More on the “NAME” of the “TRUST”

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

see also just-give-me-the-name-of-the-trust-explained

Perhaps one of the analysts might add to this answer. The “TRUST” is a shorthand way of referring to a party that supposedly claims to own your obligation, note, mortgage or all three. In most cases the Trust seems to have never met the the requirements of the State of New York in forming a trust, so its legal existence is in doubt. In any event, the entity, which is more often than not referred to as a “Trust” is in the language of Wall Street, a Special Purpose vehicle (SPV) qualifying under the REMIC provisions of the internal revenue code. Tf you conform to the requirements of the IRC the IRS will not treat any money going through the trust as a taxable event.

The reference to a GSE (Government Sponsored Entity, like Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac etc.) is a reference to a guarantee which in turn facilitates the sale of the obligation, note and/or mortgage into the “secondary market”. This “Secondary market” is comprised almost entirely of securitization structures which is why everyone talks about “Trusts.” Thus the reference to Fannie Mae confirms that Fannie Mae forms were probably used, confirms that Fannie Mae provided a guarantee, and confirms that Fannie Mae was part of the intended securitization structure as set forth in documents that COULD be recorded with the SEC or elsewhere, but are not necessarily recorded because these transactions are exempt from regulation (see 1998 Act exempting derivative instruments from regulation).

A CUSIP number may or may not exist. Many so-called securitizations were really spreadsheets that never made it into public records. There wasn’t even a bond issued (they were called non-certificated bonds). The name of the asset pool that could or might make a claim to your obligation, note or mortgage could be one of several players in the shell game. Until the Wall Street entities settle on who they are “assigning” the loan to, there is no entity making that claim. And the issue doesn’t even come up without litigation where discovery is actually the end game. If the Judge grants discovery, game over, they make you an offer or just leave the premises. If the Judge denies discovery, you have to appeal and go much further.

It is only at the point where there is litigation, that documents are prepared to show the alleged transfer from the loan originator. Until then, those documents do not exist, contrary to the requirements of the IRC REMIC codes and contrary to the pooling and servicing agreement. Oddly enough the least amount of work in satisfying your question occurs when the securitizers are at least pretending to play by the rules. THEN we can come up with an exact name of the “trust” and maybe even CUSIP number. But the work expands if they didn’t go that route. So we have gone as far as we can without doing a complete securitization analysis and scan of public records in other jurisdictions to find out where these parties show up and what is being alleged by them as to what path they followed in securitizing similar loans.

About these ads

56 Responses

  1. Can someone help me understand how “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee” can acquire an order to foreclose, then foreclose and assign a CREDIT BID to “Deutsche Bank National Company, as Trustee under Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-NC3?

    Does anyone know who regulates the trust after they stop reporting to the SEC? Trying to find out if Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC3 still exists or has it been dissolved.

  2. CAN SOME ONE EMAIL THE DUETSCH SAXON TRUSTEE/SECURTIES FLOW CHART. OUR CLASS ACTION ATTORNEY NEEDS IT.
    THANKS
    IAMNEWSONG@HOTMAIL.COM

  3. Concerned,
    Where were they before they became BK judges? Almost always they were judges in the superior courts. That means they still have $$$ invested in Goldman.

  4. I just got a ‘comment’ update from another site that made the claim that Bank of New York Melon is owned by Bank of America.

    Supposedly even a notary at Bank of America verified that as true.

    REALLY?

  5. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48284499/Subsequent-Purchaser-Electronic-Copy-and-MERS-transfers-legal-or-not

    JAMES MCGUIRE AND THE UCC 9, MERS, LAND TITLE RECORDS, ELECTRONIC TRANSFERS MADE SIMPLE.

  6. Tony said: “DBNTC even put in a claim with the FDIC and was DENIED and was stated they are NOT a SECURED CREDITOR just a GENERAL CREDITOR (unsecured) and there will be no money for general creditors.”
    Brian, Tony or ANONYMOUS – where is that Order, Minute Order, FDIC Response or Judge’s comments at? Thanks.

  7. To Abby in CA
    The REMIC Trust is not showing up at the trustee’s sales bidding on the properties. The properties are “reverting to the beneficiary” when a third party bidder does not purchase them. They are acquiring the properties on a credit bid, which M. Soliman says is their way of re-establishing the asset. The crime here is they are NOT the true creditor, so how can they acquire all these properties with a credit bid? No one stops them.

  8. deutsche bank national trust company reversed in ohio appeals court. they simply lack standing and no creative redo will paper the record. they pay costs and have decision of no standing. i have seen this type of case with the bogus late assignments. i lived it. Thanks to dinsfla.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48283356/Ohio-Appeals-Reversal-Re-Deutsche-Bank-National-Trust-Lacks-Standing-2-3-2011

  9. b davies,

    Did they file Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements?

  10. fwiw
    as Jan Van Eck stated…1,000’s of law suits is death by a 1000 cuts.

  11. Ian
    then we need to “demand servicer’s remittance ledger” as their proof of claim for the secured debt.
    As anything else would be ..hear-say now that the servicers have been found in the “non clean hands”
    category . We need to display this is the ONLY valid method of confirmation of these debts, no claim then NO security! big words oh yea… but the strategy of working the forced path to a choke point.
    just throwing it out there.

  12. Tony. Great great post. Thankyou for sharing that it has helped me put dome pieces of my jigsaw together.

  13. ok, I’m starting to see the light here. Many thanks to Neil, Tony, Abby, Anon, Concerned, Brian, etc. I’m having fun getting to the bottom of this. Ah, it’s a Glorious Day to do Battle.

  14. tony
    Great post. I am using the same against the “KING OF THIEVES” Deutsche Bank since 2007 and my case is moving now for quite Title, as judge said, ” We will move the case forward with quite Title” every time they come in the court and lie and I am using their own lies and their own documents against them

  15. Only going to say this once. People on here must understand what a “Qualified Financial Contract vs a Non Qualified Financial Contract” is. If and when you understand this you will see that as in B Davies case, this trust only had Non QFC’s in the trust.

    Check out:

    http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-7800.html#fdic2000part3605

    Read it well Non QFC’s are as ANONYMOUS has stated many of times (just not as QFC’s vs Non QFC’s) are ONLY receivables of collection rights.

    Also Brian you are doing a good job, but start attacking the meaning of QFC’s vs NON QFC’s. You are in the same court where DBNTC vs FDIC is being ruled on and the judge talks about the QFC matter. Case number is #09-3852 in the California
    Federal District Court Central District Western Division.

    People you need to read this case, and if you have a so called an Indymac Loan you really need to read this case. DBNTC admitts that all 246 trust under the Indymac was striped of all assets. They even went to probate so the judge would not make DBNTC liable for anymore claims. If anyone knows trust law you know that you can only go to probate when a trust is dead. DBNTC even put in a claim with the FDIC and was DENIED and was stated they are NOT a SECURED CREDITOR just a GENERAL CREDITOR (unsecured) and there will be no money for general creditors.

    Onewest is not servicing the former Indymac papers for DBNTC, but instead for Indymac Ventures LLC. If you google and pull this name, its on the FDIC’s own website it says THEY WILL NEVER BE GIVEN THE ORIGINAL NOTE, AND IF THEY TRY TO JOIN AND FORMER PARTIES IT WILL BE VOID.

    So when banks lawyers (debt collectors) pull up and say here is the original note they are committing open fraud and there is proof. They was only given a collateral file with the debtors information as any debt collector receives, when they buy debt.

    FDIC gave Onewest the collection rights without taking on any liabilities. As many has seen in there court cases Onewest says we brought the assets of Indymac without any liabilities. Then how could they try to use the PSA’s in court cases? They cant they are not a party to the document.

    Indymac was 2 people in the trust transaction:
    1. Sellers (QFC)
    2. Servicer (Non QFC)

    Indymac sold there collection rights aka Non QFC’s to the Trust Series. (You must understand a series has one main name and feeds the rest that why it called series.) Then Indymac promised that as of the time of selling that everything was in good order and if it wasnt they would buy it back. (QFC) Once the trust took it Indymac job as seller was done.

    Indymac then took on its other job 2. Servicer of the trust. (Non QFC)

    When Indymac went under the FDIC took Indymac into receivership. FDIC then made Indymac Federal FSB. This is a big part because when Onewest bank say they brought the assets of Indymac Bank, Onewest did not buy the assets of the Failed thrift, but of Indymac Federal FSB the FDIC version of Indymac which is big difference. Onewest just tries to muddy the waters buy not trying to say which one they really brought.

    FDIC as in conservator split the QFC from the Non QFC and gave IMB Hold Co the deposits and the Collection rights of all 246 Indymac trust series without any liabilities. IMB Hold Co then made Indymac Ventures LLC (the only sole member of the LLC is Onewest Bank) who Onewest is servicing for.

    FDIC did this without repudiate contracts under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e), r. Even if they did it would of made the trust series whole and still DBNTC would not have any claim even in non QFC form. As FAS 140 explains in detail.

    In short if your loan was securitized its not about your Mortgage or Note it is about is it a Qualified Financial Contract or not. Use this and you will not have to worry about wheres the assignment or anything else.

    Its now about accounting and security laws. Then you can show why they was not any assignments, because they only had non QFC rights Judges wont like this matter, but there is nothing they can do about it, now you are connecting the dots. All these securitizations are UNSECURED period and banks know this. The Trust never had any QFC’s only Non QFC’s.

    Hope all was helpful and GOD BLESS.

    *If this comes up 2 times sorry I didn’t see it get posted.

  16. Only going to say this once. People on here must understand what a “Qualified Financial Contract vs a Non Qualified Financial Contract” is. If and when you understand this you will see that as in B Davies case, this trust only had Non QFC’s in the trust.

    Check out:

    http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-7800.html#fdic2000part3605

    Read it well Non QFC’s are as ANONYMOUS has stated many of times (just not as QFC’s vs Non QFC’s) are ONLY receivables of collection rights.

    Also Brian you are doing a good job, but start attacking the meaning of QFC’s vs NON QFC’s. You are in the same court where DBNTC vs FDIC is being ruled on and the judge talks about the QFC matter. Case number is #09-3852 in the California
    Federal District Court Central District Western Division.

    People you need to read this case, and if you have a so called an Indymac Loan you really need to read this case. DBNTC admitts that all 246 trust under the Indymac was striped of all assets. They even went to probate so the judge would not make DBNTC liable for anymore claims. If anyone knows trust law you know that you can only go to probate when a trust is dead. DBNTC even put in a claim with the FDIC and was DENIED and was stated they are NOT a SECURED CREDITOR just a GENERAL CREDITOR (unsecured) and there will be no money for general creditors.

    Onewest is not servicing the former Indymac papers for DBNTC, but instead for Indymac Ventures LLC. If you google and pull this name, its on the FDIC’s own website it says THEY WILL NEVER BE GIVEN THE ORIGINAL NOTE, AND IF THEY TRY TO JOIN AND FORMER PARTIES IT WILL BE VOID.

    So when banks lawyers (debt collectors) pull up and say here is the original note they are committing open fraud and there is proof. They was only given a collateral file with the debtors information as any debt collector receives, when they buy debt.

    FDIC gave Onewest the collection rights without taking on any liabilities. As many has seen in there court cases Onewest says we brought the assets of Indymac without any liabilities. Then how could they try to use the PSA’s in court cases? They cant they are not a party to the document.

    Indymac was 2 people in the trust transaction:
    1. Sellers (QFC)
    2. Servicer (Non QFC)

    Indymac sold there collection rights aka Non QFC’s to the Trust Series. (You must understand a series has one main name and feeds the rest that why it called series.) Then Indymac promised that as of the time of selling that everything was in good order and if it wasnt they would buy it back. (QFC) Once the trust took it Indymac job as seller was done.

    Indymac then took on its other job 2. Servicer of the trust. (Non QFC)

    When Indymac went under the FDIC took Indymac into receivership. FDIC then made Indymac Federal FSB. This is a big part because when Onewest bank say they brought the assets of Indymac Bank, Onewest did not buy the assets of the Failed thrift, but of Indymac Federal FSB the FDIC version of Indymac which is big difference. Onewest just tries to muddy the waters buy not trying to say which one they really brought.

    FDIC as in conservator split the QFC from the Non QFC and gave IMB Hold Co the deposits and the Collection rights of all 246 Indymac trust series without any liabilities. IMB Hold Co then made Indymac Ventures LLC (the only sole member of the LLC is Onewest Bank) who Onewest is servicing for.

    FDIC did this without repudiate contracts under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e), r. Even if they did it would of made the trust series whole and still DBNTC would not have any claim even in non QFC form. As FAS 140 explains in detail.

    In short if your loan was securitized its not about your Mortgage or Note it is about is it a Qualified Financial Contract or not. Use this and you will not have to worry about wheres the assignment or anything else.

    Its now about accounting and security laws. Then you can show why they was not any assignments, because they only had non QFC rights Judges wont like this matter, but there is nothing they can do about it, now you are connecting the dots. All these securitizations are UNSECURED period and banks know this. The Trust never had any QFC’s only Non QFC’s.

    Hope all was helpful and GOD BLESS.

  17. Florida: I have the same MERS mess with fraudulent assignment recorded after Lis Pendens from a defuncet institution, plus Allonge to a different defunct company and MERs website showing a different defunct investor. I Plead all of the above with exhibits and case law, plus Judicial Notice of Attorney report on UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE AND UNCONSCIONABLE acts in foreclosure. Judge Gallen denied my Motion To Dismiss.
    Reason: Note with blank endorsement.
    (THERE IS NO ENDORSEMENT ON MY NOTE. He just lied.)

    I plan to send this information to Atty. General, the Justice Dept., all Senators and Representatives in Florida and the Chief Judge of the Twelfth District.
    Plaese send your cases to the authorities as we have to keep fighting, even though the playing field is rigged against us.

  18. Abby:

    Could it be some people hiding behind their fraudulently pretending to be the trust?

    It wouldn’t be the first time such similar behavior was discovered.

  19. I THOUGHT THE REMIC TRUST IS SUPPOSED TO BE PASSIVE? SURE DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT IS A PASSIVE PASS-THRU TRUST.

  20. ONE MORE THING. KEEP IN MIND AT THE FORECLOSURE AUCTION, THE REMIC IS NOT BUYING A MORTGAGE, IT IS BUYING THE ACTUAL PROPERTY.

    AND—ONCE IT BUYS THAT PROPERTY WHAT DOES THE REMIC DO WITH IT?

    THE REMIC LISTS IT ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET.

    ONCE THE HOME IS SOLD ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET, DOESN’T THE MONEY PAID FOR HOME PURCHASE GO TO THE REMIC?

    HOW CAN THE REMIC TRUST BE WHEELING AND DEALING LIKE THIS?

  21. Loan and Securitization Search and Analysis.

    Get it done. It is more likely than not that you will be pleasantly schocked at what will be discovered. For instance, you might learn that the Trust suing you for foreclosure formally ceased operation years prior to suing you for foreclosure. (wouldn’t you and your judge just love to learn that little bombshell of a fact?

    Or what if your defulted Note had been sold at a great discount and the buyer was your servicer and your servicer has illegally passed itself off as the owner of the ORIGINAL Note, as if the default sale never occured and has used the court to steal or attempt to steal your house?

    Bottom line is a proper and thorough investigation and analysis of your loan and its securitization WILL likely be the single best expenditure of dollars you’ll ever make!

  22. ANONYMOUS OR NEIL: WITH REFERENCE TO MY POST BELOW – IF A REMIC TRUST IS GOING OUT AND BUYING PROPERTIES AT A FORECLOSURE SALE (OF COURSE WE KNOW IT IS THE REMIC SECURITIES TRUSTEE DOING THIS) WHERE IS THE REMIC TRUST GETTING THE MONEY TO DO THIS? WOULD IT SHOW ON A BALANCE SHEET? HOW WOULD IT SHOW?

    THE AMOUNT THE REMIC TRUST IS PAYING IS LISTED ON THE ‘TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE’ FILED AT THE COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE AFTER THE FORECLOSURE AUCTION. THESE CAN BE HEFTY AMOUNTS OF MONEY, SAY OVER 550K.

    IS THE REMIC TRUST ACTUALLY GOING TO THE AUCTION AND BIDDING AGAINST OTHERS?

    MY SUSPICION IS THAT THE REMIC TRUST IS NOT DOING THAT, BUT PERHAPS IS JUST PUSHING MORE PAPERWORK AND THEN CAUSING TO BE RECORDED THE ‘TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE’

    THIS WOULD BE FOR NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE STATE, SUCH AS CALIFORNIA.

    AND–CAN THE REMIC TRUST THEN RETAIN (PAY) AN ATTORNEY TO FILE THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION? WHERE DOES THE REMIC TRUST GET ALL THIS MONEY TO SPEND?

    Abby in CA, on February 4, 2011 at 5:22 pm said:

    I WILL ASK AGAIN–IN CALIF AND POSSIBLY IN OTHER NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE STATES;

    CAN A REMIC TRUST GO OUT AT A FORECLOSURE AUCTION AND ‘BUY’ A PROPERTY? SAY YOUR PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN FORECLOSED UPON.

    CAN THAT SAME REMIC TRUST THEN FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT TO EVICT THE HOMEOWNER?

    AS NEIL STATES ABOVE AND ANONYMOUS HAS STATED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, MANY OF THESE SO CALLED ‘TRUSTS’ NO LONGER EXIST, BUT THEY ARE BUYING PROPERTIES AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND THEY ARE THEN ALSO FILING THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT.

    HOW CAN THIS BE?

  23. We are a group of people losing or already lost our homes. We are trying to organize a class action suit to stop them. We have several attorney’s involved. I have been reading your material and posts. Can you get your people to email me. We are planning to sue all the lenders in all 50 states.
    Nancy
    734 512 6596
    IAMNEWSONG@HOTMAIL.COM

  24. DyingTruth,

    So CalPERS is only for judges who are STATE judges.

    BK court is where I’m at.

  25. Concerned,
    Going up against Litton and winning in California is near impossible. CalPERS aka Judges’ Pensions are invested in and held by Goldman Sachs, the owner of Litton Loan Servicing LP.

    Has there ever been one case, EVEN ONE, that has succeeded in going up against Litton Loan. This fact alone should tell you something about the quality of our Judiciary.

  26. The only time the word “Trust” appears anywhere in the Deed of Trust is in the title “Deed of Trust” and doesn’t appear anywhere on the Note, front or back. The words “Investor”, “Securities”, “Pool”, “Securitized” and the like never appear in either.

  27. angry & not taking it- when the loan is charged off, it becomes unsecured, with only the collection rights remaining. Every single one of these loans in the “trusts” was insured. Additionally, there are at least 3 co-obligors plus the borrower obligated to pay. All payments are recorded on the servicer’s remittance ledger. You or I will never see a remittance ledger, because then the game is up.

  28. ANONYMOUS
    “Anyone else on issue of security trustee purchase of default/foreclosed property??? .”

    M Soliman i believe stated ” the credit bid in foreclosure is to RE-ESTABLISH a value for a charged off to zero asset.

    ANONYMOUS..as you stated –
    “That is where the mortgage/note never left – Citigroup/UBS — that is until they disposed of collection rights — IF collection rights were disposed of– (the note [ receivable ?] is this the notes obligation , value, and or interest ? or only the “note payment receivables” as a securities ?they are 2 diff items , yes? is then charged-off with only collection rights (unsecured) surviving..”

  29. John,

    I have been told that other CA courts do not have to conform with the court that the ‘in Re Walker’ decision was made in.

  30. In a recent case in California, In re Walker, the court determined that MERS may NOT even execute an assignment of the deed of trust because it has no interest in the note.

  31. Ian & ANONYMOUS:

    2005 – Mortgage originated with ONLY America’s Wholesale Lender named as lender. DOT recorded in same year.

    2009 – transfer of servicing to Litton after CW breached an ‘AG Modification’ (permanent mod agreement)

    2009 – NOD by new Trustee on my property

    2009 – Substitution of Trustee for my property

    2009 – Litton claimed in court papers CWABS 2005-10 certificate holders with BoNY-MELLON as Trustee were the supposed ‘investors’

    2010 – Litton attorney Lyman pens signature to ssignment directly from “America’s Wholesale lender” to CWABS 2005-10 certificate-holders with BoNY Mellon as Trustee. This was both DATED and FILED in 2010, no back-dating attempted. NO reference to the ‘depositor’ or any of the transfers that are specified by the PSA.

    2011 – supposed ‘transfer or sale’ of my mortgage to BoNY Mellon [I do not have anything in evidence of what entity supposedly was the seller or transferor.

    Other than putting impossible transactions into the public records and causing their own statements to be put into doubt, where does this MESS put me?

    A clouded title is what I see.

    BTW, the latest notice has BoNY Mellon calling themselves my new creditor, not my new mortgagor. They also just reference the existing DOT that is on file with the county but avoid stating whether or not a transfer of the DOT has been recorded.

    Are they just simply out to confuse the courts, bankruptcy stay be-damned?

    Are they restrained at all from these transactions during a BK stay?

  32. State of Arizona
    Senate
    Fiftieth Legislature
    First Regular Session
    2011
    SB 1259

    Introduced by
    Senators Reagan, McComish: Biggs

    If SB 1259 does not pass next week, then it defines the chain of corruption within the government / judges who ignore written law and side with the foreclosing bank who has no standing.

    Remember, this PONZI scheme stole from the sub prime, fleeced the middle class, deflated your neighborhood, and now they steal your house payments, tax dollars and the homes that surround your streets ! All for their unjust enrichment !

    We shall no longer be enslaved to this scam !

  33. To Anonymous – a MERS officer testified in a recent case. He claims the reason these assignments aren’t recorded, essentially, til foreclosure is contemplated is that they dont want to spend the money to record them! He says the majority of loans pay out, so why spend the money. I’m not kidding.

  34. Just wanted to put this out. Just received a partial response to my QWR. INot much to the response, however, a copy of the mortgage of my refi had a handwritten note; “after recording return to Worldwide Recording” with the address. Return to Recontrust which was typed had been crossed out. There was also a handwritten number: 10WR3505 along with the typed file number. I’m thinking the WR in the number stands for Worldwide. Here is a link to this company. It sounds like MERS. I also wonder if they are the owners of my refi. I really need some advice but there is absolutely no lawyers here that will touch this subject with a 10 foot pole.

  35. A year and a half after trying to foreclose, a servicer finally came up with a note, which is a forgery, and which is endorsed in blank. It is created on legal size paper, whereas the borrower’s note in his loan file is created on letter size paper. About that same time, the servicer had a robo-signor-employee / MERS’ straw officer execute an assignment of the deed of trust,to the servicer which also alleges to assign the note to the servicer. The borrower challenged the assignment on numerous grounds, including MERS” factual inability to assign a note, in which it has no interest and no rights. The court is aware MERS has no authority regarding notes. The court is also asked to consider state recording laws. One law makes it clear that until an assignment of a deed of trust is recorded in the land records, the assignment is not binding, i.e., actionable against the homeowner. The assignment was not recorded for over a year and a half after MERS tried to foreclose. The case is in year three.
    The borrower also alleged that MERS (straw officer at servicer’s ), by recording an instrument with the county recorder which is a false instrument for its recitation that it also assigned the note , violated
    state recording laws which prohibit filing improper and false documents. The borrower also alleged that by submitting a false document to the court, the
    servicer violated rule 11 by its attempt to wrongfully and improperly influence the court with an improper document. The matter has been under submission for over 5 mos. The court has some big decisions to make. If your assignment purports that MERS is assigning the note as well as the deed of trust, you have an improper and fraudulent document.

  36. ANONYMOUS- I have made a corollary point to your illustration of fiduciary breach when a trustee allows a defaulted loan into a trust. Just prior to, and in many cases after, a NOD being served, is when the assignment of mortgage is recorded in the land records. These are all backdated (they have to be, as the closing date of the trust is always years in the past), then are robosigned. Put it this way, I have never seen 1 single NOD where the assignment of mortgage from MERS to the trust was done more than 3-6 weeks before the NOD So every loan is in default, at the time of filing of assignment. And if there is a breach of ficuciary duty for a defaulted mortgage, what about a breach for backdated, fabricated and illegally witnessed documents to boot? And the trust is just an address and a couple of papers,maybe a couple of i.d. numbers. Set up as if no one was ever going to dare to ask even the most basic questions. Just a holographic image of an empty bag, as Neil says. I like that analogy.

  37. to ANONYMOUS

    I am getting ready to file two adversary actions in my bk 13 with no funds for an attorney and have tried to read all about securitization and the trust funds.

    Now I am confused. I have a CWALT trust fund and in section 2.01 it states that the Depositor sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depostor in and to the Trust Fund together with the Depositor’s right to require each seller to cure any breach of a misrepresentation or warrenty made herein by such seller or to repurchase or substitute for any affected Mortgage Loan in accordance herewith.
    Is it because they don’t follow the PSA or is there some other reason that the depositor stays as the owner?
    Thanks in advance.

  38. Concerned,

    Another interesting trust — similar to IndyMac — and Ameriquest did the same thing — used their own subsidiary Depositor –to whom loans were “sold” — and trust owned by. In all of these cases — not a “true sale” — because originator sold loans to “itself”- and retained considerable control. But — that is another issue.

    The primary certificate (tranche holders) to the trust — were Countrywide itself. See your trust “Method of Distribution” — below

    METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION

    ” Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Underwriting Agreement among the Depositor, Countrywide Securities Corporation (an affiliate of the Depositor, the Sellers and the Master Servicer), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (collectively, the UNDERWRITERS”), the Depositor has agreed to sell the Offered Certificates (other than the Class A-R Certificates) (the “UNDERWRITTEN CERTIFICATES”) to the Underwriters, and each
    Underwriter has severally agreed to purchase from the Depositor the initial Certificate Principal Balance of each class of Underwritten Certificates set forth under its name below. It is expected that the proceeds to the Depositor from the sale of the Underwritten Certificates will be approximately
    $693,671,606, before deducting issuance expenses payable by the Depositor, estimated to be approximately $675,000.”

    If you actually go to the 424B5 — you can find exact proportion of sale of certificates — for which Countrywide held the greatest proportion for all tranches. Even if Countrywide did not sell the loans to WS — and securitized their own receivables — (thus they owned mortgage/note) — then Bank of America Corp. — is the successor to Countrywide — and owns your mortgage/note — unless they have already disposed of.

    Of course, if this is the case — was never a “true sale” of receivables since Countrywide retained a considerable financial interest in the trust. And, would love to see one of the investor lawsuits bring this up — not addressed in higher courts. Needs to be addressed.

    The question for everyone is — who securitized the receivables — subprime originator (which does not wash) – or the Wall Street bank to whom the mortgage/notes were sold???

    With respect to others here who emphasize funding, how all was funded is interesting — but not relevant as to mortgage/note ownership. What is relevant is — the balance sheet from which the receivables were securitized.

    The Depositor owns the Trust — with certificates of receivable (tranche) interest securities passed-through to subsidiary security underwriters. In your case, the major security underwriter — was Countrywide itself – not a major WS investment banker who ever justify AAA for anything.

    And, remember — security interest are for CURRENT cash flows only — NOTHING else can be passed through in a security.

    Also — par for the course — assignments that do not meet REMIC regulations. Also, Litton was a subsidiary of C-Bass — a major “scratch and dent” buyer. That is — loans that were deemed “non-compliant” for traditional securitization — mostly likely for “early payment default” — or manufactured “early payment default”.

    Nothing is transferred or sold to trustees — and they know it. They are trustees — nothing more. And — this goes to Abby’s question. Someone please address — very important.

    My opinion — a trustee cannot purchase with knowledge of default. A trustee has a fiduciary obligation to SECURITY HOLDERS — and, AGAIN — securities are only for current cash pass-through — Thus, a trustee cannot purchase loans in default — when that trustee has knowledge of the default. In addition, if trustee purchase a property (on behalf ot trust — because a trustee always acts on behalf of trust) — cannot do — IF that trustee knows that the loan for that property is in default. Knowledge of default precludes trustee actions on behalf of the trust.

    Anyone else on issue of security trustee purchase of default/foreclosed property??? .

  39. Very helpful Brian d and anon. Thsnkyou

  40. b davies,

    Going to get complicated here — your trust is a little more complex.

    In my opinion –a general YES — the Depositor should always be named. The Depositor owns the Trust — but would ALSO name Depositor’s parent corporation since the Depositor has no balance sheet of it’s own. Very often, the Depositor is a subsidiary of the Wall Street bank that purchased the mortgage/note. Your trust has a different path since IndyMac was not a Wall Street bank.

    In your case — the trust is RAST 2007 A5 — and IndyMac MBS is the Depositor. Correct me if I am wrong— but believe FDIC sold assets to OneWest Bank — Goldman. But, your trust was formed before this – in 2007.

    IndyMac did not retain most loans — they sold them. Would have to go through all the SEC docs — which will likely OMIT — that the loans are first sold to the SECURITY UNDERWRITER’s parent corporation- who securitizes the receivables. In the process, the security underwriter subsidiary purchases the certificates to the trust. See Method of Distribution in the 424B5 -Prospectus.

    Method of Distribution:

    ” Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the underwriting agreement among the depositor and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (“Citigroup”)
    and UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”, together with Citigroup, the “underwriters”), the depositor has agreed to sell the group 1 senior certificates (other than the Class A-X and Class PO Certificates) (the “Citigroup Underwritten Certificates”) to Citigroup and the group 2 senior certificates (other than the Class PO Certificates) and the Class A-X, Class B-1, Class B-2 and Class B-3 Certificates
    to UBS (the “UBS Underwritten Certificates”, together with the Citigroup Underwritten Certificates, the “Underwritten Certificates”).”

    All this is — is an accounting conversion from the receivables on Citigroup’s and UBS balance sheets — to off-balance sheet “securities” conduit – that then sells “certificates” BACK TO CItigroup/UBS subsidiary security underwriter.

    However, there are certain tranches that were not securitized — likely retained by IndyMac — such as PO and AX and some subordinate “B” and equity tranche. (perhaps some private placement)..

    Thus, have to name Depositor, Depositor’s parent, and Citigroup Inc., UBS Group, and their security underwriter subsidiaries — Citigroup Global and UBS Securities.

    One thing for sure — the trust did NOT pass on the mortgage/note to beneficial security investors who CItigroup and UBS marketed derivative pass-throughts to (likely CDOs). All that is passed on via trust is “an interest” — and fractional at that — in the receivables.

    At most, the tranche holders — Citigroup Global and USB securities (actually their parent corp) would be your current creditor – And, that is where the mortgage/note never left – Citigroup/UBS. They may have sold some tranches to other financial institutions — but this would be minimal in positional interest.

    That is where the mortgage/note never left – Citigroup/UBS — that is until they disposed of collection rights — IF collection rights were disposed of– (the note receivable is then charged-off with only collection rights (unsecured) surviving..

    Why name the Depositor – in your case — since loans were sold to Citigroup and UBS? — because the Trust is set up in IndyMac’s name. SEC docs do no tell you that loans were sold first to Citigroup and UBS — BUT, we know this by the Method of Distribution. Nevertheless, Depositor named is — IndyMac MBS. And, Depositor did retain some rights — possibly the right to purchase default collection rights from the trust. Then question is — what did they do with them??? Or, what did Citigroup and UBS do with them???

    In my opinion — have to name all of them — because you just do not know where collection rights lie — and on whose balance sheet — since gone from pass-through cash receivable trust conduit — AND gone from beneficial pass-through security investors – who were never the creditor to begin with. .

  41. Forgot to mention, this was a 2005 mortgage so the depositor should have done the appropriate transfers back in 2005.

  42. ANONYMOUS,

    The crazy ‘single-step’ assignment that Litton created in 2010 PURPORTEDLY transferred the DOT AND the NOTE using MERS (MERS is not on NOTE). This was a document that cites that the signer is signing as the MERS monimee for AWL.

    The entity that this document CLAIMS to assign the DOT and NOTE to in this single-step dance is the CWABS 2005-10 certificate-holders with Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee.

    That assignment was created in 2010 and filed in 2010 with no TILA-compliant notification.

    NOW, in 2011 I received a TILA-compliant notification that the mortgage and note had been ‘transferred or sold’ to Bank of New York Mellon in January of 2011.

    Both actions during BK stays.

    BTW, a prior law suit had filings from Litton claiming that the investor as of 2009 was already that CWABS 2005-10 certificate-holders with Bank of New York Mellon as the Trustee. That is in writing but without any documented proof – not until 2010 and now 2011 trickery.

    Explain HOW this is valid? I KNOW what you are saying. The documents just do not match with what is SUPPOSED to exist.

    So, can they argue their way out of this mess?

  43. Peter,

    San DIego, Chp 13.

  44. I WILL ASK AGAIN–IN CALIF AND POSSIBLY IN OTHER NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE STATES;

    CAN A REMIC TRUST GO OUT AT A FORECLOSURE AUCTION AND ‘BUY’ A PROPERTY? SAY YOUR PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN FORECLOSED UPON.

    CAN THAT SAME REMIC TRUST THEN FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT TO EVICT THE HOMEOWNER?

    AS NEIL STATES ABOVE AND ANONYMOUS HAS STATED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, MANY OF THESE SO CALLED ‘TRUSTS’ NO LONGER EXIST, BUT THEY ARE BUYING PROPERTIES AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND THEY ARE THEN ALSO FILING THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT.

    HOW CAN THIS BE?

  45. ANONYMUS: Thank you for the very cogent breakdown. I’ve been trying to tie together the “ownership” aspect of the “Trust” that I recently found out was named in an assignment of my DOT/Note. It was assigned by MERS, BTW, which is a bogus assignment. That’s a separate issue.

    The Trust in this case is SARM 05-19XS (Class A1), SARM being the entity created by Lehman Bros. It was closed in Nov. 2005 and the assignment just happened a few months ago (US Bank, as Trustee…but the MERS website says AURORA owns the debt…this stuff makes my head spin.).

    Besides that, I get from what you are saying that Lehman is truly the holder of the note or was supposed to be? If so, what does that mean in terms of their current CH 11 status? How can Aurora assert any claim? Or US Bank? Is it possible the debt may have been discharged, as a matter of law and actuality?

    As an aside, I see that LeggMason holds 1.3MM /Par/Shares of this particular certificate valued at roughly $879K. Is there any way to find out the total capitalization of SARM 05-19XS? Or Shares outstanding? I have a feeling that may be useful, perhaps not.

    Again, thanks for your post. It has helped a lot. It seems there is really no entity that truly has any standing to pursue or assert power of sale.

  46. ANONYMOUS-that is the best description of what was supposed to happen, what didn’t happen, which entity was in charge of what, and what now happens as a result of the above. I don’t see any suits referring to Kemp v. Countrywide, where the CW employee told the court that the notes never made it into the trust. Neil- you should make Anonymous’ explanation a separate posting, and send it to all the other sites. It is as clear and concise an explanation as I have seen.

  47. ANONYMOUS

    SHOULD THE DEPOSITOR OR THE TRUST BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT ABOVE.

  48. DETUSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST AS TRUSTEE ANSWERS TO ADVERSARY COMPLAINT.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48187892/Deutsche-Bank-Answer-to-Complaint-2-5-11

  49. A “trust” — someone owns a trust — and “current assets” — receivables — are passed through to beneficiaries of the receivables. The note and mortgage themselves — are NOT passed through to beneficiaries. It is like any other “trust.”

    The Depositor owns the Trust — and if Mortgage/loan were properly conveyed – which they were not — the Depositor only would own the mortgage/note — not the security pass-through beneficial investors in the receivables.

    Only problem with this is that you have to have a balance sheet –to pass-through receivable current assets. A Depositor does not report it’s own balance sheet (and, of course, a trust does not have a balance sheet). So — who removed the receivables from IT”S balance sheet – in order to securitize the receivables? Answer — the Depositor’s parent corporation.

    Again, the pass-through security investors – are not passed-through the mortgage/note. The chain of title ENDS with the Depositor assignment to the Trust — it ends with the DEPOSITOR OWNED TRUST- which the DEPOSITOR does not really own — it’s parent corp owns. And, this is IF and ONLY IF — the mortgage/note was properly conveyed to begin with — which they were not.

    Mortgage/note are never passed through to security investors. You cannot pass-through a mortgage via a security — only receivables can be passed through by a security. A security is ONLY for current cash flows — and “investors” have NO recourse against original borrower — they only have recourse against the security underwriter.

    Mr. Ben Bernanke confirmed this at the beginning of the crisis — many have forgotten.

  50. Concerned, may I ask approximately where in CA you are and what chapter of BK you filed? Thanks!

  51. Additional info: both the assignment AND the newest ‘transfer or sale’ occurred DURING BK stays.

  52. I agree that litigation spurred Litton to identify the CWABS certificates. Almost a year later the attempted assignment was recorded. It is dated 5 years too late and does not conform to other requirements of the applicable PSA.

    Also, that assignment is signed by a Litton employee who is an attorney. If she really signed it, she should have been aware the document is self-serving in addition to being invalid.

    I did not receive the notice of that document filing that should have been required per the 2009 change to TILA.

    Keep in mind that this violates BK stays from what I’ve been told.

    Now, I did receive a mailing from BoNY claiming the note was ‘transferred or sold’ to them in Jan 2011. They are no longer just the supposed Trustees for the certificate-holders.

    Hmmmm. How do you do this latest ‘move’ in any way that is valid? The title was already clouded. This one of the ‘AWL’ loans that Neil has written entire posts about. It has lots of issues in the actual DOT.

    Are they assuming that I never saw that assignment they filed last year? The latest transfer has not been recorded yet so I do not know if they tried to show a new assignment from AWL directly to BoNY Mellon or if they are claiming to have ‘unscrambled’ the egg and acquired this mortgage out of the ‘supposed trust’ that it was in.

    BTW, the loan now has a NEW Mers Id Number.

    The ‘servicer’ remains Litton.

    Does anyone want to explain what BoNY Mellon hopes to achieve by these tactics?

    Now I have read that the ‘investors’ do not know of what is happening, but is Litton just totally acting without even BoNY-Mellon being aware?

    I ask this because the notice that is supposedly from BoNY Mellon was actually mailed from a Litton site here in CA.

  53. Fingers crossed! We sent out Discovery in November…nothing back yet. Plaintiff said at the last 2 Case Management conferences that they will “Get us that discovery next week”… Been going at this 26 months now…Trudging away!

  54. “game over, they make you an offer or just leave the premises.”

    I think I’m going to have a poster made of this sentence. ( ;

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,354 other followers

%d bloggers like this: