank FSB”
  2. Google: “What is a “Federal Savings Bank?”
  3. Google:  “Implodometer”
  4. Google: “Where is XYZ Savings Bank FSB located?”
  5. Google: “Where is XYZ Savings Bank FSB registered?
  6. Google: “XYZ Savings Bank FSB + merger”
  7. Google: “XYZ Savings Bank FSB + FDIC”
  8. Google: “XYZ Savings Bank FSB + lawsuit”
  9. Go to LIVINGLIES BLOG homepage and insert name of entity in search index.
Example Report:
  1. XYZ Savings Bank FSB is referenced on an instrument bearing the title “Assignment of Mortgage.” There is no reference to a financial transaction in which the debt, note or mortgage was acquired.
  2. It was created (or chartered) under and regulated by United States federal law, and administered by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which shows XYZ Savings Bank FSB as “Active”on its website.
  3. The specific reference to XYZ Savings Bank FSB is that the “Assignment” instrument dated the 5th day of July 2009 recites that Ocwen Loan Servicing is the attorney in fact for XYZ Savings Bank FSB. No Power of Attorney is attached to the instrument nor has any such power been presented in any of the documents we have reviewed. Discovery and further investigation should be focused on whether the “assignment” actually transferred any rights to the Assignee.
  4. XYZ Savings Bank FSB is presented as the trustee for the 123 Trust. No organizational document for the 123 Trust  has been presented for our review. The trust may or may not exist and therefore XYZ Savings Bank FSB may or may not be the trustee.
  5. XYZ Savings Bank FSB is a Federal Savings Bank and currently exists as an independent entity with headquarters in Akron, Ohio. It was formerly known as First Community Bank which was formerly known as Akron Savings Bank, organized under the laws of the State of Ohio.
  6. It has not been party to a petition for bankruptcy or seizure by the FDIC.
  7. It has not been a party to any merger nor has it ever been acquired by another entity.
  8. It was created (or chartered) under and regulated by United States federal law, and administered by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which shows XYZ Savings Bank FSB as “Active”on its website.
NOTE: Our paralegal staff stands ready to help ghostwrite discovery, pleadings, motions and other documents. This is performed under my supervision and subject to my edits and comments. Go to LendingLies for more information.

Filed under: evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, legal standing, Mortgage, Motions, sham transactions | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Hawai’i Appellate Court Strikes at the Root of Fraudulent Foreclosures: HSBC Deutsch and PNC Crash and Burn

Posted on April 23, 2018 by Neil Garfield

This decision, although not yet for publication, brings us another step closer to exposure to the largest economic crime in human history. Every lawyer should read it more than once in its entirety. It contains the arguments and the narrative for most successful defense strategies against fraudulent foreclosures.

Fundamental to understanding why foreclosures are fraudulent and why most borrowers should prevail is an examination of how the banks and servicers attempt to paper over the absence of (a) ownership of the debt and the failure to identify the owner and (b) any evidence of an actual nexus with the supposed contract they are seeking to enforce — in the absence of anyone else claiming the right to enforce. Their entire premise rests on bank control of who knows about the subject debt.

That void is what produced this decision and the decisions around the country in discovery, in motions (especially motions for summary judgment), and at trial that have been in favor of homeowners and then buried under settlements restricted by the seal of confidentiality —- thousands of them.

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

====================================

See HSBC, Deutsch, PNC adv Felicitas Moore, Intermediate Court of Appeals, Hawai’i

Hat Tip to Da Goose and Awesome Order on Failure of Qualified Witness and Documents

Special kudos to Hawai’i Dubin Law Offices, representing the homeowner.

Whether this case will stand up to further appeal is a question that can only be answered by time. But I think that it will and that this case, like many in the past few weeks and months, is striking at the achilles heal of fraudulent foreclosures. It is worthy of study because it does much of the research and analysis for you. It is not binding in any other state and may not be binding even in Hawai’i, since it is currently designated as “not for Publication.”

If I were to write an article detailing the many fine points raised by this appellate court, it would be a book. So read the article and look for the following points:

  1. The existence and administration of the books and records of the supposed “REMIC” Trustee for the supposed trust is directly challenged, although indirectly.
  2. Summary Judgment just became more difficult for the banks and servicers, if you use the reasoning in this opinion.
  3. Verification of complaint by “authorized Signor” or the “attorney” does NOT end the inquiry into the facts.
  4. Presumptions work against the foreclosing party in motions for summary judgment.
  5. Courts are getting suspicious of anything proffered by a foreclosing party when there is an alleged “REMIC” “trust” involved.
  6. Affidavits or declarations that the affiant personally has possession of the note do NOT establish (a) possession or (b) the right to enforce before the foreclosure was initiated. [This will lead to even more backdating of documents]
  7. FOUNDATION: Self declaration of knowledge and competency are insufficient. Foundation requires that the affiant or declarant specifically state how he/she came into such knowledge and why he/she is competent to testify.
  8. A self-serving declaration that the affiant is the custodian of records as to one case” raises red flags. Such declarations are only proper when they come from an individual who is, in the ordinary course of business, the records custodian for the business. [This raises some very uncomfortable questions for the banks and servicers, to wit: there are no business records for the trust because (a) the trustee has no right to keep them or even review information that would be entered on such records and (b) the trust has no business that requires record-keeping. So the assumption that the servicer’s records are the records of the trust named as the foreclosing party is simply not true and more importantly, lacks the required foundation to get such records into evidence.]
  9. Self-serving declarations do not necessarily authenticate any documents.
  10. Attorneys for the banks and servicers are put on notice that chickens may come home to roost — for  filing attestations to facts, about which they knew nothing or worse, about which they knew were untrue.

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, forgery, legal standing, Servicer | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Financial Industry Caught with Its Hand in the Cookie Jar

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Neil Garfield

Like the infamous NINJA loans, the REMICs ought to be dubbed NEITs — nonexistent inactive trusts.

The idea of switching lenders without permission of the borrower has been accepted for centuries. But the idea of switching borrowers without permission of the “lender” had never been accepted until the era of false claims of securitization.

This is just one example of how securitization, in practice, has gone far off the rails. It is significant to students of securitization because it demonstrates how the debt, note and mortgage have been separated with each being a commodity to sell to multiple buyers.

Let us help you analyze your case: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see https://asreport.americanbanker.com/news/new-risk-for-loan-investors-lending-to-a-different-company

Leveraged loan investors are now concerned about whether they are funding a loan to one entity and then “by succession” ending up with another borrower with a different credit profile, reputation, etc. You can’t make this stuff up. This is only possible because the debt has been separated from the promissory note — the same way the debt, note and mortgage were treated as entirely separate commodities in the “securitization” of residential mortgage debt. The lack of connection between the paper and the debt has allowed borrowers to sell or transfer their position as borrower to another borrower leaving the “lender” holding a debt from a new borrower. This sounds crazy but it is nevertheless true. [I am NOT suggesting that individual homeowners try this. It won’t work]

Keep in mind that most certificates issued by investment bankers purportedly from nonexistent inactive trusts (call them NEITs instead of REMICs) contain an express provision that states in clear unequivocal language that the holder of the certificate has no right, title or interest to the underlying notes and mortgages. This in effect creates a category of defrauded investors using much the same logic as the use of MERS in which MERS expressly disclaims and right, title or interest in the money (i.e., the debt), or the mortgages that reregistered by third party “members.”

Of course those of us who understand this cloud of smoke and mirrors know that the securitization was never real. The single transaction rule used in tax cases establishes conclusively that the only real parties in interest are the investors and the borrowers. Everyone else is simply an intermediary with no more interest in any transaction than your depository bank has when you write a check on your account. The bank can’t assert ownership of the TV you just paid for. But if you separate the maker of the check from the seller of the goods so that neither knows of the existence of the other then the intermediary is free to make whatever false claims it seeks to make.

In the world of fake securitization or as Adam Levitin has coined it, “Securitization Fail”, the successors did not pay for the debt but did get the paper (note and mortgage or deed of trust). All the real monetary transactions took place outside the orbit of the falsely identified REMIC “Trust.” The debt, by law and custom, has always been considered to arise between Party A and Party B where one of them is the borrower and the other is the one who put the money into the hands of the borrower acting for its own account — or for a disclosed third party lender. In most cases the creditor in that transaction is not named as the lender on the promissory note. Hence the age-old “merger doctrine” does not apply.

This practice allows the sale and resale of the same loan multiple times to multiple parties. This practice is also designed to allow the underwriter to issue investors a promise to pay (the “certificate” from a nonexistent inactive trust entity) that conveys no interest in the underlying mortgages and notes that supposedly are being acquired.

It’s true that equitable and perhaps legal rights to the paper (i.e., ownership) have attached to the paper. But the paper has been severed from the debt. Courts have inappropriately ignored this fact and stuck with the presumption that the paper is the same as the debt. But that would only be true if the named payee or mortgagee (or beneficiary on a Deed of Trust) were one and the same. In the real world, they are not the same. Thus we parties who don’t own the debt foreclosing on houses because the real parties in interest have no idea how to identify the real parties in interest.

While the UCC addresses situations like this Courts have routinely ignored statutory law and simply applied their own “common sense” to a nearly incomprehensible situation. The result is that the courts apply legal presumptions of facts that are wrong.

PRACTICE NOTE: In order to be able to litigate properly one must understand the basics of fake securitization. Without understanding the difference between real world transactions and paper instruments discovery and trial narrative become corrupted and the homeowner loses. But if you keep searching for things that ought to exist but don’t — thus undercutting the foundation for testimony at deposition or trial — then your chances of winning rise geometrically. The fact is, as I said in many interviews and on this blog as far back as 2007, they don’t have the goods — all they have is an illusion — a holographic image of an empty paper bag.

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, originator, Pleading, standing, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Trustee v Active Trustee US Bank Fails to show or even attempt to show it is an active trustee

Posted on January 9, 2018 by Neil Garfield

CASE DISMISSED,WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. US BANK DECLINED TO AMEND. CASE DISMISSED.

Even where there is a clerk’s default “The burden is on the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to recovery.” Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 189.

Here is an example of how lawyers purport to represent US Bank when in fact they are creating the illusion that they represent a trust and in reality they are representing a subservicer who is receiving orders from a master servicer of a nonexistent trust. As Trustee of the nonexistent trust USB had no active role in the nonexistent trust. As the inactive Trustee for a nonexistent Trust, no right, title or interest in the debts of homeowners were within any scope of authority of any servicer, subservicer or master servicer. Each foreclosure is a farce based upon assumptions and presumptions that are exactly opposite to the truth.

Given the opportunity to amend the complaint, lawyers for USB chose not to amend — because they could not plead nor prove the required elements of an active trustee. Because of that USB lacked standing to bring the action except as agent for an active trust or on behalf of the trust beneficiaries. But where the certificates show that the certificate holders do NOT have any interest in a mortgage or note (true in about 70% of all cases), then they too lack of standing. And if the Trust is not an active Trust owning the debt, note or mortgage then it too lacks standing.

Let us draft your motions and do the research necessary to draw the attention of the court to the fraud taking place under their noses. 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip Bill Paatalo

see Memorandum and Order – USBank Trust NA as Trustee for LSF9 MPT v Monroe

See Judgment – USB Trust for LSF9 v Monroe –

While this case discusses diversity and other issues concerning US Bank “as trustee” the reasoning and ruling clearly expose the truth about pleading irregularities by attorneys who purport to represent US Bank or a REMIC Trust.

A debt is an asset to anyone who owns it. Industry practice requires that for transfer of ownership, there must be an agreement or other document providing warranty of title, confirmation of the existence and ownership of the debt and proof of authority of the person executing the document. Go into any bank and try to borrow money using a note as collateral. The bank will require, at a minimum, that the debt be confirmed (usually by the purported debtor) and that each party in the chain show proof of purchase.

Without consideration, the assignment of mortgage or endorsement of the note is just a piece of paper.

When there is an assertion of ownership of the loan, what the banks and so-called servicers are actually saying is that they own the paper (note and mortgage) not the debt. In the past this was a distinction without a difference. In the era of patently f false claims of securitization, the debt was split off from the paper. The owner of the debt were without knowledge that their money was not under Trust management nor that their money was being used to originate or acquire loans without their knowledge.

The securitization sting is accomplished because the owners of the debt (the investors who sourced the funds) are unaware of the fact that the certificate they are holding is merely a promise to pay from a nonexistent trust that never was utilized to acquire the debts and whose ownership of the paper is strictly temporary in order to foreclose.

The failure to make that distinction between the real debt and the fake paper is the principal reason why so many people lose their homes to interlopers who have no interest in the loan but who profit from the sale of the home because a judgment was entered in favor of them allowing them to conduct a foreclosure sale. 

This case also sets forth universally accepted legal doctrine even where there is a clerk’s default entered against the homeowner. The Judge cannot enter a judgment for an alleged debt without proving the debt — even if the homeowner doesn’t show up.

“When a default is entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the well- pleaded factual allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability.” Bravado Int’l Grp. Merch. Servs., Inc. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 177, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992)). “While a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation.” Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974); accord, e.g., Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 190. “[E]ven upon default, a court may not rubber-stamp the non-defaulting party’s damages calculation, but rather must ensure that there is a basis for the damages that are sought.” United States v. Hill, No. 12-CV-1413, 2013 WL 474535, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2013)

“The burden is on the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to recovery.” Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 189.

 

Filed under: boarding process, burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, MBS TRUSTEE, Servicer, standing, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Maine Case Affirms Judgment for Homeowner — even with admission that she signed note and mortgage and stopped paying

Posted on December 27, 2017 by Neil Garfield

While this case turned upon an  inadequate foundation for introduction of “business records” into evidence, I think the real problem here for Keystone National Association was that they did not and never did own the loan — something revealed by the usual game of musical chairs that the banks use to confuse and obscure the identity of the real creditor.

When you read the case it demonstrates that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was not at all sympathetic with Keystone’s “plight.” Without saying so directly the court’s opinion clearly reveals its doubt as to whether Keystone had any plight or injury.

Refer to this case and others like it where the banks treated the alleged note and mortgage as being the object of a parlor game. The attention paid to the paperwork is designed by the banks to distract from the real issue — the debt and who owns it. Without that knowledge you don’t know the principal and therefore you can’t establish authority by a “servicer.”

The error in courts across the country has been that the testimony and records of the servicer are admissible into evidence even if the authority to act as servicer did not emanate from the real party in interest — the debt holder (the party to whom the MONEY is due.

Note that this ended in judgment for the homeowner and not an involuntary dismissal without prejudice.

NEED HELP PREPARING FOR  TRIAL? We can help you with Preparation for Objections and Cross Examination, Discovery and Compelling Responses to Discovery Requests with Our Paralegal Team that works directly with Neil Garfield! We provide services directly to attorneys and to pro se litigants.
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT,
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you! https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat Tip to Bill Paatalo

Keybank – maine supreme court

Here are some meaningful quotes from the Court’s opinion:

KeyBank did not lay a proper foundation for admitting the loan servicing records pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See M.R. Evid. 803(6).

KeyBank’s only other witness was a “complex liaison” from PHH Mortgage Services, which, he testified, is the current loan servicer for KeyBank and handles the day-to-day operations of managing and servicing loan accounts.

The complex liaison testified that he has training on and personal knowledge of the “boarding process” for loans being transferred from prior loan servicers to PHH and of PHH’s procedures for integrating those records. He explained that transferred loans are put through a series of tests to check the accuracy of any amounts due on the loan, such as the principal balance, interest, escrow advances, property tax, hazard insurance, and mortgage insurance premiums. He further explained that if an error appears on the test report for a loan, that loan will receive “special attention” to identify the issue, and, “[i]f it ultimately is something that is not working properly, then that loan will not . . . transfer.” Loans that survive the testing process are transferred to PHH’s system and are used in PHH’s daily operations.

The court admitted in evidence, without objection, KeyBank’s exhibits one through six, which included a copy of the original promissory note dated April 29, 2002;3 a copy of the recorded mortgage; the purported assignment of the mortgage by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., from KeyBank to Bank of America recorded on January9, 2012; the ratification of the January 2012 assignment recorded on March 6, 2015; the recorded assignment of the mortgage from Bank of America to KeyBank dated October 10, 2012; and the notice of default and right to cure issued to Kilton and Quint by KeyBank in August 2015. The complex liaison testified that an allonge affixed to the promissory note transferred the note to “Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,” but was later voided.

Pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, M.R. Evid. 803(6), KeyBank moved to admit exhibit seven, which consisted of screenshots from PHH’s computer system purporting to show the amounts owed, the costs incurred, and the outstanding principal balance on Kilton and Quint’s loan. Kilton objected, arguing that PHH’s records were based on the records of prior servicers and that KeyBank had not established that the witness had knowledge of the record-keeping practices of either Bank of America or Countrywide. The court determined that the complex liaison’s testimony was insufficient to admit exhibit seven pursuant to the business records exception.

KeyBank conceded that, without exhibit seven, it would not be able to prove the amount owed on the loan, which KeyBank correctly acknowledged was an essential element of its foreclosure action. [e.s.] [Editor’s Note: This admission that they could not prove the debt any other way means that their witness had no personal knowledge of the amount due. If the debt was in fact due to Keystone, they could have easily produced a  witness and a copy of the canceled check or wire transfer receipt wherein Keystone could have proven the debt. Keystone could have also produced a witness as to the amount due if any such debt was in fact due to Keystone. But Keystone never showed up. It was the servicer who showed up — the very party that could have information and exhibits to show that the amount due is correctly proffered because they confirmed the record keeping of “Countrywide” (whose presence indicates that the loan was subject to claims of securitization). But they didn’t because they could not. The debt never was owned by Keystone and neither Countrywide nor PHH ever had authority to “service” the loan on behalf of the party who owns the debt.]

the business records will be admissible “if the foundational evidence from the receiving entity’s employee is adequate to demonstrate that the employee had sufficient knowledge of both businesses’ regular practices to demonstrate the reliability and trustworthiness of the information.” Id. (emphasis added).

 

With business records there are three essential points of reference when several entities are involved as “lenders,” “successors”, or “servicers”, to wit:

  1. The records and record keeping practices of the initial “lender.” [If there are none then that would point to the fact that the “lender” was not the lender.] Here you are looking for the first entries on a valid set of business records in which the loan and fees and costs were posted. Generally speaking this does not exist in most loans because the money came a third party source who knows nothing of the transaction.
  2. The records and record keeping practices of any “successors.” Note that this is a second point where the debt is separated from the paper. If a successor is involved there would correspondence and agreements for the purchase and sale of the debt. What you fill find, though, is that there is only a naked endorsement, assignment or both without any correspondence or agreements. This indicates that the paper transfer of any rights to the “loan” was strictly for the purpose of foreclosing and bore new relationship to reality — i.e., ownership of the debt.
  3. The records and record keeping practices of any “servicers.” In order for the servicer to be authorized, the party owning the debt must have directly or indirectly given authorization and come to an agreement on fees, as well as given instructions as to what functions the servicer was to perform. What you will find is that there is no valid document from an owner of the debt appointing the servicer or giving any instructions, like what to do with the money after it is collected from homeowners. Instead you find tenuous documentation, with no correspondence or agreements, that make assertions for foreclosure. The game of musical chairs has bothered judges for a decade: “Why do the servicers keep changing” is a question I have heard from many judges. The typical claims of authorization are derived from Powers of Attorney or a Pooling and Servicing agreement for an entity that neither e exists nor does it have any operating history.

Filed under: boarding process, BURDEN OF PROOF, CASES, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, Investor, Mortgage, originator, Servicer, sham transactions, Trail Objections | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Smoke and Mirrors: Illinois Case

Posted on December 4, 2017 by Neil Garfield

This 2016 Illinois case corroborates exactly what I have been saying for 11 years. Sleight of hand accounted for the 1st Mortgage that was payable to Lehman Brothers who funded every loan with advances from Investors who then owned the debt. The investors were cut out of the chain of paper and the chain of money.

Thus equitable principles were attempted in order to establish a right to foreclose. But nothing can take away the fact that the forecloser, as in virtually all foreclosure cases these days, is a complete stranger to any part of any transaction that is memorialized in fabricated, forged, robo-signed, false representations on worthless documents of transfer.

We can help evaluate your options!
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip to Cement Boots

see CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Parille, 2016 IL App (2d) 150286, (For some reason it won’t upload). Try This:

Citi steps into the paper chain based upon nothing and THAT is their legal problem. So they attempt to file multiple amended complaint that only get themselves in worse trouble because in the final analysis, they are making allegations that imply legal standing that they will never be able to prove.

Specifically they seek to have the court declare an equitable mortgage in favor of Citi. For the most part, equitable mortgages don’t exist, but there is a doctrine called equitable subrogation in which title to the existing mortgage shifts to a new owner because the new owner has paid for the debt — something that is impossible because even Citi does not say they paid the investors who owned the debt. Further, as this Court points out such a doctrine won’t do Citi any good if the initial mortgage was defective.

In short the fundamental assumptions (arising from political rather than legal policies) do not apply. Those assumptions are frequently erroneously raised to legal presumptions), that the debt MUST be owed by the homeowners to the putative foreclosing party and that the imperfections in the paper chain are technical in nature and that therefore allowing the homeowner to win would be inequitable.

As the Courts dig deeper they are confronting the fundamental conflict between political doctrine and legal doctrine. Political doctrine mandates that the banks win in order to preserve a financial system that is now largely dependent on a ladder of financial products deriving (hence derivative) their value from each other, but based upon the assumption that the base transaction exists. The base transaction in the paper chain is a loan by the Payee on the note. In this case as in most cases, there is no base transaction in real life that would support the closing documents. Hence all the paper deriving value from the nonexistent transaction is worthless.

The simple truth is that in order for equitable subrogation to apply, one must allege and prove facts that there is injury to the pleading party — something that none of the players could ever claim in this case. Injury could only occur in financial form. And the only thing lost to Citi or even the Lehman estate, which is still in bankruptcy, is the opportunity to make a profit by deceit.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Stupid Law

Posted on November 27, 2017 by Neil Garfield

Hat tip to Bill Paatalo who wrote the main article. See link below.

I would like to say that this could have happened only in Arkansas, but that isn’t true. Watch how the Court twisted itself into a pretzel in its determines effort to make Wells Fargo win despite admitting to unlawfully altering the note by a forged endorsement.

I note also how the court steadfastly avoids the subject of ownership of the debt and clings to the notion that ownership of the note — i.e., the piece of paper that is EVIDENCE OF THE LOAN — is as deep as the court is willing to go.

see https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/wells-fargo-admits-to-executing-wamu-note-endorsement-in-2013-and-gets-away-with-it/

Register Now- 2 CLEs: Death of a Salesman — when the party who “originated” an apparent loan transaction is dead or bankrupt.

 

 

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Another Ruse: Realtors Gleeful over Equator Short Sale Platform

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

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

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

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

Editor’s Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Changes to The Bank of America Short Sale Process

by Melissa Zavala

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

Using the Equator system

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

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

New Bank of America Short Sale Process

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

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

According to the Bank of America website,

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

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

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

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

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


Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments »

ESTOPPEL LETTER: CALLING THEIR BLUFF — Interesting Anecdotal Evidence

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Neil Garfield

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

“This reminds me of when we were asking for assignments and indorsements on loans that were not behind in the payments and they couldn’t come up with it. We realized that the only time those documents surfaced was in litigation years after the supposed assignment or indorsement took place and that is what led to the discovery of the LPS, DOCX etc., robo-signers and robotic signers. More importantly it led to the discovery that the failure to assign when (a) the loan was performing and (b) within 90 days of the creation of the “trust” (REMIC/SPV) meant that the trust could not legally accept the assignment years later when (a) the loan was non-performing and (b) it was years after the cutoff date provided in the PSA and REMIC statute.

“In fact, I think these two events are inextricably related, because most of their plan and profits would never have been created if they HAD done things properly. Properly documented mortgage loans and properly and timely execution and recording of documents of transfer would have prevented them from “securitizing” non-existent loans or selling the same loans multiple times or creating synthetic CDO’s creating leverage of 30x-60x betting on failure of the “pool”(which turned out to be completely empty except for the cash it had received from the sale of credit default swaps wherein the pool accepted the position of insurer of toxic waste tranches).

“It is on that basis that I arrived at the opinion that the documents were both prepared and handled intentionally to create ambiguity and to allow for claims of “mistake” or plausible deniability. If you look at the other end of the transaction where the pension fund investor advanced the money and the sophistication of the Wall Street investment banking firms and lawyers that corroboration of an intentional act bubbles up to the top. In order to steal from the investors, steal from the homeowners and take all the money and property bottle-necked in the middle, there could be no apparent privity of contract or even equitable relationship between the actual lender/investor and the borrower.

“This gap created the void that was utilized by investment banks and all the other intermediaries to make claims without notice or consent of either the actual lender or the actual borrower. They took what the real parties (those who were exchanging money and value) and inserted terms and conditions as well as unauthroized patterns of conduct that neither of the real parties knew about — any one of which would have stopped the transaction if the information had been properly disclosed.

“If they actually came up with THE one and only original documents it would prove the fraud of multiple sales of the same loan, or it would prove the fraud of misrepresenting the loan, and it would create a claim for fraud when the Master Servicer declared the downgrade of the value of the pool. Each performing loan set of documents became a ticking time bomb that could explode in the face of Wall Street investment bankers who had created the illusion of securitization and the illusion of compliance with local property and contract law.

“It should have come as no surprise when instead of providing proof of the ownership of the loan, obligation, note and mortgage, they offered “settlements” which were too good to pass up but which kicked the title question down the road. They would rather take LESS money than the amount offered than be required to provide authenticity of the transaction they claimed to won, collect or enforce. So the moral is that we have a whole wave of new title problems and a flood of litigation coming at us as these transactions come up for resale or refinancing and the title companies, stuck between a rock and a hard place, start placing exclusionary remarks in the commitment and the policy, and the real property lawyers actually look at the title record and see the breaks.” — Neil F Garfield

SEE 2-federal-judges-announce-multiple-lenders-with-the-same-original-note

a-little-larceny-now-and-then

countrywide-admits-never-delivering-deeds-and-notes-to-pools

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

LIVINGLIES FEBRUARY 27, 2011 BY NEIL F GARFIELD

Interesting response from my earlier report that some people were going to the nuclear option. Their premise: either we are right or we are wrong. These intrepid souls were willing to take the risk that we were wrong and pay off the entire mortgage even though the house was under water. So those with money or access to money they deposited more than enough actual “money” into a bona fide real estate escrow agent’s account who issued a standard estoppel letter to the “servicer” and to the “lender of record.”

For those of you who are unfamiliar with law practice an estoppel letter requests the current status of the loan, the current amount due, the payoff amount as of a certain date which usually relates to a pending closing on a refinance or sale of the property. It requires disclosure of the identity of the party to whom the payoff should be sent.

This strategy grew out of innocent transactions involving the sale of property where the mortgage was too low to cause the property to be underwater or where, it was close and the seller was willing to come to the table with money.

In most cases, the response was innocent in its appearance, but some lawyers for the new buyers picked up that it was insufficient, so they made sure that the recipient  of the request for the estoppel letter and the writer of the estoppel letter had actual possession of the original note (2) that they had it because the money was owed to them and (3) they could show with actual evidence the chain of assignments, indorsements etc  in recordable form such that their client would be “seized” with fee simple absolute title, free and clear of the mortgage or Deed of Trust. In other words, they needed the title record to SHOW the chain of title such that their client’s title would be marketable and not subject to questions (clouds on title) or challenges (defects in title).

This is nothing unusual and has been industry practice for hundreds of years.The basic premise behind any law of commerce, or for that matter any law at all is to create certainty in society and certainty in commerce. When you do a real estate transaction where you think you are buying the property, there should be no doubt that you own it after the transaction — if everything was done right.

As any lawyer will tell you a policy of title insurance is NOT a substitute for clear title — it just provides a financial remedy if it turns out that the title was defective and can’t be fixed. That remedy is only as good as the financial condition of the title insurer and the willingness of the title insurer to pay the claim. If the title company refuses coverage because of an allegation of fraud or “rescission” like we have seen with medical insurance, you can easily be stuck with no title, a claim on your property relating to a loan you never signed, and legal bills to defend what you thought was a simple deed transaction. And you can lose and possibly owe the other side their attorney fees and costs and any damages  caused by your claim which turned out to be without merit even though your intent was as pure as the driven snow.

So what happened? Under strict anonymity I have received more than 27 reports of a mere request for an estoppel letter resulting in the abandonment by the pretender lender of any claim on the mortgage, note or obligation in settlements carefully guarded by confidentiality. But 11 people wrote in and reported that the servicer challenged the escrow agent as to whether the money was really there. THAT was because several dozen people reported varying degrees of success of using letters of credit and other cash equivalents in lieu of actual cash in the account of the escrow agent’s account.

While some people were successful in calling the bluff of the pretender lender with “cash equivalent” deals, they are on to this scheme and if the money is not REALLY there they will force you into litigation. 7 people wrote in and told me that even though the cash was present in the escrow agent’s account, and even though the request for an estoppel letter was sent by email, fax and snail mail, the pretender lender went ahead with the foreclosure — eventually resulting in payment of damages to the homeowners as part of the confidential settlement.

I have no received no reports, so far, where the actual original documents and proof of of the title chain was ever offered, which means that even if the case was settled, there is a future title problem to be resolved. I conclude thus far, from this information that 100% of those seeking foreclosure are seeking to profit from self-help and self-serving fraudulent representations to fill the void left by the fact that the trustees and investors want no part of litigation with the individual homeowners.There is of course a question as to whether the investor’s claim exists, and if so, how much of the obligation is left AFTER loss mitigation payments that were made under express waiver of subrogation. But one thing seems “certain” in my opinion, and that is that the ONLY creditor, if one exists, is the party who actually funded the loan or actually funded the purchase of the loan.

With 96% of foreclosures resulting in sales involving a “credit bid” from a non-creditor, it is highly probable, based upon data received thus far, that NONE of the foreclosures are, or ever were valid exercise of rights by a creditor to recover or mitigate actual losses. In ALL cases these were interlopers who had neither loaned the money nor purchased the obligation who were submitting “credit bids” and fraudulently acquiring title.

There are some investor groups who formerly were doing short-sale  purchases that are now looking at using this strategy. If they are right, they need only maintain a balance in the account of the escrow agent, and then make a deal with the current homeowner for a new and valid mortgage, which in turn can be held for investment or sold properly on the secondary market. If they are right, a single deposit of a few hundred thousand dollars into the account of the escrow agent, could yield tens of millions of dollars in new, enforceable, valid mortgages. The yield is infinite since the money in escrow is never actually released because of the failure of the pretender lender to come up with the black letter proof of their status as the creditor and thus the proper party to execute a satisfaction of mortgage or reconveyance of the property.

The possibility for litigation still exists, but the position of the pretender lender is extremely weak.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 31 Comments »

Deliberate Destruction Of Documents: Securitization Evolved into a Myth

Posted on September 29, 2010 by Neil Garfield

SERVICES YOU NEED

“Then guy then laughed nervously and said, “Well, if you’re right, we’re ****ed. We never transferred the paper. No one in the industry transferred the paper.”

Editor’s Note: It is very rewarding to see the work of Karl Denninger and others who are taking  my work and not only moving it along, but advancing on it. LUMINAQ is now offering not only the title and securitization searches but actual accounting records showing that the loans were reported to the creditor as performing at the same time they were being declared in default, along with payment to the creditor. Is it a default if the creditor received payment? Obviously not. And THAT is why I keep saying that the non-payment by the borrower is NOT the same thing as a default. It is the non-receipt by the creditor of an expected payment that is a default.

I guess the lesson here is whatever you think is true isn’t. Whatever you think is impossible, is the rule. In EVERY CASE that I have reviewed, seen reviewed or reported to me the basic facts are the same: Except for a few loans from the 2001-2003 era, NONE of them were actually securitized, and from what I can see and what title experts are reporting under promise of anonymity, none of these loans are actually secured by the property. The lien wasn’t just subject to the old “failure to perfect the lien” doctrines, they were never secured to begin with.

The liability of the borrower inured directly to the benefit of an unnamed principal that was in turn the undisclosed agent of another unnamed principal, which was the account representative of undisclosed lenders who received a bond, not the note signed by the borrower. The parties named on the mortgage or deed of trust had nothing to do with the finances, payments or accounting for the amount advanced by the lender nor the proceeds of payments receivable by the lender. The lenders received promises to pay from people OTHER than the homeowner.

The note was payable to a party who did not loan the money and never touched the money and who is not due any money now. The same is true for the parties named as mortgagees, beneficiaries or lenders in the mortgage or deed of trust. And they were all different parties. So the obligation was payable to the lender, the note was payable to a disinterested intermediary, and the mortgage or deed of trust was in favor of still another disinterested party. There is no law I know of that would allow a disinterested party named in an encumbrance to foreclose or enforce a debt that is not due to THAT party. The encumbrance is a myth.

As the article below corroborates many statements  made on this blog — the FACTS are that that notwithstanding the contents of the securitization documentation, nothing ever happened. Nothing was transferred legally, equitably or any other way — the obligation was left undisturbed and exists only by operation of law to the party who advanced the funds. The note is NOT evidence of the obligation because it is a misrepresentation of the party to whom the obligation is owed. The mortgage or deed of trust, which is neither an obligation nor a note that could be used as evidence of the obligation, is incident to an obligation that does not exist — the one described on the note.

If I signed a warranty deed and mortgage conveying and encumbering your home, properly witnessed, notarized and recorded, it would look right but it wouldn’t be true. If I signed a letter stating that I had the original document in my hands, as it was duly recorded in the county records, the letter would be true statement of a false fact. The documentation that shows on ABS.net, Bloomberg and other services showing loan specific data in alleged “pools” and “tranches” of loans is exactly like the letter — a self-serving statement that is documenting a fact that is untrue, to wit: that the loan was assigned into the pool and securitized into tranches and then sold off as mortgage bonds.

THE ASSIGNMENT NEVER TOOK PLACE. THERE WAS NO ENDORSEMENT, TRANSFER OR EVEN TRANSMITTAL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND OBVIOUSLY NO RECORDING OF THESE NONEXISTENT DOCUMENTS, WITHOUT WHICH THE POOL’S CLAIM TO THE LOAN IS SIMPLY FALSE. IT ISN’T JUST VOID OR VOIDABLE, IT IS A LIE.

The unavoidable conclusion is that the loans are unsecured, a QUIET TITLE action would remove the appearance of the false encumbrance, and the homes that have already been “sold” pursuant to “foreclosure” in both non-judicial and judicial states are subject to wrongful foreclosure actions, as are the homes that are currently in some stage of the foreclosure process.

As for the unsecured obligations, they are owed — subject to offset and counterclaims — under TILA, RESPA, Consumer Fraud laws and common law fraud. If there is anything left after deduction for compensatory damages and punitive damages or treble damages, then the borrower still owes it to whoever is really the party who lost money on the transactions, assuming they have not already mitigated their damages by receipt of insurance, federal bailout, or counter-party contract payments.

See, I Told You So (Deliberate Destruction Of Documents)
The Market Ticker ® – Commentary on The Capital Markets
Posted 2010-09-27 08:35
by Karl Denninger
in Housing
See, I Told You So (Deliberate Destruction Of Documents)

Yves over at Naked Capitalism has dug up confirmation of what I’ve been saying now for more than two years and have had on “background” and could not “out” the sources of – the practice of not complying with both MBS securitization offering circulars and black-letter state law was both pervasive and intentional.

One of my colleagues had a long conversation with the CEO of a major subprime lender that was later acquired by a larger bank that was a major residential mortgage player. This buddy went through his explanation of why he thought mortgage trusts were in trouble if more people wised up to how they had messed up with making sure they got the note. The former CEO was initially resistant, arguing that they had gotten opinions from top law firms. My contact was very familiar with those opinions, and told him how qualified they were, and did not cover the little problem of not complying with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement. He also rebutted other objections of the CEO. Then guy then laughed nervously and said, “Well, if you’re right, we’re ****ed. We never transferred the paper. No one in the industry transferred the paper.”

WE NEVER TRANSFERRED THE PAPER. NO ONE IN THE INDUSTRY TRANSFERRED THE PAPER.

Got it folks?

This was not an accident and the dog didn’t eat anyone’s homework.

THE MAJOR BANKS AND LENDERS ALL INTENTIONALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BOTH THEIR OWN OFFERING DOCUMENTS AND BLACK-LETTER STATE LAW.

Even better – in 2009 The Florida Banker’s Association ADMITTED that they have been intentionally destroying the original “wet ink” signatures and documents:

The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court system.

I don’t care what’s a “standard” if it does not comport with the law!

This is like saying that “dealing crack is a standard in the gang industry, therefore, we can sell it even though Federal Law says that we should go to prison for doing so.”

Incidentally, for those who will chime in that “electronic copies are just as good”, no they’re not. They’re not secured, they’re not cryptographically signed and verified by the originator, and they are trivially easy to tamper with.

I’d accept that an electronic copy is ok provided that the original is scanned, encoded, and digitally signed by the consumer at the point of origination, and that consumer then takes the original and a copy of the electronic document with him, with all of this being disclosed and approved by the consumer. If I PGP-sign a document or file it is extremely difficult to tamper with it in a way that cannot be detected. But without that sort of signature and encoding in the presence of the consumer, along with the consumer being the one that gets the paper copy, it is essentially impossible to prove that the document was not tampered with. “Wet signatures” and originals are required for exactly this reason – it makes tampering dangerous as it can usually be detected quite easily.

This is massive, pernicious and OUTRAGEOUS fraud folks.

*
It is fraud upon the county governments who were deprived of their recording and transfer fees (e.g. “doc stamps.”)

*
It is fraud upon all of the MBS buyers, who purchased these securities with a representation and warranty that these notes WERE transferred and properly endorsed.

*
And it is fraud upon the courts when the “lost note” affidavits are filed asserting that the documents were LOST, when in fact THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY DESTROYED.

If you hold private-label MBS wake the hell up and get your lawsuits going, because these big banks that put this stuff together will not survive this and the only way you get anything back is to be first in line.

Folks, this is not small potatoes or something we can overlook.

We are talking about intentional, pernicious, industry-wide fraud perpetrated upon the public, upon the government, upon homeowners and upon investors to the tune of trillions of dollars.

We MUST NOT tolerate this.

Each and every institution involved must be held to criminal account for their willful and intentional acts in this regard.

Bail these people out? Hell no. They deserve a speedy and public trial, to be immediately followed by the proper sanction imposed for intentional acts taken to destroy this nation and it’s financial stability. This is terrorism, exactly as Bin Laden intended (destruction of our economy) and should be met with an identical punishment.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Conservative NC Court of App: Power of Sale is Not Favored Under the Law

Posted on June 7, 2010 by Neil Garfield

GET LOAN SPECIFIC RECORDS PROPERTY SEARCH AND SECURITIZATION SUMMARY

because a foreclosure under a power of sale is not favored in the law and must be “watched with jealousy,” see In re Foreclosure of Goforth Props., 334 N.C. at 375, 432 S.E.2d at 859 (internal quotation marks omitted), we must conclude that the evidence presented to the trial court was not sufficient to establish that the Note was payable to Deutsche Bank for Soundview, and so was not sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of fact that “Novastar Mortgage, Inc., . . . transferred and assigned its interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-4 (`Lender’).”

Conservative NC Court of Appeals says “Show us the note!”

Today, June 07, 2010, 31 minutes ago | admin From Home Equity Theft Reporter:

Another trial court screw-up in a foreclosure action was recently reversed – this time by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which ruled that a lender seeking to foreclose on a mortgage had failed to properly provide sufficient competent evidence that it was the holder of the promissory note secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, it ruled that the lender was not entitled to go forward with a foreclosure

sale.(1)

For the ruling, see In re Foreclosure of Adams, No. COA09-1455 (N.C.

App. June 1, 2010).

(1) An excerpt from the ruling (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text):

[S]ince the photocopies of the Note and Deed of Trust presented to the trial court indicate that the original holder of both instruments was Novastar, not Deutsche Bank for Soundview, and since these photocopies do not indicate that Novastar negotiated, indorsed or transferred the Note to Deutsche Bank for Soundview, respondents contend the photocopied instruments alone were not sufficient to establish that Deutsche Bank for Soundview is the current holder of the Note.

We recognize that, in the present case, the testimony by affidavit from Ms. Smith, the assistant secretary of Deutsche Bank for Soundview——an out-of-state entity——as well as the in-person testimony offered by Ms. Cole indicated that Deutsche Bank for Soundview is the current holder of the Note and Deed of Trust. However, neither the in-person testimony from Ms. Cole nor the testimony by affidavit from Ms. Smith expressly showed that Novastar transferred or assigned its interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank for Soundview.

Moreover, as we discussed above, the photocopied Note and Deed of Trust, which were described in Ms. Smith’s affidavit as “exact reproductions” of the original instruments, do not show that the Note was indorsed, transferred, or otherwise made payable by Novastar, the original holder of the instrument, to Deutsche Bank for Soundview.

Thus, whereas the record in In re Foreclosure of Brown, 156 N.C. App. 477, 577 S.E.2d 398 (2003), also included an Assignment of Deed of Trust as evidence showing that the original holder of the note and deed of trust had assigned its interest in said instruments to the party seeking to foreclose on the respondent—borrowers, the record before the trial court in the present case contained no such additional evidence.

Accordingly, because a foreclosure under a power of sale is not favored in the law and must be “watched with jealousy,” see In re Foreclosure of Goforth Props., 334 N.C. at 375, 432 S.E.2d at 859 (internal quotation marks omitted), we must conclude that the evidence presented to the trial court was not sufficient to establish that the Note was payable to Deutsche Bank for Soundview, and so was not sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of fact that “Novastar Mortgage, Inc., . . . transferred and assigned its interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-4 (`Lender’).”

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, Pleading, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

ID THEFT: Example of one person’s response

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Editors’ Note: In response to my post on ID THEFT I received a number of comments and ideas. Here is one example of how someone stuck to the message and forced the issue using ID theft as a defensive tactic as well as preparing for an offensive response.

Are you reading my mind?
Out of the blue in Oct. Got a letter with my mortgage company letterhead stating “welcome to new mortgage company”. Said they changed their name. Separate letter said on Nov 6. stop making payments to them by their name and Nov. 7 start making payments to them by new name.
I know about contracts so I attempted to not contract with new name. It’s been a disaster.

1. No assignment 5 months out, in the Official Real Estate Records.
2. Real Trustee still holds title. I contacted him, but he only represents the beneficiary ‘who has the note and an interest secured in the home”.
3. Checked all three credit reports, 5 months out. Two show old name one show new name all have the same info. I disputed new name in the credit report that had it – stating I didn’t know them.
4. I disputed old name in another credit report since they are no longer exist to force identification of who is updating that report. Got copies of all.
4. Checked SEC filings. Investors bought the first name corporation in 2008. Then on Nov. 6, 2009 they merged the bank into their business. That explains why they said to stop paying one name.
5. Foreclosures under old name on file in Deed of Trust has been without assignment or transfer filings. Using Substitute Trustee. Three problems. Original Trustee still holds title. I already wrote him and know this. Deed of Trust on file has no provision for Substituting the Trustee. By virtue of the ‘merger’ they should have the original documents.
6. Spent 5 months asking them to validate their claim. They send a copy of the Certified copy of my Deed of Trust on file in the public (that does not name them), and a copy of a Certified copy of the Promissory note (that does not name them). Two problems They can’t attach to the Deed of Trust without assignment..name change or not…their name is ‘not’ the named Lender nor beneficiary in the Deed of Trust. And the Promissory Note was made out to a specific entity. You can’t possibly assume that I have to know that when you sell it, they can come up and say ‘pay me’ when the promissory note is supposed to be held by the person you promised to pay. If they sell it, that’s a different agreement between them and the other buyer, but I can’t be forced into their third party agreement as long as I agree to pay you..you stay right there and let me pay you..but don’t force me to pay someone I did not ‘promise to pay’.
7. They’ve hired a law firm (setting up for a substitute trustee situation). I contacted the firm. (not pro bono, not pro se, no attorney..just me and told them I don’t recognize the other company and I have asked them to validate and they respond with stronger demand for money.) Maybe that’s why I got the ‘copies’ I did get from the mortgage company that does not support their claim.
8. Informed the attorney of their violation of FDCPA by forwarding information to another party and by not disclosing the amount attempted to collect is in dispute.
9. I wouldn’t trust an attorney at this time. The United States is in Bankruptcy, China filed a lien for 45 Million dollars in December 2009.
10. Have a copy of a Substitute Trustee sale by this company. They never released the lien on the debtor they foreclosed on after the sale. If they had the papers they could have released the lien.
11. Once you admit there is a contract you can’t use Statue of Frauds which helps me because I have refused to contract and have refused to pay and requested validation of their claim of a debt owed to them.
Thinking seriously about filing SEC complaint and sending the ‘Communications, Notice and Order’ to the named person listed in their SEC filing and a copy of that to the law firm listed with the words “With a copy to” – in their SEC filing
My identity has been stolen by the company. When I establish an account with one firm, that does not give a right to another firm to step up and say I have the account, change the name, change the terms of your initial agreement and start paying me now because I have a ‘new name’. How can you have an account demanding payment when there is no agreement and you are really a new entity, not just a new name?
I’m learning about Statute of Frauds. It would also appear that Deceptive Trade Practices can be proven in this mess. A company who has no contract attaches to your credit report as if you’ve established business agreement with them? They have no definition in your Deed of Trust, yet they can get an attorney to represent their interest in your document and start nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. If they have the papers it takes to change the name on the credit report, they should have the papers it takes to file an assignment/transfer and change the name on the Deed of Trust.
I’ve not paid them any money, but I have filed FTC and Attorney General complaints. Not sure if I have to pay the 5 months in arrears as Threat, Duress, and Coercion to get some action done by these public resources I’m using to filing the compliant.

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Note produced and Mortgage is not: Several possible answers:

Posted on July 4, 2008 by Neil Garfield

Note produced and Mortgage is not: Several possible answers:

  1. Mortgage itself is not required in original form but a certified copy of what is recorded is required.
  2. That they do not have the original stamped copy is indicative but not proof that the mortgage was assigned or transferred in some way. Therefore you want someone with personal knowledge to swear what happened to the mortgage and specifically whether it was assigned, transferred, hypothecated or whether any instrument was executed by the named mortgagee that effects the terms, rights, obligations, ownership or control over the disposition of the mortgage. Put another way: who is it that could execute a satisfaction of mortgage that would satisfy a title expert?
  3. Original Note produced. Several cases where the “original” was a forged copy of the real original. Check with borrower to determine if it is their signature and whether all borrowers signed.
  4. Just because someone physically has possession of the note does not necessarily mean that they own it — but that raises a strong presumption which can only be rebutted by some proof of either a pattern that the mortgagee and payee on the note admits to regarding selling, transferring etc the note, or some documentation from the mortgagee files that shows that they only retained the rights to service the mortgage and received some payment for the full balance of the note or part of the balance of the note plus a “premium” which amounts to an undisclosed fee (TILA violation).
  5. It is probably true in many cases that any number of people got possession your borrower’s note without any rights to it in the process of multiple assignments. Transfer of possession implies transfer of ownership and rights but that is a presumption, not black letter law. So if you show that that going up the line that A transferred to B who transferred to C who transferred to D and the note is in B’s hands, B has no right to enforce the note or foreclose the mortgage. B lacks standing and they have not joined the real party in interest. They are at most a nominal plaintiff. Even if the statute allows a nominal plaintiff in possession of the note to enforce the note and foreclose on the mortgage, they cannot do so without someone having personal knowledge and authority to state that the note is in default and that the nominal plaintiff is instructed to enforce. But in our example if C instructs nominal Plaintiff B and the note and mortgage are held by D then the standing and real party in interest problem still exists — the Defendant could still be sued again by the real party in interest for a double collection, thus the action must be dismissed with prejudice.
  6. In the securitization process, co-obligors (other borrowers) are created in the merger that results by pooling the mortgages and notes and terms are added, which is what happens when a 12% note is sold to an investor as 12% but it only provides for a 1% option ARM payment. Thus if the investor (owner of asset backed security) is in fact getting paid in full, then it is difficult if not impossible to say that one specific note is in default even if there is no evidence of borrower payment, because of the obvious intervention of third party payments.
  7. “Assignment” of the note must usually be accompanied by physical delivery. But in the securitization process this rarely occurred resulting legally in the Mortgagee/Payee receiving payment in full for a pool of mortgage notes that includes some reference to your borrower’s note. That being the case, the note is paid, the security is severed, and the party who now “owes” on the note is the Mortgagee/Payee who assigned for payment the ownership to a third party who in turn did the same thing. The “default is not that of the borrower anymore because a third party intervened and paid the full balance. This follows the same logic and theory that happens in a refinancing: the mortagee/payee on one mortgage note is paid by a third party. If the third party fails to record a valid assignmentof mortgage or a new mortgage under the laws governing recording, then there is no encumbrance. If the reason the third party paid was because of some deal with the original borrower then the new lender may have a cause of action for an unsecured debt. But in the securitization process the “new” lender is not even disclosed to the original borrower. That they chose to pay off the note is their problem and between them and the seller or their attorney who should have documented the transaction properly.
  8. Rules of evidence in each jurisdiction vary somewhat when it comes to negotiable instruments, assignment, delivery and recordation, so it should be checked both with state and statutes and even with one of the more experienced recording clerks in the county where the property is located.

Filed under: CDO, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Mortgage | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: