Wisconsin BKR Judge Orders Wells Fargo to Disgorge Payments It Received

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

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

Hat tip to anonymous

The full case was 25 pages, I redacted to about 4 below, but very substantial topics and analysis on this similar to Rivera in full version.
– A win on recovery of mortgage payments made to Wells, $73,000.
– Loss on recovery of attorneys fee’s to Debtor, BUT, court stated these would be proper if circumstances met criteria, just not here, and
Very interesting analysis on return of note, which backs up your prior analysis; Note will not be returned to Debtor, as even though note is not enforceable by Wells or its servicers, real party in interest may show up at some point. Debtor also did not point to any prior case law that would require return of note.

I question whether the bankruptcy judge had the required jurisdiction to enter this order in all respects. But the analysis he presents is pretty much on target and once again Wells Fargo is shown to be making false statements and representations in court with virtual immunity even in this case.

Decision dated 10/21/14
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-10-21-In-Re-Thompson-.pdf

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

In re Chapter 13 Dennis E. Thompson and Pamela A. Thompson, Case No. 05-28262-svk Debtors.

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON DEBTORS’ MOTIONS FOR CERTAIN RELIEF AGAINST WELLS FARGO

Since this case’s inception in 2005, it has been fraught with litigation, failed mediations, discovery disputes, accusations of attorney misconduct and otherwise tumultuous actions. In 2013, these proceedings eventually culminated in this Court’s disallowance of the proof of claim filed on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank after it was established that Wells Fargo was not the holder of the mortgage note underlying the claim. As a result, the pro se debtors filed a flurry of motions to effectuate the claim disallowance decision. This memorandum decision will hopefully end the litigation concerning the mortgage note, at least in the bankruptcy court………………

……..“On January 12, 2006, the Court confirmed the Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan. Under the plan, the Debtors proposed to make direct current mortgage payments and cure their pre-petition mortgage arrearage via payments to the trustee. On June 27, 2011, the Debtors filed a motion to enter into the Court’s mortgage modification mediation program with Litton. (Docket No. 142.) In preparation for the mortgage mediation, the Debtors hired an attorney and conducted a title search on their property. (Hearing Recording, Docket No. 164, at 10:53:15.) The title search revealed that Wells Fargo did not hold the title to their mortgage. (Id.) Mediation attempts with both Litton and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC4 (“Ocwen”), the current servicer for Wells Fargo, failed. (Docket No. 168; Docket No. 213.) On March 19, 2012, the Debtors filed a motion that the Court construed as an objection to the Claim. (Docket No. 159.) On April 2, 2012, Ocwen responded to the objection. After several preliminary hearings, discovery disputes, and a final evidentiary hearing, the Court entered an order disallowing the Claim. (Docket No. 217, 5.) The Court determined that neither Wells Fargo nor its servicers had standing to file a claim in the Debtors’ bankruptcy case. (Id.) Wells Fargo appealed. U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller affirmed the Court’s decision to disallow Wells Fargo’s Claim, holding:

“[E]ven if each version of the note self-authenticates under FRE 902(9), without testimony or other evidence from Ocwen to “‘connect the dots’” between the disputed allonge and the note, the evidentiary record contained only equally probable “authentic” versions of the note countervailing one another. Against that evidentiary backdrop, the bankruptcy court committed no error in finding insufficient evidence to confer standing on Ocwen to prosecute the disputed proof of claim.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Thompson, No. 13-CV-487, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2109, at *14- 15 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 7, 2014).

Prior to the district court decision, the Debtors filed motions for reimbursement of mortgage payments (Docket No. 222) and attorneys’ fees. (Docket No. 223.) The Court entered an order determining that no action would be taken on the Debtors’ motions until after the district court entered a final order in the appeal. (Docket No. 225.) After the district court decision, the Debtors filed a motion to require the return of the original note to them. (Docket No. 239.) The Court set a briefing schedule. The parties have filed briefs. The motions are now ripe for decision.

 

ANALYSIS

Reimbursement of Mortgage Payments made on Disallowed Claim

Based on the disallowance of the Claim, the Debtors request a refund of all mortgage payments and trustee payments made to Litton and Ocwen since their bankruptcy case was filed in 2005. (Docket No. 222, 1.) Arguing that they “have every legal right to believe that they were or should have been paying the proper party,” (Id.), the Debtors calculate that a total of $146,972.45 should be reimbursed to them. (Docket No. 257, 4.) This amount includes $21,587.64 for “lost mortgage payments,” $106,167.91 for mortgage payments made outside the plan from July 2005 to December 2011, $11,716.90 for disbursements made by the Chapter 13 trustee on the disallowed Claim, and $7,500.00 for “return of sanction.”5 (Id.)

Wells Fargo raises only two objections to the Debtors’ motion for a refund of mortgage payments. First, Wells Fargo contends that the Court previously denied this motion at the March 14, 2013 hearing on the Debtors’ objection to Wells Fargo’s Claim……………….”

Second, Wells Fargo argues that the Court must balance the equities under the circumstances.6 Wells Fargo notes that Ocwen and Litton both expended funds during the course of the bankruptcy to prevent the Debtors’ property from going into tax foreclosureWells Fargo also argues that the Court’s decision disallowing the Claim did not alter the fact that the “Debtors borrowed money on April 14, 2000, and have yet to repay their debt,” and “[u]nder the circumstances, it would be inequitable to require Ocwen to take yet another loss on this account.” (Id. at 5-6.)

“The Court rejects Wells Fargo’s attempt to characterize the Court’s comments at the March 13, 2013 hearing as a definitive ruling on whether Wells Fargo should have to refund the payments it received from the Debtors during the bankruptcy case…………..

Wells Fargo’s second argument requests that the Court balance the equities under the circumstances. Wells Fargo cites one case to support its position, which notes that “[c]ourts exercising equitable powers must behave akin to doctors operating under the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm. We must do equity to all parties and not just the party seeking equitable assistance . . .” Briarwood Club, LLC v. Vespera, LLC, 2013 WI App 119, ¶ 1, 351 Wis. 2d 62, 839 N.W.2d 124. Wells Fargo suggests that if the Court grants the Debtors’ request, the Debtors will gain a free house. It notes that the Debtors borrowed money that they have not fully repaid, and as long as they are not required to repay it twice, the Debtors are obligated under the mortgage note. (Docket No. 246, 6.) Wells Fargo explains that while it may not have legal enforcement power under Wisconsin law, it does still hold physical possession of the note. (Id.)

And, according to Wells Fargo, since there have not been any competing claims for repayment on the loan, it would be inequitable for the Court to require Wells Fargo to take another loss on this delinquent account. (Id. at 7.)

A similar argument was made and rejected in Thomas v. Urban P’ship Bank, Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59818 (N.D. Ill. April 26, 2013). In that case, Barbara Thomas filed suit against Urban Partnership Bank, alleging that Urban sought payments on a mortgage loan that it did not own. The central issue involved whether Thomas’s mortgage loan was included in an asset purchase agreement executed between Urban and Thomas’s original lender, ShoreBank. Urban moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing among other theories that there were no competing claims for payment on the note. But Thomas’s unjust enrichment claim survived the motion to dismiss. According to the district court:

Thomas clearly alleges that she owes someone money under the mortgage loan and that that someone is not Urban, and so it is irrelevant that no one else is currently making claims to her mortgage payments. If Thomas is correct that she owes money to someone other than Urban, then by paying Urban she has lost money without reducing the debt she owes to the loan’s true owner. . . . That amounts to the enrichment of Urban to Thomas’s detriment, since Thomas has lost and Urban has gained money for nothing . . . If, as Thomas adequately alleges, Urban had no right under the mortgage loan to the payments it received and Thomas made the payments on the mistaken premise that Urban was the loan’s owner, then fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience require that Urban disgorge the payments . . . .

Id. at *27-29 (internal citations and quotations omitted).8

The district court in Thomas relied on Bank of Naperville v. Catalano, 86 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 408 N.E.2d 441, 444, 42 Ill. Dec. 63 (Ill. App. 1980), in which the court held,

“As a general rule, where money is paid under a mistake of fact, and payment would not have been made had the facts been known to the payor, such money may be recovered.”

The court also cited the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 6 (2011) “Payment of Money Not Due” to the effect that payment by mistake gives the payor a claim in restitution against the recipient to the extent payment was not due, and a payor’s mistake as to liability may be a mistake about the identity of the creditor. The Restatement discusses two examples of payment by mistake that may be applicable here: mistake as to payee and mistake as to liability.9 Under mistake as to payee, the Restatement notes that “[a] mistaken payor has a claim in restitution when money is mistakenly transferred to someone other than the intended recipient.”…………..

Under mistake as to liability, the Restatement states that “[a] payor’s mistake as to liability may be a mistake about the identity of the creditor. In such a case, the payor believes that an obligation runs to the payee when in fact the obligation is to someone else.” The latter example applies here.10 The Debtors mistakenly believed that Wells Fargo was entitled to enforce the mortgage note. Wells Fargo’s servicers filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy case, and they directed the Debtors to send their mortgage payments to Wells Fargo, in care of the servicers. The servicers accepted the Debtors’ mortgage payments on behalf of Wells Fargo, when in fact, Wells Fargo did not validly hold the mortgage note, and Wells Fargo was not entitled to the payments.

Although Wells Fargo has responded to the Debtors’ request for a refund with a plea for equity,11 in fact, the equities here favor the Debtors.

“A claim for unjust enrichment is based on the “universally recognized moral principle that one who received a benefit has the duty to make restitution when to retain such a benefit would be unjust.” Puttkammer v. Minth, 83 Wis. 2d at 689 (quoting Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Korth, 37 Wis. 2d 531, 536 (Wis. 1968))…..

 However, it is not enough to merely establish that a benefit was conferred and retained; the retention must also be inequitable. Id. This Court previously determined that Wells Fargo is not the holder of the Debtors’ mortgage note with legal authority to enforce it; that determination was affirmed on appeal. Without authority to enforce the note, Wells Fargo is not entitled to receive payments under the note. Only the party with a legally enforceable right to enforce the note is entitled to retain the benefit of the Debtors’ mortgage payments. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo, through its servicers, received voluntary payments from the Debtors and payments from the Trustee since the commencement of this bankruptcy case, subjecting the Debtors to the possibility of having to pay twice if the true owner of the note appears. Since Wells Fargo and its servicers have no legal right to the Debtors’ mortgage payments, retention of the Debtors’ mortgage payments would be inequitable.

 

Adding all of the entries for “payment” shows that the Debtors paid $97,979.68 from February 2006 to July 2011. (Docket No. 211, Ex. 11).12 Additionally, Wells Fargo should credit the Debtors with $7,500 for the sanctions awarded in the prior claim objection proceeding. (See Docket No. 103, at 10), for a total of $105,479.68. Wells Fargo points out that it made real estate tax payments on the Debtors’ behalf that should be deducted from any refund claim. The Court agrees. After subtracting $32,438.19 for the tax payments made on the Debtors’ behalf, the Debtors’ total claim for unjust enrichment is $73,041.49. Under the circumstances, Wells Fargo should be required to return this amount to the Debtors to avoid being unjustly enriched………….

Attorney Fee’s

“The Debtors also filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, arguing that Wells Fargo should pay approximately $12,500 in fees and costs the Debtors expended in connection with the failed mediations with Litton and Ocwen. According to the Debtors, “[u]nnecessary protracted negotiations have been ongoing since 2010. Starting with Litton Loan and ending with Ocwen. The plaintiff has misrepresented their standing, despite the efforts of the debtors to discuss this matter in the mediation process.” (Docket No. 223 at 1-2.) The Debtors also request punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for “vexatious litigation conduct” by Litton and Ocwen. (Id. At 2.) They note that Litton failed to attend several scheduled mediation sessions, and when Ocwen reinitiated mediation proceedings in 2012, there was a “delay to the debtors of 6 hours in the first and only scheduled mediation, with the debtors believing that progress was being established.”……………………… Although the Debtors have the right to be disappointed that the mediation did not succeed despite the attorneys’ fees that the Debtors expended, Wells Fargo’s attorneys acted under the impression that their client had proper standing. The Court finds that Wells Fargo’s attorneys did not unreasonably and vexatiously multiply the proceedings by their conduct in this case, and the Debtors’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied.

Request for Return of Note

The Debtors’ final motion asks the Court to order Wells Fargo to turn over the original mortgage note to them. Despite the Court’s ruling that Wells Fargo cannot enforce the note, the Debtors are concerned that Wells Fargo will somehow sell, transfer or trade the note, subjecting the Debtors to further litigation, emotional distress and financial hardship. Wells Fargo responds by attempting to discern the legal theories under which the Debtors are attempting to proceed, and then casting aspersions on those theories. The Court generally agrees with Wells Fargo that the Debtors could not succeed on a replevin claim or turnover action based on the note as property of the bankruptcy estate. However, the theory that the surrender of the original note consequently follows from the disallowance of Wells Fargo’s Claim warrants further analysis. The Court also takes this opportunity to clarify that, while not “undoing” any part of the Foreclosure Court’s judgment, Wells Fargo’s ability to enforce that judgment was never finally determined by the Foreclosure Court, and the disallowance of Wells Fargo’s Claim on standing grounds strongly suggests that Wells Fargo has no such ability………………..

Neither the Debtors nor Wells Fargo cited any case law supporting their position on whether the note should be returned to the Debtors after disallowance of the Claim, and the Court’s independent research uncovered no case directly on point…………………..Here, while the validity of the note and mortgage in favor of Provident was actually litigated and determined in the Foreclosure Case, Wells Fargo’s substitution as the plaintiff was summarily ordered without notice to the Debtors or any hearing on the issue. The Debtors were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain review of the substitution order before the automatic stay intervened. That the party sought to be precluded had a reasonable opportunity to obtain review of the prior court’s order is a basic premise of the fundamental fairness prong of the issue preclusion analysis. Id. This Court previously denied Wells Fargo’s attempt to establish its standing to file the Claim based on the judgment and order of substitution in the Foreclosure Case. For the same reasons, issue preclusion does not act to bar the Debtors’ claim for return of the note……………..

“The court agreed with other courts that simply because a creditor lacks standing to enforce a note, the debtor is not discharged of her obligations under the note. Id. This Court has concluded (and the district court on appeal agreed) that Wells Fargo is neither the holder of the note nor a nonholder in possession of the instrument with the rights to enforce it. (Docket No. 233, 11.) Therefore, Wells Fargo (and its affiliates, servicers, successors and assigns) cannot enforce the note, but that fact does not cancel the note nor discharge the Debtors’ obligations to the true owner. In the absence of any authority for their request for turnover of the original note and analogizing to the cases requesting dismissal with prejudice, the Debtors’ motion to require Wells Fargo to surrender the original note is denied….

CONCLUSION

The Debtors’ motion for reimbursement of the payments made on Wells Fargo’s disallowed Claim is granted, subject to offset for real estate taxes paid by Wells Fargo. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Wells Fargo must pay $73,041.49 to the Debtors and $11,716.90 to the Chapter 13 trustee. The Debtors’ motions for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and turnover of the original note are denied. The foregoing constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court will enter separate orders on each motion.

Dated: October 21, 2014

GETTING YOUR HOUSE BACK: RIGHT OF REDEMPTION IS WORTH A TRY

For further information or assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

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

see http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/get-house-back-after-foreclosure.aspx

There are numerous ways to reverse or cure the foreclosure process. We have outlined legal procedures to vacate judgements, set aside the sale etc. in other articles. One way that we have not explored in depth is the right of redemption. The government sponsored entities (GSEs) have long had a policy of not allowing the borrower to bid on the property at auction or even allowing the borrower to buy the house after it is foreclosed. This policy has been followed industry wide. Martha Coakley Attorney General in Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit to prohibit this practice and allow borrowers or charitable organizations to front the money to get the house back for the homeowner.

The banks are fighting this tooth and nail because of their fear of liability from insurers, investors, guarantors and counterparts on hedges like credit default swaps — all vehicles for the effective sale of the same loan over and over again. This means they could have a liability for as much as 5-10 times the stated amount on the note. So they want the foreclosure sale even if it nets nothing and the property is abandoned.

But in the end this about money between a debtor and creditor. Both are getting screwed by the current policies, which continue to protect the big banks from massive liabilities rivaling the entire GDP of the Untied States. And many states allow for rights of redemption by statute and even in the states that don’t allow redemption (in exchange for a statutory waiver of a deficiency judgment) there are common law actions that might be present to allow the homeowner to redeem or reacquire the the title to the home. The problem I see is that if the foreclosure was fraudulent to begin with and/or the initial origination was fraudulent and faked, the title of the homeowner will remain clouded absent some legislative adjustment in what title means after considering the variables present when there are claim of securitization whether true or not.

Most Judges will agree that if you offer to redeem the property for the amount demanded, you should be allowed to do so. And there is frequently a process by which a borrower can apply to the court for a hearing on the amount of the redemption when the bank balks at giving the information (which is nearly always now).

My point is that even after the foreclosure judgment or foreclosure sale, don’t give up. See an attorney licensed in the geographical area in which your property is located and ask him or her to do the research and let you know what your options include and what is excluded procedurally.

BAP Panel Raises the Stakes Against Deutsch et al — Secured Status May be Challenged

Fur Further Information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

——————————–

ALERT FOR BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS — SECURED STATUS OF ALLEGED CREDITOR IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED

——————————–

I have long held and advocated three points:

  1. The filing of false claims in the nonjudicial process of a majority of states should not result in success where the same false claims could never be proven in judicial process. Nonjudicial process was meant as an administrative remedy to foreclosures that were NOT in dispute. Any application of nonjudicial schemes that allows false claims to succeed where they would fail in a judicial action is unconstitutional.
  2. The filing of a bankruptcy petition that shows property to be encumbered by virtue of a deed of trust is admitting a false representation made by a stranger to the transaction. The petition for bankruptcy relief should be filed showing that the property is not encumbered and the adversary or collateral proceeding to nullify the mortgage and the note should accompany each filing where the note and mortgage are subject to claims of securitization or a “new” beneficiary.
  3. The vast majority of decisions against borrowers result from voluntary or involuntary waiver, ignorance and failure to plead or object on the basis of false claims based on false documentation. The issue is not the signature (although that probably is false too); rather it is (a) the actual transaction which is missing and the (b) false documentation of a (i) fictitious transaction and (ii) fictitious transfers of fictitious (and non-fictitious) transactions. The result is often that the homeowner has admitted to the false assertion of being a borrower in relation to the party making the claim, admitting the secured status of the “creditor”, admitting that they are a creditor, admitting that they received a loan from within the chain claimed by the “creditor”, admitting the default, admitting the validity of the note and admitting the validity of the mortgage or deed of trust — thus leaving both the trial and appellate courts with no choice but to rule against the homeowner. Thus procedurally a false claim becomes “true” for purposes of that case.

see 11/24/14 Decision: MEMORANDUM-_-ANTON-ANDREW-RIVERA-DENISE-ANN-RIVERA-Appellants-v.-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-Trustee-of-Certificate-Holders-of-the-WAMU-Mortgage-Pass-Through-Certificate-Series-2005-AR6

This decision is breath-taking. What the Panel has done here is fire a warning shot over the bow of the California Supreme Court with respect to the APPLICATION of the non-judicial process. AND it takes dead aim at those who make false claims on false debts in both nonjudicial and judicial process. Amongst the insiders it is well known that your chances on appeal to the BAP are less than 15% whereas an appeal to the District Judge, often ignored as an option, has at least a 50% prospect for success.

So the fact that this decision comes from the BAP Panel which normally rubber stamps decisions of bankruptcy judges is all the more compelling. One word of caution that is not discussed here is the the matter of jurisdiction. I am not so sure the bankruptcy judge had jurisdiction to consider the matters raised in the adversary proceeding. I think there is a possibility that jurisdiction would be present before the District Court Judge, but not the Bankruptcy Judge.

From one of my anonymous sources within a significant government agency I received the following:

This case is going to be a cornucopia of decision material for BK courts nationwide (and others), it directly tackles all the issues regarding standing and assignment (But based on Non-J foreclosure, and this is California of course……) it tackles Glaski and Glaski loses, BUT notes dichotomy on secured creditor status….this case could have been even more , but leave to amend was forfeited by borrower inaction—– it is part huge win, part huge loss as it relates to Glaski, BUT IT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO CHASE/WAMU CASES……….Note in full case how court refers to transfer of “some of WAMU’s assets”, tacitly inferring that the court WILL NOT second guess what was and was not transferred………… i.e, foreclosing party needs to prove this!!

AFFIRMED- NO SECURED PARTY STATUS FOR BK PROVEN 

Even though Siliga, Jenkins and Debrunner may preclude the

Riveras from attacking DBNTC’s foreclosure proceedings by arguing

that Chase’s assignment of the deed of trust was a nullity in

light of the absence of a valid transfer of the underlying debt,

we know of no law precluding the Riveras from challenging DBNTC’s assertion of secured status for purposes of the Riveras’ bankruptcy case. Nor did the bankruptcy court cite to any such law.

We acknowledge that our analysis promotes the existence of two different sets of legal standards – one applicable in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings and a markedly different one for use in ascertaining creditors’ rights in bankruptcy cases.

But we did not create these divergent standards. The California legislature and the California courts did. We are not the first to point out the divergence of these standards. See CAL. REAL EST., at § 10:41 (noting that the requirements under California law for an effective assignment of a real-estate-secured obligation may differ depending on whether or not the dispute over the assignment arises in a challenge to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings).
We must accept the truth of the Riveras’ well-pled
allegations indicating that the Hutchinson endorsement on the
note was a sham and, more generally, that neither DBNTC nor Chase
ever obtained any valid interest in the Riveras’ note or the loan
repayment rights evidenced by that note. We also must
acknowledge that at least part of the Riveras’ adversary
proceeding was devoted to challenging DBNTC’s standing to file
its proof of claim and to challenging DBNTC’s assertion of
secured status for purposes of the Riveras’ bankruptcy case. As
a result of these allegations and acknowledgments, we cannot
reconcile our legal analysis, set forth above, with the
bankruptcy court’s rulings on the Riveras’ second amended
complaint. The bankruptcy court did not distinguish between the
Riveras’ claims for relief that at least in part implicated the
parties’ respective rights in the Riveras’ bankruptcy case from
those claims for relief that only implicated the parties’
respective rights in DBNTC’s nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.

THEY REJECT GLASKI-

Here, we note that the California Supreme Court recently

granted review from an intermediate appellate court decision
following Jenkins and rejecting Glaski. Yvanova v. New Century
Mortg. Corp., 226 Cal.App.4th 495 (2014), review granted &
opinion de-published, 331 P.3d 1275 (Cal. Aug 27, 2014). Thus,
we eventually will learn how the California Supreme Court views
this issue. Even so, we are tasked with deciding the case before
us, and Ninth Circuit precedent suggests that we should decide
the case now, based on our prediction, rather than wait for the
California Supreme Court to rule. See Hemmings, 285 F.3d at
1203; Lewis v. Telephone Employees Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537,
1545 (9th Cir. 1996). Because we have no convincing reason to
doubt that the California Supreme Court will follow the weight of
authority among California’s intermediate appellate courts, we
will follow them as well and hold that the Riveras lack standing
to challenge the assignment of their deed of trust based on an
alleged violation of a pooling and servicing agreement to which
they were not a party.

BUT……… THEY DO SUCCEED ON SECURED STATUS

Even though the Riveras’ first claim for relief principally

relies on their allegations regarding the assignment’s violation
of the pooling and servicing agreement, their first claim for
relief also explicitly incorporates their allegations challenging
DBNTC’s proof of claim and disputing the validity of the
Hutchinson endorsement. Those allegations, when combined with
what is set forth in the first claim for relief, are sufficient
on their face to state a claim that DBNTC does not hold a valid
lien against the Riveras’ property because the underlying debt
never was validly transferred to DBNTC. See In re Leisure Time
Sports, Inc., 194 B.R. at 861 (citing Kelly v. Upshaw, 39 Cal.2d
179 (1952) and stating that “a purported assignment of a mortgage
without an assignment of the debt which it secured was a legal
nullity.”).
While the Riveras cannot pursue their first claim for relief
for purposes of directly challenging DBNTC’s pending nonjudicial
foreclosure proceedings, Debrunner, 204 Cal.App.4th at 440-42,
the first claim for relief states a cognizable legal theory to
the extent it is aimed at determining DBNTC’s rights, if any, as
a creditor who has filed a proof of secured claim in the Riveras’
bankruptcy case.

TILA CLAIM UPHELD!—–

Fifth Claim for Relief – for violation of the Federal Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)

The Riveras’ TILA Claim alleged, quite simply, that they did
not receive from DBNTC, at the time of Chase’s assignment of the
deed of trust to DBNTC, the notice of change of ownership
required by 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1). That section provides:
In addition to other disclosures required by this
subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on
which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred
or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the
new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the
borrower in writing of such transfer, including–

(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new

creditor;

(B) the date of transfer;

 

(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to

act on behalf of the new creditor;

(D) the location of the place where transfer of

ownership of the debt is recorded; and

(E) any other relevant information regarding the new

creditor.

The bankruptcy court did not explain why it considered this claim as lacking in merit. It refers to the fact that the
Riveras had actual knowledge of the change in ownership within
months of the recordation of the trust deed assignment. But the
bankruptcy court did not explain how or why this actual knowledge
would excuse noncompliance with the requirements of the statute.
Generally, the consumer protections contained in the statute
are liberally interpreted, and creditors must strictly comply
with TILA’s requirements. See McDonald v. Checks–N–Advance, Inc.
(In re Ferrell), 539 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). On its
face, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2)(A)(iv) imposes upon the assignee of
a deed of trust who violates 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1) statutory
damages of “not less than $400 or greater than $4,000.”
While the Riveras’ TILA claim did not state a plausible
claim for actual damages, it did state a plausible claim for
statutory damages. Consequently, the bankruptcy court erred when
it dismissed the Riveras’ TILA claim.

LAST, THEY GOT REAR ENDED FOR NOT SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND

Here, however, the Riveras did not argue in either the bankruptcy court or in their opening appeal brief that the court should have granted them leave to amend. Having not raised the issue in either place, we may consider it forfeited. See Golden v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (In re Choo), 273 B.R. 608, 613 (9th Cir. BAP 2002).

Even if we were to consider the issue, we note that the

bankruptcy court gave the Riveras two chances to amend their
complaint to state viable claims for relief, examined the claims
they presented on three occasions and found them legally
deficient each time. Moreover, the Riveras have not provided us
with all of the record materials that would have permitted us a
full view of the analyses and explanations the bankruptcy court
offered them when it reviewed the Riveras’ original complaint and
their first amended complaint. Under these circumstances, we
will not second-guess the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny
leave to amend. See generally In re Nordeen, 495 B.R. at 489-90
(examining multiple opportunities given to the plaintiffs to
amend their complaint and the bankruptcy court’s efforts to
explain to them the deficiencies in their claims, and ultimately
determining that the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their second amended
complaint).

Who Can Sign a Lost Note Affidavit? What Happens When It Is “Found?”

For further information and assistance, please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

——————————

Let’s start with the study that planted the seed of doubt as to the validity of the debt, note, mortgage and foreclosure and whether any of those “securitized debt” foreclosures should have been allowed to even get to first base. Katherine Ann Porter, when she was a professor in Iowa (2007) did a seminal study of “lost” documents and found that at least 40% of ALL notes were lost as a result of intentional destruction or negligence. You can find her study on this blog.

The issue with “lost notes” is actually simple. If the note is lost then the court and the borrower are entitled to an explanation of the the full story behind the loss of the note, why it was intentionally destroyed and whose negligence caused the loss of the note. And the reason is also simple. If the Court and the borrower are not fully satisfied that the whole story has been told, then neither one can determine whether the party claiming rights to collect or enforce the note actually has those rights.

This is the question posed to me by a knowledgeable person involved in the challenge to the validity of the debt, note, mortgage and foreclosure:

Who is finding the Note?  Can a servicer execute a Lost Note Affidavit as a holder?  Non holder in possession?

It took me a while to get to the obvious point of the above defense.  It is intended in the event that party A loses the Note and files a LNA [Lost Note Affidavit}, that the Issuer, does not have to pay party B even if he appears with a blank endorsed note, unless B can prove holder in due course (virtually impossible these days, esp in foreclosure cases).

This is critical.  The foreclosing party, through a series of mergers and successions, files a case as successor by merger to ABC.  Can’t locate note, so it files a LNA, stating ABC lost the Note.  Note is found, but the foreclosing party says, oops, was in a custodial file for which we were the servicer for XYZ.   While the foreclosing party has the note, it cannot unring the fact it got the Note from XYZ after ABC lost it.

Good questions. He understands that the requirements as expressly stated in the law (UCC, State law etc.) are quite stringent. You cannot re-establish a lost note with a copy of it unless you can prove that you had it and that you were the person entitled to enforce it (known as PETE). You also cannot re-establish the note unless you can prove that the note was lost or destroyed under circumstances where it is far more likely than not that the original won’t show up later in the hands of someone else claiming PETE status. So there should be a heavy burden placed on any party seeking to foreclose or even just to collect on a “lost note.” But courts have steamrolled over this obvious problem requiring something on the order of “probable cause” rather than actual proof. While there is some evidence the judiciary is turning the corner against the banks, the great majority of cases fly over these issues either because of presumptions by the bench or because the “borrower” fails to raise it — and fails to make appropriate motions in limine and raise objections in trial.

But the person who posed this question drills down deeper into the real factual issues. He wants to know details. We all know that it is easier to allege that you destroyed it accidentally or even intentionally than to allege the loss of the note. A witness from the party asserting PETE can say, truthfully or not, “I destroyed it.” Proving that he didn’t and that the copy is fabricated is very difficult for a homeowner with limited resources. If the allegation and the testimony is that the note was lost, we get into the question of what, when where, how and why. But in a lost note situation most states require some sort of indemnification from the party asserting PETE status or holder in due course status. That is also a problem. I remember rejecting the offer of indemnification from Taylor, Bean and Whitaker after I reviewed their financial statements. It was obvious they were going broke and they did. And the officers went to jail for criminal acts.

So the first question is exactly when was the “original” note last seen and by whom? In whose possession was it when it was allegedly lost? How was it lost? Who has direct personal information on the location of the original and the timing and method of loss? And what happens when the note is “found?” We know that original documents are being fabricated by advanced technology such that even the borrower doesn’t realize he is not being shown the original (that is why I suggest denying that they are the holder of the note, denying they are PETE, denying they are holder in due course etc.)

In the confusion of those issues, the homeowner usually fails to realize that this is just another lie. But in discovery, if you are awake to the issue, you can either learn the facts (or deal with the inevitable objections to discovery). And then the lawyer for the homeowner should graph out the allegations and testimony as best as possible. The questioner is dead right — if the party NOW claiming PETE status or HDC status received the “found” original note but received it from someone other than the party who “lost” it, there is no chain upon which the foreclosing party can rely. In simple language, what they are attempting to do is fly over the gap between when the note was lost and destroyed and the time that the current claimant took possession of the paper. And once again I say that the real proof is the real money trail. If the underlying transactions exist, then there will be some correspondence, agreements and a payment of money that will reveal the true transfer.

And again I say, that if you are attacking the paper you need to be extremely careful not to give the impression that the borrower is attempting to get out of a legitimate debt. The position is that there is no legitimate debt IN THIS CHAIN. The debt lies outside the chain. The true debt is owed to whoever supplied the money that was received at the loan closing, regardless of what paperwork was signed. Failure to prove the original loan transaction should be fatal to the action on the note or the mortgage (except if the foreclosing party can prove the status of a holder in due course). The fact that the paperwork was signed only creates a potential second liability that does not benefit the party whose money was used for the loan.

The foreclosure is a thinly disguised adventure in greed — where the perpetrators of the false foreclosure, use fabricated, robo-signed paper without ANY loan at the base of the paper trail and without any payments made by any of the parties for possession or enforcement of the paper. They are essentially stealing the house, the proceeds, and the money that was used to fund the “loan” all to the detriment of the real parties in interest, to wit: the investors who were tricked into directly lending the money to borrowers  and the homeowners who were tricked into signing paperwork that created a second liability for the same loan.

US Supreme Court Hears Argument on TILA-REG Z Rescission

see 13-684_4425

Judges generally don’t like TILA because it contains remedies that “go against the grain.” Specifically TILA and REG Z from the Federal Reserve contain strict guidelines on the form and content of disclosures to borrowers. These laws and regulations went into effect after the Savings and Loan scandal and other evidence surfaced as to deceptive lending practices. The problem for the banks is that they are not satisfied with the small profits they earn on conventional loans.

So they have pushing and crossing the line for decades tricking borrowers into loans that produced short-term “profit” but long term losses when the unbalanced loans went into default. Then they started fooling investors who saw short term “profits” and long term losses — many times total losses — on loans that were supposedly originated or acquired through the use of a REMIC Trust; but it turned out the trust was ignored and the money was not subject to the industry standard lending practices. The profits on these unconventional investments and loans were staggering because the intermediaries got to keep much of what was invested. And that accounts for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising “low-interest” or “alternative” or “option” loans — where the apparent interest rate charged to borrowers was as low as 1% but the profits claimed on the loan were far higher, even exceeding the loan itself.

So people started sending rescission letters. The Federal law says that sending the rescission letter is effectively a nullification of the mortgage and requires the “lender” to return all money paid to anyone in connection with the loan. In a normal rescission the party rescinding must return whatever they received.

Borrowers thinking that they had to “return” the house failed to understand the law and many lawyers didn’t get it either. In fact, the only thing that had to be “returned” was the loan of money. In a conventional loan that would have been easy to do logistically. But in the case of loans subjected to false claims of securitization, and where the investor money was thrown around like a drunken sailor, it is not so easy to figure out who gets the “return” of the money loaned (AFTER the lender returns to the borrower all money and compensation paid by borrower directly or indirectly including all parties who received compensation whether disclosed or not at closing of the loan).

In fact, many times the reason that borrowers rescinded was because of inadequate disclosure (like a loan that resets to twice the household income after a term of months or years) and because they were being contacted or accosted by companies that were claiming rights to collect the loan when the borrower had never entered into any agreement with those entities and those entities refused to state the basis of claiming the right to collect.

Still the issue of repayment remains at least theoretically, if the net amount due to the actual lender is above zero. But the issue is if the “lender” did not loan the money in the first place, and the mortgage names that “lender”the repayment to that lender would expose the borrower to a second debt owed to the investors whose money was used directly or indirectly to fund the loans. Trusting the loan originator to send the funds to the investors does not appeal to anyone. By and large it won’t happen. In fact many originators were naked nominees — empty shells — that went out of business long before the borrower realized it had a right to rescind that the borrower wanted to exercise.

In order to actually “return” the loan, the borrower needed to clear title and secure a more conventional loan from an alternative source. That is why the statute and regulations state that the security instrument is void by operation of law upon notice from borrower of their exercise of the right of rescission. This feature bugs judges on trial and appellate benches because they are confusing common law rescission with the specific rules of statutory rescission provided in TILA and Reg Z. They want a tender of the money before the rescission is final. But that is not possible without clearing title. So the courts are vacillating between what kind of tender is required — upfront cash, a plan of repayment, or leaving it as an open ended claim. The last one is what was intended by the statute because most lending banks would have required payment of the prior debt, whether secured or not.

That would have worked out well but for one thing — appraisal fraud. The new lending institution who was making an actual loan of their own money or credit was hiring appraisers within standard industry practices — to find out the real fair market value so that the new and real lender could minimize its risk. THAT put the borrower further behind the eight ball, because they could not get an affordable loan for a principal amount that would cover the prior unconventional loan clouded by false claims of securitization. The rescinded loan was falsely inflated by a false appraisal for which the “lender” was responsible under all state and federal laws. Thus no new loan could cover the prior “debt” that was created under false pretenses.

Thus we have a conflict in the actual application of the laws and rules, which the US Supreme court agreed to hear and which hopefully will be cleared up by the Supremes without further complications and confusion. The link above is a transcript of oral argument. It is a good read.

Hopefully the court will understand that this problem was neither invented nor caused by the borrowers. The Federal statute must be cleared for use by borrowers or the entire legislative intent will be defeated. A decision that dilutes the right of rescission will deprive borrowers of the only tool they have for effectively pushing back against deceptive lending practices.

The Devil is in the Details — The Mortgage Cannot Be Enforced, Even If the Note Can Be Enforced

Cashmere v Department of Revenue

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.

————————————

Editor’s Introduction: The REAL truth behind securitization of so-called mortgage loans comes out in tax litigation. There a competent Judge who is familiar with the terms of art used in the world of finance makes judgements based upon real evidence and real comprehension of how each part affects another in the “securitization fail” (Adam Levitin) that took us by surprise. In the beginning (2007) I was saying the loans were securitized and the banks were saying there was no securitization and there was no trust.

Within a short period of time (2008) I deduced that there securitization had failed and that no Trust was getting the money from investors who thought they were buying mortgage backed securities and therefore the Trust could never be a holder in due course. I deduced this from the complete absence of claims that they were holders in due course. Whether they initiated foreclosure as servicer, trustee or trust there was no claim of holder in due course. This was peculiar because all the elements of a holder in due course appeared to be present because that is what was required in the securitization documents — at least in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and prospectus.

If the foreclosing party was a holder in due course they would merely have to show what the securitization required — a purchase in good faith of the loan documents for value without knowledge of any of borrower’s defenses.  This would bar virtually any defense by the borrower and allow them to get a judgment on the note and a foreclosure based upon the auxiliary contract for collateral — the mortgage. But they didn’t allege that for reasons that I have described in recent articles — they could not, as part of their prima facie case, prove that any party in their “chain” had funded or paid any money for the loan.

After analyzing this case, consider the possibility that there is no party in existence who has the power to foreclose. The Trust beneficiaries clearly don’t have that right. The Trust doesn’t either because they didn’t pay anything for it. The Trustee doesn’t have that right because it can only assert the rights of the Trust and Trust beneficiaries. The servicer doesn’t have that right because it derives its authority from the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which does not apply because the loan never made it into the Trust. The originator doesn’t have the right both because they never loaned the money and now disclaim any interest in the mortgage.

Then consider the fact that it is ONLY the investors who have their money at risk but that they failed to get any documentation securing their “involuntary loans.” They might have actions to recover money from the borrower, but those actions are far from secured, and certainly subject to numerous defenses. The investors are barred from enforcing either the note or the mortgage by the terms of the instruments, the terms of the PSA and the rule of law. They are left with an unsecured common law right of action to get what they can from a claim for unjust enrichment or some other type of claim that actually reflects the true facts of the original transaction in which the borrower did receive a loan, but not from anyone represented at the loan closing.

Now we have the Cashmere case. The only assumption that the Court seems to get wrong is that the investors were trust beneficiaries because the court was assuming that the Trust received the proceeds of sale of the bonds. This does not appear to be the case. But the case also explains why the investors wanted to take the position that they were trust beneficiaries in order to get the tax treatment they thought they were getting. So here we have the victims and perpetrators of the fraud taking the same side because of potentially catastrophic results in tax treatment — potentially treating principal payments as ordinary income. That would reduce the return on investment below zero. They lost.

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cashmere-v-Dept-of-Revenue.pdf

I have changed fonts to emphasize certain portion of the following excerpts from the Case decision:

“Cashmere’s investments merely gave Cashmere the right to receive specific cash flows generated by the assets of the trust at specific times. But if the REMIC trustee failed to pay Cashmere according to the terms of the investment, Cashmere had no right to sell the mortgage loans or the residential property or any other asset of the trust to satisfy this obligation. Cf. Dep’t of Revenue v. Sec. Pac. Bank of Wash. Nat’/ Ass’n, 109 Wn. App. 795, 808, 38 P.3d 354 (2002) (deduction allowed because mortgage companies transferred ownership of loans to taxpayer who could sell the oans in event of default). Cashmere’s only recourse would be to sue the trustee for performance of the obligation or attempt to replace the trustee. The trustee’s successor would then take legal title to the underlying securities or other assets of the related trust. At no time could Cashmere take control of trust assets and reduce them to cash to satisfy a debt obligation. Thus, we hold that under the plain language of the statute, Cashmere’s investments in REMICs are not primarily secured by mortgages or deeds of trust.
12
“Cashmere argues that the investments are secure because the trustee is obligated to protect the investors’ interests and the trustee has the right to foreclose. But, this is not always the case. The underlying mortgages back all of the tranches, and a trustee must balance competing interests between investors of different tranches. Thus, a default in one tranche does not automatically give the holders of that tranche a right to force foreclosure. We hold that if the terms of the trust do not give beneficiaries an investment secured by trust assets, the trustee’s fiduciary obligations do not transform the investment into a secured investment.

“In a 1990 determination, DOR explained why interest earned from investments in REMICs does not qualify for the mortgage tax deduction. see Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, Determination No. 90-288, 10 Wash. Tax Dec. 314 (1990). A savings and loan association sought a refund of B&O taxes assessed on interest earned from investments in REMICs. The taxpayer argued that because interest received from investments in pass-through securities is deductible, interest received on REMICs
should be too. DOR rejected the deduction, explaining that with pass-through securities, the issuer holds the mortgages in trust for the investor. In the event of individual default, the issuer, as trustee, will foreclose on the property to satisfy the terms of the loan. In other words, the right to foreclose is directly related to homeowner defaults-in the event of default, the trustee can foreclose and the proceeds from foreclosure flow to investors who have a beneficial ownership interest in the underlying mortgage. Thus, investments in pass-through securities are “primarily secured by” first mortgages.

“By contrast, with REMICs, a trustee’s default may or may not coincide with an individual homeowner default. So, there may be no right of foreclosure in the event a trustee fails to make a payment. And if a trustee can and does foreclose, proceeds from the sale do not necessarily go to the investors. Foreclosure does not affect the trustee’s obligations vis-a-vis the investor. Indeed, the Washington Mutual REMIC here contains a commonly used form of guaranty: “For any month, if the master servicer receives a payment on a mortgage loan that is less than the full scheduled payment or if no payment is received at all, the master servicer will advance its own funds to cover the shortfall.” “The master servicer will not be required to make advances if it determines that those advances will not be recoverable” in the future. At foreclosure or liquidation, any proceeds will go “first to the servicer to pay back any advances it might have made in the past.” Similarly, agency REMICs, like the Fannie Mae REMIC Trust 2000-38, guarantee payments even if mortgage borrowers default, regardless of whether the issuer expects to recover those payments. Moreover, the assets held in a REMIC trust are often MBSs, not mortgages.

“So, if the trustee defaults, the investors may require the trustee to sell the MBS, but the investor cannot compel foreclosure of individual properties. DOR also noted that it has consistently allowed the owners of a qualifying mortgage to claim the deduction in RCW 82.04.4292. But the taxpayer who invests in REMICs does not have any ownership interest in the MBSs placed in trust as collateral, much less any ownership interest in the mortgage themselves. By contrast, a pass-through security represents a beneficial ownership of a fractional undivided interest in a pool of first lien residential mortgage loans. Thus, DOR concluded that while investments in pass-through securities qualify for the tax deduction, investments in REMICs do not. We should defer to DOR’s interpretation because it comports with the plain meaning of the statute.

“Moreover, this case is factually distinct. Borrowers making the payments that eventually end up in Cashmere’s REMIC investments do not pay Cashmere, nor do they borrow money from Cashmere. The borrowers do not owe Cashmere for use of borrowed money, and they do not have any existing contracts with Cashmere. Unlike HomeStreet, Cashmere did not have an ongoing and enforceable relationship with borrowers and security for payments did not rest directly on borrowers’ promises to repay the loans. Indeed, REMIC investors are far removed from the underlying mortgages. Interest received from investments in REMICs is often repackaged several times and no longer resembles payments that homeowners are making on their mortgages.

“We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that Cashmere’s REMIC investments are not “primarily secured by” first mortgages or deeds of trust on nontransient residential real properties. Cashmere has not shown that REMICs are secured-only that the underlying loans are primarily secured by first mortgages or deeds of trust. Although these investments gave Cashmere the right to receive specific cash flows generated by first mortgage loans, the borrowers on the original loans had no obligation to pay Cashmere. Relatedly, Cashmere has no direct or indirect legal recourse to the underlying mortgages as security for the investment. The mere fact that the trustee may be able to foreclose on behalf of trust beneficiaries does not mean the investment is “primarily secured” by first mortgages or deeds of trust.

Editor’s Note: The one thing that makes this case even more problematic is that it does not appear that the Trust ever paid for the acquisition or origination of loans. THAT implies that the Trust didn’t have the money to do so. Because the business of the trust was the acquisition or origination of loans. If the Trust didn’t have the money, THAT implies the Trust didn’t receive the proceeds of sale from their issuance of MBS. And THAT implies that the investors are not Trust beneficiaries in any substantive sense because even though the bonds were issued in the name of the securities broker as street name nominee (non objecting status) for the benefit of the investors, the bonds were issued in a transaction that was never completed.

Thus the investors become simply involuntary direct lenders through a conduit system to which they never agreed. The broker dealer controls all aspects of the actual money transfers and claims the amounts left over as fees or profits from proprietary trading. And THAT means that there is no valid mortgage because the Trust got an assignment without consideration, the Trustee has no interest in the mortgage and the investors who WERE the original source of funds were never given the protection they thought they were getting when they advanced the money. So the “lenders” (investors) knew nothing about the loan closing and neither did the borrower. The mortgage is not enforceable by the named “originator” because they were not the lender and they did not close as representative of the lenders.

There is no party who can enforce an unenforceable contract, which is what the mortgage is here. And the note is similarly defective — although if the note gets into the hands of a party who DID PAY value in good faith without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses and DID GET DELIVERY and ACCEPT DELIVERY of the loans then the note would be enforceable even if the mortgage is not. The borrower’s remedy would be to sue the people who put him into those loans, not the holder who is suing on the note because the legislature adopted the UCC and Article 3 says the risk of loss falls on the borrower even if there were defenses to the loan. The lack of consideration might be problematic but the likelihood is that the legislative imperative would be followed — allowing the holder in due course to collect from the borrower even in the absence of a loan by the so-called “originator.”

How “Standing” Is Causing the Longest Economic Recovery Since the Great Depression

THE PERFECT CRIME: THE VICTIMS DON’T KNOW ANYTHING

WHY INVESTORS AND BORROWERS SHOULD GET RID OF THE SERVICERS AND REPLACE THEM WITH SERVICING COMPANIES THEY CAN TRUST TO MITIGATE THE LOSSES CAUSED BY INVESTMENT BANKS

HOW? It is simple: since the perpetrators ignored the REMIC trust, didn’t fund them and never intended to actually have the REMIC trusts own the loans, the investors can go directly to homeowners or through their own servicers to settle and modify mortgages. This would leave the investors with claims against the investment banks for the balance of the losses, plus punitive damages, interest and court costs. It is the same logic as piercing the corporate veil — if you pay your grocery bills using the account of your limited liability corporation, the corporate entity is ignored.

Vasquez v Saxon (Arizona supreme Court) revisited

Assume the following facts for purposes of analogy and analysis:

  1. John Jones is a Scammer, previously found to have operated outside the law several times. He conceives of yet another PONZI scheme, but with the help of lawyers he has obscured the true nature of his next scheme. He creates a convoluted scheme that ultimately was never understood by regulators.
  2. The first part of his scheme is to offer shares in a company where the money will be held in trust. The money will be disbursed based upon standards that are promised to incoming investors.
  3. The new company will issue the shares based upon the receipt of money from investors who are buying those shares.
  4. Jones approaches Jason Smartguy, who manages a pension fund for 3,000 employees of ABC Company, a Fortune 500 company.
  5. Jason Smartguy manages the pension funds under strict restrictions. A pension fund is a “stable managed fund” whose investments must be at the lowest risk possible and whose purpose is capital preservation.
  6. John Jones promises Jason Smartguy that the new company will invest in assets that are valuable and stable, and that these investments will pay a return on investment higher than what Jason Smartguy is getting for the pension fund under his management. Jason likes the idea because it gives him employment security and probably bonuses for increasing the rate of return on the funds managed for the pension fund.
  7. The lawyers for John Jones have concealed the PONZI nature of the scheme (paying back investors with their own money and with money from new investors) by disclosing the existing of a reserve fund — consisting entirely of money from Jason Smartguy.
  8. Jason advances $100 Million to John Jones who says he is acting as a broker between the new Company (the one issuing the shares) and the Pension fund managed by Jason Smartguy.
  9. The new Company never receives the money. Instead the money is placed in accounts controlled by people who have no relationship with the new Company.
  10. The new Company never receives title or any documentation showing they own shares of the money pool now controlled by John Jones when it should be controlled by the new Company.
  11. John Jones uses the money to bet against the new Company, insurance on the value of the shares of the new Company, and the proceeds of other convoluted transactions — mostly based on the assumption that John Jones owns the money in the pool and based entirely on the assumption that any assets of the pool therefore belong to John Jones — not the new Company as promised.
  12. John Jones also uses the money to buy assets, so everything looks right as long as you don’t get too close.
  13. The assets Jones buys are designed to look good on paper but are pure trash — which is why John Jones bet against the pool and shares in the pool.
  14. Everyone is fooled. The investors get monthly statements from John Jones along with a check showing that the investment is working just as was planned. They don’t know that the money they are receiving comes entirely from the reserve pool and the meager actual returns from the assets. The insurance company believes that Jones is the owner of the money and the assets purchased with money from the pool created by Jason Smartguy’s advance from the pension fund.
  15. John Jones goes further. He pretends to own the shares of the new Company that actually belong to the pension fund managed by Jason Smartguy. He insures those shares naming himself as the insurance beneficiary and naming himself as the receiver of proceeds from his bets that the shares in the new Company would crash, just as he planned.
  16. While the assets are proving as worthless as John Jones had planned, Jason Smartguy receives payments to the pension fund exactly as outlined in the Prospectus and the Operating Agreement for the New Company. Unknown to Jason, the assets are increasingly proving worthless, as a whole and the income is declining. So Jason buys more shares in the new Company, thus providing Jason with a larger “reserve” fund and more “assets” to bet against and more “shares’ to bet against.
  17. John Jones sets out to “acquire” assets that will fail, so his bets will pay off. He buys assets whose value is low (and getting worse) and he creates fictitious transactions in which it appears as though the new Company has bought the assets at a much higher price than their value. The “sales” to the Company are a sham. The Company has no money because Jason Smartguy’s pension money never was made to the new Company in exchange for the new Company issuing shares of the company to Jason’s pension fund.
  18. The difference between the real value of the assets and the price “sold” to the pool is huge. In some cases it is 2-3 times the actual value of the asset. John Jones treats these sales as “proprietary trading profits” for John Jones,when in fact it is an immediate loss to Jason’s pension fund. The shares of the new Company are worthless because it never received any money nor title to any assets. John Jones as “broker” took all the money and assets.
  19. Meanwhile John Jones continues to pay Jason’s pension fund along with distribution reports showing the assets are in great shape and the income is just fine. In reality the assets are virtually worthless and the income is declining just as John Jones planned. John Jones is taking money hand over fist and calling it his own. His bets on the whole thing crashing are paying off handsomely and he is not reporting to Jason how much he is making by taking Jason’s managed money and calling part of it proprietary profits.
  20. The beauty of John Jones PONZI scheme is in the BIG LIE told not only to Jason Smartguy but also to Henry Homebody, who owns a home in Tucson Arizona. Henry is easier to sell on a stupid scheme than Jason Smartguy because Jason requires proof of independent appraisals (ratings), proof of insurance and various other aspects of the investment. Henry Homebody trusts the “lenders” and considers them to be banks, some with reputations and brands that go back 150 years.
  21. Henry Homebody’s house has been in the family for 6 generations and is fully paid off. He pays only insurance and taxes. Unknown to him, he is a special target for scammers like Merendon Mining, whose operators are now in jail. Merendon got homeowners with unencumbered houses to “invest” in a mirage (gold shares) thus putting the fantastic equity in their homes to work. Henry is flown to Canada, wined and dined, and has a very good time, just before he agrees to take out a loan using his family home as collateral, which will provide an income to him of $16,000 over month (which is about ten times his current income).
  22. Henry is approved for a loan equal to twice the value of the property and in which the mortgage broker (now on the run from the law) used projected income from the speculative investment in Merendon mining. This act by the mortgage broker was illegal but worth the risk because the broker was part of the Merendon Mining scam. (look up Merendon Mining and First Magnus Funding).
  23. Henry makes Payments on the mortgage principal, interest, taxes and insurance (all higher because of the false appraisal that was used for the property). He is able to do this because some of the money from the “loan” was given to him and he was able to make payments until the magnificent returns started to come in from his Merendon Mining shares. But those shares were worded in such a way that they were not exactly the ownership of gold that Henry thought he was getting. In fact, it was another pool with options on gold. And of course the money never materialized and neither did the gold. (Note 1996-2014: more than 50% of all loans were “refi’s” in which the home was fully paid or nearly so).
  24. Henry’s lender turned out to be a party pretending to lend him money, using MERS as a nominee for trading purposes, and naming the originator as lender when in fact they were also just a nominee.
  25. Henry’s mortgage and note recite terms that are impossible to meet unless Merendon Mining pays off.
  26. Henry believes at closing that First Magnus was the lender and that some entity called MERS is hanging in the background. Nobody explains anything to him about the lender or MERS. And of course he was told not to get an attorney because nothing can be changed anyway.
  27. Henry did not know that John Jones had spread out Jason’s money into several entities and then used Jason’s money to fund the origination of Henry’s loan.
  28. Jason does not know that the note and mortgage were never executed in the name of the pension fund or the new Company that was supposed to own the loan as an asset.
  29. Eventually the truth starts coming out, the market crashes and prices of homes return to actual value. Merendon Mining is of course a bankrupt entity as is First Magnus, whose operator appears to be on the run.
  30. Henry can’t make the payments after the extra money they gave him runs out. He has $2 million in loans and the “guaranteed” investment in Merendon Mining has left him penniless.
  31. John Jones fabricates and forges dozens of documents to piece together a narrative wherein an “independent” company would claim ownership of Henry’s loan despite the complete absence of any real transactions between any of the companies because the loan was fully funded using Jason Smartguy’s pension money.
  32. Henry knows nothing about the scam John Jones pulled on Jason Smartguy and certainly doesn’t know that the new Company was involved in his loan (because it wasn’t). Henry doesn’t understand that First Magnus and MERS never loaned him any money and that he never owed them money. And Henry knows nothing about John Jones, whose name appears on nothing.
  33. John Jones, the PONZI operator goes about the business of finishing the deal and making sure that the multiple people who bought into Henry’s loan (without knowing of the other sales and bets placed by John Jones) don’t start asking for refunds.
  34. John Jones MUST get a foreclosure or there will be auditing and reporting requirements that most everyone will overlook as long as this looks like just another loan gone bad. His PONZI scheme will be revealed if the true facts become known so he makes sure that nobody sees the actual money trail except him. He might go to jail if the truth is discovered.
  35. The lawyers for John Jones have told him that even fabricated, forged, non-authentic, falsely signed, and falsely notarized documents carry a presumption of validity. Thus the lawyers and Jones concocted a PONZI scheme that would most likely succeed because even the borrower, Henry, still thinks he owes money to First Magnus or its “successors”, whose identity he doesn’t really care about because he knows he took the loan. He doesn’t know that First Magnus and several other entities were involved in collecting fees and making profits the moment he signed the papers, and possibly before.
  36. Meanwhile Jason Smartguy, manager of the pension fund is starting to get disturbing reports about the assets that were purchased. Jason still doesn’t know that the money he gave John Jones never went into the New Company, that the Company never engaged in any transactions, and that John Jones was claiming “losses” that were really Jason’s losses (the pension fund).
  37. John Jones was collecting money from multiple sources without any of them knowing about each other and that he had no losses, he had only profits, and even got the government to lend him more money so he wouldn’t go out of business which might ruin the economy.
  38. Most of all John Jones never made a loan to Henry Homeowner; but that didn’t stop him from saying he did make the loan, and that the paperwork between John Jones and Jason Smartguy’s pension fund was irrelevant — the borrower got a loan and stopped paying. Thus judicial or non judicial process was available to sell the home that had been in Henry’s family for 6 generations.
  39. But the weakness in John Smith’s PONZI scheme is that his entire strategy is based upon presumptions of validity of his false documentation. If courts start applying normal rules and require Jones to disclose the money trail, he is cooked. There can be no foreclosure if a non-creditor initiates it by simply declaring that they are the creditor and that they have rights to enforce the debt — when the only proof of that is that Jason Smartguy, manager of the pension fund, has not yet put the pieces together and demanded ownership of the loan, settled the cases with modifications and went after John Jones for the balance of the money that was skimmed off the deal.
  40. And since Henry’s house is in Tucson, Az, he is subject to non-judicial foreclosure and he is in big trouble. He has no reason to believe the “servicer” is unauthorized, that the debt that is subject to correspondence and monthly statements does not exist, nor that the mortgage or deed of trust was void for lack of consideration — none of the “lenders” at closing ever loaned him a dime. The money came from Jason but Henry didn’t, and possibly still doesn’t know it.
  41. John Jones files a document called “Substitution of Trustee.” In this false document Jones declares that one of his many entities is the “new beneficiary” (mortgagee). Jones holds his breath. If Henry objects to the substitution of trustee he might have to reveal that the new trustee is not independent, it is a company controlled by John Jones.
  42. John Jones has made himself the new trustee. If the substitution of trustee is nullified in a court proceeding, NOTHING can be done by John Jones or his controlled companies.
  43. If the old trustee realizes that they have received no information on the validity of the claim and might still be the trustee, they might file an “interpleader” action in which they say they have received competing claims, demand attorney fees and costs along with their true statement that as the trustee named on the deed of trust, they have no stake in the outcome.
  44. If that happens Jones is cooked, broiled and boiled. He would be required to allege and prove that the “new beneficiary” is in fact the creditor in the transaction by succession, purchase or otherwise. he can’t because it was Jason who gave the money, it was Jason who was supposed to get evidence of ownership of the loan, and it is Jason who should be deciding between foreclosure (which John Jones MUST have to escape enormous civil and criminal liability).
  45. Jones doesn’t file documents for recording unless and until the case goes into foreclosure. That is because he continuing to trade and make claims of losses on “bad loans.”
  46. In fact, just to be on the safe side, he doesn’t file the fabricated, forged perjurious assignment of the loan at all if nobody makes him. He only files the assignment when he absolutely must do so, because he knows each filing is false and potentially proof of identity theft from the pension fund and from the homeowner.
  47. So it often happens that despite laws in each state requiring the filing of any transfer of an interest in real property for recording, Jones files the assignment when there is the least probability and least likelihood that the PONZI scheme will be revealed. Jones knows the mortgage is void and should never have been recorded, as a matter of law.
  48. Henry brings suit against Jones seeking justice and relief. But he really doesn’t know enough to get traction in court. Jones filed the assignment after the notice of default, after the notice of sale, and after the notice of substitution of trustee.
  49. The Judge who knows nothing about the presence of Jason, who still does not know this is going on, rules for Jones saying that it is irrelevant when the assignment was recorded because it is still a valid assignment between the parties to the assignment.
  50. Jason knows nothing about how the money from his pension fund was handled.
  51. Jason knows nothing about how each foreclosure seals the doom and affirms the illegal windfall to intermediaries who were always playing with OPM (other people’s money).
  52. The Court doesn’t know that that the assignment was just on paper, that there was no business reason for it to be executed, that there was no purchase of the loan from Jason’s pension fund, to whom the actual loan was payable. Thus the Judge sees this as much ado about nothing.
  53. Starting from the premise that Henry owed the money anyway, that there were no real defenses, and that since nobody else was making a claim it was obvious that Jones was the creditor, the Arizona Supreme Court says that anyone can can foreclose on an undated, backdated fabricated assignment forged and robo-signed with no real transaction; and they can execute a substitution of trustee even if they are complete strangers to the loan transaction and once they file that, they can foreclose on property that was never used as collateral for the real loan.

Because there are hundreds of John Jones characters in this tragedy, the entire marketplace has been decimated. The middle class is permanently stalled because their only net worth has been stolen from them The borrowers would gladly execute a real mortgage for real value with real terms that make sense 95% of the time, but they need to do it with the owner of the debt — the pension fund. The pension fund the borrower need to be closely aligned on the premise that the loans can be modified for better terms that forced sales, the housing market could recover, and money would start flowing back to the middle class who drives 70% of our consumer based economy.

They are all wrong and are opening the door for more PONZI schemes and even better ways to steal money and get away with it. The Arizona Supreme Court in Vasquez as well as all other decisions from the trial bench, appellate courts, regulators and law enforcement are all wrong. The burden of proof in due process is on the party seeking affirmative relief. Anyone who wants the death penalty equivalent in civil litigation (forfeiture of homestead), should be required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence that the mortgage was valid and should have been recorded.

If they didn’t make the loan they had no right to record the mortgage or do anything with the note or mortgage except give it back to the borrower for destruction. If they didn’t make disclosure of the real nature of the loan and all the profits that would arise from the borrower signing an application and the loan documents, those profits are due back to the borrower.

Each time the assumption is made that there are no valid defenses for the borrower, we are cheating investors and screwing the homeowners. And as for the windfall proposition we know who gets it — the John Jones PONZI operating banks that started all of this. Exactly how can this lead anyway other than a continued drag on our economy?

Vasquez v saxon Az S Ct CV110091CQ

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,558 other followers

%d bloggers like this: