Holder in Due Course and Due Process

The first thing I want to do is add to my previous comments. I believe there is an implicit admission of failure of consideration in any case where a holder in due course is not identified. In addition, where a REMIC trust not alleged or asserted to be a holder in due course it means by definition that they did not purchase the loan for value in good faith without knowledge of the defense of the “borrower” (maker of the note).

 

I believe that what this means is that any court that enters an order or judgment against the homeowner, who was the maker of the note, is implicitly entering an order or judgment against the trust beneficiaries and the trust, resulting in a loss of favorable tax status and just as importantly an economic loss directly resulting from being forced to accept a loan that is presumed to be in default. The failure of the trust to pay for the loan and receive delivery of the loan documents to the depositor leaves one with the question of “what is the relationship of the Trust to the subject loan?”

 

The same logic would apply regardless of whether the citizens trust is in dispute or not. There is circular logic in the argument of the bank. On the one hand they want to be seen as a holder with rights to enforce but on the other hand they don’t want to disclose, alleged, assert, or prove the foundation or source of the right to enforce.

 

Based upon the provisions and restrictions of the pooling and servicing agreement, the investors who purchased mortgage backed securities issued by the Trust were intended to be the collective creditor for loans that were accepted into the Trust. The acceptance is stated in the pooling and servicing agreement and the exhibits to the pooling and servicing agreement should have the loans that were accepted. After the cutoff period, the only way a loan could be accepted was by acceptance by the Trustee. And the only way there could be acceptance by the trustee would be upon receipt of an opinion letter from counsel for the trust stating that they would be no adverse effect on the beneficiaries. The adverse effects are clear. One is the loss of advantageous tax treatment and the other is the economic loss from accepting a loan does not conform to the types of loans that are acceptable to the trust, as per the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement.

 

Pooling and servicing agreement is the trust instrument. Since the pooling and servicing agreement is governed under the laws of the state of New York, a violation of the restrictions and provisions of the trust is void, not voidable. The acceptance of a loan that is in default is not possible. The acceptance of any transaction that would violate the terms of the Internal Revenue Code sections on REMIC Trusts is not possible.

 

Thus the hidden issue here is that the real parties in interest who will be affected by the outcome of the litigation have not been given any notice of the pendency of the action. And the provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement prevent the trust beneficiaries from knowing or even inquiring about the status of any particular loan.

 

The confusion comes from the fact that the investors are indeed the creditors in practice. But because the trust was actually not utilized in the transaction they are direct creditors whose money was used to fund origination or acquisition of loans, contrary to the subscription agreement which promised that their money would be given to the issuer of the mortgage-backed securities that were being issued and purchased by the investors.

 

It seems obvious that the trust cannot be held to have acted in bad faith. It is equally obvious that the trust would have no knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. As the only element left for a holder in due course is the purchase for value. Since there is no allegation that the trust is a holder in due course, the bank is admitting that the trust never purchased the loan. It may be presumed that the trust might have originated or purchased the loan if it had received the proceeds of sale of the mortgage-backed securities issued by the trust. The logical assumption is that the trust never received those proceeds. The logical assumption is that the underwriter used the funds in ways that were never contemplated by the investors.

 

A further logical assumption would be that the underwriter kept the funds in its own name or in the accounts of entities controlled by the underwriter and is operating contrary to the interests of the investors.

 

The logical conclusion would be that the underwriter conducted a series of disguised sales of the same loan to multiple parties. Since the mortgage-backed securities were issued in the name of the underwriter as nominee (“street name”) they were able to trade on the loan and securities in their own name and receive the benefits without accounting to the investors or the borrower. The allocation of third-party funds (servicers, insurers, guarantors etc.) cannot be determined except by reference to books and records in the exclusive care, custody and control of the parties involved in the claims of securitization. It may be fairly concluded that such claims are false.

 

Now I will address the issues presented as to constitutional disposition of the case. It has long been judicial doctrine to avoid constitutional issues if the case can otherwise be decided on other grounds. It is also true that equal protection has proved more difficult than due process as the basis of any relief.

 

The problem in foreclosure litigation is that it must in my opinion include a claim for both due process and equal protection. The claim for lack of due process is not technically true. The true claim, in my opinion, would be lack of sufficient due process.

 

In actuality due process varies from state to state and even from county to county. If a party has been heard in court and presented arguments, then it may be fairly concluded that some due process was provided to that party. If presumptions arise against that party that give rise to orders and judgments that are contrary to the actual facts, a claim for denial of due process could be present. But the better claim, in my opinion, is to look at the state appellate decisions to show that more due process is allowed to debtors who are not involved in foreclosure litigation. I think this is a more accurate description of the actual situation.

 

The due process argument is simple: presumptions are used as shorthand for the facts. In this case the facts don’t match up with the presumptions. The only question is whose burden of proof is it. If the allegation was that a holder in due course was known and identified there is no doubt that anything the borrower had to say would be an affirmative defense, and thus after a prima facie case was made showing payment in good faith without knowledge of borrower’s defenses, the burden would shift to the alleged borrower who definitely was the maker of the note even if they were not the borrower in a loan transaction with the designated “lender.”

 

But, this is not the case at bar. The foreclosing party is asserting “holder” status, with dubious rights to enforce that are denied by the maker/homeowner. Absent is any allegation of status of a holder in due course, and of course noticeably absent is any allegation of the expenditure of funds or other consideration in exchange for delivery of the loan to the Depository designated in the PSA to receive the delivery. Thus neither the purchase nor the delivery are alleged. While being a holder might raise the presumption of being a holder with rights to enforce, it does not remove the burden of proving that said rights to enforce have been delivered from a party who definitely had the right to enforce — i.e., the holder in due course or “owner” of the loan.

 

The absence of the HDC allegation is an admission that the Trust did not buy the loan. The fact that the Trust did not buy the loan means that it is not and cannot be in the pool owned by the trust, with fractional shares owned by the investors who bought the MBS issued by the Trust. And that can ONLY mean that the right to enforce cannot be delivered or conveyed by the Trust because the Trust never received delivery and never had a right to receive delivery because they didn’t pay for the loan.

 

Thus on the face of the pleading it is up to the foreclosing party to prove its right to enforce the note by showing the identity of the party for whom the loan is being enforced, the fact that the party for whom it is being enforced owned the loan at the time the right to enforce was granted, the current balance ON THE BOOKS OF THE CREDITOR, the presence of a default ON THE BOOKS OF THE CREDITOR, and that the loan is still owned by the party who owns the loan (i.e., the HDC). Hence the burden is on the foreclosing party to reach the point where the borrower assumes the burden of refuting the case against him or her. The maker of the note is in an exclusive position of being shut out of the facts that would either corroborate or refute this narrative.

 

If the burden is placed on the borrower, it would be the equivalent of a murder on video in possession of the murderer but the State and the heirs of the victim are charged with proving the case without the video. The facts suggest here that the Trust paid nothing because it had no money to pay for a loan. The facts suggest that if it were otherwise, the Trust would have paid for the loan and be most anxious to plead HDC status. And thus the facts show that the foreclosing party cannot claim the right to enforce based upon a presumption without violating the due process rights of the homeowners here. Only the foreclosing party and its co-venturers have in their care, custody and control, the necessary information to refute or prove the facts behind the presumptions they are attempting to raise.

#foreclosureissues

 

#foreclosureguidance

 

#foreclosureoptions

 

#foreclosuresinflorida

 

#foreclosuresinunitedstates

 

#foreclosureblog

 

#foreclosureadvise

 

Voir Dire and Cross Examination — Neil Garfield Show 6 P.M. EDT Thursdays

What to ask and why to ask it.

Click in or phone in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? — Introducing two upcoming CLE Seminars from the Garfield Continuum on Voir Dire of corporate representatives in foreclosure litigation. The first is a two hour telephone conference devoted exclusively to voir dire examination and the second is a full day on only voir dire plus cross examination. The show is free. To preregister for the mini seminar on voir dire or the full seminar on voir dire and cross examination (at a discount) call 954-495-9867.

  • Overview of Foreclosure Litigation in Florida and Other States
  • The need for copies of actual case law and even memoranda supporting your line of questioning
  • The Three Rules for Questioning
  • —– (1) Know why you want to inquire
  • —– (2) Listen to the Answer
  • —– (3) Follow up and comment
  • What to ask, and when to ask it
  • The difference between voir dire and cross examination
  • Getting traction with the presiding Judge
  • Developing your goals and strategies
  • Developing a narrative
  • Impeaching the witness before he or she gets started
  • Preparing your own witnesses for voir dire questions

 

IF YOU MISSED IT: Go to blog radio link and click on the Neil Garfield Show — past shows include—-

News abounds as we hear of purchases of loans and bonds. Some of these are repurchases. Some are in litigation, like $1.1 Billion worth in suit brought by Trustees against the broker dealer Merrill Lynch, which was purchased by Bank of America. What do these purchases mean for people in litigation. If the loan was repurchased or all the loan claims were settled, does the trust still exist? Did it ever exist? Was it ever funded? Did it ever own the loans? Why are lawyers unwilling to make representations that the Trust is a holder in due course? Wouldn’t that settle everything? And what is the significance of the $3 trillion in bonds purchased by the Federal Reserve, mostly mortgage backed bonds? This and more tonight with questions and answers:

Adding the list of questions I posted last week (see below), I put these questions ahead of all others:

  1. If the party on the note and mortgage is NOT REALLY the lender, why should they be allowed to have their name on the note or mortgage, why are those documents distributed instead of returned to the borrower because he signed in anticipation of receiving a loan from the party disclosed, as per Federal and state law. Hint: think of your loan as a used car. Where is the contract (offer, acceptance and consideration).
  2. If the party receiving an assignment from the false payee on the note does NOT pay for it, why are we treating the assignment as a cure for documents that were worthless in the first place. Hint: Paper Chase — the more paper you throw at a worthless transaction the more real it appears in the eyes of others.
  3. If the party receiving the assignment from the false payee has no relationship with the real lender, and neither does the false payee on the note, why are we allowing their successors to force people out of their homes on a debt the “bank” never owned? Hint: POLITICS: What is the position of the Federal reserve that has now purchased trillions of dollars of the “mortgage bonds” from banks who never owned the bonds that were issued by REMIC trusts that never received the proceeds of sale of the bonds.
  4. If the lenders (investors) are receiving payments from settlements with the institutions that created this mess, why is the balance owed by the borrower the same after the settlement, when the lender’s balance has been reduced? Hint: Arithmetic. John owes Sally 5 bananas. Hank gives Sally 3 bananas and says this is for John. How many bananas does John owe Sally now?
  5. And for extra credit: are the broker dealers who said they were brokering and underwriting the issuance of mortgage bonds from REMIC trusts guilty of anything when they don’t give the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to the Trusts that issued those bonds? What is the effect on the contractual relationship between the lenders and the borrowers? Hint: VANISHING MONEY replaced by volumes of paper — the same at both ends of the transaction, to wit: the borrower and the investor/lender.

1. What is a holder in due course? When can an HDC enforce a note even when there are problems with the original loan? What does it mean to be a purchaser for value, in good faith, without notice of borrower’s defenses?

2. What is a holder and how is that different from a holder with rights to enforce? What does it mean to be a holder subject to all the maker’s defenses including lack of consideration (i.e. no loan from the Payee).

3. What is a possessor of a note?

4. What is a bailee of a note?

5. If the note cannot be enforced, can the mortgage still be foreclosed? It seems that many people don’t know the answer to this question.

6. The question confronting us is FORECLOSURE (ENFORCEMENT) OF A MORTGAGE. If the status of a holder of a note is in Article III of the UCC, why are we even discussing “holder” when enforcement of mortgages is governed by Article IV of the UCC?

7. Does the question of “holder” or holder in due course or any of that even apply in the original loan transaction? Hint: NO.

8. Homework assignment: Google “Infinite rehypothecation”

For more information call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

 

Pretender Mender: Foreclosure Crisis Continues to Rise Despite Obama Team Reports

Despite various “reports” from the Obama Administration and writers in the fields of real estate, mortgages and finance, the crisis is still looming as the main drag on the economy. Besides the fact that complete strangers are “getting the house” after multiple payments were received negating any claim of default, it is difficult to obtain financing for a new purchase for the millions of families who have been victims of the mortgage PONZI scheme. In addition, people are finding out that these intermediaries who received an improper stamp of approval from the courts are now pursuing deficiency judgments against people who cooperated or lost the foreclosure litigation. And now we have delinquency rates rising on mortgages that in all probability should never be enforced. And servicers are still pursuing strategies to lure or push homeowners into foreclosure.

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

———————————

Most people simply allowed the foreclosure to happen. Many even cleaned the home before leaving the keys on the kitchen counter. They never lifted a finger in defense. As predicted many times on this blog and in my appearances, it isn’t over. We are in the fifth inning of a nine inning game.

Losing homes that have sometimes been in the family for many generations results in a sharp decline in household wealth leaving the homeowner with virtually no offset to the household debt. Even if the family has recovered in terms of producing at least a meager income that would support a down-sized home, they cannot get a mortgage because of a policy of not allowing mortgage financing to anyone who has a foreclosure on their record within the past three years.

To add insult to injury, the banks posing as lenders in the 6 million+ foreclosures are now filing deficiency judgments to continue the illusion that the title is clear and the judgment of foreclosure was valid. People faced with these suits are now in the position of having failed to litigate the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure. But all is not lost. A deficiency judgment is presumptively valid, but in the litigation the former homeowners can send out discovery requests to determine ownership and balance of the alleged debt. Whether judges will allow that discovery is something yet to be seen. But the risk to those companies filing deficiency judgments is that the aggressive litigators defending the deficiency actions might well be able to peak under the hood of the steam roller that produced the foreclosure in the first instance.

What they will find is that there is an absence of actual transactions supporting the loans, assignments, endorsements etc. that were used to get the Court to presume that the documents were valid — i.e., that absent proof from the borrower, the rebuttable assumption of validity of the documents that refer to such transactions forces the homeowner to assume a burden of proof based upon facts that are in the sole care, custody and control of the pretender lender. If the former homeowner can do what they should have done in the first place, they will open up Pandora’s box. The loan on paper was not backed by a transaction where the “lender” loaned any money. The assignment was not backed by a purchase transaction of the loan. And even where there was a transfer for value, the “assignment turns out to be merely an offer that neither trust nor trustee of the REMIC trust was allowed to accept.

All evidence, despite narratives to the contrary, shows that not only have foreclosures not abated, they are rising. Delinquencies are rising, indicating a whole new wave of foreclosures on their way — probably after the November elections.

http://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/31089-are-we-facing-yet-another-foreclosure-crisis

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119187/mortgage-foreclosures-2015-why-crisis-will-flare-again

http://susiemadrak.com/2014/08/25/here-comes-that-deferred-mortgage-crisis/

The Art of Objections at Trial: A Success Story

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

————————————

This story is good. It corroborates my articles on the needed skills to go to trial. Evan Rosen describes in brief what he did. It would be nice if he would expand on why these objections were right and how much more he could have said if he was challenged by opposing counsel. But it also shows another important thing.

While the Courts have yet to rule or express opinions on their doubts about the bogus loans, notes and mortgages, bogus bonds and bogus foreclosures, we are seeing a radical shift in their rulings at trial and an increasing shift in Discovery. Rulings against the Plaintiff foreclosing party are becoming increasingly common. Discovery is being allowed and many cases are thrown off the rocket docket and into general civil litigation. And a properly framed objection to evidence is taken seriously and frequently sustained leaving the foreclosing party with nothing.

These developments are especially important because many suits are being filed for deficiency judgments on foreclosures that were wrongful in the first place. 110 such actions were filed in Palm Beach County in the last month. Interestingly, the foreclosing party is NOT going back to the same Court in the same suit that was the foreclosure. They are filing separate actions. The Banks are afraid of providing a forum for the homeowner to challenge the assumptions that resulted in the foreclosure. Their fear is based in reality. The same Judges that were rubber stamping foreclosures are slowly changing their rulings as described by Rosen.

Trial practice is an art. There is no such thing as perfection. The trial lawyer must constantly make calculations as to what objections to raise and how to stick to his or her narrative of the case. Rosen here took control of the narrative by laying the foundation that the witness was legally incompetent to testify on the most important elements of the case filed for foreclosure. His objections flowed from that foundation. He threaded his case based upon feedback from the Judge. And he took a calculated risk when it came time for cross examination.

The lesson here is that there is a time to object and a time not to object regardless of whether you have grounds. There is a time to cross examine and there is a time to take the risk and close the case based upon the insufficiency of the Plaintiff’s case. The objective is to win. And this case described by Evan Rosen describes procedures that are far outside the knowledge of any pro se litigant. Trial practice is like surgery. Nobody should do it without specialized training, license and experience.

http://4closurefraud.org/2014/08/20/total-annihilation-of-a-bank-lawyer-and-their-witness-another-trial-win-for-the-law-offices-of-evan-m-rosen-p-a/

“Teaser” Payments: Trick or Treat?

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

——————————–

In the final analysis, I think a reverse amortization loan is a way of hiding the true amount of the debt. —- Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

As an introduction, let me remind you that the viability and affordability of the loan, the loan to value ratios and all the other facts and ratios and computations are the responsibility of the lender, who must faithfully disclose the results to the borrower. It is a myth that these bad loans were in any way related to the bad intent of borrowers.

I have been examining and analyzing loans that are referred to as “reverse amortization loans”. They are, in every case, “teaser payments” that trap homeowners into a deal that guarantees they will not keep their home — even if it has been in their family for generations. And they are loans, in my opinion, that contain secret balloon payments. Nothing in this article should be construed as abandoning the fact that the “lender” never actually made the loan, nor that the actual lenders (investors) would never have approved the loan. The point of this article is that the borrower would not have approved the deal either if they had been informed of the real nature of the sham loan (even if it was real).

Teaser payments are neither illegal nor unfair (if they don’t involve reverse amortization). They have been used all over the world with great success. The deal is that they pay a lower payment before they get to the real payment. Nothing is owed on the lower interest or even lower escrow that results from such a loan product devised and prepared for signature by the Banks or agents for the Banks.

And remember again that when I refer to the Banks, I am talking about intermediary banks that in the “securitization” era were not making loans but were approving paperwork that nobody in their right might would have have approved under any interpretation of national underwriting standards. These banks diverted money and title from the actual transaction in which money from strangers and title of the homeowners was diverted from the real transaction — giving a problem to both. This left “investors” without an investment and the borrowers with corrupt title.

In my opinion the way the teaser payment option was handled in the era of securitization, the borrower ended up with an unaffordable loan with terms that he or she would not have approved and which no bank was permitted to approve under State and Federal lending laws. The result was a hidden balloon and hidden payments of principal and interest payments far higher than the apparent interest rate on the face of the note. In most cases, the requirement that the documents and good faith estimate were never provided to the borrower, to make sure that the sophisticated borrower would not have an opportunity to think about it.

In one case that is representative of many others I have seen, the interest rate was stated as 8.75%, but that was not true. The principal was fixed at $700,000, but that wasn’t true either. The principal was definitely going higher each month for about 26 months, at which point, the principal would have been 115% of the original principal on the note. THAT is because each teaser payment of a fraction of the amount due for interest alone, was being added to the principal due. That is reverse amortization. But that is only part of the story.

When the principal has risen to 115% of the stated principal due in the closing documents, the loan reverts from a teaser payment — promised for several years — to a full amortized payments. So the original teaser payments was $2300 per month, while the amount added to principal was around $3000 PER MONTH. Thus after her first payment, the borrower owed $703,000. While the note and disclosure documents referred to a teaser payment that would continue for five years, that was impossible — because deep in the riders to the note there was a provision that stated the teaser payment would stop when the accrued payment exceed 115% of the original principal stated on the promissory note.

With the original principal at $700,000, the interest due was around $5100 per month on the original principal. 115% of $700,000 is $805,000, which represents a hidden increase of principal built into the payment schedule. That is an increase of $105,000 for as long as it takes with the hidden accrued interest computed in the background and not disclosed to the borrower before, during or after the “loan closing.” For a loan requiring “20% down payment” this is lost money. The 20% vanishes at the loan closing while the borrower thinks they have equity in their property. They don’t — even if property prices had been maintained.

The hidden increase of $105,000 happens a lot sooner than you think. It is called “reverse amortization” for a reason. But the unsophisticated borrower, this computation is unknown and impossible to run. In the first month the interest rate of 8.875% is now applied against a “principal” due of $703,000. This raises the hidden interest due from around $3000 per month to $3025. Each month the hidden accrued interest being added to “principal” rises by $25 per month. At the end of the first year, the payment due and unpaid principal is rising by $3300 per month. At the end of the second year it is more than $3600 per month. And at the end of the third year, if you get that far the actual computation makes the accrued interest (and therefore the principal due) rise by over $4,000 per month.

Using the above figures which are rounded and “smoothed” for purposes of this article (they are actually higher), principal has gone up by around $20,000 in the first year, $56,000 in the second year, and $76,000 in the third year. So by the end of the third year, the principal due has changed from the original $700,000 to over $850,000. But this passes the threshold of $105,000 beyond which interest will no longer accrue and will be payable in full. And THAT means that during the third year, the payment changes from $2300 to the full interest payment of $5900 per month plus amortized principal plus taxes plus insurance. Hence the payment has changed to over $6500 per month plus taxes and insurance.

For a household that qualified for the $2300 payment, the rise in payment means a guaranteed loss of their home if the loan was real and the documents were enforceable. This is a hidden balloon. The company calling itself the “lender” or “servicer” is obviously not going to get many payments at the new rate. So you call up and they tell you that in order to get a loan modification, which was probably promised to you at your original “loan closing” you must be three months behind in your payments.

Relieved that you don’t need to pay an amount you can’t pay anyway, and afraid you are going to lose everything if you don’t follow the advice of the “customer service representative, you stop paying and find yourself looking at a notice of default. The company tells you don’t worry you are in process for modification when i fact they are preparing to foreclose. There are probably a few million families that have been through this process of “lost paperwork” redoing it several times, “incomplete” etc. only to be told that you don’t “qualify” or the “investor has turned down your offer (which is a lie because the investor has not even seen your file much less considered any offer for modification).

Next comes the notice of acceleration either in a letter or in a lawsuit for foreclosure and suddenly the borrower knows they are screwed but feels it is their own fault. They feel ashamed and they feel like a deadbeat but they really don’t understand how they got to this point. THAT is the hidden balloon — an acceleration in about 26 months that is virtually guaranteed. The entire balance becomes due which of course you cannot pay. If you could have paid the full balance you would not have have taken a loan. You never had a chance. But that is only the first balloon payment that is not revealed to the borrower at his or her “loan closing.”

The second one comes at the end of 36 months. And that is because the computation of the amortized payment has been based upon the original principal and the original interest rate, both of which has changed. So even if you made it to 36 months, you would be told that you will be in foreclosure unless you pay the unpaid principal balance as the “bank” has computed it, which will probably be around $50,000-$70,000.

Florida law requires balloon payments to be disclosed in very prominent fashion. In these cases it not only was not disclosed, it was hidden from the borrower.

It is unfair and illegal to force this idiotic loan upon either the investor whose money was used to fund it without their knowledge or consent, or the borrower who obviously would not have signed a loan that he or she had no chance of paying. This is why forensic reviewers are necessary and expert witnesses are necessary. But for those of you who are entering into trial without benefit of forensic reviews and experts, you can still do this computation yourself and see what happens. Or any accountant can compute the final figures for you.

It is simple and simply wrong. And while you are at it, ask any lender of any kind anywhere if they put THEIR OWN MONEY at risk making a loan like that. Notice that I have not even bothered to mentioned the inflated appraisal.

FYI. Failure to Disclose in capital letters with the statutory language in Florida extends the maturity date indefinitely untinl interest and principal are paid in full. For Florida law see

Florida Balloon Payments

But in addition, the failure to disclose this also violates the Federal Truth in Lending Act. And the failure to provide a good faith estimate three days prior to closing is also a violation — all leading to rescission. The 9th Circuit, which had said that rescission requires tender or ability to tender the money back, reversed itself and said that is no longer necessary. But there is a three day right of rescission and a three year statute of limitations on rescission. In my opinion, both time limits would probably be applied BUT I also think that the legislation can be used defensively as corroboration for your argument that the borrower had no way of knowing what he or she was signing. AND the hidden nature of the balloon payments can arguably be said to be a scheme to trick the borrower, which MIGHT extend the running of the statute.

See Reg Z in full, but here is the part that I think is important:

(e) Prohibition on steering.

Prohibits a loan originator from “steering” a consumer to a lender offering less favorable terms in order to increase the loan originator’s compensation.

Provides a safe harbor to facilitate compliance. The safe harbor is met if the consumer is presented with loan offers for each type of transaction in which the consumer expresses an interest (that is, a fixed rate loan, adjustable rate loan, or a reverse mortgage); and the loan options presented to the consumer include:

  • (A) the loan with the lowest interest rate for which the consumer qualifies;
  • (B) the loan with the lowest total dollar amount for origination points or fees, and discount points, and
  • (C) the loan with the lowest rate for which the consumer qualifies for a loan without negative amortization, a prepayment penalty, interest-only payments, a balloon payment in the first 7 years of the life of the loan, a demand feature, shared equity, or shared appreciation; or, in the case of a reverse mortgage, a loan without a prepayment penalty, or shared equity or shared appreciation.

To be within the safe harbor, the loan originator must obtain loan options from a significant number of the creditors with which the originator regularly does business. The loan originator can present fewer than three loans and satisfy the safe harbor, if the loan(s) presented to the consumer otherwise meet the criteria in the rule.

The loan originator must have a good faith belief that the options presented to the consumer are loans for which the consumer likely qualifies. For each type of transaction, if the originator presents to the consumer more than three loans, the originator must highlight the loans that satisfy the criteria specified in the rule.

< Back to Regulation Z

 

Loan Without Money

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

——————————–

If you went to the loan closing, signed the papers and then gave them to the closing agent and then the “lender” didn’t fund the loan, what would you do? If you ask an attorney he or she would probably demand the return of the closing papers. If the mortgage got recorded the attorney would threaten a variety of consequences unless the filing with the county recorder was nullified (because it can never be physically removed).

If you were then contacted by a mysterious stranger who said forget the loan papers, I’ll loan you the money, you might have accepted. This mysterious person sends the money to the closing agent who disperses it to the Seller of the property or pay off the prior mortgage etc.

Now imagine that the first “lender” ( the one who DIDN’T make the loan) has “assigned” the documents you executed to another party who also didn’t loan any money to you and who didn’t pay for the assignment because they knew full well that the loan papers were worthless. And the “lender” designated on the note and mortgage doesn’t ask for money because they know they didn’t loan a dime to you. But they gladly accept fees for “acting” as though they were the lender and renting their name out to be used as “lender.”

And finally imagine that the assignee of the worthless documentation you executed again assigns and endorses the note and mortgage to still another party, like a REMIC Trust. What did the REMIC Trust get? Nothing, right? Not so fast.

If this last transfer of the “loan” PAPERS (described as “documents” to make them sound more important) was purchased for value in good faith without knowledge of your defense that you never received the loan, you might still be liable on that note you executed even though you never received the loan. Yes you owe the holder in due course in addition to owing the money to the mystery stranger who wired the money to the closing agent. The Trust COULD enforce the loan or at least try to do so and it would be legal because they would be a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (HDC). An HDC can enforce free from borrower’s defenses. That is the risk of signing documents and letting them get out of your hands before you receive what you expected as part of the deal.

Why then is there no evidence or allegation by any forecloser in the securitization schemes that they have HDC status? I represented hundreds of banks, lenders, and associations in foreclosures. If anyone was holding the paper as an HDC that is what I would have said in the pleading and then I would have proven it. end of story. The borrower might have a lawsuit against the third parties who tricked him but the HDC still has a good chance of prevailing despite grievous violations of lending laws and procedures at closing — including lack of consideration (they didn’t fund the loan for which you executed the closing documents).

The ILLUSION of a loan closing has been created because both “loan” scenarios in fact occurred AT THE SAME TIME at most “loan” closings. Two different deals — one where you didn’t get the money and the other where you did. One where you signed the closing documents but didn’t get the loan and the other where you signed nothing and got the money from the loan.  In other words, you signed documents, you delivered them to the closing agent and they were delivered and recorded. But the “lender” didn’t give you any money. Ground zero for the confusion and illusion is the receipt of money by the closing agent fro the mysterious stranger instead of the party in whose favor you executed the note and mortgage.

And here is the good news. The banks know full well they can’t win if they allege they have HDC status or even that the Trust has HDC status. So they allege that they are “holders” or they allege they are “holders with rights to enforce.” More often than not they simply allege either that they are simply a “holder” or that they have the “rights to enforce.” They let the court make the rest of the assumptions and essentially treated as though the party foreclosing on you had HDC status. That is ground zero for judicial error.

The Trust never issued payment to the assignor of the loan because the assignor didn’t ask for any money except for fees in “acting” its part in the scheme. The assignments and endorsements, the more powers of attorney, the higher the stack of paper. And the higher the stack of paper the more it looks like the the loan MUST be valid and enforceable, that you did stop paying on it, and that therefore you MUST be in default.

Meanwhile the mysterious stranger is getting paid by the people who entered into an agreement — a pooling and servicing agreement — under which the investors get paid from the Trust, Trustee or Master Servicer that issued bonds to the mysterious stranger. The terms of payment are very different than the terms of your note but that doesn’t matter because they never loaned you money anyway. The real basis of the ability of the servicer and trustee to see to it that you receive your expected payment is the ability of these brokers, conduits and sham corporate entities and trusts to get their hands on your money, and the money of investors in the Trust.

Why did the mysterious stranger send money for you? Was it a gift? Of course not. But without documentation the mysterious has exactly one legal right — to demand payment at any time for the entire balance of the loan plus reasonable interest. No foreclosure, because there is no mortgage. No acceleration necessary because you already owe the entire amount. Your homestead property is NOT at risk in Florida and many other states, because the mysterious stranger has no mortgage recorded. And the full balance of the loan to the mysterious stranger is completely dischargeable in a chapter 7 bankruptcy or can be reduced substantially in a Chapter 13 or chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

Why did the mysterious stranger make the loan? Because the stranger was tricked by the same people who tricked you — under several layers of complicated relationships such that it is difficult to pin the blame on anyone. But this isn’t about blame. It is about money. Either they made a loan or they didn’t. And the answer is that nobody in their chain of “title” to the loan PAPERS ever paid one dime to loan you money or buy your loan. They are hiding that from both investors and you.

The mysterious stranger gave a broker money because he thought the broker was the intermediary between the mysterious stranger and a REMIC Trust that was issuing a semi-public offering of Mortgage Banked Securities (MBS). The stranger thinks he is an investor buying securities when in fact he has just opened the door for the broker to use his money in anyway the broker wanted, including lining the broker’s own pocket with the principal that should have loaned on good solid viable loans. The illusion is enhanced by the broker when the broker makes certain that the mysterious stranger is addressed as an “investor” or “trust beneficiary” of the REMIC trust.

The mysterious stranger who made the actual lender is tricked into believing that he has purchased a fractional ownership of thousands of mortgages including yours. That what the Prospectus and PSA seem to be saying. In reality the money that the mysterious stranger gave to the broker, stayed with the broker and that satisfied the feeding frenzy of sharks circulating around each dump of money from mysterious strangers.

“Bonuses” that were incomprehensible to the rest of the world were lavished upon the people who actually made this trick work. The  bonuses came from “profits” that were declared by the brokers from some incredibly lucky “trades” that never existed in which the Trust “bought” the loans at a price far higher than the principal balance of the loans, including yours.

AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE LOST, DESTROYED, FABRICATED LOAN AND TRANSFER DOCUMENTS. THE BANKS ARE CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF NEGLIGENCE THAT OVERRIDES THE TRUTH — IT WAS FRAUD. The only reason you would destroy a cash equivalent document is because you told someone it promised payment of $100, when in fact it promised only $60. The Banks can’t reveal the real money trail without revealing their vulnerability to criminal prosecution.

Of course the problem was that the broker didn’t loan you any money and either did the trust, the trustee, the servicer or any of the conduits or other intermediaries. And so none of them were entitled to have or do anything with the PAPER that had your signature on them — which contained one key term that they didn’t want anyone to see — the principal balance stated on the note.

If the mysterious stranger found out that for every dollar he paid the broker for a mortgage bond, only 60% was being used for loans, then the mysterious stranger would stop giving the broker money and would have demanded the return of all funds. But the mysterious strangers who in reality had given naked undocumented demand loans to homeowners had no idea that anything was wrong because the payments they were receiving were exactly what they expected.

So when the “borrower” is asked “did you get the loan.” His answer is “which one are you asking about?” Because no loan was ever made, directly or indirectly by the “lender” on the note and mortgage. Did you stop paying? Of course, why should I pay someone who I thought was my lender but isn’t.

All of that is the exact reason why the investor “mysterious stranger” lawsuits have all been settled for hundreds of billions of dollars. But in the end this is about the mysterious stranger and the lender designated on the note and mortgage. The fact that either way the mysterious stranger’s money was to be used for loans is not the point under our system of law. If anyone wants to enforce commercial paper based upon a loan that was never made, they lose if they are merely a “holder,” and “holder” status is all that the foreclosers have ever alleged. Their “right to enforce”comes from cyberspace rather than the owner of the loan. The owner of the loan, is in the final analysis a mysterious stranger to any of their PAPER.

The solution to our economic crisis that simply won;t end until this wrong is addressed is to stop rewarding bad behavior and let the mysterious strangers and the borrowers meet each other in the market place. Under threat of a demand loan due in full right now, nearly all homeowners would execute enforceable, clean notes and mortgages in favor of the mysterious strangers and then they could BOTH sue the intermediaries that corrupted the title and investments of the “mysterious strangers.”

Presented correctly by counsel for the homeowner, the men and women sitting on the bench will accept the truth as long as you exercise your rights to object to the use of presumptions instead of facts and demand your right to receive discovery that would disprove all the presumptions upon which the brokers and their nominees rely. Stop admitting things you know nothing about. Presume that there is a shady reason why the foreclosing party never asserts itself as an HDC. That is your clue to the truth.

 

Nuclear Questions and Logic in Foreclosure Litigation

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

I had the honor of receiving a response from Gary Dubin who is pursuing a writ of certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme Court. I had expressed my view that equal protection more aptly describes the situation than mere denial of due process. He responded that due process is hard enough to push through and that equal protection is even harder. I agree and so his strategy might be correct, but I still wonder if the bullet might be loaded into a lawsuit in Federal court suing the state for systematic deprivation of due process to a class of Defendants in civil litigation, based upon the faulty premise that the loans subject to litigation are real. Here is what I wrote to Gary Dubin:

I know the difficulty of arguing equal protection but I believe that the due process argument based upon the note alone leaves room for the court to decide against you. Either way, you have a tough road ahead of you. At this point, the Courts are faced with the fact that they approved millions of foreclosures based upon the thought in the mind of every jurist that the loan is real and the borrower stopped paying. 15 million people were dislocated. Deciding the other way now would be acknowledging an error of monumental proportions.
That said, it would be very interesting to see a brief asking the question about why the “creditor” never alleges it is a holder in due course. That would solve everything for the banks — so why don’t they do it? It would bar the signatory on the note and probably the mortgage from raising most defenses.The corollary question is if they are a holder, from whom did they get the right to enforce? And the last question is that if the securitization IN PRACTICE was real and valid, then the Trust was the end of the line and could not possibly have been merely a holder unless they are willing to concede they did not act in good faith or purchased the loan WITH knowledge of the borrower’s defenses; that leaves “for value” as the only issue in play raising the question “how could the trust be merely holder” and if it is a holder how could a holder give rights to enforce to a third party without notice to the actual owner (HDC)?

Logically (and confirmed by me through “anonymous”interviews with actual traders involved in this scheme) it MUST be true that the Trust never purchased the loan. And the ONLY reason that could be true is if the Trust didn’t have the money. After all, the Trust was created for the sole purpose of buying loans. If the Trust didn’t buy the loan then it follows that the assignor or endorser received no payment; that would mean they had no interest in the loan because otherwise they would have insisted on payment. If they didn’t insist on payment, they did not pay for it either. And if they didn’t pay the originator for the loan, it must be because of a prior agreement (assignment and assumption) that governed the closing with the borrower. Hence the table funded loan resulted in no claim for payment in order to “transfer” the loan. If the originator didn’t get paid for the loan, then it obviously wasn’t entitled to it. It isn’t reasonable to assume otherwise.
So if the originator (“lender”) did not receive payment it must result from the fact that they never made the loan. If they did make the loan then they would have insisted on receiving payment. That leaves us with money on the table from an unknown undisclosed source, clearly in violation of Federal and state lending laws. AND THAT is what leads us back to the top of the food chain where the Trust received no investor money and therefore could not purchase the loans and therefore was not the owner of the loans but is claiming “holder” status. The investors were clearly unaware and may still be unaware that their “trust” and their trust shares are worthless. The bonds were thus issued by an unfunded trust that received neither money nor loans.
So if the Trust was unfunded but it was still investor money that was used to fund the loan, that would explain the absence of any monetary transactions (except fees and profits) relating to the loan origination and transfers. And THAT leads back to the question of law and equity that every court is dodging — if the borrower received an undocumented loan from investors, what rights are created for those who intervene in the transaction and make claims of default and rights to foreclose? Which leads to the final nuclear question: Are the courts inadvertently creating equitable mortgages in favor of investors or their designee when the original transaction was fatally flawed and in violation of all known lending and closing standards?
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,323 other followers

%d bloggers like this: