FROM ANONYMOUS, MY FAVORITE CONTRIBUTOR
EDITOR’S NOTE: I would be better off and so would our readers if I could be as succinct in my writing as Anonymous. Somehow it always takes me longer to say what he does in a few sentences. Use HIS version instead of mine whenever possible. My version is more academic and runs the risk of putting the Judge to sleep.
- This piece written by Anonymous underscores the BASIC point that needs to be made from the start: the TOTAL agreement between lender and borrower consists of far more than the loan closing documents.
- The fact that the rest of the documents were withheld doesn’t mean they weren’t involved, signed, executed and delivered. It means they were not disclosed when the applicable federal and state statutes as well as common law required them to be disclosed.
- The old school Judges and lawyers are confused ONLY because they fail to recognize this basic truth.
- Once they accept the fact that the borrower signed a note but the lender received a bond from a party not involved in the borrower’s closing, it all falls into place.
- There is no nexus between borrower and lender without recognizing the obvious — there were parties, documents, agreements and corresponding duties and obligations existing in the UNDISCLOSED MIDDLE.
- The single transaction rule once applied, clears up all confusion. No money from investor – NO DEAL. No borrower to accept loan — NO DEAL. SINGLE TRANSACTION if there ever was one.
- But perhaps the single most important point Anonymous makes is that the alleged assignment, transfer, endorsement etc of the note never took actually place which means that the title (encumbrance — mortgage or deed of trust) is and remains in the name of the originating “lender” to whom no money is owed. A classical case of an unperfected security interest.
From Anonymous: “Repurchase and stipulations is contained within the same Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – it is not a separate contract – it is the same document and contract under the stated Trust and SEC filings. Thus, none of the note endorsements were actually “without recourse.”
However, many of the repurchase demands were not executed because the banks often looked the other way – until they became massive – and the originators were shut down.
Most of the endorsements were in blank – only when they knew there was no longer any recourse, are the notes actually endorsed to the trustee. But, they did not know this at the time of the trust set-up.
And, the notes are executed before foreclosure – they are sold at steep discounts to the servicer and removed from the trust – at this point there is no recourse..
It is at the inception of the trust – that the notes were not actually negotiable. Thus, the trust never actually owned the notes – they did not have to – because only the receivables are passed-through.
If there was a separate contract for Repurchases – it would have had to have been filed with the SEC – along with other documents. There was no separate contract – the Repurchase agreement was part of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – they were one and the same.
Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, medical insurance, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, taxes, trustee Tagged: | anonymous, BOND, Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, note, Obligation, Repurchase, single transaction