Fannie and Freddie Don’t Own Your Loan

The problem with the site whose link appears below is that it is not authoritative. But we can treat it as though it was authoritative. The principal point is that even where Fannie and Freddie have “purchased” a loan it was for the express purpose of resale into the secondary market the trusts. In most cases Fannie and Freddie served as master trustees, which means that the usual trustee arrangement applied to the underlying trusts in what they call the “secondary market.”
If they followed the usual plan, the banks committed fraud — they took the money but never gave it to the trust. And they issued bonds to themselves as street name nominee for investors (but in actuality as though they had themselves funded the trust) , with which the loans were passed on to Fannie or Freddie and then they”purchased” the loans (without consideration) but the bonds were worthless because the trust that issued them never got any money to do ANY deal.
In short Fannie and Freddie are nominees or conduits with no real interest in the loans  EVER. The fact that they are almost ALWAYS guarantors in situations where the loan was processed by them (there are many instances in which Frannie and Freddie closing forms are used but the loan was never sent to Freddie or Fannie),

So in one case for example the statement that Fannie was the investor from the start is only an indication that Fannie was a conduit for investment dollars collected from the secondary market as a result of sale or resale of the loans, of the bonds or both. There is no scenario under which Fannie and Freddie remain the “investor.”

http://www.mortgageloan.com/mortgage-loan-modification/who-owns-my-mortgage

Is the loan look-up site the real thing? Sort of.
Yes it is legitimate and the client should have already given their social security number or at least the last 4 digits. But remember just because it is listed on the website of Fannie or Freddie does not actually mean that they own the loan. It only means that they have guaranteed the loan or the mortgage bond that was issued  by a trust whose trust beneficiaries advanced money for the origination or acquisition of the loan.
There are circumstances under which Fannie and Freddie buy loans using cash or mortgage bonds for which they are the master trustee of a trust. But they don’t ever keep them. So the listing on the site is not dispositive of exactly what the status of the loan is, the ownership of the loan or the loan balance. In fact it doesn’t even establish the loan existence. A witness from Fannie or Freddie should be interviewed as to the status of this particular loan and whether or not the agency is acting as the master trustee, guarantor or some combination of the two. The other possibility is that they actually own it by virtue of an actual purchase some of which transactions did occur between 2008 and 2009.

117 Responses

  1. Timely ideas , I learned a lot from the specifics – Does anyone know where my assistant would be able to get a sample IRS W-4 form to type on ?

  2. David did you see this? Making a Difference – How Tim McGraw Is Helping Military Vets Secure Their Own Homes press it into the Internet.

  3. Greetings from Carolina! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check out
    your site on my iphone during lunch break. I love the information you provide here and can’t wait to take
    a look when I get home. I’m amazed at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone ..
    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, wonderful site!

  4. Hi, this weekend is good designed for me, as this time i
    am reading this enormous educational article here at my residence.

  5. I am trying to find out if RASC Series 2006-EMX1 Trust is still active. I got as far as the SEC Website which states on 1/12/07 a Notice of Suspension of Duty to File Reports form 15 was filed under Rule 15d-6. I called the SEC to find out what that meant and all they could tell me was that after that date they have no idea what happened to the trust or if it even still exists. I need to find out if this Trust is still active. I am currently in an active Bankruptcy and this could help me greatly if I can find out if the trust still exists. I can be reached at 443 677 2799 or jsmith5915@msn.com. James Smith

  6. Nemo dat prevails if the Judge allows a search for the truth to take place. Most cases I read seem to stop at the point where the Judge accepts that the plaintiff has the note, nothing else seems to matter. Assignments of mortgage don’t seem to matter, Robo-signers, forged signatures, etc. appear to be irrelevant to the courts, they put all of the weight onto “possession of the note”. So it looks like I do need to get a quick grasp on how to plead my answer to this complaint in regards to denying and somehow forcing the plaintiff to have to fulfill his burden of proving he owns the alleged debt. All the while with a Judge who is ecstatic and over-joyed that the plaintiff has possession of the note. Not an easy task, this could get ugly in a hurry, how do you overcome the Judge saying “but they have the note and mortgage and you signed both” ? You object and claim that they have never shown any proof of the “phantom debt” that they allude to, and demand that we need to see some real evidence from it’s inception and movement over to WaMu, the evidence that Fannie Mae refuses to release? How do you get the Judge to agree to go down that path? The WF Employee handbook on how to fabricate documents and stamp and endorse notes for dummies? Would that be enough to demand the court not accept the note at face value and dig a bit deeper to see if the money trail corroborates their story? Argue that Fannie Mae is hiding the facts from being revealed and for that reason it warrants further inquiry and discovery before allowing the extreme act of having someone’s home and property taken from them? The fact that this plaintiff is a signatory to the Consent Orders and settlements should give pause to just blindly accepting anything they have to submit or offer as proof in this case or any other case they may be involved in, they have a huge credibility problem as evidenced by all of 50 states attorney generals who were poised to charge them with crimes but instead allowed this plaintiff to agree to a Consent Order and pay huge settlements. The defendants have every right to challenge them and the court should want to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system by making these plaintiffs carry the full burden of proving their case. Assume nothing, check everything … should be the mantra of the court when dealing with the thugs who were too big to fail.

  7. Nemo dat is of utmost importance in the fight most of us are having.

    Astoria Federal Savings and Loan now known as Astoria Bank A, as much as they dislike me, knew that principal when their new attorney Arthur Walsh came to court in my motion in front of judge Alice Schlesinger and said its Indemnify, Indemnify indemnify because the corrupt firm of MJRF that previously represented the bank that came with Fidelity NY fsb the bank ASTORIA BECAME SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AUCTIONED OFF MY TWO CONDOS WITHOUT EVER OWNING THEM . So IT WAS NEMO DAT BACK THEN and it is an issue now that Bank of America is trying to hide from all the agencies investigating them. I went to Bank of America years back telling them they can’t issue a mortgage when the partys flipping my condos never owned them. nemo dat.

    Acris of NY County land register, sent me notice last week that Bank of America is assigning the mortgage they are holding for one of my condos from Frances Turner to a
    PATRICIA Byrnes and quess who Patricia Byrnes is, an old employer of MERS

    How interesting, how cozy

  8. Ian, incorporate the info from TT (as applicable) in a suit to determine the validity of the 1099. imo.

  9. FNMA buys loans from aggregators. It then sells them to others, using the g fee the borrower pays to guarantee payment on the mbs certificates (and then the borrower is not credited with the guarantee payments she paid for). In every single loan which went to securitization thru fnma and is borrower-defaulted, fnma is either continuing to make the payments under its guarantee or should be the foreclosing entity because it repurchased. If a trust is being shown as the creditor in a foreclosure, they’re lying or fnma has renegged on its
    guarantee / surety.

  10. Ian, thanks … that makes sense to me. Can you appear as one of my experts and argue this point with the Judge? lol

  11. DwightNJ- the legal principal “nemo dat…..”: one cannot give what one does not own. In your case, commerce bank cannot assign the note/mortgage to Wells Fargo because they don’t own it. WaMu does . Even if Commerce Bank is still in business. No can do. Good luck!

  12. I’m getting very discouraged as I read cases where the Courts have continued to bend over backwards to help the servicers foreclose. Some Courts have told the homeowners that they have no right to question the validity of an assignment of mortgage, ruling that they are not a party to the document and have no standing to challenge it. This takes a lot of wind out of my sails because I want to challenge the AOM by arguing that it is VOID due to a fraudulent forged signature of the notary on the document when compared to other examples of his real signature on other documents found on the web. Some Courts say that ‘it’s none of your business” as long as the parties involved in the assignment are ok with it, that’s all that matters. My reply to that will be that the borrowers covenants language in the mortgage itself clearly gives me the right to defend in general against any and all attacks. Some courts say a bad AOM document is not void but voidable if it can be fixed by going back to the originator and having them re-assign it again in the correct way. A VOID AOM is one where the prior party who owned the loan is no longer in business or existence. Now in my case, the pretender lender so-called “originator” Commerce Bank had the Note stamped and endorsed “Pay To The Order Of Washington Mutual Bank” at the closing … it being a Fannie Mae re-finance loan … they obviously wanted the Note endorsed over to Washington Mutual Bank for reasons I do not understand. But my point being , now when Wells Fargo comes forward filing the foreclosure complaint and showing a forged notary signature on the assignment of mortgage that states MERS is now assigning the mortgage from Commerce Bank to Wells Fargo Bank .. how do they get to skip Washington Mutual out of the chain of title ?? After origination, the note was clearly sold to WaMu by evidence of the stamped endorsement pay to the order of WaMu, .. so shouldn’t the new assignment of mortgage state that WaMu now assigns the mortgage to Wells Fargo? Why do they get to use the originators name Commerce to assign the mortgage after Commerce sold the note to WaMu ?? My hunch is that they did this break in the chain on purpose because by the time they recorded the AOM in 2008 WaMu had gone bankrupt and was seized by the Govt. The note was long gone and an AOM from a collapsed bank would have opened the door to the possibility of a VOID , where any challenge to a faulty document could no longer be cured by the prior bank because it no longer exists. Instead they ignored the fact that WaMu was the last owner of the note and simply used Commerce Bank as the owner on the AOM as if they somehow still had the note, even though they stamped and signed the note over to Washington Mutual at the closing.
    My victory will hinge on the fact of how the court views my argument.

    1) The originator Commerce Bank clearly stamped and endorsed the note Pay To The Order of WaMu at closing and never received any payments or ever acted as the servicer. Does the fact that they endorsed the note over to WaMu make WaMu the new owner of the debt according to UCC? Even though no AOM is recorded sending the mortgage to that new owner? But the mortgage supposedly follows the note your honor, so it looks like Washington Mutual became the new owner and needs to be the party who next assigns the mortgage to Wells Fargo , is that right or wrong?

    2) No assignment was ever recorded saying WaMu was the new owner, although they had the stamped and endorsed note “pay to the order of Washington Mutual” and received the monthly payments since the origination. But since the mortgage follows the note, we can assume WaMu is deemed the owner with their stamped endorsed note from Commerce .. and not in blank , but specifically endorsed pay to the order of Washington Mutual. I’ll allow this assumption because then when I argue that the fraudulent Mortgage Assignment is VOID , they have no way of deeming it as voidable (meaning it can be re-done and corrected by the prior owner and amended in the complaint). My who case will come down to whether the court agrees that Washington Mutual should be the bank who needs to assign the mortgage to Wells Fargo, and not Commerce who originated the deal but immediately sold the note to Washington Mutual at closing. If I can get the court to agree that WaMu was the owner of the note and mortgage at the time Wells Fargo needed it in order to foreclose, it opens a door for me to attack whether WaMu was even in existence in October of 2008 when the fraudulent AOM was finally recorded, a full year after the complaint was filed. UCC does mandate that some sort of evidence of transfer exist in the way of dates and signatures when WaMu supposedly sent the note to Wells Fargo, am I correct in assuming that? Wells Fargo states that they are “Holders” of the note now, and showed an old copy of the original in their certs. It did not have anything from WaMu on it to indicate that WaMu had stamped it in blank , so I figured that WF did not have the real note, they only had a copy of the original from a computer file. Now after I argued about that point, they added a stamp in blank from WaMu … but my argument to the judge was that we need to see some evidence of the transfer, with dates and names of people who actually received the note and on what date. He agreed and that’s when they folded and voluntarily dismissed last time.

    My fear now as I struggle to decide how to write my answer to this new complaint is … does it really matter that the note was endorsed and stamped to Washington Mutual? Shouldn’t they have to be the party who assigns the mortgage over to Wells Fargo?

    If so, then they can’t correct the fraudulent forged AOM because they no longer are in business , am I correct? The court would have to look at the fraudulent document as a VOID , if they agree that WaMu was the prior owner and would be the only party who could cure the doc by creating a new valid document.

    After reading cases … this seems to be my only path to victory. But how do I argue that Commerce Bank cannot assign the mortgage to Wells Fargo? MERS controls the AOM docs, and as nominee for Commerce they keep using the name Commerce as the party who assigns the mortgage … but if WaMu had the endorsed note from Commerce, which clearly states “pay to the order of WaMu” doesn’t that supersede everthing else? Shouldn’t that force them into the perfecting of the chain of title? Shouldn’t they have to be the party who assigns the mortgage to WF in order for WF to file a foreclosure?

    Thank you for putting up with my ramblings, I’m under extreme pressure as this answer and possible counter claims needs to be sent in by the 20th. God Bless us all.

  13. J Gault- I responded to that by pointing out that Turbo Tax automatically asks ” servicer, not lender, correct?” When the name of the entity to whom payments are made is entered. They (TT) has an information-sharing agreement with IRS. So IRS knows exactly what is what. What to so with this info? Got me. I’m still mulling it over.

  14. Deborah Wynn, on June 6, 2014 at 7:14 pm said:

    “I’m sorry to keep raising this fact but what do you say when the services declares itself to the IRS as LENDER – WHY”

    jg: and I have to keep saying a lawsuit on that issue needs to be filed by someone who’s gotten such a 1099. “You’ve issued me a 1099, but you have no basis”. I see no other way to get that answer.

  15. I’m puzzled as to why a MGIC rep was at the burned house. To my knowledge, private mtg insurance has never acted, insured, or been compelled to pay on a casualty (fire) claim. And come to think of it, it’s likely they’re not licensed for that kind of insurance. So wth?

  16. zurenarhh = thanks for that link and the attention to this issue. This is the “self-insuring loan” I have mentioned. The premium is built into the rate and the borrower doesn’t know it. I don’t know if the borrower has to be informed or not under say TILA or even respa. I do know there is insurance for the lender on loans over 80% ltv and if the borrower is not paying it (as disclosed on the gfe and reg Z), the lender is by way of the increased rate (which means the borrower is, but that’s maybe debatable). What’s not debatable is that the insurance exists and covers the “lender” in the event of a loss (I think not necessarily default). I think it only pays a bottom line loss, just as the kind the borrower pays. PMI, MGIC, etc cover a certain percentage and that’s it to my knowledge. Say there’s a 400k loan which is a 95% ltv. Mortgage insurance will insure the loan “down to” 75 – 80% generally. If it’s to 80% on a particular loan, they cover the top 15% of the 95% ltv (think that’s right). When it pays and what it pays is of significance to a borrower. If a loss has been paid for by anyone, the lender imo certainly shouldn’t outta be going after a deficiency judgment, for one.
    In either scenario, the borrower knows he’s paying for it or he doesn’t know, it’s still disclosed in the a.p.r. “as long as” the a.p.r. is calculated properly. And that may be the big ticket – that it’s disclosed in the a.p.r.,
    rather than if the borrower is otherwise told the lender has insured his loan. The one that’s got me buzzed is the Fnma and FHLMC insurance (the g fee) charged to the borrower without his knowledge because at the time it’s charged, it’s to pay a party who at the time is not a party to the loan. It’s an undisclosed fee to a party who isn’t even a third party at the origination. He’s a stranger to the transaction at the point of origination.
    The pmi insurance follows the loan as lenders change, (making each new guy the ben of the pmi policy), whereas the g fee doesn’t. It’s coverage is limited to an intended beneficiary (the cert holders). It skips the guys in between. The borrower is charge this g fee to STRANGERS and that’s a distinction to me. The g fee is paid so a future buyer, fnma or fhlmc, (not at the time parties to the loan) will guarantee the loan to mbs buyers.
    Before anyone charges off on a fast horse, just a caution about the self-insurance (by lender) issue. To me, the question is likely: if it’s disclosed in the a.p.r., must it otherwise be disclosed, and if so, why (especially if it only covers ‘bottom line loss’, i.e., after sale)?

  17. @ Deb: Good link thanks.

    This crook has a somewhat related input on this important subject:

    A Bank-Owned Home is Not a Foreclosure!

  18. Slam dunk! Will the RPII please step forward. Can you see me now?

    The note is liquidated into equity.

    Stop blaming Judges …..your not pleading the transfer of title into a separate corporation, as nominee , for the officers and directors of Wells, BofA and JPM Chase

    registerclaims@live.com

    Java -you have a slam dunk and cannot even see it!

    Many Blessings to All!

  19. ……………

    Stop blaming Judges …..your not pleading the transfer of title into a separate corporation, as nominee , for the officers and directors of Wells, BofA and JPM Chase

    Great Advice!

  20. ….

    For your information, a follow up to the term posted by MS, Just because ….. I’m thinking.

    legatee

    n. a person or organization receiving a gift of an object or money under the terms of the will of a person who has died. Although technically a legatee does not receive real property (a devisee), “legatee” is often used to designate a person who takes anything pursuant (according) to the terms of a will. The best generic term is beneficiary, which avoids the old-fashioned distinctions between legatees taking legacies (personal property) and devisees taking devises (real property), terms which date from the Middle Ages.

  21. For your information, a follow up to the term posted by MS, Just because ….. I’m thinking.

    legatee

    n. a person or organization receiving a gift of an object or money under the terms of the will of a person who has died. Although technically a legatee does not receive real property (a devisee), “legatee” is often used to designate a person who takes anything pursuant (according) to the terms of a will. The best generic term is beneficiary, which avoids the old-fashioned distinctions between legatees taking legacies (personal property) and devisees taking devises (real property), terms which date from the Middle Ages.

  22. Exactly exquisitor. As my dad used to say give em enough rope they will hang themselves. Metaphorically speaking. It amazes me how long they keep up the charade the burden of carrying all those lies and concealments have they any idea how easy it is to live honestly and tell the truth. The effort they put in and yet deep down they know truth will prevail that’s the last word, the truth. It’s not going away.

  23. @Dwight – You now have a stronger case because evidence entered in the prior case likely carries forward as noticeable documents the court can consider – once a bogus note is presented in one case and accepted by the court, it seems probable it can be presented in the re-runs. That kind of leverage is worthy of a letter to opposing counsel that raises the possibility of sanctions for frivolous actions for unjust enrichment from attorney fees on opposing counsel’s part. Do they really want to force you to remind the judge of the question of a forged (felony) document presented to the court?

    If you read between the lines of my prior post I was portraying the application of the centuries old tactic of using your enemies’ weapons against themselves. That is why they deny discovery – everything you find can be used against them.

  24. 5(five) years I’ve been doing this and I still got s*^* for brains
    But discovery could change all that.

  25. ms
    You said “THERE ARE NO SERVICING RIGHTS held”
    Could ya call the FDIC again and ask the senior council why he wrote to me stating that ” certain assets were sold to one west, one being servicing rights” end quote. What us not being disclosed here??? Now when I asked later under foia many more questions about the ” asset” as in my loan I got ” all files were transferred to one west”. When I wrote to one west I got a letter from their council – same council that I am up on appeal against. Of course I have got no answer to my letter back to them on the issue. They answer only that which suits them- unless you sue.

  26. Master Servicer I gave you approximately $1,500 a few years ago with no results. Actually you ripped me off. I was in your leased out condo in Downtown Los Angeles So no I am not falling for you again.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  27. MS, … How would you determine what happened in a case like mine where no Trust info has ever been acknowledged or identified by the servicer attempting to foreclose?. All I’m ever told is that “Fannie Mae is the investor”. We had gone to Commerce Bank for a Re-finance in 2004 .. they immediately stamped the Note “pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” and endorsed it … and then years later we received a letter from Wells Fargo Bank telling us that they would be taking over as the new servicer in 2007. When WF attempted to foreclose the first time the Note they showed in their complaint did not have any stamp or endorsement from Washington Mutual , after we pointed it out to the court, the banks attorney showed up with the Note which now had a stamp and endorsement from WaMu ..but we objected and argued that they had fabricated the Note from a downloaded copy of the original and had added the stamp themselves.
    Long story short , they asked for a dismissal after the Judge started asking questions and wanted witnesses to testify. Now 2 1/2 yrs later they are back using a different foreclosure mill , and it appears they will try to use the same fabricated Note and forged notary Assignment. Does my case sound like a candidate for your HUD-1 settlement defense and wash argument ? Thank you, Dwight

  28. Would anyone here appreciated a real life experience in a court in plain language and completely expressed thoughts with no personal gain as a motive?

    At the appellate court my case (based on a motion for summary judgment ruling) was presented as follows to 3 judges (1 – sympathetic; 1 – hostile; 1 – thoughtful). We opened oral argument by stating the synopsis of the case – Appellant tried to confirm the lender’s beneficiary interest (FNMA by rebutted assignment) according to the terms of the contract using CA state statute 2943 (QWR for copy of note). As compliance was not demonstrated by alleged lender, appellant was forced to stop making payments in order not to affirm an illegitimate debt (again, according to the terms of the contract, aka, deed of trust, in order to protect the clear title). In the pleadings the banksters had claimed the QWR was preempted by federal law (Chase). ‘Hostile’ was somewhat agitated by this. We then proceeded to attack an ‘issue’ proffered by the court that was obviously from Hostile’s fertile mind as a waster of the 15 minutes given to us for argument. The point was over what party was a principal (FNMA), an agent, an agent of an agent, and whether the notice of default that was published was ‘authorized’ by mere existence of a power of attorney by FNMA (a second POA named the same principal but with another party had been evidenced as well). We stated the ‘issue’ was hypothetical as it did not fit the facts of the case where conflicting beneficiary interest was seemingly held by all parties but the borrower. At this point Hostile became agitated, but had the presence to interrupt my attorney just as he was about to deliver a coup de grace. As a hypothetical issue, the door was opened to point out that the ‘assignment’ that seemingly resolved the conflicting was performed after the NOD was published, instead of before, thereby indicating a clouded title at the point the public might show an interest in the upcoming change of title by auction and having the appearance of bid-rigging. At this point Thoughtful made a comment and Hostile forced the argument back to his irrelevant question before my attorney could complete the thought … and since 2924 (non-judicial statute) is ‘all inclusive’ and lacks specific language allowing borrower to question beneficiary standing (thereby allowing CA courts to disallow that defense), THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS AN ASSIGNMENT AFTER THE NOD, although there is language that allows a substitution of trustee. Sympathetic spoke up at that point, concerned that banksters had not raised the ‘agency’ issue, and why did they cloud the title unnecessarily instead of just doing the assignment before the NOD.

    We finished up our argument emphasizing material facts do not reflect the judgment of the trial court, and let the banksters took their turn at bat. They started with silence over the preemption they had so vigorously proffered in their briefs. Then Hostile made them wade into the fray with his issue, asking why they didn’t pursue this ‘defense’, and the response was a clear non-answer. Hostile tried a second time after Thoughtful raised the question of why they clouded the title, and again, a non-incriminating response was presented by the banksters. At this point the reader should note that my briefs were peppered with references to criminal statutes, e.g., felony false filing. And that ’bout sums up the entire oral argument for the banksters.

    Again, IANAL, (I am not a lawyer) and the opinions above may or may not suggest some alternate reality for homeowners facing foreclosure.

  29. Deb.

    You said ….As master servicer then it follows same applies to WF who were named as master servicer for the alt A trust my ” securitized loan” was foreclosed against –

    SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER 1122 AB ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME WITH SERVICING RIGHTS . A taxable gain was realized by the delivery of securities / Section 117 Section 113(a) (5) …..therefore under neither section 111(a) nor under Sections 22(a) , 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev Acts Page 669 can the income , a capital gain realized be taxed as ordinary income

    DID YOU LOOSE YOUR HOME ?
    Did you receive a 1099 Statements

    We take $679500 – $681505 = 2005

    $681,505 = Sheriffs Deed Upon Sale
    $679,500.= 1099 Tax payer Statement

    Y2K Scheme = 01/01/2000
    Transactions Cut off = 06/28/2005

    01/01/2000 – 06/28/2005 = 2005 per diem …..

    As affiant, I proffer where parties and any person in a position of the seller, at time of the loans origination or thereafter, transfers claims from a debtor to claims of the creditor. Creditor is seeking to enforce the right of reversion , found in part under accounting rules held in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.The foreclosure claims brought by legatees basis would seem the same as the value of the claim surrendered in exchange for the securities. The securities are tendered from the note into deposits and from deposits into the existing liens of record ;

    THIS SITE HAS NEVER PROFFERRED THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS

    THERE ARE NO SERVICING RIGHTS held in an Installment Sale Contract . These claims are for the note carry back for the amount YOU paid in settlement . And the amount depreciated back to zero as part of the Y2 K scheme . Are you getting excited Neil and Dan ! Ching Ching !

    This I’ll provide you in affidavit for the low cost and introductory price of $0.00. with six payments of $0.00.

    Before you pay anyone a cent – get the facts together . There is no basis for claims in a wrongful foreclosure claim, under a Sellers right of Reversion …where the reversionary right was charged down to zero backdating from Y2K to June 30th 2005.

    registerclaims@live.com

  30. A man
    I’m a friend of Candice King. . . Ill try and get her to write something here.

    Peace

  31. These cases give some enlightening perspectives to what is really happening.

    SFR foreclosure Case :

    Loan Amount ____ $546,250
    IRC Reg 1.091___ 182.6
    Days to Date _____ 2,991.

    HUD 1 Settlement June 28, 2005 + 2991 Days = September 5, 2013

    Lock out of Occupants on September 5, 2013

  32. Case analysis from over 100 cases

  33. A Man –Your positing’s through out the years are heartfelt and done with the right intent.

    This guy is entitled to say what ever he wants and I wont hold a issue..

    Jump on board brother … 90 percent of what an EXPERT should charge…. I am giving you here ..Peace my friend

    MY FEES ARE CHARGED FOR MAL PRACTICE SUITS!!!

    AGAINST ATTY WHO KNOW WTF IS GOING ON , WHO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND THEN LIE TO YOU …ACT LIKE THE JUDGE OR JUDICIARY IS THE PROBLEMATIC ISSUES . ALL WHILE THE STAUTE OF LIMITIATIONS (See I.R.C. Reg 1.1091 and Sec. 911(B)) ALLOWS YOU TO STAY IN THE HOME ….

    REGARDLESS OF THEIR EFFORT, MOTIONS AND FILINGS IN WRONG JURIDCITION.

    Every attack on my character has been found to come at the expense of Attorneys …..who see my effort as an obstacle to the fees and livelihood . . . watch here as they show up later today …!

    God Bless

  34. Wake up Call ….

    Loan I’m looking at was originated by Countrywide as a second mortgage behind Washington Mutual

    Countrywide return’s in 18 months making a consolidation loan for the same amount as the earlier combo loans

    World FSB was the original payoff in 2005 for the current loan of $618,000.00…WASH SALE RULE I.R.C Reg 1001 c 1031; 1223 (1) See also Sec 1245 (b) and 1250 (d) (4)

    The foreclosure by Wells Fargo Bank is for $309,000.00 (as merger and acquisitions successors to WFSB as CWHL is succeeded by BofA and LBO Acquirer . Wake up mischievous makers and elderly card sharks resting in AZ . The $309,000 liens of record (never satisfied as shown) plus $309,000 for the net amount wired into settlement )

    See Reg. Sections: 1.1031 (a)-1 1.1031 (b) example (1) 1.1031 (d) -(1)

    ANALYSIS judges must see to decide these matters –

    — $309K ownership in debt securities
    — $309K Ownership in Equities Securities

    Java, Jen, Used Car Freak and others……..See I.R.C (26 U.S.C.A.) Sections 911 B BITTKER AND EBB United Sates Taxation of Foreign Income Persons 193-209 (2d Ed. 1968) Note Sec. 911 Tax Reform , 54 Minn L. Rev 823 (1970)

    registerclaims@live.com

  35. Master Servicer what are your fees? You dont like disclosures? I wonder why?

    God Bless America

  36. So if the Judge does not follow the law and does not disclose his/her financials correctly I should look the other way? I never said that you dont have to present a good case. This is part of the due diligence.

    Great advice masterServicer.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA.

  37. An experts view must demonstrate no less than $1.0 billion in flow and bulk, whole loan trades. These TRANSACTIONS not one in the same with whole loan sales . Read the IRC Reg 1.1091 Wash Sale rules or IRC Reg 1.1031 for general ledger book entry and deferred exchanges.

    Stop blaming Judges …..your not pleading the transfer of title into a separate corporation, as nominee , for the officers and directors of Wells, BofA and JPM Chase

    registerclaims@live.com

    Java -you have a slam dunk and cannot even see it

  38. I have lots of attorney friends they are scared for their lives and wont go against the Banksters. Please read very carefully afraid for their lives. Now I dont know if they are serious but???????????????

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  39. Unfortunately we don’t have a choice of the judge we have in our cases but if we did, here in New York I would feel comfortable with Judge Arthur Schack and watched how he has earned the reputation of being an honest Solomon. in spite of some of the biased Judges trying to overrule him.
    fight on

  40. YOU HAVE TO BE A MORON TO GO UP AGAINST A JUDGE WHO HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR CASE. I am not mad at Judges. I love Judges I have friends who are judges. Why do you say I am mad when all I ask is to follow the law. Why are we mad the homeowners when we ask the authorities to follow the law. Some more propaganda against the homeowner. Actually Judges should be happy that we help them follow the law. Unless they have something to hide. Actually I am surprised at any attorney that allows his/her client go up against a judge that has a conflict of interest. You can have the best argument in the world and still loose. Just ask any African American growing up in the South in the 1950’s and the 1960’s or Rodney King.

    NEVER AGAIN

  41. Really? Are you mad at the Judges or yourself for not seeking answers to legal questions and having an attorney handle your case?

  42. All our facts or arguements are worthless, if the Judge has a financial relationship with the banksters or any other relationship that might taint his/her decision. They are human beings. We must help them keep honest.

    http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/should-judges-have-to-post-financial-disclosure-statements-online.html

    NEVER AGAIN.

  43. Those who have “Shit for Brains” eventually get flushed,

  44. And you had the math right. We still paid in advance. But they trying to add thousands in trustee fees again. By claiming they advanced funds on our behalf for FP ins. LOL! What happened to the two party mortgage? Fraud On the face and the inducement.

  45. They tried to collect the total cost of the loan from me. See TIL. Almost 180 percent the loan amount my husband had taken out. I would call them and ask where they got the info, its public record they replied everytime. I willing to pay face amount of his note only. Been fighting about balance and title since early 09.

  46. Good Morning M.S., thank you. Legal team has your contact info. They already know. No existing lien of record, just seller estate rev trust turned irrev upon their passing. Fraud trustee deed issued without knowledge of trustee, trust agreement not filed with trustee deed. Tried to get it from Vicky/trustee, when we all found out that her deceased parents trust remained open and her parents attorney diverted title from them and us. With no liens, they have tried to fc on unrecorded lien, tax on prior year to sale, on HUD . . ?

  47. I apologize for misunderstanding ……you say “Fannie says notes are not its assets. Your point made for Neil’s article comments you allege as exactly correct. . . .Fannie and Freddie don’t own anything IS SO BASELESS AND SO MERITLESS …yet true . But Why …Why …Why NO NOTE ?

    Do the Math or take a Bath …..

    Note = 100,000.00 Divestment
    Note = 125,000.00 Future Value
    Existing Liens = 75,000 Net Present Value

    The note is tendered for equity OIE and deposits in possession of the HOLDER … Certificates Holder. Holder owns title secured by a UCC 1 filing for the value of Deposits The Note is de recognized …held to a Due on Sale or Demand at Year 3. Future Value

    The note is divested into OIE , certificate’s, deposits …yes your arguing gibberish .

    YOUR NOTE WAS EXTINGUISHED, CANCELLED , VOIDED, RERPUDIATED …WAKE UP. SEE IRC ACCOUNTING REG 1.1091 FOR WASH SALE RULES.The foreclosure claim and servicing record’s for the existing liens of record that your HUD 1 alleged ARE PAID AND SATISIFIED

    registerclaims@live.com

  48. Leave a Reply

    Claims are for false and Misleading Statements in the Offer and Sale of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (“RMBS”). RMBS securitizations are not the pools of loans alleged in public filings. Nor do RMBS investors receive payments out of the principal and interest that residential loan borrowers pay on the underlying loans.

    Claims are subject to the purchase and sale of title for an amount that exceeds the outstanding loan balance at time of the loans origination.

    Appraisal – Loan Amount = anticipated Gain on Sale

    Title is conveyed at the notes face value at time of settlement and held for a term subject to reporting a subsequent transaction and gain on sale. The amount booked as a gain is offset to the amount collected from the household where each are held as depositors funds

    Interest earned is scheduled upon issuing a tax payer1098 I
    Interest in the asset entitles the title holder to post a gain on sale.

    That gain is charged to the household in a 1099 at the calendar year end from the date of the subject foreclosure or fictitious sale called reversion.

    Defendants issued a 1099 A for CYE 2012 for an October 30th 2012 Sheriffs Sale. If the foreclosing entity issued the 1099 for the period in question, the household never owned title and the parties transacting, Mers and the bank who wired fund into settlement concluded a purchase and sale for capital gains or booking a “profit” .

    ….It gets better….one moment

    registerclaims@live.com

  49. mycookiejars commented on Fannie and Freddie Don’t Own Your Loan.

    Same to you ! Good job …lets talk

    registerclaims@live.com

  50. Rabbit Hole don’t blame the Judges if you don’t make the proper pleadings. Our legal team concurs, Good Job M.S. !

  51. An interesting piece which tries to explain why the Judges and courts lean in favor of the banks, but also shows the weaknesses and potential targets to attack for homeowners ….. >>>> http://sites.temple.edu/lawreview/files/2012/02/83.1_Greenberg.pdf

  52. The Aman
    Judge is supposed to recuse for possible conflict of interest and bias in judges mind – the operative word is ” mind” theres case law in AZ stating that even the appearance of bias must be ruled against since we must uphold and protect public confidence in the system. Judges understand this better than we do. It depends on how that ” appearance” of bias looks to who ever has the last say.
    Thats all i can say about that.
    Case law AZ cv-07-2513phx-mhm
    Manuel de jesus ortega melendres, et al v joseph. A.Arpaio, et al
    ” The United States court of Appeals for 9th Circuit has instructed that when a case is close, the balance should tip in favor of recusal. United states v holland 519f.3d 909, 911 (9th cir. 2008) ( quoting united states v danby, 998 f.2d 1344, 1349 ( 6th cir.1993). No court should tolerate even the slightest chance that its continued participation in a high profile lawsuit could taint the publics perception of the fairness of the outcome. Certainly, the court is unwilling to take the risk.
    Thus, because the District court level all doubts should be resolved in favor of recusal when the issue is close, strictly on the sole issue remaining – whether the courts impartiality might reasonably be questioned under section 455(a)- the court, in an abundance of caution, will recuse itself from the matter, accordingly – Ruled in favor of recusal.
    Read every word carefully. nOt Legal advice not an attorney just sharing the case.

  53. The People have spoken in San Diego, California. To all Judges if I was you I would study the Nurenberg Trials and not use the defense I was ordered to rule this way.

    http://nodirtydeeds.com/2014/06/07-59-san-diego-county-voters-want-dirty-deeds/

    Anybody who does not check the Judges financials and walks into an ambush what can I say.

    NEVER AGAIN

  54. Ian indeed im talking about 2010 and i never got 1099c to release the debt and ive made several proper requests to IRS – got nothing.
    See appeal 12-16192 9th circuit
    It will make sense, too much to type on my iphone definitely not my strength. ( amen i know) look at motion to supplement the record and things will be even clearer.

  55. I didn’t file them on our taxes. They send 1098 for ins only they claimed to have pd on behalf of trust/estate. LIE. Why would I confirm a lie? I wouldn’t. Would you?

  56. They the lender of you late tax n ins for the estate. Mine was not late. Liar liar. Pants on. Fire.

  57. They stole the title to the estate @ origionation prior to default? Now why would they do that? How did they do that? Where did my money go? Accounting 101 for the ignorant. Included me. ..,

  58. Deb Wynn- you asked why the servicer keeps identifying itself to the IRS as the lender?
    I use TurboTax, and when I ( or anyone else for that matter), types in the name of their servicer, the prompt asks “servicer, not lender, right?” And I check “YES” in the box provided. That question first appeared in the 2013 returns. Wasn’t there in 2010, 2009, 2008 or any previous year. Why ask that question? I have no idea. But there’s something there, I’m sure of it.

  59. Depends. On what note your talking about. The unsecued used to purchase or the Reverse on the estste. Hello?

  60. I stand by my info. And it is not gibberish.

    Fannie says notes are not its assets. Indenture says the trusts own the notes, not Fannie. Kemp v. Countrywide shows that at least Countrywide did not endorse and transfer (i.e, the standard, basic elements of negotiation). Therefore, the point of Neil’s article we are commenting on is exactly correct. Fannie and Freddie don’t own anything.

    You may direct us to as many acronyms and accounting rules as you like. That’s all part of the giant hoax they are playing. Those are to distract us. They don’t follow those rules.

    For anyone who is interested, I can provide the info I’m referring to above to anyone who wants it. For free. leftbehindchild@gmail.com

    That is my final comment on this matter. Attack me/my info all you want. Doesn’t make it wrong. It’s not wrong.

  61. Slam dunk! Will the RPII please step forward. Can you see me now? Taking cookies without permission will get you sent to Quiet time! Don’t get caught with your hand in the Cookie Jars.

  62. Foul ball! Dirty hands n double dribble.

  63. Achoo… And Score one for the Boys!

  64. Estate vs Borrower. Estate vs Pretender. Estates Note. … Yes Sir! Got It! Bad Trustee! No Fee for Thee!

  65. As master servicer then it follows same applies to WF who were named as master servicer for the alt A trust my ” securitized loan” wAs foreclosed against – no f n f actually no securitization either. Lender is ? Beny is? Creditor ? They are not in court. No credible evidence in fact contradictory stances by opposition.

  66. WFC can’t keep alleged bogus foreclosure manual out of court
    U.S. judge allows discovery on Tirelli’s smoking gun
    Trey Garrison and Brena Swanson
    April 21, 2014 12:16PM
    A New York judge ruled that Wells Fargo (WFC) can’t keep its Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney Procedure Manual out of a lawsuit in federal court.
    U.S. Judge Allan Gropper agreed to allow the 150-page manual – a copy of which was obtained by plaintiff’s attorney – into a lawsuit being brought on behalf of a homeowner by attorney Linda Tirelli against Wells Fargo, the largest mortgage servicer in the United States.
    The case is an objection to foreclosure claims in bankruptcy in Mota v. Wells Fargo.
    Tirelli’s case alleges that Wells Fargo used the Wells Fargo manual – the copy she entered into evidence was dated February 24, 2012 – to falsely create evidence of ownership, known as the note, and on how to proceed with a foreclosure when crucial documents are missing.
    Wells Fargo counters that Tirelli is misrepresenting the manual in several ways. Its foreclosures are legal and customer-focused, Wells said in a statement to HousingWire.
    The manual is attorney Tirelli’s “smoking gun” in a lawsuit she filed on behalf of a homeowner.
    “(Wells Fargo) can no longer deny having procedures for endorsing notes or provide witnesses who lack knowledge about the procedures, which is what they have consistently done in the past,” Tirelli told HousingWire on Monday. “The procedure manual is raising a lot of eyebrows and rightfully so. I attended the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys convention April 11-13 … during which I spoke with many consumer attorneys from across the country who have run into the same problem of witnesses being provided by Wells Fargo who simply lack knowledge of the process or deny there is a process for obtaining endorsements on notes and creating assignments or affidavits of lost note.”
    As part of the judge’s ruling, Wells Fargo must also provide Tirelli a witness to answer questions about the guidebook in a deposition.
    Separately, Tirelli is filing a motion to re-open discovery post-trial in a separate bankruptcy case — Cynthia Franklin vs. Wells Fargo — as that went to trial days before Tirelli discovered the Wells Fargo manual.
    Such endoresements as described in the Wells Fargo manual are required to prove a servicer owns a loan and has the legal standing and right to foreclose and borrowers have used “show me the note” as a defense to fight foreclosure.
    The Wells Fargo manual – a copy of which can be downloaded or viewed here – provides step-by-step guides for Wells Fargo foreclosure attorneys and the “Default Docs Team.”
    “(T)here seems to be a consensus that this manual sets forth the procedures in simple step by step fashion where magically all steps lead to corrected paperwork and, in my opinion, fabrication of documents which simply never existed until a lawyer points it out to Wells Fargo that documents are lacking,” she said. “If Wells Fargo is in fact fabricating documents and involves the foreclosure attorneys in the process, the ramifications on the attorneys involved can be severe and in my opinion, if its in furtherance of fraud, non of the communications would be subject to attorney/client privilege.”
    Discovery and depositions are up next in the cases.

    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/29732-wfc-cant-keep-alleged-bogus-foreclosure-manual-out-of-court

  67. MS, no severance here. They didn’t put me on the trustee deed or loan. But I am on the warranty deed. Held joint in entirety in irrev trust. Utt Oh! Chicken tonight, broiled but still crispy. 🙂 KC playing BB with all 5 grandsons today. KC Out. Many Blerssings to All

  68. @ MasterServicer ,

    Expand on this please.

    Best Discovery to Date INTERESTS ON ESC STATEMENT

  69. BOA, last ditch efforts to bully us before settlements over the T I T L E s. Given the facts n a choice of the risks involved … We all would have said NO at origination.

  70. Courts are barred from the matter. Fake trustee needs all trustees to radify the trustee actions … Don’t sign nuttin. Just say NO! Oh, pay the tax n ins if you want to keep your estate.

  71. Only if you filed in a timely manner with the proper claim. Anything less is a wash.

  72. Void ab initio judgments are not held to Rule 60 constraints void ab initio are VOID a nullity

  73. No ML. You have to state the right claim. Or Lose!

  74. For those following New Century, June 15 is close .. If you filed creditor claim for estate, you soon shall be set free of their fraud.

  75. cookiejar
    kissing the judges rear won’t help in a fraud like this
    You have to tell it like it is.

  76. The tides are turning for Bank of America and they are dumping THE ILLEGAL mortgages THEY HOLD FOR toxic titles.

    i WAS NOTIFIED BY ACRIS THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER BETWEEN FRANCES TURNER AND PATRICIA BYRNES
    ‘MERS” connection —looks like Mers workers want their share of the fraud.

  77. Stop the BS about the Judges! Wow!

  78. Just like Judges are trying to buy the fraudulent foreclosures Frances Turner the crook living in one of my condos is trying to flip my property to a PATRICIA BYRNES WHO WAS EMPLOYED AT “mers’

  79. My husband is doing as well as can be expected after heart attack. Attorney vs Buttwipe Attorney. Let me count the ways they will pay. Xfinity for Life!

  80. The master servicer speaks the truth. That is why they go after tax n ins.

  81. 11. Plaintiff is a GRATUITOUS title holder who unknowingly, irrevocably granted and conveyed title at the time of the loans origination. Title conveyed into trust, to trustee, free of all liens and encumbrances.
    12. Arguments conclude institutional constructive trust barring this courts discretion in deciding the matter. Herein the debt is of a commercial obligation variety, owed by the obligor as beneficiary held by Trustee in constructive trust . Claims are substantive and opposed to the conventional understanding for a household debtor and justifiably due relief . Herein the trustee has conducted a bonefide sale of the estates equitable interest to a third party purchaser.
    13. Said transfer is made on behalf of New York indenture, in part by, and thereon through deceptive “Operative” Dual meaning of words, legal vernacular and terms, so in effect to induce conventional foreclosures where title is constrained by irrevocable grant and earlier terms for conveyance. .
    14. This court is asked to take notice of controversy and further review related parties claims and issues for a mortgage , predisposed to a security instrument,[ see accompanying deed], sufficient to facilitate the conveyance of title to securities and releasing depositor claims , and where each is divested from the subject real property title.

    Leave a Reply

  82. 24. Defendants cannot enforce obligations secured under a UCC 1 filed for trust and trust obligations (pledges of bene assets conveyed by homeowners) and choose to contemporaneously enforce a conventional mortgage security. The conventional instrument was filed in local county records at time of the loans origination, and barring a re-conveyance, are held as a triggered concealed claim deemed dual consideration.

    25. Defendants are the Wells Fargo Bank National Association as New York indenture, its registered trustee on behalf of the holders Wells Fargo Bank Officers and Directors. The trust beneficiary is obligor for pledges owed by the same officers and directors for the subject titles equivalent, held as equity, purchased and sol, then placed on deposit in offshore accounts.

    26. Claims brought by third parties are for the cash due the depositor, for the balances held in offshore accounts and obligations of the holder, WFB and OIE as collateral used to create the beneficiary pledge.

    27. Wells Fargo Bank is the holder of trust certificates in varying denominations. WFB holds title conditioned by an irrevocable conveyance into trust to trustee, free of all liens and encumbrances, subject to all liens of record.

    28. Where the debt is equity, the existing lien of record are held revision rights the borrower is denied in a foreclosure sale.

    registerclaims@live.com

    Best Discovery to Date INTERESTS ON ESC STATEMENT

  83. There was no transfer, no endorsement.

    1. Title was irrevocably granted and conveyed into a grantor trust

    2. The conveyance was made free of lines and all encumbrances

    3. The transferee takes your title subject to the liens of record

    The note is divested under IRC Wash Sale Rules in part under IRC Reg 1.1091 for non recognition of assets and extinguishment of liabilities / See FAS 140 and codified SFAS 140-3

    No. 3 is where they are lost to your claim’s. The transferee takes your title subject to the liens of record that are recorded under a gratuitous deed of trust and fictitious recorded assignments and what you all call Robo or surrogate signors.

    Your held to a timing constraint that can be timed to the minute the foreclosing agents claims become enforceable . Since you twiddled your thumbs listened to the old man here ,,,, you abandoned your claims over the last 18 months.

    How sure am I of what I speak of ….Expert for Hire ….representing the plaintiff homeowner’s in Malpractice suits against attorneys !!!!!!

    This stuff here …….Gibberish ! ……you say …..Witness said that was regular course of business–she say…… never seen a note with an endorsement on the bottom. Freddie Blassie say ……. I have pored over Fannie’s trust indenture–even if the notes were transferred to Fannie (which they aren’t), Ricky and Lucy Say …..the indenture makes very clear that Fannie irrevocably grants its interest in the notes to the trusts. Neil’s assertion IS correct–Fannie/Freddie own nothing…

    Say what ? .

    registerclaims@live.com

    … In Washington for Deposition
    ———————————————————————————————
    2010 CA court of appeals -remand; on expert testimony Graupner V Select Portfolio Services

    2013 Settlement $263,000.00 Bank of America Long Beach CA Resident –

    2010 Bank of NY – On this court date Bony is four down and one to go —-judge says …..THIS ONE GOES TO TRIAL (arguing pro tanto claim and lack of merit in conjunction with a sheriffs lock out and condemnation argument.

    2010 Settlements; $25,000 $25,000, $50,000 $35,000 $ 23,000

  84. masterservicer,
    I don’t want to get in a pissing contest with you. You seem to really know what you’re talking about. But I don’t get it. I’ve seen others say they don’t get it, either. What does that mean, “the note is liquidated into equity?” I know what a note is, I know what liquidation is, I know what equity is.

    Having said that, I’ll just say this: Kemp v. Countrywide. There was no transfer, no endorsement. Witness said that was regular course of business–she’d never seen a note with an endorsement on the bottom. I have pored over Fannie’s trust indenture–even if the notes were transferred to Fannie (which they aren’t), the indenture makes very clear that Fannie irrevocably grants its interest in the notes to the trusts. Neil’s assertion IS correct–Fannie/Freddie own nothing.

  85. Leave a Reply

    zurenarrh, on June 7, 2014 at 1:00 am said:
    Neil nails it. The originators keep the notes, which is why they have to fake endorsements for litigation. As Neil has written before, the pools are empty.http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/fannie-doesnt-own-courts-dont-care/

    WTF !

    The note is liquidated into equity . The security is deployed as a transfer instrument. Community property is severed and title transferred to two or more persons ….co trustees for a New York Indenture.

    Equity converts to debt in a REPO and debt into Equity ….look up OIE and OID under Transfers in ESC …..I.R.C. REGS Sec 1091 Wash Sale Rules …..How many more years will you all keep guessing . Clueless…………………………Wow !

    [Stop him Neil – he’s telling the truth again …stop him / attack his spelling , attack merit for claims published through out the world in PPM and Reg D to Accredited issued by Wells IMB, BofA and JPMMT, call Gilligan, Call the skipper , please Used Car Dude [who clings to a grand the way a buffalo nickel takes a dump]…..please stop him ….he’s a insider and lets get him out of here ….

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh…Help Us ……

    Call 1800-MORON for more info ….

  86. usedkarguy, on June 7, 2014 at 1:06 am said:

    louise, as to our conversation,,,,,

    Dumb ass …real car salesman …come on out to Los Angeles…let’s chat .

  87. Neil nails it. The originators keep the notes, which is why they have to fake endorsements for litigation. As Neil has written before, the pools are empty.http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/fannie-doesnt-own-courts-dont-care/

  88. dwight, I would think that any order obtained by fraud is void. But of course one has to demonstrate that the elements of fraud exist(ed).
    It’s ridiculous for one party to get called out as to their bogus claims, get to file a mtn to dismiss, get it granted, and come back with a new story. So what DOES one do when that happens? To the best of my knowledge, a rule 60 mtn for recon has to be done within one year. (It’s too late far as I know to appeal the old stuff), but I believe if one scrounges around, one will find exceptions to the rule 60 one year time frame. The easiest thing I can think of is to attack the old order (have to mtn to re-open the old case, imo (note: lay opinion. When can one do this? “If you knew at the time the order was obtained by fraud, why didn’t you do it then?” sort of stuff) and need good reason to do so) as having been obtained by fraud and seek recon of your mtn to dismiss with prejudice and the order granting their vol dismissal. While you may not have the dough for an attorney to handle your case, you might pay one who knows S from shortcakes for procedural advice. Imo, that’s what’s needed. The attorney doesn’t necessarily need to be into foreclosure defense – he/she just needs to be a seasoned litigator and must stinking know procedure. Suggestion: before any meeting with an attorney for this procedural advice if you go that way, try reducing your questions to writing so that you don’t waste time and get your money’s worth. Determine what it is you want to know: Rule 60, elements of fraud met, order is void, and so on…..?
    Is their new claim so inconsistant with the old one that it outs the old one as bogus btw? Sounds like it probably does. And maybe the lawyer will tell you that’s grounds for a rule 60 time exception or ….?

  89. @dwight ,

    excellent posts. Thanks.

  90. I got a form from wf that claimed to be the lender and I had to file it on my taxes. Why are you asking

  91. I’m saying. Not against my name nor my belief that you are not the lender

  92. I’m sorry to keep raising this fact but what do you say when the services declares itself to the IRS as LENDER – WHY

  93. John, Thank you for the responses. Looking back to the Nov. 2011 Order to Dismiss without prejudice, I probably should have either made a motion for reconsideration or Appealed the decision based on the fact that an issue of Fraud on the Court was introduced on the record and was not fully and thoroughly investigated by the Judge. In an old Florida case the Appellate Court determined that the lower court cannot allow a possible fraud to be dismissed without addressing the issue fully. My problem now is 1) have I waited too long to request a motion to reconsider? 2) The right to appeal is only 45 days (?) and it’s now been 2 – 1/2 years since the dismissal. I’m wondering if I now have a right to raise the issue in this new complaint that was just filed. Can I argue that the same old Assignment of Mortgage is being used again and does this warrant a fatal blow to their foreclosure complaint.
    Does a forged Assignment nullify the Mortgage? Or do they get to go back and fabricate a new fake assignment? I don’t know.

    Also, why has my mortgage never mentioned a trust ? Yet it is most likely part of the secondary market. Is this common? That they don’t tell you that your note was sold off to those markets? They only tell you who the servicer is and that Fannie Mae is the Investor. If I can ever get them to divulge where my note was sold or what trust it was a part of, then the PSA could be their un-doing. But even so, many Judges don’t play along with the securitization argument and keep steering the narrative back to the fact that the servicer is the holder of the note and mortgage and has the right to foreclose.

    Right now my main strengths seem to be 1) the forged signature of the notary on the assignment, but not sure if its a fatal defect to the foreclosure, 2) the possibility that the note they say they have is just a copy of the note and a forensic document examiner can determine that it is not the wet ink note , 3) the gaps in the chain of title that is missing Washington Mutual, the assignment they are using ignores that WaMu last had the note endorsed to them, and instead states that the originator Commerce Bank now gives Wells Fargo the assignment? Isn’t this a fatal flaw? Remember that at the time they fabricated this assignment in 2008, Washington Mutual was done and had been taken over , they had never made a new assignment when they passed the servicing rights to Wells Fargo .. maybe they were not in possession of the real note at that time, but were unloading as many servicing rights as possible before they collapsed? The note that WF now relies on in my case looks like a downloaded copy of the original. It was missing any endorsement or stamp from WaMu when WF showed the note as an exhibit in their complaint certifications. When I pointed this out to the Judge, he gave them almost 3 months to get the Note saying they needed to get it, but he had never asked them in court that day, how did he know they needed time to get it? In their reply papers to my motion to vacate and dismiss, they had shown a true and accurate copy of the note and said they were in possession. the copy they showed in their certs was missing a stamp from WaMu. After I pointed it out and he gave them time, they showed up with the note which now had a stamp from WaMu on it endorsed in blank. When I tried to object that this was now different than the one in their certifications, the Judge played dumb and moved the conversation onto some other topic. The Judge is constantly taking the focus away from what the defendant is trying to argue, it’s an on-going problem in the courts. Some people are saying that the problem with the Judges not allowing the rule of law to take precedence, warrants the need of some oversight and monitors to be placed inside the foreclosure courts in order to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system. One lawyer told me that he had a conversation with a Judge who asked him why he fights so hard for these borrowers who are clearly in default … the Judge later agreed that the banks had committed criminal acts but said he and other Judges did not want to be “the Judge” who sided with the borrowers, he said they felt like they would be stigmatized for siding with the people who didn’t pay their mortgage payments. All of this thinking goes against the Canons and rules of ethical conduct that Judges are held to. They are under rules never to allow outside pressure to influence the way they deal justice. But this is what’s happening inside our courts today. The Judges are clearly in violation of their Canons and codes of ethical conduct.

    Now today the news is that Bank of America is close to agreeing to a 12 billion dollar settlement for their part in the mortgage scandal , a portion of that settlement is supposed to go towards homeowners who are fighting the foreclosures, to help them stay in their homes. It’s all a bunch of B.S. , the money never makes it to helping the homeowners. Prior settlements had the same stipulations, so why hasn’t WF even attempted to reduce the principal owed on my home and offer me an affordable mortgage settlement ?? They want the foreclosure in order to destroy the evidence of the crime of the securitization.

  94. By design JG

  95. The thing being called the mortgage crisis is more appropriately known as the Predatory Lending Criminal Enterprise. Predatory lending is stinking illegal. I would hazard that 7 out of 10 commentors here were victims of illegal predatory lending. The other 3 (who actually qualified) couldn’t make their payments because the PLCE trashed our economy. That’s quite a legacy, you schmucks. Man, I dislike those guys.

  96. Suits this conplex cost at least $150k
    Unless you are pro se and if you hsve a full time job too you will need legal support services. Ive been at it 5 yrs and 2 council failed me and i continued mostly with appeal. Im telling you all set yourself up correctly, forget the saying sue first ask questions later, it is complex and the opposition have a job to do amd that is satisfy the entity that pays them exceedingly well!

  97. Dwight – since you appear to be in this for the long haul, you might research a rule 60 mtn for reconsideration of your mtn to dismiss with prejudice which would apparently entail one also for recon of the court granting the bankster’s mtn to dismiss (omnibus?) 1) can you do it now and 2) why should the court have granted it – “elements”. (and btw, a court’s order is not final until it’s reduced to writing and entered. I think).
    Also, you might find out if a rule 60 mtn for recon allows you to yet appeal the denial of your mtn to dismiss with prejudice if the court denies your motion for recon. Or, as to the time for appeal, can you appeal the denial of the recon motion? I don’t think so, but don’t know.
    strictly lay opinions

  98. Here we go Round the ” mulberry bush”
    End of day the judge is where it all rests. Only he has tbe power. Assuming you neet 12b and you understand the pleading standards and the rules it is not for novices
    You need council one tbat will do on contingency – rare.

  99. Dwight in NJ, Kudos on your efforts. I’d say you’ve gotten as far as most attorneys, if not further. To my lay person knowledge, had you filed a motion for SJ instead of to dismiss with prejudice, it would have precluded them from filing a mtn for voluntary dismissal (as they did without prejudice) And even ol’ Weidner over there blowing his horn allowed a bankster to escape with a vol dismissal by not filing a mtn for SJ, as I recall. But I’m not certain of the effect of a mtn to dis with prejudice (as to the adverse party filing vol dismissal – prob still allows a mtn for vol dismissal, as happened with you). At any rate, it would have been some effort to further support WHY the court should have (must have?) granted your motion, nullifying, essentially, the bankster’s mtn to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice (probably case law). Something many of us haven’t done is go on the offensive, either initially or after a f/c action is filed. After an action is filed, either a counter-claim (hard to make with zero info, tho, and there may be a time constraint on when a counter-c may be made*) or a mtn for sj. To file a mtn for SJ, one MUST know under what circumstances a court must grant one. SJ is, significantly, adjudication on the merits and generally res judicata kicks in against the opponent.
    *It may be that a counter-claim may be filed within an answer (v motion) time-frame – don’t know. If one is able to file a counter-claim, it may, like a mtn for sj, preclude a voluntary dismissal of the claim. There’s a reason a counter-claim is better, but I’m not writing it here for banksters to see (they prob know, but I’m not giving them any help).
    Anyway, Dwight, maybe Neil will help you. Hope he does. You might try sending a fed x to him….?

    lay opinions – ask a lawyer (good luck)

  100. What will they claim next that the lender is E.T. from planet Mars?

    NEVER AGAIN

  101. You may find that Freddie Mac claims to be the “owner of your loan”. They are not claiming to be the owner of the note or trust deed. A creditor is defined under FDCPA statute, 1692, 803(4). Use it!

  102. Regarding my fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage and the forged notary signature and use of robo-signers … I am learning that many Banks object to a borrower raising defenses and issues about the Assignments because they say those borrowers are not parties to the contract. Many Judges have wrestled with this notion and side with the banks, but some recent cases in higher courts have reversed and remanded, stating we do have standing to question the Assignment.

    Below are a couple of links where the author writes about this point.

    Here is a snippet from his post ….. >>>>>>

    When presenting a challenge to a void AOM or conveyance are these the kinds of arguments you want to force yourself to make, and win? Right from the get go? There is an easier way.

    The Contractual Obligation to Defend Generally the Title, or Keep It Simple Silly

    The simpler we make this for our courts the more likely we’ll obtain our desired result; a fair proceeding, equal and fair application of the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, terminating in justice.

    Now, pull out, or up, your mortgage or deed of trust. Find the following language:

    “BORROWER COVENANTS > that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to mortgage, grant and convey the Property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record.”

    Over several years I’ve looked at more mortgages than I care to admit. Given a choice between knowing any of this stuff and having a lit cigar stuck up my nose I’d opt for the latter. I used to get paid to start fires without matches. I’d rather be doing that still. The last five (5) years are not what I had planned. Yet I am here.

    You don’t need to assert standing to challenge the validity of an assignment after all. Did you see the part that contractually obligates the borrower to “defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands?” To this layman it looks to be “Contract Law 101.” And even better it is found in a seminal document; the mortgage or DOT.

    Since reading my own again several months ago (you can’t EVER read your own documents, your own pleadings, motions and other papers, the pleadings, motions and other papers of adverse party, or the rules, and noticing that language, I’ve reviewed several hundred more mortgages and DOTs. Thus far I’ve found the language in every one I’ve reviewed. I hesitate to say it is universal, but I’m hopeful.

    Every example I’ve seen has always started with “BORROWER COVENANTS” in all caps (that makes it a bit easier to find). I’ve seen it in different places, on different pages, but thus far it has been in every one I’ve reviewed.

    Imagine this conversation.

    Homeowner: Your Honor, I dispute the validity of the assignment.

    Court: You’re a non-party to the assignment. You don’t have standing to challenge it.

    Homeowner: I’m not asserting standing to challenge the assignment, Your Honor. I’m contractually obligated to defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands.

    Court: Are you trying to get a free house?

    Homeowner: No, Your Honor. My contractual obligation, expressed in the mortgage on page X, par. Y, is to protect the interests of the holder/owner/investor/real party in interest. It appears that is not the party before this court.

    Court: Well, I don’t think that is what it means.

    Homeowner: It looks pretty unambiguous to me, Your Honor. Even if it is ambiguous, Your Honor, the doctrine of “contra proferentem” is applicable; ambiguities are to be construed unfavorably to the drafter. I didn’t draft the mortgage…

    From this point, fulfilling a contractual obligation to protect the interests of the proper party, connecting the dots that lead to the PSA, a CLP, and NY EPTL may become considerably easier.

    Thank you Glenn Augenstein for a terrific post.

    http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/part-1-how-to-challenge-an-assignment-of-mortgage/

    http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/part-2-how-to-challenge-an-assignment-of-mortgage/

  103. Sorry i have the otter iPhone protective case. It has to go. Sorry sorry for typos

  104. Yes Scott t
    It is a mess. Because they ate acountable to no one derecognising assets hidingwhat they do off balance sheet aka propriatory trading
    The asset is unrecogniz- able,
    After the servicer went belly up
    I asked fdic under FOIA inquiry for detail of disposition of the assets and REMIC stAtus was there credit decault swaps/ insurance or charge off – got no where other than ” all files were trsnsfered to new owner/ being onewest – so forget any co operation from them.

  105. I’m going to be the most current real-time case example for the followers of this blog to follow in order to see just how the NJ Courts react to the defense strategies and theories that NG has been explaining in these posts. I intend on utilizing Neil’s most important steps starting with my initial answer to the foreclosure complaint. Although I can’t afford to order Neil’s services offered here, I do feel very confident that my case fits all of his defense strategies perfectly. My biggest problem is that I have never had a forensic audit and analysis done of my re-finance.

    Background – 2003 – Countrywide – home purchase 220,000 using what they called a “piggy-back loan” .. 2 loans w/ 2 separate payments in order to get the mortgage approved? One big amount, and one smaller amount to act as a down payment?

    2004- went to Commerce Bank (now TD Bank) to Re-Finance into a 30 year fixed rate (6.1 %) Re-finance.

    Commerce Bank acted as though we would be making our payments to them directly, but almost immediately after the closing they stamped the note “pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” and endorsed it with a signature of the Commerce Bank VP.

    The Mortgage language named MERS as nominee for Commerce Bank. Supposedly Fannie Mae is the investor or owner of this loan according to what we’ve been told and according to Fannie website.

    So after the closing Commerce Bank tells us we don’t have to make any monthly payments for a couple of months, while in the meantime they are apparently shuffling the servicer duties over to Washington Mutual Bank. For years we paid our monthly payments to WaMu, not ever realizing that we were now a victim of the Ponzi scheme. The only documents ever recorded at the county land records office was the Mortgage stating that Commerce Bank was the owner of the debt. No chain of title was ever recorded showing that they had stamped and endorsed the note over to Washington Mutual shortly after closing. No Assignment of Mortgage exists showing that Commerce or MERS ever assigned anything to Washington Mutual. Even to this day, nothing exists showing that Washington Mutual was ever in the chain of title, although that is the bank we always made payments to since the inception and origination of the table loan by the straw man bank (Commerce Bank) that continued to have it’s name on the Mortgage and land records, despite the fact that Commerce stamped and endorsed the note over to Washington Mutual in 2004, immediately after the closing of the table loan by Commerce.

    2007- The heat is on at Washington Mutual just prior to their collapse. They are teetering on the edge and the office of thrift is probably looking into what is going on as they begin to prepare bankruptcy. We suddenly and surprisingly get a letter from Wells Fargo saying that they are now taking over as our Servicer. We begin sending our payments to Wells Fargo. Now remember, Commerce Bank had stamped and endorsed our note over to Washington Mutual after closing in 2004.

    Now in 2007 Wells Fargo takes over as Servicer. Soon after we miss our first payment due to the economy collapsing from the mortgage crisis. Wells Fargo leads us into total default and foreclosure by dual tracking us with empty promises of modification while they are also filing the foreclosure complaint.

    2008 – Wells Fargo files foreclosure complaint .. stating they are the “Holders of the Note” (exhibit shows copy of note from Commerce Bank to Washington Mutual Bank, stamped “pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” and signed endorsed by Commerce Banks VP. .. the note had no stamp from Washington Mutual, without a stamp in blank and an endorsement by Washington Mutual, how could WF ever use it to take away property? It would need to be stamped in blank and endorsed by WaMu ,or stamped ‘pay to the order of WF” … the WF foreclosure mill lawyers certified that the exhibit is the true and accurate copy of the note because they were in possession of the note and mortgage … they didn’t realize their mistake, they were only showing a computer generated copy of the original note, forgetting that it was crucial that Washington Mutual would have stamped it before sending it to Wells Fargo if it was indeed ever transferred properly)
    After the complaint was filed, Wells Fargo recorded an Assignment of Mortgage at the county land records. The Assignment states that Commerce Bank thru MERS now assigns the Mortgage and Note from Commerce Bank to Wells Fargo Bank. (But there is still no mention of Washington Mutual Bank again, although the note is endorsed and stamped pay to the order of Washington Mutual, this bogus fraudulent and forged Assignment ignores the fact that Washington Mutual is on the note and disregards all logic when they fabricate the Assignment to say that now, all these years later, Commerce Bank assigns the note and mortgage to Wells Fargo.

    2010 – Un-contested foreclosure Judgment entered, we never answered the complaint. Sheriffs sale scheduled. And then I found this website and started fighting back Pro Se.

    Weeks before the Sheriffs sale I handwrote an emergency motion to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint due to fraud and lack of standing.

    The Mortgage Assignment had a blatant forgery, a squiggly line where the notary was supposed to sign his signature. I found other examples of his true signature and pointed it out in my motion to vacate due to fraud. My motion asked that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. But after a year of hearings and substitution of counsel for the bank, they wrote an Order to dismiss Without Prejudice and asked the Judge to sign it.

    So I have not paid a mortgage payment since 2007 when I defaulted. In November of 2011 the Order to Vacate the Judgment and Dismiss the Complaint was signed by the Judge after Wells Fargo wrote it up and asked him to sign it. He was ordering them to bring in witnesses who had signed the documents and have them sworn in and give testimony from the witness stand. That is when Wells Fargo gave up.
    They have never offered me an affordable modification or tried to settle with me in any way. Now they are back in 2014 with a new attempt to foreclose. The complaint does not show the full chain of title, still not mentioning anything about Washington Mutual being in the chain. They mention the same fraudulent and forged notary Assignment of Mortgage which also includes known Robo-signers from LPS, which should help me in defending to some degree. I now have until the end of the month to answer the complaint. This time I will utilize Neil’s strategy of disputing the entire notion that a real transaction ever took place. I must figure out how to articulate my answer in order to keep the burden of proof on the Plaintiff.

    2007 – 2014 … 7 years of default and attempted foreclosure, no statue of limitations? New Jersey saw all the document fraud and clogged courts and wrote a new law stretching the statue of limitations to 20 years. But if that new law was written after they started foreclosure attempts against me, shouldn’t I be protected under the old 6 yr rule?

    Neil says it’s important to state you dispute of debt in general terms, otherwise the burden falls to you to prove what you are alleging. So I’m thinking I should answer the complaint by keeping it simple. I deny, dispute and challenge that this complaint is true. Now the normal response by the bank and the Judge will be to look to the Note and the Mortgage and respond by saying “here is the proof” !!!

    Neil is saying we must argue that the rebuttal presumption should not be allowed by the Banks in these situations. The Note is not the best evidence when there is a question of fabricated documents used to cover up the trail of a securitized table loan where no transaction really took place the way everybody is assuming it took place, that a shell game and Ponzi scheme using smoke and mirrors was used to trick the borrower at the very inception and origination table when the straw man bank (Commerce) acted like the lender and played the part, but never disclosed the truth about what was really taking place. A clear violation of TILA and RESPA.

    Will a Judge allow a general denial and dispute over the transaction to stand and be used to dig deeper? What happens when the bank stone walls and refuses to show the transactions, wire transfers, credit default swaps, etc, etc … in my case I have never been told who my trust is or how Fannie Mae and Washington Mutual used my mortgage in the secondary markets. Will they ever tell me the truth ? They only need to show up to court with the Note and the Mortgage and a fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage with a forged notary? They apparently feel this is enough to enforce and foreclose. They hold to the notion that “they are the Holders of the Note” and that entitles them to foreclose and take the property.

    Neil was also posting about the differences of Holder, Holder in due course, etc .. but it’s still confusing as to the point he was making in that post. If WF is claiming they are Holders of my Note, what bering does that have on how I defend? UCC 9 -V- UCC 3 .. I’m still not getting the argument on what constitutes the right to foreclose, it seems they all do .. they all get to foreclose don’t they? whether they paid for the note or if they took delivery of the note for the sole purpose of foreclosing. Not sure what the argument is.

    My main question right now as I struggle to write an answer to the foreclosure complaint is this … what do I write , and what do I leave out in my answer? Will leaving out arguments prevent me later from being allowed to use them as defenses? Do you need to raise all your defenses in your initial answer and pleading?

    So if I use a general denial and dispute of the complaint, it keeps the burden of proof on the plaintiff.

    But am I losing my right to argue other points during the litigation?

    Like the fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage being used again?

    The Wells Fargo employee handbook on fabricating documents?
    And how it shows non-compliance with the Consent Order they agreed to with the State Attorney Generals , the 25 billion dollar settlement where they promised they would not bring the fraud into the courts anymore ?? They are in violation of that Consent Order and the mortgage Assignment in my case proves that are violating the terms of the settlement.

    When do I get to use these other defenses if I only generally deny and dispute the complaint in order to keep the burden of proof on the plaintiff?

    I would like Neil to consider using my case as a candidate for a bit of any pro bono work that he might be inclined to dispense, he could use my case as a feather in his cap and as an example of showing how his strategy worked in the right instance. My case is the perfect choice for Neil because it has all of the ingredients he needs, including the same Judge who liked me last time and who complimented me for doing a better job than most lawyers in his court, this same Judge is still sitting on the bench and will see this same case filed again after they wasted a year of hearings the last time where he wanted their witnesses under oath and they gave up and asked for the complaint to be dismissed. I’m hoping this same Judge gets irritated that Wells Fargo is back with the same Mortgage Assignment and Robo-signers looking to waste the time and resources of the court again. This is a violation of the terms of the settlement with NJ Courts back when Judge Mary Jacobson issued a Show Cause Order where the State of NJ was threatening to dismiss all of Wells Fargo’s uncontested foreclosure cases and issue fines and sanctions for wasting the time and resources of the NJ Courts for filing cases with faulty documents, etc.

    Not really sure how to write my answer or what to include and not include.

    Thank you for any responses.

    Father of children who need to keep a roof over our heads.

  106. What happens if we systematically/methodically rob every foreclosure firm – realtor in town?

    Bury their houses in liens, devastate their credit, clean out their houses, change the locks and tell the cops not to worry about it because it IS ALL REAL COMPLICATED!

    Gosh that sounds like fun when do we start?

    Well – the first problem I see here is this: The garbage in their houses probably looks like a day at the special-ed mall for retards. Probably nothing in there anybody would be interested in.

    But you never know. Hell I guess you could donate it to something.

    Maybe a Save a Soldier or whatever.

  107. FannieMae claims they own my loan. My question is: are there any cases out there that prove they do not own the houses they claim to? I am in dire straits here and could really use the help, so if any fellow human being could help another, I would so appreciate it. Also, anyone know of any lawyers in Maryland that really want to help the little homeowner, and one that really and truly gets it, oh and is reasonable in their fees as obviously I don’t have a money tree in my backyard. Once again, if anyone has any info to pass along to me, I’m sending you a heartfelt thank you in advance! May God bless all of you and protect you from the evil forces at that are at hand in this world.

  108. My loan supposedly was a fannie loan. When tried looking up my loan on their site, it could not be found. I thought it was because they had foreclosed on me. When I was fighting with the bank (wf) they had put it in writing and stated it to an employee of senator Kerry office, insisting it was a fannie loan. I worked for wf as an underwriter at the time of my loan (2003), and that is what they claimed it to be.
    I had a secrulization done and they could not find my note. And it even stated it was not a fannie loan.
    I am in the street and they have my home. And beside the banks, the attorneys are getting fat. If the attorneys knew what they were doing they would do it on a cogency base.
    Now that this knowledge has come out like a lot of other things have done.
    What can be done????
    How can I get my house back or what it worth?
    anyone have this answer and want to take the case on a 1/3 bases or even half

  109. http://www.fdic.com

    I have not tried it – but there have been rumblings on the interwebs about public records indicating many mortgages were paid off in one way or another.

    When X bought Z in an 11th fire sale apparently it was on the agreement that X was only buying verifiable assets (deposits) and none of the liability.

    What a mess.

    Make it a Great Day.

  110. So what you are saying is that Fannie & Freddie did not own loans in 2010 for homes foreclosed on that year? If that’s the case, they couldn’t list a property for sale they did not own…this is what happened to my home. They worked hand in hand with B of A to steal my home out from under me…does that sound correct?

  111. Yes. Our records show that Freddie Mac owns your mortgage and your note date (the date you closed your loan) – is June XX, 200X

    Wait what ??? I thought Wells Fargo owns the mortgage and the note…thats what they say in foreclosure papers

  112. The problem Neil and others are having is that Fannie & Freddie are not home mortgage lenders and so they cannot be owners, because the clown are not register as a lender of home mortgage loans.

    These are not land contract from one family member to another, but are corporations to millions of borrowers. Fannie & Freddie don’t service these loan because they cannot as they are not lenders!

    Ginnie Mae is a little different as they admit they are not lenders, and cannot buy or sell a home mortgage loan at all. Plus they admit they don’t buy or sell Ginnie Mae securities!

  113. I asked both Fannie and Freddie , it says you are the investor, did you pay money to become an investor because I never saw or heard your name mentioned at closing table all the way thru fraudclosure……SILENCE.

    They have twisted the definition of what words mean. So no one knows and they are able to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

    How is this farce still able to continue ???

  114. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE etc that is their fav big scary real official sounding thing they stamp foreclosure files with these days.

    I was thrilled when I finally obtained my approval from the GSE’s to mortgage loans – went outside and kissed the ground.

    Felt like I had been Knighted.

    MERS was new, automated underwriting, sales data online it was a RENAISSANCE PERIOD OF ENLIGHTENMENT.

    FNM/FRE basically umpired the game. Get your approval and boogie over to your investors/bank office with the file.

    aaaaaaand then it became apparent something was terribly wrong.

    Everything was terribly wrong.

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: