NEW FORECLOSURE PROBLEM- DEFECTIVE TITLE — AFFECTS EVEN NON-FORECLOSED PROPERTY

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

OLD REPUBLIC WILL NOT ISSUE TITLE POLICIES

EDITOR’S NOTE: The issue is not just with foreclosures. It is any property which was subject to a closing in which the loan was claimed as securitized. 95% of the transactions did not go into foreclosure. But those owners are unaware that the satisfaction of the old mortgage was signed by a party who had no right to do so. If the house was EVER foreclosed in PRIOR transactions, the title is probably defective — fatally so. Most homeowners are sitting on a ticking title time bomb.

SEE takeyourhomeback.com

 NEW FORECLOSURE PROBLEM- DEFECTIVE TITLE
Title Problems for Foreclosed Properties

The impending title problems resulting from foreclosures being processed too quickly is now becoming a major problem in this country with a direct effect on housing prices.  Old Republic National Title Insurance, told its agents that it would not write policies on foreclosed Chase properties until “the objectionable issues have been resolved,” according to a memorandum sent out by the firm’s underwriting department.

A Chase spokesman declined to comment. Old Republic executives did not return calls for comment. The title insurer, which is based in Minneapolis, said earlier in the week that it would not write policies for properties that had been foreclosed by another big lender, GMAC Mortgage.

Let me put it in non-lawyer terms.  Even if a bank wins a foreclosure lawsuit, if service of process on the homeowner was ineffective (and it often is, especially if service was done via publication), or if the bank failed to join all necessary defendants (e.g. junior lien holders or the mortgage holder of record), or if the bank relied on evidence that was fraudulent (like the affidavits of ROBO SIGNERS), then the Final Judgment may be vacated.  This means, essentially, that even if the bank won a foreclosure lawsuit, was the high bidder at a foreclosure sale, and sold the house to an independent third party, the original homeowner may still ask the Court to vacate the Final Judgment and re-take possession, and ownership, of the home.

The bank filed a foreclosure suit, won, took title, and sold the property to an independent third party.  Now imagine you’re the independent, third party purchaser.  You bought a home from a bank that obtained title via foreclosure.  You did nothing wrong.  You’re living in a house you purchased from a bank.  Yet suddenly, out of nowhere, the original homeowner, who owned the property before the bank foreclosed, has convinced a court that it still owns the property.  Incredibly, in light of the bank’s failure to prosecute the foreclosure lawsuit the right way, the homeowner is right – it’s still his house.  Hence, you’re being forced to vacate the home that you purchased even though you did nothing wrong.

If that happened to you, what’s the first thing you’d do?  I know what I’d do – make a claim against the title insurance policy.  That’s what title insurance is for – to protect homeowners in the event of a problem with the title to the property they’ve purchased.  Title insurance is routine in real estate closings.  The purchaser pays a little extra at closing in exchange for an insurance company agreeing to pay that homeowner the entire sale price in the event the seller does not actually have title to the property.  The way it’s supposed to work, the insurance company collects a little bit at a lot of closings and rarely has to pay anything, so it makes money, and the homeowner has the peace of mind of knowing that if the seller did not have title to the house that the title insurance company will pay.  Given how many sales will be done out of REO, and the rising number of problems surfacing with making sure that mortgage securitizations took all the steps to become the real party of interest in a particular property, it is only a matter of time before we see some blowups of the sort the attorney was worried about, of a buyer shelling out hard dollars for a house, or taking a big mortgage, and winding up with nothing. And a few incidents like that getting the press they deserve will put a pall on REO sales.

Think the risk isn’t real? Then why has Wells Fargo bothered to insist that REO buyers sign a new type of addendum, when it has been selling REO for decades? This effort to shift all title risks on to the buyer is a tacit admission of problems. And look at the document itself. The buyer has to initial it in eight places as well as sign it. That’s a clear statement of Wells’ intent to shift the risk to the buyer.

Now imagine this scenario playing out over and over again, thousands of cases at a time.  If you’re the title insurance company, wouldn’t you stop issuing title insurance properties when the bank obtained title by foreclosure?  Absolutely.  It wouldn’t be worth the risk.  You couldn’t possibly afford to stay in business.  As far as I can tell, that’s precisely what is happening right now.

Title insurance companies have realized that title via foreclosure is unreliable, so they don’t want to write title insurance policies for such properties

The problem is created through a break in the chain of mortgage ownership. Until the 1980’s, most mortgages were loans between the homeowner and a bank, who lent the money directly. More recently, the mortgage financing system transformed into an international system of securitization, with mortgage lenders packaging their loans into securities, bought and sold by investors like stocks. These transactions even split individual mortgages into sections, where each loan could have parts owned by different investment banks.

The transfer of ownership in these mortgage backed securities (MBS) was done with contracts on the balance sheets of Wall Street investment banks, such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The company who originally appeared to make the loan was normally a retail lending company such as Countrywide or Lending Tree, who typically acted as a sales company, and sometimes remained contracted to service the loan.

In the event that the loan goes into foreclosure at a later date, the then-current owner of the loan files the foreclosure and sells the property to a new owner, often at auction. The land records would show a deed of transfer from the investment bank to the new owner. This creates a break in the chain of ownership of the mortgage rights. In many cases, the transfer of ownership of the mortgage loan has gone from the original lender, through several owners, and then to the foreclosing bank, none of which is recorded on the property title history. Technically, the foreclosing bank has no recorded title rights to foreclose in the first place.

First, MERS announced it changed its procedures to require that an assignment of mortgage be filed prior to the start of any foreclosure suit.  To me, this is a tacit yet glaring admission of the huge title problems that have existed in a huge percentage of foreclosure cases.  This isn’t a complicated issue, either – it’s just one that everyone has ignored.

Take your standard MERS mortgage – a mortgage recorded in the public records with MERS as nominee for XYZ Corp.  Invariably, when the foreclosure lawsuit is filed, it’s not filed in the name of XYZ Corp., it’s filed in the name of Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase or some securitized trust – an entity with no relationship to XYZ Corp.

In most foreclosure cases, banks’ lawyers argue the plaintiff has standing if it is the “holder” of the Note, i.e. if it possesses the original note with a special indorsement or indorsement in blank.  Many judges accept this position, no questions asked.  In other words, an assignment of mortgage is often viewed as irrelevant/superfluous.

But I’ve often asked “what about title?”  Remember, the ultimate purpose of a foreclosure lawsuit isn’t merely to foreclose, it’s to convey title to someone.  Has that been happening?  Unfortunately, no.  Even if Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, or the securitized trust has standing (a huge if, but that’s a whole other blog), without an Assignment of Mortgage in the public record, XYZ Corp. is still the mortgage holder of record.  This means that even if Bank of America, JP Morgan, or whoever prevails in the foreclosure is the high bidder at the auction, acquires title, and sells the property to a third party, XYZ Corp. is still the mortgage holder of record.  What does that mean?  Essentially, the entire foreclosure case was like a wild deed – it took place, but XYZ Corp. can still institute a foreclosure lawsuit in its own name, as it would have priority over the bona-fide purchaser who acquired title from the bank.

That sounds crazy, I know.  But think about it.  If XYZ Corp. is the mortgage holder of record, and it’s not named as a party in the mortgage foreclosure suit, and there is no Assignment of Mortgage, then the mortgage in favor of XYZ Corp. still exists, even after the foreclosure, even after the auction, and even after the sale to the third party.  Yes, the foreclosure happened, but as far as XYZ Corp. is concerned, the foreclosure is irrelevant – it still has the mortgage.

There are only two ways to prevent this – join XYZ Corp. as a defendant in the lawsuit (meaning the final judgment of foreclosure would be res judicata as to any subsequent claim on the mortgage), or record an Assignment of Mortgage in the public records.

In my view, MERS finally caught on to this problem, hence the change in its procedures.  But what about the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases those were completed or remain pending (prior to this change)?

It’s up to all of us to educate judges about this problem.  “Yes, judge, the plaintiff may have standing.  But even if it does, XYZ Corp. is an indispensible party, and you cannot enter a final judgment of foreclosure without it.”  When the judge acts confused, explain that since XYZ Corp. is the mortgage holder of record, it can prosecute a foreclosure lawsuit even after the plaintiff acquires title and sells the property to a third party.  And since that defeats the purpose of a foreclosure, subjects homeowners to two lawsuits on the same debt, and will cause indescribable title problems (for innocent third parties), we cannot allow that.  Apparently, MERS now realizes as much, hence the change in procedures.

Old Republic is starting to feel the impact of title problems, announcing it may have to stop issuing title policies.  Is the timing of this announcement a coincidence, coming right on the heels of MERS changing its policies?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Apparently … hopefully … the title insurance industry is finally catching on to the huge, widespread title problems that are emerging as a result of foreclosure cases being pushed through in a sloppy, haphazard manner.

174 Responses

  1. Good day! I could have sworn I’ve been to this web site before but after going through a few of the articles I realized it’s new to me.
    Anyhow, I’m certainly delighted I found it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking
    back frequently!

  2. I AM A HOMEOWNER FIGHTING INDYMAC/ONE WEST BANK PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER. I NEED SOMEONE LIKE YOU ON MY TEAM. CAN I OBTAIN YOUR SERVICES TO HELP ME RIGHT THE MANY WRONGS THAT WAS DONE TO ME. EVEN THOUGH ONE WEST TOOK OVER INDYMAC BANK THEY HAVE THE SAME VISION.

  3. @seniorauthor – I found a wf v farmer in NY – Judge Schack of course. I’m reading it, and yes, so far so terrific. He says that an agent may act with the expressed, implied, or apparent authority of its principal.
    But since he saw no written evidence of the agency alleged, he 86′d it,(by way of throwing out the assignments) so he must agree that when it comes to agency the purpose of which is to affect an interest in real property, implied and apparent authority don’t get it.
    I’m gonna guess the homeowner’s att (if one were in the act) didn’t make this salient argument against the assignments – I’ll bet it was sua sponte. The sucky news as my son would say is that these earlier (2008) cases read like road maps to the banksters of what not to do. I think someone is in charge of getting them out and has been in charge of getting them out for some time to the network attorneys under that “what not to do”. We try here and there as do our team’s attorneys, but we lack the organization the banksters’ liars for hire have. All these tacitly-alleged agreements/poa’s/agency deals can and should be attacked imo. I think when the attack is put in the judge’s face, framed properly, the judge will see them as reasonable and inescapable as well, that is, meritorious. One can quote (read borrow) Judge Schack’s reasoning even if not citing this case. For anyone interested, I just yahoo searched “Farmer v Wells Fargo” and found it at thepatriotswar.com We get pretty excited about new victories, but ones like this and those dealing with threshold issues we might be best served remembering, so thanks, seniiorauthor.

  4. The reason it’s noteworthy that the NV SC referred to the assignor of a dot as the ‘grantor’ is because the word ‘grantor’ generally refers to the party granting / conveying title to real property, like when a seller executes his deed to the buyer. The seller is the grantor and the buyer is the grantee. That’s what an assignment of a dot in a title-theory state is, which is not the determination Judge Mann just made. She said a dot is a lien. I don’t agree fwiw, and neither does the NV SC imo. A dot acts as a lien, but it is in fact a transfer of (bare naked) legal title to real property and that’s why the NV SC ruled the statute of frauds is implicated, requiring assignments of the dot to be done and it is the Notice provisions of state laws (and logic) which demand their recordation (complete chain of title) prior to acting on them against the borrower.

  5. @dcb -of course it’s the title company’s job to insure the title. I think they’re out of their minds to participate in the charade. I hope for their sake buyers understand the ‘exceptions’ page.
    Insolvency – there’s a distressing thought. ‘Spose they carry e & o?
    Hey, you know, now that you mention it, we need to be on the lookout for new incorporations with like-sounding names by these title companies as rote. Not much we could do about it, though.

    @srauthor – no, sounds like I should. I’ll look online. Still got pacer but my bills are still killing me.

  6. JOHN GAULT:

    The Ibanez case was a great case, no question. Have you read the Farmer v. wells Fargo, bk in Massachusetts. It was powerful.

  7. @JG

    Is it not the purpose of the title insurer to understand and bear the risk of title defects?

    So if I were a buyer, i would call upon the insurer to defend the title.
    the defects are obvious–the seller is taking the money and running –leaving the title insurer on the hook.

    The abuse will be if the title insurer turns out to be thinly capitalized–an affiliate of the seller –think maybe ahmsi?. The offshore title company clips the buyer the fee–strips out the equity and fails to defend. i think it takes a bit of planning to really skin the new buyers–lends a new meaning to caveat emptor–which title insurance was supposed to eliminate.

  8. “The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently reached the same conclusion regarding the production of assignments to mortgage notes and deeds of trust, albeit in a slightly different context. In U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011), two separate banks foreclosed on the mortgages of two homeowners whose properties the banks then bought at the foreclosure sales. Id. at 44. The banks later filed complaints in the lower court seeking a declaration that they had clear title to the properties. Id. Because the banks failed to show an interest in the mortgages at the time of the foreclosure sales, the sales were invalid, and the lower court entered judgment against the banks. Id. at 45.

    On appeal, the court determined that, similar to this case, the banks were not the original mortgagees and, therefore, they had to show that the mortgages were properly assigned to them in writings signed by the grantors before they could notice the sales and foreclosures of the properties. Id. at 51………….

    The court additionally stated that “[a] plaintiff that cannot make this modest showing cannot justly proclaim that it was unfairly denied a declaration of clear title.” Id. at 52. We agree with the rationale that valid assignments are needed when a beneficiary of a deed of trust seeks to foreclose on a property.”

    From Pasillas v HSBC Bank USA et al July 7, 2011
    Nevada Supreme Court No. 56393 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 39

    For my Nevada buds, please note the NV SC remanded to district court for sanctions against the banksters for non-compliance with NV statutes. The Nevada SC took this appeal sua sponte.

    It’s noteworthy that the NV SC referred to the assignor of a deed of trust as the ‘grantor’.

  9. “Then why has Wells Fargo bothered to insist that REO buyers sign a new type of addendum, when it has been selling REO for decades? This effort to shift all title risks on to the buyer is a tacit admission of problems. And look at the document itself. The buyer has to initial it in eight places as well as sign it…..”

    Yes, of course it’s an admission of trouble. This addendum is unconscionable and hopefully for that, it will be unenforceable against the buyer (you may not agree about the hopefully if you think no one should buy reo’s.) Doubt it though. The only good news is the title company is not a party to this addendum and therefore the title company insuring title isn’t off the hook. What a horrible nasty business plan – to try to shift the burden of
    one’s blunders and misdeeds to a third party consumer.

  10. Hey John:

    I worked a few Loan Administration manager jobs in my day, worked in the trust divisions of the banks, bought and sold a few portfolios, audited the files of toxic assets for accountability and proper title documentation and of course I know why they did not do what they should have. The “I wonder why” was just being silly. As you know, they had a plan to move the loans and documentation through the system with very little cost and still accomplish what appears to be the biggest heist the country has every known. If this was not intentional negligent loan servicing technique mixed with a whole bunch of “fraud”, I do not know what is. The process itself was a simple as ABC, but it was not to be. – homeowners will suffer for years to come over these title issues and the AG’s, etc., will give them amnesty. I hope not.

    I worked on one case whereby the originator of the loan retained the loan servicing, but actually sold the loan to three other investors all at the same time. Not one assignment was recorded, the investor buying the porfolio got a copy of a committment from the title company showing the buying investor what they were getting, but everyone dropped the ball. The originator sold that loan portfolio for bunches of money and it took us ten years to clean up the mess and the homeowners who owned the loans were faced with dealing with all of it becasue the three investors that supposedly bought and paid for the loans were all claiming ownership. The title company of course had to have been a participant, just like we have now. And they don’t want to honor the claims. Ridiculous.

    Depending on what scenario we choose to come up with regarding the false sale of the notes and liens, hey, you can file or not file those assignments. All of that software that they came up with in the late 90′s was so they could prepare the assignments by mass production and they obviously did that, thus the robo signing. I know well the procedure for taking care of the assignments and what goes on from the time the loan is sold, for example immediately after it is funded and then on through the foreclosure process because that is where most of the targeted loans ended up.

    .

  11. @seniorauthor – you said: “Even if they held the assignments in the file, at least they were prepared at the time the loan was sold and then again when it was resold. But it never happened – I wonder why.”

    You know why, we all know why – M E R S’ misperception its public record placeholder status 86′d the need for the assignments to be done even if unrecorded until acted on. Plus, and this is a big plus, sloppy, sloppy, careless work. Needed to keep them doggies rollin’ and not waste the time it takes to do something right.

    And btw, I know we’re all up to it, but why isn’t anyone else seeing red about MERS’ contract with this Genpact outfit, wherein work on our
    land records has been outsourced out of this country? Mr. Krieger, time for an update please! Who knows what tales of woe we will have three or four years from now for our complacency today about this.

  12. The title companies do issue the “trustee’s sale guarantee”. I have only seen one. I’ll look for it and see what if any requirements are on it. I recall there were exceptions, but they’ll probably insure over anything for a fee. With some title co’s, as we’ve heard, that’s changing. But I can tell you this – there was NO requirement for a complete chain of title by way of the missing assignments. And we’re talking in a title-theory state. No requirement for evidence of anyone’s authority to sign any of the f/c docs. No way in hell I believe they call for them at all, let alone give a thought to recordation.

    Once again I say: while we were sleeping, lobbyists got to our legislators and totally jacked with state laws regarding non-j f/c and that makes this guy really, really angry. Probably ahead of my rage about HAMP. The way the bs reads on the books (and it’s not even enforced) bears no resemblance to the original mandates of non-judicial foreclosure, which in its infancy and intent was a blanking privilege to lenders to alleviate time and expense of judicial f/c.
    NO one was at the wheel and EVERYone allowed non-judicial f/c
    to turn into nothing less than the cluster-xxxx it is today. Different people here have different bandwagons. Mine I guess is to get an understanding out there of how the h a dot is supposed to work and the fiduciary and duty of fair dealing a stinking dot trustee has. A deed of trust creates a TRUST. If you had a million dollars you wanted to go to your children by your own design, would you appoint a criminal or allow the trustee you chose to pawn his job off on someone else? The only thing today’s “trustee’s” are doing is contracting with yet other parties to plunder and pillage one of the parties to the TRUST. Lawyers who don’t understand this and contract law can’t do a stinking thing for anyone. There. I said it. Joe Shyster, for example, signs a Notice of Default for McNasty Trustee. I have yet to see an attorney ask “And by what authority is this? Lemme see your poa or other agreement.” Or how bout, “Mr. McNasty, Lemme see the docs you are relying on that demonstrate default and that the beneficiary is the beneficiary.” Would you take a bill of sale from me on my sister’s car? Should a judge acknowledge a bill of sale from me on my sister’s car?

  13. @dcb – no because I don’t know where mine is for one and secondly, don’t want to draw attention to myself. I do take pics ‘quietly’, tho.

  14. Don’t think for a moment that the title companies have not known what they are doing since day one. The examiners know exactly what it takes to issue title on a foreclosed property and they know that the chain of ownership and any corporate resolutions, power of attonreys and assignments have to be available for recording before they can guarantee title. What went wrong was the title company simply took the position that they would order these documents after the f/c sale if they were not yet of record and then they would record them and file the trustee deed after that with title.

    I asked them what they thought they thought they were doing and they said, no problem, we order the stuff, get it recorded and then issue. Well there you go. they fixed the chain of title to the extent that they could after the sale. The attorneys know full well that we run a title report before accelerating the ote and posting the appointment of substitute trustee and the actual sale. They didn’t do it for whatever reason (because they did not have it) and proceeded to foreclose.

    This was the point when the Title Company failed to report to the State Insurance AGency what was going on or this mess could have been stopped even before it became standard operating procedure. We had a very good streamlined process but it only got fouled up because the PSA were not in recordable form, no one had prepared the assignment when the loan was sold or anything else. Even if they held the assignments in the file, at least they were prepared at the time the loan was sold and then again when it was resold. But it never happened – I wonder why. Clearly in conflict with the PSA if a securitized loan and even those that were not. In texas is says the DOT as to creditor must be filed and 192.07 says if that was filed any related document such as a release of lien, assignment, assumption, etc., must also be filed. I sure hope that does not get knocked down in the Appeals Court but Texas law says – it has to be done. They never wanted the PSA’s to be recorded because if they had recorded them, then for sure there would have been a starting point in which all future assignments had to be prepared, executed to the one holding the note. In othrwords, title companies would have looked for intervening assignments and they could not cough them up – the Courts ought to be ashamed of themselves, but we are talking – about the wrongful foreclosure of so many loans, I guess the feds and the courts decided they were not going to take the banks to task for such.

  15. @johngault

    do you use a video?

  16. I have been going to foreclosure auctions lately to see how they go/work.
    People there guard their info zealously. Not learned much yet – just that no trustee is there – just some other hired company doing all the sales. The lender (read servicer or some other miscreant) presumably thru the alleged substitute dot trustee has already given its credit bid to the hired company and that’s where the bidding starts. One guy did tell me that he knows of instances where short sales for cash are rejected in favor of the trusteee’s sale. He thought it had to do with TARP, but I don’t because the bankster already has the TARP funds. There’s another reason. Most properties do not see any bid past the bankster’s credit bid which I maintain is no bid.
    The credit bid is sometiems at the market value and not what is owed on the loan. I haven’t figured out why anything is done any particular way. There are no banksters present to work over and the title reps there trying to drum up business don’t know anything or keep a tight lip outside their title insurance deal. People should go and try to learn what they can. We have to infiltrate anywhere we can.

  17. @ senior…

    Please feel free dcbreidenbach@aol.com

    BTW I expect to be in DC in Sept—I live there part of the time–if you can call it living. yes I am a tax attorney—but im not a remic expert. I think it behooves any who have a grasp of the situation to think about ways to minimize further damage. unfortunately, from personal experience I do not think that the citizenry should have any misconception that there are great all knowing powers up there. Mostly, there are persons primarily interested in identifying the best-paying revolving door. It tends to make them extraordinarily timid–even if it weren’t the so called “silly season” prior to a 2nd term election. This is what scares me–look at what happened after the last 2nd term election. it was as if the bush administration turned out the lights and turned over the keys to the highest bidders.

  18. short sales only work when all of the paperwork connected with the transaction was legal and the borrower was in a legiitimate default. It just helps reduce the foreclosure inventory and allows the servicer to steal the home without the borrower fighting them at the pass. Also, the type of short sale is critical as well. Short falls – who gets billed. That has come into question as well.

    The investors are so arrogant many realtors do not want to work with them – the last deal we worked on for a short sale took almost three months and they still don’t have an answer and the purchaser had an account with the lender for 15 years, an 850 score and 20% down. On another one that had run 60 days – the smart …………. said to us, when we had been trying deserpately to get them to make a decision said – the answer is there is no answer – now live with it.

    If you are interested in going through the gates of hell after you have already been to the slaughterhouse, then a short sale might work for you. The Servicers are out of control – and the FEds allowed the banks and most of all Fannie and Freddie to allow it to happen. – I think they are just now getting around to some pittance of an offer for the damage the servicers have caused when in fact they were responsible for no less than 40% of the foreclosures.

    Only way to deal with it is – get rid of the Congress – not only did they allow it to happen, they have condoned it. The homeowner never had a chance.

  19. Hey David:

    Your being a tax person may be just what I have been needing for the past couple of years. We must, as you say, halt the foreclosures coming down the pike, so the bleeding will stop. We must also find a way to resolve the sale of the current inventory such that the people are not victimized yet another time by the lenders, the servicers and the investors whom they are breeding in the background.. I am not interested in funneling more money to the banks and will go to the death to stop it. This is a cycle that must be turned around ==== the banks have been doing all of the taking while the taxpayer homeowner is doing all the giving – something wrong with this picture thanks to the Congress and the administrations. But now, for the banks to get a pass simply will not do and I have a plan that does not specifically address all of the wrongdoing, but it does or could put us on a path of recovery and that is where I am right now. Others are still pursuing in the courts, including my clients) but this Plan gives immediate relief and psychological effect to show things are going to be better and soon.

    I am going to go out on a limb here and put forth the idea that we had back in 2007 when we knew without question what was waiting America on the horiizon. If we can show that there are three parts to a plan in place to rsolve the housing criis, surely this will do much to bring all of this chaos to a screeching halt. We will then see how the scheme of all the wrong doing is handled in the Courts because that is what is going on now.

    I will send it to you via email so you can look it over and I will just be taking a chance on being highly embarrassed if it is a total wipe out. but it is a plan and it can work. The pretender securitization is muddying the water, but I have addressed a scenario for that to let you know how that might be viewed.

    Will you take a look at it for me and tell me what you think? I have to know because had we spent even 30 B in 2007 in readiness to resolve the initial foreclosures, we could bought the time we needed to come up with a resolution before destroying the economy the way we have because no real solution was ever submitted that could work. It would have to a large degree prevented the loss of wealth for so many (profit sharings, etc.) the loss of homes and their appreciation, and the loss of jobs, etc.

    Most of us now believe the loans never got into the trust, so even if one thought the Plan would have worked, would we then be honoring contracts that are invalid. They have so virtually fouled up the title process of ownership, this really complicates things when trying to come up with a plan to help resolve it, even partially. I am sure Anon will have an answer for this and hope he will respond. This is an important consideration if we are to assure loans once again become performing and that is what the plan is all about. But I need you to take a look and provide me with the constructive criticsim that is needed in order to determine if there is any merit. Like I said, it is too late now because of the trickle down effect of the damage done by the neglect of the feds or anyone else to come up with a plan that would have halted this fiasco from happening. I did some of this in the 80′s, but it goes against what lending and servicing principals allow, (at least that was the story they put on us) but then consider just how the lenders and servicers have destroyed this economy with their wrongful actions. That goes against our principals as well.

    This plan has already been provided to a select few for consideration but I would like to have your view personally. Don’t worry about saying what needs to be said. Constructive criticism is what is needed. I am only presenting the idea of what must be done and will not include the strategy for pulling it off We are in a far worse position now than we were in 2007. I still have your email address if you wish to take the time.

    Thank you.

  20. @ senior….

    I agree completely with you about the servicers —inherent conflicts of interest. I also agree that the current “modifications” are basically an extension of the basic predatory lending. The tentative “acceptance” of a person’s money in exchange for nothing—and even the so-called permanent mods are primarily waivers and deferments of the foreclosure process until after the next election.

    I do not have personal experience with short sales which theoretically would be less damaging in that at least there would be no vacant and stripped property. But it seems that at least some servicers merely give lip service to this to keep state AG attention off their cases.

    There needs to be something offered up before mid-September to counter the hedge fund plans to buy REOs en masse under the guise of strenthening the banks’ balance sheets in anticipation off massive losses sweeping in from the eiropean sovereign and bank bond defaults. These will come to a head by mid September also–the timing of the REO disposal and trhe Euro day of reckoning is too close in time to be mere coincidence. The servicers want a blanket indemnity and approval to sell off the existing REO in order to loosen the inventory to reopen the foreclosure grinder.

    I must agree with the general premise that the economy in the US will continue to wind down and freedoms whither unless the freefall of defaulting loans is stopped. Conversion to tenancies as under old English law will help.

    However, as you have aptly pointed out –would this program simply be co-opted by servicers who will reshape themselves into REO landlords? All I can say in this regard is that at least most states have laws protective of tenant rights–which are stronger than those accorded foreclosed homeowners. It is a travesty.

    The Tea Party folks with whom I share a great measure of common fear of bad govt, will not take note of the extent of the power to abuse that has been granted the financiers until they go for the farms.

    Again.

    As in the 1890s–the 1930s. Lets just draw a chilling picture of possibile things to come. as they look around the vulture hedge funds have laid waste entire continents. Seized almost all the equity in the entire US housing market. They already control the pension funds–the stocks and bonds are held in their names not yours.

    What is left of value that they do not already control? The farmland.
    So they must be laying awake at night trying to figure out how to get that. How can they allow simple farmers to make great profits –windfalls from crop inflation–and the runup in farmland values?

    Most farmers have been persuaded to extend themselves by the recent years’ high prices. Most farmers take out large loans at the start of the season to buy sead, add fertilizer, buy fuel and pesticides and herbicides. They have loans due at the time of harvest. So lets just assume that it is possible if not probable that the Euro crash and bank freeze up will occur at about the same time as the fall harvest in the US. At the time the loans are due. Prices crash, loans are due but checks will not clear. It will offer a great opportunity for the big banks to go after the land.after the farmers. Lets see if the pain does not spread? For the dems this will be good—-the farmers were going to vote against them anyway. The Tea Party republicans will suffer the full blame–they will have to approve massive bailouts and the extension of Fed reserve credit to the ECB–more than already extended. The money is pouring out now. To ECB–then Greek Banks then to US banks–again. In about 4 years they will tell us that they loaned out $2 trillion during this phase as they just now get around to telling us that $1.2 trillion was loaned interest free to the banks in 2008—and still outpouring. QE III will continue to pour money out and allow more corporate cash building to buy back shares to pump the markets. I live in fear of what happens when the chickens come home to roost after election. Bottom falling out of all markets and roaring inflation. At least.

  21. Hey David, Now I remember you, quite a smart person and in there trying to help resolve this mess.

    First of all, the servicers have been allowed way too much authority to do anything. That has to stop and when it does, we can go back to normal basic purchasing a home with the right kind of people servicing the loan.

    I just cannot agree with your thought about how this needs to be done. Unless we are going to hold these banks responsible for what they have done, screw the modifications, so that the home can be sold at the right price to the right people, I don’t want any part of any system that is a compromise. I wish I could see it. Sorry you feel we are tanbled up in the old ways, but there was a time when we made good loans to good people, and saw to it through the right kind of servicing, thta these people were able to stay in their homes. The real trouble started as far as I am concerned back in 1998, with the servicers biting at the heels of the investors.

    I guarantee you that if the right program was put in place with the banks doing their part to help address the those issues that are stopping us from successfully selling these homes, then there may be a way to recover. I did not say we had to salvage every home and sell it to someone. I do believe that we can sell most with rehab expense money from the banksters.

    The banksters are going to get a pass and if I understand your concept which I am agraid I can’t seem to get a handle on it, we will have a servicing structure to lead us around by the nose through this housing concept you talk about. Like I told people on the other blog, the banksters and the servicers are manufacturing nose harnesses that can be bought by the people at a store near them. Please, I am going to work on getting a better picture of what you are talking about because it is important and if it can work, great,

    I am sure there are some examples of it somewhere that prove it is a viable way to go. And if it is, let have had it. But I don’t like the idea of any loan modification – right now because there appears to be all kinds of consequences associated with it. WE will see.

    I still owe you some information – now I am sorry I did not send it. Got too busy on some very critical issues. Hope to be in Washington in September and then perhaps, some of what I have to say will be seen for what it is supposed to accomplish. The people deserve better.

  22. @senior….

    It would be nice to put people in empty homes as you suggest. The financial system has locked out virtually anybody who became tangled up with a default. Im not sure there are investors out there any more on a lot of these–my sense is that the rights have been abandoned in favor of servicers–maybe without express authority.
    I cannot disagree with your experience in the past if we already have a vacant home–the damage has already been done to the prior homeowner and the house.

    I hope we both agree that the existing occupant should be allowed to remain in possession if she has the ability to make reasonable payments. The simplest would be the modification–except that the servicers and the host of property preservers and speculators are waiting around the foreclosures like hyenas. There is a conflict of interest that nobody seems to recognize.

    I think there is also an issue about recognition of income to the vulture investors that bought the MBS at steep discounts at the bottoms. If they actually modify it is a closed transaction and they recognize the difference between the new note face and the bottom feeder pricing at say 15cents on the dollar.

    My objective is to prevent the transaction costs associated with a vacancy. if the current owner can pay an amount necessary to amortize the present FMV of the home—then the new note should be allowed. This could be accomplished by allowing the vulture investor to contribute the MBS/CDO to the PPP—-and the PPP rewrite the note as a non-recognition event. This is complicated and may result in unexpected abuses.

    The so called moral dilemma of neighbor A getting a payment reduction by defaulting and modifying also hangs the mods in the tea party world.
    But what is the dilemma if the occupant waives the non-existent equity and accepts tenancy status for a term of years? This may be politically more viable.

    The homeowner can unilaterally contribute the quit claim subject to a reserved lease to the PPP. The affected trust can contribute the note in a tax free like kind exchange –in exchange for a similar right to receive proceeds from a tenancy instead of a note. This can be done enabled by a treasury regulation. The hangup is the elimination of the right of the trust to refuse the exchange–this is a bankruptcy writedown-type issue. This is the statutory change needed.

    If a trust –or servicer cannot deonstrate ownership with satisfactory proof, the rents would escheat to the state–the state AGs then can argue with servicers on a more level playing field. if the trust in fact abandoned the asset due to insurance payouts or swaps –then the state benefits rather than the servicer.

    We need to break-out of the old thinking that has tangled everybody up –everybody but the servicers. The tangle for them was the robo-signers–the settlement should require the servicer sign on to this sort of program as a condition of release of liability along with whatever else was in mind.

    We must stop forced evictions of people who can at least pay rent. there is no benefit to putting people in overpriced rentals while their homes sit empty and deteriorating.

  23. Do not agree with your concept, not sure I can go there. At any rate, I was not taking us back to the 70′s. Also most of the homes sold on bad deals to people who could not afford them were on newly constructed homes as well as existing, which allowed the servicers to manipulate the monthly payments. Cut through the chase and get rid of the investors. We also sold to them as well and they turned around after holding the properties for 10 years and made millions if they had not already flipped them. The 90′s brought in the technology which brought thousands of jobs and new homes being built brought thousands of jobs, so there were buyers.

    The program I suggested is simple and to the point with the proper backing to successfully bring homeownership back to America. I am not sure how many deals you have put together but through the Housing Partnership programs, we were able to put people in homes that they could afford to buy and to maintain. These were good people and they purchased homes based on what they made. Not sure I understand what you are talking about when you say discounted.

    There are plenty of people out there that need to get back into homeownershp – If they can pay rent, they can make a mortgage payment. It is the communities that we are at risk of losing here and these partnership deals that you are talking about may or may not do the trick. I will look into it. I try to stay with what works and if you say that is an option, then hey, I sure want to see it.

    The homes are being discounted for the investors who will rent the properties out so all we need to do is sell them to the people based on that same type of purchase price. A little something we know Fannie and Freddie and the banks have refused to do at least up until now because the inventory is out of control.

    WE could have had this behind a long time ago and while doing so, jobs would have been created which would have put people back to work who would have been able to purchase homes.

    I will find out about your concept – you are a tax person I believe and may have come up with a viable plan. We will see.

    thanks for your comments.

  24. seniorauthor
    The 70s were different–there were millions of baby boomers coming in to backfill.
    Need a new device to deal with OK people who have overpriced homes and dinged credit. Self-executing system.
    This is something of special interest to a few insiders with legal knowledge for thought in respect of the economic damage and abuses that have resulted from predatory loans and “pumped” real estate prices—seen by some today to be primarily home-owners agreeing to pay to much–albeit at rates set by the bank couterparties to the ARMs. If we have agreement that it is good public policy that people with discounted incomes in some reasonable range that can make payments of a reasonable amount–and remain in residence, with voting rights, then the following proposal would be better for the people as individuals and as a nation. foreclosed properties tend to have suffered due to hestitance of disaffected homeowners to “invest” in home repairs rather than miss payments–or eat. Houses require maintenance—foreclosures result in worse damage–unnecessary property loss, legal “waste”. Growth of #’s of jobs AND lives can be better served by repairing homes and retaining occupants than by destroying the furnishings of homeowners –often their only assets, given no home equity, no pensions, part-time jobs. This also forces relocation to other poor condition or overcrowded and elevated cost “rental homes”. Everythig about this housing model is bad. If the country were rich and we needed desperately to pour large amounts of capital int housing again, then the jobs issue might be rational. The fact is that any dollars would be printed and constitute hidden taxes. Used to enrich those who benefit from the mortgage debacle. One way or another.

    There is an elegant solution that requires a change in thinking–a look back in time for those who are history buffs on English land law.

    Proposal:
    !) Establish regional or state limited partnerships—authorized under the public private [housing] partnership PPHP.

    2) The partnership charter is to accept Underwater homeowners’ quit claim deeds–made subject to reserved leases for a period of 3-7 years, with some limit of the renewals or ? [otherwise as determined by the local conditions?]

    3) The leases would be of a type that are consistent with HUD — but down several notches in terms of landlord duty–perhaps a version of net lease for subsequent maintenance [a clogged drain/torn screendoor. broken window]–as contrasted with major repairs [a bad roof, cracked foundation, new furnace?] [This has to be subjected to local building code inspection for classification and aproval--no big change most places--just an input item to the approval system] [Note Texas has a nice set of use tax regulations that artfully and in detail draw the line between maintenance and repair expenditures--in txs repair was exempt while maintenance was taxable---without regard to any provision requiring "scheuled maintenance", but rarher being short-term--emergency small items "water heater" too much?]

    4) The PPPH entity would verify an application for release of indebtedness in exchange for execution of lease that meets the foregoing broad terms—and subject to a monthly rental calculated as 1/96 [8 year payout]–1/120[10 year payout] at a rate that is proportional to the greater of the reduced income of the househld versus the income reported to obtain the loan—-or the value of the home as establishe by HUD appraisal with a comparison to local property records to prevent fraud, and provide a county assessor input into the valuation process.

    5 ) The PPPH would be obligated to accept the claim of the servicer –subject to proof of representative capacity of the owner of the note–[to give a certain release to the homeowner] as a contribution to equity with the right to receive a proprotionate share in the rental stream from the home-owners that have agreed to become tenants at an FMV net rent similar to the old-style English tenancies–that everybody in England lived under from Dukes to crop-growing farmers with their cottages. Its a slightly different form–depending upon the term. What is lacking today s a willing lanlord–it can be bad if the tenant were typical of those who are tenants–that require a higher level of landlord supervision.

    6) as important as anything else is the need to get repairs made before significant deterioration sets in. If a roof is leaking it must be fixed. The National Infrastructure Bank needs to have a mandate to lend funds to serve as a second mortgage with superior claim to at least 50% of the rents from a house or a pool of houses in order to prime the jobs pump and prevent waste.

    7) There must be a tough Inspector General to prevent fraud or arbitrary refusals excessive rents and to assure that claimants are legitimate–ant unclaimed proceeds would escheat to the state after payment of costs of prosecution–or clawback to the claiants as a whole?

    Responses requested dcbreidenbach@aol.com

    David C. Breidenbach
    Independent Tax Agent
    The statements made herein are the authors alone and are not attributable to any organization, public or private – and are not intended as legal advice.

  25. @senior investor

    not the 70s —–no baby boomers coming to backfill

    This is something of special interest to a few insiders with legal knowledge for thought in respect of the economic damage and abuses that have resulted from predatory loans and “pumped” real estate prices—seen by some today to be primarily home-owners agreeing to pay to much–albeit at rates set by the bank couterparties to the ARMs. If we have agreement that it is good public policy that people with discounted incomes in some reasonable range that can make payments of a reasonable amount–and remain in residence, with voting rights, then the following proposal would be better for the people as individuals and as a nation. foreclosed properties tend to have suffered due to hestitance of disaffected homeowners to “invest” in home repairs rather than miss payments–or eat. Houses require maintenance—foreclosures result in worse damage–unnecessary property loss, legal “waste”. Growth of #’s of jobs AND lives can be better served by repairing homes and retaining occupants than by destroying the furnishings of homeowners –often their only assets, given no home equity, no pensions, part-time jobs. This also forces relocation to other poor condition or overcrowded and elevated cost “rental homes”. Everythig about this housing model is bad. If the country were rich and we needed desperately to pour large amounts of capital int housing again, then the jobs issue might be rational. The fact is that any dollars would be printed and constitute hidden taxes. Used to enrich those who benefit from the mortgage debacle. One way or another.

    There is an elegant solution that requires a change in thinking–a look back in time for those who are history buffs on English land law.

    Proposal:
    !) Establish regional or state limited partnerships—authorized under the public private [housing] partnership PPHP.

    2) The partnership charter is to accept Underwater homeowners’ quit claim deeds–made subject to reserved leases for a period of 3-7 years, with some limit of the renewals or ? [otherwise as determined by the local conditions?]

    3) The leases would be of a type that are consistent with HUD — but down several notches in terms of landlord duty–perhaps a version of net lease for subsequent maintenance [a clogged drain/torn screendoor. broken window]–as contrasted with major repairs [a bad roof, cracked foundation, new furnace?] [This has to be subjected to local building code inspection for classification and aproval--no big change most places--just an input item to the approval system] [Note Texas has a nice set of use tax regulations that artfully and in detail draw the line between maintenance and repair expenditures--in txs repair was exempt while maintenance was taxable---without regard to any provision requiring "scheuled maintenance", but rarher being short-term--emergency small items "water heater" too much?]

    4) The PPPH entity would verify an application for release of indebtedness in exchange for execution of lease that meets the foregoing broad terms—and subject to a monthly rental calculated as 1/96 [8 year payout]–1/120[10 year payout] at a rate that is proportional to the greater of the reduced income of the househld versus the income reported to obtain the loan—-or the value of the home as establishe by HUD appraisal with a comparison to local property records to prevent fraud, and provide a county assessor input into the valuation process.

    5 ) The PPPH would be obligated to accept the claim of the servicer –subject to proof of representative capacity of the owner of the note–[to give a certain release to the homeowner] as a contribution to equity with the right to receive a proprotionate share in the rental stream from the home-owners that have agreed to become tenants at an FMV net rent similar to the old-style English tenancies–that everybody in England lived under from Dukes to crop-growing farmers with their cottages. Its a slightly different form–depending upon the term. What is lacking today s a willing lanlord–it can be bad if the tenant were typical of those who are tenants–that require a higher level of landlord supervision.

    6) as important as anything else is the need to get repairs made before significant deterioration sets in. If a roof is leaking it must be fixed. The National Infrastructure Bank needs to have a mandate to lend funds to serve as a second mortgage with superior claim to at least 50% of the rents from a house or a pool of houses in order to prime the jobs pump and prevent waste.

    7) There must be a tough Inspector General to prevent fraud or arbitrary refusals excessive rents and to assure that claimants are legitimate–ant unclaimed proceeds would escheat to the state after payment of costs of prosecution–or clawback to the claiants as a whole?

    David C. Breidenbach
    Independent Tax Agent
    The statements made herein are the authors alone and are not attributable to any organization, public or private – and are not intended as legal advice.

    David C. Breidenbach

  26. Anyone know what’s going on in that case (was it Deutsche?) where the CEO was ordered to appear and she didn’t and then the attorneys told the court tough, she didn’t have to?

  27. Everyone of the houses can be sold, and each and every bank that sells the foreclosure, will write a new loan for the new buyer and any absolute repairs that need to be made. This was done in the 80′s and worked beautifully. The sooner we owner occupants back in the homes, they can begin to repair the properties to the extent necessary and there will many that go back to work. We don’t need all of these special programs, just roll up the sleeves and some hard work will do it. The banks will stand the cost and make the new loans and the bond program from each county will assist with a simple 3500 down payment for closing cost. You will see the communities return.

    The banks have the responsibility to maintain the vacant houses but like everything else, no one is forcing them to do it. The investors love it because they intend to buy them for pennies on the dollar, bring in their own crews and throw the repairs together. Then they will turn around and either immediately sell the property or hang on to it as rentl for 3 to 5 years when values start back up and they will if we do down the right path. Nothing to the investors – fnma needs to be forced to follow their intial path of selling to potential home buyers even though they did that because they knew the home buyer would pay more for the home than giving it to an investor. The only reason it went to the investor is so they would not have to incur the millions that it would take to maintain them.

    put the people back in a ownership position and do it now. This is a bunch of foolishness. The loans can be designed so that potential homebuyers can once again become exicted aboout the purchase, not to mention what it brings to the community. Any home owner tht was wrongfully foreclosed will get an opportunity to get his house back with damages.

    Unless the CEO’s go to jail and I suspect they will not, then the people had best start buying up the properties themselves.

    You need someone to set it up at the state level to handle the qualifying of the individual and make sure the funds are available through the lender who is selling the property. In otherwords, they caused the mess and they need to clean it up and they will still save millions.

    No more investors – it is a huge mistake for this economy, will slow the appreciation value of other homes and will make a detrimental effect on the communities as a whole. I have been there and know.

  28. @Anonymous, Would appreciate you comment on following off this topic but I need to get it fleshed out ASAP
    This is something of special interest to a few insiders with legal knowledge for thought in respect of the economic damage and abuses that have resulted from predatory loans and “pumped” real estate prices—seen by some today to be primarily home-owners agreeing to pay to much–albeit at rates set by the bank couterparties to the ARMs. If we have agreement that it is good public policy that people with discounted incomes in some reasonable range that can make payments of a reasonable amount–and remain in residence, with voting rights, then the following proposal would be better for the people as individuals and as a nation. foreclosed properties tend to have suffered due to hestitance of disaffected homeowners to “invest” in home repairs rather than miss payments–or eat. Houses require maintenance—foreclosures result in worse damage–unnecessary property loss, legal “waste”. Growth of #’s of jobs AND lives can be better served by repairing homes and retaining occupants than by destroying the furnishings of homeowners –often their only assets, given no home equity, no pensions, part-time jobs. This also forces relocation to other poor condition or overcrowded and elevated cost “rental homes”. Everythig about this housing model is bad. If the country were rich and we needed desperately to pour large amounts of capital int housing again, then the jobs issue might be rational. The fact is that any dollars would be printed and constitute hidden taxes. Used to enrich those who benefit from the mortgage debacle. One way or another.

    There is an elegant solution that requires a change in thinking–a look back in time for those who are history buffs on English land law.

    Proposal:
    !) Establish regional or state limited partnerships—authorized under the public private [housing] partnership PPHP.

    2) The partnership charter is to accept Underwater homeowners’ quit claim deeds–made subject to reserved leases for a period of 3-7 years, with some limit of the renewals or ? [otherwise as determined by the local conditions?]

    3) The leases would be of a type that are consistent with HUD — but down several notches in terms of landlord duty–perhaps a version of net lease for subsequent maintenance [a clogged drain/torn screendoor. broken window]–as contrasted with major repairs [a bad roof, cracked foundation, new furnace?] [This has to be subjected to local building code inspection for classification and aproval--no big change most places--just an input item to the approval system] [Note Texas has a nice set of use tax regulations that artfully and in detail draw the line between maintenance and repair expenditures--in txs repair was exempt while maintenance was taxable---without regard to any provision requiring "scheuled maintenance", but rarher being short-term--emergency small items "water heater" too much?]

    4) The PPPH entity would verify an application for release of indebtedness in exchange for execution of lease that meets the foregoing broad terms—and subject to a monthly rental calculated as 1/96 [8 year payout]–1/120[10 year payout] at a rate that is proportional to the greater of the reduced income of the househld versus the income reported to obtain the loan—-or the value of the home as establishe by HUD appraisal with a comparison to local property records to prevent fraud, and provide a county assessor input into the valuation process.

    5 ) The PPPH would be obligated to accept the claim of the servicer –subject to proof of representative capacity of the owner of the note–[to give a certain release to the homeowner] as a contribution to equity with the right to receive a proprotionate share in the rental stream from the home-owners that have agreed to become tenants at an FMV net rent similar to the old-style English tenancies–that everybody in England lived under from Dukes to crop-growing farmers with their cottages. Its a slightly different form–depending upon the term. What is lacking today s a willing lanlord–it can be bad if the tenant were typical of those who are tenants–that require a higher level of landlord supervision.

    6) as important as anything else is the need to get repairs made before significant deterioration sets in. If a roof is leaking it must be fixed. The National Infrastructure Bank needs to have a mandate to lend funds to serve as a second mortgage with superior claim to at least 50% of the rents from a house or a pool of houses in order to prime the jobs pump and prevent waste.

    7) There must be a tough Inspector General to prevent fraud or arbitrary refusals excessive rents and to assure that claimants are legitimate–ant unclaimed proceeds would escheat to the state after payment of costs of prosecution–or clawback to the claiants as a whole?

    David C. Breidenbach
    Independent Tax Agent
    The statements made herein are the authors alone and are not attributable to any organization, public or private – and are not intended as legal advice.

  29. @senior author et al – here is a case which discusses assignment for the purpose of collection at length. It includes a good discussion of jurisdiction as the threshold matter it is. I’d love any feedback:

    Attorney Trust v Videotape Computer Prod.,
    93 F.3d 593 (9th 1996)

  30. In research HSBC. It takes a lot of time. However, I would like to shed light on HSBC, their attorney’s court doc, trustee sales and articles specific mostly to how HSBC operates in Maryland.
    Hat tip: Housing Wire.
    6 Law Firm Notaries Lose Office, Suit Filed in Probe of Fake Lawyer Signatures on Foreclosure Docs
    By Martha Neil
    http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/comments/6_md._law_firm_notaries_lose_office_in_probe_of_foreclosure_robo-signing/
    Oct 14, 2010, 01:31 pm CDT
    Six notaries who worked for two Maryland law firms have lost their commissions as an apparent result of a continuing probe into who signed documents in mortgage foreclosure cases, although it isn’t clear whether their jobs at the law firms have otherwise been affected.
    The probe began after a lawyer for a homeowner in a foreclosure case noticed a “corrective affidavit” in the file that indicated an attorney who purportedly had signed notarized documents in the case had not, in fact, initially done so, reports the Washington Post.
    A review of all Prince George County Circuit Court foreclosure cases containing such corrective affidavits is continuing, Judge Thomas Smith tells the newspaper. He is in charge of a new foreclosure committee for the court.
    The notaries didn’t contest allegations that they either weren’t present, as required, when documents were signed or failed to keep a required registry of signatures.
    An earlier Baltimore Sun article says two unidentified attorneys at two unidentified Maryland law firms apparently at issue in the corrective affidavit matter filed some 20,000 foreclosure cases since 2008.
    A later Baltimore Sun article says the lawyers are Jacob Geesing of Bethesda and Thomas Dore of Hunt Valley, and that the documents at issue were signed at their direction but not by them personally.
    Neither article makes clear how many of the 20,000 cases might be reviewed as a result of the attorney signature probe.
    However, one Sun article notes that a federal class action is being brought against one of the law firms and a Baltimore Business Journal article says the two law firms are Bierman Geesing & Ward and Covahey Boozer Devan and Dore.
    It also says that attorney Gerald Solomon of Florida is representing Maryland homeowner Timothy Michau in a Howard County Circuit Court case arguing that his client’s lender, HSBC Mortgage Services, pursued a foreclosure case using forged signatures.
    HSBC was represented by the Bierman firm.
    None of the articles includes any comment from the lawyers whose signatures are at issue or their law firms.
    “If we don’t follow rules, if we don’t follow laws, then we’re dead as a society,” Solomon tells the legal publication.
    Hat tip: Housing Wire.
    Hat tip: Housing Wire.
    Comments
    There are state and local probes in the signature issue. The matter was original brought to the attention of the courts in November, 2009. The Prince George’s County matter did arise in August, 2010. However the Court did not address the signature fraud issue at that time. Instead the Court allowed the re-submission of the Report of Sale because it has not been served on counsel of record. The timing of the Prince George’s County probe appears to follow intensified efforts of the State.
    The original Baltimore Sun article did mention both law firms and did contain an interview with Jacob Geesing.
    Timothy Michau was not a named plaintiff in the federal class action suits. The Michau case involved an affidavit submitted by HSBC.
    Solomon was not interviewed by the legal publication.

    1. Howard Bierman
    HOWARD N. BIERMAN,:
    http://www.civiljusticenetwork.org results File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    Counter-Defendant HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Deutsche ….. At the commencement of this action, Jacob Geesing, Carrie Ward,
    http://www.civiljusticenetwork.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=W4AGW3bGWSc%3D&tabid=68
    RANTS AND RAVINGS FROM YOUR MARYLAND REO TITLE EXPERT
    Make sure your title agent is pulling the COURT FILE just prior to closing. Check out this Show Cause Order
    ROBO SIGNING NOT THE ONLY ISSUE -CHECK OUT THIS SHOW CAUSE ORDER
    by CHARLENE PERRY | 2011/03/04 |
    JACOB GEESING, et al., *
    *
    Plaintiffs *
    *
    VS. *
    *
    Defendant *
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND CASE NO. 14-C- ************************************************************************
    SHOW CAUSE ORDER
    This Court having received Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt dated April
    15, 2010 which includes a mathematical error involving a credit in favor of the Defendant
    of $12,690.31 which was added to the Defendant’s debt, and having before it for
    consideration an Order of Ratification and Referral to Auditor, and this Court having
    signed on this day a Show Cause Order in the matter of Geesing v. , 14-C-10-
    8272, containing similar irregularities involving the Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt in
    that case, it is this _____________ day of January, 2011 hereby
    ORDERED by the Circuit Court for Kent County that Jacob Geesing and Carrie
    M. Ward shall Show Cause in writing on or before the twenty-eighth (28th) day of
    February, 2011, why this sale should not be voided for the aforegoing irregularities in the
    reporting of the Defendant’s debt, and why the said Jacob Geesing and Carrie M. Ward. -
    should not be sanctioned in light of said irregularities, and it is further
    ORDERED by the Circuit Court for Kent County that a Show Cause hearing shall
    be held on the tenth (lOth) day of March, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. provided respondents are
    served a copy of this Order on or before the thirty-first (31st) day of January, 2011, and it
    is further
    ORDERED by the Circuit Court for Kent County that this matter is hereby
    STAYED pending the outcome of the aforementioned actions.
    TRUE COPY TEST:
    BY DEPUTY RK
    The property associated with this case was to have gone to closing today. The court has ratified the foreclosure sale, but…
    The auditor had the file for review and approval and the auditor discovered discrepancies. The auditor’s report identifies a mathematical error involving a credit in favor of defendant in the amount of $12,690.31 which credit was added to the Defendant’s debt. The court has now requested a show cause hearing to determine why the sale should not be voided AND why the attorneys involved in this transaction should not be sanctioned.
    The firm that filed the foreclosure in this matter is already under scrutiny in our state for their admitted role in robo-signing. They have been allowed to file thousands of “corrective” (liars) affidavits in foreclosure files statewide. So far there have not been, at least not to my knowledge, sanctions filed against them, but there is a class action law suit pending.
    And, oh this burns my butt for sure; they are part of the Fannie Mae Retained Attorney Network, just saying…..
    Kudos to this court and to the Auditor to whom this file was assigned for discovering this blatant error and calling for a show cause order.
    3 comments • CHARLENE PERRY • March 04 2011 12:12PM

    Yesterday we had HSBC and today it’s SunTrust-it will just never end I fear.
    And now we have SunTrust and HSBC
    by CHARLENE PERRY | 2011/03/03 |
    Yesterday I read that HSBC was suspending all of it’s foreclosures nationwide as a result in deficiencies in their foreclosure process and then today, I read this:
    An internal review by SunTrust Banks, Inc. has uncovered problems with the paperwork in thousands of foreclosure cases, according to the Atlanta-based company’s annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    “We recently conducted an assessment of our foreclosure process in all states,” SunTrust explained in the report. “Our review indicated approximately 4,000 files…contained documents with technical issues in the foreclosure complaint verification, affidavit preparation, and notary processes.”
    SunTrust says the number of files with problems represents just under 15 percent of the company’s active foreclosure proceedings and according to the company’s statement, no deficiency identified violated the law.
    SunTrust says it plans to replace any documentation that was not prepared properly in pending foreclosure actions that have not yet been decided. The company says this process of resubmitting affidavits “will be substantially completed during the first quarter of 2011.”
    Similar scenarios have played out among all the major mortgage servicers. Federal regulators have indicated even though very few, if any, homes were wrongfully foreclosed upon because of breakdowns in foreclosure processes, at least 14 servicers will face fines and be required to implement remedial actions and processing controls to atone for their part in the robo-signing scandal that swept the nation last fall.
    In addition to the up-front costs associated with fines the company may be hit with, SunTrust says its ability to mitigate losses on defaulted loans will be impacted by delays in foreclosure proceedings due to case reviews and refiling of affidavits as a result of “our practices or failures to adhere to our policies,” the company said.
    “Any delay in the foreclosure process will adversely affect us by increasing our expenses related to carrying such assets, such as taxes, insurance, and other carrying costs, and exposes us to losses as a result of potential additional declines in the value of such collateral,” SunTrust explained.
    “While we cannot predict the ultimate impact of any delay in foreclosure sales, or any issues that may arise as a result of alleged irregularities with respect to previously completed foreclosure activities, we may be subject to additional borrower and non-borrower litigation and governmental and regulatory scrutiny related to our past and current foreclosure activities,” SunTrust said in the regulatory filing. “This scrutiny may extend beyond our pending foreclosure matters to issues arising out of alleged irregularities with respect to previously completed foreclosure activities.”
    The company added, “We expect that our costs will increase modestly in 2011 as a result of the additional resources necessary to perform the foreclosure process assessment, revise affidavit filings, and make any other operational changes. In addition, process changes required as a result of our assessment could increase our default servicing costs over the longer term.

    I have been reviewing titles all morning and took a break to check e-mail and found this little tidbit.
    I found this particularly frustrating in that of the 10 titles I reviewed, 3 of them had “liars affidavits” in the foreclosure file, 1 of them had the foreclosure dismissed and refiled altogether and the other 6 were just a hot mess of issues in the chain.
    Here in Maryland there are two firms who were caught filing affidavits signed by others (robo-signed). The attorneys admitted that they had not necessarily utilized “best practices”, apologized and basically said they would try harder to do it right from now on. They begged the court’s indulgence, were allowed to file “corrective affidavits” and the foreclosures proceeded.
    Were the people in default? Probably. Did they legitimately foreclose upon these people? Probably. Did they take short cuts so that their bottom line was not affected? ABSOLUTELY.
    But, really, what frustrates me more than anything is that these same firms are still being given a MASSIVE amount of work from Fannie, Freddie and others. They have been tasked with handling the files from “cradle to grave” and they are making a bucket-full of money doing it. Oversight of their process is nil to non–existent until the &^%$ hits the fan and they get caught. Then when they admit to mistakes they are given a free pass while those of us who are trying to offer good title to our clients are left to clean up their mess. I’ve almost come to the point where is see NO POINT in reviewing a title. I figure if I can get a letter of indemnity from Fidelity, First American, Stewart or Old Republic I’m covered.
    Why should I bother to even check these titles? Why don’t we all just say what the hell it’s gonna be insurable no matter what, save ourselves some time and money and move on with our day?
    Of course we don’t have that luxury and most of us would lose sleep over the fact that we “passed” bad title to a client. And, too, should a title claim be filed, we are going to have to defend it in some way, even if we had absolutely nothing to do with the shoddy work done by others.
    From my read of this article it seems that, in accordance with filing requirements, SunTrust is saying “hey investors we’re just letting you know there’s probably gonna be a hit we have to take as a result of these errors, so be prepared to lose some money.” So, at least the investors are forewarned of a potential loss. Still…
    Frustrating, YUP

    1 comment • CHARLENE PERRY • March 03 2011 12:46PM

  31. SEC INFORMATION: PARENT
    OLD REPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
    Underwriting Agreement dated March 2, 2011,
    between the Company and Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and UBS Securities LLC.

    4.1 Supplemental Indenture dated as of March 8, 2011, between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as trustee (including the form of Notes)

    S-3 REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    “Registration Statement”),
    a preliminary prospectus supplement $500 MILLION
    USE OF PROCEEDS:
    Unless otherwise set forth in a Prospectus Supplement with respect to the proceeds from the sale of the particular Offered Securities to which such Prospectus Supplement relates, the net proceeds from the sale of the Offered Securities are expected to be used by the Corporation for general corporate purposes, including repayment or redemption of outstanding debt or preferred stock, the possible acquisition of businesses or assets thereof, working capital needs, and to add to the capital of the Corporation’s insurance subsidiaries. The Corporation routinely reviews opportunities to acquire businesses or assets thereof.

    Corporation’s principal executive offices are located at 307 North
    Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60601. Its telephone number is (312) 346-8100.

    Old Republic International Corporation is a Chicago-based insurance holding company which ranks among the 50 largest publicly-held, independent insurance groups in the United States. Its oldest insurance subsidiary has been in business continuously since 1887. The Corporation’s subsidiaries market, underwrite and manage a wide range of specialty and general insurance coverages in the property and liability, mortgage guaranty, title and life and disability insurance fields. The Corporation primarily serves the insurance and related needs of commercial and financial enterprises and governmental units. In particular, it provides specialty insurance programs to the transportation, coal and energy services, construction, forest products, consumer and mortgage credit, banking, and housing industries, and to a variety of other manufacturing and service companies.

    The Corporation’s business segments are organized as the General Insurance (property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty, Title Insurance and Life Insurance Groups, and references herein to such groups apply to the Corporation’s subsidiaries engaged in the respective segments of business. “Old Republic” or the “Corporation” herein refers to Old Republic International Corporation and its subsidiaries

    Real estate mortgage loan insurance produced by the Mortgage Guaranty Group protects lending institutions against certain losses, generally to the extent of 10% to 35% of the sum of the outstanding amount of each insured mortgage loan, and allowable costs incurred in the event of default by the borrower. The Corporation insures only first mortgage loans,
    primarily on residential properties having one-to-four family dwelling units. Mortgage guaranty insurance premiums originate from savings and loan associations, mortgage bankers and other lending institutions. The Corporation’s residential real estate loan insurance business is originated, approximately 19%
    by savings and loan associations, 68% by mortgage bankers and 13% by other lenders. The Corporation’s mortgage guaranty insurance in force at December 31, 1996, was originally produced by approximately 3,800 different lending
    institutions and about 2,300 such institutions originated business in 1996.

    The title insurance business consists primarily of the issuance of policies to real estate purchasers and investors based upon searches of the public records which contain information concerning interests in real property.

    The policy insures against losses arising out of defects, loans and encumbrances affecting the insured title and not excluded or excepted from the coverage of the policy.

    The Indenture defines the term “Principal Insurance Subsidiary” to mean, so long as they are Subsidiaries of the Corporation, each of Old Republic Insurance Company, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, Bituminous Casualty Corporation and Great West Casualty Company and any successor to all or a principal part of the business or properties of any thereof. (Section 101)

  32. The UNDERWRITERS PURCHASE ‘loans’ and ‘buy’ bonds.

    Meanwhile RETAIL promissory note and deed governed by document recorded with County Clerk.
    Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
    400 Second Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55401

    Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
    Delaware Agency Operations – Dover Office
    32 The Green, Dover, DE 19901
    (302) 734-3570 (800) 722-0784 (302) 734-3254 FAX

    The Old Republic Title Insurance Group (ORTIG)* is the highest rated title insurance group in the nation. Since 1992, it has earned the highest financial strength ratings in the title insurance industry. No group has equaled its consistent high ratings, which reflect the ORTIG’s strong capitalization; favorable operating performance; conservative investment strategy; strong commitment to technology, and its strategic relationship with its Chicago-based parent, Old Republic International Corporation.

    In 2007, the Old Republic Title Insurance Group celebrated its 100th anniversary of service. It is one of the nation’s largest title insurance groups, insuring risks on property located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

    Our rate schedule for Old Republic Title is below. If you need more than $1,000,000.00 in Title Insurance please call our office for a quote

    The ‘Underwriters’ settlement agent secures commitment for title insurance listing loan#, lender and amount. Loan already in PIPELINE WITH PRODUCERS OF LARGEST NON-CONFORMING FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES INSTITUTONAL INVESTORS/UNDERWRITERS.

    OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY HEADQUARTERS MILWAUKE,WI

    Old Republic Surety Company (ORSC) underwrites primarily contractors’ performance and payment bonds, miscellaneous surety, and commercial fidelity. ORSC represents over 8,000 agencies across the United States. To find your ORSC branch office, please refer to the “Locations” tab. ORSC has branch locations and field representative offices located throughout the United States. Click here to view ORSC’s A.M. Best, S&P, and Fitch Ratings. ORSC’s ultimate parent is Old Republic International Corporation (ORI).

    ORSC is pleased to offer
    e-SURETY™ to our valued agents. It is an excellent, time-saving web based tool for buying bonds.
    e-SURETY™ allows an agent to instantly issue and print bonds in his/her office. The bonds are automatic and electronically reported to ORSC. Click here to access the eSurety system.

    What is a surety bond?
    Top

    As opposed to insurance, which is a two (2) party contract between an insurance company and the insured, a surety bond is a three (3) party agreement between a Principal, an Obligee, and a Surety. As a condition of being granted certain licenses, permits, contracts, or prior to assuming duty as a public official entrusted with funds, or a court appointed fiduciary, it is required by many state and local governments (as well as the Federal government in many cases) that the party assuming the responsibility (the Principal) provide the requiring governmental body (or private party in some instances) (the Obligee) with a guarantee that the Principal will perform all of the requirements of the code and/or contract and/or the governing document or in lieu thereof the party making the guarantee (the Surety) will either perform the obligation themselves or pay a stipulated sum of money.

    A surety bond is an extension of credit in the form of a guarantee that provides protection to the party requiring the bond (the Obligee), but provides no insurance to the Principal.

    What kind of situation can be bonded?
    Top

    Virtually any obligation or agreement that is not insurable or in violation of public policy can be bonded. The most commonly required types of surety bonds utilized by the public on a daily basis are:

    Permit Bonds – guarantee that a licensed party will comply with the code in a particular situation permitted by the local governing body.

    Public Official Bonds – guarantee that a person in a position of being an elected or appointed official will faithfully and honestly perform the required duties of the job according to law.

    Contract Bonds – guarantee that the contractor principal will perform the contract (building, road, sewer, materials supply, etc.) in accordance with the plans and specifications of the specific project and pay all required labor and material bills.

    Court Bonds – guarantee that the Principal will pay the court or some other Obligee a sum of money including costs and interest if they unsuccessfully appeal a money judgment; wrongfully attach or repleive property; wrongfully file a restraining order, or any other obligation required of a court.

    Probate Bonds – are filed in a Probate Court and are required in most states to protect and preserve the assets of an estate of a deceased, incompetent person, or minor. The court appointed guardian, executor, administrator, trustee, or similar person must post the bond with the court to guarantee their honesty and faithful compliance with the law as well as the terms of a will, trust agreement, or court order which stipulates the conduct required of them.

    What would create a claim under a surety bond?
    Top

    The Principal’s failure to fulfill his obligation would create a claim against a Surety.

    Who can make a claim under a bond?
    Top

    Usually only the holder of the bond (the Obligee) can make claim under the bond. The Principal can never make a claim.

    What happens if a surety has to pay a claim?
    Top

    A Principal is legally obligated to reimburse the Surety Company for any loss and expense incurred by the Surety. The Principal’s obligation to the Surety can, therefore, be greater than the original obligation to the obligee. The Surety has the same recourse against the Principal as any other creditor would have in recovering their loss. This is the primary difference between a surety bond and insurance

  33. Old Republic Title…
    protection is only as strong as the issuing company

    What happened in one decade? CLOUDED TITLES under careful watch and insurance … my insurance policy suppose to bring peace of mind and ‘wonderful financial protection’ for my ‘own’ home or for my ‘commercial property investements.’

    OLD REPUBLIC CONSISTENTLY EARNS HIGHEST RATINGS IN TITLE INSURANCE INDUSTRY…
    FOR FINANCIAL STRENGTH
    AND
    PRUDENT MANAGEMENT

    SO WHAT HAS OLD REPUBLIC GOT TO SAY REGARDING UNINSURABLE PROEPRTY TITLES?

  34. OLD REPUBLIC – WAIVER

    http://www.oldrepublictitle.com/pa/onlineformsreferral/noticewaiver.htm

    Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

    Final Approved Attorney Certificate

    Fax To (610) 687-6056

    NOTICE
    AND
    WAIVER

    Policy Number:
    Premises
    Address:
    City:
    State:
    Zip/Postal Code:

    Pursuant to the requirement of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, notice is hereby given that a mortgagee’s title insurance policy is to be issued to your mortgage lender and that such policy does not afford title insurance protection to you in the event of a defect in the title to the real estate which you are acquiring (including, but not limited to, unpaid bills for labor and material, forgeries, missing heirs, unpaid taxes, etc.). You are hereby advised of your right and opportunity to obtain an owner’s title insurance policy in your favor for the amount of your purchase price (or the amount of your purchase price, plus the cost of any improvements which you anticipate making).

    The additional cost to you for an owner’s policy of title insurance in the amount of $ is $ if requested at this time.

    The said requirement directs that you sign the statement below if you do not wish to purchase this protection.

    Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
    By

    Authorized Officer or Agent

    This is to certify that the foregoing notice of right to purchase an owner’s title insurance policy for the protection of the undersigned purchaser has been received and the undersigned purchaser hereby waives such right. It is understood and agreed that OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY shall have no responsibility to the undersigned purchaser for the status of the title to the real estate being acquired or for any loss by reason of a complete or partial failure of title.

    Signature of Mortgagor/Purchaser

    Signature of Mortgagor/Purchaser

    Dated

  35. https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/aztec-foreclosure-corp-antics-analyzed/

    Aztec Foreclosure Corp ‘example’ of REO & ‘Trustee’ as agent for brokers of LENDER

    None of the Aztec Foreclosure Corp transactions possible without being a subscriber, integrated member of the FIS – FNF – TD Services ‘CLOUD’ ….

  36. @seniorauthor – nope, and I’d sure like to see one.

  37. John:

    I too am looking for a sample of the waiver – did someone send you one.

  38. Ian – try John’s idea first. If that doesn’t work, let me know. Another case familiar to me ran into the same problem. Seems like he gets checks every once in a while from the mortgage company that was so anxious to make loans, they originated and funded the fraudulent loan without doing what normal underwriters, etc. do. Your support is in the public records. You can do all of this yourself if you can’t get any help.

    John had a great idea to check with the examiner that may work for a different title company than the one who dealt with the wrongful closing. You never know what will come out of the woodwork.

  39. @ian – I’ve never seen that before, that’s for sure. You might find a local title company, not one generally used by the banksters in foreclosures, and take everything you’ve got and see if they’ll help you sort it out. It doesn’t appear from what you’re saying that it ultimately added any debt to your home, but it’s still the craziest thing I’ve heard. Looks to me like someone needed some dough in a hurry, used your home as collateral, and then paid it off. See if you can take a title examiner to lunch. If that doesn’t work out,
    than try taking a closer to lunch. One last thought – sometimes title company reps hang out at foreclosure auctions to drum up business. That might be a good place to ‘chat’. Remember who that person works for. He’ll have no dog in your hunt, though, so he may help you figure it out (unless his co. routinely does policies for the lenders who did the loans you didn’t do).
    .

  40. Ian – not so fast. Did you do a flow charge of all of those notes and refinances, check the verbiage in the bottom of the deed of trust which supposed renews and extends the NOte and match up any assignments. This is where the flow chart that liviing lies has talked about is so important. It absolutely ends up telling you what is missing and what is there that should not be. I have a feeling those false assignments and non cancelled notes are in the title company files, maybe not, but you are doing the right thing by pulling the title report which shows you that which is of record. A good place to start, with your own copies from your closing and then get the real thing to see if it matches yours. If there is fraud and appears so, you will lay it out with all support to show that. Thing thing goes for the 2nd lien.

  41. johngault- i described briefly how i found a loan on my courthouse instrument summary list which was taken out on my property, with the signatures of both me and my wife cut and pasted in. And when I received a copy of the settlement sheet, XXX bank sent along a 2nd sheet for yet a 2nd loan which was stamped ‘Paid in full’. Only one was recorded in the courthouse. I fully believe that once a homeowner was targeted,with foreclosure being the inevitable result, these dirtbags would do whatever they wanted, knowing they would never be found out. I had a purchase money mortgage, and 2 refis, yet i have 7 different loan numbers total. So the bogus loan which xxx placed was recorded and appears to have ‘paid off’ my actual loan. And then the loan we subsequently took out ‘paid off’ the bogus loan. Where does that leave us? Who knows? It would seem as though the bogus loan paid off our actual mortgage. But where did the funds go from the refi subsequently?

  42. Carie – one more. The original lender put the loan in false default so they could write it off and at the same time, they sold the “collection rights” to the new guy, who included the face amt (or remaining balance prior to write-off) of the original note in the new note and wrote a new dot for the entired amt, also. That’s what I was missing – why the false default. It’s so they can write it off (and at the same time, still get the payments from the new guy). They wrote it off on their own books, but still owe someone the payment stream. No sweat – they just pay it out of the new guy’s remittances. Hot damn, Jim. That is some kind of hustle. Everyone gets ripped, including the IRS, which is where I’d take it if Ihad your interest. Wonder how they’re passing thru the payments that are still being remitted by the new guy?
    I don’t actually know that this went on, as I said it’s the transaction you have described, and it wouldn’t surprise me.

    Btw, someone here the other day talked about bogus loans being originated in his and his wife’s name and then just as mysteriously paid off. Sounds like a different twist of what Taylor Bean was trying to do. They were doing some junk with loans because I forget why no one would buy them and their warehouse lines were full so they couldn’t do any new loans. They were trying to convert all these loans sitting on those lines to fha loans so they could lay them off on fha. I haven’t had time to think those mysterious loans thru any more. fwiw.
    Seems to me the Taylor Bean deal involved seconds, too.

  43. they avoided having the bank sign my release at all—signed by servicer on behalf of bank as trustee—–well after the fact so i could not object—nasty people

  44. Anyone have a link to the new document Wells Fargo is making buyers of reo sign?

  45. Based on the evidence currently ‘required’, none, I could make off with your home by producing an assignment of the dot from MERS to me. I could just get a bud to execute it as an ‘officer’ of MERS or do it myself with a phony name. The only thing which might stop me is if I don’t know a real criminal who would notarize the assignment allegedly executed by a MERS’ officer.
    But if I did, then there’s nothing to stop me. This is certainlly true of non-judicial f/c. I have to evidence no authority to appt a substitute trustee, other than now an assignment from ‘MERS”.
    I could even go into litigation with a MERS’ assignment to me and make off with your house. I don’t need to prove anything:

    1) that the person signing the assignment for ‘MERS’ to me had authority to do so (to sign for MERS – the authority is not questioned – says ‘v.p. of MERS’ – good enough for court x Koontz in CA because Koontz called them on it)
    2) that I am a successor or assignee of the original lender
    3) evidence of “MERS” authority to execute assignments
    4) that every party in the chain of title of the dot was a MERS’ member. “MERS”, as always read member-in-MERS’ name,
    imo can’t assign dots’, but even if it could, it is only for its members. If anyone in the chain of title, recorded or not, were not a member, that’s the end of MERS whoever it is one way or another. They sort of skipped that little deal which is logical as well as found in MERS’ own rules.
    5) that a chain of title for the dot exists anywhere other than in the imagination of MERS’ members

    The assignment provides no indication the notary has reason to believe Joe Blow is an officer of MERS. Pretty sure they all show the notary, the witness, for just “Joe Blow’, not “Joe Blow as v.p. of MERS”, even if he signs Joe Blow as v.p. of MERS. If a notary must witness this latter way, and I think they must, the notary is messed up (never minding the robosigning). No self-respecting title company would take such a notary on any other corporate document in the world.
    These things, 1 – 5, are not being challenged. They can and must be imo. This isn’t pursuant to new laws and rules – it’s pursuant to existing ones.

  46. @dcb – I take that to mean what you do, and it does seems a very valid point. A release by someone with no authority to do a release is no release.
    Dang. Will you execute my release?

  47. @Ian – that’s right – no one has produced a complete chain of title. No one has been made to for a misunderstanding of their necessity by the judiciary and this was caused by inappropriate reliance on MERS’ placeholder status in public records and by MERS’ (read member arguing in MERS’ name) arguments it was this or that depending on the weather. It was inappropriate because while it may, key word may, have been possible for MERS to maintain its placeholder status in public records, this did not obviate the need for the assignments to nonetheless be done from a to d even if not recorded. In other words, I guess, the bankster maybe could get away with not recording the assignments UNTIL any assignment is acted on. This didn’t change the fact they needed to be done and that they now must be produced. In lien-theory states or states utilizing mortgages (in lieu of dot’s), if there is reliance on, say, Carpenter v. Longan which found the mortgage followed the note, there may be different arguments, arguments I have not tried to formulate because I research title-theory state tenets. But C v L, as I have said, deals with mortgages (liens) specifically, not deeds of trust, and there is a big difference. In title-theory states, a deed of trust is a transfer of title to real estate , and those must be in writing pursuant to the statute of frauds, just like any other agreement affecting an interest in real property. An assignment of a deed of trust is an assignment of interest in real property. In order for you to sell me your house, our agreement must be in writing, or it’s no bueno. I need a deed. If we did not do this agreement, generally evidenced by a deed, I would play hell selling the property to the Smiths. Now, if you gave me a deed which I didn’t record, I could produce the deed from you to me (it’s good between US and ONLY US even if not recorded), but any title company would insist on its recordation prior to recordation of my deed to the Smiths. Otherwise there’s a break in title.
    So to ‘help’ the judiciary at least in title-theory states understand this, people must cite, imo, to state law which requires transfer of interests in real property to be in writing based on the statute of frauds. The NV SC gets it and just so ruled, altho in a different context (mediation). It’s the same thing. Or, maybe the judiciary does understand it, but we are not making the proper arguments.

  48. @John Gault, I’m not speaking of MERs as in the DOT…..this goes to the PSA which was UNDISCLOSED to the mortgageor

  49. Gary:

    joyce@fairwayadvisorycouncil.com

    Please send return email – thanks.

  50. @Joyce Cauthen, no I did not receive it.

  51. Gary:

    Did you get my email this morning? Thank you.

  52. johngault-read your post which i believe stated that a-d assignments ‘had to have been done’. that is, if i read you correctly. The problem I see, is that i have never seen, going on 3 years of studying this material, where anyone, any entity, anywhere, in any state, in any foreclosure or bankruptcy proceeding, has once, not even once, produced an A>D chain of true sale, in order to create a bankruptcy remote entity. So based on this, and this alone, every single foreclosure carried out thus far has been illegal, and thus void or reversible, under IRS remic/reit law, and NY trust law. And the beat goes on………

  53. the sumary suggests that fatal securitizations void the release of liability upon sale and repayment to party x–is this a misreading?

    it is logical–given the title laws and laxaity of securitizations–but it is farther than iv seen it carried. but insurers certainly do not want to buy problems–so outfits that specialize in risk-taking and fighting these issues will steal the market

  54. @gary h – the borrower is not a party per se to the psa’s. Courts must look to their states recording statutes. Most if not all states have statutes regarding recordation of liens or interests in real propery and those would be the controlling tenets in regard to assignments and recordation. The fact that the lack of assignments from a to d is also violative of the psa’s is icing on the cake.

  55. @garyh – yes, we know the chain of title is broken, particularly in title-theory states. The problem is the banksters have successfully hidden behind MERS and many courts still acknowledge “MERS” assignments from
    a to d. So, I’ll say this again, come what may. The long and the short of it is that the assignments must have been done, whether recorded or not, that is, whether or not MERS remained the placeholder in public records. In order to ACT on an assignment, however – to go after collateral, those unrecorded assignments must now be produced and they must be consistant with the ownership of the notes at any given time. We know they weren’t done to so produce, and many of them can’t even be phonied up because some of the businesses whose autographs are necessary are out of business. Even if MERS could assign dot’s, which imo they can’t, there is never any evidence introduced that MERS has any relationship with any party other than the original lender, nor of their authority to assign on behalf of anyone.
    The only way this is not so is if MERS IS the beneficiary itself, which it isn’t (and note and dot would be bifurcated if it were), and even MERS by its own actions of late is acknowledging what a losing proposition all this bs is. MERS knows these assignments must have been done even if not recorded and they are laying it on their members to grapple with those issues. They told their members the assignments must be done prior to foreclosing. Hiding but inherent in that mandate is that the assignments from a to d must be done. MERS is liable for every bogus foreclosure already done in its name with its consent, and they are attempting to distance themselves from yet more bogus foreclosures.

  56. Respective to any PSA agreement the ENTIRE Chain of Title is BROKEN. In most cases the DOT makes a representation to a Lender / Originator, such as Argent Mortgage or (insert yours). I use the term Lender “VERY LOOSELY”

    What happend next in most of these lending schemes is a CORPORATION ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST was made and “directly assigned” to a TRUST. Holy smokes, there are at least TWO intermediate parties “missing”…..the Sponser and the Depositor!

    THE CHAIN OF TITLE IS BROKEN!!!!!

    Within the details of the PSA one will find exactly how the Chain of Title is BROKEN.

    The Originator / Lender (broker) is a “strawman” for the Sponser who holds “marketable title” to the “pool” which the Sponser is “building” to be placed at a MUCH LATER DATE, beyond closing, into a Trust Account which has not yet been created by any PSA.

    Chain of Title begins from the real “lender”. The real “lender” is within the “Wired Funds” and Escrow documents of the Title Company.

  57. @John Gault, “Gary h – the borrower is the mortgagOR”…..

    Good catch, you are correct!…..multi-tasking on this securitized garbage has a tendency to mess with ones mind.

    @seniorauthor, one must understand posted communication can be misinterpreted. I ment open a means of contacting yourself, I will reply back. I’ll give you mine…..gdh ssd at aol com…..not to hard to figure out, just don’t want the “bots” to have it, I get enough spam.

  58. Gary h – the borrower is the mortgagOR. There are provisions for discovery prior to fiing a lawsuit – not a walk in the park,but can be done. Try looking up Rule 26 (FRCP 26) , I think it is , or just look up something like ‘pre-suit discovery’. It’s my understanding that getting a courtto grant discovery before a suit has been filed is all about how you plead your need. If It were me, I’d scour the planet for successful pleadings.

  59. may I cut in? The pools are empty because when you pull up the SEC trust docs, there are no mortgage loan schedules present. The PSA’s downloaded off the site are UNSIGNED. Even the PSA submitted to the court carried NO SIGNATURES. The docs are a sham. Most of these loans (NPL’s) are already extinguished and sold off to the hedge fund scavengers. The servicers continue to to intimidate borrowers keeping them convinced that the loans are valid.

    I will nail my servicer with this statement from the PMI provider:

    FIRST:”Mr. R, thanks for your follow up. To clarify, I never said a claim had been filed. We have never received a claim and we have never paid a claim on this certificate. We received a notice of default which means that the borrower has been in default for a certain period of time. Defaults often cure and it is only if they don’t cure that a notice of claim is filed.

    After our call, I had someone check our files and was advised that a 4/11 default was reported to us in 6/11, as we discussed, which is the latest default that we have a record of. However, additional research revealed three other reported defaults (12/06 cured 1/07; 6/07 cured 7/07; and 11/07 cured 1/11). Generally, a default update is provided monthly so there may be many references between 7/07 and 1/11 in the servicer’s notes. I regret the confusion this morning.

    Unfortunately, I don’t know the identity of “client 708”.

    I hope this information is helpful as you continue your review.”

    SECOND: (response to my asserting a “re-alignment of parties” was in order as the insurer stands to be defrauded) “Mr. R, thanks for the e-mail. As we have discussed and as I noted in an earlier e-mail, Triad does not have a pending claim on your loan and currently has no adversarial position with respect to our insured regarding your loan. While our position could change in the future, we have no basis for being a plaintiff at this time and, therefore, it would be improper for us to become a plaintiff in this action.”

    So there you have it, Judge! No default exists!

    @ “senior” and “anonymous”. I still don’t get the “cloak and dagger” anonymity. Who are you really? Why do you have to hide? Do you work for the FDIC or COC? FBI or DOJ? c’mon, boys, GIVE IT UP! If you want to bust this open, STAND UP AND BE SEEN!”

  60. Hi Gary:

    Provide me with your email address or phone number preferably. Working as an advocate means that we try to help any individual that contacts us. What we managed to get done was help the people stay out of court if at all possible. These people do not have the money to go to Court and we are not attorneys. All we can do is intervene on their behalf with the loan servicer to come up with something workable for the homeowner and we have been lucky. With the information from the PSA, which you appear to be well aware of, it is explained to the homeowner what he is up against. And I am sure you are aware that there is much developing along these lines that helps us all to understand how the Courts and attorneys are handling the issues such as standing. Thanks to Neil’s posts we are all alot smarter.

    Although I have been on this site for over a year, only in the past week does it appear that people are antagonistic about my postings and all I have been doing is trying to offer what I know. It appears that the post are not addressing the specific issues as to interpretation so we are not always getting it as Anon says. He is so right. We are not always getting it.

    After working for five years with homeownrs, since June, 2006, I elected to hold off after January 2010 as so many other organizations were doing, supposedly what they could. But people still call for advice and it is very hard to turn them away and yes, there are times when we must intervene. but never offer any advice that would be considered legal advice. As a person who has been in the business for some 48 years, yes, I know, that reveals my age, we do what we can to offer some assistance that will help resolve the issue with the servicer. You are fortunate in that you have been able to get into the real issues that are holding you it appears hostage.. At least you know what you are fighting and that is important.

    If you will leave your contact number, I will give you a call. Yes, there are several court cases going on right now whereby standing issues were at the heart of the case which brings into play the pretender lender issue. It is unfortunate that the title companies will not provide you with the detail you believe that you need without making you jump through hoops to get it and doing all of this on your own pro see makes it just that much tougher.

    Your comment that if I am a true advocate for the people was totally unnecessary and gives the wrong impression that I think I am trying to impress someone although you go on to say that I should open up my contacts. EAch and every case is confidential and there are no specific contacts. I do not operate one of the scamming outfits whereby the attorneys tell you they have special contacts with the mortgage servicers and can get this or that done. No that is not what I have been doing in the past. I simply take on the issue as if it was my very own and try to resolve it and that is a lot of work. The servicers have been guilty of intentional negligent loan servicing technique in their effort to guarantee the homeowner’s failure to make their mortgage payments. in additon to utilizing the HAMP PROGRAM WHICH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A PLOY WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED AS IT SIMPLY BOUGHT MORE TIME FOR THE SERVICERS TO FORECLOSE ON MORE LOANS. Your comment was .disappointing to say the least AND hurtful since there was nothing to be gained by me other than tHE REWARD OF KNOWING I was able to stop the foreclosure sale and I have done a few, for some homeowner hanging on for dear life and so rather than talking about it all the time, I was trying to do something constructive that just might help. Sorry Gary, I guess I took your comments personally, just goes to show you, my work means a lot to me but I am glad that I am trying to move on while others like yourself, continue your good work.

  61. @seniorauthor

    The details of securitization are in the PSA. THE TITLE DOCUMENTS, which we are all unable to obtain, without first filing a “claim” or dealing with the Litigation / Subpoena department of the “title company”, the LEGAL ENTITY of the title company are held and NOT disclosed as…..”without agreement from all parties”…..when a mortgagee inquirers about, (1) Warehouse Lines of credit…..(2) Wiring amounts and…..(3) the party to or supplying the Wired Funds, the mortgagee is Stonewalled by the Title Company with this issue of Subpoena.

    Well, if your not in court, having a foundation or filed case, how is John Q. Public to do just that?

    If you are a true advocate for the “homeowner” as you say, open-up your contact information. BTW, I am in court with a case against the “pretenders”.

    Think about this Argument and APPLY it to the DOT, represented by some now defunct “Lender / Originator”. Said DOT “Lender” was paid a FEE to ORIGINATE on funds that were Wired to a Title Company, by the Depositor, acting as the closing agent to Title.

    I’m willing, send me an e-mail address or contact info.

  62. Hey Cheryl: Pretty sure you are addressing me with your latest comments. No, I do not have a sub prime mortgage or a fraudulent mortgage and yes, being an underwriter myself. I guess you could give me a little credit for my knowledge of underwriting fraud. And to some degree, you might even give me a little credit for past work experience as an examiner, analyst on sub prime mortgages, Loan Administration Manager for several reasonably large institutions which takes in the responsibility for the management of all activities directly related to the servicing of various types of loans, CFO. Special forces team for the VA, Liason for troubled mortgage companies, Loan Settlement and Closing, Sale of the first bulk sale in Texas for Fannie Mae, Portfolio Manager, Repurchase and/or substitution of collateral on securitized pools. Purchase and sale of loan portfolios and bank mergers. While I try to continue to learn from these posts is that clearly more and more people are being confused as a direct result of the complexity of the securitized loans which by the way came about as a result of, in my opinion, 2nd chance car financing in 1994 and which got its strong hold from 1994 thru 1998 when deregulation of the banks came into play. After that, anything went between Wall Street and the big banks who worked in tandem with them to pull off the biggest heist this country will probably ever experience.

    Most recently, my work for the past five years has dealt with defending homeowners who cannot defend themselves, either because they cannot pay for it or cannot get anyone to at a non profit to assist them. In fact, not more than 30 minutes ago, I had a call from a homeowner who had been to four different groups, the Legal Aid being one of them, that has not been able to help him. Keep in mind Cheryl, that although I do not have a bad mortgage, that I have worked diligently for hundreds of homeowners at no charge using my own money so they could get the help they needed and in doing so, have only lost two to foreclosure and that was because the homeownrs decided, it was just too hard. You should try answering your phone 24/7 and talking to people who are sincere, have ligitimate claims and just don’t know what else to do. I have worked with homeowners over this entire nation, not just in Texas.

    These homeowners, regardless of whether their loan was securitized or not, want to keep their homes if they can, underwater or not. They bought the homes to live in and investment was a secondary thought to buying a home. They all agree they have to pay to live somewhere and even if the loan was fraudulent and not a real loan, these people still believe in the justice system and that eventually, the problems with securitization will be resolved and just perhaps, they may come out of it okay. Like they said, they did sign a note and in return they got a warranty deed for the house and they realize they owe the money to someone, but they want to know who that someone is as soon as it can possibly be known through proper investigation and they will continue to try to make the payments that the current servicing is demanding. These are the choices and I am always right up front with them on whether or not they are considering everything they need to. It takes hours sometimes on the phone working with these people.

    Most attorneys as Neil and Anon know, did not have a clue about what was going on in the securitized market until they made the scene along with others who have years of experience behind them. I did not have years of experience behind me on the new breed of securitized loans, but I did have an undertanding of the principals about what and how these loans should have been handled, and have applied those principals to the the requirements of a PSA and MLPA just so I can work with a homeowner and let them know that even though his loan may or may not exist or transferred to a pool, just what everyone is up against. but could be handled that way because it did not work in the scheme of things or their agenda for the banks and Wall Street.

    I have always greatly depended on Neil and Anon and their advice, a little something you did not know. Of course they may be right in their layout of what is going on and no one appreciates it more than I do. But a lot of what is going on with other writers is and has been confusing and I just hope that I am not adding to that. If so I greatly apologize.

  63. Cheryl said:

    “Someone stated – The release of lien for the first loan was sent to the borrower after it is recorded. That is not true in all cases because I had another mortgage search done and I have a lien on my house from the previous owner.”

    Do you mean the former owner’s lien is still showing up and was not released?! This does happen, tho it’s not very common. If you are still in your house, and this is your problem and won’t become the bankster’s if they foreclose, you could call the title co. who issued the policy when you bought the house and ask them to take care of it because imo they should.They would want to, anyway, because blah blah not necessary just now. IF the release were sent to the former owner, rare, he didn’t bother recording it.
    If it were me and a bankster were going to take my home, I wouldn’t bother.
    Let them deal with it.

    It’s much much more prevalent for the former lender to record the release and they must do so within a certain amt of time statutorily from the time they receive the payoff funds. You might check your state statutes if you’re interested in that time frame. “Maryland statute release of mortgage or deed of trust” (whatever your state uses).

  64. seniorauthor – I know what you mean, but don’t give up. These discussions and even disagreements are productive, imo. I would, for instance, never have realized that the second lender on the sub-prime wrap has probably sold the same 100k to investors (in my example) which has already been sold to investors if anon and carie hadn’t been so persistant. I won’t be the one to do anything about it, but maybe anon and carie or another reader will pursue it and will find some solutions. I have little doubt this was done. I can’t find the path for salvation for the homeowner, tho it’s probably in there and someone more knowledgeable may find it. That someone, to start, might be an ‘old dog’ in the lending business who has the background including with all-inclusive trust deeds.

    If people think they have been a victim of a bad sub-prime loan (bad in legally skewed), rather than wait for more answers, they can call on their friendly local loan officer to re-calculate the a.p.r. on the final Reg Z Truth in Lending discosure, which takes about five minutes. Have to have the HUD 1 settlement statement or can’t do this. Also, there are very specific rules about the tolerance for the amt financed shown on the Reg Z which are further impacted once a f/c action has been initiated. I believe it shrinks to 35.00. (otherwise it’s like 105 or 135 or in the area – I forget)
    In the case of Upke in NJ, I think it was, the court ruled that TILA does not require the borrower to first ‘tender’ to rescind the loan, although that is the bankster’s first argument when faced with a TILA violation case. The court ruled that before the borrower has to ‘tender’, the lender must return to the borrower anything of value given to the lender by the borrower – points, origination fee, closing costs, what not. I’m not an attorney – Upke may not be precedent elsewhere, nor do I know if that decision were appealed.

    Chances are, the a.p.r. is going to be fatally off- just plain sloppy work.
    These people love to influence the court by calling homeowners deadbeats, but they are the same jokers who couldn’t get an a.p.r. right and it’s closer to coloring than rocket science.
    TILA claims are complicated and should only be done imo by attorneys specializing in them. But because I know something about HUD 1′s and Reg Z’s, I stand by my assessment there will likely be errors on the Reg Z, especially on sub-prime loans and wraps.
    And of course, I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

  65. You must not have a fraudulent mortgage (no mortgage) or understand origination fraud with closings because you would be able to relate to the comments on this forum. Read Neil’s new post Securitization Fraud. He tells exactly what is going on. And ANONYMOUS is correct.

  66. Cheryl:

    No point in sending you the release unless it has been executed. I do know that anytime the seller sells his home to a new buyer and the new buyer gets another loan, that release is filed by the title company and the new title policy to the buyer is issued. The title company had every intention of sending it for recording and that is why the new policy could be issued. Again, call the title company and ask what is going on and will they file the release of lien. If you pay your mortgage off through monthly payments or principal reductions, in that case, the servicer prepares the release, executes it and if it is there policy, the servicer will record it. Otherwise they send it to the borrower so he can record it. In otherwords, you have to pay the recording fee of 15 or $20.00. These kinds of issues ill hold up a closing but once it is determined wht happens the title company closes the loan and then files the missing release first and then the new deed of trust second so it falls in order for proper chain. Now that is the way it used to be. I hope to God they haven’t screwed that up as well.

  67. Sorry – ANONYMOUS said Just because it looks like a “duck” — does not mean it is a “duck” — no matter how it “quacks.”

  68. Well, Cheryl:

    Many times the title company will hold the release of lien in the title company file and not get it recorded. Then when people like yourself find that it still exist of record, they simply place a phone call to the title company that closed the new loan and paid off the lien and the closer will pull it out of the file and get it recorded. But someone has to call them because in closing the transaction, they simply forgot to send it to the recording office. It was never really a problem and it does depend on the type of refinance that the transaction calls for. Has nothing to do with wrap loans, those are handled differently. I know things have changed as far as the closings go, but you need to call the title company and run down the release. I think they will work with you if you can get them to pull the file. Sometimes we would find that they had been laying title company files for years before someone had a new transaction and it came to light.

    This is not 100% of the time, but usually the title company can answer the question and tell you why it did not or was not going to be recorded. Like the whole rotten mess we are in, it is no longer just considered sloppy work, sometimes it is intentional just to throw it into the file or send the release with the original note to the lender that did the refinance.

    Even though we audited files, title companies and mortgage loans, this was considered an exception that the title company would take care of. If they don’t have the release, then they have to secure it because it is their neck that is on the line, not yours. That is the way it used to be. Maybe they are doing things differently this way. I do know it to be a fact however. I do hope everyone here won’t chop my head off for these comments.

  69. Someone stated – The release of lien for the first loan was sent to the borrower after it is recorded. That is not true in all cases because I had another mortgage search done and I have a lien on my house from the previous owner. This forum is great for information – but you have to get in there and dig and dig. Remember what ANONYMOUS said – she said It looks like a duck and walks like a duck but that does not mean it is a duck.

  70. Hey John:

    That is why I am no longer posting after yesterday – Even when I state what I know to be true and correct, somehow that is not acceptable. It does indeed depend on the type of refinance. Thank you for your comment. At some point, perphas the title company left the original lien recorded and brought it forward by reciting in the bottom of the new Note that it was a renewal and extension of that certain promissory note dated so and so.

  71. anonymous – I see you are passionate about this, so I’ll brave another one as a layperson who does not understand everything involved, including some of your argumemts about false default.
    Abc the original lender may contract with xyz the second lender who does the wrap by way of a ‘participation agreement’ witih ABC. ABC agrees xyz may collect the payments due abc in the wrap.
    ABC even agrees to release its ‘lien’ , because its interest is going to be evidenced, essentially, in the new higher amt dot. Every time a borrower makes a payment to xyz, xyz remits abc’s portion. If abc’s note rate is 6%, he MIGHT (but might not) make xyz give him something over that because he knows xyz is going to make out like a bandit on his investment. XYZ is now a guarantor of sorts of the original loan with ABC. XYZ might even have bought the original loan, tho less likely. These deals worked back in the old days when the lender was the lender and serviced their own loans.

    Looking at your arguments or any, even as to the validity of these arrangements, I can’t go any further because of securitization.
    Abc likely doesn’t own the original note, just is in charge of collecting payments. Does a servicer of a securitized loan have the authority to
    cut this deal? Got me, doubt it, and that is one possible argument against them.
    And then if that authority is missing and or because of other considerations, what does all this mean? And THEN, if the new note is sold down the line at the stated value (150K, say) when the original note was already sold down the line at 100K, didn’t (different) investors ultimately pay for certificates on 250K when the only real debt is 150k? (the 150k from my earlier comment on the 100k original and the 50k new funds) Oh, dear! Now there’s a scam. In mass numbers, this would be devestating.

    IF a loan were put in false default to accomodate this deal, and I don’t know about this, never heard of it, there must be a reason and I can only guess it’s about securitization, but that still doesn’t read if ABC had no authority to do anything but collect the payments. I think. Maybe they could only assign or contract away collection rights on a defaulted loan. I don’t know. In this deal, the investors would be left with no record (if there were ever such a thing which I personally doubt) of any collateral, and I don’t know how they could do this on securitized debt.
    If any of this speculation (past the participation agreement) is accurate, I don’t know where that leaves the borrower. I see the investors may have been messed good. Looks like a mess period.

  72. seniorauthor – you said”
    “The money from the refinance was sent to the title company who in turn paid off the first lien and secured the release.”

    No, that is not accurate, by what carie and anon are saying and by what would happen with a wrap. The dot was released, because the funds necessary for its release were restated in the new note and are secured by the new dot, but are now owed to another party, not the original lender.

    The original lender and the new lender enter into “participation agreements” when these deals are done properly. In order to argue these deals done were done bogusly, one imo must understand participation agreements.
    People who want to forage paths against banksters on this sub-prime deal might start with that understanding and then formulate and articulate how these sub-prime deals went south. That’s a lot of work, I would think. Or maybe it’s on the internet somewhere already. dunno.

  73. This kind of fraud is so unprecedented that even if you HAD a lawyer with you when you signed for the “loan”, he wouldn’t have known the truth!!!

  74. @garyh – take 500 – I’m not an attorney, I represent no one bout nuthin.
    If people want to be heard by others – like AG’s – they have to have well-formed, intelligible arguments. One needn’t have a law degree to see that. It’s just common sense. If anonymous and carie want to champion the cause of the sub-prime scam, and I hope they do, (be better with some real legal help, but I haven’t seen anyone step forward, at least at this site, and that’s not to say anyone should ) I think they have to make their arguments clearer, and on that note, I am trying to figure out what they mean because it’s news to me. Maybe not some readers, but to me. This website is populated mostly by lay people, including me. I would love to see any gang that did the things I think carie is talking about get nailed, royally. Not going to happen, imo, unless the machinations are more clearly identified and articulated. I didnt’ get a sub-prime loan – I have no dog in that hunt. But I know that sub-prime loans were bs even without ‘fraud’. Yeah, I know the homeowners signed those papers (not the ones they didn’t know about), but the bankster is charged with knowledge and the homeowner is not on a parity in that regard. How many uninformed homeowners signed up for a
    “teaser rate” unwittingly? Got 2 percent for 5 minutes and then 12 percent.
    What? Was a homeowner to know he needed to take a lawyer with him to apply for and get a loan? As it turns out, he did, but he couldn’t have known that.

  75. Gary H,

    The Depositor — is (or was) the “investor” to the collection rights. What was securitized in bogus trusts –were the cash flows to collection rights.

    Once a loan is written-off/charged off — that loan can no longer be paid by borrower (unless original creditor does reverse accounting entry — which they do not).

    Collection rights do not have to be “funded” — they are simply a right to collection transferred by assignment — not a “NOTE”. However, all was presented to borrowers has a new NOTE/loan. This is why no notes were never validly sold to trusts — there was no Note to a mortgage to transfer!!

    Again, only talking about the subprime/alt-a “loans.”

    Every single one of these bogus mortgages should be discharged.

  76. @John Gault…..I must ask, are you an Attoney practicing law today, or a Consultant with a legal backround subjicated to any corporation? Just asking! Your interest and response has peaked imagination.

    @Carie and ANONYMOUS…..I understand the the “spider-web” of the funding, the “warehouse lines, wiring of funds, bogus lenders / originiators that are now defunct and DOT’s that carry NO Real Power of Sale specific to a securitized “loan”.

    Let me stand back for a minute, I know how this PSA bull-$hit worked to a big degree…..but one part of the puzzel is missing…..here goes;

    Agreed, the DEPOSITOR, is purported to be the “holder” but will never show it’s face…..!

    Here is the delema. If I was the “seller” or owner of title as in a “deed” prior to “sale and securitization” and was PAID in funds to my checking account to the tune of $XXX,XXX…..somthing was transfered to the “seller” as “payoff!

    What I’m saying is a KEY piece of this puzzel is missing, something does not equate.

  77. Dang, Carie, or is it for pete’s sake. Now you are saying the original loans were falsely put in default, written off, and then the ‘unsecured debt’ was sold to some shlep collection outfit (?) who then did what, pray tell? In order to effectuate a new scam loan, for one thing, the new lender would have to solicit the borrower, and not the other way around because the schlep has identified and targeted the borrower while YOUR borrower knows nothing of the schlep.

    I have no idea why the original lender would itself falsify a default and sell the paper unless the write off value exceeded the payments in a fiscal year (which it probably would) and they wanted the deduction. Oh, all right, I guess they would also if they were in cahoots with the new guy.
    (I take it from your argument there was a ‘new guy’.)
    And you are talking collusion and worse. And there are probably other complications I haven’t even thought of yet to pull this off. I think you are trying to say that the second lender revived a dead collateral instrument. I’ve never known a lender to write off a debt instead of going after the collateral, so if lenders do, I really don’t know where that leaves the dot, if it should be released. .

    Any chance you would consider a new form of expressing your arguments? I’m no where near the brightest bulb in the pack, but I’m not ignorant, either. I play hell figuring out what you are trying to say. I’ll give you this – you are persistant. Sure would like to see me some of that there paperwork.

  78. “Read the new post here regarding misappropriation of mortgage payments and escrow —– Countrywide.
    Loans falsely placed in default are loans that are unsecured with only (fraudulent) collection rights surviving. But, fraudulent “mortgage refinances” were done on these collection rights — anyway. There is no “cash” payoff on the prior (fraudulent) collection rights — the “check” is “routed” for “credit” of the originator credit line — there are no cash proceeds – no deposits of cash. This is called “warehouse funding.” Prior loan — NOT paid off by borrower — as is should be – but, rather, collection rights acquired by subprime “investor” — who now has the collection rights to the GSE loan — but, fraudulently. All occurs simultaneously– purchase of the collection rights from GSE, false refinance of the “collection rights” presented as a new mortgage, and false mortgage title. Title company may not have even been aware — nevertheless, they are responsible.
    it is NOT the loans sold to Fannie/Freddie that are in question — it is the loans falsely DUMPED from Fannie/Freddie that are in question — that is – the subprime refinancing. How else do think the GSEs lost so much market share during the past decade????”

  79. Does anyone here have any idea how to get to the NY AG or the Delaware AG? The “tangible support” needs to be given to them…because it’s real…but needs to get in the hands of the AG’s that are doing the investigations…

  80. Carie:.

    Nope, I don’t see the proof – and I have read what Anonymous wrote – where are the specifics that support your claims. Has any of the claims held up in court and if so, what cases were used to show what the devils were up to. We are on your side – but some it does not hunt because we are missing a few pieces that you and Anonymous evidently are not. I know all about missing checks, telling people to default and escrow adjustments, etc., A few of those in court right now that never should have gotten there.

    As far telling people not to make their payments, some of the servicers did just that, just like in the Countrywide deal when they were told not to make payments that they would be modifying their loans and the headquarters of Countrywide, said they did not know the servicers were doing that – they lost because the investor accounting reports clearly showed the status of those accounts and what was going on – so Countrywide settled.

    I hope you guys are not right, but I am afraid you may very well be, but there has to be some tangible support for what you say.

  81. The “proof” is there…

    Just keep reading what ANONYMOUS is saying until you “get it”…

  82. The trusts may be empty but not because there were no loans made, including with collateral. It’s what happened subsequently to those loans where the ‘details’ needed to attack foreclosure issues will be found, imo, and we’re all working on that. But, as to sub-prime refinances, without knowing more, seeing the original paperwork for starters, can’t know what is what, really.
    And you did not answer my questions and you dont’ have to, of course. But, Carie, no one in the world would like to see those guys get nailed more than me if they did what I think you are trying to say:
    either advised the borrower to default or created (somehow) a false default for their own gain. Even if done fair and square, those sub-prime loans shouldn’t have been done. They were sure-fire set to fail. These stinking loans and many other loans helped create a false wealth (or sense of it) accross the board, the collapse of which is now killing us. Wall Street created temporary demand that was set to disappear, and I’m not talking loans. Demand by all of us for everything – services, products, you name it. I’m getting so cynical, I sometimes wonder if war is just employment, and I mean no offense to our soldiers.

    Someone told me last week that when they banned smoking in Vegas, it caused a loss of 83,000 jobs (never mind your view on smoking!)
    This is one event in ONE town.
    When false wealth was manufactured globally, what did they think would happen when the props fell? We know they didn’t care as long as they had absconded with most of the money before that happened. And even if it were not done entirely willfully, it’s nonetheless deserving of all the adjectives we have laid on it. It certainly was driven by greed and a relentless need to be no. 1.

  83. How do you know the trusts are empty – what tangible proof do we have and why is the FTC and the SEC not following up on the status of the trust. What loans allegedly went in and those that were substituted or paid off.

    Sick.

  84. Ask yourself—WHY, WHY, WHY, are the “Trusts” EMPTY???

    NO REAL MORTGAGES…that’s why.

  85. Carie, the problem here the way I see it is you argue two distinct and separate issues as one and may be leaving out some rather salient issues or facts.
    ONE argument s the sub-prime loan refi. IF the underlying loan were put in default status prior to the new loan, the borrower propbably didn’t make the payments, and maybe because he was instructed by the new lender not to so the new lender could buy the now defaulted loan at a discount (okay – one could call this bought collection rights on the now defaulted loan). Don’t know, but if so, that would obviously be just bs and make my blood boil some more. IF the old loan were put in default status somehow when it wasn’t (got me how UNLESS the new guy already serviced that old loan) so the new guy could make himself a better deal – yes, that’s fraud and fraud is a good defense to the new loan. “Fraud vitiates everything it touches”.
    The loan was NOT in default if ANYone were making the payments (after closing on the new loan) and the payments were accepted and applied to the original loan: just exactly like insurance proceeds or master servicer payments on ‘regular’ loans in sec. pools. If a borrower is making his payments on the ‘new’ loan and the new lender is making the payment on the old loan, the loan is not in default. Now, if you mean to say the new lender is not making the payments on the old loan, that is something else and there is certainly validity to your argument. Is that what’s going on? That is where I said the borrower would be left saying, ‘but, but….’ The ‘but’ is the borrower was making the payment to the schlep who didn’t make the payment on the first loan.
    Would you tell me please if this is what you mean: is this what has happened? Or is the big issue for you that original loan was somehow put in a false default status? I can see why this would be done in a criminal enterprise to get the new lender a better deal on the original note, but if it were actually done, I would be more than horrified, and I would be almost as horrified and repulsed if the new lender advised the borrower to not make payments during the process period of the new loan so he coudl get a better deal on the original loan. But, this part of your argument has little if anything to do with securitization per se and that has caused some miscommunication.
    It’s handy (or not depending on how you want to look at this) that I know something about loan originations or I wouldn’t have a clue what you are trying to say. And if you have tried to seek legal representation for such a scenario, it’s likely an attorney other than one who represents, say, a title co. or lender wouldn’t get your argument, either. And if you are trying to say one of these things. I appreciate your frustration, especially if it happend to you.

  86. @JG—you say: “…incoherent wildly speculative ramblings…”

    read it again…

    “First, ‘certificate purchasers’ are the banks themselves (security underwriters) and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor (the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived –it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary) that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans) and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.
    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK. ”

  87. JG

    You are correct in that it did trigger the due on sale clause and that is one of the reasons (only one) that deterred this type of financing.

  88. All-inclusive trust deeds are not viable most of the time these days for buyers and sellers. They may or even probably trigger the due on sale clause.

  89. Me a shill? Now that’s rich. I’m not a shill because I can’t concede arguments made as incoherent wildly speculative ramblings, and from the looks of it, misunderstandings. First of all, the proferred definition of warehouse funding is errant. (Loans have been funded off warehouse lines of credit for many years and there’s nothing untoward about it.)
    Wraps and all-inclusive deeds of trust have been going on a long time.
    Home sellers and buyers have used and probably still use them when the seller ‘carries paper’ for buyers. Homeowner has loan of 100k on his home. Sells house for 150k. He carries the paper at 150k and makes the payment on his underlying loan out of the buyer’s payments to him on the 150k. Difference here, of course, is it’s the seller’s underlying loan and so there’s no hassle with “collection rights” with the buyer.
    In the case of some sub-prime refi’s, the new lender took on paying the borrower’s original loan and the money is included in the borrower’s new payment to the new lender. I guess you could call this “collection rights”
    on the original loan. AS LONG AS there were disclosure to the borrower and the borrower received an indemnification which held water from the new lender that it was responsible for and would pay the original lender, generally no harm, no foul. The risk to the borrower is that the indemnification might not hold water and those payments might not be made. Wouldn’t surprise me to hear they weren’t, and if the i’s weren’t dotted and the t’s weren’t crossed, this could spell trouble for the borrower who would be left to say, ‘ but, but….’
    No, I wouldn’t be surprised if the i’s weren’t dotted and the t’s weren’t crossed. Nothing in the madness was done properly, if there in fact existed a ‘properly’.
    I’d hazard a guess some of these wraps were done on loans the second lender originated or already serviced. I don’t know what else if anything got hinky by the fact that the original loan, now wrapped into the new one, was securitized. You’d just have to look at all the closing docs to see what was messed. I’m hazarding another guess a most obvious error would be found in the a.p.r., which while bs that the borrower would hve to go thru so much to seek remedy, it is available. Fyi, the bigger the spread between the note rate and the a.p.r., the more one is paying for the money.
    The ‘new; lenders did these deals, the wraps, for obvious reasons – major return on limited investment. The underlying loan was probably at 6% ish and they were making the new note rate (something heinous) on those funds they didn’t have to advance.

  90. Thanks Anonymous – I give up

    Investor accounting knowledge and remittance is critical. I did do a little work on the Countrywide class action suit by the way – a terrible outcome for the borrowers.

    My last post -

  91. ONE more post to —seniorauthor

    Read the new post here regarding misappropriation of mortgage payments and escrow —– Countrywide.

    You simply are not getting it — loans falsely placed in default are loans that are unsecured with only (fraudulent) collection rights surviving. But, fraudulent “mortgage refinances” were done on these collection rights — anyway. There is no “cash” payoff on the prior (fraudulent) collection rights — the “check” is “routed” for “credit” of the originator credit line — there are no cash proceeds – no deposits of cash. This is called “warehouse funding.” Prior loan — NOT paid off by borrower — as is should be – but, rather, collection rights acquired by subprime “investor” — who now has the collection rights to the GSE loan — but, fraudulently. All occurs simultaneously– purchase of the collection rights from GSE, false refinance of the “collection rights” presented as a new mortgage, and false mortgage title. Title company may not have even been aware — nevertheless, they are responsible.

    it is NOT the loans sold to Fannie/Freddie that are in question — it is the loans falsely DUMPED from Fannie/Freddie that are in question — that is – the subprime refinancing. How else do think the GSEs lost so much market share during the past decade????

    .

  92. Carie: You really don’t believe that those mortgages were not made at all. If the loan is charged off, of course it may be sold to a debt buyer, that is the way the system works, basically on credit cards, mortgages, etc.

    But to say that those loans were made and not real tangible paperwork by which represented a loan signed off by a buyer and then to say that servicing rights (collection) only at this point were put in place to collect money on a loan that was never made is just ridiculous. If that is true, please do what you can to show us that all of those notes and liens were not signed off at a title company, sold to fannie and freddie and other investors for collateralizing within 24 hours of funding, and that the title companies were in on a scam to close a fraudulent loan that was not a real loan and that they did not receive any funds in the title company ledgers, falsified all of the settlement statements, and so on. I just do not understand how you think these loans were closed, but not loans and that the title companies never received any funds but the lenders were able to sell the servicing rights on loans that weren’t real. Please think about it and let me know the answers to this question.

    I do know that the title companies should have done more with respect to guaranteeing title on trustee’s sales when they knew in fact they did not have the proper assignments of record, or power of attorneys until after the sale took place and then they had to work with the foreclosure mills and servicers to track them down and then to record them all in order. They realize of course now that it was a crucial and probably costly error on the part of the title company. This was a flag many years ago, that the proper paperwork was not of record when it should have been and also that it did not always cure the gap in ownership claim of the deed of trust. Nothing new here.

    The biggest case we had was one in the late 1987′s when the mortgage bankers funded a loan and then sold the same loan to three different investors. They retained the servicing and made the payments on the first sale by collecting them from the borrower. To keep it going, they made the monthly payments to the 2n and 3rd investor by using the proceeds from the sale of the actual notes. Those buyers of notes did not handle the paperwork properly but were satisfied by a title policy (fraud by the titile company) that the assignments were in order.

    These cases today work differently. I just wish I knew how these statements that people are making can be proved up. I am sure everyone up there knows what is going on, but no one shows up and no charges have been filed as far as I know. So if you are correct, this is really scary and it will take years just like it did in 1984 when hundreds of loans were sold to more than one investor.

    Yes, we know there is a difference in the investors and Anonymous explained it beautifully in one of his postings so everyone would undertand what was going on. Someone needs to dig up his definition of investors and post it again.

  93. Johngault- the documents sent to me were settlement sheets, which at the bottom, showed proceeds to borrower, or total disbursement to borrower, or similar. Would be interested in any further info. Thank.

  94. @John Gault and All,

    Seek the information from the respective “TITLE COMPANY”. It is Key to transfer……John, you’re either a “shill” for the banks, or cannot wrap your “brain” behind what is going on!

  95. Do you have any idea how many phone calls were placed to the title companies by borrowers who had thought their liens had not been released or notes paid off. It was a simple matter of looking in the file to see that the title company, while holding the executed release or cancelled note, had not sent it on for recording. It happened all the time when the borrower went to sell or refinance his loan. And almost always was immediately cleaned up by placing the call to the title cmpany that closed the loan.

    If the refinanced notes were not paid off, please give me some idea of where the money went. If an inhouse lender refinanced the loan because they already had it, there would ot be any money sent to the title cmpany, right? If it were a refinance of a loan that the lender did not previously own, then they would send the check to the title company and the release would be included with the papers. The title compay would only file it once the loan closed and the new loan set up on the books.

    As for escrow items, here again, the servicers since 2000 have been real jerks, but in the end, they are forced to straighten the mess out. We realize that their actions did cause and create no less than 15% of the foreclosures because their intentional negligent loan servicing technique made it possible to force the loan into default. While they may have straightened out the escrow issues, the borrower was already in trouble and this is where they refused to work with the borrower on a short term modification to clean up the mess they created. The loan servicers forced the issue as you know for all of the additional fees late charges inspections, ins., etc. Been going on for years since 2000. I have hundreds of cases where we worked through all of these issues without the loans going to foreclosure.

  96. “Wired funds” — NO. Wired what looked like funds — but were just an extension of credit to the correspondent “originator” — no actual cash proceeds are deposited.

    “Old debt” — No — an old mortgage that was NEVER paid off by the refinance. False default — false refinance — false collection rights – false mortgage title. How many more FALSES will it take until you understand????.
    And, so easy to have placed borrowers in false default. Escrow?? Insurance?? Misappropriation of payments??? You name it.
    Cashed checks??? Well — let us take us take a close look at those checks!!!!– -And, what really happened with those checks. It will knock your shoes off.”

  97. This has really been very confusing for me since I read all of these posts. I always thought it was the Depositor who rounded up the money from the sale of securities months before the origination process even started. This money from the sale of the securities was to be used by table funders months before the loans were even originated. It makes perfect sense to me. What has changed.? In some cases, the holding companies provided the money. All of this preparation was to have taken place, including the design of the loan programs, etc.

    Now I am confused. Carie, have you been in the business or are you an attorney. Most attorneys are not up to speed on what is going on so I was just wondering.if this is your specialty.

  98. Hey John:

    In my post, talking about the refinance, yes, the first lien is released, but the verbiage that the new loan being made is a renewal and extention of the first loan. Yes, it is released in the public records so only one lien is active. When the refinance is done, we so not cancel the note or mark it paid, but we do release the lien. The money from the refinance was sent to the title company who in turn paid off the first lien and secured the release.

    The release of lien for the first loan was sent to the homeowner after it was recorded.

  99. I read today that “PMI’, a mortgage insurance company which has been around since mud may have to close its doors. Because of payouts on claims, they are undercapitalized.

  100. Read it AGAIN:

    “…get head out of the securitization process. As documented — we know the process was —- hmmm— fraudulent.
    Securitiztion can be for any cash flows — but the security investors are NEVER the creditor. In the case of subprime/alt-a/jumbo securitization — there were no mortgage liens — the cash flow pass-through was only for pass-through of cash payments to collection rights. No mortgage lien – not mortgage — no pass-through of collection rights itself. Transfer of servicing rights only.
    The “investors” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period. The security investors were duped to believing that the cash pass-through was to valid mortgage liens. But, these security investors never were the lender, never were the creditor, and never were the mortgagee — because there was never any valid mortgages!!!!! And, security investors are NEVER the creditor.
    CDOs??? nothing more than derivatives from the false assets that the false securitizations were based upon to begin with!!!
    In your mind — Quote — “In my scenario, there is a loan.” Even if that is possible — it is NOT a mortgage. — no lien. And, when presented to borrower as a mortgage — when it was not a mortgage — which is was not — then the “loan” is false. But, more important, the so-called loan is unsecured!!! Thus, even if the “loan” was somehow valid — which it was not — it can — and should be —discharged in BK.
    You are still on the kick that these fraudulent loans were somehow valid MBS security investors know they were not. How can the borrowers be held accountable to fraudulent loans?
    Time to go after the the perpetrators — the “investors” — the debt buyers who purchased collection rights — falsely procured as “mortgage” refinances. And, they try to portray these collection rights as valid mortgages!!! Can never be. Mortgage title??? Long gone.
    Big difference between security investors and “investors.” But, no one wants to address this. This is the crux of the problem. And, as far as I am concerned — these “investors” will never come forward — would show criminality if they did. Why criminal??? Insurance fraud.- always criminal.
    So — just have to keep plugging away to show that the so-called “Trusts” were bogus — and transfer of any “mortgage/loan” — was bogus.

    Follow the path of the refinance proceeds. There are none!!!!!!”

  101. @Ian – screwiest deal I ever heard. I dont know, but know someone I can run it by. Maybe he’ll have an idea. What document which you looked at showed the ‘proceeds to borrower’? That’s not on a note or dot.

  102. Hi Carie:

    I not only have thought about it, I am waiting for some real proof that what is being said on this blog is correct and accurate information. Attorneys vary on their opinon about what happens to the note and mortgage if it is charged off. We just addressed this issue with a servicer who had charged off the 2nd note and lien, but we were also told that the Note and the Lien can still be enforced whether it is sold to a new investor or the creditor foreclosing retains it even after it is charged off. So this appears to be up in the air and I do wish we had some real support in the way of case law, etc.. to back up your information that they cannot do anything but transfer collection rights. What makes up the collection rights? In otherwords, they have the right to do what once the collection rights have been sold?

    In this case, the bank ended up releasing the 2nd based on our invoking the four year statute. Hopefully, the first lien holder will do the same. We will see.

    I believe the sale of servicing rights are developed once the loan (false?) was originated and funded, (if that is what you want to call it) whatever. By originating the loan, they have positioned themselves to collect millions from the sale of servicing rights on these pools and all they did was originate the loan product, which of course they claim they sold the note to a depositor (via the MLPA) who authorized that the Note and Lien and all items related thereto be turned over to the Trustee..The Note included the endorsement over to the Trustee, but no endorsement was ever made to the Depositor (Purchaser). This is old hat I know, but just wanted to give some background. We understand there are those that believe the loans never made it into the trust. We have verified one case where it clearly showed that the MI (Radian) which was purchased by the original lender (Argent) was showing Citi Mortgage as the insured (who would be the owner of the note) and all the while another lender was claiming they were the owner of the note. So checking the insured’s name on MI policies gives a little extra support for verification purposes. All of this over a loan that was not a loan at all – follow the money. That policy was in existence and no claim has been filed. When it is filed, if ever, they will pay it to the Servicer on behalf of the Insured, or will they? Does the claim amount paid by the MI go to the borrower’s account or to the corporate general ledger? Most surely the cost for that MI premium must have been factored into the interest rate, just like the old Countrywide deals – no difference and you cannot cancel it unless a complete modification is done because borrower paid MI is always escrowed as a separate item and simply dropped when the borrower reaches the required 80% LTV, which is not going to happen for a while with this economy. Anyone have any thoughts about where I am off on my theory here?

    In the case of Argent, they originated the loan, Ameriquest supposedly table funded the loan and then Ameriquest sold the servicing rights to AMC who in turn sold it to Homeq who in turn, then became the Master Servicer. I can only presume that AMC got paid by HOMEQ before they became Master servicer. This is the way it looks to me, but who knows, perhaps Anonymous can verify what has happened.

  103. @John A – tried to do some research on just that very thing today. Didn’tget too far, tho. Something about the current holder (A) of the debt can’t negotiate with the borrower. Company B buys the note knowing it’s in default.(changes A’s liabillity to asset ish) B pays 50 cents on the dollar. B may negotiate with the borrower. B paid 100k for the note. He modifies the note (really) for the borrower – modifies note to 130k (old note was 200k) for a new 30 year term.
    Everyone’s happy.
    These are accounting and other principles for these companies and none of us seem to know that stuff. I dont’. It’s on my list. Right.

  104. @joyce – I have been out of things for quite awhile now, so I called a friend of mine who’s still in the thick of things. He says lenders did in fact do ‘wraps” or all-inclusive deeds of trust on some sub-prime cashout refi’s (or even refi’s). Says the borrowers were informed and agreed somewhere in very, very small print. The ‘new lender’ basically assumed the loan from the original financing. The second lender either indemnified the first or there was another route, too cumbersome to recite. None of this leads to ONLY “collection rights”, however. That can only be in regard to the second lender’s new collection rights for the payment on the original loan, which is now part of the payment to the second lender (the second lender remits the payment on the original to the first guys). He says this started years ago when loans were freely assumable (like FHA loans).
    If you got one of those loans, take your paperwork to a knowledgeable lender and have them see what if anything you agreed to? (I still have some questions about this practice, but couldn’t try to determine anything else without the paperwork.) It’s my understanding these all-inclusive deals have been outlawed.

  105. Once the Note/loan — is charged off — no more mortgage — only collection rights survive.”

    same shit with credit cards.

    Thus I will not communicate with my servicer as they are debt collectors, they own nothing.. My gamble, my choice, but evolving as I learn.

  106. Well, I oppose, thus I keep posting. And If I repeat myself, that is on purpose.

  107. John A.—-maybe the “investors” are “collection rights investors”…it’s all a bunch of debt collectors…covering their tracks…that’s why it started OUT as false default, as per ANONYMOUS’ explanations…

    Joyce—really think about it…

    “…do not need to know the “processes” — subprime/alt-a/jumbo refinances (as nearly 100% were refinances) — were and are nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category….depends on how you define “mortgage” — as I know it — subprime/alt-a/jumbo — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights (albeit — with escalated balance owed and egregious terms). Once the Note/loan — is charged off — no more mortgage — only collection rights survive.”

  108. ANONYMOUS:

    Today, the members of the White Rose are honored in Germany amongst its greatest heroes, since they opposed the Third Reich in the face of death.

  109. Thanks ANONYMOUS,

    Yes, it takes repeating. Be a commercial and it sinks in for the right reasons to the right people that show up here.

    Hey per E. Tolle, the White Rose didn’t sink in till it was too late.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

  110. Has anyone heard of investors changing on a mortgage during foreclosure? Not servicers, Investors who claim ownership?

    While trying to get a MERS milestone report, I contacted MERS and requested one. They referred me to my listed servicer SN Servicing, who is still listed on website, and they confirmed that Gregory Funding was the new servicer, and that the Investor had changed from Citi Property Holdings, but not to whom.now the new Servicer, Gregory Funding, who has offered to accept 73K any wave all penalties, on my 3 year old suit of 110k.
    Since I was sued for 110K,it looked like a good sign, as they would not normally bargain with someone going pro se. So I had wanted the “milestone” to show that after the suit was filed, ownership passed from City Global Markets Realty Inc, to Citi Property Holdings Inc, as Investor, as the servicer changed to SN Servicing Inc.
    They Gregory” that they are not associated with Mers, and
    claim that ownership changed hands again to A S Lilly, and that a new assignment of mortgage is being filed.
    Is this screwy or what?

  111. I do believe some of you are getting apples and oranges to come up with these comments.

    A straight refinance of the loan simply means that the old note and lien are being paid in full but handled as a renewal and extension of the old note and lien. Okay. This verbiage is found in the bottom of the new Deed of Trust once the new loan is closed.

    If the same lender had the loan that refinanced it, then it is simply a matter of non cashing the old note payment in full on the general ledger, and then setting up a new loan on a new general ledger number.

    If a different lender is involved, in otherwords, the old loan by A and the new refinanced loan by B, then that same verbiage goes in the Deed of Trust, but cash money is paid to the lender A and they do received funds to pay the prior note in full. The title company also recites the refinance of the prior note and lien.

    If cash is involved, and depending on which scenario you have 1) or 2), then the amount is given to the borrower by check or wire to his account.

    What is all of this about default. If 1 or 2 is exercised, then the lender of that note, may retain whichever servicer they want (stop calling it collection rights) In otherwords in 1 above, the same servicer would probably retain the servicing of the loan whereas in 2 above, since a different lender refinanced, he would assign a new servicer. What is so difficult is most people just do not understand about mortgage lending programs and basically they are simple. What a shame, the scams got started and fouled up things for everyone.

    Why is all of this information necessary to a borrower who is supposedly trying to determine what. I do not understand why default is an issue here or how it comes into play or why anyone would set themup to default because certainly those loans are not a good product for refinance.

    This has been made far too complicated and I wish someone would please explain to me why default enters this picture. WE all know that the delay was a ploy to cause default among other things, but still I think everyone is off base here.

    I apologize if I am wrong – but I have handled at least 15 years of refinanes of all kinds and never has this kind of scenario been produced. I guess because the thugs have done something that is warping a once good system.

  112. John gault- i was wondering if everyone who is commenting here has pulled their courthouse instrument summary list. It wasn’t until I pulled my records that I realized the following; I applied for a refinance in mid-November 2000, and it dragged on an on, closing in May of 2001. Had to submit fronts and backs of checks for various things,showing that all was paid. Submit current P&L for business,etc., and on and on. I didn’t know that in December 2000, the servicer/originator I was trying to “get away from” at the time, had taken out a mortgage in the names of my wife & I, using our SS#s, and our home as collateral. Got an atty. to request docs from TBTF bank, they sent copies of 2 (that’s two) mortgages taken out on 12/21/2000, and both were marked “paid in full”. The total amounts on each were exactly the same, but the “proceeds to borrower” were different, with different line items either higher or lower. This “mortgage” which we didn’t take out or receive, “paid off” our existing purchase mortgage. Five months later, in May 2001, the “mortgage” which we did take out paid off the bogus one. Only one of the two bogus mortgages was filed in the courthouse. Sounds like double-funding- originator books bogus loan, sells to TBTF bank, which in turn sells to GSE. Any thoughts on this? What was the bogus loan? What was the “satisfaction of mortgage”

  113. Said I would not post anymore — but, folks — this country is in a very bad situation. Have to stand up for your rights — stop electing tea-party candidates who are trying to protect baby-boomer retirement investments — at the expense of the entire country. Stop electing Republicans who only care about the banks. And, stop electing Democrats who are totally incompetent. It is our fault — we elected these people

    dave — you are absolutely correct — the title companies have HUGE liability in this fiasco.

    dny, — MERS is just about finished.

    Put a fork in it, — THERE ARE NO MORTGAGES — all is simply fraudulent conveyance of servicing rights to false default debt!!!! No one should be held accountable to a fraudulent “loan.” There are NO “true lenders” — no money actually passed in any refinance — No payoff of prior loan. We are talking about refinances — not buying property (that has it’s own issues — especially if jumbo loan). REFINANCES. NOT.

    cubed2k – “move your money” — YOU BETCHA — Dow down 512 today — and, it is not over — even if recovers in next couple of days — IT IS NOT OVER. That is — move your money if you anything left after the culprits siphoned every dime out of middle-America.

    Carie and dave —- class action yes — but, what attorneys are competent??? Know a few — need a pocketbook — need more. And, need to testify before Congress.

    johngault,

    Forget producing the note — these “NOTES” are not attached to a mortgage — thus, not secured. Courts are starting to get it, when will you?? There is no one “party owning” and another “exclusive rights to payment.” THERE IS NO VALID MORTGAGE — thus, NO VALID NOTE.

    Look — John — know you are trying to make money on this disaster — as are some others here. Give it up — you just cannot make money on fraud — it does not work. And, the way things are currently going in this country — the government will have no choice but to eventually address the fraud. Do not get caught up in it — the battle has only just begun. Find another avenue for income.

    “Old debt” — No — an old mortgage that was NEVER paid off by the refinance. False default — false refinance — false collection rights – false mortgage title. How many more FALSES will it take until you understand????.

    And, so easy to have placed borrowers in false default. Escrow?? Insurance?? Misappropriation of payments??? You name it.
    Cashed checks??? Well — let us take us take a close look at those checks!!!!– -And, what really happened with those checks. It will knock your shoes off.

    As long as we have some here that are trying to benefit by the fraud — we will NEVER expose what really went on.

  114. @carie – no, I was specifically talking about the origination of the new
    “loan” and how this would be done.

    you said:

    “…the collection rights were established by putting the mortgage loan in default — before the refinance —- before the new servicer even became involved.”
    Beats me how someone could artificially create a default. The borrowers checks were cashed, right?

  115. “…the collection rights were established by putting the mortgage loan in default — before the refinance —- before the new servicer even became involved.
    You are missing the boat. Not about when borrower actually defaults — which they should — because the loan was false to begin with — it is about false default before the loan is even refinanced. In default — before actual default.
    And, under this scenario — no one should have been paying the “loan” (unsecured) from the onset!!!!!!!!
    Borrower default — justified. Mortgage was not a mortgage — nothing but a fraudulent loan under the guise of a mortgage — from the beginning.
    You are talking about the process of foreclosure — go back — go back — to refinance origination. False as it gets.”

  116. IF in the sub-prime deal being discussed here, the new ‘lender’ charged the borrower fees on the 150k instead of its actual loan (primarily the cash out), I think that rises to fraud, if nothing else does. But I think for that to be true, the dollar amt charged would have had to be expressed as a percentage, also. If the borrower were charged for a lender’s title policy on the 150k, say, I think that’s wrong, too. That gets weird (everything does) because the title company may have written the policy for 150k. The title company would know if the old note were being paid off or not because it’s generally the title co. who makes the pay off.

  117. @carie – I can’t find your argument that nothing was ever generated but collections rights. You must mean collection rights to the old debt. There have to be collection rights to something. In the case of the sub-prime shananigans, collection rights changed on the underlying debt, the original note, I guess, but only if that were agreed to because….if not agreed to, there is no collection RIGHT. I think.
    ABC ‘loans’ John 150k. John owes 100k on an existing note. ABC makes the payments on the existing 100k, with John paying ABC on the 150k. ABC makes the higher rate on the 50k (150 -100) plus the spread between John’s old note rate and what ABC socked it to John for. This makes ABC only out of pocket whatever costs it absorbs on the new ‘loan’ (minimal) and the cash out to John. As I said, the a.p.r. would be sky-high.

    The other thing I can’t reconcile is that the old deed of trust or mortgage cannot remain on the property along with the new one executed at closing.
    Now, if ABC made a deal with the lender on that old dot or mtg, then they may have contractually agreed to the release of the unpaid original dot or mtg, with ABC indemnifying or something – the lender on the original dot or mtg. Lot of work! A reason to do that work is the significant limitation on ABC’s out of pocket, its investment in the deal compared to the payoff, which is huge.

  118. If not destroyed itself, then destroyed as a negotiable instrument. So then what would that mean?

  119. We’re not done here! come back! We need to find resolution.
    If a party produces a note (subject to the thinking on this posted here) and says ‘see here I’m the holder of a bearer note’, has there not been collusion among these people, since there really cannot be a holder? Well, there was no holder by the notes ‘bifurcation’, but now there is? It may just be that the note is destroyed – period – by what was done to it. Don’t we want to get
    a bottom line here?
    The question is, I think and if certain things discussed are true: is a note still a negotiable instrument when one party owns it but another has the exclusive rights to payment?

  120. Yes…MASSIVE, MASSIVE FRAUD…being covered up…

  121. Keep reading until we understand…

    …”And, there can be no “bifurcation” on a mortgage that did not exist in the first place.
    “Wired funds” — NO. Wired what looked like funds — but were just an extension of credit to the correspondent “originator” — no actual cash proceeds are deposited.
    Discharge on prior mortgage?? False, and that was my purpose to come back here and post again. We have a situation that is more than what Neil states as relating to only foreclosed properties —if property “was EVER foreclosed in PRIOR transactions, the title is probably defective.” We have fatally flawed title on homes that were not even before in foreclosure.
    ertificate purchasers’ are the banks themselves (security underwriters) and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor (the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived –it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary) that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans) and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.”…”

  122. @cubed2 – it’s demoralizing that name calling in court needs to be what it is. It’s true – many times the banksters call the homeowner a deadbeat looking to get a free home. That does need to be countered, imo. I’ve seen a couple good ones – will ref if I come accross them again. One also needs to dispell from the git go the idea the homeowner is trying to get a free home (even if that may be a consequence).

  123. Some of you will be happy to hear B of A’s stock is being dropped today like hotcakes. The rest of the market is going with it, tho.

  124. @seniorauthor and everyone – I am so confused – I’m not talking bifurcation of the note and dot. I am talking a form of bifurcation of the NOTE itself. When a note is endorsed in blank, the “final” endorsement, for whom would you say this is? The trustee holds it in trust, but neither he nor the investors actually own it? So who the hey does? The depositor with no rights to payments? In practice, that last blank endorsement is being used to allege it is the trustee of the sec trust who has the right of enforcement for the trust, not the depositor…..or in other cases, the guy who can show possession. Now that gets complicated if there were really NO holder because one party owned the note with no right to payment and the party with that right did not own the note. Can someone yet get physical possession of a bearer note and claim it is the holder under these circumstances? As far as I know, one in possession of a bearer note is generally entitled to enforce it, but that doesn’t come with a finding the bearer owns it, fwiw.
    In the case of a dot at least in title-theory states, which is my main frame of reference, the trustee holds the legal title for the benefit of the beneficiary as security for a loan. He is only authorized to act at the behest of the beneficiary and will never benefit himself by holding that title – he does not act for himself. If it is similar as to a note and a sec. trustee, the trustee does not own the note. He holds it for party X in trust. That X can’t be the investors in a sec. trust if trust law says they can’t own notes. So, I give, for whom does the sec. trust trustee (allegedly) have physical possession of the note? Are we back to A – a party, the depositor, who has no right to payment on the note because he sold that? If that is so, there is in fact no holder because a holder must have rights to payment. Some illuminati needs to reconcile this with the UCC, or concede it can’t be done? What about a non-holder in possession with the rights of a holder? No, there are no rights of a holder because no one party is the owner entitled to enforce, which requires a right to payments……?

  125. @seniorauthor – it’s worse than that, because if the original dot were not paid off, but a new dot was written and recorded, the property is encumbered with both. If the original note were not retired and returned, there are two notes for most of the same funds. I can’t and don’t believe this. The old dot and note had to be retired, had to, -or- the new guys bought them and ripped them up, and showed the original dot released. That’s not quite as nefarious, but still bs if the borrower were not aware. The first scenario is just too much to believe, and especially because the original dot, a public record, must be released.

  126. @carie – I get it (now) what you are saying about sub-prime /hard money
    refinances. I am still so incredulous, don’t know if I can believe it. Where did you get this info? I have never seen any sub-prime paperwork to see if they sneaked this in anywhere, that is, if the borrower somehow agreed to this. I would think at a glance the a.p.r. would be off the charts. If the a.p.r. were formulated the way I think it should have been, that would be the tell, unless that was bogus, too. Still having a hard time believing this, especially if it weren’t sneaked in somewhere so the borrower unwittingly agreed.

  127. How about 999 gazillion? It’s all made up numbers anyway—isn’t it???

  128. i don’t think they will want to go down protecting the banks , if we sue for like say 999 billion or more?

  129. another possible thing would be to get a class action lawsuite against the ag’s for doing a settlement when the banks have already said they own nothing n all the titles are defective ? do you think that would get anybodys attention?
    what do you think the ag’s would do then?

  130. move your money, good video to watch:

    http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/

  131. I think some regular posters here will like this line:

    our legal system is laden with such hypocrisy at times that it allows for the very same behavior to be defined as legal if a financial elite is engaging in the behavior but illegal if a “regular Joe” is engaging in it.

    http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2011/05/the-death-of-capitalism-redux/#more-2043

    And Neil said the American People are more moral than the people running the show. So, if you find yourself in court, and if you ask me, you’d better also somehow attack your opponent (lawyer) in his morally bankrupt ideals.

  132. I love Dave’s idea. Need to look at the terms and conditions of an actual title insurance policy. Now, wouldn’t that be something else?

  133. It is the perfect con game.

    http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2009/05/gold-and-economic-freedom-reinterpreted-for-the-21st-century/

    NOT the speculative whims of a few powerful banking families that wish to drive up prices of unsustainable assets such as subprime mortgages, derivatives, dangerously overvalued stock markets, and rigged commodity markets for their own benefit. Inevitably, under our current fraudulent monetary system, such actions occur and lead to what the media erroneously terms as “bubbles” and which financial “experts” misinterpret as natural economic cycles.

  134. I think if you want to further understand the housing/mbs/abs market and wall street in general and banks (since repeal of glass-stegel), then read this:

    http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2011/08/why-gold-and-silver-prices-will-more-than-double-again-even-from-current-prices/#more-2124

    And instead of gold and silver, just plug in REMICs, stocks, oil, sugar, pork bellies, etc. All paper trading.

  135. How does the author of the main article above get from “a mortgage recorded in the public records with MERS as nominee for XYZ Corp” (paragraph 13) to

    “Even if Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, or the securitized trust has standing (a huge if, but that’s a whole other blog), without an Assignment of Mortgage in the public record, XYZ Corp. is still the mortgage holder of record.” (paragraph 15)?????

    If MERS… was named the “mortgagee” (in whatever “capacity”), how can XYZ Corp. assert that same status? Looks to me like the author is buying the crap that MERS and the MBA is selling… It reveals an assumption that MERS has had NO effect on title…

  136. so can’t the home owner make a claim to the title insurance company claiming that the title is defective and receive a payout for the defective title even though they are still living there? isn’t that what title insurance is for? if that happens what will the banks do then ? if the home owner is successful then the banks have nothing to stand on
    maybe we have to fight the banks through the backdoor as to say

  137. Exactly BSE, no matter how you slice it, catagorize it, or file it, it’s all just corruption, criminality, and fraud, and it’s all protected with the full faith and backing of the government of the United States of America, for which we stand.

  138. Nothing but control fraud. Unleash Bill Black

  139. seniorauthor

    I am referring to subprime refinances — that were presented to borrowers as a new “mortgage” — with all the fees, frills, and costs – and with guaranteed mortgage title. We all know about “table funding” — that is the real party funding is not at the “table.” But, these “mortgages” were not funded at all — never mind not by any “lender” not at the table. All that was funded was any cash-out. So, what we do have??? We have a “loan” that is not a mortgage because the prior “mortgage” was not paid off. We have a “modification” of the prior mortgage — but without disclosure — and in violation of the law. We have an unsecured loan to someone — who will likely never divulge the fraud to the borrower. We have a servicer who claims collection rights to a fabricated false mortgage. And, we have a “loan” that can be discharged in BK.

    Marie

    Directing this to the courts is difficult, because for so long fabricated documents have been presented to the courts. Although court acceptance of false documents is changing, courts are still reluctant to grant discovery. This is because the origination of the “mortgage” is not at issue in foreclosure actions.

    If the proceeds at “mortgage” refinance were to be traced for prior loan payoff, we will find no payoff. But, this is beyond the ability of borrowers to prove in court. Even if granted discovery, there will be no cooperation.

    It is up to the US government to intervene, to investigate, and to prosecute where necessary. This is a big reason as to why I am concerned about the 50 state AG settlement. That is, settlement negotiation, without investigation.

    johngault,

    The Amended TILA law, with Opinion by the Federal Reserve, now law, has already stated that the security investors are not the creditor. This is common sense — as security investors are ONLY entitled to current cash payment pass-through. We know this, and security investors do not go after the borrowers, they go after the security underwriters for fraud.

    And, there can be no “bifurcation” on a mortgage that did not exist in the first place.

    “Wired funds” — NO. Wired what looked like funds — but were just an extension of credit to the correspondent “originator” — no actual cash proceeds are deposited.

    Discharge on prior mortgage?? False, and that was my purpose to come back here and post again. We have a situation that is more than what Neil states as relating to only foreclosed properties —if property “was EVER foreclosed in PRIOR transactions, the title is probably defective.” We have fatally flawed title on homes that were not even before in foreclosure.

    Let the rest of you battle this out – ending it here, again, for now.

    How do I know this??? I know. As I like to say — you can “lose it, use it, or file it for future reference.”

  140. Okay, via the comments.
    Kind of confusing, here’s my take: The person/s who get the money
    to be loaned on mortgages is borrowing the money from the so called
    true lender. Which means the true promissory note is on that
    person and not on the person/s buying the property. Which means
    as long as the true borrower pays the note on time it will not go
    into default regardless what the mortgagee does in paying or not
    paying. That means who ever is in the middle is always on the
    line making the payments are made in a consistent manner.
    For example, person goes to a pawn shop and borrows money
    against an item, then turns around and sells the item to another
    person. As long as the pawn shop is paid back the item isn’t
    taken and resold to someone else.
    This is not a good deal for the person buying the property, as they
    will never know if the payments are going to the correct person
    until it’s too late.

  141. title insurers are in denial, at least publicly, that mers has created a total disaster of the land records. probably because they are liable for billions, and maybe trillions, in claims.

  142. All of this is so difficult….interesting but difficult

    As a practical matter in fighting or in my case setting aside a foreclosure, what does this mean?

    How does one convince a judge to consider oranges when he took the bench more or less prepared to consider apples

  143. @ carie – you’re saying the bankster made a pretend loan and only forked over any cash out. In the case of a refi, the old dot would need to be released, done away with. You’re saying the newly recorded dot as well as the new note do not describe the transaction, and worse that the new dot is supposed to tie in with the old note, which it doesn’t. WHY would such a dasterdly deed be done? Oh, my – it must be the note rate differential. Say it aint so.

  144. Holy crud! Does this mean it’s the NOTE which is actually ‘bifurcated’, (who ever heard of such a thing?) with one party owning it but with no right to payment and another party not owning it but with the exclusive right to payment? To me, that means the note is 1) either
    unstinkingenforceable or 2) it takes both the owner and guy with the right to payments to join to enforce, and is this legally kosher?
    And if this is a form of bifurcation by any other name, there is NO “holder” of the note.
    What in the hey does this make of the security instrument? Toast, is my thought. Not a definite, but a most likely if it depends on there being a ‘holder’ of the note. Now let’s look at the servicer. The svcr has the right, I guess if the psa says so, to collect the payments WHEN MADE (for the investor). The servicer only has the right to collect payments made, but not to enforce the note or go after the collateral, at least if there’s no “holder” of the note. That must be it because the note is either 1 or 2 above?
    This does not consider real party in interest isms,either.
    Jumpin’ Junniper! What if this is the truth?

    @gary h – why do you suppose I think the psa’s call for ‘true sales’ if the trust is prohibitted from owning the note? What is the true sale, or did I dream that up?

  145. @Gary H – That refers to the trustee named in the dot, not the securitization trustee. Here’s the ‘proof’. In a title-theory state, the dot trustee actually holds legal title to the property in trust. The dot is a conveyance of “bare naked” or legal title to the dot trustee, not a lien. The dot is saying that the lender may substitute the dot trustee “without conveyance of title”. It means that an assignment of the DEED of trust to the new trustee is not necessary to substitute the trustee. It is saying the new trustee will have the same rights and responsibilities as the original dot trustee, but it won’t take an assignment, which when it comes to a dot in a title-theory state is a conveyance of title, to the new dot trustee. The borrower agrees to this, generally with no idea in the world what it means. It’s actually, imo, detrimental to the borrower, at least these days. If not for this caveat or stipulation in the dot, it would require an assignment if not deed to vest legal title to the real estate in the new trustee and we’d have a better idea of who the real players are. Maybe. But, heck, they probably would be doing that in MERS name, also.
    In a lien-theory state using dot’s, probably pretty much the same – only the thing transferred without assignment is a lien. A lien in a lien- theory state finds the dot trustee holding equitable title in trust and the borrower retaining legal title. That’s about what I know about lien-theory state ‘stuff’.
    Don’t forget – man, I’m getting tired of this! -I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

  146. @anonymous – the only way there was never a mortgage or dot to start with is if in fact , oh geez oh man, the loan were securitized before it was actually made, and that must encompass some form of combination of your arguments and my thinking, below. (the note is unenforceable by its owner because the owner does not have the rights to the payments)
    I’m not sure that’s possible even by design. You can’t securitze a non-existant obligation unless your selling futures(?), or maybe that’s your point or part of it. Is this why you believe the trusts are empty – because it’s not possible to securitize a non-existant anything? What you would have to be saying is that the investor funded the loan, but it is not the owner of the note nonetheless (but then why isn’t it – because the investor paid for certificates or thought he was, anyway?), which is not how it has previously been described here. The argument, if you will, has been that the lender on the note was not the lender. That is only part of the story, and that story was missing a critical point: and I can’t even articulate it myself. It’s about who OWNS the note if the investor funded it – not just that the lender named did not fund the loan (and was not the lender).

    I just can’t get my head around this (securitized prior to loan’s existence, for starters). It’s too conflicting.

  147. @jg

    “Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.”

  148. @John Gault…..”why not just sell the notes to the trust”?

    John, the trust would lose it’s tax exempt status if this were to happen. The trust does not own the mortgage, it benefits from the passthrough payment stream only. The Depositor is the one “said” to have the note in the PSA. but in most DOT’s there is a sentence…..”lender at it’s option may appoint a successor trustee…..without conveyance of the property, the successor trustee shall suceed to all title, power and duties confered upon the trustee by applicable law”.

    There is a hugh problem with this because applicable law is violated as well as certain provisions of the PSA.

  149. @anonymous and carie – We all know a gazillion notes never made it to their intended destination for one reason or another. Still, I have never equated that with a trust being “empty”. Is what I said what you mean by the trusts are ‘empty’?

  150. @anonymous – you’re right – I am not on the same page and really don’t follow you – not saying you’re wrong: I just don’t get how that is so. You seem quite confident it is to the point I am wondering if I’m thick as a brick.
    When a refinance was done, someone sure as heck wired funds to the title company. The title co. paid off the existing lien(s). If it were cash out, the borower got his cash. The new deed of trust was recorded. Promissory notes are never recorded. While historically they have been sneaked in here and there for recordation, it’s improper because a pn has nothing to do with real property.
    In its course, the ‘old’ deed of trust was released. I can’t speak to sub-prime loans – just know they should never have existed and that the borrtower paid thru the nose for them.

    You said: “but the security investors are NEVER the creditor.

    jg: who was? who is?

    You said:

    “In the case of subprime/alt-a/jumbo securitization — there were no mortgage liens…..

    jg: yeah, there were, at least to start with. Jumbo loans didn’t go thru fanny or freddie, they went thru other (private) conduits specializing in
    non-conforming loans. The ‘conforming’ refers mainly to fnma and fhlmc loan limits and underwriting criteria. Many ‘non-conforming’ loans were nonetheless “A” paper, not bs loans.

    you said:

    “— the cash flow pass-through was only for pass-through of cash payments to collection rights. No mortgage lien – not mortgage — no pass-through of collection rights itself. Transfer of servicing rights only”

    jg: my real reaction: huh? The servicer has not only the right but the responsibility to collect the payments for the investors. I can get it that the investors had no right to collect payments; their right is limited to receiving the cash flow collected by the servicer on their behalf. (.This doesn’t give the servicer a right to the proceeds it collects.) Isn’t the servciers acting as the de facto if not literal agent, then, for the investors? Dang, what a mess. Incorporating some of your and Carie’s thinking, it sure as hey looks like one party owns the damn note, another has the exclusive right to the generated cash flow by way of the certificates, and yet another has the collection rights (and responsibilities).

    So far, I dont’ see a conflict or fatality in this. Well, I take that back. How can there even be a holder of a note if that ‘holder’
    does not have the right to the payments? I can’t disregard
    securitization because it exists to the extent things were done properly.
    But I dont’ know trust law. The only thing I have always from day one sensed in my gut is that the investors may not own the notes as well as the certificates. Not even sure they may co-exist. The certificates are demonstrative of a right to payment on a note.
    Alternatively, the notes may have been killed by their conversion to those certificates. But that is just too unbelieveable, so I can’t believe it.
    Nobody owns the notes or the party which does has no right to payment because the investor does. That makes bifurcation a moot argument because there’s no enforceable note to which a dot would apply. Nah! But that’ the only way I can reconcile your there’s “no mortgage” argument because there once was one (or a deed of trust)i

  151. HURRY, HURRY, HURRY. All “whistleblowers”, you “are encouraged” to place your bid for immunity quickly. This offer will NOT LAST long.

    John Chiavetta, 72, McKees Rocks, Pennsylvia, has been sentenced in federal court to twelve months and one day in prison on his conviction of wire fraud conspiracy.

    United States Circuit Judge Michael D. Fisher imposed the sentence on Chiavetta who was also ordered to pay approximately $274,000 in restitution and serve three years of supervised release.

    As previously reported by Mortgage Fraud Blog, and according to information presented to the court, Chiavetta participated in a mortgage fraud conspiracy in which he applied fraudulently for seven loans totaling approximately $850,000, all of which are in foreclosure. As part of the loan application process, Chiavetta and other members of the conspiracy submitted and signed fraudulent documents that overstated his income and assets, falsely represented that he intended to live in the properties serving as collateral for the loans, and falsely represented that he made significant down payments from his own funds to purchase properties when, in fact, he did not make any payments from his own funds to purchase the properties. In fact, he received kickbacks from other members of the conspiracy to purchase the properties.

    United States Attorney David J. Hickton announced the sentencing.

    Assistant United States Attorney Brendan T. Conway prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.

    U.S. Attorney Hickton commended the Mortgage Fraud Task Force for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Chiavetta. The Mortgage Fraud Task Force is comprised of investigators from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and others involved in the mortgage industry. Federal law enforcement agencies participating in the Mortgage Task Force include the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation; the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General; the United States Postal Inspection Service; and the United States Secret Service. Other Mortgage Fraud Task Force members include the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office; the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Consumer Protection; the Pennsylvania Department of Banking; the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation; and the United States Trustee’s Office.

    Mortgage industry members with knowledge of fraudulent activity are encouraged to call the Mortgage Fraud Task Force at (412) 894‑7550. Consumers ARE ENCOURAGED to report suspected mortgage fraud by calling the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Hotline at (800) 441‑2555.

    http://mortgagefraudblog.com/perp-walk/item/13918-man_sentenced_for_making_false_representations_to_obtain_loan

  152. Anonymous

    Assuming everything you say is correct and I certainly have no reason to doubt your understanding of this fraud, I have a couple simple minded questions.

    How does one redirect the court and the case at bar from foreclosure to collection rights or issues Seems like that would be like trying to
    resurrect the Titanic.

    More difficult how does one prove all this. The banks and servicers or whatever they are will refuse to provide any of the critical proof etc

    If I were a bankster I would say this is all irrelevant fairy tales or whatever

    I’m trying to understand how this defense would work abd I wonder if it is even possible to bring this up post foreclosure without getting flattened.

  153. I was not referring to refinanced loans – but even so, whether or not default was present, the principals of chain of ownership remain the same, the mortgage or deed of trust dictate the provisions to be followed regarding the borrower and the creditor. The trust come second as far as I am concerned.

    I would really like to understand why the default plays such an important part . If in a trust, we understand the payment is being passed through whether or not the borrower made the payment. I am concerned about the thought process that the loan may not be delinquent. Also, can you confirm whether or not the AG’s and the Feds are working toward settlements to give the banks a pass (because of their fraud) . All of this is quite confusing, particular if a buyer or owner who may have refianced did reap a benefit. Can you tell us about that? Quite frankly, we simply need to know who the true and legal owner of the note is. The IRS will probably make that decision because the certificate holders, if not legally in the trust, will be taxed. Do you know if anything has happened in this regard.

    You stated collection rights are the servicer’s rights. Am I understanding that correctly?

    You most surely must be worn out from all of this.

    Thank you.

  154. Anonymous

    If I may…
    How does one find out if the note was charged off
    It seems in court it’s always “lost”

  155. You guys have to take a fresh look. Get out of the mold.

  156. seniorauthor,

    NO NO NO — the collection rights were established by putting the mortgage loan in default — before the refinance —- before the new servicer even became involved.

    You are missing the boat. Not about when borrower actually defaults — which they should — because the loan was false to begin with — it is about false default before the loan is even refinanced. In default — before actual default.

    And, under this scenario — no one should have been paying the “loan” (unsecured) from the onset!!!!!!!!

    Borrower default — justified. Mortgage was not a mortgage — nothing but a fraudulent loan under the guise of a mortgage — from the beginning.

    You are talking about the process of foreclosure — go back — go back — to refinance origination. False as it gets.

  157. johngault,

    You need to get head out of the securitization process. As documented — we know the process was —- hmmm— fraudulent.

    Securitiztion can be for any cash flows — but the security investors are NEVER the creditor. In the case of subprime/alt-a/jumbo securitization — there were no mortgage liens — the cash flow pass-through was only for pass-through of cash payments to collection rights. No mortgage lien – not mortgage — no pass-through of collection rights itself. Transfer of servicing rights only.

    The “investors” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period. The security investors were duped to believing that the cash pass-through was to valid mortgage liens. But, these security investors never were the lender, never were the creditor, and never were the mortgagee — because there was never any valid mortgages!!!!! And, security investors are NEVER the creditor.

    CDOs??? nothing more than derivatives from the false assets that the false securitizations were based upon to begin with!!!

    In your mind — Quote — “In my scenario, there is a loan.” Even if that is possible — it is NOT a mortgage. — no lien. And, when presented to borrower as a mortgage — when it was not a mortgage — which is was not — then the “loan” is false. But, more important, the so-called loan is unsecured!!! Thus, even if the “loan” was somehow valid — which it was not — it can — and should be —discharged in BK.

    You are still on the kick that these fraudulent loans were somehow valid MBS security investors know they were not. How can the borrowers be held accountable to fraudulent loans?

    Time to go after the the perpetrators — the “investors” — the debt buyers who purchased collection rights — falsely procured as “mortgage” refinances. And, they try to portray these collection rights as valid mortgages!!! Can never be. Mortgage title??? Long gone.

    Big difference between security investors and “investors.” But, no one wants to address this. This is the crux of the problem. And, as far as I am concerned — these “investors” will never come forward — would show criminality if they did. Why criminal??? Insurance fraud.- always criminal.

    So — just have to keep plugging away to show that the so-called “Trusts” were bogus — and transfer of any “mortgage/loan” — was bogus. Follow the path of the refinance proceeds. There are none!!!!!!

    We are winning. Tide is turning.

  158. TODAY WAS A GOOD DAY
    TODAY WAS A GOOD DAY
    TODAY WAS A GOOD DAY.
    ‘DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!

    FIRST AMERICAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (OH SO DEFECIENT THEY WERE)
    GRANTED!

    HOWEVER…. PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED 20 DAYS TO AMEND A THIRD TIME, WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS!
    GAME OVER! I KNOW WHAT THEY DID!

    I FOUND THE STRAW MAN!
    HE WAS RIGHT NEXT TO ME!

  159. carie is dead on right about the streams being sold, as the only rights.

  160. I believe all of you are confusing the issue. The chain of ownership of the note and lien are not that difficult to follow. Also, the servicing rights as they should be referred to are separate and apart from the owner of the note and lien. Everyone keeps mixing these two and that is not what should be done.

    WE have been through this time and again. The collection rights are nothing more than a term at the time the servicer is name “master servicer” to service and collect the payments. If they want a sub servicer, fine, then that company can proceed to collect the payments.

    Some people are so confusing this issue that I do not know how in the world you are able to DISCERN THE chain of ownership of the note and lien and the chain of ownership of SERVICING RIGHTS. The servicer normally retains the right to bring the foreclosue action in the name of the current creditor but will tell you who the original creditor is if you ask for it or do not know.

    Once the servicer completes the foreclosure process, the loan file is moved to the ASSET division for management by teh REO team.

    On occasions such as BAC, they have elected to allow the servicer to receive ownership of the note and lien by assignment; therefore, they process the loan for foreclosing in the name of the servicer and list themselves as the creditor. But assignments must be provided and before the foreclosure trustee can guarantee the title back to the creditor (which may be a servicer but not normally) and the title company usually at this time when recognizing that the credictor if different from the original creditor, the the title company must require the servicer to produce all Assignments of the Note and LIen, plus any power of attorneys, or corporate resolutions to effect a good chain.

    Anonymous has been dead on with his presentments of these chain of owenrship and title issues; but certainly it appears he does not believe a real loan was ever transferred.

    How many people, attorneys, etc., have worked in the areas required for buying and selling portfolios to both private and institutional investors. It may be complex if you do not stick to the principal rules when detrmining ownership. Whether it made it or not into the trust, a note exist and the buyer took the money and now has a deed in his name. The deal is to determine that the borrower is paying the legal owner of the note without breaks in chain, etc.

    I am putting my money on Anonymous – and he can correct what I have stated here if it needs to be done. WE need good and accurate information and my head swims everytime I read these comments.

    John Gault made a statement about a case he was involved in or new about or something and I cannot remember what the issue was, but it sure worked for us in the court room because it was a reminder to me to get it into the pleadings. Thank you John.

  161. Gwen Caranchini,

    I do not need to know the “processes” — subprime/alt-a/jumbo refinances (as nearly 100% were refinances) — were and are nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category.

    Sorry — Gwen — I stand by what I state.

    This does not preclude QT challenge — all for it — just want most to understand — we are not challenging mortgage title — it never existed in the first place — we are challenging ANY title based on fraudulent loan (collection rights) assumption – and fraudulent mortgage title origination – to begin with.

    All is NOT as THEY would like it to appear to be. Far from it. If you them a “mortgage” — when it is not a mortgage — they well try to find some way to hold accountable —-this is wrong – and it is fraud. Just because it looks like a “duck” — does not mean it is a “duck” — no matter how it “quacks.”

    Unsecured — name of the game. .

    johngault,— depends on how you define “mortgage” — as I know it — subprime/alt-a/jumbo — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights (albeit — with escalated balance owed and egregious terms). Once the Note/loan — is charged off — no more mortgage — only collection rights survive.

    TARP Inspector General — Footnote 35 again — and again– and again.

    “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    .

  162. @carie, well, I was hoping for opinions on the big question. You appear to address matters you feel I left out,and I see for you the matter you state is paramount, as maybe it should be: You said the trusts are empty and there was no loan.
    **Is underlying all this an assumption or belief that the loans were funded by investor monies with the loans having been sold forward and converted from loans to collection rights?**
    I got lost there, I’ll tell you. Not to be confused with I doubt it. I guess you are saying the collection right is on the payment stream or what not for the certificate, which evidences what you are calling pro-rata interests in payments. I would call this fractional interests, but I may be wrong, or maybe it’s the same thing.

    From your explanation, I think I have believed something else. And that is that the notes represent – or are -cdo’s and are NOT sold to the trusts. They only evidence the particular loans involved as to certain certificates, as evidence of WHAT is generating the payment stream on the certificates. Regardless of what the investors believed, the notes are to be maintained by the custodian (don’t all laugh at once!) purely to 1) evidence the collateral, if you will, for the certificates and 2) to keep them the hey out of circulation, i.e., 86 further endorsement which would negate them as collateral. I do not know why if the loans were to be true sales, they
    were not endorsed to the trust or the trustee, and I have never seen one so endorsed. Over my head. Well, one reason comes to mind: enforcement. But still, if the psa’s or something make the banksters/servicers agents for enforcement (read foreclosure) why not endorse to the trust or trustee?

    In my scenario, there is a loan. Someone benefitted from loan proceeds and that someone signed a promissory note. What this means if the para above were shown to be accurate – or in the hood – is that it was the last guy who got the note (properly endorsed and maybe not even then) who actually owns the note, not the trust. Now this is hard for me to express (partly because it’s so outrageous and unbelieveable), and I sure as hey don’t know how it sits with the UCC nor trust law, as applicable: the trustee holds those notes in trust, just like the trustee in a deed of trust holds either equitable or legal title in trust for the benefit of the beneficiary (deed of TRUST – DEED of trust). This is where it gets difficult for me. The last guy on the note actually owns them, but the investors, the certificate holders, have the beneficial interest in the payments because they bought that in the form of certificates. (?) The trusts don’t own the notes – that last guy does, but the investors have the rights to payments on them.

    Are the notes actually hypothecated? I dont know, that’s for sure, but it’s possible. If the notes have been hypothecated – pledged as security for a debt – it seems to me that the last guy on the notes signed up to pay the notes, is a co-borrower as far as the investors are concerned, and mabye that goes to the borrower, also. This jives with no true sale, and the money to be paid the investors, which because it was not a sale but more a loan to the investors, is at the rate of the notes, somehow aggregated.

    Now, where the trouble lies is this arrangement must not jive with at least NY trust law. Remember we briefly touched on the fact that the IRS is still (at last we heard) debating if it wants to ‘nail’ the investors for the taxes on these “non-trusts”? Why would this be? Because some people are right and the trusts are totally messed and don’t provide for the good tax treatment the investors thought they were going to get because the investors only made loans themselves. The only thing held in trust is the evidence (if that?) of which notes created the last guy’s obligation, the payment stream, to the investors and by which this theory, that guy is a co-maker or guarantor.

    Yikes. This would certainly cause some noise, wouldn’t it?

    Now where does this land as to taking our homes? If the banksters admit this, they are admitting a number of things: 1) there was no sale, 2) the investors would owe a ton of moolah because they wouldn’t or shouldn’t get the preferential tax treatment they were sold, 3) they lied to sell their product. This doesn’t even consider all the endorsements which weren’t done or the considerations regarding the deeds of trust.

    As I said, I believe a loan was made, even if were with what turns out to be borrowed funds from the investors or with the last guy’s and then he borrowed against the notes himself. But that may be tweaked, because he may have become an obligor or guarantor himself, but he also really owns the note. Illegitimate for this reason? I’m not the one to make that call.
    I mean, if I want to hypothecate a note, I can probably become an obligor or guarantor, but this is definitely over my head.

    If this theory is at all in the hood, I’d say the last guy is stuck, but is coming after us, anyway. He can’t stop paying if he guaranteed or is an obligor on the note himself, unless he wants his own default with the investors.

    He CAN come after us, assuming a very big assumption that the deed of trust is in order (which it isn’t), but to do so in his own right is to admit the BIG LIE. But if I got this right, the IRS already knows, so
    who/what is he still trying to hide from? The investors might be the answer and or a public acknowledgment of the scam.

    I can’t answer an obvious question: why not just sell the notes to the trust? I can’t even venture a guess because I don’t know trust law from a hole in the ground. If MS knows (got me – he may have other ideas altogether), maybe he will deign to tell us without riddles in words of one syllable or less. If you know, MS, you might as well. If it’s true and a plebe like me can get this far, better minds will get further. Be the hero. Sieze the moment!

    I only started writing this to try to discern what Carie is saying!

    So back to the matter of which is the greater threat, which is my own real interest at the moment fwiw. The demise of equality and the justice system and all that entails, or a possible economic bloodbath in a country already teetering?

  163. Thank you, Anonymous! There is a difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust. One may not substitute those words for each other. One is a lien and one is title. Mortgages are still used in some states, tho, are they not?

  164. Gwen—

    This WHY they are NOT “mortgages”:

    “First, ‘certificate purchasers’ are the banks themselves (security underwriters) and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor (the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived –it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary) that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans) and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.”…

    see the rest below on my previous post….

  165. Anoynmous you are wrong. Quiet title deals with the securitization of notes because they were put or allegedly put in pools of notes. As for prior foreclosoures–that is the entire point of a quiet title action–to clean up the entire title from the git go. Ex: my note was arranged for by Aegis in 2006. (Aegis really never funded it Countrywide did) It was then sold by Aegis to Merrill Lynch Investments three months later. After it was sold, Aegis recorded the mortgage from me to it but it had no authority to do so as it had already sold the note (not the mortgage)! There was no recording from Aegis to ML. ML never recorded its interest at any time. Additionally, later (2010) we find out the note was allegedly in MLMI2006-he-5. Problem there it was sold September 12 and the trust closed the 15th and it never made it into that pool! Where did it go? First problem. Next problem. Research indicates that Countrywide was the funder and there is no recording of any kind involving Countrywide. Another title problem. Next issue; After the note went into foreclosure status but before foreclosure in 2008 the mortgage was assigned by MERS (who was on the mortgage but not the note) to Citi. Violation of Carpenter v. Longan in Mo. CANNOT DO. Also foreclosoure was stopped. NO RECORDATION EVER OF ANYONE CONVEYING TO MLMI2006-HE-5. NO RECORDING OF MLMI2006-HE-5 EVERY OWNING THE NOTE. Fast forward, (Wilshire had previously serviced the loan) Feb 20010 BOA/bac sends letter to me claiming it now was servicing the loan which was owned by MLMI2006-he-5 which had never recorded its interest. Do you see the problems? There is a split of DT/fm note and there is an IBANEZ issue and to top it off there is the little problem that the nnote never made it into the trust and the trust is now worthless. O did I tell you that these assignments were all void as the initial trustee was a non mo trustee and under mo law you cannot have solely a non mo trustee do anything? All assignments were void from the git go. Only way to “fix this” is a quiet title and the declaratory judgment then finds the note invalid. Get it????

  166. Until I discovered that movie (very simplified explanation of what had been created, minus MERS), I couldn’t wrap up my head around securitization and how mortgages could somehow create havoc on a country. For those of you who were like me, here it is. It clarified it to a point for me. And it also made me understand how “investors” had been speculating, how pension funds had been suckered in, How we, tax payors, had to save the banks, etc. It focused better my rage and cleared for me the extent to which banks are, indeed, the main culprit.

    http://www.jongriffith.com/index.php/2010/06/30/where-does-my-mortgage-payment-go/

  167. This WHY they are NOT “mortgages”:

    “First, ‘certificate purchasers’ are the banks themselves (security underwriters) and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor (the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived –it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary) that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans) and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.

    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.

    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK. ”

    Thank you, ANONYMOUS.

  168. Title problems far exceed even these homes —”If the house was EVER foreclosed in PRIOR transactions, the title is probably defective ”

    But, will not be resolved in QT — alone — need far more than that — have to dig deeper.

    QT involves “mortgages” — we are not dealing with mortgages as to subprime/alt-a/jumbo securitizations.

    Have to get the word “mortgage” out of the vocabulary.

  169. If the courts were not overwhelmed before, they certainly will be
    after this blows wide open. Not if , but when.

  170. By the way this is what dave krieger has been yelling about for three years. Things you won’t post and things I have tried to get you to post and you won’t post. Its alsowhy you have to file a qt and a declaratory judgment action even in bankrtupcy court like some trustees are now doing. wake up neil

  171. Getting a mod just screws people and they have no way out as there was not that much information out there about a year ago regarding mods, it was what everyone was told they needed to have the banks slam you to the wall with shackles of confirmed debt!!! But you do not know that, you are just trying to keep a home, but now just a rental house with an even more clouded title that does not even exist, just more talk and crap .People would say “OH you got a mod ! Great you are one of the few”. But truly now..how many people are being screwed with more and more bull…way too many.

  172. We talked about this in 2008 and 2009 and even a title company known as APX I believe out of California gave a comprehensive view of what was going on then and what the repercussions would be. No one paid attention. We even put it in our lawsuit when fighting a civil suit against a lender for their ignoring the ownership chain of title and filing whatever they wanted.

    In every foreclosure and I brought this to the attention of two of the largest title companies in the U.S. and ask them: How are you handling your trustee’s deeds? You can see that the chain of title is not recorded and you admitted that you always double check to make sure the original payee lender is the same party foreclosing. If it is not, then you order any assignments at that time and in which so many servicers try to come up with them and then record them. It would be at that time that a trustee’s deed could be issue to convey the property to the lender or a third party.

    I said don’t you think it is a little late to record the assignments after the sale? Why is this now just coming up.

  173. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN NEIL? My house was not foreclosed on, and I sought quiet title when I started having a prroblem with a loan mod. First thing I did was go get a preliminary title report from CT who said it was uninsurable because of the number of exceptions. That was over 15 months ago. Since when does foreclosure cause the problem in COT? It doesn’t. Its the MERS “recording system” and securitization of the loans that caused the COT problems. Wake up Neil.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,130 other followers

%d bloggers like this: