Why do we need to force the banks to accept more money in modification?

Selecting a forensic analyst or a lawyer to represent you in a mortgage dispute. You need to look at their credentials rather than listen to their sales pitch. And you need people who really believe that you can and SHOULD win. For our services and products call our customers service numbers at 520-405-1688 on the West Coast, and 954-495-9867. Or visit http://www.livingliesstore.com. Don’t waste your money if the people lack the credentials and experience and commitment to make things work out the way you want it. Everyone promises the world. We promise expertise and guidance on how to use it in court.

————————————————————————

It seems obvious. And if you are a lawyer practicing in real estate, you have probably attending CLE seminars about mortgage lending requirements and what to do when the borrower is in default or claimed to be in default. The answer is always a “workout” wherever possible. And the reason is that you get more from a workout than the proceeds from a foreclosure and all the financial requirements of ownership like maintenance, taxes, insurance and the expenses of selling, repairs etc. It really is that simple.

But Banks don’t want workouts or modifications. They only want to use the illusory promise of modification to get the borrower in so deep he sees no way out when the application is eventually denied. Why are so many trial modifications now in court because the bank denied the permanent modification after the trial modification as approved and the borrower met all the requirements including payments? why are the banks pursuing a strategy where they are guaranteed far less money than ramping up the “workout” programs. Maybe because if they did, they would be admitting that the loan was defective in the first place, the appraisal was inflated, the viability of the loan was zero, and the borrower had been tricked.

So why do the Banks need to be forced to take more money and less responsibility for the property? It seems obvious that they would want a workout rather than a foreclosure because it will end up with more money in their pockets and the whole mortgage mess behind them with a nice clean note and mortgage.

The answer can only be that the Banks oppose such efforts because the rational strategy of a true lender won’t end up with more money in THEIR pockets. And THAT can only be true if they are working off some different business model than a lender. It means by definition in a rational world, as Greenspan likes to say, that they could not possibly be the lender or working for the lender.

It can only be true if they are protecting the fees they are earning on nonperforming loans and justifying their stubborn resistance to modification and principal reduction by showing that the foreclosure was the only way out even though it wasn’t. The destruction of tens of thousands of homes in various cities shows that the net value of the foreclosure was zero even while the homeowners were applying for modifications that, if approved, would have not only saved individual homes, but entire neighborhoods.

The other reason of course is that the banks don’t own the loans and they did receive multiple payments on the loans from multiple sources. A foreclosure hides these payments.

So the practice hint is to be persistent and insistent on following the money trail. What the San Francisco study revealed as well as other similar studies and are own study here at livinglies is that the courts are rubber stamping foreclosures that are in favor of complete strangers tot he transaction. They don’t have a dime in the deal. But they are being given judicial nod that they are the creditor even though they are clearly not the creditor. This false creditor now has authority to claim the status of creditor and to buy property worth millions of dollars with a non-monetary credit bid in the amount of their claim, thus “out bidding” any conceivable competition and guaranteeing their ownership of the property, or allowing someone else to outbid them and taking the money from the sale even though everything they had done up to that point was false.

So you have these people and companies in a cloud of false claims of securitization selling the loan multiple times through insurance and other gimmicks making a ton of money assuming the identity of the investors and assuming ownership over the borrower’s identity and trading on that all for the purpose of ill-gotten gains. It is fraud, identity theft, RICO and Ponzi Schemes all rolled into the fog that comprises the false claims of securitization.

PRACTICE HINT: Test each transaction claimed to see if money exchanged hands and if so between what parties. You will find that the money transactions — that is the reality of what was going on bears no resemblance to the paper trail. The paper trail is meant to lead you down the rabbit hole. First establish what is in the paper trail, then establish what transactions actually occurred and then compare the two and show that the paper trail is a trail of lies.

THE KEY TO THIS MESS IS TO REPLACE OR SUBSTITUTE THE CURRENT SYSTEMS OF SERVICERS WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF SERVICING AND A DIFFERENT SET OF SERVICERS TO REPLACE THOSE WHO ARE BLOCKING THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN LENDERS AND BORROWERS.

Mortgage borrowers get more foreclosure protection from Mass. bank regulators
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2013/10/17/mortgage-borrowers-get-more.html

The Very Worst Thing About Foreclosures Today Is Watching Consumers That You Know Could be Helped Standing in Court Without An Attorney
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1050081/

 

23 Responses

  1. FORECLOSING MODIFICATIONS: HOW SERVICER
    INCENTIVES DISCOURAGE LOAN MODIFICATIONS

    http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1074/86WLR755.pdf

  2. gentlemen, keep your money in your pockets. Soliman is trolling for suckers. Don’t be one.

  3. carie – I got distracted from my search, but there’s a lot of it at scribd – just have to hunt and peck. yahoo search ” davies v deutsche’ and “davies v deutsche scribd”.

  4. justme helped clarify the answer to this post, at least for me. GNMA guarantees the MBS, derivatives from FHA and VA loans. It no longer, post-securitization, guarantees the loans themselves, way I get it, which to me is scandalous, in a word. Bottom line of that is twofold: secn trustee avoids duties and GNMA avoids “who owns this loan”? As to default, there are some hoops to jump thru to get these funds from GNMA, but when the dust settles, no one except the socialist GNMA has lost a dime.
    Could the same result be reached by modification? First of all, far as I can tell and that’s a large caveat, GNMA doesn’t cover any loss realized by anyone as a result of modification. (Anyone?) Get that out of the way. Looks like that falls to HAMP or other government sponsored programs.
    If the case of modification, what changes? First of all, the loan has to be repurchased. Secondly, there is no guarantee a borrower will make his new payments and someone other than the alleged trust now owns that new loan.Yikes – naked! (It’s my understanding that as to FNMA loans, FNMA will not repurchase a loan which has been modified. Same probably goes for FHLMC) Loans aren’t, in my opinion, modified on behalf of any trust, though there are ‘entanglements’ with getting a loan out of a trust, even if the trust
    legitimately owns it. This is where the trouble likely begins. GNMA has guaranteed payment on the certificates, but only thru the Issuer.

    The loan, pursuant to the Prospectus and the agreement between the Issuer and GNMA, has to be taken out of its alleged pool to modify. With what funds? GNMA says the issuer’s funds. Okay, but by whom? Probably the Master Servicer / the sub-servicer. (The servicer is not necessarily a licensed lender and unless the servicer has to buy it from the issuer by contractual agreement, it’s not the servicer’s loan to modify such that it might avoid lending licensing requirements – imo.)

    Say an FHA loan is allegedly in a trust and JQP has applied for modification. GNMA says someone has to repurchase that loan and the issuer has to provide the funds. The major players accepted HAMP funds, and thus, my opinion, the duty to modify loans. But to do so, the owner of the loan, the trust supposedly, has to first be paid for the loan. If the loan weren’t transferred to the trust, the party to pay is not the trust (COULD re-payment, essentially, of the funds to the trust for a loan stand in the stead of the non-delivered loan? Got me – probably very complicated) How to modify a loan when paying the wrong party for the loan could be disastrous? For one thing, if it’s not in the trust, the loan may have already been retired by third party payouts. Even if not, if the loan weren’t transferred to the trust, it can’t be now, because of trust laws (and other reasons imo), and none of them want to out the lack of transfer. But wait, you say: The banksters are already trying to effectuate late transfers to trusts, courtesy of “MERS” assignments of the notes and dots, so why not just assign the loan to the trust now and ‘repurchase’ it? As to the current pre-foreclosure assignments, I’d say they feel they have NO choice, because to complete their enterprise, they have to make a record of the transfer SOMEwhere in order to foreclose in the trust’s name post-MERS Consent Order.

    Otherwise, financially, how does the modification stack up next to foreclosure where it appears less money is realized? It isn’t really,
    because someone, like GNMA, is taking the hit. I’m going to hazard that HAMP funds have moved over to the bright side of balance sheets and that they may also accrue interest – lots of it.
    And what about the fha and va guarantee? What happens to it when an fha or va loan is modified? Again, far as I can tell, no claim can be made to GNMA for loss of principal on a modified loan. That leaves HAMP and other program funds, which apparently as another factor, the banksters don’t want to part company.
    Whose books is a modified loan going to sit on? Who will insure it? I haven’t even mentioned the moolah the servicers make on defaulted loans because we’ve addressed it 10 times (and its monster conflict of interest).
    I’m not sure I’ve said anything new, but maybe this will inspire some
    new thoughts. We really need to know our enemy, not just
    speculate. Who the hell knew that would be a career?

  5. Where can we find the latest Brian Davies info?

  6. They removed the Brian Davies link. I will let people come to the conclusion as to who did it. Brian Davies is taking the Glaski decision to them. Somebody is trying to bury the Glaski decision from the public. I wonder who?

    “Be strong and courageous”

  7. The A man – haven’t read your Davies link yet, but gotta give it to that guy. He’s a scrapper!

  8. New to me: JP Morgan is the custodian for the MBS’s the fed is buying.

    The other day MS said in his jumble about what happened to existing loans which should have been paid off etc:

    “So exiting liens (were) moved OFF TITLE”. They were released, right?
    MS, so what, as long as they were released, which they were. True, the maker of a note should get it marked ‘paid’ when it’s paid, but who gets that, anyway? I’m not at all making light of this, or even suggesting it isn’t wrong, or maybe even criminal, I’m just trying to see the injury to the borrower or how any of that does the borrower any good. From my limited assimilation of your pig-latin and dismal writing skills, the real issue I can see so far is if the loan to be paid off and wasn’t had been securitized. Okay, I also caught a whiff of a 5 yr payout on a 30 year loan, but not understanding (these) securities and their payout terms in time, a whiff is all I get. I don’t understand the term in years for the payments on MBS’s. It appears to be different than the term of the note(?) But, I think you’re referring to something about that payoff moolah with discounts and so on?
    You know what your mumbo jumbo about a five year prepayment reminded me of, MS? Hearing that loans were supposed to be seasoned before being eligible for securitization. I’ve thought the guarantee was their self-styled and illegal cure, but maybe not. Maybe it’s some gymnastics with the payoff funds to prepay the new loan.
    Last but not least, MS, if you actually know something helpful to
    the thousands and thousands of people struggling with the enormity of this situation and not spilling, imo you’re one cold-hearted orb, regardless of what you THINK you’ve earned.

  9. Matt Weidner article,

    It’s not a foreclosure if the creditor is not the one forcing the evacuation of a building.

    It’s not justice nor equitable if the real party of interest is not in the court room, and all evidence is hearsay and fraud documents creating the illusion of an agreement.

    Courts are a game. Games have rules. Only the rules matter.
    Justice is blind. Eeeny meenie miney moe.

    The game seems to be more ‘trap the judge into violating the rules of the creation’. Get the judge to accept the lie and turn over someone’s life by their hand.

    Attorneys attorn. While we are experiencing their injustice against us, they cause more spiritual accountability to judges by enticing them to write orders in favor of their lies.

    If a judge has an affinity with anyone in the courtroom within three degrees, by their own rules they must recuse their self.
    The judge chooses of their free will to deal blind justice and ignore the Creator in the courtroom.

    affinity is family as well as spiritual.
    Ignore it if they must, but it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    The Creator is never represented in the court. The Creator cannot be forced to be represented in the court. The Creator cannot be presumed to be represented in the court. The Creator is the I AM.

    Judge not, that ye are not judged has multiple meanings, yet the judge has fallen. They fell away from the Creator and are in the abyss of the creation. They have disconnected from their Father and have fallen away from the truth.

    They serve with the other fallen Ones.
    They know what they do, because they have a conscience whether they use it or not, they have one. (their Jimney cricket, the inner self, the knows the truth)

    He who has committed iniquity, shall not have equity.
    noun \-kwə-tē\. : the quality of being unfair or evil. : something that is unfair or evil. gross injustice : wickedness.

    Matthew 8:11-13
    …. there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 13:41-42
    41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
    42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 13:49-51
    ….. there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 22:12-14
    …. there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 24:50-51
    …. there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 25:29-31
    ….. there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Luke 13:27-29
    There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth ….

    Having to choose of the evils of a man’s judgment, I’d rather someone steal a property and sign their name to the theft than to take my soul with my assistance.

    Judges! Your oaths are serious. The subconscious will bind you to the oath you took even if you decide to consciously ignore it.

    Woe be unto judges.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  10. I would love to know who is actually winning cases and what state there in.Im in Ca and I do not see anything not even the smallest win,I have a 2005,nov cash out refi,interest only for ten years that I started trying to renegotiate 3 years ago.I was told by Wells Fargo that they cant and that the “investor is the defunked Thornburg mortgage trust 2006-4 and after asking for the info from WF and copies of hud settlement page from origination WF claims to have paid my second for 134k so according to their math(I paid it off 2 mnths prior to refi and have chks to prove it)they shorted me on cash out 134k and charging interest on it.It sounds confusing but in a nut shell they never paid me the 134k at closing but now even with that and all the fraudulent behavior since then I cant even get a lawyer to handle my case and they have since filed a nod after multiple complaints to cfpb etc so Please tell me who is winning?

  11. We need more and more ProBono attorneys coming forward to help the home owners. If not, it would be nice attorneys’ advertising, ” No free unless successful against Bank of America.”

  12. @ Javagold 4:59p

    I too would like to hear from MasterServicer… we have been writing and talking for the last week and I think he might actually have something valuable… but there are three problems ,, #1 he will not disclose enough for me to know if what he is selling ; the blueprint to how the scam was pulled off in actuality , and how this affects transactions I have been pulled into with or without my knowledge. This is because he appears afraid that his work might be stolen and reused … and #2 I am not a cpa or a lawyer and I involved my legal counsel asking her assistant to contact Maher and evaluate his “theory” which may be “fact” (using quotes because I simply don’t know) giving him the best confidentiality that I can provide… I have not yet heard anything.. but it has only been one working day so far.. and #3 , I am making good progress using “conventional warfare” and am not currently in any real danger… and my position gets stronger with every revelation from plaintiff and every deposition….

    Maher , if you’re reading this the time is now for full disclosure in a public forum… YOU HAVE STATED THAT OCTOBER 31, 2013 IS SOME KIND OF “DROP DEAD” DATE FOR WHAT YOU HAVE UNCOVERED SO YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BY TELLING ALL … you may lose some expert witness fees but you will make millions selling your story to a TV network. Make it simple and understandable.. you tend to be cryptic.

  13. Master Service Where are You ???

    Its your time to shine….I have my 2009 WF mortgage statement from February and March…..what do you need or where do I need to look to unlock “the code”

  14. dyslexia hit again , ill try that again- “GO BRIAN” BRIAN DAVIES

  15. GO BRAIN

  16. Bandaids are not the answer,

  17. THE KEY TO THIS MESS IS TO REPLACE OR SUBSTITUTE THE CURRENT SYSTEMS OF SERVICERS WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF SERVICING AND A DIFFERENT SET OF SERVICERS TO REPLACE THOSE WHO ARE BLOCKING THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN LENDERS AND BORROWERS.”

    Mortgage borrowers get more foreclosure protection from Mass. bank regulators

    oh yeah, and I know I keep going on about my 1099a and the IRS- I would like to get into some dialogue between the servicer (debt collector) who claim they are Lender, the discrepancies in amount “owed” , and the IRS, because I HAVE LOSSES TO CLAIM which are still in controversy and subject to my litigation I have a freedom of info act issue , a wrongful foreclosure issue a trustee who is not a trustee a pile of deeds recorded that are a felon in and of themselves a whole heap of crap on my credit report, and no house to live in,
    so its really not quite the “key” for some of us who are in one heck of a pickle because of the fraud (s)

  18. More to come!

    Fannie/Freddie collecting the money from GSE player JPM?

    Stevie Wonder could see that the GSE’s developed wilful blindness to the egregious behavior of the banks.

    It is not rocket science, the only one’s with the open checkbook to the US Treasury are the GSEs. That means that the GSEs will claim perhaps 100x the settlement amount from the taxpayers. You just cannot make this stuff up!

  19. banks and lawyers are smart and they support each other, but if the law did not give them the free hand to do what they are doing they would not be able to get away with their strategy of promising modification, when the truth is they are buying time to take your asset and build their portfolio. Why then would you be working a modification for a client and simultaneously filing court papers to foreclose. That makes no sense. Parallel to a doctor giving you a medication to take for an illness but at the same time he knows the medicine is not really going to work so he is simultaneously working with the lawyers to kill you and harvest your body organs and make more money. Consumers did not go to law school, they trust their banks as a home is a basic needs but the reality is in the end they are just growing body parts to be harvest.

  20. So Fannie & Freddie are getting $5.1 billion for buying bogus loan from JPMorgan, WaMu & Bears Stearns that were badly underwritten and the securities collapse causing wide spread job loss in America,. The job loss cause consumers to not make payments, but the leading authorities in mortgage lending is made whole but the faulty manufacture of the bad mortgage is not reasonable for the total damage done?

    Bad borrowers in what way had their loan approved, when it already show by Fannie Mae’s statement that most these loan qualified for better Prime and Government insured loans.

  21. Who got the $14 million in the Whistleblower claim paid Oct 1, 2013 by the SEC, that they are not announcing that case? Szymoniak in her initial claim MBS? I understand if the Whistleblower wants too remain not known, but the case to not be known? Does not smell right as you got to understand that $140 million or so was collected?

  22. Servicing should be a very simple business with easy to understand rules of conduct … I know I could successfully run one with a solid English speaking call center (probably Philippine based) and a US based mail processing facility… nothing about it is difficult if you’re not playing games…

  23. They are blocking the dialogue between borrower and lender because they dont know who the lender really “lenders” are or who the lender is if the lender even exists anymore. They allegedly sold the loan so many times etc…… Where there is smoke there is fire.

    Brian Daives does it again.
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/10/27/davies-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-ninth-circuit-petitioner-motion-for-certification-of-questions-to-new-york-state-court-of-appeals/

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: