DEUTSCH LOSES AGAIN: POOL DID NOT RECEIVE LOAN

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

TRANSFER TO POOL AFTER FORECLOSURE INITIATED: VOID

The fact that Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee. While a promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, this is not the case with a mortgage”

“Like a sale of land itself, the assignment of a mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land that requires a writing signed by the grantor.” Ibanez, 458 Mass at 649. Deutsche had not received a written assignment of the mortgage from MERS prior to May 3, 2011. The fact that it had possession of the mortgage instrument did not render Deutsche the mortgagee and thus it lacked the power to sell the property.”

In re: SIMA SCHWARTZ, Chapter 7, Debtor.
SIMA SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff,
v.
HOMEQ SERVICING, AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, Defendants.
Case No. 06-42476-MSH, Adversary Proceeding No. 07-04098.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Central Division.

August 22, 2011.

David G. Baker, Boston, MA, for the plaintiff.
Christopher Matheson, Richard C. Demerle and Christopher Decosta, Michienzie & Sawin, LLC, Boston, MA, for both defendants.
Gary A. Barnes, Sarah-Nell Walsh, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
MELVIN S. HOFFMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.
After the plaintiff, Sima Schwartz, presented her case in chief during the first day of the trial in this adversary proceeding, upon oral motion of the defendants, HomEq Servicing and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, I granted judgment on partial findings in favor of the defendants on all counts of the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. Ms. Schwartz then moved for a new trial as a result of which judgment was vacated on count I of the complaint only.Schwartz v. HomEq Servicing (In re Schwartz), 2011 WL 1331963 (Bankr. D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2011). In count I, Ms. Schwartz alleges that the May 24, 2006 foreclosure sale of her home by Deutsche was invalid because Deutsche did not own the mortgage on the property at the relevant time.1 I reopened the trial so that the defendants could present their case with respect to that count, which they did on June 1, 2011. Based on the evidence and legal submissions presented by the parties, my findings of fact, conclusions of law and order are set forth below.
Jurisdiction and Standing
Core jurisdiction over this case is conferred upon the bankruptcy court by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (O). See Atighi v. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc. (In re Atighi), 2011 WL 3303454, at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011). Ms. Schwartz’s standing to seek relief is based on her property interest in light of the alleged wrongful foreclosure. Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Kelly, 223 B.R. 50, 56 (D. Mass. 1998).
Legal Framework
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, § 14 establishes the procedure for a mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage by exercise of the statutory power of sale. The statute provides that prior to a foreclosure sale a notice of the sale must appear weekly for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper either published in or generally circulated in the city or town where the property is located. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has recently clarified that a foreclosing mortgagee must hold the mortgage as of the date that the first notice of sale is published.U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40 (2011). If the party intending to foreclose the mortgage is not the original mortgagee, a typical state of affairs when a mortgage loan is owned by the trustee of a securitized pool of mortgage loans, then the foreclosing mortgagee must hold a valid assignment of the mortgage prior to publishing the first sale notice.
The Defendants’ Case
It is undisputed that Deutsche was not the original mortgagee of the mortgage on Ms. Schwartz’s home, so it must prove that the mortgage was assigned to it prior to the date when the first foreclosure notice was published. As discussed in the memorandum and order on the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, while the evidence established that an assignment of the mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) to Deutsche was executed on May 23, 2006, the day before the foreclosure sale, this assignment, being well after the notice of foreclosure sale was first published, did not confer on Deutsche the power to foreclose on May 24. The Supreme Judicial Court in Ibanez,however, offered an alternative method for a party to acquire sufficient rights in a mortgage to qualify to foreclose:
Where a pool of mortgages is assigned to a securitized trust, the executed agreement that assigns the pool of mortgages, with a schedule of the pooled mortgage loans that clearly and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder.
Ibanez, 458 Mass. at 651.
With this in mind, the defendants introduced into evidence at trial all of the agreements tracking the transfer of Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan from its originator, First NLC Financial Services, LLC (“First NLC”), to Deutsche, complete with the necessary schedules of the pooled mortgage loans specifically identifying her mortgage as being among those transferred. The defendants argue that these agreements, together with other evidence introduced by them, establish that Deutsche was the holder of the mortgage well in advance of the first publication of the notice of sale.
At trial, Ronaldo Reyes, a Deutsche vice president, testified that he had management responsibility over the administration of the Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-4 (the “Trust”) and that Deutsche had always been the trustee of the Trust. He testified that in his capacity as vice president he had access to the books and records of the Trust and was qualified to authenticate and testify about the documents admitted into evidence by the defendants. During the course of his testimony, Mr. Reyes authenticated executed copies of each of the agreements discussed below, and demonstrated that Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan was included on the mortgage loan schedules attached as exhibits to several of the agreements. Mr. Reyes testified that each was used in the ordinary course of Deutsche’s business as trustee of the Trust.
The following documents were admitted into evidence: (i) the mortgage on Ms. Schwartz’s home; (ii) the original promissory note executed by Ms. Schwartz, which Mr. Reyes noted was endorsed in blank by First NLC; (iii) the Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (the “Loan Purchase Agreement”) dated as of September 1, 2005 by and between Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (“MS Mortgage Capital”) and First NLC; (iv) the Assignment and Conveyance Agreement dated September 29, 2005, by and between First NLC and MS Mortgage Capital; (v) the Bill of Sale dated November 29, 2005 by and between MS Mortgage Capital and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. (“MS ABS Capital”); and (vi) the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “PSA”) dated as of November 1, 2005 by and among MS ABS Capital, HomEq Servicing Corporation, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, First NLC, LaSalle Bank National Association and Deutsche. Mr. Reyes also testified regarding a custodial log that was admitted into evidence for the purpose of proving that Ms. Schwartz’s loan documents were in Deutsche’s custody prior to the date when the first notice of foreclosure sale was published.
Findings of Fact2
1. On July 22, 2005, Ms. Schwartz refinanced the mortgage loan on her property at 23 Sigel Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, executing a promissory note in the amount of $272,000 payable to First NLC and a mortgage securing her obligation under the note naming MERS, solely as nominee for First NLC, its successors and assigns, as mortgagee.
2. The mortgage, which was duly recorded at the Worcester District Registry of Deeds, includes the statutory power of sale under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch 183, § 21 which is invoked by reference to the statute and which permits a mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage by public auction sale of the property upon the mortgagor’s default in performance or breach of any conditions thereof.
3. On May 3, May 10 and May 17, 2006, a notice of foreclosure sale was published in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette stating that “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee,” the “present holder” of the mortgage, intended to foreclose the mortgage by public sale of Ms. Schwartz’s property on May 24, 2006.
4. On May 23, 2006, Liquenda Allotey, described as a vice president of MERS, executed an Assignment of Mortgage for the purpose of assigning the mortgage from MERS to “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee.”
5. Deutsche, in its capacity as trustee of the Trust,3 conducted the foreclosure sale as scheduled on May 24, 2006, bid in its mortgage debt and purchased the property.
6. In its answer, Deutsche admitted that a foreclosure deed conveying the property to itself was recorded on October 13, 2006. There has been no evidence presented of any subsequent conveyance of the property and hence I find that Deutsche remains the record owner of the Sigel Street property.
7. As she testified on the first day of trial, Ms. Schwartz continues to reside in the Sigel Street Property.
8. The original promissory note executed by Ms. Schwartz was endorsed in blank by an officer of First NLC.
9. The original mortgagee as identified in the mortgage on Ms. Schwartz’s home was MERS, as nominee for First NLC, its successors and assigns.
10. In accordance with Section 2 of the Loan Purchase Agreement, First NLC agreed to sell “Mortgage Loans” to MS Mortgage Capital.
11. The Loan Purchase Agreement defines a “Mortgage Loan” as
An individual Mortgage Loan which is the subject of this Agreement, each Mortgage Loan originally sold and subject to this Agreement being identified on the applicable Mortgage Loan Schedule, which Mortgage Loan includes without limitation the Mortgage File, the Monthly Payments, Principal Prepayments, Liquidation Proceeds, Condemnation Proceeds, Insurance Proceeds, Servicing Rights and all other rights, benefits, proceeds and obligations arising from or in connection with such Mortgage Loan, excluding replaced or repurchased mortgage loans.
12. On September 29, 2005, by way of the Assignment and Conveyance Agreement, First NLC sold, transferred, assigned, set over and conveyed to MS Mortgage Capital “all right, title and interest of, in and to the Mortgage Loans listed on the Mortgage Loan Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.”
13. Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan was listed on the exhibit attached to the Assignment and Conveyance Agreement.
14. First NLC, therefore, transferred all of its right, title and interest in Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan to MS Mortgage Capital on November 29, 2005.
15. By the Bill of Sale dated November 29, 2005, MS Mortgage Capital, as the “Seller,” transferred to MS ABS Capital “all the Seller’s right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans described on Exhibit A attached hereto.”
16. Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan was listed on Exhibit A to the Bill of Sale.
17. MS Mortgage Capital, therefore, transferred its entire interest in Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan to MS ABS Capital on November 29, 2005.
18. Section 2.01 of the PSA, which was dated November 1, 2005, provides that the MS ABS Capital, as “Depositor,”
concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to [Deutsche] for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund, and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, hereby accepts the Trust Fund.
19. The “Trust Fund” includes all of the mortgage loans listed on an attached mortgage loan schedule.
20. Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan was listed on the mortgage loan schedule attached to the PSA.
21. While the PSA provides that the mortgage loans were transferred from MS ABS Capital to Deutsche, “concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof” on November 1, 2005, the Bill of Sale provides that MS ABS Capital did not acquire the mortgage loans until November 29, 2005. The November 2009 PSA indicates, however, that the transaction in which MS ABS Capital would transfer the loans to Deutsch, as trustee of the Trust, would not be consummated until November 29, 2005, which is defined as the “Closing Date.” Therefore, MS ABS Capital transferred Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan to Deutsche, as trustee of the Trust, on the Closing Date of November 29, 2005, which is the same date as the Bill of Sale by which MS ABS Capital acquired the loan from MS Mortgage Capital.
22. Section 2.01(b) of the PSA provides that if
any Mortgage has been recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) or its designee, no Assignment of Mortgage in favor of the Trustee will be required to be prepared or delivered and instead, the applicable Servicer shall take all reasonable actions as are necessary at the expense of the applicable Originator to the extent permitted under the related Purchase Agreement and otherwise at the expense of the Depositor to cause the Trust to be shown as the owner of the related Mortgage Loan on the records of MERS for the purpose of the system of recording transfers of beneficial ownership of mortgages maintained by MERS.
23. Thus MS ABS Capital did not assign to Deutsche the mortgage on Ms. Schwartz’s home in connection with the transaction through which it transferred Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan pursuant to the PSA.
24. In the chain of transactions by which Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan was sold, initially by First NLC to MS Mortgage Capital, next by MS Mortgage Capital to MS ABS Capital and finally by MS ABS Capital to Deutsche, the seller sold all of its right, title and interest in the mortgage loans being transferred. However, as the mortgage itself was originally in the name of MERS as mortgagee, and not First NLC, First NLC never held legal title to the mortgage and could not have transferred such title to MS Mortgage Capital. Consequently, neither MS ABS Capital nor Deutsche, as successors to First NLC and MS Mortgage Capital, obtained legal title to the mortgage. This is consistent with § 2.01 of the PSA quoted above.
25. As of November 29, 2005, the Closing Date defined in the PSA, MERS continued to hold legal title to the mortgage on Ms. Schwartz’s home as nominee for First NLC, its successors and assigns.
26. MERS continued to hold legal title to the mortgage until May 23, 2006, when it assigned the mortgage to Deutsche.
27. The custodial log establishes that Deutsche received Ms. Schwartz’s mortgage loan documents, including the promissory note and mortgage instrument, on September 15, 2005 (presumably in anticipation of the November loan sale), and retained custody of these documents until March 27, 2006, when they were sent to HomEq. The custodial log indicates that the documents were sent to HomEq for servicing and lists the reason for the transfer as “foreclosure.” According to the custodial log, the loan documents were returned to Deutsche on May 24, 2006, the day of the foreclosure sale.
Conclusions of Law
In In re Marron, 2011 WL 2600543, at *5 (Bankr. D. Mass. June 29, 2011), I held that where a loan was secured by a mortgage in the name of MERS, even when the loan itself changed hands several times, MERS remained the mortgagee in its capacity as nominee for the original lender, its successors and assigns.4 As MERS was the mortgagee, it had the authority to assign the mortgage to the foreclosing entity. In this case too, while Ms. Schwartz’s loan passed from hand to hand, MERS remained the mortgagee throughout. While MERS held only bare legal title to the mortgage on behalf of Deutsche, the successor to First NLC, until it assigned the mortgage to Deutsche on May 23, 2006, only MERS had the authority to foreclose.
Having determined that MERS, and not Deutsche, held legal title to the mortgage on Ms. Schwartz’s home mortgage as of May 3, 2006, when the notice of the foreclosure sale of her home was first published, it follows that Deutsche did not have the right to exercise the statutory power of sale and to foreclose the mortgage. See, e.g., Novastar Mortgage, Inc. v. Safran, 79 Mass.App.Ct. 1124, 948 N.E.2d 917 (2011) (finding, in a post-foreclosure eviction proceeding, that the foreclosing entity had the burden to prove its title to the property by establishing that the mortgage had been assigned to it by MERS “at the critical stages of the foreclosure process.”). By publishing notice of the foreclosure sale when it was not the mortgagee, Deutsche failed to comply with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, § 14, and thus its foreclosure sale is void. Ibanez, 438 Mass. at 646-47.5 A declaratory judgment to that effect shall enter on count I of the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes

1. The complaint is unclear as to the relief Ms. Schwartz seeks as a result of the allegedly invalid foreclosure. In addition to the allegation that the defendants did not own the mortgage, Ms. Schwartz alleges that she was damaged by the foreclosure sale, which “was conducted fraudulently, in bad faith” and to her detriment. I previously found that Ms. Schwartz failed to produce any evidence of the defendants’ intent to defraud her. In addition, Ms. Schwartz failed to establish the extent of her damages or that the foreclosure sale was conducted in bad faith. Though Ms. Schwartz does not expressly request a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the foreclosure, based on the allegation of invalidity in the complaint, and the parties’ arguments in the course of trial, I will consider count I of the complaint to be a request for a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure sale was invalid.
Back to Reference
2. Any finding of fact which should more properly be considered a conclusion of law, and vice versa, shall be deemed as such.
Back to Reference
3. The documents pertaining to the foreclosure sale identify Deutsche as “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee” without identifying the trust.
Back to Reference
4. The sophisticated financial minds who wrought the MERS regime sought to simplify the process of repeatedly transferring mortgage loans by obviating the need and expense of recording mortgage assignments with each transfer. No doubt they failed to consider the possibility of a collapse of the residential real estate market, the ensuing flood of foreclosures and the intervention of state and federal courts. Professor Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University has observed “[t]he law of unintended consequences is when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system.” Alex Tabarrok, The Law of Unintended Consequences, Marginal Revolution (Jan. 24, 2008, 7:47 am), http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/the-law-of-unin.html.
Back to Reference
5. Deutsche presented sufficient evidence to prove that either it or HomEq, its agent, had possession of both the Schwartz mortgage and promissory note as of May 3, 2011. The note was endorsed in blank, which gave Deutsche the right to enforce the note. The fact that Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee. While a promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, this is not the case with a mortgage. “Like a sale of land itself, the assignment of a mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land that requires a writing signed by the grantor.” Ibanez, 458 Mass at 649. Deutsche had not received a written assignment of the mortgage from MERS prior to May 3, 2011. The fact that it had possession of the mortgage instrument did not render Deutsche the mortgagee and thus it lacked the power to sell the property.
Back to Reference

39 Responses

  1. […] DEUTSCH LOSES AGAIN: POOL DID NOT RECEIVE LOAN MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE TRANSFER TO POOL AFTER FORECLOSURE INITIATED: VOID “ The fact that Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee. While a promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, […] […]

  2. M. Soliman

    Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee. While a promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, […]

    The Servicer is also the _____________

    The Depositor is also the ____________

    The Chartered Thrift is ______________ & _______________

    Who therefore is the “Principal Creditor” ______________

    Who emerged the ” Principal Debtor” ______________

    Who is the indenture Trustee ______________

    Who is the Co Trustee ________________

    Why the Debt Collector: ________________

    Original Note Value $______________

    Current Accrual Value:$ ______________

    Certificate Share Value $ ______________

    What will you set as a Book Value :__________

    If you answered these questions, prior to entering your comments, they would read entirely different. Your a bright person who really cares . But,

    Do you have secondary background and capital markets training ?

    Are you in tune with the causal relationship with the general ledger and the absurd liberties they have taken in reporting a foreclosure ?

    What happens to the Warehouse line?
    And, what does a third party like Duetsche Bank bring to the deal?

    If you don’t know its okay! Start with the basics and answer the above questions first .

    It will resolve your allegations and suspicions.. . then set your research off in the right direction .

    Counsel , if you are going into court and do not know what I am speaking of here….then I don’t know what your arguing.

  3. Industry specific guidance

  4. Wait a minute….it’s not news that to modify a loan, the svcr has to purchase the loan out of the pool (can find that at fnma’s website) I have some misgivings about this yet, as I’m still not convinced WHO actually owns a note which has been securitized. 10 times I’ve opined here that what’s going on is not modification – it’s subsidiation. Otherwise, there’d be a new note describing the new terms and there isn’t – ever. Servicers never do anything which doesn’t benefit them. For instance, I ran the numbers on a friend’s ‘modification’ proposal and the servicer actually ended up with MORE money over the long haul than without the mod. But I digress. Servicers tell borrowers the note has to be in default in order to modify the loan, right? I don’t believe that, first of all, because for one, don’t psa’s provide that at least SOME loans may actually be modified? Okay, so the servicers tell borrowers that – the borrower goes into default thinking it’s gonna help him out(!) I’d say it’s safe to say more ‘defaulted’ loans are NOT adjusted than are. So what is really going on, besides many people getting messed over good? After 90 days of default the servicer (or someone) may (or even must, I’m not sure) purchase the loan from the pool. This stops any guarantee between the servicer and the investor, does it not? The servicer may smell blood when a loan modification is requested. Did we just help the servicer avoid its guarantee if it goes beyond 90 days ? What else have we unwittingly done? The servicer has no fiduciary to the borrower, that’s for sure. Its servicing creates no contract at all between the borrower and itself not counting HAMP. Is the rat-b servicer urging default so that it may itself be the beneficiary of insurance proceeds or for other unsavory reasons – like simultaneously writing off the loan as uncollectible and selling the paper or whatever the heck they sell to debt collectors? How do we know the servicer doesn’t tell the borrower to default so that it may end its own obligation, snarf any insurance proceeds itself, write it off nonetheless, and then have the ‘trust’ foreclose, anyway? Those trustees of the sec’d trusts don’t know s from shortcakes and all litigation done in their names is done by the bankster’s attorney, just as it is when “MERS” is a named party. While there is no contractual relationship between the borrower and the servicer, there is a de facto one or other cognizable relationship, imo, when the servicer has accepted HAMP funds. Any entity who has accepted that position (to do modifications) by accepting HAMP funds and then tells a borrower to default for its own gain is guilty of any number of wrongs. Actually, one needn’t be
    looking for modification to have this charade played out. The servicer could pull it off on any loan simply by stopping the payment stream for 90 days or longer.
    Now what are we going to do about it? There is a reason not in the borrower’s favor he is being told to default. We’ve got enough trouble, so I’m not trying to buy any here or maybe I’m just regurgitating what has been expressed 100 times. There has got to be a way to get discovery or otherwise find out what is going on with those servicer’s books. At any rate, we have to figure out what they’re doing (besides ultimately stealing our homes) beyond speculation and go from there. I wonder what happened to that female attorney who went undercover. Have they sued her? Tried to get her disbarred? I can’t speak to all the issues involved, but she’s a champion of the people in my view. We need a fund to hire a dream team to formulate a road map for litigation in state and federal courts to include discovery as rote. Judges have a lot of power – they should turn it toward the homeowner. A judge can probably sua sponte ( his own initiative) make the bankster answer any number of questions. Maybe that’s where we should be putting pressure. Surely there’s a way to do this.

  5. Why would I want to “modify” unsecured false default debt???

    “…What we need to focus on is that borrower’s subprime refinance was unsecured — a false and fraudulent mortgage — and nothing more than debt collection on a fraudulent transfer of collection rights to a false default debt. Everyone (in subprime refinance) was in (false) default before they even refinanced.
    The banks (as debt buyers) accomplished this by falsely placing borrower in current default (and never telling them) — and then the servicer purchases the collection rights from either Freddie or Fannie. Then the servicer “reinstates” the false default debt with a fraudulent refinance. And, if there is a subsequent refinance, that is just another transfer of collection rights. Servicer reports original F/F mortgage as “paid” — but it is “Paid-OUT” — by servicer purchase — and not “Paid-OFF” by the borrower as it should have been by the (fraudulent) subprime refinance. . Thus, borrower remains in default on F/F loan – despite a subprime refinance — and borrower can never refinance with an F/F again — They are doomed if they miss even one payment on the false collection rights — and will never recover because always held in default — on both the F/F loan and the collection rights. BUT BORROWERS should not be paying on fraud!!!! They have a right withhold payments on fraudulent debt.
    All fraudulent, all in violation of consumer protection laws — and, because the “creditor” of collection right never validates the “debt” — by disclosing the actual creditor to the false default debt — in violation of FDCPA and May 2009 TILA Amendment. Meaning borrowers should not be paying anything — because of fraud and violation of federal statutes.”

  6. People, are asking Fannie and Freddie questions with little confidence and sos so so late in the game . I believe your experts and even counsel are incompetent if not in full understanding of these questions and the impact of the answers. These socalled “Govees” were no less private label and non conventional mainstream loans are approved and underwritten by the lender “seller”. The prospective borrower is given the congratulations subject to a GSE underwriter signing off for GSE investor approval. There were times you would get an approval the next day and then wait a month or more on a 60 day lock pending the agency of choice underwriter approval and stips or conditions for funding.

    One sure tell tale sign of a GSE approval process is to have the borrower lock in the rate for up to 60 days. You are getting a premiere rate and everyone is awaiting for DU approval.

    Then came the CDo and Banker Trust Stock collpase and Freddie Mac FHLMC CFO who decides to hang himself to death. This is right after the news broke of the markets collapse. A low market FHLMC lock is passed thru to the investor so the borrower wins and the investor has the next best thing to a Treasury. I hope its not the case but it is not entirely out of the question that the sponsors got hip to the sub prime crime against their perceived “nit wit” households.

    Give the borrower the higher rate and investor the lower rate and Fannie and Freddie can keep the spread themselves. How was this done. If the obligation of a party to pay an instrument falls into default the purchaser will “Delete” the receivables and look to the seller to cover the loss – or replace the mortgage in default. Get DU approval before the loan funds and then place the pool cert into the deal after the loan settles. This investigative analysis I conducted in May of this year turned up something even more astonishing. First, the role of the agency is to allow Countrywide Home Liens to fund a loan request over 75%. They can go to 80% and FHLMC GSE policy will insure the 5% gap. MI will usually come in for the 20% behind the 75-5-20 allowing Countrywide Criminal Markets to purchase a 80-20 or 100% deal.

    What I discovered is in addition to the fact people do not listen and ask the same question day after day after day. But that is the servicer is entitled to foreclose for the GSE . This is why they say Fannie Mae or Freddie Mertz own the loan. But the foreclosure takes place once again in a condition subsequent scenario. Its the same repurchase foreclosure sale where the more friendly GSE and lender demand for REPO is by a credit bid AFTER the sale.

    Who brought the foreclosure in a government loan?

    MERS has the authority to hire the foreclosure attorney who will assign the same loan to the lender shown on the note. Then the property is sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie who will allege REPO the property “after ” the sale FBO . . . The lender shown on the note (verify) . Its the lender foreclosing on a repurchase commitment and mandatory “put” back to the seller.

    With all this work and verification remember this . . .Obama said immediately upon taking office. “If you have a Fannie or Freddie loan – your Will get your modification. I remember the feeling of seeing this man of man and King of Kings , this brave African America President stand on national television and show no fear when he stated all along – I will keep people in homes. Then he say’s in the next sentences – And if you do not have a Fannie Freddie loan – YOU ARE A DEAD BEAT AND WE SAY —GET OUT!

    Believe IT or NOT, if your are alleged to have a Fannie Mae loan get into court or contact the FDIC as t the Administration early announcement they can force or compel a modification for a GSE default.

    M. Soliman
    Expert.Witness@live.com

  7. Cheryl, You wrote “But I found out that Fannie Mae never had my loan to begin with because I requested the Fannie Mae Underwriting Findings.” Did you request that from Fannie Mae? As part of litigation or outside of litigation? And they just gave it to you? And what exactly does the Underwriting Findings show? My note is allegedly with Fannie Mae so I’m very interested in what you found. Thanks.

  8. It was NEVER a “loan”.

  9. dudette – that may be, but that just puts them in line with every other
    loan out there. I’m happy to move on, as you put it – I was just trying to help frame your argument for someone who can do something about it.

  10. Dude—THEY NEVER WENT INTO A “POOL”—ACCEPT IT AND MOVE ON—

  11. @carie – if a loan were put in false default, it was so the original lender could pull the loan out of the pool. That’s the info I was missing. They can do this once a loan is in default over 90 days, so the loan was put in false default so they could get it out of the pool to do the deal with the new sub prime lender. It’s my understanding that to do this – get the loan out of the pool – required the servicer to buy the loan. The old loan amt (at around 6%)was restated in the new subprime loan at a ridiculous interest rate (remember the 2% for five minutes and then 12% for forever?). Everyone but the investor and the borrower made out. When a loan is in default, the kind where the borrower is not making the payments, the master servicer or someone (fnma, fhlmc, gnma, others) has guaranteed those three months to the investors.
    After that, they may buy the loan back and foreclose themselves. (Pools don’t all have the same governing ‘rules’.) No telling if they did or not or just skipped that part, even though they released the original dot. The servicer may have just released the first dot and left the loan in the pool and kept making the payment to the investors forwarded to them by the new subprime lender. Nothing would surprise me. As to the investor on the original loan, its loan is now unsecured because that dot was released. They get ripped good if the servicer ever stops making payments on their unsecured debt.

    The subprime loan was sold as wholley new money (debt) to new investors
    (major rip) and is secured by the new dot. The part of the new loan which includes ‘old’ debt from the original loan has been double sold to investors(original investors bought old debt and now new investors buy the old debt and the new debt which is made to look like entirely new debt), not counting if they sold each loan 10 times anyway, which thanks to MERS is entirely possible.

    If a title company were involved, and surely one was, they were in on this imo because they know no funds were being sent to pay off the original note.
    The title company is generally the one doing the release of the dot. Plus, the HUD 1 settlement statement would show no funds going to the original lender… UNLESS the new company making the subprime loan itself bought the original note and dot from the old servicer. In that case, the HUD 1 would show funds being sent to the original servicer who allegedly bought the original loan out of the pool (after showing a false default to do so) because the subprime lender bought the original loan from the servicer who had put the loan in false default.
    IF the subprime lender bought the loan from the servicer, and the servicer bought the loan from the pool, the new subprime loan is 100% secured.

    Now, if the original servicer put the loan in false default, this imo is fraud. I know the investors all got ripped, but I don’t know beyond this what is the path to salvation for the borrower. You think the old loan was put in false default and only the collection rights were sold and that the original loan had already been written off by the original servicer (or someone). This is entirely possible, but remember, to get the loan out of the pool after the false default, they were supposed to buy the loan. So maybe they did buy the loan, write it off, and yet sold unsecured collection rights to the subprime lender who in turn collateralized the old debt by its restatement in the new subprime note and dot. This discussion does not include any payments made on the note by any type of pool insurance or swap or whatnot. There was no loan made over 80% loan to value in the world which did not have private mortgage insurance whether paid as an additional fee by the borrower or included in the (jacked up) note rate, known as self-insuring.

  12. Cheryl—

    ABSOLUTELY CANNOT TRUST—

    MUTUAL DECEIT AT EVERY TURN—

    TRUTH BEING CONTINUALLY OBSCURED—

    QUESTION EVERYTHING—

  13. Abby – could you give us a synopsis of the case you posted?

  14. DEUTSCHE AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST WAMU, CHASE AND THE FDIC

  15. The title of this post is misleading. Should read ‘foreclosure sale invalidated by lack of timely assignment of the dot’. That was the court’s actual ruling.

  16. I don’t think much of this decision and to start it’s because this court gave legitimacy to MERS as the mortgagee. There are NOT four parties to a dot no matter what name you give any one. Being named the nominee of the beneficiary does not make anyone a) a mortgagee or 2) a party to the contract. The truth is there really is no
    mortgagee in a dot – the only role available to a lender is that of beneficiary. A ‘mortgagee’ is a party to a lien and not a party to a dot even in lien-theory states. If a ‘mortgage’ is used as the collateral instrument, then there is a mortgagee and a mortgagor and imo the
    misunderstanding of these words has lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. This was helped along by legislators who also did not
    understand the differences in these words or they did and their lobbyists found this useful, sad to say. It was most significantly
    helped along by MERS trying to call itself a mortgagee in dot’s when its true status is nominee of one of the three parties to a dot.

    But as to this case, the judge seems to be saying to banksters, “You wanted MERS to be the mortgagee? Fine, I’ll say it was and you needed an assignment.” Sort of stabbing them with their own blade. The court noted that an assignment of a dot is a conveyance of an interest in real property, but the judge remained silent on the missing assignments from a to d by his statement that MERS could assign right to Deutsche.
    This decisions seems like winning a battle, but it is in fact losing the war at least to the extent he did not call for the intervening assignments of the dot and agreed to call MERS a mortgagee by way of its nominee status for the beneficiary. Helped out Ms Schwartz, but now that assignments from “MERS” (read member self-assignment)
    are being done, how helpful is this decision? Banksters will just continue with their bs a to d assignments and make sure to do them before a NOD is filed,so big whoop on that score. The damage is
    the court finding validity of the assignment from MERS to ‘d’ or “MERS” to anyone.

    Actually, imo he has also in fact described bifurcation of the note and dot by finding MERS to be the mortgagee while other parties owned the note.
    Btw, there is no such thing as owning bare legal title to a dot as the judge suggested. Those are words which describe what is held by a dot trustee in regard to the real estate in title-theory states: the trustee holds bare naked legal title to the home. No one “owns” a dot. There is no title to a dot to own. One may be one of the three necessary parties to a dot (trustor, trustee, beneficiary), but no one “owns” a dot. And one may be a nominee of one of those three parties, I suppose, for any legal purpose, but even as nominee, one is nonetheless not a party to the dot. To the extent expressed in the dot and permissible under relevant statutes, a nominee may act for one of those three parties. But a nominee is not itself a party.

    If I have a contract with Martha whereby Martha agrees to sell me barrels of cider for 10.00 for three years, neither one of us ‘owns’ the contract.and neither of us have ‘title’ to the contract. Both of us are parties to the contract.
    So I have to beg to differ with the judge as to what MERS ‘owns’. MERS ‘owns’ nothing.

    At any rate, the judge didn’t need the psa to make his one real finding which was that there had been no assignment of the dot to Deutsche pre NOD.

  17. just a heads up to all my fellow readers who are here looking for valid and useful information, and those who rely heavily upon information shared on this site. Several people who post on this site on a regular basis, some of whom like to speak down to those of us that “just dont get it”, have very suspect resumes and i advise anyone who is here looking for valid and useful information as I am, to take 5 mins to research that user prior to wasting any more time attempting to understand their point. I wont say any names (like m soliman), ill let you guys figure out who is here to help and who is here with maybe alterior motives.
    On a different note, thanks to information learned and applied from this site, i have been fighting off my foreclosure in Calfornia for 5 years. Although we are all on our own, dealing with a struggle that is personal to each of us, there are some people on this site that are very knowledgable. At any rate, i spend hours reading and researching the theories and arguments discussed here, but i also spent hours trying to understand some peoples points. Only after taking 5 mins to look up their name, did i realize i just wasted those hours for nothing. Again, im not saying any name (like Maher Soliman, ie: Soliman v phillip moriss, or rip off report on his companies> just saying, some people “just dont listen or read” when what is being said makes no sense accept to the person that file Soliman v phillip Morris.
    ANyways guys, im going back to being just a reader.
    Keep fighting the fight

  18. Wow You all do not read or do not listen . I mean your all talking gibberish and jabbering and letting the lender grab the key sitting under your feet while your soap boxing.

    Who is on the NOTE . Was the party on the note an LLC ? Or is the holder at settlement is a Bank a NA? An LLC is not a Bank so why the Banksters talk? Is it a Bank with a Logo (Slam Dunk – acting like Fools)

    You Signed the note correct? But their was a stock registration correct? Were their classes of stock certificates issued . Capitalization is equity and equity was from what ….where …whom …mischief makers?

    ….hows this – anyone going to sale here ? Anyone ?
    Want to see first hand how to stop it ? How about that – the great put or shut up Living lies challenge .(no fees or cost – do it guys , come on join me -22 wins to date and counting boys )

    m. soliman ..

  19. Lets take other side for a minute.

    If the performing loan SERVICED at RETAIL is recorded in the ‘FWP’ Free Writing Prospectus, prior to the PSA closing, is that proof that the mortgage-backed note is inside of the Loan Trust? And if inside of the Loan Trust, after 90 day default, the Servicer may liquidate loan.

    Judicial States, the ‘Assignment’ recorded with County Clerk / County Recorder, Lis Pendens filed, Docket assigned, SUMMONS served. 21 days to contest allegations. Motion to dismiss Summary Judgment – Plaintiff without Standing, they are not the holder in due course.

    2 Assignments recorded for mortgage promissory note; one during origination Missing Name of Purchaser of Mortgage backed note c/o Nominee Temporay Lender and assignes and/or successors the mortgage loan transactions recorded inside FWP sometime before PSA closes.

    During default 90 days Servicer (Assigns) c/o assignee and successors Nominee REO Lender who becomes Tempoary Lender and purchases property for institutional bank; meanwhile Servicer continues advancing funding until Sheriff Sale. If contested and not sold Servicer continues advancing funding. If sold at Sheriff Sale, and appealed the REO property sits inside of ‘Issuing Entity’ ? When does SERVICER have to stop advancing funds? When the REO property resold at RETAIL — until a new Mortgage Servicer …
    and it starts all over again, the Pre-funding (cash) will be used to repurchase REO property and swap into a new trust?

    1. When a business or firm is terminated or bankrupt, its assets are sold and the proceeds pay creditors. Any leftovers are distributed to shareholders.

    2. Any transaction that offsets or closes out a long or short position. Investopedia explains Liquidation

    Creditors liquidate assets to try and get as much of the money owed to them as possible.

    They have first priority to whatever is sold off.

    After creditors are paid, the shareholders get whatever is left with preferred shareholders having preference over common shareholders.

  20. I don’t post here much or even read the posts because I’m too busy with my pro se RICO suit involving my “securitized loan” with Deutsche as trustee. The comments here seem pretty scattered anyway.

    I read Neil’s stuff regularly though because he describes tools for defenses. Not all tools are appropriate for all situations. Ya gotta choose the ones that work for your situation.

    One thing I’ve learned is that you gotta dig and find that one or two Achille’s Heels of the pretenders; and attack them. Resist getting off-point to keep from getting dragged into a rabbit hole. I found a good “heel” that could be somewhat universal but I haven’t seen any discussion of it here or anywhere else.

    Did you “default” after your loan was modified by your servicer, IndyMac, for instance? Get hold of trust PSA and check the rules for modification. I did. What I found was that in order for IndyMac to modify a loan, it must first repurchase the loan from the trust at full value. It’s pretty damn clear too. My loan was modified by IndyMac before the the bogus robosigned Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded. And then we were foreclosed upon by guess who… Deutsche as Trustee of the Trust!

    Hey Deutsche: good luck with your UD lawsuit as the Plaintiff

    Hey IndyMac: good luck with your RICO lawsuit as the Defendant

  21. And I have another question: Chase lost my payments a few times, charged me late fees (which I disputed), forced me to file a complaint with BBB, admitted to having “misapplied by mistake” my payments, etc. A long ordeal. Now, After having sent a QWR, I’ve received jack, except for a ledger recapitulating all the payments and how applied. I have ample evidence that Chase pocketed lots of monies, applied fees not listed on their statements, and did all kinds of hanky panky with my money. I got so angry that I decided to stop paying Chase (they don’t even appear anywhere in the recorder’s file for my house).

    I consulted an attorney who advises me to file a Tila/Respa violation lawsuit in Federal Court as a preemptive strike. Does anyone know from experience how Chase will react? Can they counterclaim for foreclosure? If yes, is there a timeframe within which they can do it? Is Federal Court better or worse then state court?

  22. Carie –

    You stated the banks (debt buyers) falsely placed the borrower into false default which I found on my loan history documents that I requested from bank. Bank put me into foreclosure/bankruptcy when I never was. Then servicer purchases collection rights from Fannie Freddie. This was not true in my case. I was told I had a Fannie Mae loan and the lookup tool said I did. But I found out that Fannie Mae never had my loan to begin with because I requested the Fannie Mae Underwriting Findings. Then the bank told me I had a servicer parent loan which I found out was not true. I believe the bank had collection rights in the beginning and there was never a loan to begin with. Peope who think that Fannie Mae owns their loan would be shocked to find out the truth. Just because the loan lookup says so does not mean it is true. You cannot trust any big banks. Keep digging.

    E Tolle – I believe ANONYMOUS is a woman. That has been discussed before.

  23. Interesting site. Been working on my own case what seems to be… forever, trying to understand all the ins and outs of bank fraud, mortgage assignments, MERS, etc. but the more I read and the more confused I get. I have over 2 feet of docs, including all the recordings, etc.

    Question: A few years ago, I refinanced a Fannie Mae to get a lower interest rate. I am now wondering: did money actually change hands? There is a recorded release of mortgage from MERS to MERS, which I don’t really understand. My understanding is that, for a contract to be valid, a consideration mut exist. How would i know if money actually changed hands and does it matter?

  24. This is exactly what happened to mine after the SERVICER told me to
    get behind to qualifiy for the mod. i paid five months of mod then the servicer turned the mod into partial payments and drug me into foreclosure by mod fraud. The transfer was not made until one week before I filed my lawsuit and months and months after they refused to take anymore payments. I have made this clear to the court. I have no confidence in justice but I am fighting Pro se and doing my best.

  25. @Carie

    page 9 on Nye Lavalle article “After the Storm………” posted by Neil here on LL.

    This is what he wrote on page 9, third paragraph down:

    “In the article journalists wrote “corporate insolvencies are testing whether securitization is a “””””””stable structure or a flimsy facade””””””””. If a bankruptcy court , like in the LTV case, were to rule in fact the securities or mortgages are the property of the bankruptcy estate and had not been properly isolated in trust, then the whole industry could collapse and investors taking a back seat and position to other creditors. In fact, at the Bond Market Association’s annual meeting in New York in April 2003 , the moderator of a panel of asset-backed securitization (ABS) joked that this enormously popular form of structured financing has “””””proven to be bankruptcy remote – except perhaps in the event of bankrupt””””””””””.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I believe that is the most important part of Nye’s write-up. Thus, if the banks go Bankrupct, we have a problem houston. Thus the US Gov won’t allow it to happen. They do indeed know.

  26. @ carie,

    Are you channeling Anonymous? One minute you ask simple straight forward questions, the next you’re carrying the banner that Anonymous has raised many times before. You appear to be raking the leaves of the same trees that Anonymous shook. I don’t get it. Is he your mentor? Or are you one and the same? Curiouser and curiouser. Not that it matters. Just sayin…

  27. Carie -every institution is conspiring to either protect the banks and their agents

    MS. try US Government . Its called subrogation and capitation of the mortgage banking sectors.
    —————————————————————————-
    Kac -I don’t understand this, can’t the bank start over by having the mortgage signed over to them from MERS and just re-do the foreclosure?

    MS Its called Novae and No they cannot. Good Question.

    expert.witness@live.com

  28. I don’t understand this, can’t the bank start over by having the mortgage signed over to them from MERS and just re-do the foreclosure?

  29. “Neil does not listen — he is narrow-minded on focus that because someone else may have advanced payments for borrower — that borrower is NOT in default. This will NEVER win in courts. Courts do not care if someone else pays — they care about the borrower not paying. What we need to focus on is that borrower’s subprime refinance was unsecured — a false and fraudulent mortgage — and nothing more than debt collection on a fraudulent transfer of collection rights to a false default debt. Everyone (in subprime refinance) was in (false) default before they even refinanced.

    The banks (as debt buyers) accomplished this by falsely placing borrower in current default (and never telling them) — and then the servicer purchases the collection rights from either Freddie or Fannie. Then the servicer “reinstates” the false default debt with a fraudulent refinance. And, if there is a subsequent refinance, that is just another transfer of collection rights. Servicer reports original F/F mortgage as “paid” — but it is “Paid-OUT” — by servicer purchase — and not “Paid-OFF” by the borrower as it should have been by the (fraudulent) subprime refinance. . Thus, borrower remains in default on F/F loan – despite a subprime refinance — and borrower can never refinance with an F/F again — They are doomed if they miss even one payment on the false collection rights — and will never recover because always held in default — on both the F/F loan and the collection rights. BUT BORROWERS should not be paying on fraud!!!! They have a right withhold payments on fraudulent debt.

    All fraudulent, all in violation of consumer protection laws — and, because the “creditor” of collection right never validates the “debt” — by disclosing the actual creditor to the false default debt — in violation of FDCPA and May 2009 TILA Amendment. Meaning borrowers should not be paying anything — because of fraud and violation of federal statutes.”

    “Neil and LL have to redirect their focus — challenges after AG settlement without investigation — will be extremely difficult. Neil’s premises will not hold water – and not help the situation —- must rethink his focus — very stubborn — or he works for private debt buyers. (eventually banks sell the collection rights to private debt buyers and hedge funds — not regulated). Believe that maybe Neil and many others on LL — work for these private debt buyers — trying to “modify” again — the collection rights — just continues the fraud!!!”

    EVERYBODY CONTACT YOUR AG’S ASAP—MUST STOP SETTLEMENT!!!! MUST STOP THE COVER-UP!!

  30. i think ms. schwartz got her property free and clear since deutsche bank was not able to perfect the lien. in BK, the most important thing is for the creditors to prefect the lien. e.i. the proof of claim should be filed on time by secured creditors, if the secured creditors named on the proof of claim is different from the one filing for motion from automatic stay then there is a red flag. the debtors should dispute this inconsistency or file an adversary proceeding in regards to two different claims. i am not a lawyer, but act as a prose on my case. the debt on ms.schwartz becomes unsecured and should be discharged on her chapter 7 filing.

  31. TRANSFER TO POOL AFTER
    FORECLOSURE INITIATED: VOID

    M. Soliman – Sorry, this statement is 100% absolutely impossible. In begging your pardon, I address my esteem college who I do respect and often give a hard time (I’ve been here with you before the viewer volume hit 100,000.) You cannot transfer assets subsequent to formation whereby formation would never have taken place. Merscorp for example is listed on the mortgagor’s security and therefore is a precedent for fully subscribing to the accredited investment.

    “The fact that Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee.

    M. Soliman – Eddie are you kidding – No, No! Deutsche NEVER had possession of the mortgage, with SOLE RELIANCE on a depositors PLEDGE of collateral that is assigned subsequent to the close date (not cutoff date). The question begs is the depositors pledge in an acceptable form and substance (note), as an assignment of the rights to a contract, or satisfied electronically by Merscorp registration FBO or IFO. Under any instance or event the collateral is otherwise recorded and confirmed under a UCC filing. Recording and assignment (likely the case pledged by the repository for depositor assets by third part contract and absent delivery where collateralize as interest or assigned as non possessor title to thereof)

    While a promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, this is Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee and case with a mortgage”

    M. Soliman – To my esteemed colleague I again state you are WOEFULLY incorrect. – No Sir. For here is where you err. A promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, yet will raise questions causing it to emerge for that party in possession as impaired. Anything intended by manifest and to that destination and BPV should be executed and endorsed prior to a release of consideration. If not endorsed your under a whole new set of rules found under “Bailment” for which there is an an abundance of case law to support my knowledge of this matter I addressed in writing a PPM in 1996 and thereafter.

    Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee.
    M.Soliman – I think I see a problematic issue here which is fundamentally a common occurrence with counsel in these types of matters. Everything – I mean everything in an asset backed securitization is in a time warp. What follows convention is always in reverse. (Come on Neil – The fees are paid in advance from offering stock and repaid over time from future earnings. Bonds are accreted against the mortgages and liabilities under FAS 140 are reversed which is why we are in this God Forsaken mess).

    Dude – The fact fees are paid in advance from offering stock and repaid over time from future earnings (dividends) is illegal as hell and jail if you and I tried to do it – WTF …”Why the Fraud” . Citing the loan quality as sub par at best is damning evidential material for raising the claim for inducement (the borrower) and there is the disgorgement (investor’s capital).

    “”Like a sale of land itself, the assignment of a mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land that requires a writing signed by the grantor.” Not under a common law theory of conveyancing.

    [ “Good Delivery or Conveyancing = “due consideration” + ” lawful intent”. ]

    I said it before and will repeat it here to defeat it before this time next year. IBANEEZER ? (*%^$**) BRING IT DOWN! ars end. Ibanez, 458 Mass at 649. Like WINNING A RACE AT Churchill and holding up the result for a stewards INQUIRY. .. Hold all tickets please. Bifurcation – please. What is that, some kind of dysfunction? It’s an absurd interpretation of all the wrong facts that will get pounded at the state supreme court. Please.

    Deutsche had not received a written assignment of the mortgage from MERS prior to May 3, 2011. The fact that it had possession of the mortgage instrument did not render Deutsche the mortgagee and thus it lacked the power to sell the property.”

    By its own admission – We have the document. Duetsche Bank has stepped up to avoid the “redress controversy” or lingering long term liability and has made statement after statement – No involved . Its capitation and IASB says you cannot do. The US is the subrogor in subrogation claims that are defeated under even more case law under another unenforceable round of failed treasury / FDIC claims to repudiation and “Powers of Avoidance”

    This time its the world economy that is saying – Hey guys – no you don’t!

    M.Soliman
    Expert.wintess@live.com

  32. Is this site working okay?

  33. Deutsche Bank Trust Americas must not have had updated email address for eNotes

    Hello-
    Wells Fargo Bank NA, email address has changed.

    Please send any further communication to our new email address merswf@wellsfargo.com
    or contact Kate Barikor at kate.barikor@wellsfargo.com

  34. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  35. Carie

    Like I said in a prior posting, every institution is conspiring to either protect the banks and their agents and “surrogates” from criminal liability outright, or to pretend their friends are noble captains of industry keeping us from a new Dark Ages…..

  36. GOVERNMENT COVER-UPS ON UNPRECEDENTED SCALE—AND YOU THINK THEY WON’T DO IT WITH THE “FAKE” MORTGAGES??? THINK AGAIN—AND KEEP FIGHTING!!!

    http://www.alternet.org/story/152144/matt_taibbi_on_the_explosive_investigation_revealing_the_sec's_cover-up_of_wall_street's_crimes

    “…AMY GOODMAN: Under whose authority?

    MATT TAIBBI: Under the authority of the enforcement division. Now, this—there’s no legal authority to do this. And, you know, apparently, according to my sources, this was illegal. You can’t just unilaterally shred any government document, no matter how insignificant. And these are significant law enforcement investigatory files that they were unilaterally destroying…”

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

%d bloggers like this: