More Tempests About Servicer Advances

Amongst some lay readers there seems to be antipathy to the views I have expressed and continue to express concerning the advances by servicers to the creditors (if the recipients of the payments are deemed creditors). There is of course the question of whether the mortgage was a perfected lien or encumbrance upon the land if the “lender” in the paperwork did not advance any money as per the contract. But now some thing that advances by servicers are entitled to claim a secured lien for the money they gave to the creditor. And the argument seems to be between people who are neither accountants nor lawyers. Needless to say any reader here should check with qualified licensed legal counsel before following the paths suggested here or anywhere else.

For purposes of clarity I am quoting from an email I sent to one such person who thought that what I was saying was that the advance extinguished the debt. That is not what I meant to convey. But of course that is exactly what the bank’s attorney will assert that I am saying. The conclusion is that the debt started as a debt to the investors which probably was not secured by the recorded mortgage.

Remember that the debt was converted from a note that the borrower signed to a bond that the REMIC trust signed and the borrower knew nothing about. If the REMIC trust was properly formed and funded, and if the PSA was followed, and if the REMIC paid for the funding or purchase of the loan, then the closing documents should have reflected that, the disclosures required it under Federal Law. Assuming we accept the premise that the REMIC trust was properly secured at closing then the actions of the servicer are pursuant to the PSA. If not then the servicer is a volunteer with apparent authority ratified by conduct of the parties, to collect and disburse the borrower’s payments.

The debt, whether it was truly owed directly to the investors or owed to the investors’ Trust, can only be extinguished by payment. What if the payment comes from a third party? Well then the original debt is still extinguished and a new one arises owed to the volunteer who paid the borrower’s debt. So the uproar is over nothing. The net result though is important because extinguishing the original debt or paying the account current eliminates either the security instrument or the claim of default.  It is offered here because it eliminates the declaration of default, acceleration, foreclosure and sale of the property. If the creditors’ account showed no shortage then the existence of the default is either true or false. If current, the creditor cannot claim default nor pursue remedies for default. If not current then the reverse is true.

For the laymen naysayers I said the following:

You are mistaken although it would be expected that the banks would argue as you have set forth. You would be right if the borrower had signed up for a securitized loan and the closing documents included the PSA. The very fact that the PSA states that advances shall be repaid by the borrower underscores the legal conclusion that the debt has shifted from the original creditor to a new creditor who has no paperwork and no lien rights. In order to understand how this plays out in legal analysis you must dig deeper.

How does an agreement between investor and investment banker create a new obligation from the borrower? If it does create a new obligation then the old obligation must be extinguished. If it doesn’t create a new obligation that would require the advance to be repaid by the investor to the servicer — something that I have never seen. If the borrower is said to be untouched by the PSA or any other document to which he was not a party nor that was disclosed, then it would seem logical that the investor’s account receivable would be the basis for determining a default or shortage.

Digging even deeper, the real question comes back to who was the lender in the transaction with the borrower — was it the party named on the documents signed by the borrower? Presumptively yes but in the final analysis it doesn’t work that way if there is no underlying transaction in which money exchanged hands. The law is concerned with reality and substance far beyond form and forms. If the reality is that the investors’ money was what landed on the closing table then by operation of law it is presumed that the borrower must account for it, if it was applied to the benefit of the borrower. The borrower cannot be held to account to two different parties in the same amount on the same debt.

Thus the conclusion is that the borrower is held to account to the investors or the investors’ entity if it is validly formed and funded. If the investors chose to insert an intermediary bookkeeping service to intercept the payments, then the payments from the borrower to the bookkeeper obviously would be applied against the amount due. Whether the bookkeeper sends the money to the creditor is irrelevant if all parties have agreed by conduct to process payments in this manner.

If the borrower fails to make a payment but the bookkeeper advances the payment as though the borrower had made a payment then two conclusions are inevitable: the creditor’s account is satisfied and the bookkeeper has a claim for unjust enrichment or contribution. You are right that the debt is not extinguished. But you are jumping to the wrong conclusion as it effects the foreclosure. The effect is that the creditor is current at the time the loan is declared in default. The notice of default should have been a demand letter from the servicer for contribution, with full knowledge that such a claim has no security or collateral. The only way you could see it otherwise is to say that upon foreclosure, the servicer gets the money it advanced first, which might or might not be the case, but is a matter of proof. But this argument begs the question of how you can initiate a foreclosure in the absence of a default in the account receivable of the creditor?

These are questions that are difficult to understand without having been educated in accounting, auditing and bookkeeping. And the legal effect leads to questions that are above the pay grade of the pro se litigants who are trying to make sense out of all this without the help of an attorney.

The end result, now that I am again lead counsel on a number of cases in Florida, will end the debate. I have predicted many judges in the trial courts will reject the above analysis in favor of a more simple explanation of “the borrower didn’t pay his debt.” But on appeal, it seems to me that the conclusions I reached will be unavoidable if we have created the proper record on appeal and preserved our issues for appeal.

 

66 Responses

  1. Hi all –
    This is a great forum! I have been dealing with a fraudulent loan, paperwork etc for over 4 years now. My foreclosure my thrown out and dismissed due to the “Document Irregularities investigation in 2010”.. Of course my scum bag servicer filed again. So here we are. They just sent me the Final Judgement paperwork Sept 16th. And to my surprise I received a letter a week later telling me my loan was sold to a new servicer starting Oct 1st !!! Timely? Ironic? Idk..

    Does anyone know if the assignment of mortgage document has to change? What about the foreclosure paperwork?! It ALL lists my previous servicer and validity certifications by the old servicer. should that all be changed now as well? That servicer is no longer valid.. I would thinks they would have to re-file.. or update things ?

    This new servicer is awful. They do not know anything and when I ask questions they hang up on me! I get calls almost everyday. They “claim” they have the note to my home. They do not have accurate figures for what I owe. Wanted me to tell them! Ha. Yea right.

    Btw- I have an FHA loan that is “owned”, I say that loosely, by Housing Authority and it’s off in a pool in never never land.

    Hope someone can offer any insight to this!

    Thanks. Mel

  2. Neil, you said:

    “If the borrower fails to make a payment but the bookkeeper advances the payment as though the borrower had made a payment then two conclusions are inevitable: the creditor’s account is satisfied and the bookkeeper has a claim for unjust enrichment or contribution. You are right that the debt is not extinguished. But you are jumping to the wrong conclusion as it effects the foreclosure. The effect is that the creditor is current at the time the loan is declared in default. The notice of default should have been a demand letter from the servicer for contribution, with full knowledge that such a claim has no security or collateral. The only way you could see it otherwise is to say that upon foreclosure, the servicer gets the money it advanced first, which might or might not be the case, but is a matter of proof. But this argument begs the question of how you can initiate a foreclosure in the absence of a default in the account receivable of the creditor?”

    As to your question, seems to me the only answer can be they can’t, and I think that’s your conclusion.
    (We’re talking about a note here, not a contract for grain.)
    Right – if the bookkeeper has any claim at all against the borrower, it is NOT under the note or its collateral. I am taking it that you feel the bookkeeper has a (separate) claim for unjust enrichment, with which I 100% disagree since the bookkeeper’s contribution was voluntary, even if it’s by way of a contractual oblogation between the bookkeeper and the creditor. I’m still standing on assumption of risk as a defense to any such claim. I’d be interested in anything you’ve got which would support a claim by the bookkeeper against the homeowner becasue I just can’t see it. And what do you mean by
    “You are right that the debt is not distinguished.” Is this to say you don’t think the bookkeeper’s payments to the creditor reduce the obligation dollar for dollar? I disagree with that certainly. If that’s what you mean, then how can you say the loan isn’t in default?

  3. Thank you. I’ve checked, there is one – if I was looking at what I should have been- but it is not in their name, an affiliates name. Huum.

  4. There has to be a security agreement signed by both parties to the transaction if the issuer wants to sell investments in your security. That must be recorded with the county. The debt must be filed with the SOS by UCC 1 financing statement. Without the signed, recorded security agreement loss cannot be proven. The signed, recorded security agreement is the written proof a legal financial transaction occured.

  5. Stripes, “The transfer must occur under a pre existing contract otherwise the debt is unsecured. If no contract ever existed because of the origination fraud the originator owes you big..and the current assigned party is liable.”
    Are you talking about an originator selling onto the 2nd market? If so how does it not make it secured? The “pay to play” scam with the issuer..can you be more clear?? UKG posted a link in NG last post of my originator – the now servicer has to of known they made bad loans. Kinda unclear – but the previous owner got by without a mortgage satisfaction until 2012, the house was bought in 05! Even on the HUD-1 line 504/5 it shows nothing to pay off the previous owners current mortgage, they paid on it until 2012. Loan is now pooled, (was(they say it was) seems from the start)GNMA – it was conv.uninsured loan! The current issuer is (I think) one of those self-certificate insuring issuers and just either called it insured when it was not- or the mlo did…..My servicer has gotten judgment before on other mlo’s that sold them uninsured loans GNMA made them repurchase…..You have given me something new to think about, but I would appreciate you explaining it more because I’m not grasping it enough.

  6. The notes were counterfeited and the mortgage contracts, securities and investments were as well. There never were any securities accounts or any loan files. These were all third party transactions, they were illegal and the original notes never left our possession therefore there was nothing to shred.

  7. Eggs, I have heard through the grapevine that the notes were all shredded when they were entered into a database computer system. They (bankrsters/servicers) have also been known to produce “Notes” with fake blue ink signatures made on a color printer. Another form of forgery is made with an autopen which signs the borrower’s name from a metal plate identical with the signature and has an armature holding a pen that “signs” the signature. If you think about it, the banksters do not want any original notes, then they would have trouble selling them multiple times.

  8. Just saw an all grey unmarked plane fly over my house. It was heading west.

  9. Thsnks nPV
    For reply.
    I think im more or less on track with my requests for info under foia. I need to think about the rest of what you wrote to see what can be proved or requested for as discoverable evidence.

  10. I have evidence the wrongdoers charged off the origination fraud years before a fc was filed and dumped it public in one of those dark pools. They kept their scam going anyway, and kept on unjustly enriching themselves by racketeering and collecting payments from us fully knowing they charged off the origination fraud and concealed it. The communist third party that is fraudclosing were engaged in a pay to play type scam with the issuer.

  11. While you were away Stripes. Christine even when she gave good information
    would end steering the discussion to end up how bad America was. What ever our complaints I believe the purpose of this site should be correcting the wrongs and work on bringing America back to its glorious self; a land of opportunity, protection of property and and all that our forefathers fought for.

  12. The transfer must occur under a pre existing contract otherwise the debt is unsecured. If no contract ever existed because of the origination fraud the originator owes you big..and the current assigned party is liable.

  13. A Deborah Wynn

    You need to look at who purchase what.- Get the operating agreement for IndyMac Venture, LC to fully understand the loss-share agreement. The purchase of MSR’s by One West has nothing to do with the collection account – your loan was either repurchased by Indy or it was paid by the pool insurer on the notional amount and swept out the back door through the master servicer of the trust.

    As far as 1099 not showing true interested party – they sued you as a holder of the note /DOT, when proceeds time comes they name the Trustee because they want to pit up a credit bid, not a offer to tender cash. As far as the difference – if I was already paid in full on a defaulted loan by an insurance company or other financial interest originally intended as a hedge – I can no longer pursue you or the difference – unjust enrichment.

    There is a collection account as part of every trust, mortgages, school loans, credit card receipts, personal loans etc… they get paid and try to collect whatever they can – they are paid in full for all advances before the Trustee / Certificate Holders see one dime. Only the top tranches of any pool could benefit from REO proceeds – the rest of the classes have been dissolved or con summed through a clean-up call.

  14. How wonderful to see stripes back.

  15. Nah. .same one KC ..CST

  16. Stripes in a different time zone …

  17. That is right america WE THE PEOPLE are paying for trillions upon trillions in fraud and counterfeiting by our communist enemy.

  18. STRIPES!?

  19. They are master counterfeiters. All mortgages were treated as reverse morgages by the commie counterfeiters

  20. Deb,

    Too funny!

    “I stepped over him and walked off, next minuite he was “mommy mommy” i left him for a few mins while he came to his normal reasonable self and got off the floor,”

    When my kid used to act up, I would calmly bend down, give her a kiss on the cheek and tell her: “Bye Sophie. I will miss you very much.” And then, I’d walk away. She’d come to her senses in a jiffy! That kid is afraid of nothing and traveling the world.

  21. Deb, from what I am hearing on the News … we need to start on the streets.

    Violence is NEVER the answer.

    Please Pray for the Law Enforcement Officers who protect us from the idiots on both sides.

  22. OMG KC- where do we start- one house at a time, one community at a time, that’s where I get my nightmares.

  23. You don’t have the time to hear my opinion of the Moronic Power Hungry, Greed Driven Idiots in Washington! Trust Me!

    Its time to Take Out the Trash!

  24. my point was that Washington cant agree and work it out without resorting to a worse alternative, the rest of world is watching as Christine points out, how confident do you think the rest of world feels towards doing any kind of business with a country with a government that behaves so badly. that’s all I have to say about that. peace out.

  25. I made my share of mistakes Deb, I’m not judging or calling you a bad mom. I just don’t want you giving bad advise.

    Think Safety First.

    I think out loud to much. Its my weakness. Sorry!

  26. oh KC- I could see him at all times silly, he couldn’t see me.

  27. im a bad mom I guess KC. made mistakes, sure,
    but kid turned out very well, a joy to raise and a joy now. just saying

  28. Question of the Day ….

    How much does your mortgage have in common with a reverse mortgage?

  29. Stranger Danger? You did what? So Not Funny!

    If a child throws a tantrum… you remove them from the situation (surroundings). You leave your cart with the service desk and walk out with your child, even if you have to pick them up and carry them screaming. You will find that by the time you get to your vehicle the child is quiet (especially with grandma) . Have your discussion with the child and return to retrieve your items. BUT NEVER LEAVE A CHILD ALONE!!

    Just Saying …….

    Sorry!..

  30. washinton, heres one-
    like a child who tantrums, my child did that in the supermarket about 3 yrs old, only once, belly spinning on the floor screaming and carrying on,, I stepped over him and walked off, next minuite he was “mommy mommy” i left him for a few mins while he came to his normal reasonable self and got off the floor, then, i went back to him took his hand and that was that. lol.

  31. so NPV, iwantmynpv, on October 3, 2013 at 8:14 am said:

    Servicer advances have nothing to do with substituting the servicer as the injured party.

    They advance as required and get paid in full if the loan becomes current or is paid, i.e. foreclosure REO sale, short sale refinance.”

    please,
    can you explain/tie your above statement and relate to my issue with Onewest DBA IndyMac mortgage services and why a 1099A is issued naming them as lender, how can HSBC be the creditor and why pay “legal money” at a “trustee” sale if you already own the property for the certificate holders. is this left hand sells to right, ? why the song and dance and in my case we have a 90k deficit between 1099a and amount on trustees deed signed by- forclosure mill !!! for “fidelity” oh the players indeed.
    I am fighting a ‘trustee” “HSBC’ (bank NA) in such capacity for a Deutsche trust listing my loan as REO yet never having appeared in the closing docs or on the Maricopa county record as lawful lien on a parcel of land and home ( but filed fraudulent docs lacking in authority on that land record long after “trust” closed after the FDIC taking IndyMac after foreclosure, lacking in valid assignment thereto long after my “conventional” loan was purportedly in such trust – after cut off date. yes debt unsecured but the fraud , also- also, FDIC sold “certain assets” , one being “servicing rights” to Onewest, so “this company is a DEBT collector they failed to state “property embezzeler”, why don’t they say “this company is your lender”, now which is it, the Statement OneWest sent Carie is typical blow off, it makes no sense when you examine what they did in court to people like me, thing is with my case I have a paper trail and a record that shows their modus opperendi, and im not leaving court anytime soon. help me if you can cast light and show others where there is weakness in their (opposition) varying arguments, and ours, we are all in this together you know.
    kudos to Charles Reed, the courts themselves have caused great harm and suffering by denying due process and discovery, sure pleading need to be able to beat Iqubal twombly 12b motion to dismiss, I get that but now with egg on face what are they going to do about that, they must fix it , case by case, lets face it, banks lied their heads off, by omission/concealment.

  32. Well, here it is. The entire world is watching the very public American implosion… What a friggin’ joke this country has become!

    What The Rest Of The World Thinks About The U.S. Shutdown

    Agence France Presse | By Posted: 10/03/2013 7:38 am EDT | Updated: 10/03/2013 11:37 am EDT

    Chinese social media users took a largely mocking tone in response to the first US government shutdown in 17 years.

    “Shutdown! What about the money China put in there?” posted one user on Sina Weibo, a Chinese version of Twitter, a reference to Beijing’s massive purchases of US Treasury debt.

    The US shutdown “is highly unfortunate for the rest of the world, as even countries like the Philippines are taken on a wild economic ride because of the political game of chicken in Washington,” Philippine Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima said in a statement.

    He appealed to the United States to resolve the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling — a particular concern to Asian countries including China and Japan, which are major holders of US Treasuries.

    “A US default, unimaginable for most of history yet now in the realm of the possible because of current political circumstances, can only lead to unprecedented chaos in the global financial markets,” Purisima warned.

    The Indian Express newspaper called it a “depressingly familiar chicken dance in Washington”. In Japan — where TV channels have shown images of closed monuments such as the Statue of Liberty — the Nikkei business daily lamented a “pointless political conflict”.

    “This political mishandling must not destroy the buds of growth that we see for the US and global economies,” it said.

    In Europe, where recession-hit economies are struggling to get back on their feet after years of turmoil, finance chiefs expressed concern about the threat to the fragile recovery.

  33. re-post (Anon):

    1) Focus on subprime refinance – can extend from there. Almost all of these REMICs were subprime. And, almost all the subprime were refinances (new purchases came later but not to extent of refinances). Subprime refinances were NOT valid mortgage refinances. Neil uses the word “debt” — that is a correct word.

    SUBPRIME REFINANCES WERE CHARGED OFF GSE LOANS TO WHICH COLLECTION RIGHTS WERE SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES.

    They were loans removed from qualified GSE pass-throughs. These charged-off loans could NOT– by accounting or law — be “refinanced” — BUT, that is what a “subprime refinance” did. IT REFINANCED CHARGED OFF DEBT. Wrongly presented to borrower as a refinance, when in fact —- there can be no “refinance” on charged-off GSE debt. That is what subprime refinance was all about. Modification/restructuring of DEFAULT DEBT. No receivables involved — there are no receivables for collection rights. This is income — not receivables — a different part of accounting statements. This is why the subprime REMICs did not have to be funded. Neil always looking for the funding. No funding necessary on collection rights. NONE (except for any cash-out).

    2) Correct to bring up the revocable trust. Someone OWNS the trust — for the benefit of pass-through recipients. But, ownership of trust itself — and any rights should they exist to legal documents are NOT passed through. Only CURRENT cash is passed through. The trust is/was owned by the Depositor — who is subsidiary of the bank that purchased the “loans” (actually collection rights). Sometimes this is not shown by a REMIC — but is evident in undisclosed “corridor” agreements.

    3) Comment as to PSA and who “holds the strings” (claims Master Servicer) — is only partly correct. Remember, VALID securitization is a removable of receivables from balance sheet. As discussed above, there are no receivables in COLLECTION RIGHTS (subprime refinances). So PSA is bogus to begin with. But, assume the PSA is valid, for arguments sake. Then, in that case, receivables had to be removed from a balance sheet — someone’s balance sheet. Need to examine the Prospectus along with the PSA. PSA alone is not sufficient. This is because the Prospectus explains that “receivables” are converted to securities (the REMIC trust) — and who are the security tranches sold to by removal of so-called receivables to off-balance sheet REMIC?? The security underwriters. Thus, all receivables, if they are assumed to exist, are first sold to the security underwriter parent corporation (only one with a balance sheet), and then converted to securities sold to parent corporation’s security underwriter subsidiary (parent corp also owns the Depositor — who owns the trust). The strings?? Parent company of the security underwriter and Depositor. Master Servicer does hold the strings once default occurs. A default has no current cash pass-through unless the Servicer advances all payments to the trust. Thus, either Master Servicer advances, or default loan is removed from the trust. At removal, Master Servicer continues to service for derivative contract holders (derivatives not securities but, rather, a contract — a contract for purchase of collection rights to the default).

    4) Who is servicer servicing for when default occurs? Of course, there was already default when the subprime “refinance” was originated. Except now there is no longer any current cash pass-through. So, what distressed debt buyer did the parent corporation (to security underwriter) sell the distressed debt collection rights to?? This is not a securities investor. 1) Derivatives are not securities 2) Collection rights are not securities. Is it an investor??? Yes , a distressed debt buyer investor. BIG difference between securities investor and distressed debt investor. Neil just never got this. VERY HARMFUL to not understand this. Master Servicer will not disclose distressed debt “investor” — they do not have to as by deregulation, there is no public disclosure. Have to make courts understand this. And, have to begin with the note is NOT a valid note. (also — government Private/Public Investment Program (PPIP) aided in disposal of collection rights to private entities in the program).

    5) Agree — trustees do not even know their name is being used in litigation. OCC has warned trustees of this. Trustees should be suing Master Servicers.

    6) We do not know who the creditor is — the distressed debt buyer is concealed by the Master Servicer. Some cases are now going forward with the distressed debt buyer disclosed. But, these cases claim the note is valid. Impossible to have a named distressed debt buyer with a valid note. Again, simple accounting – note is charged off — in fact, note was charged-off BEFORE the subprime refinance. All that transfers is assignment of collection rights. No different from credit card debt (footnote 35 to TARP Oversight Report).

    7) NO RECEIVABLES. There were never any receivables for subprime refinance. NO FUNDING necessary — which is why the bogus REMICs were not funded. NO FUNDING.

    This is all strictly related to subprime refinances. But, if you cannot understand what subprime refinances were — you cannot begin to understand the process.

  34. Why I think this crisis has not come to an end is that the court system is protecting its player as when it brought up that forgeries are being delivered to the court why in fact are those cases are referred over to law enforcement by the court and the opposing attorneys?

    We know because Lorraine Brown of DocX admitted to 1 million forgeries and also out of the Szymoniak complaint MERS was also creating forgeries and none are hard to find!

    Crime by everybody in the chain have failed, but people are wondering why this has gone unchecked?

  35. Saw this on athe below website, note servicer advance discussion:

    http://www.subprimeshakeout.com/2012/03/servicers-behaving-badly-an-insiders-perspective-on-the-root-cause-of-this-recurring-problem.html
    By Steve Ruterman, guest blogger
    For its part, the trust receives the servicer advances and applies them to the monthly cash distribution waterfall. However, the trust does not recognize any new liability or note payable to the servicer, and remittance reports often do not report monthly advances and reimbursements.

    In 2002, during a routine visit to subprime servicer Fairbanks (now Select Portfolio Servicing), we asked about an amount being billed to a borrower. We were told that it was for interest on a servicer advance. The following exchange ensued.

    MBIA: “You can’t charge borrowers (or anyone else) interest on servicer advances.”

    Fairbanks: “Where does the PSA say that we can’t?”

    While Fairbanks had a point, and the relevant PSAs were silent on interest on advances, they were also silent on the general topic of imposing new costs on borrowers who were having difficulty meeting their monthly mortgage obligations in the first place. It hadn’t occurred to anyone that servicers might pursue various means of parasitizing borrowers and trusts to the direct detriment of RMBS investors.

    In 2003 Fairbanks paid the FTC and HUD $40 million to settle charges that it had engaged in “unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices in the servicing of subprime mortgage loans.” Clearly, Fairbanks employees believed they would be rewarded for thinking up new revenue generating ideas, and they certainly showed great ingenuity in these endeavors.

    Lewtan also has a discussion solely on servicer advances at:

    http://www.lewtan.com/email/serviceradvances2012.pdf

  36. justme I don’t know how a loan can go from a conventional to a FHA as I never heard of that as it either one of the other. But it sound like there was a problem getting the loan approved with you on it is why they would not put you on the Note. Was there a credit issue with you, and if not lead to an Equal Credit Opportunity issue for you, that was put in place that protect wives in these situations.

    Now for other in deal with Ginnie Mae who due to the program must at all time be in physical possession of the blank Notes because it is the underlying collateral for the securities. But this also lead to the question how is there a valid mortgage servicer. I said it impossible to for there to ever be a mortgage servicer once the Notes are relinquish to Ginnie Mae because they are not a lender and are not authorize to accept payments as payments are never due to a non-lender who has not purchase the debt.

    Only with Ginnie Mae do we know that Ginnie Mae must be in possession because they are the insurer to the securities to the tune of 100% of the initial principal investment. This is not about some trust because the trust is not the Federal Government doing the insuring.

    First I am singling out Washington Mutual Bank because we can pinpoint the exact day they no longer existed as a operational bank which was Sept 25, 2008 and at that point the phony arrangement that MERS is, is exposed because not even the lender can act as a bank so how would it be that their alleged surrogate can act to transfer assignment after Sept 25, 2008? It impossible because the party your acting for is declared a “failed bank” by the FDIC.

    Once you confront that now wants to foreclose or that has foreclosed to bring forward proof of ownership, the party is over because they cannot provide any thing where they purchase the debt, as I did with Wells Fargo who in return offered Ginnie Mae as the “lien holder” which is an impossibility!

    This is not tough if you understand who can do what by law. If there are assignment preformed after Sept 25, 2008 you know for a fact they are forgeries that are used to mislead the courts into thinking Wells Fargo who is a bank is the bank “holder in due course”, which they could never be.

    Passing around a blank Note means nothing unless the hold of has documentation of proof of purchase!

  37. Servicer advances have nothing to do with substituting the servicer as the injured party.

    They advance as required and get paid in full if the loan becomes current or is paid, i.e. foreclosure REO sale, short sale refinance.

  38. I am not great at how the courts work, I have just been diving around in how securitization etc. works….
    What would the Judge do then? When you say it is a Federal court thing? I am in State…what happens? How does it go from state to federal? Interestingly enough my loan should not have been FHA insured to get into Ginnie. FHA is working on that now, the loan was a conv.uninsured and magically ended up FHA insured. I agree with you on the old Woman thing 100% Too bad I am mid 20’s lol! Maybe they will look at me like a kid and have a soft spot, fingers crossed. They did actually put my husband on the mortgage & note, but not me and I have not figured out why. I was on ( one version) of their fiddeled with loan application..but not the note or mortgage -and thank goodness never signed anything waiving any anything by the servicer! I have been tinkering with marital property rights and the whole “you can only foreclose on my husbands half, not mine” ……needless to say I am going incircles.
    It is a shame it is our own people, if I dare, that are just cracking away at the quality of life. Indeed that floodgate will be a BIG one. I am curious to see if this Truckers to shut down America will do anything. Remember not to buy anything October 11-13! Buy your toilet paper ahead of time folks!

  39. Justme I believe that Ginnie Ponzi is the easy to break because the format for each loan is going to be the same and because they are 100% Federally owned they are hampered by their own rules.

    Look your fight is federal court and not state because what you got is a forgery situation and plus there treble damage. These Note are using UCC 3 having blank Notes being introduce in these pools.

    They are messing up the states titling system so that it impossible to prove who owner and who did what when. Now what they got on there hand is that just how and when thing were done is solved. What Ginnie has working against them is the same routine being a government outfit.

    The flood gate going to to open on these Reverse Mortgage also as it was just pointed out by KC, because it was a common practice from the article I been reading that the husband were signing and being advised that the young wife could stay in the house after the husband die so the wives signed over the rights. This is BS, but it shows the heartlessness of one Secretary Donovan in this case just posted.

    Let me tell you one thing about American and that is they will not tolerate old white ladies being abused. You can have all other groups but a white elder mother being attack is not going to cut it here.

    I getting ready to write Sec Donovan and give him the business!

  40. Chrustine
    Indeed i remain ” a bit cross”
    But more so. A bit sad. How could this hapoen. How cruel. Mans inhumanity to man. Dont get it.

  41. Somebody let the Cat out of the Bag. ……

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Bennett-v-HUD-Donovan.pdf

    You would be surprised to … if this happened to you!

    Even if You Didn’t have a Reverse Mortgage.

    Connecting the Dots ….

    Many Blessings to All!

  42. That can also destroy any affidavits from any “document custodian”. My ass document custodian. GNMA has an online index of a list of all their approved MBS issuers and document custodians.
    Joke
    * “Please tell me, are you the real document custodian of the defendants note”
    ~why yes. I have personal knowledge yaghta yaghta yaghta..”
    * “Then can you explain why you are not on GNMA’s approved list of document custodians?”

    ~ “…..”

  43. Indeedybob crazy. You can foreclose on the note and just be holder – you do not have to own the loan. And concerning Ginnie mae – I have that down pat. The bingo bango to Ginnie is in the scurry of the servicers to rush & foreclose – they use a copy of the note, they file with a COPY, usually not indorsed in blank (or it never really made it to a pool, suprise suprise)
    http://www.allregs.com/tpl/Viewform.aspx?formid=00001678&formtype=agency
    (or look up HUD-11708)

    like that?

    The issuer of the MBS, most likely the servicer, gets a copy.
    PROVE THAT BABY UP SIR and the date on it will tell you if the foreclosing party had the note at the time they filed.
    Bingo bango baby🙂

  44. I think that blank Note being tossed around and because they are blank he who holds the Note is the owner of the Note is owner? I don’t agree with this thought because in order for one to own the Note (Note) you must have purchase the debt, because a Note is only a Note because its an agreement of debt to be paid back.

    If the holder of the Note does not also possess the debt you can pass that sucker around as much as you want, as it is no longer a Note by the term in which it was intended. Here how crazy this is sounding where justme is saying that in the State of WI however is in possession of the Note by any means they came by the Note can simply foreclose?

    First we got to understand what a Note is, and why it is a Note, and what happen when the Note is separated from the debt (not title)!

  45. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Lets start looking for some bright Judges that can understand this simple issue and lets all start getting all that was stolen from us back and not be fooled by a bankers fast two step. These bankers have properties worth good money where they do their quick two step..

  46. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44375023/ns/business-us_business/t/uncle-sam-reluctant-landlord-foreclosed-homes/#.UkrdbxC918E

    Landlord Uncle Sam wants to sell foreclosures

    2013-10-01 — nbcnews.com

    “Since the 2008 financial collapse, the government has spent billions of dollars trying to extricate borrowers from high-cost loans, aid delinquent homeowners and stabilize neighborhoods. The results have been disappointing [abysmal is more like it. Isn’t that the term used by Bill Black for the past 6 years?] The Obama Administration’s signature loan-modification program has helped about 657,000 homeowners — far short of its goal of 3 to 4 million. The program was a victim of its complexity and its inability to cope with overwhelming demand. Many families hit hardest by the housing downturn are concentrated in states that are having the most difficulty recovering from the recession, including Florida, Ohio and Nevada.

    The government’s call for ideas is a sign it is deluged with repossessions, commonly known as real-estate-owned properties or REO. “It’s almost like having the captain of the Titanic go on the public address system and say, `Does anybody have an idea?'” says Mark Wiseman, a former director of Cleveland’s foreclosure-prevention program. “It’s not a confidence builder.””

  47. People are so friggin’ fed up with the circus that they have a hard time taking anything seriously any longer. The good thing about the shutdown is that many more people are now on the receiving end of those insane policies implemented by Congress and government. They should start noticing soon… Maybe they’ll finally revolt…?

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/01/three-cheers-the-shutdown/

  48. This is hilarious! Deb, you’re gonna get a kick out of this. And having a good laugh can’t hurt.

    EUROPEAN THREAT ALERTS – 2013
    by JOHN CLEESE

    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

    The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Once “sort of English” Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right mate”. Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

    Regards,

    John Cleese ,
    British writer, actor and tall person

    And as a final thought … Greece is collapsing, the Iranians (Persians) are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 B.C.

  49. Another piece of wishful thinking… Nope, nothing will happen to anyone of them. Know why? People like it that way. Otherwise, they would long have reacted by demanding accountability from their elected reps and refusing to pay their salaries…

    143-year-old law has Washington treading gingerly during shutdown
    KEVIN LAMARQUE / Reuters
    Lawmakers feel fenced in by an 1870 law.

    Administration officials now live in fear of a 19th-century law that could get them fired, penalized or even imprisoned if they make the wrong choices while the government is shut down.
    The law is the Antideficiency Act, passed by Congress in 1870 (and amended several times), which prohibits the government from incurring any monetary obligation for which Congress has not appropriated funds.

    In shutting down the government, most memos cite the law as the reason. The Government Accountability Office says employees who violate the Antideficiency Act may be subject to disciplinary action, suspension and even “fines, imprisonment, or both.”

    CNBC has learned that in several executive branch departments, high-level staff members review individual decisions about what government activities to allow for fear of running afoul of the Antideficiency Act. One White House official said he has advised his employees not to check their email or cellphones. Under the act, even volunteering for government service is expressly prohibited.
    In a memo to his department employees today, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew cited the law as the reason for reduced staffing.

    “For the duration of this impasse, as required by the Antideficiency Act and directed by OMB, the Department will be required to operate with only the minimal staffing level necessary to execute only certain legally exempted activities,” Lew wrote.

    The only exemptions to the shutdown concern “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,” according to government documents. That has meant airports and the Postal Service are open, Social Security checks get paid and federal prisons and courts will operate as normal as do most national security functions including the military and the Central Intelligence Agency. But national parks and museums are closed along with big parts of the departments of Education and Commerce

    Congress passed the law as part of a struggle—dating back to the nation’s founding—for control over the power of the purse. Some presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, would incur obligations for which Congress had to appropriate funds after the fact.
    What is ironic is that Congress in shutting down the government has to at least to some extent given up the power of the purse to the executive branch. Under the broad guidelines of what constitutes an emergency or threat to life or property, OMB now more or less decides what gets funded and what doesn’t. But that latitude is limited by the fear of officials that, sometime after the event, a given decision is found to have been in violation of the Antideficiency Act.

    —By CNBC’s Steve Liesman. Follow him on Twitter: @steveliesman

  50. justme,
    Yes, that’s the problem with blank-endorsed notes–theoretically, they can just be passed around like a schoolboy at Bohemian Grove and whoever holds it in their hot little hands at any given moment can be legally said to be its “holder.” However, in the real world, it actually works a little differently. In my case, I was told in sworn deposition testimony (by Michele Sjolander) that Countrywide/BoA notes are kept in concrete-reinforced vaults built to GSE security standards and that these vaults cannot be entered without authorization and escort. However, inside the vaults, the notes are just in plain ol’ manila folders with barcodes on them. And the notes cannot be removed from the vault except under strict protocols.

    Is any of that true? Who knows? My point is, if you are faced with a claim of “we have the original note in our possession,” that’s when the questions should start flying: how did you come to get it, where are such notes kept in the general course of business, where are the vaults, who specifically removed this note from the vault, who transported it, what are these people’s names and positions in the company, etc.” Bring those people in for questioning. In other words, make them establish a real-world, physical, analog, alibi for the specific geographic location of the note at all times and the names of the people who purportedly handled it. Was it mailed via FedEx? If so, is there a receipt? Was it delivered by a courier service? What was the name of the courier? And so on.

    Then proceed to exploit the inevitable holes in that story. BTW, I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Strictly entertainment.

  51. @ Eggsistence 3:56pm

    Agree 100% , if I’m not a party to the deal … I’m not a party to the deal.

    @ Neil

    VERY GLAD that you’re obviously feeling better and are taking an active role …

    My question is along Eggistence’s line of reasoning … My debt was unquestionably extinguished by the AIG bailout of the remic while my account was current. Why shouldn’t we use that club to beat it into the publics head that MILLIONS of mortgages that people are currently paying on have a ZERO ($0) balance,, and that many hundreds of thousands of people were foreclosed upon illegally when they had a paid in full loan.

  52. And another thing…..the headlines sounds tough:

    “Deal Gives Bank Of America 120 Days To Implement Systemic Changes To Ensure Compliance With Terms Of The National Mortgage Settlement

    AND

    Schneiderman: Big Banks Face Clear Choice – Comply With Servicing Standards Outlined In National Mortgage Settlement And Treat New Yorkers Fairly, Or Face Real Consequences”

    Whatever happened to the ”real consequences” already chiseled in stone from the settlement order? Such as:

    “….a civil penalty of up to $1 million dollars for each violation….”

    How many times are they going to allow these criminal enterprises to skate? Is everyone so totally afraid of going after these entities that they all simply refuse to do their jobs? These AGs are spineless.

    THEY ALL NEED TO GO.

  53. It’s not just Ginnie allowing the servicers to hold the note and do the nasty, it’s standard protocol for Freddie and Fannie as well. That way, we the sheeple don’t see that it’s actually our government, through the GSEs, who are behind the foreclosing of us all. It feels squeaky clean that way. And all of D.C. watches on, content in the fact that they will not be victimized by this thievery, and that one day, after another many million more constituents are tossed overboard for the sake of the financial community, all will eventually be well. Or so they like to believe. I guarantee that that won’t be the outcome here, ‘cause when this thing blows, it’ll make Mt. St. Helens look like a firecracker

  54. But in the case of ginnie they allow the servicers to “hold” the note on their behalf in order to foreclose. In Wi all you need is the note – whether you own it, stole it, or found it on the street, if you have it you can foreclose with it. Which is bs if you ask me – but that is where you bring in the party with real interest.
    I am wrestling with myself here on that. PETE vs, party of real interest, vs holder, vs going insane a bit.

  55. I still say that if a servicer advances payments on my behalf, without my express consent or knowledge, that constitutes a gift to me. Should I get the house if the servicer pays the note in full without my express consent or knowledge? Of course! Why should the servicer get it? The servicer doesn’t own or hold the note and therefore cannot enforce the deed of trust/mortgage against me, only the note holder can, and the note holder has no interest in enforcing the deed of trust because they were paid by the servicer.

    By this logic that borrowers owe a servicer for any advances made without the borrower’s express consent or knowledge, what is to stop a wealthy investment group from say, paying off my car loan (or a tranche of securitized car loans) without my express consent or knowledge, then coming after me for the money they advanced “on my behalf” and/or taking my car? After all, I’m now “unjustly enriched” because they paid off my car, right? But I never authorized them to do that, and I did not know they were doing it. Does that entitle them to sue me for the money or take the car? I can’t quote you a statute that says I don’t owe them, but that sounds like a gift to me!

  56. There are still payments being made (at this point, we are not sure from whom and to whom) with violations of the rights of borrowers right from the closing table with the alleged lender not included in the Note and Mortgage with MERS not on the Note as well. On top of that, we have the wrong MERS on the mortgage who is not in biz anymore. Wow! Whatta mess.

  57. Neil here what happen is that banks as in WaMu or IndyMac failed situations had other go into courts from NY to LA claiming that they were the “holder in due course” and not some money bogymen who really funded millions loans. And now we are back in court because not only the first party claimed to be the debt holder and now after the fact another party is claiming that they are the debt holder, but got no paper trial and the reason for that is that it the bogyman who actual lent the money.

    You cannot deface a check or a dollar and insert your name as it is a forgery as you are counterfeiting a bank Note, and these assignment are extension of that Note. So in a few million cases we are putting the horse before the cart as we are not demanding that law enforcement get involved first, before these civil cases.

    JPMorgan was now also looking a criminal investigations, and that butt got to the Justice Dept before that perk walk outside of JPMorgan HQ, which a Jamie Dimon with his hand behind his back in cuffs!

    We know that DocX created 1 million forgeries and MERS I am sure doubled if not tripled that total of forgeries. However where are the easiest forgeries to find? Government insured loans because the Notes once relinquished to Ginnie Mae is forever in the hand of Ginnie Mae as they cannot transfer the thing!

  58. Saw this on athe below website, note servicer advance discussion:

    http://www.subprimeshakeout.com/2012/03/servicers-behaving-badly-an-insiders-perspective-on-the-root-cause-of-this-recurring-problem.html
    By Steve Ruterman, guest blogger
    For its part, the trust receives the servicer advances and applies them to the monthly cash distribution waterfall. However, the trust does not recognize any new liability or note payable to the servicer, and remittance reports often do not report monthly advances and reimbursements.

    In 2002, during a routine visit to subprime servicer Fairbanks (now Select Portfolio Servicing), we asked about an amount being billed to a borrower. We were told that it was for interest on a servicer advance. The following exchange ensued.

    MBIA: “You can’t charge borrowers (or anyone else) interest on servicer advances.”

    Fairbanks: “Where does the PSA say that we can’t?”

    While Fairbanks had a point, and the relevant PSAs were silent on interest on advances, they were also silent on the general topic of imposing new costs on borrowers who were having difficulty meeting their monthly mortgage obligations in the first place. It hadn’t occurred to anyone that servicers might pursue various means of parasitizing borrowers and trusts to the direct detriment of RMBS investors.

    In 2003 Fairbanks paid the FTC and HUD $40 million to settle charges that it had engaged in “unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices in the servicing of subprime mortgage loans.” Clearly, Fairbanks employees believed they would be rewarded for thinking up new revenue generating ideas, and they certainly showed great ingenuity in these endeavors.

    Lewtan also has a discussion solely on servicer advances at:

    http://www.lewtan.com/email/serviceradvances2012.pdf

  59. So let say the funds are under the table funding and are from an investor instead of the alleged originating bank, then in order to claim that debt against the property is that lender must be a home mortgage lender doing under the Fair Housing Act, and best they have is a unsecured loan.

    I not seen this being brought up were the banks are saying it was not our money and it was actually someone else who put up the money. So if Pauly and Saul had some money lying around and wanted the bank to act as if they originated the loans, cannot happen just as these other who may have supplied the monies, but who arguing this point?

    So you fraudulently represent your position and as we are seeing the settlement that the loans were wrongly underwritten and the investors are wanting their monies back and are receiving it, why are you going down this road when bank Z is claiming ownership and there is no paper trial that the clown purchased air!

    I don’t see the investor grievance with the borrower but against the bank and its assets which is what happening because what going on is the properties have taken a huge lost and the bank is responsible for their transaction to make good and is why these investor did not chose to be mortgage lenders ans instead wanted to invest in other than.

    Let take Ginnie Mae who investors are guaranteed 100% of the initial principal amount. The Fed is not trying to argue that they secretly funded these loans to for a 70% now valued foreclosed property or 50% value in Atlanta?

    Maybe there are other thing at play here as a lay person, but 100% in the hand is worth more than two 50% current value homes with cloudy titles!

  60. “Whether the bookkeeper sends the money to the creditor is irrelevant if all parties have agreed by conduct to process payments in this manner.”
    The borrower never agreed to this – they could not have for they did not know of such investor.
    This is bringing the investor onto the playing field. In my lay opinion, the Judges do not want to take it that far, and little to none will succeed trying to prove the actual account receivable.I am, follow the money I sure will try to do but it is in the Judges hands. You always said you have 5 minutes to get that Judges attention. Short, sweet & powerful to open. So unless you get hat discovery and you do catch that spark of excitement in the Judges eye I would not be jumping the gun just yet. All in all you are right, I guess I am trying to apply it strategy wise.

  61. If there had been no money lent, JP Morgan wouldn’t be scrambling to stop the investigations. Why are they offering to pay fines? Because once all the inquiries have been conducted as they should have been 6 years ago, those banks KNOW that they are history: they WILL have to be dismantled to repay back the pension funds they stole.

    JPMorgan Offers Feds $3 Billion to End Mortgage Probes
    by FOXBusiness Sep 25th 2013 6:45AM
    Updated Sep 25th 2013 8:59AM
    JPMorgan Trading Loss FinesKathy Willens/AP
    By Matt Egan

    In an effort to escape a dark cloud of legal uncertainty, JPMorgan Chase has expanded negotiations with the U.S. Justice Department by offering to pay $3 billion to settle a wide range of ongoing investigations, The Wall Street Journal reported.

    The expanded talks with the DOJ come just days after the largest U.S. bank agreed to shell out a whopping $920 million and admit wrongdoing to settle charges tied to the London Whale trading fiasco.

    The new push to resolve cases suggest JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and his board are increasingly willing to stomach hefty fines to lessen the company’s legal uncertainties.

    Some analysts have recently been warning the regulatory scrutiny threatens to hurt JPMorgan’s bottom line and its relationship with customers.

    While JPMorgan offered to pay $3 billion to settle a number of ongoing probes, the DOJ is arguing the company should pay billions more, the Journal reported, adding that precisely which cases might be included in a deal isn’t clear.

    New York-based JPMorgan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

  62. Excellent analysis!

    I’m just wondering how long it will take before the judiciary at the appellate level gets tired of ruling on the same issues because the lower courts refuse to follow the rule of law?

    In California, until recently the lower courts without question rubber stamp ever demurrer filed as case dismissed and send the homeowner on their way.

    However, in almost all cases where the homeowner has appealed, the cases are remanded because the homeowner has stated some sort of claim that should have been allowed to proceed or given the homeowner the chance to amend and state a cause of action.

  63. Excellent analysis!

    I’m just wondering how long it will take before the judiciary at the appellate level gets tired of ruling on the same issues because the lower courts refuse to follow the rule of law?

    In California, until recently the lower courts without question rubber stamp ever demurrer filed as case dismissed and send the homeowner on their way.

    However, in almost all cases where the homeowner has appealed, the cases are remanded because the homeowner has stated some sort of claim that should have been allowed to proceed or given the homeowner the chance to amend and state a cause of action.

  64. Damnit! Spend 1 hour of your precious time listening to this and see if there was “no money!!!!!!!” If there really hadn’t been any, it would have been pretty easy to fix. Regulatory agencies haven’t been able to because they can’t figure out where the money actually came from. But it did come from somewhere!!!!!!!!!

  65. “The debt, whether it was truly owed directly to the investors or owed to the investors’ Trust, can only be extinguished by payment. What if the payment comes from a third party? Well then the original debt is still extinguished and a new one arises owed to the volunteer who paid the borrower’s debt. So the uproar is over nothing.”

    Bingo! What it comes down to is really quite simple: borrower didn’t have the money required to pay cash for the house. Borrower contracted a loan for a certain amount. Borrower owes someone for it, whether a lender, investors, a trust or an insurance company if one ended up paying out under some exotic coverage.

    Those who keep harping that “there was no money paid” are grossly mistaken and they are advancing some pretty dangerous assertions. I said it 3 years ago, I said it a year ago and I will keep on saying it. Everyone in the fight MUST track down the money. Not to prove to whom the money was owed but, on the contrary, to prove that whoever is filing the foreclosure action is not the party of interest and has no standing. Everything else is hogwash. And posting the same Anon stuff over and over ain’t changing that. Funny how some people will insist on pushing forward theories they, themselves, didn’t even have the guts to experiment with!

    Anyone with half a brain only needs to look at the results obtained by Anon so far in her own case(s) to know that it is not the route to a win!

    For Pete’s sake, listen to Matt Taibbi’s video posted yesterday and you’ll KNOW real money was used to perpetuate the atrocities this country can’t seem capable of resolving once and for all!

  66. Some times I am wounder ,you get every few months a simple letter
    what tells you : next months you pay to another Server .That letter is not even certified.How I know the have the new server has the right to collect my payment ? If you don’t pay to the new server or did not even get this letter , I am sure you in foreclosure .

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: